Hi Stephen, > I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity here.
> Einstein published more than one paper in 1905. The one which is generally considered to be the "seminal" paper on SR was "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and it covers a great deal more than the mass/energy equivalence -- in fact, it's a complete derivation of special relativity, couched in terms of Euclidean space with the Lorentz transforms written algebraically. There, you said it yourself, they are "Lorentz" transformations, not "Einstein" transformations. Lorentz developed a set of equations to explain Aether drift in a fluid Aether according to the non-null Michelson-Morley data. Albert Einstein plagiarized Lorentz's work by writing a paper utilizing the transformation equations and not giving proper credit. Nevertheless, if you want to claim the Lorentz transformations part of Special Relativity theory, then that is a demon you have to deal with personally. I'm not going to go there as I do not question the validity of Lorentz's work, nor do I attribute Lorentz's work to Einstein. The only original contribution of Albert Einstein to Special Relativity theory is his equivalence of mass and energy, hence the celebrated "equation," E=mc^2. In order to equate energy with mass, the rules of algebra had to be modified specially for Albert Einstein. I suppose this is why it is called "Special" Relativity theory. Einstein's equation is not an equation at all, it is a formula. Thus E and m are just empty variables, which could just as easily be x and y. There are two completely unrelated processes of logic used to befuddle physics students into believing E=mc^2 is an equation. First, it is pointed out that dimensionally E=mv^2 is a true equation, which it is for any one system of units. Then an unrelated bit of logic is applied saying that the maximum velocity of any object is the speed of light. So v in the dimensional equation is arbitrarily assigned the value of c, which breaks the rules of equality governing the dimensional equation (one side of the equation cannot be changed, without changing the other). But nobody seems to care about this sloppiness. To further muddy the waters, E is shown equal to m if c is arbitrarily assigned the value of 1. Once again, only one side of the equation is being changed, which violates the equality of the equation. The fact is, for any equation all variables must be in the same units. You cannot arbitrarily decide to multiply feet times kilograms without converting one of the units to the other system. Also, if E is equal to mc^2, then the following logic is true: E=mc^2 mc^2=mc^2 for c=1; m=m There is no equivalence of mass and energy, except if you make special provisions for breaking the rules of algebra. Since E=mc^2 is not a true equality, then every equation and theory based upon using E=mc^2 as an equality is falsified. Einstein's house of cards falls because the foundation was false. It may turn out that useful numbers were squeezed out of Einstein's work, but it was just a fancy card trick. Its usefulness is limited to a very few special situations, which explains why SR and QM cannot predict the same outcomes. Further, with regard to SR, if we use the equation as it is given, then the energy of a photon should be zero, because it has zero mass (unless you try to fix the problem by inventing a new kind of "thought mass"). Another big problem with the equivalence of mass and energy is that one is said to convert to the other in the case of nuclear mass deficit. The missing mass is said to have been converted to energy. But the equation shows that as mass decreases, the energy should also decrease. It is impossible that the same equation that equates mass and energy could predict that mass could be converted into energy, or that energy could be converted into mass. You can't have it both ways. Now I have just presented you with rock solid fatal flaws in Einstein's mass/energy equivalence theory. There was no equation to begin with, and even when the so-called E=mc^2 equation is used to explain mass deficit, it predicts the opposite of what we are told. No amount of logic in the later applications of Special Relativity can fix the fact that the foundation is non-existent. Now either you will completely ignore what I have said and start spewing all kinds of "evidence" in favor of SR, or you will do something that few others do and admit that I'm right. I suspect you will do the former. And if you choose to believe in SR, then the discussion has degraded from one of science to one of religion and I will not violate your right to freedom of religion. Dave
