 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / September 2007102nd Birthday of E=mc2 ( 27 Sep 1905- 27 Sep.2007) Complete tribute in book Einstein's E=mc2 generalized , www.ajayonline.us
102nd Birthday of E=mc2 ( 27 Sep 1905- 27 Sep.2007) Complete tribute in book Einstein's E=mc2 generalized , www.ajayonline.us E=mc2 was derived by given by Einstein on 27 Sep 1905 in Ann. der Physik 102 years old developments of E=mc2 are discussed. The basis of discussion is PEER REVIEW articles published in international journals and presented in international conference in USA and ENGLAND Book author Ajay Sharma, 'Einstein's E = mc2 Generalized', Some quotations from book are listed below. Part I Quotations by Ajay Sharma O! Weaponry winner of the world Listen what says a scholar. If you have luck and brain and strike in time Then whole the world can be won by a single Dollar. ----- (ii) In science, pre-search, search, research and post search are continuous processes. ------- (iii) The development of the science is like lighting one lamp from the other -------- (vi) Some people have years and years for criticism, but really no moments for constructive suggestions. --------- (v) There was none like Galileo, there is none like Galileo and there will be none like Galileo. -------- (vi) "The science is wisdom and must be used for prolonged prosperity, parity, and peace only." ------------ (vi) The life exceptionally large for clash, but exceptionally small for peace." ------------ (vii) "The science is wisdom and must be used for prolonged prosperity, parity, and peace only." ------------ (viii) "formation of mass of universe and origin of gravitation are both simultaneous processes." ---------- © Ajay Sharma Part II Quotations by Einstein (ix) Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former.' (x) ''Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater''. (xi) If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor. (xii) The important thing is not to stop questioning. Part III Pope John Paul II "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." : 'Einstein's E = mc2 Generalized' , www.ajayonline.us Available on Amazon.com Price $ 10.99 http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mc2-Generalized-Ajay-Sharma/dp/1934360228/ref=sr _1_1/103-6624673-6380637?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190733223&sr=1-1 >102nd Birthday of E=mc2 ( 27 Sep 1905- 27 Sep.2007) Complete >tribute in book Einstein's ... So, ..what? Did he make an applet out of that, or is this simply completely off-topic rubbish? Or spam? I am tending to shy away from accusing you of the latter, since at this moment, I can see no hint it has been multi-posted*, but then, my sources may be running a little slow, and if it turns out to be such, you can expect an abuse report. * I will forgive any breathy, excited announcement about something that is potentially spam, so long as it is to a single group. As an aside. (Mr) Einstein was a moron. Evidence suggests it was actually his wife that had the brains, and he simply published (mostly) her theories, because the sexist society in which they lived, would not have accepted them coming from a 'mere' woman.  SignatureAndrew Thompson http://www.athompson.info/andrew/ > As an aside. (Mr) Einstein was a moron. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they lived, would not have accepted them coming > from a 'mere' woman. Seriously? If you're joking, I can't tell through the news reader. If not, I'm curious what "evidence" you're referring to. >> As an aside. (Mr) Einstein was a moron. >> Evidence suggests it was actually his wife that had the brains, and he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Seriously? If you're joking, I can't tell through the news reader. If > not, I'm curious what "evidence" you're referring to. He's not joking, the evidence is in certain biographies of ol' Al, and it was his first wife, Mileva, née Marić (Милева Марић). She may not have been the source of all his (her?) theories, but there is no question that she contributed mightily to his work early on. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87> for the tip of the iceberg. SignatureLew > She may not have been the source of all his (her?) theories, but there > is no question that she contributed mightily to his work early on. > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87> > for the tip of the iceberg. Very interesting... Thanks for pointing me to that Wikipedia article. I made a few edits so there won't be any confusion about Einstein getting help from a mere woman. *kidding* of course. I spend time undoing vandalism on Wikipedia entries when I get the chance. I still don't take everything I read there at face value. >> She may not have been the source of all his (her?) theories, but there >> is no question that she contributed mightily to his work early on. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > when I get the chance. I still don't take everything I read there at > face value. The cited article agrees with other sources, or did a few minutes ago. You can likely depend on the paucity of information therein. SignatureLew What is so important on E=mc^2 ? Why is it always cited? What does it have to do with theory of relativity ? just some rhetorical questions .. though > What is so important on E=mc^2 ? > Why is it always cited? > What does it have to do with theory of relativity ? > > just some rhetorical questions .. though You really, really need to do some research. It only changed the entire scientific world view permanently and irrevocably, that's all. It's only one of the most single advances in science ever, that's all. It only resulted in Chernobyl, Nagasaki and other incidents, that's all. It is only the fundamental basis and genesis of the theory of relativity, that's all. It is only arguably the most prevalent pure science concept in popular culture, that's all. Where have you been living? SignatureLew > It's only one of the most single advances in most /important/ single advances ... SignatureLew Lew schrieb: >> It's only one of the most single advances in > > most /important/ single advances ... I can see the importance of the theory of relativity.. though as I have studied some semester physics and really do understand at least the special theory of relativity, and know some stuff about general relativity ... I don't really see that much importance in E=mc^2 .. I see much more importance in the theory of relativity. Christian schrieb: > Lew schrieb: >>> It's only one of the most single advances in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't really see that much importance in E=mc^2 .. I see much more > importance in the theory of relativity. what I want to say is E=mc^2 may be a loose crollary but its not really of that much importance for relativity.. Christian schrieb: > Christian schrieb: >> Lew schrieb: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > what I want to say is E=mc^2 may be a loose crollary but its not really > of that much importance for relativity.. the real importance of theory of relativity is that it postulates that light has to have the same speed in all not accellerated systems... imho this constants of the speed of light is the most important point of theory of relativity. And to make this constancy possible time, mass and distance have to be relative and are dependent of the speed of the viewer. Lew wrote: >>>>> It's only one of the most single advances in >>>> most /important/ single advances ... >>> I can see the importance of the theory of relativity.. >>> though as I have studied some semester physics and really do understand >>> at least the special theory of relativity, and know some stuff about >>> general relativity ... Apparently, you really don't understand it. >>> I don't really see that much importance in E=mc^2 .. I see much more >>> importance in the theory of relativity. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And to make this constancy possible time, mass and distance have to be > relative and are dependent of the speed of the viewer. And E=mc^2 is the fundamental equation of that relation. Trying to say that the formula is not that important to the theory of relativity is simply whacked. SignatureLew Lew schrieb: > Lew wrote: >>>>>> It's only one of the most single advances in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Apparently, you really don't understand it. please accept that I do have a different belief. Besides not understanding it? Why? Special theory of relativity is probably one of the easiest to understand theorys in modern physics.. (its only general theory of relativity that is hard) >>>> I don't really see that much importance in E=mc^2 .. I see much more >>>> importance in the theory of relativity. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Trying to say that the formula is not that important to the theory of > relativity is simply whacked. At no point in the paper Einstein wrote (or not wrote) in which he describes the special theory of relativity the formula E=mc^2 appears, it is just some corollary that appeared some papers later. Its just stupid tv that allways tells that E=mc^2 is the theory of relativity or the most important formula in it, but thats just plainly wrong. > Lew schrieb: >> Lew wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > probably one of the easiest to understand theorys in modern physics.. > (its only general theory of relativity that is hard) But it isn't a question of belief. It's a question of physics. The formula is fundamental to special relativity. Belief is irrelevant. I can accept that your belief is different, but that doesn't make it correct. > At no point in the paper Einstein wrote (or not wrote) in which he > describes the special theory of relativity the formula E=mc^2 appears, > it is just some corollary that appeared some papers later. And who wrote those papers? > Its just stupid tv that allways tells that E=mc^2 is the theory of > relativity or the most important formula in it, but thats just plainly > wrong. Actually, it is you who is just plainly wrong. It may not have been expressed in Einstein's first paper, but close corollaries were, and it is no less fundamental for all that. It may not be /the/ most important formula, but it's fundamental to special relativity. One minute of research in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence> shows these facts: > The formula is due to Albert Einstein, who arrived at it in 1905 > in what is known as his Annus Mirabilis ("Wonderful Year") Papers. The translation of one of Einstein's paper that I found refers to the energy as W. In any event, the Wikipedia article goes on to say, > Einstein's original papers treated /m/ as what would now be called the /rest mass/ > and some claim that he did not like the idea of "relativistic mass". (emph. original) The facts are that Einstein did come up with the formula, and that it is intrinsically part of the theory. SignatureLew > The facts are that Einstein did come up with the formula, and that it is > intrinsically part of the theory. Here's what Einstein wrote: <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory#GENERAL _RESULTS_OF_THE_THEORY> > If a body takes up an amount of energy E[0], then its inertial mass increases by an amount > \frac{\mathrm{E}_0}{c^2} i.e., m = E0 / sqr(c) OK, it's not /exactly/ E = m * sqr(c), but it's too close to really call it different, now isn't it? SignatureLew Lew schrieb: >> Lew schrieb: >>> Lew wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I can accept that your belief is different, but that doesn't make it > correct. I just belief that I know better what I am talking about then you do. >> At no point in the paper Einstein wrote (or not wrote) in which he >> describes the special theory of relativity the formula E=mc^2 appears, >> it is just some corollary that appeared some papers later. > > And who wrote those papers? as someone mentioned before some say his wife may have done larger contributions... thats what I wanted to express with the (). It is Einstein who wrote those papers.. but they are corollary.. not important for relativity >> Its just stupid tv that allways tells that E=mc^2 is the theory of >> relativity or the most important formula in it, but thats just plainly [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The facts are that Einstein did come up with the formula, and that it is > intrinsically part of the theory. the intrinsic part of theory of relativity is that light has equal speed for everyone. So the laws of nature are the same in any not accellerated system. thats the intrinsic part. most important corollary is that this means that time , space and mass have to varry, to be relative, to make this possible. this variation appears to enforce a mass increase that is proportional to the Energy with c^2 as factor .. thats what you got in the other post this is why there is a 0 under the E (don't leave out that 0 so your formula E=mc^2 appears earlier). That we do have an general equivalent of E = mc^2 is nowhere in special theory of relativity... this all came later.. I don't know the general theory that well to know how important E=mc^2 is for it .. though I know E=mc^2 is of really no importance to the special one.. and the special one is the one that postulates the relativity and specially handles about the simple case that no accelleration is present. (and its not the 102. birthday of the general theory as this theory is somewhat younger..) > I just belief that I know better what I am talking about then you do. You're entitled to your belief. I presented the facts, cited the evidence, and it supports my claims. You may disregard them, of course. SignatureLew Lew schrieb: >> I just belief that I know better what I am talking about then you do. > > You're entitled to your belief. I presented the facts, cited the > evidence, and it supports my claims. You may disregard them, of course. No I think you misread. It does not support your claims. I don't disregard anything. >At no point in the paper Einstein wrote (or not wrote) in which he >describes the special theory of relativity the formula E=mc^2 appears, >it is just some corollary that appeared some papers later. True. Thinking over what he had done after he published it, he realized that he had found a quantifiable relationship between matter and energy. He published a short paper with that equation. But it *is* important. When Otto Hahn was experimenting with nuclear fission in the 1930s, he kept coming up with a discrepancy. The amount of matter after fission was a tiny bit less than what he started out with. He sent this data to Lise Meitner, who had been his collaborator before Nazi anti-semitism drove her out of Germany. After puzzling over it a while, she remembered meeting Einstein in Berlin. She remembered his equation. Sure enough, the missing matter was exactly enough to transform to the amount of energy needed to power the parts of the atom away from the center. Matter had been converted into energy. THAT is the root of nuclear weapons, and neclear reactors. SignatureTim Slattery Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt Tim Slattery schrieb: >> At no point in the paper Einstein wrote (or not wrote) in which he >> describes the special theory of relativity the formula E=mc^2 appears, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > of the atom away from the center. Matter had been converted into > energy. THAT is the root of nuclear weapons, and neclear reactors. yes it is important though it didn't change the view of the world as relativity did. Also atomar bombs could have been developed without knowledge on this formula. Its just the formula that explained it. It is an important euqivalence equation .. but it hasn't really much to do with relativity nor is it a central equation of the special theory of relativity > Besides not understanding it? Why? Special theory of relativity is > probably one of the easiest to understand theorys in modern physics.. > (its only general theory of relativity that is hard) Apparently *somebody* has never had any run-ins with quantum physics. nebulous99@gmail.com schrieb: >> Besides not understanding it? Why? Special theory of relativity is >> probably one of the easiest to understand theorys in modern physics.. >> (its only general theory of relativity that is hard) > > Apparently *somebody* has never had any run-ins with quantum physics. Though quantum physics is something every physiscist has to know .. like special theory of relativity... general theory or relativity is here just some additional course you can take but don't have to to get your diploma.. > ross multi-post spammed: > >102nd spamday of E=spam2 ( 27 Sep 1905- 27 Sep.2007) Complete > >spamute in book Einspam's ... ... (spam) > I am tending to shy away from accusing you of the > latter, since at this moment, I can see no hint it has > been multi-posted*, but then, my sources may be > running a little slow, Oh yep, there they are. Some 30+ groups. >..and if it turns out to be such, > you can expect an abuse report. Say bye-bye to that spamail account. Andrew T. Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.