Einstein’s equation

2
It is very surprising not to see any constant in the Einstein’s legendary equation E=mc . Here
E is energy in Joules, m is mass in kg and c is velocity of light is m/s. I very strongly believe
that the correct equation should be E=kmc2. Here k is a constant without unit.
Einstein’s equation looks very impressive to a layman or a person who knows basics of
kinematics. But the equations of kinetic energy E k = ½ m v2 are not praised as much as
Einstein’s equation. Let’s relook at Einstein’s equation. If on the day on which 1 kg was defined
as a certain mass ( and an object of that mass was kept in France’s some place) has they kept
an object with double or some other mass, would this equation have been E=1/2mc2? Similarly,
if the 1m was defined in some other way (say half the current length) , would the equation have
have been E=4mc2? Let us accept that there is relation between mass and energy, but relation
between mass and energy of an object in SI units with a constant as velocity of light –something
else ( even this is fine) in SI unit (this is too much) as constant is questionable.

The nuclear experiments are difficult to measure. Above that, when atoms with around 100
protons , 100 neutrons and 100 electrons react, only 3-4 electrons (1000 times lighter bodies)
are said to be converted to mass. This is like measuring loss of 3-4 units in 300,000 units. So
there is no way of confirming this equation. That is why all the yield stuff is mostly disputed.

On more interesting side, one should calculate the mass loss rate of the Sun (kg/day) as the
Sun is radiating (energy, hence mass) stuff madly. If that number is a serious number, it would
affect the gravitational pull of sun on earth in long-term (it will reduce the gravitational pull). The
reduction is gravitational pull should result in earth going away from Sun and getting colder and
then cold enough to make it a non-living mars. If sun is very old (say some million years) and
even hotter earlier means it had more mass, more gravitational pull and the planets were closer
to it than now. It also means that all the planets beyond earth once had livable atmosphere (at
least temperature) when they were at suitable distance from sun.

Coming back to Einstein’s equation, why only the last statement is taught school? Why the
derivation is not written in Indian Schools that are otherwise so notorious about asking damn
boring “theory” (that what students call derivations) in examinations. I very strongly believe there
something fundamentally wrong with this equation (which 12th class students can discuss). You
need not subscribe to my view.
 Einstein’s equation
2
It is very surprising not to see any constant in the Einstein’s legendary equation E=mc . Here
E is energy in Joules, m is mass in kg and c is velocity of light is m/s. I very strongly believe
that the correct equation should be E=kmc2. Here k is a constant without unit.
Einstein’s equation looks very impressive to a layman or a person who knows basics of
kinematics. But the equations of kinetic energy E k = ½ m v2 are not praised as much as
Einstein’s equation. Let’s relook at Einstein’s equation. If on the day on which 1 kg was defined
as a certain mass ( and an object of that mass was kept in France’s some place) has they kept
an object with double or some other mass, would this equation have been E=1/2mc2? Similarly,
if the 1m was defined in some other way (say half the current length) , would the equation have
have been E=4mc2? Let us accept that there is relation between mass and energy, but relation
between mass and energy of an object in SI units with a constant as velocity of light –something
else ( even this is fine) in SI unit (this is too much) as constant is questionable.

The nuclear experiments are difficult to measure. Above that, when atoms with around 100
protons , 100 neutrons and 100 electrons react, only 3-4 electrons (1000 times lighter bodies)
are said to be converted to mass. This is like measuring loss of 3-4 units in 300,000 units. So
there is no way of confirming this equation. That is why all the yield stuff is mostly disputed.

On more interesting side, one should calculate the mass loss rate of the Sun (kg/day) as the
Sun is radiating (energy, hence mass) stuff madly. If that number is a serious number, it would
affect the gravitational pull of sun on earth in long-term (it will reduce the gravitational pull). The
reduction is gravitational pull should result in earth going away from Sun and getting colder and
then cold enough to make it a non-living mars. If sun is very old (say some million years) and
even hotter earlier means it had more mass, more gravitational pull and the planets were closer
to it than now. It also means that all the planets beyond earth once had livable atmosphere (at
least temperature) when they were at suitable distance from sun.

Coming back to Einstein’s equation, why only the last statement is taught school? Why the
derivation is not written in Indian Schools that are otherwise so notorious about asking damn
boring “theory” (that what students call derivations) in examinations. I very strongly believe there
something fundamentally wrong with this equation (which 12th class students can discuss). You
need not subscribe to my view.