Natural transformation of mass energy to photonic energy:
● Highlights ● Reviews ● Comments

Supplementary material relating to the published article “Mass-to-Energy Conversion, the Astrophysical Mechanism”

Conrad Ranzan
2019

What is meant by "Mass-to-Energy Conversion" in the astrophysical context?

The "Conversion" refers to the natural transformation of mass energy to photonic energy. It is an "Astrophysical Mechanism" because it is associated with end-stage gravitational collapse and subsequent collisions of mass particles with the collapsed body.

Contents:

1. Highlights
2. Willful Blindness? Lack of Knowledge? Professional Fakery?
3. Science Advances journal rejects major advance ...
4. Review by International Journal of High Energy Physics
5. Review by Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology
6. Press Release (2019 May): Simple extension of Einstein’s relativity theory radically changes black-hole physics

Highlights of the Research Article

One Sentence Summary: Using only basic physics and relativistic motion, using them in a way that exploits the distinction between apparent and innate levels of reality, the article follows a logical sequence in explaining how mass converts to energy, how that conversion leads to an explanation of the mechanism driving astrophysical jets, and further, how the mechanism provides the resolution to the long-standing paradox of stellar black holes.

Main theme: The procedure involves relativistic motion and mechanical energy equations. These are combined to form a simple energy triangle, which is then manipulated to explain mass-to-energy conversion. It’s as simple as that. With a child’s play manipulation of triangles the standard and new interpretations are clarified and compared.

Exploited is the enormously important distinction between apparent and intrinsic aspects: including motion, momentum, kinetic energy, and total energy.

Recalled is Sir James Jeans prescient insight from the 1920’s into how the process of mass conversion (to energy) is merely that of unbottling imprisoned wave-energy and setting it free to travel through space.

Implemented is a three-part strategy to accomplished TOTAL mass-to-energy conversion:

1. Make the motion relative to the universal space medium. This allows the introduction of the concept of intrinsic energy (total, kinetic, and mass energies) as counterpart to the apparent version.

2. Recognize that a particle’s mass property diminishes with increase in speed. This means introducing the concept of intrinsic mass (which varies with intrinsic speed).

3. Impose a change in the particle’s gravitational environment. Instead of applying an electromagnetic accelerating force/energy in order to alter the particle’s total energy, there will simply be an environmental change.

Explored is the remarkable consequence of this mass-to-energy conversion and the associated limitless energy-amplification process. When combined, the two processes lead to a compelling explanation of the mechanism driving astrophysical jets.

Followed is a conceptual trail that starts with “unorthodox” relativity and “bottled” energy, takes us along a natural course through to limitless power, and finally leads to stellar astrophysical jets. All in all, another great success for DSSU theory.

Willful Blindness? Lack of Knowledge? Professional Fakery?

When I submitted the Mass-to-Energy Conversion article to the Editorial Office of the Canadian Journal of Physics, I made it clear that “The ideas being presented are innovative, provocative, timely, and should be of interest to the broad physics community.” I emphasized, “This paper is definitely original.”

The chief editor of Canadian Journal of Physics, Dr. Michael Steinitz, rejected the work saying (2019 January 3) “it is not suitable for the scope that we have set out for the journal” … that it was not of sufficiently “high interest for the widest audience of physicists.”

Now, isn’t that odd? Apparently, Michael Steinitz believes readers of the Journal would not be interested in the newly-uncovered mechanism of the natural transformation of mass energy to photonic energy.

What?! Physicists not interested in a new mode of mass-to energy conversion?! … Let’s be clear, we are talking here about the most powerful energy producing mechanism in the universe. Physicists (even lay observers) are familiar with mass-to-energy conversion through mass-and-antimass annihilation; but the astrophysical mechanism being presented is an entirely alien concept to them. The academic experts have nothing comparable.

So what’s going on? … Why reject something that obviously would hold great interest for the widest possible audience?

I can see only three possibilities here:

1. Dr. Michael Steinitz did not bother to read the paper. This falls under the category of Willful Blindness.

2. Dr. Steinitz read the paper but did not understand it. This falls under the category of Lack of Knowledge. (Highly unlikely. I say this because there is nothing in the article of a technical nature that requires a knowledge of anything beyond first-year university physics.)

3. The editor(s) of the Canadian Journal of Physics read the paper and understood it only too well. They recognized its game-changing implications. The grounds for rejection were entirely bogus. This falls under the category of Fakery.

Allow me to expand on the three possible motivators.

Willful Blindness. (I actually experienced this with a different research paper. The reviewer in that instance was honest enough to state that he did not like the conclusion and therefore refused to do a proper review. No reason was given; and the article’s reasoned presentation and logical arguments were ignored; and were probably not even considered. I learned about this from the assistant editor.) No, I do not think this applies to Dr. Steinitz. If he had the slightest tingling of curiosity and confronted with a title making such bold claims, he would surely have read the article.

Lack of Knowledge. Assuming Dr. Steinitz read the manuscript it would be extraordinarily unlikely that he failed to understand its content. True enough, there has been over the years a radical decline in educational standards. (The disparagement of biological evolution is a disturbing example. And most disturbing is how the world’s biggest problem, overpopulation, is ignored; while educators are endlessly promulgating the comparatively trivial issue of climate change.) It is inconceivable that any editor of a physics journal does not understand basic physics.

The paper is based on three fundamental concepts: First, the existence of a universal space medium (there is no physicist who openly disagrees on this). Second, the electron is a confined photon; and extending the concept, all the other fundamental mass particles are nothing more than unique configurations of confined photons. Third, the mass of a particle or object diminishes with an increase in speed (that is, mass is reduced as aether-referenced motion increases). Importantly, these essential features DO NOT violate the laws of physics.

Nevertheless, say the Editor read and understood everything, but found that it just did not fit into his indoctrinatory picture of reality and simply could not bring himself to accept its validity. … It may be that Dr. Steinitz has been thoroughly indoctrinated and is quite unable to assess true and factual information. This kind of impairment is a far more serious threat to innovative thought than most people realize. Back in the 1980s, the Russian official Yuri Bezmenov warned of a growing menace creeping into the education system and our society. “A person who is indoctrinated is unable to assess true information, the facts tell nothing to him … even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures … even if I take him, by force, to the Soviet Union and show him a concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it.” (From a 1984 interview with Russian KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov.)

Fakery. Dr. Steinitz read the manuscript and fully understood what it’s all about. He recognized that here is a new development that could potentially disturb the consensus view of physics. And as a lowly gatekeeper of the “officially approved” established view, his duty was, and is, to block heretical sources and guard against any dissenting ideas. He had no choice but to reject the manuscript. Or to put it more bluntly, lacking the backbone to act independently and valuing orthodoxy over truth, he had no choice but to refuse publication. But, for the sake of decorum, what was to be the justification for the refusal?

The rejection decision would have been so easy, if only the paper had been flawed, if only there had been some fatal deficiency or error in the work. Then there would have been no need for the fake excuse that the readership of the Canadian Journal of Physics would be little interested.

Like so many others who have tried, he failed to meaningfully discredit the arguments. He failed in spite of the fact that the theory is being clearly stated, purposely made easy to understand, and uses only basic physics. And keep in mind, the motivation is surely there —the motivation to find someone else’s blunder. Next to creating a successful theory, making a great discovery, there is nothing a scientist enjoys more than to destroy someone else’s theory or discovery.

Yes, Dr. Steinitz recognized the threat. His rejection letter closed with the statement, “I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.” But he failed to inform me that my “author account” was made inaccessible —blocked to any further submissions.

In an email to Dr. Steinitz, I pointed out how extraordinarily odd it is that he would claim this matter to be of insufficient interest to the readers of the Canadian Journal of Physics. I asked him “Do you seriously believe that your target audience, mostly physicists and others with an earnest interest in the physical sciences, would not value this new insight!? Should they not be made aware of this new knowledge?”

No reply.

Maybe he knows something about this topic that I’m not aware of. So, to cover this contingency, I had included a further question: “Are you, Dr. Michael Steinitz, aware of any mechanism involving the total 100-percent conversion of mass to energy NOT involving particle-antiparticle annihilation? Aware of any such process or mechanism? Small scale? Large scale?

Silence. No response to my questions. I really would have appreciated a response from the Editor. … It would have been most useful for understanding the bizarre nature of this rejection.

It certainly looks like “Mass-to-Energy Conversion, the Astrophysical Mechanism” was a victim of professional fakery. Some spineless indoctrinated gatekeeper for an elitist science journal carried out his duty of guarding against new ideas that may contaminating the official line —the acceptable “editorial scope.”

–C. Ranzan (2019-5)

"Science Advances" journal rejects major advance:
rejects "Mass-to-Energy Conversion"

Date: 2019-01-08 11:08:16 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: scienceadvanceseditorial@aaas.org | To: DSSUresearch4@aol.com
Title: Mass-to-Energy Conversion, the Astrophysical Mechanism

Dear Dr. Ranzan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Science Advances. Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during our initial assessment, we have decided not to send your paper for further review.

Science Advances aims to publish significant, innovative, original research that advances the frontiers of science and extends the high standards of excellence established by the Science family of journals. We receive many very interesting submissions, more than we can possibly send out for in-depth review or publish. Our decision regarding your manuscript is therefore not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your work, but rather of our constraints and goals in publishing high impact results across a broad and balanced array of disciplines.

Thank you for your submission to and interest in Science Advances.

Best Regards,

Warren Warren, PhD | Deputy Editor | On behalf of the Science Advances Editorial Team

My comments: So, this highly significant, truly innovative, original research that advances the frontiers of science by solving several of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics does not —according to the guardians of orthodoxy the Science Advances Editorial Team— meet the criteria of Science Advances journal. And what are their criteria for assessing publication worthiness? … “Science Advances aims to publish significant, innovative, original research that advances the frontiers of science.”

Such hypocrisy! They did not even perform a proper review. … One wonders: During their “initial assessment,” did they find that the Mechanism was too significant? too innovative? too original?

A powerful new mechanism for the Natural transformation of mass energy to photonic energy (supported by a simple extension of Einstein’s theory) has been uncovered but, again, an elitist mainstream journal is not interested!

Amazing but not surprising.

Almost two decades ago, Dr. Halton Arp, who at that time was professor of astrophysics at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics near Munich, summarized the deplorable situation in science generally and in astrophysics particularly as follows:

“The most harmful aspect of what science has become is the deliberate attempt to hide evidence that contradicts the current paradigm. […] In a quite human fashion, however, they [the peers] act in an exactly opposite manner —judging that ‘if an observation [or finding] disagrees with what we know to be correct, then it must be wrong.’ The tradition of ‘peer review’ of articles published in professional journals has degenerated into almost total censorship.” *

–C. R. (2019-2)

* Ref. Halton Arp, “What has science come to?” Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.14, No.3, pp.447-454 (2000)

Review by International Journal of High Energy Physics

The initial review from International Journal of High Energy Physics was simply this:

“In general, the quality of the paper is not good. Theoretical depth is insufficient, and a lot of reasoning is not reasonable. This article is not acceptable.” –per review of Manuscript #1241023

My response:

To: Editorial Staff (IJHEP), Science Publishing Group (revision01@sciencepg.com) (J.G.)

The reviewer states “a lot of reasoning is not reasonable” but does not give a single example!! I have carefully gone through the paper and everything is presented logically, argued rationally, and always supported with references. Please ask the reviewer to provide instances so that I may correct the alleged flaws in the reasoning.

The mathematical reasoning follows that used in the textbook (Halliday, D., Resnick, R., and Walker, J. Fundamentals of Physics Extended, 5^th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1997). This is a highly respected and authoritative textbook.

I have had other physicists go over the Paper and they reported neither errors in the physics nor flaws in the logic.

As stated in the opening section of the Paper: … “The purpose of the presentation is three fold: The first is to present the mathematical underpinning of the mass-to-energy conversion. The second is to detail the physical aspects of the conversion mechanism. The third is to examine the role that mass conversion plays in powering a major astrophysical phenomenon.” I stated the purpose very clearly and provided 20 pages of detailed reasoned arguments to achieve the stated purpose (all three of its parts).

If the Reviewer found a factual error or a flaw in the logic, the Reviewer should at least be specific as to what those are.

Regards,

Conrad Ranzan (2019-2-6)

-----------------------------------------------

Subsequent reviews from International Journal of High Energy Physics:

“1. The manuscript is of no scientific quality and cannot be recommended for publication.”

“2. I have read the manuscript titled Mass-to-Energy Conversion, the Astrophysical Mechanism. The topic is interesting and took my attention. However, the manuscript structure is not enough to be published as research article/research paper, for example there is no introduction part, literature review, etc. Besides, the language is not appropriate for an academic research article, as there are many sentences starting with ″and″ and the correct usage of MeV is not ″Million electron volts (Mev)″. MeV stands for mega-electron volts in physics. In the current form, it could be classified as ″letter to editor″ not a research paper.”

[The Reviewers’ comments are merely unsubstantiated generalizations and utterly trivial issues. –CR]

My response:

To: Editorial Staff (IJHEP), Science Publishing Group (revision01@sciencepg.com) (J.G.)

ITEM 1. Regarding the paper’s scientific quality: The theory underlying the described Mechanism was recently published (see Reference #21). The physicists who assessed the scientific quality considered the work “scholarly and erudite”.

ITEM 2. There is no introduction literature review. The reason there is no literature review on the Mechanism is because it is a NEW discovery! No one has ever discovered any mechanism involving the total 100-percent conversion of mass to energy and NOT involving particle-antiparticle annihilation. This is entirely new and revolutionary. Physicists are simply unaware of any such large-scale process or mechanism.

Regarding “Million” versus “Mega-”: “Million” and “Mega-” mean exactly the same thing! They both mean 1,000,000.

So from the perspective that matters most, this is clearly good news. The Reviewers (both previous and present Reviewers) reported NO flaws in the logic and NO errors in the physics. The Editor is fortunate to have here a high quality revolutionary paper rationally argued and mathematically supported and consistent with the laws of physics.

Please inform the Editor that I grant the copyeditor permission to change “Million” to “Mega-” and to remove any objectionable instances of “And” being used as sentence openers; as well as any other minor changes in preparation for publishing.

Thank you. Sincerely,

Conrad (2019-2-19)

-------------------------------------------

REJECTED. No reason given. (Rejection notice received 2019-03-11.)

Review by Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology

“In this paper the author gives a new interpretation of the famous Mass-to-Energy Conversion and discusses interesting astrophysical consequences of such a new interpretation.

[Recommend the paper be] published in JHEPGC because it seems that the manuscript could … positively contribute to a better understanding of the mechanism driving astrophysical jets and to the debate on the existence or non-existence of black hole horizons and singularities.” –Referee Report (2019-4-3)

ACCEPTED for publication 2019-4-9.

Press Release (2019 May):
Simple extension of Einstein’s relativity theory radically changes black-hole physics

The latest DSSU research extends Einstein’s relativity theory in a way that makes possible the 100-percent conversion of mass to energy WITHOUT involving matter and antimatter annihilation.

Moreover, the easy-to-understand new (and more inclusive) interpretation of mass and motion resolves paradoxes associated with conventional black holes.

Essentially, this article† shows: How to use basic relativity equations to explain mass-to-energy conversion. It provides the mathematical support for the recently discovered astrophysical mechanism that powers Terminal-star jets (popularly called “black hole” jets). More specifically, it details the theoretical foundation of the total conversion of mass to energy without invoking matter-antimatter annihilation.

The proof: If you like mathematical arguments, a basic algebra proof is presented in step-by-step detail. If averse to mathematical reasoning, no problem; a straightforward graphic/diagrammatic sequence works just as well. Either way the logic is foolproof; the conclusions compelling. What this means is that we now have the theoretical underpinnings for the recently discovered mechanisms detailed in two previous articles:

■ Natural Mechanism for the Generation and Emission of Extreme Energy Particles, Physics Essays Vol.31, No.3, pp.358-376 (2018). [Reprint]

■ Nature’s Supreme Mechanism for Energy Extraction from Nonmaterial Aether, Infinite Energy Vol.25, Issue#144 (2019 March/April). [Link to Issue#144]

A precedent for DSSU theory. For the first time, it is being published in a journal dedicated to high-energy physics. The periodical is the Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology. The article title is “Mass-to-Energy Conversion, the Astrophysical Mechanism.”†

Highlights of the article detailing the new interpretation:

■ The presentation uses relativistic motion and mechanical energy equations, combined to form a simple energy triangle; and then the triangle is manipulated to explain mass-to-energy conversion. It’s as simple as that. With a child’s play manipulation of triangles the standard and new interpretations are clarified and compared.

■ Exploited is the enormously important distinction between apparent and intrinsic aspects: including motion, momentum, kinetic energy, and total energy.

■ Recalled is Sir James Jeans prescient insight from the 1920’s into how the process of mass conversion (to energy) is merely that of “unbottling” imprisoned wave-energy and setting it free to travel through space.

■ Implemented is a three-part strategy to accomplished TOTAL mass-to-energy conversion:

1. Make the motion relative to the universal space medium. This allows the introduction of the concept of intrinsic energy (total, kinetic, and mass energies) as counterpart to the apparent version.
2. Recognize that a particle’s mass property diminishes with increase in speed. This means introducing the concept of intrinsic mass (which varies with intrinsic speed).
3. Impose a change in the particle’s gravitational environment. Instead of applying an electromagnetic accelerating force/energy in order to alter the particle’s total energy, there is simply an environmental change.

■ Explored is the remarkable consequence of this mass-to-energy conversion and the associated limitless energy-amplification process. When combined, the two processes lead to a compelling explanation of the mechanism driving astrophysical jets.

■ Followed is a conceptual trail that starts with “unorthodox” relativity and “bottled” energy, takes the reader along a natural course through to limitless power, and finally leads to stellar astrophysical jets. All in all, another great success for DSSU theory.

And so, the revolution in cosmology continues …

–C. Ranzan (2019-4)

† C. Ranzan, Mass-to-Energy Conversion, the Astrophysical Mechanism, Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology Vol.5, No.2, pp.520-551 (2019). [Reprint]

2019-6

Top of page Back to DSSU Home Page

C. Ranzan

Email:
DSSUresearch@CellularUniverse.org

Site updated: 24-02-13

Natural transformation of mass energy to photonic energy: ● Highlights ● Reviews ● Comments