FOR THE ORIGINAL IN GREEK CLICK HERE
EXTENDED CHALLENGE,
STARTING JAN. 2008,
WE OFFER ONE PAPIMI DEVICE FOR ANY OTHER ESSENTIAL ERROR OF OURS IN THIS WEB SITE,YOU
MAY
POINT TO US
DISREGARD
E=m c^{2}
TO FREE SCIENCE, BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
First Publication: 
10 / 06 / 2005 
TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH BY
CONSTANTINE ATH.
KOUTSOUKOS

16 / 07 / 2005 
INTERNATIONAL OFFER OF 100,000 EUROS 
30/09/2006 
OFFER
OF 100,000
(ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND)
EUROS OR TWO PAPIMI DEVICES TO ANY ONE WHO
FALSIFIES OUR BASIC THESIS HERE
"The mass energy
relation of Einstein
Ε_{ }= MC^{2}
is not generally valid"
THEREFORE
"The
formula for massenergy
relation of obsessed Einstein
Ε_{ }= MC^{2}
is not the correct expression"
FIRST PRESENTATION:
MONDAY 13 / 06 / 2005,
20.00',
"HITIRION" THEATER,
IERA ROAD 44
ORGANIZER:
"ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICISTS OF GREECE"
PRESENTATION WAS CROWDED
SECOND PRESENTATION:
FRIDAY 01 / 07 / 2005,
20.00',
GRAND AMPHITHEATRE "HADJINIKOLAOU",
P. RALLI & THIVOHN 255,
"TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION INSTITUTE" OF PIRAEUS
ORGANIZER:
"ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICISTS OF GREECE"
& "TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION INSTITUTE" OF PIRAEUS
INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,
GENERAL DISCUSSION  CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
PRESENTATION WAS CROWDED
Neither criticism nor objection was expressed
(contrary to the text below)
neither physically nor electronically.
For direct criticism, discussion, publication:
info@papimi.gr isnot functional
http://www.papimi.gr/
click: HELLENIC VERSION
Ε_{0}_{ }= ΚM_{0}C^{2}
* * *
The famous formula:
Ε_{0}_{
}=
M_{0}C^{2}:
Is Not Always True.
SUPPORTED BY TWELVE PROOFS:
SIX MATHEMATICAL
AND
SIX EXPERIMENTAL
BY
PANOS PAPPAS.
The famous equation: E_{ }= MC^{2} offers very little, generating much more confusion in the human knowledge and science. This formula in reality is restricting and rather confusing and misleading fundamental sections of scientific knowledge and state of the art technology such as:
Health,
Biology,
Medicine,
Physiology,
Phytology,
Nuclear Physics,
Cold Nuclear Fusion,
Chemistry,
Alchemy,
Geology,
Cosmology,
Nuclear Technology,
Technology of Materials,
and many more examples not mentioned here.
See also the long introduction removed at the end as an appendix, "The vicius circle of the energy and momentum of photons"
1ST
PROOF of E = kmc^{2}
BY
PANOS PAPPAS.
Using the Theorem of Work (inner product of force times distance) and the resulting Kinetic Energy,
classically.
Let a force F, which is applied on a body and accelerates it, with acceleration γ. In this case, the following are in effect:
F
= mγ
=
mdu/dt
=
dp/dt
Energy
=⌠Fdx
=⌠m(du/dt)dx
=
⌠mudu
= m⌠udu
=
1/2mu^{2
}+
E_{0.}
Arbitrarily, we may set: Ε_{0 }= M_{0}C^{2}.^{ }In general, we should set: E_{0 }= KM_{0}C^{2}.
AE's obsessed various alleged PROOFS
Effectively, using silently the Theorem of Work (inner product of force times
distance) and the resulting Kinetic Energy
The presentation follows the prototype.
Below, we post the prototype
from "Dover" Editions:
"The Principle of Relativity",
pages: 9, 35, 6163,
Standard Book #486600815.
( Photo 2: The cover of "Dover" Editions, 1952 )
Photos 3  4: With similar titles and contents by Lorentz (1904, and Einstein (1905) publications.
Photo 5: "Dover" edition, page 61, where the formula Ε = mC^{2 }is attempted to be proved within the framework of Electromagnetism (Electron’s Theory following
Lorentz's method) However, within the same contest a
general and simplified proof of Ε = kmC^{2} may be reached, using the Theorem of work (inner product of force times distance) and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
Photo 6: "Dover" edition, page 62, where the odd formulas
are nothing else but Newton's fundamental laws for the components of forces.
Photo 7: "Dover" edition, page 63, where the integrals
are nothing else but the integrals of force work. (inner product of force times distance)
Finally, the indefinite integrals are changed by magic into definite ones  let say just a small bad student's mistake of AE. Obviously, (ignoring the indefinite integrals at the beginning), the final correct result of AE suits very well our correct suggestion for the energy work: It is just our formula E=Kmc^{2} with K equal to what is the content of Einstein's brackets above in photo 7. Clearly, it has nothing to do with what obsessed Einstein is in vain trying to prove that is E=mc^{2}
2ND PROOF BY PANOS PAPPAS.
Modern Reproduction by using the AE's prototype, exactly within the same framework of Newton's Classical Mechanics, by the Theorem of Force's work (inner product of force times distance) and the resulting Kinetic Energy, in a much simpler way.
Kinetic Energy's Theorem, using modern physics:
Let a force F, which is applied on a body and accelerates it. In this case, the following are in effect:
F =
dp/dt = d(mu)/dt
m = m_{0}/(1u^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2
}Energy =⌠Fdx
=
⌠d(mu)/dt)dx
=
⌠d(m_{0}u/(1u^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2}
)/dt)dx =
m_{0}⌠d(u/(1u^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2}
)/dt)dx =
m_{0}⌠u/(1u^{2}/c^{2})^{3/2}
)du =
m_{0}c^{2 }/(1u^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2} + E_{0
}
Arbitrarily, we
may set:
Ε_{0
}= M_{0}C^{2}.^{
}Generally, we should set correctly: E_{0 }= KM_{0}C^{2}.
However, for K here not being specified means nothing to us.
Finally, if we get the definite integrals of the above indefinite integrals
from 0 to v, we get again exactly the correct result as above and as for the
AE's correct result in photo 7, that is
E=Kmc^{2},
with K being the specific content of AE brackets as explained above.
3RD PROOF BY PANOS PAPPAS.
FOR THE NECESSITY OF EXISTENCE
OF A CORRESPONDENCE FUNCTION BETWEEN
DYNAMIC ENERGY AND MASS,
CLASSICAL APPROACH.
Original proof,
by Panos Pappas.
Let a still body, with total energy Ε_{0}, which absorbs a photon with energy: Ε_{ph} = PC.
Let the body’s energy is Ε_{1, } after the photon’s absorption.
In this case, the following facts are in effect:
Ε_{ph} = PC = hv.
E_{0} = Dynamic + Thermic + etc... Energy
(Parenthetically, we can say that Ε_{0} is the constant of integration of the integral of the Theorem of Kinetic Energy.)
Let the symbols P_{0}^{ }= 0, M_{0}, be the initial momentum and mass of the body, before the absorption of the photon.
Let u be the velocity of the body after the absorption of the photon.
In this case:
E_{1} = E_{0} + 1/2Pu, E_{1} = E_{0} +_{ }PC,
consequently: 1/2u = C, u = 2C.
which is unacceptable, for: M_{0}u = hv/C,
and u = hv/(M_{0}C).
Therefore, to get rid of this paradox, necessarily, we must hypothesize that after the photon absorption, we have to theorize a new body, with a new constant of integration, which we note, say as: E_{0} + ΔΕ and: ΔΕ = KΔmC^{2} (Mass changed by Δm, corresponding to an energy ΔΕ regulated by the parameter K).
In this case, the following are in effect for the energy E_{1} of the body:
E_{1} = E_{0} +_{ }PC, after the absorption of the photon the energy of the photon is added to the body.
E_{1} =ΔΕ + E_{0} + 1/2Pu, the Energy of the body E_{0} is increased by the body’s Kinetic Energy 1/2Pu, plus an unknown amount of Energy, corresponding to the difference in mass of the new body considered: which consequently is: ΔE = P(C  1/2u).
If u = 0, or practically equal to 0, then practically: ΔΕ = PC = KΔmC^{2},
ΔΕ
= KΔmC^{2},
with K not equal to zero.
If arbitrarily,
we take: K = 1, then, arbitrarily:
ΔΕ
=
ΔmC^{2}.
4TH
PROOF
BY
PANOS
PAPPAS.
FOR THE NECESSITY OF EXISTENCE
OF A CORRESPONDENCE FUNCTION BETWEEN
DYNAMIC ENERGY AND MASS, BASED ON MODERN PHYSICS.
Original proof by Panos Pappas.
Under the same conditions as for the 3rd proof.
It is generally true, within the framework of the Modern Physics that: E^{2} = Ε_{0}^{2} + P^{2}C^{2}.
Usually it is taken: Ε_{0 }= M_{0}C^{2}.
(Parenthetically, we can say that Ε_{0} is the constant of integration of the integral in the Theorem of Kinetic Energy.)
Ε_{ph} = PC.
In general terms it is: E_{0 }= K_{0}M_{0}C^{2}.
(E_{0} is a constant of integration, expressed with K_{0} whichever mathematical parameter).
E_{1}^{2} = E_{0}^{2 }+ Ε_{ph}^{2}: modern relation for the energies.
E_{1} = E_{0} +_{ }E_{ph}: The body, with initial energy E_{0, }absorbs a photon with energy: Ε_{ph} = PC. The two energies are included in E_{1}
(The two equations: one Pythagorian, the other linear, are not compatible to be simultaneous. Necessarily, we must say that, after the interaction, a new body, comes in existence with a new constant of integration, which is displayed as: E_{0} + ΔΕ, with: ΔΕ = KΔmC^{2}, and a with Mass change of Δm, corresponding to energy: ΔΕ. )
E_{1}^{2} = (E_{0} + ΔΕ)^{2 }+ Ε_{ph}^{2}
E_{1} = [(K_{0 }M_{0} + KΔm)^{2} C^{4 }+ P^{2}C^{2}]^{1/2}
E_{1} = [(K_{0 }M_{0} + KΔm)^{2} C^{4 }+ P^{2}C^{2}]^{1/2}
E_{1} = K_{0 }M_{0 }C^{2 }+ PC
[K_{0 }M_{0 }C^{2} + PC]^{2} = (K_{0 }M_{0} + KΔm)^{2} C^{4 }+ P^{2}C^{2}
K_{0}^{2}_{ }M_{0}^{2}_{ }C^{4} + P^{2}C^{2 }+ 2k_{0 }M_{0 }C^{2 }PC = K_{0}^{2}_{ }M_{0}^{2 }C^{4} + K^{2}Δm^{2}C^{4 }+ 2k_{0} M_{0} KΔm C^{4} + P^{2}C^{2}.
2k_{0 }M_{0 }PC^{3} = k^{2}Δm^{2}C^{4 }+ 2k_{0 }M_{0}KΔmC^{4}
PC = (KΔm + K^{2}Δm^{2}/2k_{0 }M_{0})C^{2 }= Ε_{ph}.
If: Δm<<M_{0}, the body is, practically, motionless and, as expected: Ε_{ph} = KΔmC^{2}.
1st AE's ATTEMPT FOR THE PROOF OF
Ε = MC^{2}
"Annalen der Physik" 17, 1905.
(Below, we post the prototype from "Dover" Editions:
"The Principle of Relativity",
pages: 6771, Standard Book #486600815.)
( Photo 8: "Dover" Editions, page 67, with the original title,
where the"Ε= mC^{2}"
is attempted for second time to be proved)
( Photo 9: "Dover" Editions, page 69, With the wrong formula for the
Dopplereffect for the light, in accordance with all modern books. )
( Photo 10: "Dover" Editions, page 70, With arbitrary definitions
and assumptions, under the desperate effort to prove the
mistaken desired result. See text, below. )
( Photo 11: "Dover" Editions, page 71, With the final result. )
5TH PROOF
REPRODUCTION WITH CORRECTIONS
BY PANOS PAPPAS.
L* = L(1ucosφ/c) / (1u^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2}
Suggested formula by AE for the energy of a photon, as observed by a moving observer (observer moving in reference to a photon !! ). See, above, photocopy of the prototype. Today, we know that: L = hv, and the above formula involves the wrong Doppler formula for the frequency "v" of a photon, which has dimensions 1/t.
According to the prototype, the body’s initial energy is E_{0.} Respectively Η_{0}, is the energy of the body after emitting the two photons in two opposite directions with an angle φ, in reference to the axes X and, respectively, Χ' of two parallel and moving to each other systems of reference. E_{1},_{ }Η_{1 are} the two energies, respectively, after the emission, in both systems (we accept the formula which AE suggests, even it involves the wrong Dopplereffect):
E_{0} = E_{1} + 1/2L +1/2L
Η_{0} = Η_{1} + 1/2L(1ucosφ/c)/(1u^{2}/c^{2}) + 1/2 L(1+ucosφ/c)/(1
u^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2} = H_{1 }+_{ }L/(1u^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2}
Η_{0 }– Ε_{0 }– (Η_{1 }– Ε_{1}) = L{1/(1u^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2}  1} = 2nd order term development to polynomial = 1/2Lu^{2}/c^{2}.
Verification by Panos Pappas:
We set:
E_{0 }= M_{0}c^{2}
H_{0 }= M_{0}c^{2} + 1/2M_{0}u^{2}
E_{1 }= (M_{0}m_{0}) c^{2}
H_{1 }= (M_{0}m_{0}) c^{2 }+1/2(M_{0}m_{0})u^{2}
In accordance with the definitions of the text of AE:
AE's Definition 1: Α+K_{0 }= H_{0} – E_{0 }= 1/2M_{0}u^{2}.
AE's Definition 2: A+K_{1} = H_{1} – E_{1} = 1/2(M_{0}m_{0})u^{2}.
Consequently: Κ_{0 }  K_{1 }=^{ }1/2m_{0}u^{2}.
It Is in force: Κ_{0 }  K_{1} = H_{0} – E_{0} – (H_{1} – E_{1}) = 1/2Lu^{2}/c^{2}.
Consequently: 1/2Lu^{2}/c^{2} =^{ }1/2m_{0}u^{2}.
L = m_{0}c^{2}.
If: km = m_{0}, then: L = kmc^{2} and, in general, E = kmc^{2}.
Conclusion: AE's proof starting, yet, with a wrong physical hypothesis, the Dopplereffect, it does not prove, mathematically, the desired result: E = mC^{2}.
Because of this, obviously, AE, in 1906, made a second attempt of proof, unsuccessful for one more time.
6TH PROOF
2nd AE's ATTEMPT OF PROOF
Published in 1906,
in: "Ann. Phys." 20, 627633, 1906.
A Difficult to find Work.
We mention the attempt from the mentioned below book of A. P. French, Prof. of Physics in M.I.T.
The attempt consists in a "reasoning" experiment ("gedanken"  that is a fictitious experiment, not practicable in reality), invented by AE in 1906, into which the given momentum on an absorptive surface be supposed to E/C. The purpose of this experiment was to prove that the energy is coupled with some equivalent mass in inertia. Under the term: "mass in inertia", we mean the ratio of linear momentum to velocity. We will suppose that a quantity of radiating energy E (a beam of photons) is emitted from one edge of a box, in mass M and length L, which is isolated from its environment and, initially, still. The radiation causes momentum: E/(ΚC), (K: whichever mathematical constant), yet, as long as the total momentum of the system remains equal to zero, the box have to acquires a momentum equal to;  E / KC. So, the box is struck in velocity υ, given by the formula:
υ =  E / ΚMC
After a free movement, in time Δt (= L / C, to close, for υ << C), the radiation pass through the other edge of the box and effects a thrust, equal and opposite to this given initially, which takes back the box to motionlessness. So, the result is the movement of the box, in a distance Δx:
Δx = u Δt =  ΕL / ΚΜC^{2}.
But this is an isolated system, consequently, we are forced to accept that the mass center of the box, including its content, is moved. So, we accept that the radiation has bear an equal mass m, so that:
mL + MΔx = 0.
By the combination of the two last equations, we have as a result:
m = E / (KC^{2}), or: E = KmC^{2}.
For many people, Einstein and the Relativity summarized, usually, in the result with K = 1.
The attempt consists in the fact that AE thinks that the emission, or the absorption, of a photon from a body, causes momentum on the body: P =  E / C, instead of, e.g., the classical relation of momentum: Ε = (1/2)PC = (1/2)mC^{2} which entails momentum: P = 2E / C and concludes to the result: E = mC^{2}.
The attempt, for the conclusion, is obvious, because the use of the classical, for the case, formula of momentum: P = 2E / C, mathematically comes to:
E = (1/2)mC^{2}
That is the classical kinetic energy of a photon, if we suppose that the photon has mass m. Considering this fictitious experiment as correct, what is proved is the validity of the above formulas for equivalent between mass and energy, which correlate the photon mass with the equivalent kinetic energy of a photon, on the basis of the Newton's law of Classical Mechanics. May be must we take seriously the case, too, which corresponds in: Κ = 1/2 ?
Below we cite the source of all the above.
( Photo 12: Cover of the book: "Theory of Relativity", by A. P. French, Prof. of Physics in (notorious) M.I.T. (Translation in Greek by Papagiannakopoulos and Metaxas, both fellowstudents and friends of mine). )
( Photo 13: Page 15 from the book of A.P. French, for the third attempt of proving by AE of, arbitrary, Ε = mC^{2}. )
( Photo 14: Page 16 from the book of A.P. French,
for the above proof. )
[ Sort summary of the above, in Greek, two pages: 1516 (see photos 1314): Under the title: "MATTER AND RADIATION: INERTIA OF ENERGY" of the chapter, displayed a comment on a hypothesis of Newton, in 1738, about the interchange of energy between large bodies and light. Then, the author starting from this hypothesis, tries to prove the relation between mass inertia and radiation energy. Follows the description of an experiment which is described above, under the title: "6th PROOF  2nd AE's ATTEMPT OF PROOF". ]
,MODERN TEXT BOOKS ATTEMPTED BUT INCORRECT PROOF OF E = MC^{2}
Modern text books make an attempt to produce a proof using the analysis into a Taylor polynomial series of the followung expression:
(1 x^{2}
)^{1/2 }, with x<1, we have:
(1 x^{2}
)^{1/2 } = 1 + x^{2} /2 + 3x^{4
}/8 + 5x^{6}/16 + 35x^{8
}/128 …
Correspondingly we have: 1/(1 v^{2}/c^{2}
)^{1/2 }= 1 + (1/2)v^{2}/c^{2}+
3v^{4}/c^{4 }/8 + 5v^{6}/c^{6}/16 + 35v^{8}/c^{8
}/128 … Therefore multiplying both sides by mc^{2},
we have,
mc^{2/}(1 v^{2}/c^{2} )^{1/2
}= mc^{2} +
(1/2)mv^{2 }+ 3mv^{4}/c^{2 }
/8 + 5mv^{6}/c^{4}/16 + 35mv^{8}/c^{6 }/128
…
recognazing that the second term is the classical kinetic energy of the
body, this expression arbitrarilly and without any proof or other evidence
is called the TOTAL ENERGY OF THE BODY. Therefore for v=0, arbitrarily:
Total Energy Ε = mc^{2} !
Conclusion: After the AE's last attempt and the text books sited recently attempted proof, we do not know a mathematically correct proof of E = mC^{2}.
We believe that a correct proof can not exist, because experimentally and in reality this formula is not correct.
SIX EXPERIMENTAL PROOFS
OF: E = kmC^{2}.
1. Some Noted Nuclear Reactions.
The reaction of Uranium Bomb:
_{ 0}n^{1} + _{92}U^{235} = _{56}Ba^{141} + _{36}Kr^{92} + 3 _{0}n^{1}
It seems that is valid with K, usually, close to 1, when a U bomb is dropped upon a point {x,y,z,t}, in proper t. Then, it was said, in tact, that fulfills the condition J, from "Jesus", the era of nuclear tests, when they didn't knew what, exactly, was going on.
Based on the Theory of Ether, nowadays, we could say (equivalent, on the basis of the nonisotropy of timespace):
In time t, must be an "etheric gate", in order to have big K, which will causes big detonation.
Have been observed detonations in K close to 3 and power three times bigger than what was expected.
Must be noted, that the nuclear tests in atmosphere were prohibited by mutual and immediate agreement SALT I and II between U.S.S.R. and U.S.A., in a strange, sort, record time, in 1956.
2. Biological Nuclear Reactions.
Biological Nuclear Transmutations
click here
By Louis Kervran and many more, from older bibliography of Medicine and Biology, e.g.:
_{ 11}Na^{23} + _{8}O^{16} = _{19}K^{39}
Transmutation of Sodium into Potassium in vitro
click here
is the main nuclear reaction for the maintenance of life.
It seems to be valid for a mediumsized K<1.
3. The Biological Nuclear Reactions,
mentioned below:
_{
19}K^{39} + _{1}H^{1} = _{20}Ca^{40}
_{14}Si^{28} + _{6}C^{12} = _{20}Ca^{40}
are nuclear reactions producing Ca in animals and humans.
It seems to be valid for a very small K.
These reactions, per mol Ca, are equivalent of the same class of energy to the U bomb, per mol U, for K = 1 !
4. Cold Nuclear Fusion.
Various nuclear reactions, under extensive censorship, mainly in circuits of electrolysis, with several, related, K.
5. Traditional Alchemy (under concealment
 suppression):
Refers, mainly, to metal transmutations (compare Orthography  Etymology to: "Transmute  Transmuted").
Reactions which become with very small K and in specific and proper timegates (compare U bomb, above). The timegates were of the significant and wellguarded secrets of the alchemists. The alchemists never wrote the formula of the chemical reaction and the required timegate, on the same notes.
6. Aesculapian Places:
Were places with excellent healing properties.
In my opinion, the "Aesculapian Places" are places where the K of the Biological Nuclear Reactions takes extremely low values, facilitating the Biology of the patients.
( Photo 15: The cover of the "Handbook of Medicine",
"PAPYROS" Editions, © 1968. )
( Photo 16: Ascertainment in the "Handbook of Medicine",
"PAPYROS" Editions, © 1968,
that Potassium is transformed to Calcium, by nuclear reaction. )
"The famous equation E=mc2 does not
hold true"
Noteworthy it that in the University of Stanford were they process the
experimental data of experiment Gravity Probe II  which would confirm or
deny the Relativity Theory  data have not being announced, and which with
an unacceptable delay will be published despite the categorical promise for
the direct and convenient publication, as they will be getting them from the
satellite ….
The above statement on the
not general "in force" of E=mc2 constitutes preamble and import for a more
general rebuttal of theory of Relativity that is proved by the results of
Gravity Probe II which are currently kept secret to the Scientific Community
….
Since, in fundamental AE's work of 1905, irregularly, none reference was given, let see, by other origins, what from was impelled and what truly knew AE, before he publish his works. Read below.
In fact, main origin of his impulsion were the big unsolved problems of Electromagnetism, as set them Lorentz, and not the academic interest about the stability of light. The most important, moreover, is that the same, these, unsolved problems still remain unsolved, nowadays.
Indeed, the famous and fundamental electrodynamical force of Lorentz, with its infinite paradoxes, still remains the big unsolved mysterysecret of nature, for all the physicists of the world, nowadays.
PANOS PAPPAS.
( Photo 17: From the Greek magazine
"Periscope of Science",
issue #77, page 47. )
( Photo 18: From the Greek magazine
"Periscope of Science",
issue #77, page 48. )
( Photo 19: From the Greek magazine
"Periscope of Science",
issue #77, page 49. )
( Photo 20: From the Greek magazine
"Periscope of Science",
issue #77, page 50. )
[ Sort summary of the above, in Greek, article (see photos 1720): In this article, under the title: "How I was inspired the Theory of Relativity", is displayed the lecture of AE, at 14 December 1922, in University of Kyoto, Japan. In this, is attempted to lightened many stages of the chronicle of the Theory of Relativity and is attempted, too, to extract an answer in the question: "Did he knew, AE, the "MichelsonMorley" experiment, when he formulated the Particular Theory of Relativity ?".
Then, he says that many complicated reasonings affected his spirit, in many different ways, in the sequential stages of evolution of his ideas.
First time, he had the idea of evolution of the Theory of Relativity, 17 years before, in 1905. The idea was in direct relation with the optical properties of the moving bodies. These years, he couldn't find, in the existed bibliography, a confirmed experimental evidence about the existence of ether's stream. But, he hadn't any doubt about the existence of ether, around the Earth, too. So, he planned a fictitious experiment (with two mirrors and a spot source of light) in order to prove the existence of ether, which, though it was close similar to Michelson's, he didn't took it into consideration, during the planning. Later, he learned about the strange (negative) result of Michelson's experiment and this was the first step for the formulation of the Particular Theory of Relativity. From then onwards, he had the belief that none optical experiment can determine the movement of Earth.
Also, he read a monograph (written at 1895) of Lorentz. In this, Lorentz solved, analytically, the problem of Electrodynamics, by using first class approach, to be exact, by ignoring terms: ν/c of higher class.
Then, AE tried to study the Fizeau's experiment, considering that Lorentz's equations for the electrons, must be valid, equally, for a system of reference of a moving body, as well as of the vacuum, as, initially, Lorentz said.
This period, AE firmly believed that the electrodynamical equations of Maxwell and Lorentz were correct. This resulted in that the velocity of light remains invariable. But, this was in contrary with the known principle of the relative addition of the velocities, in Mechanics. So, for one year, AE tried, uselessly, to modify the aspects of Lorentz. On this, coincidentally, helped him Michele Besso. The solution was based on analysis of the concept of time, because the time is correlated with the velocity of a body.
After 5 weeks, the Particular Theory of Relativity was completed, without philosophical doubts, in accordance with the principle of Mach, too, affected indirectly, only, from it.
The first idea for the formulation of the General Theory of Relativity, AE had, suddenly, two years later, in 1907, trying to include systems of reference not only moved in constant velocity to each other, but under random movement, too.
In 1907, while AE was written a monograph of Particular Theory of Relativity, for Johannes Stark, he was realized that all the laws of Physics, except them of gravity, could be handled within the framework of Particular Theory of Relativity. This happens because the Particular Theory of Relativity don't explain the relation between inertia and weight, namely the energy of gravity field. This problem was unsolved within the framework of Particular Theory of Relativity.
Some day, in Berne, AE had the inspiration to expand the Particular Theory of Relativity, by formulating it on an accelerated system of reference. In the accelerated system of reference, it is needed a new field of gravity.
After eight more years, AE resulted in the final solution.
Ernst Mach asserted the view that two, accelerated to each other, systems of reference are equal to each other, too. This view is in contrary with Euclidian Geometry, which is not applied in accelerated systems of reference. But, to describe, someone, physical laws, without the assistance of the Geometry, it's an insuperable problem.
Until 1912, this was an unsolved problem for AE. Then, he thought of the theory of surfaces of Karl Friedrich Gauss. Until then, AE didn't knew the, founded on new bases, Geometry of Bernhard Riemann (student of Gauss). Later, accidentally, AE remembered the teachings on Geometry of Carl Friedrich Geiser, on Gauss theory. So, soon, AE realized that the way of foundation of Geometry is in close relation with the physical substance of the problem.
After his return back in Zurich, his friend, mathematician Marcel Grossman, informed him, first, about the work of Curbasto Gregorio Ricci and, then, about Riemann's work. So, in 1913, they showed, together, an announcement related to the problem, without the correct equations for gravity.
After two years of hard work, AE located the mistake in his calculations. So, returning to his initial equation and using the Theory of Invariance, after two weeks, he achieved to formulate the correct equations.
After 1915, AE's work is concentrated on the problem of Cosmology. This problem is related with the geometry of the Universe and the time. This period, AE was affected from Mach's problem of inertia.
AE solved the problem of Cosmology considering invariance in the marginal condition for the gravitational equations. Finally, he considered the Universe as a closed system. As a result of this, inertia is a property of the interacting matter, disappeared when matter didn't exists.
AE believed, in this way, that the General Theory of Relativity becomes satisfyingly comprehensible, in a scientific point of view. ]
ORGANIZER:
"Association of Physicists of Greece"
FIRST PRESENTATION:
MONDAY 13 / 06 / 2005,
20.00',
"HITIRION" THEATER,
IERA ROAD 44.
Central Presentation
"Association of Physicists of Greece"
& "Technological Education Institute" of Piraeus
SECOND PRESENTATION:
FRIDAY 01 / 07 / 2005,
20.00',
GRAND AMPHITHEATRE "HADJINIKOLAOU",
P. RALLI & THIVOHN 255,
"Technological Education Institute" of Piraeus
General Discussion
See, too:
www.papimi.gr
click HELLENIC VERSION
for direct criticism, discussion, publication:
**************************
THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF THE ENERGY AND MOMENTUM OF PHOTONS.
In modern physics light is considered to consist of photons. The photons are simultaneously considered as particles with mass, energy and momentum, and as well as waves with wavelength, frequency and velocity.
In accordance with classic physics the energy of photons, and particles should had been: Ε = (1/2)mC^{2}, where C is their velocity (as the wellknown Newton's law implies in classical physics).
Also, classically, their momentum is: P = mc and, consequently:
Ε = (1/2)mC^{2}^{ }= (1/2)mCC = (1/2)PC. [ 1 ]
Yet for photons in modern physics, the relationship between their energy (Ε) and momentum (P) is supposed to be:
E = PC [ 2 ].
The best direct experimental confirmation, of this modern assumption is rather indirect.
From the discipline of nuclear physics and elementary particles where we accept that the analysis of the impacts between photons and other particles is the result of the validity of the equation (2) above. The only direct experiments for the purpose of testing the relation between the energy and momentum of photons were performed by continuous lightbeams, and not with photons, but by researching the radiation  pressure phenomenon. Such experiments are performed under the radiance of large number of photons (e.g.: 1 Watt of visible light correspond to a stream of 3X10^{18} photons/sec approximately) and a description and analysis it is possible only in relation to the stream of radiating energy without reference to the photonic formation of the radiation.
It is a fact indeed, that the equation (2) as a general formulation of the relation between energy and momentum of the radiation in vacuum was world wide acceptable before the discovery of its quantum behavior (so long as it was the inevitable consequence of Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory).
But, a theory which may have found a coincidence for the experimentally measured velocity of light and for the calculated velocity of electromagnetic waves with the insight of the physics of fundamental electrical and magnetic phenomena may not guaranty and may not determine to be true referencing anything else without a specific proof. For example, if in Mathematics we prove a fundamental truth which agrees well in practice it does not mean this proves all the other Mathematical truths and theorems with no need for more proofs concerning any other case.
It is stunning that the experiments for the proof of radiationpressure phenomenon performed to the contrary, as an attempt of confirmation of Maxwell's theory. With the photon's image (that of a particle) as an accepted fact, it was supposed that the equation (2) must be in effect as well for a photonparticle.
Actually, all the radiation  pressure experiments are essentially of the same kind. They attempt to calculate the force Fe which a stream of radiating energy (known from the effective power W) exerts upon a surface. The examined surface is a thin metallic plate, hanging by a single thread, which may rotate by a possible torque. The energy of the stream of photons is calculated by the rise in temperature (!). It Is taken into account the ratio ρ of the affecting radiation to the radiation which is reflected from the plate so long as the reflected light boosts the power of the radiation. A surface of ideal reflection will exert a double force of that of a surface (of ideal absorption) under the same stream of incident radiation. This is the principle of the "radiometer", which consists of an horizontal "mill" with vertical winds which on one side are supposed to be perfectly absorptive and on the other side are supposed to be perfectly reflective.
( Photo 1: Radiometer )
The "Radiometer" is rotated in reverse, under the effect of the light, as if the light has an opposite momentum (P) contrary to what was supposed.
The "Radiometer" was discovered by the famous Crookes (remember the "Crookes' Rays"). Crookes had discovered many more irregularities of "Radiometer", which in our days seem to have been forgotten. We shall come back on it soon.
The winds are placed in the same way (see Photo 1 ) so that all the reflective surfaces contribute to clockwise moment of rotation while all the absorptive surfaces contribute a counterclockwise moment of rotation. As the force exerted upon the reflective surface is twice as than the force exerted upon the absorptive surface, the rotation of the reflective surfaces, under the pressure of photons will dominate.
HOWEVER ALL THE "RADIOMETERS" are OBSERVED ACCOMPLISH THE OPPOSITE PHENOMENON: THE PRESSURE OF THE ABSORPTIVE SURFACES DOMINATES AND THE RADIOMETER ROTATES TO OPPOSITE WAY EXPECTED.
This paradox is excusable by saying that, in deed, the pressure of photons is veryvery small, so that it is not causing the effect. But what is causing the rotation is the pressure of the reflected particles from the warmed absorptive surfaces because of the existence of other "parasitical" particles in the bubble, from the inadequate vacuum. It is wellknown that the adequate vacuum is not achieved yet.
Among all the experiments of correlation between radiation and pressure which are mentioned in then literature, the most typical ones are those of Nichols and Hull [5]. Their measurements were very careful and skilful. Moreover, their results were supposed to verify the equation (2) better than 1% [?]. However, the experiments of Nichols and Hull are dated before the achievement of high vacuum techniques in laboratory level and, for this reason, their results, rightfully, are not valid under the defined accuracy. They did not made the separation between the "true" pressure of radiation from the "false" pressure of "radiometer" phenomenon, which made it rotate in the reverse direction. Therefore, Nichols and Hull did not provide at all a direct experimental verification of the accurate quantitative relation between the energy and the momentum of photons:
E = PC = mC^{2}.
However, in this presentation, we will suppose that the formula: E = PC = mC^{2}, is in effect, or, better the more general formula: E = ΚmC^{2} is in effect for the photons, with K close to 1, or, yet, K: whichever mathematical parameter. We will prove that Albert Einstein (AE) did not offer proper mathematical proofs of his famous equivalence between mass and energy, expressed by the formula: E = mc^{2}, which is assumed generally true for every body of mass m.
This formula
was, in theory, known from the Maxwell's electromagnetism, by the formula:
Ε
=
PC
= mCC. AE
intend was to give a proof to this formula of general validity for
all bodies. However, he did not achieve his goal,
as we will see.
Nowadays, this formula is attributed to AE. This formula, too, is considered
by the school books as the greatest formula of Physics and as the greatest
achievement of human mind in Physics, nowadays!
However, the
exact mathematical (quantitative) application of this formula, nowadays,
limits the theoretical possibilities of many natural phenomena to be
considered that may occur in nature, such as: Cold Nuclear Fusion, Nuclear
Biological Reactions with broad applications in Biology, Medicine and Health,
Production of precious metals and materials, and many more. We could say that,
this formula, disproportionately limits the knowledge and
science, than offers something to them.
This formula was suggested, first, by AE as a constant of integration for slowly accelerated electrons, see below, chapter 10, reproduced from the prototype, reproduced by "Dover" publications. Obviously, AE following a previous monograph of Lorentz on Electromagnetism, with almost identical title and subject (compare the photocopies of first pages of the prototypes of both papers, below). However, the same formula can be suggested, more generally and more simply, as an arbitrary constant of integration within the framework of Newton's Classical Mechanics, as well as within the framework of "Modern" Mechanics (see below proofs A' and B').
In the subsequent, we present two proofs for the necessity of existence of some sort of equivalence between mass and energy, within the framework of Newton's Classical Mechanics, as well as within the framework of "Modern" Mechanics. In doing so, we follow an identical approach for both Classical and Modern Mechanics, demonstrating that way, in contrary of what is believed for what ever type the equivalence is between mass and energy, it is nevertheless a myth the fact that this equivalence is the exclusive privilege of AE's Theory of Relativity. What ever the equivalence is (for the time being, still indeterminable in its details), it is a result as well as a privilege of Classical Mechanics. Finally, we display two more and later attempts of unsuccessful proofs by AE for his supposed famous formula. One proof, of 1905, (second one) which begins with a wrong DopplerEffect, but, however, results ironically, not to the formula: E = mc^{2}, but, in general, to the formula: E = κmc^{2}, with κ: whichever mathematical parameter. A third attempt of proof of 1906 by AE, also arbitrarily results to the formula: E = mc^{2}, but properly considering the same to the general formula E = kmc^{2}.
In particularly
and ironically, the use of the momentum, strictly in accordance with Classical
Mechanics, results in the unexpected formula:
E = (1/2)mC^{2}, which is within the frame
work of proofs of this presentation.
We believe that the correct relation for the equivalence of mass and energy is not unique for all cases. The details await their discovery, for the benefit of Humankind.