Sharon Holcombe

Someone is shy

Sharon hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Sharon Holcombe
Posted about 2 years ago
E=mc² is only conditionally valid. While mass can turn into energies, an energy alone may not be equivalent to a mass.
Thank you for commenting. 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. Moreover, according to the Einstein equation in general relativity, mass and electric energy are different because the existence of electric energy can change the Ricci tensor R(a, b) but not R.
Noface
Sharon Holcombe
Posted about 2 years ago
E=mc² is only conditionally valid. While mass can turn into energies, an energy alone may not be equivalent to a mass.
Thank you very much for your response. The interpretation of quantum behaviors is often subjective and this is beyond the scope of our discussion, based on experimental facts. What we claim is only that there are some types of energy that by itself alone is not equivalent to mass. The electromagnetic energy is an example. While you have raised an interesting issue, this is however beyond the limited scope of our discussion at the present time..
Noface
Sharon Holcombe
Posted about 2 years ago
E=mc² is only conditionally valid. While mass can turn into energies, an energy alone may not be equivalent to a mass.
Thank you very much for your information. However, it is not clear how these data support your theory from the coupling of charge-mass interaction. We know that the new coupling implies the weight reduction of the capacitor is proportional to the square of the capacitor potential difference as the experiment shows. So, we wonder whether your theory predicts this characteristic. Please also read T. Musha's paper as in the reference provided. In comparison Musha's data are more accurate than Buehler's.
Noface
Sharon Holcombe
Posted about 2 years ago
E=mc² is only conditionally valid. While mass can turn into energies, an energy alone may not be equivalent to a mass.
Thank you for your response. I wish you could explain the experimental facts to establish your view; otherwise you would leave the impression that your views have been defeated by experiment. We are talking about physics not philosophy. Any view in physics must stand on the ground being supported by experiments. Gravity will be discussed after the issue of E=mc² being conditionally valid is resolved in this discussion; otherwise it would be difficult to address some existing confusions. A theory in physics must be supported with experiments. Unfortunately, stories instead of solid theories are abundant, particularly in cosmology. For instance, the singularity theorems of Hawking and Penrose, though popular, are actually irrelevant to physics because it is based on an invalid implicit assumption (unique sign for all coupling constants). Such an assumption has been proven invalid in physics because it leads to the non-existence of dynamic solutions for the 1915 Einstein equation as Gullstrand, Chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee (1922-1929). conjectured .
Noface
Sharon Holcombe
Posted about 2 years ago
E=mc² is only conditionally valid. While mass can turn into energies, an energy alone may not be equivalent to a mass.
Thank you for your comments and we appreciate your interest. We are discussing physics that is based on evidence. A philosophical argument is usually favored by the one who believes it, but without evidence to support this, it would be beyond a scientific discussion. To establish your belief you must show with the support of your evidence that the presented experimental data are incorrect. However, this is impossible. These experiments have been performed and repeated by well-established scientists from different countries and/or different occasions. For instance, based on E=mc², Einstein predicted a piece of heated up metal would be heavier. However, experiments have shown that a piece of heated up metal is lighter. Please show how you can interpret this experimental fact with E=mc².
Noface
Sharon Holcombe
Posted about 2 years ago
E=mc² is only conditionally valid. While mass can turn into energies, an energy alone may not be equivalent to a mass.
Thank you for responding. I am keeping my opinion public to bring these findings furthering Einstein’s brilliant work to world attention. There have been several experiments showing weight reduction; when charges are added to a metal ball, when a capacitor is charged, and when a piece of metal is heated up. This is the opposite of what Einstein predicted. In fact, the last effect is so considerably large, even a worker in a cast factory can observe it. It is necessary not only to take into account the charge-mass repulsive force, but for some cases, to analyze things in a five-dimensional space. This weight reduction for a charged capacity was not understood although such phenomena were observed for over half a century. 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
Noface
Sharon Holcombe
Posted about 2 years ago
E=mc² is only conditionally valid. While mass can turn into energies, an energy alone may not be equivalent to a mass.
Thank you for your speedy response and your interest in general relativity. In dealing with the frontier physics, unlike the physics of common sense, one should expect a participant may not know what he is talking about. Thus, the only requirement should be only a desire to understand the problem. In other words, we accept any one to participate in this discussion. You are certainly welcome! 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.
Noface
Sharon Holcombe
Posted about 2 years ago
E=mc² is only conditionally valid. While mass can turn into energies, an energy alone may not be equivalent to a mass.
Thank you for your comment. Please tell me what the definition of "fluid mass" is as you understand it. To avoid misunderstanding, sometimes a term in physics must be understood with the related statements. Please point me to the reference. Einstein, as reported in his book "Ideas and Opinions, by Albert Einstein, p. 339, defined mass as: "Mass is defined by the resistance that a body opposes to its acceleration (inert mass). It is also measured by the weight of the body (heavy mass)." I do not see any definition given for "fluid mass". Please enlighten me on this.