Make your own free website on Tripod.com


Can Mass And Energy be Exactly Equal?

 

 In minds of many perpetual motionists, there is no clear conception of incompatibility of perpetual motion with theory of relativity. E=MC2 has hardly created any serious resentment in the mind of perpetual motionist. Since the equation provides tremendous quantity of energy, it does not directly aim to suppress forcibly the Schools of Perpetual motion as law of conservation of energy based on impossibility of perpetual motion that had been established by Helmholtz finally. However, we know that Einstein was as critical to the impossibility of perpetual motion as many others. Here I have to say something respecting the two great physicists, Helmholtz and Albert Einstein. There is no hope of reconciliation with Helmholtz and his doctrine of law of conservation of force, since it perfectly rests on impossibility of perpetual motion machine, moreover, he ridicules sevearly a perpetual motionist with many ad hominen remarks.  He considered perpetual motionist as a “bewildered intellect.” he became an arch enemy of perpetual motion  as if he wanted to abolish perpetual motion and perpetual motionists completely from the earth. As to the latter, consciously, Einstein had no direct attack on perpetual motionist. He does not hurt a perpetual motionist directly with personal remarks. Many perpetual motionists think that his equation does not stand in great opposition to the advancement of perpetual motion philosophy. Moreover, some perpetual motionists have always met E=MC2 with welcome as it predicts that tremendous amount of energy can be obtained from small amount of matter, so it is something useful for them. While patenting their device, many perpetual motionists have avoided declaring that their device was a form of perpetual motion which contradicts law of conservation of energy for they knew that patent office would out rightly reject their wonderful device. For this reason, they have also observed a reverential attitude to E= MC2 without knowing complete truth, from whatever quarter it might come. Recognizing the apparent discrepancies between interpretations of its truth, inventors of free energy devices hope that satisfactory explanations and reconciliation would later ensue, and therefore, with this approach, we understand that  E= MC2 has not disappointed them and thwarted their mission.

 

The fact that energy and mass are equivalent seemed so absurd even to Einstein that he was moved to write to a friend:

 

“The line of thought is amusing and fascinating, but I can not know whether the dear lord doesn’t laugh about this and has played a trick on me.”

 

On April 15, 1932, Tesla also considered Einstein’s premise concerning conversion of matter into force, and force into matter, as "absurd". Tesla is said to have compared this to the dissimilarity between body and mind, laying emphasis on the fact that force is a "...function of matter", and that, it is just impossible for the mind to exist without a body, "...without matter, there can be no force."[i]

 

The outstanding genius Tesla could never accept many of the tenets of relativity and quantum theory.  His concept of energy was akin to ‘Prana’ as it resulted from his meeting and association with Swami Vivekananda and his Vedantic teachings.   Tesla never made any connection between matter and energy, he did recognize the possibility of free and unlimited energy as demonstrated by the following statement.

“Can Man control [the ] grandest, most awe inspiring of all processes in nature?...If he could do this, he would have powers almost unlimited and supernatural... He could cause planes to collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light. He could originate and develop life in all its infinite forms....[Such powers] would place him beside his creator, make him fulfill his ultimate destiny.”[ii]

 

There is no energy in matter other than that generated by perpetual motion of its elementary particles. How can mass and energy be equivalent? Just ask yourself, does it make sense to you?  Essentially, the equation says that there is tremendous potential energy in even small amounts of mass. (e.g. Look at plutonium and thermonuclear explosions). But to say that the amount of energy that could be released from any mass is always and everywhere equal to its mass multiplied by the speed of light squared is just simply absurd on its face. That's just saying that there's plenty of potential energy in every mass. But by using mathematical wizardry to pretend that that energy is easily measurable to a precise amount somehow involving the speed of light is an idea which may make sense only to an Einstein’s relativity fanatic.

 

There is pretty good discussion about E=MC2 on so many forums on internet.

 

One post from Soros has harsh remarks: “ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as "a rare genius," who drastically changed the field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as 'The Often-Repeated Lie=Truth,' he has been made an idol to young people, and his very name has become synonymous with genius.

 

THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS VERY DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept and moronic person, who could not even tie his own shoelaces; he contributed NOTHING ORIGINAL to the field of quantum mechanics, nor any other science. On the contrary -- he stole the ideas of others, and the Jew-controlled media made him a 'hero.'”[iii]

 

At manifested level, Mass is vehicle of energy, how a vehicle and one that which is carried by it can be exactly equivalent? According to Einstein, energy is only existent when it is possessed by mass. In absence of mass, to think that energy exists is meaningless. It is claimed that Einstein's equation represents absolute amount of energy that can be taken out from given mass. Absolute is that beyond which there is no limit. It is simply infinite, the limitless. Absolute therefore cannot be represented in quantitative form, it cannot be equated with something finite and tangible, it cannot be represented by figures or numbers or any equation.


According to Einstein equation  if  one gram of  uranium 235 is completely annihilated  into energy then  the energy that is  released is given by the equation  E= MC2. Deva Ramananda says:  “According to Einstein energy has mass and mass has energy. Conversion of one form of mass into another form of mass cannot be called annihilation. An absolute annihilation is conversion of mass into a state of emptiness, or energy containing no mass - zero energy. If it could be achieved it we would obtain infinite amount of energy which cannot be represented by any equation.”

 

 First think of what the term 'annihilation' exactly mean? Annihilation means total destruction and in a total destruction, if that could be possible, there must be no remaining of mass in any form but only the nothingness after the process is over. If something remains, it cannot be called a annihilation.  Here in this case when one gram of U is annihilated, millions of ergs of energy are obtained in the form of light, heat and other radiation. Now all these are simply different forms of energy containing mass again of their own. So where is the total destruction or annihilation?

So question naturally arises: Has the mass really been annihilated? Therefore, it actually means that contrary to total destruction of mass, one gram of mass of uranium has merely converted itself in heat, light and radiation consisting again X gram of mass, more or less, depending on  the binding energy. Now if we have techniques, ways and means to convert mass of heat, light and other radiation further into other more subtle forms of energy, again there would be energy release in the same proportion as given by Einstein’s equation. And the process of annihilating one gram of mass completely into energy will continue until no remains of mass would be left in any form of energy or in other words annihilation would eventually result into a pure nothingness. Is such annihilation really possible? If possible then we would simply say that through annihilation of 1 gram of uranium carried out over many successive steps, one would ultimately get infinite amount of energy which would be sum of energy released at every successive step until we obtain a state of nothingness in which no mass would be left over, because this is the definition of annihilation.


Is absolute annihilation of anything possible?  Can you visualize its end product? Can you imagine a form of energy containing no mass as  the end product of process of annihilation? Certainly not, because manifested energy always exist with mass and other quality. And beyond manifested energy is one absolute, unmanifested, infinite energy which we have termed zero energy. But in Einstein equation energy does not represent zero energy.

 

Einstein propounded that matter and energy are equivalent and can be transmuted through the equation E = MC2.   This accounts for the vast energy released by small amounts of matter in nuclear explosions, but it also means that staggering amounts of energy are required to create even the tiniest particles of matter. It is a false conception. If we relate mechanical energy to the electrons, photons or the light energy produced by the perpetual motion machine, Einstein’s equation holds no longer true.  Conversion of energy into matter requires staggering amounts of energy. But in the case of perpetual motion, we just need to connect a generator to Orffyreus machine and take the supply to a light bulb. We would be excited  to see that perpetual motion machine produce photons easily, no staggering amount of energy is required.

 

Zero energy is unpresentable and unknowable by tools and technique hitherto known to us. I shall reserve a separate detailed discussion of that in next section.

 

Validity of E= MC2 under Question?

 

In Special Theory Of Relativity, the  equation E= MC2 was criticized by Werner Heisenberg  one who pointed out that transmutation from energy into mass and vice versa suggested nothing unusual. Many experiments in his time showed how elementary particles could be created from kinetic energy and how such particles were annihilated to form  radiation.

 

Enormous release of energy of an atomic explosive has been taken as proof of the correctness of Einstein's equation. But it is not so, says Werner Heisenberg. According to him the energy of an atomic explosion comes directly from its source and is not derived from any transmutation of mass into energy. In his book ‘Physics and Philosophy’, Werner Heisenberg writes a critical historical remark on Einstein equation.


To quote him -

“It has some time been stated that enormous energies of atomic explosion are  due to the due to a direct transmutation of mass into energy, and that it is only on the basis of the theory of relativity that one has been able to predict these energies. This is, however, a misunderstanding the huge amount of energy available in the atomic nucleus was known ever since the experiments of Becqerrel, Curie and Rutherford on radioactive decay.  Any decaying body like a radium producers an amount of heat about a million times greater than the heat released in a chemical process in a similar amount of material. The source of energy in the fission process of uranium is just the same as that in the Alpha decay of Radium, namely, mainly the electrostatic repulsion of the two parts into which nucleus is separated therefore, the energy of an atomic explosive comes directly from this source and is not derived from the transmutation of mass  into energy. The number of elementary particles with finite rest mass does not decrease during the explosion.”

 

William R. Lyne states: “If the term "energy" is only a convenient abstraction, then it does not exist in physical form, and really describes the potential to perform work as a by-product of matter and electromagnetic radiation in perpetual motion, some of the force of which has been diverted through a path where it performs the desired work, as it goes on its merry way through the universe. Every change of form of either matter or radiation involves the "work" which induces the change, or the "work" which is induced by the change. Without work there is no change, but all work is ultimately the product of the universe in perpetual, self-sustaining motion, as a rule and not an exception.”[iv]

 

At the root of everything is perpetual motion. There is no energy in matter other than that generated by perpetual motion of its elementary particles that eventually manifests into a variety of forces, electromagnetic force, nuclear force, gravitational force etc.  Relation between mass and energy as stated by Einstein equation entirely loses its significance in perpetual motion. Whatever thing in perpetual motion, anything containing   mass once set in perpetual motion goes on creating indefinite amount of energy for indefinite period of time without altering mass in any way. In other words anything irrespective of the amount of mass can create indefinite about of energy by perpetual motion. So concept of equivalence of mass energy stands no longer true in perpetual motion. It looks a superfluous concept to a perpetual motionist.  A  perpetual motion machine can create indefinite amount of energy by  any given mass, be 1 kilo gram or  one ton, it makes no difference and moreover it creates energy without destroying or annihilating it, without changing anything in the environment or anything in the world - qualitatively or  quantitatively just by perpetual motion. It also shows that in physics every concept has a limited applicability. Concept of mass and energy as stated by Einstein’s equation is applicable to nuclear physics but it is rendered entirely useless when applied to perpetual motion.

 

There is no absolute proof for the equation. It is almost impossible to determine the quantities of various types of energy released in atomic explosion - heat, light, shock and sound waves. No method, no balance has yet been invented in which one side we can put U235 and other side various quantities of energy to see a balance after an explosion.

 

The following facts have been observed by a perpetual motionist who has enough experience in perpetual motion.

 

  • Matter is substratum onto which energy act.
  • Matter in perpetual motion creates force of gravity
  • Gravity must create matter.
  • At the root of everything is perpetual motion.

 

It would be at once fallacious to seek any quantitative equivalence between mass and energy, we must simply state that matter can create energy by perpetual motion. Also, matter can create gravity, and   Gravity can create indefinite amount of the matter. Like E =MC,2 we hardly need to invent any equation to establish any quantitative relationship between them. To sum up, perpetual motion applies to atoms and molecules as well as to the largest heavenly bodies, and to all matter in the universe in any phase of its existence from its creation to conservation and to its ultimate dissolution.  Perpetual motion seriously contradicts famous Einstein’s equation: E = MC2. Should we think that days of relativity are over?

 

 

Werner Heisenberg  says that theory of relativity as well as quantum theory have raised violent disputes among physicist and in both cases the scientific problems have finally become connected with political issues and some physicist have not hesitated to take the recourse  to political methods to carry their views through. Deva Ramananda remarks: “what if some powerful man like the president of America would have been a physicist? No matter how absurd his theory was, no real physicist would take any risk to criticize it,  Thanks God, that presidents and prime ministers of powerful countries are not physicists, if they were so, physics would have been worse than what it is   today.”





References:

 

[i] William R. Lyne, article  Summation of Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity An excerpt from: Occult Ether Physics

http://www.netowne.com/technology/important/

 

[ii] First written by Tesla on May 13, 1907, for the "Actors Fair Fund", text transcribed from an A.L.S. in the collections of the Bakken Library of Electricity in Life. The article later appeared in the "New York American", July 6, 1930, pg. 10

Cited by Toby Grotz in his article “The Appearance of Free Energy

Or Why Free Energy has not yet Happened, Comments, Possibilities and Socio Economic Implications”

Web site: http://www.yampa.com/wireless/

Mail: wireless@rmi.net

[iii] Soros, Posts: 2807 Incept: 2007-08-31MarketTicker Forums  http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=194665

[iv] William R. Lyne, article: Summation of Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity An excerpt from: Occult Ether Physics

http://www.netowne.com/technology/important/

 

 

Continuation Creation of Matter[1]

 

William F. Hamilton III is a well-known researcher of the many mysteries related to UFO. Especially, he is author of the popular mystery book “Cosmic Top Secret: America's Secret Ufo Program - New Evidence.[2]” He has also produced many thought provoking articles about anomalous phenomena. William F. Hamilton III in his article entitled “The Continuous Creation Process”[3] advocates role of Quasi Steady State Cosmology (QSSC), proposed by scientists Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbridge, and Jayant V. Narlikar, as a dominant theory of the Universe.   Like many other scientists, he considers it as a challenge to the prevailing theory of Big Bang that presumes the creation of the entire Universe from ex nihilo, that is, "creation out of nothing”

 

William F. Hamilton III states: “The QSSC proposes the continuous creation of matter in space rather than a single event and proposes to account for observations that seem to strain the limits of the Big Bang model.  Other proposed cosmologies suggest that our Universe is just one in a chain of reproducing Universes.  That the substance of the Universe seems to come from nowhere is a continuing mystery and is the edge where physics fumbles for answers.”[4] 

 

According to Narlikar- “The action principle tells us that matter creation is possible at a given spacetime point provided the ambient c-field satisfies the equality c=mp at that point. In normal circumstances, the background level of the c-field will be below this level. However, in the strong gravity obtaining in the neighbourhood of compact massive objects the value of the field can be locally raised. This leads to creation of matter along with the creation of negative c-field energy. The latter also has negative stresses which have the effect of blowing the spacetime outwards (as in an inflationary model) with the result that the created matter is thrown out in an explosion.  We shall refer to such pockets of creation as minibangs or mini-creation events.”[5]

 

William F. Hamilton III alludes to his email exchanges with physicist Robert Neil Boyd in which Neil Boyd noted an anomalous phenomena in a vacuum chamber. William F. Hamilton III writes: “Some recent correspondence hints that anomalous appearances and disappearances of matter have taken place without accountability.  If verified, this could put a whole new spin on the creation process and suggest that either matter or energy can be created or there is a bridge to some other physical dimension that permits the transfer of matter and energy into our Universe.  This also bumps up against the edge of another mystery, the mystery and role of consciousness in the Universe.”

 

Physicist Robert Neil Boyd noted an anomalous phenomenon in a vacuum chamber and described it in his e mail to William F. Hamilton III as follows.

 

 “That was our first thought, that the hydrogen was migrating through the walls of the containment chamber. But we were rapidly disabused of this notion by the sheer volume and persistence of the hydrogen density. Regardless of how many times we ionized the chamber and swept the chamber clean, we still had the same amount of hydrogen we started with. And we could count how much hydrogen we had removed from the chamber.  So it was obvious what was going on. Hydrogen was being created in the chamber. Our observations informed us that this process did not occur until a certain level of vacuum had been obtained. But from then on, it was hopeless to try to obtain our "perfect vacuum". So we gave up and worked with what we had to work with.

 

Perhaps it slips in some where your not able to detect, via the "pulling in" of multiple "sub atomic" substructures and it then "builds" on top of that which "collects" within the chamber.

 

May be. But it is appearing there in the vacuum chamber. I still can't account for the sheer volume of it by such logical excursions as the above mentioned possibility. For us, the process was similar to trying to empty out a flowing stream of water by using a spoon. We kept taking water out, and more kept appearing. It doesn't take too long under such circumstances to realize that the effort is futile.  Until you confirm that absolutely no such things are happening, we  can't assume it has formed/created via the "ether" within  the "chamber".

 

Your suggestion could be the answer. I don't know. All I know right now is we couldn't get rid of it as fast as it appeared in the chamber, when we reached a certain level of vacuum. Thus, I would not assume it has been created/formed from ether  directly within the chamber.

 

  A fair assumption. Is it testable?”

 

William Hamilton III raises the question: “How does a universal ether of subquantic particles give rise to a structure such as Hydrogen?  It is believed that virtual elementary particles are constantly created and destroyed in a continuous flux out of the vacuum, but Hydrogen is already an assembly of particles. Extreme vacuums exist in space where molecular Hydrogen also exists in abundance.”

 

William F. Hamilton III Answers to Queries:

 

 “Neil,

 

I have forwarded you statements on Hydrogen left in the containment vessel to a biological scientist who has discovered something amazing and he asked these questions which you may or may not be able to answer.  The link he gives is most interesting...

 

"Yes, the degree of vacuum is important and yes these results could be supportive (if not confirmatory) of a source, external to our Universe's explicate matter.  Yes, I am very interested in hearing more of it. Just being tantalized by the information you sent, I have a few questions/ideas to banter around.

 

 Q1. Was the hydrogen obtained "normal" diatomic or in an ionized state?   It sounds like diatomic gas but I assume nothing anymore.

 

Ans: Due to the methods we used, i.e., electrical discharges through the chamber, most of the hydrogen we got was in an initially ionized condition, later turning monatomic, then diatomic as it was collected, stored, and transported away from the fusion confinement volume.

 

Q2.  Under the assumption that it was diatomic hydrogen, and knowing the utter frustrations involved with being unable to eliminate intervening variables, I wonder....With the use of Faraday's Law we can induce a magnetic moment, thereby force- exposing any diatomic hydrogen (usually only weakly magnetic), external to the test vessel, to a magnetic field, draw it away, and at least substantially eliminate the influx variable  -- (where "it slips in some where you are not able

to detect") can be thrown out??

 

Ans: Yeah, we did that, in addition to ionizing whatever gases were in

the chamber. We referred to that process as "sweeping the chamber".

That was where the mystery started.

 

 Q3. In the spirit of work that was conducted and reflected at this site-

http://www.globaltechnoscan.com/31stOct6thNov01/vacuum_charted.htm

 

 Ans: Regarding this above article, it has been known for several years that Photons interact with each other. This Swedish experiment seems to produce some confirmation of Louis de Broglie's original hypothesis concerning the existence of a material subquantum media with which the waves interact, and depend on.  Einstein's early expression, that there was no reason to postulate an aether wave media in his physics paradigm, apparently discouraged subsequent researches in this direction, in spite of the fact that Einstein later recanted his stance on the non-existence of an aether, saying that we actually required one.

 

 Q4. Would there be a way to (or did the original researchers already conduct) an internal measurement of electromagnetic field changes or emissions (if any) over time as this phenomenon proceeded?"

 

Ans: Standard plasma diagnostics techniques are pretty accurate in these regards. But the instrumentation and other equipment required are most likely not something your average garage hobbyist will be able to afford.

 

Paul Marmet explains, “In papers published about a decade ago, the author and colleagues predicted the widespread presence of hydrogen in the molecular (H2) form in space (Marmet and Reber 1989; Marmet 1990a, b). Although hydrogen in the atomic form is easily detected through radioastronomy, the molecular form is difficult to detect. We showed that the presence of this missing mass would explain the anomalous rotational motion observed in galaxies, which is otherwise explained by exotic hypotheses, such as swarms of invisible brown or white dwarfs, or weird atomic particles called WIMPs or axions, and "quark nuggets."

 

We also showed that the presence of large amounts of the hard-to-detect molecular hydrogen in interstellar space could provide an alternative explanation to the Big Bang theory, by explaining the observed red shift as a result of the delayed propagation of light through space, caused by the collision of photons with interstellar matter. 

 

The more commonly held view explains the observed shift in frequency of the spectral lines detected from distant galaxies as arising from a Doppler shift (a shift  in the frequency of a wave caused by the relative motion of the emitting object and the observer). The downshift in the frequency, toward the red end of the spectrum, is taken to mean that distant galaxies are receding from us, thus implying an expanding Universe.

 

Our prediction, based on a critique of many of the commonly held assumptions of cosmology, was the result of a serious study of the molecular structure of hydrogen and of the astronomical observation of atomic hydrogen in space. However, the astrophysicists preferred to ignore H2, and instead to hypothesize the existence of weird objects.” 

 

Could H2 be assembling in space by the creation process?  This would throw a whole new light on our Universe. 

 

Marmet goes on to say, “Using the European Space Agency's Infrared Space Observatory, E. A. Valentijn and P. P. van der Werf recently detected huge amounts of molecular hydrogen (H2) in NGC 891, an edge-on galaxy 30 million light-years away in Andromeda (Valentijn and van der Werf 1999). In their report, published in September 1999, they state that their result "matches well, the mass required to solve the problem of the missing mass of spiral galaxies." They conclude that the galaxy contains 5 to 15 times more molecular than atomic hydrogen.[6] It is generally accepted that atomic hydrogen is by far the most abundant particle in the Universe. It is also well established that about 10 times as much molecular hydrogen as atomic hydrogen solves the missing mass problem. Finally, Valentijn adds: "The halo culture that has grown up around the dark matter problem might never have arisen if the ISO results had been known earlier."

 

Two months after the publication of this discovery, in a piece published in Nature, Nov. 25, 1999, P. Richter, et al. reported the discovery of the absorption lines of molecular hydrogen in a high-velocity cloud of the Milky Way halo (Richter et al. 1999).” 

 

William F. Hamilton III refers to another instance of continuous creation of matter. He writes: “In 1997 scientists created matter from light.  “A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has created particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time. The experiment was carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford. The team reported the work in the 1 September issue of Physical Review Letters.”[7]

 

William F. Hamilton III finally concludes: “The implications of a creation process are such that we might envision a future science where we make matter to order by replicating the Universe’s creation process. Since we know that consciousness plays a significant role in quantum processes, could it be possible for us to create matter out of the void using our minds alone?  The ancients believed that it was not matter that produced mind, but mind that produced matter.” 

 



References and Notes

[1] William Hamilton III,  Continuation Creation of Matter

Website: AstroSciences

[2] William F. Hamilton III,  “Cosmic Top Secret: America's Secret Ufo Program - New Evidence.Publisher: Inner Light - Global Communications (October 27, 2002) ISBN-10: 189206250X

ISBN-13: 978-1892062505

[3] William F. Hamilton III, THE CONTINUOUS CREATION PROCESS, http://www.astrosciences.info/creation.htm

 

 

[4] ibid

[5] Source quote Cited by William Hamilton III

 http://www.iisc.ernet.in/pramana/dec1999/c3.pdf