Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
in [Relativity]
|
From: ajay on 3 Oct 2009 12:34 Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics. It is done to save Einstein's Sep. 1905 derivation of E =mc2 Dr Drake is REQUESTED to justify himself as he is associated with world's most famous American Physical Society. Email of Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: pra(a)aps.org, 001-631-591-4000, Email of Ajay Sharma ajay.sharmaa(a)rediffmail.com, 0091 94184 50899 Website www.AjayOnLine.us Part I Ajay Sharma has sent paper to Editor Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake 17 March 2008 manuscript no. DQ10345A. The title of the paper Experimental and theoretical feasibilities of conversion factor other than c2 in mass energy inter-conversion equation by Ajay Sharma Wrong subtraction of 8th class mathematics in letter dated 19 June 2008 by Dr Gordon W.F. Drake In letter dated 19 June 2008, wrote equations and then doing wrong subtraction of 8th standard level. In my paper I have justified that Einstein's Sep. 1905 derivation of E =mc2, also gives E 'proportional to' mc2 or E =Ac2m i.e. E =mc2 is generalized as E =Ac2m Dr Gordon W.F. Drakes perception of cyclic process in Email dated 19 June 2008 1. A hydrogen atom of mass M in its ground state absorbs a photon of frequency f and makes a transition to the first excited state. 2. The hydrogen atom of mass M* in its excited state is then converted entirely into the energy of a high-frequency photon of frequency f*. Then hf* = M*c^2 = Mc^2 + hf/A. hf* = Mc2 + hf/ A. (1) 3. The high frequency photon is now passed through a machine that converts it back into a hydrogen atom in its ground state with mass M plus a low-frequency photon of frequency f. hf* =Mc2 + hf (2) Subtraction by Editor Gordon W.F.Drake of eq.(1) and eq.(2) hf* = Mc2 + hf/A hf* =Mc2 + hf --------------------------- Difference = hf/A â hf = hf (1/A-1) (3) and interpreted it. WRONG, 8th class subtraction by Editor Dr W.F. Drake. Dr Drake has forgotten the basic definition of equation that it has LHS and RHS. Further basic rule which is taught to 8th class student is while subtraction is that LHS of one equation is subtracted from LHS from second equation. RHS of one equation is subtracted from the second equation. Mistake of Dr Drake: Dr Drake did not subtract LHS of eq.(1) from LHS of eq.(2), which is absolutely wrong. Correct version is hf* = Mc2 + hf/A hf* = Mc2 + hf --------------------------- 0 = hf/A â hf = hf (1/A-1) or A =1 (4) LHS is subtracted from LHS, (hf* - hf* = 0) and RHS is subtracted from RHS (hf/A â hf). As the Left Hand Sides of both the equations are equal, hence the difference is zero. Thus Dr Drake applied 8th class mathematics incorrectly. Part II What was Drakes' motive behind remarks? Ajay Sharma in paper manuscript DQ10345A Experimental and theoretical feasibilities of conversion factor other than c2 in mass energy inter-conversion equation has generalized E = mc2 to E =Ac2m on the basis concrete theoretical and experimental evidences. Now Editor Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, wanted to prove this generalization is wrong and he invented own mechanism for this. But in the process he proved, that he did 8th class mathematics WRONG. Thus Dr Drake is wrong, and generalization of E=mc2 to E =Ac2m is correct. The theme of Einstein's paper of Sep. 1905 of E = mc2 (i) Einstein's Sep.1905, derivation of E = mc2 also predicts that E 'proportional to' mc2. The reason for above deduction is that Einstein derived ïE=ïmc2 under SPECIAL CONDITIONS, and under GENERAL CONDITIONS the result, E 'proportional to' mc2 or E =Ac2m (5) It is justified by Ajay Sharma in manuscript DQ10345A. What is meant by Special Conditions in Einstein's Sep. 1905 derivation? In Einstein's derivation of E=mc2 of Sep. 1905 there are four variables and Einstein took suitable values of variables. This derivation involves emission of light energy by luminous body. (a) Luminous body under consideration emits only TWO waves. (b) Luminous body emits two waves of EQAUL magnitudes. (c) Two waves are emitted by body in exactly opposite directions (ï¦ = 0 and ï¦ =180). (d) Einstein has taken velocity in classical region (v<<c and applied binomial theorem). Under the Special or handpicked conditions, Einstein derived L = mc2 (6) where L is light energy emitted by body. Then Einstein replaced L by E to get E = mc2 (7) What is meant by General Conditions in Einstein's derivation? The conditions other than taken by Einstein are called General conditions. For example, (A) The body emits LARGE NUMBER of light waves. (B) The waves emitted are of DIFFERENT MAGNITUDES. (C) Body emits waves at DIFFERENT ANGLES. (D) Light emitting body may be at rest. Under the General or handpicked conditions, Einstein derived (typical calculations) L = mc2/1141 = 0.000876mc2 (8) L 'proportional to' mc2 As above, E 'proportional to' mc2 or E =Ac2m. (5) Then, E =Ac2m. is applied in various cases. For further information visit www.AjayOnLine.us Email ajay.sharmaa(a)rediffmail.com, 0091 94184 50899 AJAY SHARMA 02 October 2009
From: eric gisse on 3 Oct 2009 17:08 ajay wrote: > Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG > subtraction of 8th Class mathematics. [...] The "Dr." in his title suggests otherwise.
From: Dono. on 3 Oct 2009 23:56 On Oct 3, 8:08 pm, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > (iv) As you have written about my work , my work is published in peer > review journals. > All my research is available at > www.AjayOnLine.us > and in book Einstein's E=mc2 Generalized > You are most welcome to contradict it in peer review journals. Till > date none has so done. > From your website it looks like someone has already proven you wrong: http://www.conceptsofphysics.net/V_3/553.pdf Why do you keep tryng to publish the same mistakes over and over?
From: eric gisse on 4 Oct 2009 02:34 ajay wrote: [...] > You are most welcome to contradict it in peer review journals. Till > date none has so done. That's because you are stupid. > > AJAY SHARMA
From: ajay on 4 Oct 2009 03:52
On Oct 4, 11:34 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ajay wrote: > > [...] > > > You are most welcome to contradict it in peer review journals. Till > > date none has so done. > > That's because you are stupid. > > > > > > > AJAY SHARMA- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Editors of various journals have published my work, as after peer review found correct. If you think otherwise, you are most welcome to CONTRADICT in the journals in scientiifc way. ASK ASK Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: pra(a)aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 to clarify, matter will be over. original issue You are mistaken, read complete posting. The correspondence on DQ10345A between author (Ajay Sharma), Editor, Dr Drake and Board Member is of 44 pages, which cannot be pasted here. If someone wants I can email ajay.sharmaa(a)rediffmail.com (i) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: pra(a)aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 is subtracting equations wrongly for willful to contradict my work which is against ethics of science. hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1) hf* = Mc2 + hf (2) .. In subtraction LHS is subtracted from LHS and RHS is subtracted from RHS. 8th class students knows. Thus right answer is (8th class student gives) 0 = hf/A-hf or A=1 In subtraction LHS is subtracted from LHS, (hf* - hf* = 0) and RHS is subtracted from RHS (hf/A hf). (ii) But Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: Ignores basic rule to subtract LHS from LHS (which are equal in this case i.e. hf*- hf*=0 ). Dr Drake only subtracts RHS from RHS, he does not subtract LHS from LHS , as it does not suit his willful thinking. Dr drake writes difference of eq.(1) and eq.(2) (technically, so called cyclic process) Left over energy or difference (non-zero) of LHSs = hf(1/A-1) Then he incorrectly explains various values of A (A<1, A>1). It is done in his Email dated 19 June 2008. There are also many other elementary mistakes in his report. The total correspondence consists of 44 pages. (iii) When I pointed out the mistakes, he on 11 July 2008 Dr Drake wrote IT IS PRIVATE CORRESPONECE AND SHOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE. From office of Physical Review A, American Physical Society, New York, on official capacity NO CORREPONDCE can be private. For doing private correspondence one should retire from official capacity, then one is free to write anything. ASK Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: pra(a)aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 to clarify (iv) As you have written about my work , my work is published in peer review journals. All my research is available at www.AjayOnLine.us and in book Einstein's E=mc2 Generalized You are most welcome to contradict it in peer review journals. Till date none has so done. AJAY SHARMA |