# Einstein's Formula: Mass Confusion

(c9 = c7 c2 the Basis of E = mc2)

Charles William Johnson

Einstein's formula supposedly derives from the following equation in one of his manuscripts from 1905.

From this equation, supposedly Einstein's formula was deduced as follows:

E = mc2

For around 105 years, physicists have been toying with this formula, praising the discovery and meaning of the square of the speed of light in a vacuum. It is affirmed that c-square holds the key to the equivalency and conversion between mass and energy. Einstein has been revered since that time as the father of the theory of relativity, as well as the one who discovered the importance of the factor of c2

Often, the numerical expressions for Planck energy [ fractal 1.9561 ] and Planck mass [fractal 2.17644] are substituted for the terms of E and m respectively in the formula.

E = mc2
1.9561 = 2.17644 x 8.987551787
1.9651 = 1.9561

Generally, that relation of equivalency is cited as representing the confirmation of the formula and the conversion of mass|energy or, energy|mass.

With those numbers, one is convinced that the formula works and that the importance of the c-square factor has been confirmed. Scientists often state that they do not know why the c-square factor works, but that it works. Besides not knowing how Einstein happened upon the importance of c-square, many do not know how Planck derived the numerical value for mass [2.17644] or, how some of the other Planck units were derived.

The upper speed limit for a light photon is 299792458 meters/second. The square of that number produces a numerical value that does not exist in any form of matter-energy. The c-square actually represents a number that corresponds to a massless event: a light photon. One could also critique the formula based upon this unreal number. But, even this counter-reasoning is superfluous. The rejection of Einstein's formula is more elementary than that.

Since c-square is an invalid concept in my view, I decided to look at the powers of c as contained in some of the symbolic formulae of the Planck constants. These formulae offer not only c-square, but c3 , c4 , c5 , c6 and c7. Imagine, if using c-square appears to produce unreal numbers, then imagine how even more unreal are numerical values to these powers.

Now, a significant point is to note that the numerical expression for c7 is 2.176431087! There is the numerical value for the CODATA Planck mass value of 2.17644. However, the c7. offers greater exactness, because c itself is deemed exact by the CODATA.

Continuing with the search powers of c, much to my surprise, c9 is 1.956078711 ---the value that Planck energy is suggesting, 1.9561, only rounded off. One may now conclude that in order to prove the significance of c-square, all Einstein had to do is substitute the terms E and m for these values: E = 1.956078711; m = 2.176431087. Now, it is possible to visualize the original equation that may have served as the basis for Einstein's formula from the viewpoint of simple math:

c9 = c7 c2
1.956078711 = 2.176431087 x 8.987551787

In these terms, one is viewing the equivalency of unreal numbers corresponding to the powers of the upper limit of the speed of a massless light photon.

The CODATA Planck energy and the generalized concept for Planck mass are evidently derived then from these unreal numerical values pertaining to a massless light photon.

It becomes obvious, that to allege that the CODATA fractal value 2.17644 that pertains to the concept of Planck mass is erroneous. Likewise, to allege that the general fractal value 1.9561 pertains to the concept of Planck energy is erroneous.

Without a doubt, the values for Planck energy, 1.9561 (c9) and Planck mass, 2.17644 (c7) by the CODATA have been chosen, not because they supposedly represent a theoretical interpretation of energy|mass, but because of their mathematical relevancy to the square of the speed of light in a vacuum (c2). One may go further and challenge the CODATA to state that there is actually no theoretical reasoning behind the choices of 2.7644 mass and 1.9561 as implied energy in the CODATA.

From this perspective, the significance of c2 in Einstein's formula is not the main point as has always been emphasized in physics. That is not really a discovery of the magic bullet between mass and energy. The equation actually emphasizes the significance of c9 the final equivalency of the terms. C-square is merely a minor player in the equation, since the multiplication of terms means the addition of powers:

c9 = c7 c2
c9 = c9

Further, when the unreal numbers of the powers of the speed of a massless photon in a vacuum, as in the relation 1.956078711 | 2.176431087 | 8.987551787, are examined, then it is equally obvious that these numbers do not represent the supposed conversion of energy|mass or mass|energy.

By all accounts, the terms of the equation c9 = c7 c2 has been replaced by the terms of Einstein's formula E = mc2. But, the numerical values derived from the former equation have been retained and transferred to the latter formula by Einstein, through the definition of Planck energy [1.9561] and Planck mass [2.17644], together with c-square [8.987551787].

The creation of Einstein's formula by utilizing the numbers from the c9 = c7 c2 equation based on powers of c is misleading at best. The confusion appears in not listing the 1.9561+ value in the CODATA of the Planck constants, and in not recognizing the origin of these two values [2.17644; 1.9561] as of powers of c.

A third slight of hand is the idea that these numerical values are unique, reflecting constants such as Planck energy and Planck mass. The next level of confusion is to propose the idea that the equation of the selected numerical values proves the equivalency and conversion of mass|energy or energy|mass.

Once the computational behavior of Einstein's formula is laid bare as in this essay, it then becomes impossible to continue to use the formula and its corresponding numerical values for Planck mass and Planck energy. Essentially, the formula and the mass|energy constant values are irrelevant and without a theoretical basis.

Given this fact, then one must review the history of physics for the past 105 years in order to re-evaluate the works that have revolved around the cited numerical values in this essay. One must seek anew an explanation for the equivalency and conversion of mass|energy based on theoretical posits and computational procedures other than those suggested by Einstein's formula.

Fortunately, the well-known formula that has come to be called "Einstein's formula" has nothing to do with his theses about spacetime, time dilation, length contradiction or the qualitative behavior of matter|energy ---aside from its quantitative equivalency and conversion. And therefore, the demise of Einstein's formula will not affect Einstein's theory of relativity. Or, will it?