Carl Fischbach

For some reason my posts wouldn't go through so I'm testing this post here before I

write a page on E=mc^2.

One thing I would like to add is the beam deflection equations are in a

electric field not a magnetic since you are doing work to the object.

So your saying that if I am at a rest studying 1kg mass at rest and I increase the velocity of the object to a velocity .866% of c, and the object, which I will put a charge on for the sake argument, is meseared ,at a constant velocity of .866 of c ,to have a mass of 2 kg's,when passed through a magnetic field,then your saying that the 1 kg increase in mass of the object does not require me to do the work to the 1 kg mass of 1kg*c^2 to gain a mass of 1 kg.

Iv'e done some calculations and found a potential error in E=mc^2.

Lets take an object with the mass of 1 kg and accelerate it to .866% of

c where gamma equals 2, the total energy or mass of this object would now be 2 kg in accordance with relativity.

Now assuming that the 1kg mass is moving in a striaght line at .866% of c in the +x direction,at a constant velocity, a constant force in the +y direction

is applied to the 1 kg moving mass.

According to E=mc^2 any small change in the velocity in any direction

of the 1 kg mass moving at .866% of c will appear like a mass of 8 kg's to a force acting on the moving mass. Note this force is acting on the the moving mass from a stationary position relative to the moving mass. Also the 1kg moving mass acting like a 8kg mass, is derived from the acceleration rate of the 1 kg mass acted on by a constant force, measured from a stationary position.

Iv'e looked up 2 different beam deflection equations at relativistic velocities and rearranged the equations and in both equations, Iv'e found that if the

equations are to work the 1kg mass, moving at .866% of c, would have to

appear like a mass of 2 kg's to a stationary deflecting force, not the 8 kg's that is required by E=mc^2. This would mean that E=mc^2 is wrong, or the beam deflection equations are wrong and could also bring into question the

valitity of shrinkage of space at relativistic velocities. Could someone

double check this work.