.
The Importance of The Inconvenience of Conversion of Mass To Energy
Einstein's Mass Energy Equivalence; Mass to Energy Is Motion
..Einstein thought that mass and energy are equivalent, this is considered to be proven by the atomic reactions, you have a given amount of mass and it always converts to the same amount of energy, this obviously is about energy conservation and energy being motion. In all we see or sense, the more energy of what we see around us the more motion it has also. If mass is just spinning energy, all is motion, and quantity of motion is conserved.
Mass-Energy/Gravitational Mass-Inertial Mass Equivalence
..I think it's not coincidental that Einstein believed in both the equivalence of mass and energy and the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. In my formulation mass is the same as gravitational mass and energy is the same as inertia, mass is heavy and gravity causes heaviness by attraction. The more energy a mass has the faster it goes in linear motion. So too with inertia of motion. I define inertia as inertia of motion and so this would be the more important of the two definitions of inertia (the second that it's the tendency to remain at rest) because inertia of rest is more like gravity and attractive force, the more gravity a mass has the more at rest it tends to be.
..Mass and energy are not equally convenient even with momentum conserved because the moon with more energy falls around the earth, with more mass. If gravity were relativistic, with mass and energy being equivalent there would be no explanation and all masses would fall at the same rate. The earth has a more privileged frame of rest about gravity than the moon, and the sun is more at rest than the earth. Relativity explains equivalence but not convenience.
...If it's true that mass and energy are not the same and relativity fails for gravitational or other attractive mass, Einstein's famous Emc2 could not be derived from relativity (relativity would hold no doubt for uniform motion at high speeds and so on because no mass is more at rest if they are in high speed motion) except by axiom and not by proof. I believe that Emc2 is just an equation of conversion of linear to angular motion and vice versa. It says how much mass converts to how much power, but not the source of the mass. As I say elsewhere (see my physics links especially the synopsis) I think the subatomic particles may spin faster than light, this would explain the tunneling experiments of Chin if relativity is not the limit of the top speed. If mass is spinning energy, and there's more mass than the relativistic speed of light with it's density being the electromagnetic field density, this would explain how it is there is more mass than just that of electric charges. I believe if there's more spin than relativity allows, Emc2 in it's general form F=ma is essentially not a relativistic equation (The c of the Emc2 is not about the speed of light, it's actually well known to be about just the units chosen to measure with, it could just as well been the speed of sound with the units to fit.).
Convenience Explains The Rate of Fall of the Moon, Not Relativity/Unifying The Rates of Fall With F=ma
If Emc2 is not relativistic, it measures motion of both gravity and subatomic spin and not convenience. Convenience has more worth than a 7-11, and would explain why heavenly bodies like the moon fall at other rates than uniform, while at the same time unifying Newton's law of F=ma (generally the same as Emc2) of horizontal motion with the zenith. Einstein thought the like rate of fall of two different masses was proof of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass; if one was heavy and the other was light as the above, while mass and energy would be equivalent and the motion was the same for both relative to the earth, this is disproven by the rate of fall of the moon around the earth. The rate of fall of the moon, the fall of different masses, and the greater speed of the given mass horizontally all can be unified (the rate of fall and the horizontal motion already are by F=ma) by the distinction of heavy (mass) and light (energy) by way of convenience. They're the same and thus disproof of relativity by the conservation of energy. If you apply the same force to lift the masses the lighter one will be lifted higher up, if you drop it it falls faster than the heavy mass, like the moon around the earth and the light mass in F=ma. Einstein assumed they fall at the same rate because they were lifted at the same height, and there's no necessity they would be, so he was assuming what he was trying to prove.
..Another use of convenience would be about the conversion of mass to energy, and energy to mass. If mass and energy are equivalent why aren't they convenient just as much? If they were both equivalent and convenient, it wouldn't take millions of years to convert the hydrogen of the sun to power, they would convert right away. You can see here why I think Einstein's ignoring the question of convenience is of more than historic value. All the motion is there in an atom, though no more, and it can be converted with any amount of efficiency up to 100% of the mass to energy. There may be more efficient ways to convert mass to energy up to the limit Relativity ignores and only if Relativity is untrue about mass being the same would this be so because convenience is much the same as Equivalence and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't be the same unless Relativity is not all the physics there are and Relativity is not absolute. Atomic reactions currently use just 5 % of the Uranium in fission.
..How do you speed up the energy of a reaction? One way is to use a catalyst, this is the premise of Meyer's "cold fusion". While many think he's not genuine, with my explanation of what relativity ignores vis a vis convenience, I think the general idea is sound even if Meyers is wrong. I was of the belief that Cold Fusion was improbable because if all the extra power were being liberated, all the stars would have major absorption lines that aren't found. And about what the catalyst would be made of, it couldn't be leptons mesons or baryons because they are all produced in emission of the particles in the stars and so cold fusion would be found and the emission absorption lines astronomers see would be rarer. But this is just a simple catalyst, more complex combinations might achieve it. While cold fusion of some type may thus not be found in more common physics, neither was the wheel in millions of years of evolution and it was achieved. If cold fusion is found or any of the common change in the efficiency of mass energy we see around us, in my belief it's a disproof of Relativity. Another way a catalyst may be of worth is in the atomic motor, this uses a proton wire held in N and S pole alternation with a beam that zips past the edge of the spinning protons and changes the wavelength doing useful work so the atomic power would be converted to electric. If the beam was of a more complex stream of particles of the right type, the efficiency would perhaps be higher.
.
..
..While it may seem if mass were converted to power at near 100% efficiency by such machines and equivalence could become convenience, relativity wouldn't necessarily be proven more by the extremes. Just as in a thriving democracy with most of the taxes paid by a strong middle class, the smaller changes may be of most import. Not efficiency itself, but changes in efficiency may be the main disproof because a mass in uniform motion without friction is 100% efficient. No energy is either gained or lost, only with acceleration or deceleration, e.g. gravity like the above would general wave physics be augmented by my own explanation and the experiments I propose for proof on my Physics Synopses page. The possibility of the faster than light motion of both the gravity waves of Einstein and the more dense mass of the heavy subatomic particles having faster than light angular motion might explain their heavy mass.
..
..One of Einstein's first proofs of Special Relativity was that when you take a wire and a magnet and move them to make electricity in the wire, it didn't matter if the wire or the magnet was at rest, only the relative motion of the wire and magnet was needed. But electricity is charge at rest, elect "rest" ity and magnetism and electromagnetism is charge in motion, "electro motive". Though Einstein was well versed in philosophy, he may have only seen the more democratic realm of physics where all observers have a say and not the other truth that there are centralized unifying physics in life too. I believe in democracy in life, in physics I'm a realist, we need the boss to ask to pay the employees more if it's closing time so they will have more time for gossip! If relativity is true Einstein may have said it's completely true. In other words there would be a perfect symmetry between mass and energy of the relative motion of the magnet and wire, i.e. the wire and the magnet would be exactly the same, so electricity and magnetism wouldn't be defined by two definitions of charge at rest and charge in motion.
The Importance of The Inconvenience of Conversion of Mass To Energy
Einstein's Mass Energy Equivalence; Mass to Energy Is Motion
..Einstein thought that mass and energy are equivalent, this is considered to be proven by the atomic reactions, you have a given amount of mass and it always converts to the same amount of energy, this obviously is about energy conservation and energy being motion. In all we see or sense, the more energy of what we see around us the more motion it has also. If mass is just spinning energy, all is motion, and quantity of motion is conserved.
Mass-Energy/Gravitational Mass-Inertial Mass Equivalence
..I think it's not coincidental that Einstein believed in both the equivalence of mass and energy and the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. In my formulation mass is the same as gravitational mass and energy is the same as inertia, mass is heavy and gravity causes heaviness by attraction. The more energy a mass has the faster it goes in linear motion. So too with inertia of motion. I define inertia as inertia of motion and so this would be the more important of the two definitions of inertia (the second that it's the tendency to remain at rest) because inertia of rest is more like gravity and attractive force, the more gravity a mass has the more at rest it tends to be.
..Mass and energy are not equally convenient even with momentum conserved because the moon with more energy falls around the earth, with more mass. If gravity were relativistic, with mass and energy being equivalent there would be no explanation and all masses would fall at the same rate. The earth has a more privileged frame of rest about gravity than the moon, and the sun is more at rest than the earth. Relativity explains equivalence but not convenience.
...If it's true that mass and energy are not the same and relativity fails for gravitational or other attractive mass, Einstein's famous Emc2 could not be derived from relativity (relativity would hold no doubt for uniform motion at high speeds and so on because no mass is more at rest if they are in high speed motion) except by axiom and not by proof. I believe that Emc2 is just an equation of conversion of linear to angular motion and vice versa. It says how much mass converts to how much power, but not the source of the mass. As I say elsewhere (see my physics links especially the synopsis) I think the subatomic particles may spin faster than light, this would explain the tunneling experiments of Chin if relativity is not the limit of the top speed. If mass is spinning energy, and there's more mass than the relativistic speed of light with it's density being the electromagnetic field density, this would explain how it is there is more mass than just that of electric charges. I believe if there's more spin than relativity allows, Emc2 in it's general form F=ma is essentially not a relativistic equation (The c of the Emc2 is not about the speed of light, it's actually well known to be about just the units chosen to measure with, it could just as well been the speed of sound with the units to fit.).
Convenience Explains The Rate of Fall of the Moon, Not Relativity/Unifying The Rates of Fall With F=ma
If Emc2 is not relativistic, it measures motion of both gravity and subatomic spin and not convenience. Convenience has more worth than a 7-11, and would explain why heavenly bodies like the moon fall at other rates than uniform, while at the same time unifying Newton's law of F=ma (generally the same as Emc2) of horizontal motion with the zenith. Einstein thought the like rate of fall of two different masses was proof of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass; if one was heavy and the other was light as the above, while mass and energy would be equivalent and the motion was the same for both relative to the earth, this is disproven by the rate of fall of the moon around the earth. The rate of fall of the moon, the fall of different masses, and the greater speed of the given mass horizontally all can be unified (the rate of fall and the horizontal motion already are by F=ma) by the distinction of heavy (mass) and light (energy) by way of convenience. They're the same and thus disproof of relativity by the conservation of energy. If you apply the same force to lift the masses the lighter one will be lifted higher up, if you drop it it falls faster than the heavy mass, like the moon around the earth and the light mass in F=ma. Einstein assumed they fall at the same rate because they were lifted at the same height, and there's no necessity they would be, so he was assuming what he was trying to prove.
..Another use of convenience would be about the conversion of mass to energy, and energy to mass. If mass and energy are equivalent why aren't they convenient just as much? If they were both equivalent and convenient, it wouldn't take millions of years to convert the hydrogen of the sun to power, they would convert right away. You can see here why I think Einstein's ignoring the question of convenience is of more than historic value. All the motion is there in an atom, though no more, and it can be converted with any amount of efficiency up to 100% of the mass to energy. There may be more efficient ways to convert mass to energy up to the limit Relativity ignores and only if Relativity is untrue about mass being the same would this be so because convenience is much the same as Equivalence and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't be the same unless Relativity is not all the physics there are and Relativity is not absolute. Atomic reactions currently use just 5 % of the Uranium in fission.
..How do you speed up the energy of a reaction? One way is to use a catalyst, this is the premise of Meyer's "cold fusion". While many think he's not genuine, with my explanation of what relativity ignores vis a vis convenience, I think the general idea is sound even if Meyers is wrong. I was of the belief that Cold Fusion was improbable because if all the extra power were being liberated, all the stars would have major absorption lines that aren't found. And about what the catalyst would be made of, it couldn't be leptons mesons or baryons because they are all produced in emission of the particles in the stars and so cold fusion would be found and the emission absorption lines astronomers see would be rarer. But this is just a simple catalyst, more complex combinations might achieve it. While cold fusion of some type may thus not be found in more common physics, neither was the wheel in millions of years of evolution and it was achieved. If cold fusion is found or any of the common change in the efficiency of mass energy we see around us, in my belief it's a disproof of Relativity. Another way a catalyst may be of worth is in the atomic motor, this uses a proton wire held in N and S pole alternation with a beam that zips past the edge of the spinning protons and changes the wavelength doing useful work so the atomic power would be converted to electric. If the beam was of a more complex stream of particles of the right type, the efficiency would perhaps be higher.
.
..
..While it may seem if mass were converted to power at near 100% efficiency by such machines and equivalence could become convenience, relativity wouldn't necessarily be proven more by the extremes. Just as in a thriving democracy with most of the taxes paid by a strong middle class, the smaller changes may be of most import. Not efficiency itself, but changes in efficiency may be the main disproof because a mass in uniform motion without friction is 100% efficient. No energy is either gained or lost, only with acceleration or deceleration, e.g. gravity like the above would general wave physics be augmented by my own explanation and the experiments I propose for proof on my Physics Synopses page. The possibility of the faster than light motion of both the gravity waves of Einstein and the more dense mass of the heavy subatomic particles having faster than light angular motion might explain their heavy mass.
..
..One of Einstein's first proofs of Special Relativity was that when you take a wire and a magnet and move them to make electricity in the wire, it didn't matter if the wire or the magnet was at rest, only the relative motion of the wire and magnet was needed. But electricity is charge at rest, elect "rest" ity and magnetism and electromagnetism is charge in motion, "electro motive". Though Einstein was well versed in philosophy, he may have only seen the more democratic realm of physics where all observers have a say and not the other truth that there are centralized unifying physics in life too. I believe in democracy in life, in physics I'm a realist, we need the boss to ask to pay the employees more if it's closing time so they will have more time for gossip! If relativity is true Einstein may have said it's completely true. In other words there would be a perfect symmetry between mass and energy of the relative motion of the magnet and wire, i.e. the wire and the magnet would be exactly the same, so electricity and magnetism wouldn't be defined by two definitions of charge at rest and charge in motion.
..
..Another problem with Einstein's necessary perfect mass energy symmetry is about gravity's distinction between mass and energy. Gravity attracts mass more than energy. If relativity were completely true we might expect it to have no source as Einstein believed in General Relativity. No source is no attraction, a completely flat space because all points of the space are equivalent, with the forces like in Einstein's seemingly too overused use of the balance of uniform motion. If there were absolute relativity it would be absolute and infinite, so we would expect there must be something important in physics that would balance it, and that may be gravity and other forces of attraction and acceleration. If we moved the Earth away from the Moon by relativity we might expect the moon to go on spinning around where the Earth was with nothing there.
..
..I believe that in order to conserve energy and unify the fields by the conservation laws, gravity is the foundation field from which all the other fields are derived, and the difference between the electric and magnetic fields would be derived from gravity's basic asymmetry about mass and energy so these possible "disproofs" of relativity may be true in a deeper sense. This would also explain why there's more matter than antimatter, if it, like all the asymmetries of nature in balance between what changes and stays the same, is derived from the basic implosion and then reradiation the field with the higher energy charges like electric charges when that energy is reached.
..
..Would this be just an extension of Relativity? It's been said "No one will ever disprove Einstein, they will only add more to his belief", just as Einstein didn't disprove Newton and Newton didn't disprove Galileo, Einstein believed relativity holds for all of space and time and all there is in the Cosmos. Any experiments that are exceptions to relativity (e.g. the above about efficiency) seem to be evidence of disproofs of it at least in the other forces not controlled by the electromagnetic speed of light. You may say what about subatomic physics, there has not been one disproof of relativity seen. Basically I think the disproofs are in the high and low notes of physics, just as Maxwell's laws have been found to break down at higher energy relativity may fail here too, inside the heavy particles and other quanta and also the lower energy physics of the mass energy asymmetry. These aren't just exceptions to relativity, they would be deep disproofs in the true sense because all the other fields and relativity would be derived from gravity and not vice versa. The heavy particles and electron and other quanta may spin at faster than light inside where there are the fractional charges that may shear off and lighten up to travel faster than light as in the tunneling experiments. They would be faster than light because they are lighter than the electromagnetic speed of light and the electric charges of relativity, by F=ma for constant force if the mass of the charge is smaller the acceleration, a is higher. The source of the relativistic mass gain being the quanta's resistance to faster than light wouldn't be as influential. Even so only with the strong force is enough force added in to overcome the resistance, so at lower energy in the middle realm of electromagnetism relativity would be in power. Gravity waves being also much lighter than light by a more natural cause would also go much much faster than light. So these would be definite disproofs if disproof is extension of relativity, while a pizza is not anti geometry and not the foundation of geometry either, both might be considered in evidence! Einstein said, of one of his ideas goes they all go. If my formulation is correct a definite proof or disproof would be by the experiment with the Torsion Balance Machine (a way to make a viable gravity wave telescope, or to measure the speed of the gravity waves and the light wave a half hour later from the sun with atomic clocks on a ship that far from the massive solar events, the most powerful events in the solar system) and more edits of Chin's tunneling experiments.
....
For more please see
.
.
E.g. the "Gravity Wave Telescope" and "Gravity, Speed of", and "Relativity" Headings
.
.
