This conversation is closed.

## E=mc² is only conditionally valid. While mass can turn into energies, an energy alone may not be equivalent to a mass.

Although E=mc² has been accepted as unconditional since the atomic bomb, investigation shows that this formula is only conditional according to general relativity. The book E = mc² by David Bodanis (Walker, 2000) discusses only cases of where mass converts to energy. Many failed to notice that the mass would convert to a combination of energies. Therefore, a single type of energy may not be converted into mass. It is surprising that the scientific community almost missed this. The investigation started from a conclusion that there are no dynamic solutions for the Einstein field equation unless the coupling constants for energy-stress tensors can have different signs. This leads to questioning the general validity of this formula. In fact, there is a conflict from electromagnetism because the trace of an electromagnetic energy tensor is traceless. Also Einstein failed to extend the proof of the formula beyond the case of photons. (Photons actually include non-electromagnetic energy.) The invalidity of E = mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally by a reduction in weight of a charged metal ball (2005). However, E=mc² would predict an increase in weight, as Einstein would assert. This can be explained with a new repulsive force between charge and mass for a static case in general relativity. Moreover, weight reduction is observed when a capacitor is charged (1960) or when a piece of metal is heated up (2010). However, these cannot be explained with a four-dimensional theory, but can be explained in term of a five-dimensional relativity that has an additional general charge-mass interaction. Thus, mass can be converted to energy according to E = mc², but energy may not be converted to mass in terms of m = E/c². Now, energy is conserved in a closed system, but mass may not be. For example, although the photons have no mass, they can increase the mass of a matter, after it absorbs them. These findings have been published in the professional journals and the internet.

## edward long 100+

## Sharon Holcombe

## edward long 100+

## Sharon Holcombe

## B Ross

## Sharon Holcombe

## B Ross

The Oatmeal Theory of gravitation in summary states that gravity is flux of composite particles. In the cases of heating and charging, the probability of some other particle moving throughout the objects decreases the probability of the gravitation composite particle having path within the objects.

C.Y. Lo's experiment increases the thermal temperature. The increase in kinetic energy of the material particles also increases the probable number of locations within the material a given particle of that material may inhabit at a given time. That action decreases the number of probable paths for gravitation.

D.R. Buehler's experiment inundates a material with charged composite particles. This action also decreases the number of probable paths for gravitation.

## Sharon Holcombe

## B Ross

The experiments referenced didn't measure mass. They measured weight and presumed the equivalence to measuring mass. This is why I've focused on the concept of gravitation.

Gravity, and by consequence, weight are quantum effects as I've described them. Using weight to gather data broadens the scope to include quantum behaviors.

## B Ross

I would investigate the results of kinetic collisions using heated and charged objects with objects of known mass.

## Sharon Holcombe

## B Ross

Cg = Coefficient of Gravitational Drag

Charging these objects generates a "magnetosphere" lower the coefficient of gravitational drag for the items. This is actually decreasing the potential energy of the items as defined by the thermodynamic arrow of time.

I would repeat D.R. Buehler's experiment performed in 2004. This time I'd carefully probe for gravity disturbances in the regions immediately surrounding the capacitor. I'd also also probe for time dilation within the capacitor and the surrounding region. Lastly, I'd search for regions definable as either laminar or turbulent.

## Sharon Holcombe

## B Ross

I just explained gravity, time, and e/b field.

Gravity is not an attractive force. Gravity is the atomic consumption of spacial void. This happens at the speed of light, c. As you sit where you are, stuck to this planet, you do so because space rushes through you toward earth's center of mass. Being on the earth's surface, the weight you experience is analogous to fluid viscosity.

This is my understanding of gravity with the guidance of Einstein. You're experiments are redirecting this flow and somewhat freeing these objects from earth's gravity.

## Sharon Holcombe

## B Ross

"Time" is undefined & meaningless sub-atomically. (Schrödinger's cat, wave-particle duality)

Velocity = dL/Dt

E x B tensor will be defined once correcting the notion of "Now".

Properly interpreting {E = mc²) relies on proper assumptions regarding entropy, potentiality, & rest states.

E (still) = mc²

## Sharon Holcombe

The following are data for you to look at supporting these statements:

1) A charged metal ball becomes lighter. [1, 2].

2) A charged capacitor reduces its weight [3-8].

3) Heated up metal also decreases its weight [9]. and six kinds of metal are tested within the range of 600 degrees. This is in direct conflict with Einstein's claim in 1946.

References:

1. R. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 35, 875 (1930).

2. D. Yu. Tsipenyuk, V. A. Andreev, Phys. Interpretations of the Theory of Relativity Conf. (Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow 2005).

3. T. Musha and T. Kanamoto, Proc. of the 38th Space Science and Technology Conference, JSASS, 1994, pp. 31–32.

4. T. Musha, Proc .of the 37th Conf. on Aerospace Propulsion, JSASS, 1997, pp. 342–349.

5. Takaaki Musha, “Theoretical explanation of the Biefeld-Brown Effect”, 3-11-7-601 Namiki, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama 236-0005 Japan.

6. T. Valone, Electro Gravitics II (Integrity Research Institute, Washington DC, 2008).

7. D. R. Buehler, J. of Space Mixing 2, 1 (2004); see also electrogravitics in Wikipedia.

8. W. Q. Liu, Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China (personal communication, 2007).

9. Fan Liangzao, Feng Jinsong, Liu Wu Qing, Engineer Sciences vol. 8, No. 2, 9-11

## Sharon Holcombe

We asked where you learned about “fluid energy” because we were concerned that you may have been misled and we would want to help clarify this for you. In fact, we have googled the internet, but did not find the term “fluid energy “in connection with E = mc2. However, there is a term called “electromagnetic mass” defined as E/c2, i.e., the electromagnetic energy divided by c2. However, such a definition is inconsistent with the inert mass that Einstein and many other physicists defined.

Einstein was a brilliant theorist but, like all of us, he was not perfect. Thus, it is necessary to carry-on and to extend Einstein’s work in general relativity. It is our intention that through this conversation, we can improve our understanding on the physics of gravitation. If you want some more detailed information, we would recommend you to read a recent paper, “C. Y. Lo, The Invalid Speculation of m = E/c2, the Reissner-Nordstrom Metric, and Einstein’s Unification, Phys. Essays, 25 (1), 49-56 (2012)”. The earlier version of this paper, is also posted on the internet website, www.scribd.com, which can be found by googling “c_y_lo”. It appears that sometimes fundamental assumptions are incorrect and then get perpetuated in general relativity although the theory as a whole is very valuable. Moreover, many believe in the so-called authority instead of relying on agreement with experiments and rigorous logic. Our aim is to further progress in physics by sharing our work in identifying and rectifying errors we have discovered. We expect also to learn from this conversation. Thank you for helping us in this endeavor.

## edward long 100+