Difference between revisions of "Is E=mc2 True?"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
| − | Einstein published three derivations of ''E=mc<sup>2</sup>''. The author has analyzed all three and found them invalid. The primary flaw in the 1905 derivation is discussed. A derivation predicated on Newton-Maxwell physios performed years before Einstein by Gilbert N. Lewis is also analyzed and found defective. It seems possible that this famous equation is incorrect, and that the physical and mathematical reasons why ''E'' does seem to closely approximate ''mc<sup>2</sup>'' in nuclear reactions are unknown.[[Category:Scientific Paper]] | + | Einstein published three derivations of ''E=mc<sup>2</sup>''. The author has analyzed all three and found them invalid. The primary flaw in the 1905 derivation is discussed. A derivation predicated on Newton-Maxwell physios performed years before Einstein by Gilbert N. Lewis is also analyzed and found defective. It seems possible that this famous equation is incorrect, and that the physical and mathematical reasons why ''E'' does seem to closely approximate ''mc<sup>2</sup>'' in nuclear reactions are unknown. |
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|e mc true]] | ||
Latest revision as of 10:35, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Is E=mc2 True? |
| Author(s) | Robert J Hannon |
| Keywords | Mass-Energy |
| Published | 1996 |
| Journal | None |
Abstract
Einstein published three derivations of E=mc2. The author has analyzed all three and found them invalid. The primary flaw in the 1905 derivation is discussed. A derivation predicated on Newton-Maxwell physios performed years before Einstein by Gilbert N. Lewis is also analyzed and found defective. It seems possible that this famous equation is incorrect, and that the physical and mathematical reasons why E does seem to closely approximate mc2 in nuclear reactions are unknown.
