## Science Today The Theoretical Interpretation of Spacetime/motion

PRESS RELEASE - PRESS RELEASE - PRESS RELEASE
New Publication - Earth/matriX Editions
For immediate release: New Orleans, Louisiana, December 11, 2010

#### Title: Einstein's Formula Stands for Powers of Speed of Light, Not the Conversion of Mass|Energy: (c9 = c7 c2 the Basis of E = mc2)

Author: Charles William Johnson

Physicists have praised Einstein's formula, E = mc2 as the discovery of the square of the speed of light in a vacuum, c2 and its mediation between mass (m) and energy (e). In fact, the formula is said to hold the key to the conversion between mass and energy. Charles William Johnson, in his most recent book, Einstein's Formula: Mass Confusion [Earth/matriX Editions], shows that Einstein's formula has its origin in the imaginary formula c9 = c7 c2, and does not represent the conversion of mass|energy.

To illustrate the confusion about mass|energy inherent in Einstein's formula Charles W. Johnson walks the reader through the formula's computational steps. The numerical expressions for Planck energy, 1.9561 and Planck mass, 2.17644 are commonly substituted for the terms of E and m respectively in Einstein's formula: 1.9561 = 2.17644 times 8.987551787, thus, 1.9651 = 1.9561. This apparent relation of equivalency is often cited as the confirmation of Einstein's formula for the conversion of mass|energy.

However, Johnson reminds us that c is the upper speed limit for a light photon: 299792458 meters/second, and that matter|energy cannot travel faster than that velocity. Thus, he contends that the square of that number produces an imaginary number without any existence in spacetime. Johnson also points out that Planck constants are based not only c-square, but more imaginatively on c3 , c4 , c5 , c6 and c7. If c-square produces an unreal number, then Johnson asks that we imagine how even more unreal are these higher powers.

Johnson states that the key to understanding just how unreal is Einstein's formula may be seen with regard to the numerical expressions for c7 which is 2.176431087 [Planck mass] and, c9 which is 1.956078711 [Planck energy]. Thus, Johnson argues that all Einstein had to do was substitute the terms E and m for similar values. With that, one now knows the original equation that may have served as the basis for Einstein's formula:

c9 = c7 c2
1.956078711 = 2.176431087 x 8.987551787

This equation renders an equivalency among imaginary numbers corresponding to powers of the upper limit of the speed of a massless light photon.

Without a doubt, Johnson contends, that the values for Planck energy, 1.9561 (c9) and Planck mass, 2.17644 (c7) published by physicists 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). There is then no theoretical reasoning behind the constants of 2.7644 Planck mass and 1.9561 as Planck implied energy, often cited in the science literature.

Johnson further affirms that the concept of c2 in Einstein's formula is not the alleged magic bullet between mass and energy. Einstein's equation actually derives c9 as the final equivalency of the terms.

c9 = c7 c2
c9 = c9

These multiples of c represent imaginary numbers in that they do not reflect actual matter|energy events in spacetime. Thus, Johnson concludes that Einstein's formula E = mc2, appears to have been derived from the equation c9 = c7 c2 . By using Planck values Einstein's formula is actually a modified version of the c9 = c7 c2 equation. The confusion regarding mass|energy conversion obtains since the root origins of the Planck values, 2.17644 and 1.9561, as powers of c, have not been disclosed . This has caused many scientists for over 100 years to propose the erroneous idea that these numerical values are unique constants of Planck energy and Planck mass. Thus they have proposed an equally erroneous idea that Einstein's equation is proof of the equivalency and conversion of mass|energy. It is not; it merely proves powers of c.

Johnson holds that it is impossible to continue to use Einstein's formula and the numerical values for Planck mass and Planck energy since they are irrelevant and without a theoretical basis. That part of physics based upon Einstein's formula and the cited Planck constant values must be re-examined, he states. Fortunately, the well-known formula that has come to be called "Einstein's formula" has nothing to do with Albert Einstein's theoretical theses about spacetime, time dilation, or length contraction. And therefore, the demise of Einstein's formula will not affect Einstein's theory of relativity. Or will it?, asks Johnson at the end of his analysis.

Contact:
Earth/matriX Editions - P.O. Box 231126, New Orleans, Louisiana 70183-1126, USA.
www.earthmatrix.com - johnson@earthmatrix.com