A direct test of E=mc2, Einstein Year 2005

C

Chan Rasjid

Verified User
I am starting a new thread as my other thread "E=mc² is invalid" has been hijacked by a poster "serenity" which I suspect is a random generator bot with the purpose of spamming the thread.

Nature. 2005 Dec 22;438(7071):1096-7.
World Year of Physics: a direct test of E=mc2.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16371997

Abstract:
One of the most striking predictions of Einstein's special theory of relativity is also perhaps the best known formula in all of science: E=mc2. If this equation were found to be even slightly incorrect, the impact would be enormous — given the degree to which special relativity is woven into the theoretical fabric of modern physics and into everyday applications such as global positioning systems. Here we test this mass–energy relationship directly by combining very accurate measurements of atomic-mass difference, Δm, and of γ-ray wavelengths to determine E, the nuclear binding energy, for isotopes of silicon and sulphur. Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc2/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10−7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.
Click to expand...

Author information:
Hans G. Börner,
Simon Rainville,
Department of Physics, Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT–Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 02139, Massachusetts, USA
Edmund G. Myers,
Department of Chemistry, The Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory
John M. Brown,
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Maynard S. Dewey, Ernest G. Kessler Jr & Richard D. Deslattes
Institut Laue-Langevin, Grenoble, France
Michael Jentschel & Paolo Mutti

wiki:
The year 2005 was named the World Year of Physics, also known as Einstein Year, in recognition of the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein's "Miracle Year", in which he published four landmark papers, and the subsequent advances in the field of physics.
Click to expand...

Many "detractors" here would be delighted that this peer reviewed article from a highly prestigious journal, "Nature", shows that the formula E=mc² was finally proven experimentally to be accurate to a great precision, to about 1 part in 10⁷ - an almost absolute confirmation. Furthermore, the physicists were from the best of institutions.

It is unfortunate that I have to belatedly deflate this "Einstein_year_2005" celebration despite it being sanctioned by the United Nations - truth is unforgiving. In fact, the advancement in true physics has suffered a delay of a hundred years due to Einstein's relativity theory promoted since 1905. I have shown that the so called "a direct test of E=mc2" was a glaring mistake which should not have happened with the supposedly best of minds from the most prestigious of world class institutions of physics.

What the author did in the experimental setup was never an "experimental test of E=mc2". For whatever reasons, the author misrepresented the very experiment which they themselves designed. To put it in a nutshell, the experiment was just another experiment to deduce the mass of the neutron based on the formula E=mc². Currently, all measurements of nuclide masses - including protons and electrons - are done through mass spectrometry (the highly touted Penning trap is one such). But the physicists have a great headache trying to figure out the mass of the neutron as mass spectrometry works only for charged particles and ions. Since the discovery of the neutron by James Chadwick in 1932, the mass of the neutron was deduced experimentally based on assuming E=mc2 to be correct and exact; but E=mc² is just a hypothesis and never experimentally verified.

All along since 1935, physicists have been using an experimentally deduced figure for the mass of neutron - not an experimentally measured figure. From the NIST table, the current recommended value is 1.0086654 amu. This value has been accepted based on experimentally measuring what is known as binding energy from a nuclear interaction involving neutron emission or neutron capture. The standard nuclear reaction has always been that involving the deuteron, the nucleus of heavy hydrogen deuterium. In this 2005 direct test of E=mc2, they used different nuclear interactions involving isotopes of silicon and sulphur - this is the only difference. The experiment was still just a new setup to deduced the mass of the neutron, but from silicon and sulphur instead of the usual deuteron. And the new experiment relied on the assumption E=mc².

However can you "verify" the formula E=mc² with an experiment which need to assume E=mc² to be correct in the first place! Only the Good Lord knows!

What this Nature article shows is that the new deduced mass of the neutron and the accepted value agrees to a very high degree of accuracy, to 1 part in 10⁷ - not that E=mc² has been experimentally verified to be accurate to 1 part in 10⁷. This is one example from the so-called peer review system.

Chan Rasjid.
Singapore.

I have 20 other papers uploaded to my website.

"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc² Fails"; E=mc² is wrong.
"Mass Energy Equivalence (E=mc²) Not Experimentally Verified"
http://www.emc2fails.com
 
Want to debunk Quantum Physics/Mechanics/Theories same as e=mc[SUP]2[/SUP]? Really really simple and it is directly related to rule of 72 compounding balances between ever expanding details and never duplicated results timed apart so far.

The thing is, it brings back to center focus each lifetime originates at conception, lasts occupying space until decomposed as a singularity of the whole species lasting inception to extinction now. There is no such physical point in time tomoorow arrives beyond human expectations due to a rotating planet and single filing each results compared to all other results occuring simultaneously present as the universe perpetual balancing limited existence regardless what is occupying space so far.

This brings about why humans created intellectual timing to govern behavior of lifetimes spaced apart from now on. Really is so simple the good intentioons that got lost thousands of years ago. Past ends now and future developing from now on makes outcomes never a specific known with so many variables possible so humans developed vocabularies to regions homo sapiens were developing geographically at the same time without the mobility to go global so paths of least resistance works instinctively and intellectually.

The constant for all this is still within the opening part of my post that doesn't change regardless which generations are present from now on. Time doesn't change what never stays the same results twice, perpetual motion is a natural energy that cannot be duplicated again due to threshold limitations of objects universally spaced apart now.

insert thermol dynamics here. Add Newton's universal constants, e=mc[SUP]2[SUP] just makes things relative by 2 sides comparisons on a one track trajectory of thought. linear and literal regardless letters of an alphabet or intergers to mathematics. It keeps things limited to debating 3 dimensional concepts, not addressing 8 hemisphered results of inorganic and organic results universally displaced as kinetically suspended in perpetual balancing apart reproductions compounding so far.

Rational ideology separates instinctively navigating as a singularity of reproduction and forms a collective mental state with common interpretations of being alive at the same time. i.e. eternally conflicting interpretations by those picking sides of for or against each others ideas of what life can become when everyone agrees to disagree now is eternity.

The missing link ^^^^^^^ in history only recording what people chose to believe possible. The real problem with humanity being human characters working theaters of doubt ancestrally build nations of people never wanting to understand life is self contained to spaced apart now as specifically taking place individually present.

When everyone complains everything is corrupted but its everyone else's done by all sides together, nothing good lasts more than 5 generations before great great grandchildren want a different ideology than the last 4 combined. Now that happens overlapping each generation since intellect categorizes the species into type cast people.

How and why humanity is exactly what is taking place now. Nobody wants honesty about life in plain sight. Pride comes before the downfall looking back at how one's own ancestry fooled themselves historically.

Gee why is forgiveness considered divinity? Why does civility last and civic pride destroys? all actual reasons are simply ^^^^^in my post. Choices deliver end results so far. Life is a constant second chance to change minds. Cannot happen once extinction is completed. Now is eternity like it or not, each reproduction is a product of perpetual balancing half life reproductions adding the next generation supplying those demanding society give them the right to ignore now is eternity. Core of the evil humanity does for homo sapien paths of whatifism governing life now.


I cannot stop it, so I stand timed apart against it continuing passively resisting what passive aggression does psychologically. Imagine what the metaphor of hell after death promises the individual not complying with reality, I experience it constantly within living surrounded by those never accepting life in plain sight.

My post here stands on its own whether I ever existed or not. I understand my sole value as proportionately alive. Nothing more and not anything less than equally reproduced so far.
 
Last edited:
Chan Rasjid said:
I am starting a new thread as my other thread "E=mc² is invalid" has been hijacked by a poster "serenity" which I suspect is a random generator bot with the purpose of spamming the thread.

Nature. 2005 Dec 22;438(7071):1096-7.
World Year of Physics: a direct test of E=mc2.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16371997

Abstract:


Author information:
Hans G. Börner,
Simon Rainville,
Department of Physics, Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT–Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 02139, Massachusetts, USA
Edmund G. Myers,
Department of Chemistry, The Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory
John M. Brown,
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Maynard S. Dewey, Ernest G. Kessler Jr & Richard D. Deslattes
Institut Laue-Langevin, Grenoble, France
Michael Jentschel & Paolo Mutti

wiki:


Many "detractors" here would be delighted that this peer reviewed article from a highly prestigious journal, "Nature", shows that the formula E=mc² was finally proven experimentally to be accurate to a great precision, to about 1 part in 10⁷ - an almost absolute confirmation. Furthermore, the physicists were from the best of institutions.

It is unfortunate that I have to belatedly deflate this "Einstein_year_2005" celebration despite it being sanctioned by the United Nations - truth is unforgiving. In fact, the advancement in true physics has suffered a delay of a hundred years due to Einstein's relativity theory promoted since 1905. I have shown that the so called "a direct test of E=mc2" was a glaring mistake which should not have happened with the supposedly best of minds from the most prestigious of world class institutions of physics.

What the author did in the experimental setup was never an "experimental test of E=mc2". For whatever reasons, the author misrepresented the very experiment which they themselves designed. To put it in a nutshell, the experiment was just another experiment to deduce the mass of the neutron based on the formula E=mc². Currently, all measurements of nuclide masses - including protons and electrons - are done through mass spectrometry (the highly touted Penning trap is one such). But the physicists have a great headache trying to figure out the mass of the neutron as mass spectrometry works only for charged particles and ions. Since the discovery of the neutron by James Chadwick in 1932, the mass of the neutron was deduced experimentally based on assuming E=mc2 to be correct and exact; but E=mc² is just a hypothesis and never experimentally verified.

All along since 1935, physicists have been using an experimentally deduced figure for the mass of neutron - not an experimentally measured figure. From the NIST table, the current recommended value is 1.0086654 amu. This value has been accepted based on experimentally measuring what is known as binding energy from a nuclear interaction involving neutron emission or neutron capture. The standard nuclear reaction has always been that involving the deuteron, the nucleus of heavy hydrogen deuterium. In this 2005 direct test of E=mc2, they used different nuclear interactions involving isotopes of silicon and sulphur - this is the only difference. The experiment was still just a new setup to deduced the mass of the neutron, but from silicon and sulphur instead of the usual deuteron. And the new experiment relied on the assumption E=mc².

However can you "verify" the formula E=mc² with an experiment which need to assume E=mc² to be correct in the first place! Only the Good Lord knows!

What this Nature article shows is that the new deduced mass of the neutron and the accepted value agrees to a very high degree of accuracy, to 1 part in 10⁷ - not that E=mc² has been experimentally verified to be accurate to 1 part in 10⁷. This is one example from the so-called peer review system.

Chan Rasjid.
Singapore.

I have 20 other papers uploaded to my website.

"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc² Fails"; E=mc² is wrong.
"Mass Energy Equivalence (E=mc²) Not Experimentally Verified"
http://www.emc2fails.com
Click to expand...

Getting anonymous posters on an obscure message board to accept your scientific musings does not cut the mustard.

You need to convince experts in the field of the validity of your claims.

So give a link to an article in a reputable peer reviewed physics journal which publishes your scientific experiments and mathematical models.
 
Cypress said:
Getting anonymous posters on an obscure message board to accept your scientific musings does not cut the mustard.

You need to convince experts in the field of the validity of your claims.

So give a link to an article in a reputable peer reviewed physics journal which publishes your scientific experiments and mathematical models.
Click to expand...
It does not matter this is not a physics forum. Having a physics B.Sc. degree is quite common. The problem posting here is posters like "serenity" that have the aim to derail discussion trying to question the validity of Einstein's relativity. Do you not notice "serenity" just joined in April? - the same moment I started the thread "E=mc² is invalid"?

Asking me to have a paper published in any/most peer review journal is like scaling the Burj Khalifa on foot! But publishing in "X-rated" physics peer review journal is just like breathing - just pay the journal fee.

Chan Rasjid.
 
Chan Rasjid said:
It does not matter this is not a physics forum. Having a physics B.Sc. degree is quite common. The problem posting here is posters like "serenity" that have the aim to derail discussion trying to question the validity of Einstein's relativity. Do you not notice "serenity" just joined in April? - the same moment I started the thread "E=mc² is invalid"?

Asking me to have a paper published in any/most peer review journal is like scaling the Burj Khalifa on foot! But publishing in "X-rated" physics peer review journal is just like breathing - just pay the journal fee.

Chan Rasjid.
Click to expand...

So the bottom line is you have never published any of your musings in a reputable peer reviewed physics journal.

Until you do, your opinion carries no weight.

If you were actually confident of your musings, you would allow experts in the field to review it.

What is stopping you from submitting your claims to a reputable physics journal??
 
Cypress said:
So the bottom line is you have never published any of your musings in a reputable peer reviewed physics journal.

Until you do, your opinion carries no weight.

If you were actually confident of your musings, you would allow experts in the field to review it.

What is stopping you from submitting your claims to a reputable physics journal??
Click to expand...

You don't know how the real world works. Any social activity within human society involves politics - meaning prejudices and bias from certain groups. The peer review system has its drawbacks. It closes itself and prevents anyone trying to question the accepted paradigms.

If we could check all recent published papers of physics, say in the last ten years, it is not surprising you cannot find one - a single paper - that attempt to refute Einstein's relativity theory (Please don't reply with "because no sane physicist would question the validity of the relativity theory")

Of course my "musings" carry no weight; only those with "political" influence carry any weight.

Posting my findings in the internet is the only recourse I have to publicize my work.

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.
 
Chan Rasjid said:
You don't know how the real world works. Any social activity within human society involves politics - meaning prejudices and bias from certain groups. The peer review system has its drawbacks. It closes itself and prevents anyone trying to question the accepted paradigms.

If we could check all recent published papers of physics, say in the last ten years, it is not surprising you cannot find one - a single paper - that attempt to refute Einstein's relativity theory (Please don't reply with "because no sane physicist would question the validity of the relativity theory")

Of course my "musings" carry no weight; only those with "political" influence carry any weight.

Posting my findings in the internet is the only recourse I have to publicize my work.

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.
Click to expand...

If you were so damn clever then you'd have worked out how to use the threadban feature and stop people like serenity posting in your thread!
 
Havana Moon said:
If you were so damn clever then you'd have worked out how to use the threadban feature and stop people like serenity posting in your thread!
Click to expand...
"threadban" feature! As you must have known, I have been to many other online forums, but have never come across one that allows the starter of a thread to disallow certain members from joining in the thread. There may be an "ignore" list, but one is only not seeing the certain posts.

Logic says it is unlikely a thread starter has such power close to that of a moderator. Maybe you mean "reporting" on a poster like "serenity".

[edit] Eureka! I just discovered the "report" button and have just reported on "serenity".

Chan Rasjid.
 
Last edited:
Chan Rasjid said:
"threadban" feature! As you must have known, I have been to many other online forums, but have never come across one that allows the starter of a thread to disallow certain members from joining in the thread. There may be an "ignore" list, but one is only not seeing the certain posts.

Logic says it is unlikely a thread starter has such power close to that of a moderator. Maybe you mean "reporting" on a poster like "serenity".

[edit] Eureka! I just discovered the "report" button and have just reported on "serenity".

Chan Rasjid.
Click to expand...

God you're an idiot, there is a specific thread ban feature written by the board owner to stop arseholes. Reporting on posters is pointless unless they've broken a rule, it is not designed for posters you dislike.
 
Grajonca said:
God you're an idiot, there is a specific thread ban feature written by the board owner to stop arseholes. Reporting on posters is pointless unless they've broken a rule, it is not designed for posters you dislike.
Click to expand...

When you mentioned "threadban", I finally got an idea. I was thinking I got a very good idea - an "enemy" feature. Every member may declare a certain number of "enemies", say 10; these may be changed at any time and our enemies are all banned from our threads. It's really a brilliant idea. I've never seen banning posters except by moderators.

I have to admit that, indeed, I am an "idiot". I checked again all over, profile, settings, etc.. and have not seen anything about banning members by thread starters. It could be my IQ is about 80.

I don't know why "serenity" is now banned in this thread.

Chan Rasjid.
 
China to Build World's Largest Supercollider
By CHEN Na | Oct 23, 2018
http://english.cas.cn/newsroom/archive/news_archive/nu2018/201810/t20181023_199981.shtml

Particle physics as practiced by the CERN physicists is fictitious. The foundation of particle physics is Einstein's special relativity which does not have a real unit for energy. In the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN, protons have been propelled to near the speed of light purportedly giving it an energy as high as 6.5 TeV (10¹² eV). But energy in particle physics is never ever determined through measurements; they only use theoretical estimates based on E=mc². So everything about their reported energies are fictitious. The only valid formula for kinetic energy of a proton is still the old KE = ½mv² - nothing else works. So the true energy of the protons within the LHC is limited to: ½mc² which is 470 MeV, the reported figure of 6.5 TeV is out by a factor of 15,000!

Unfortunately for taxpayers, the government funding for scientific research is still on the advice of the scientific community. If the Chinese government were to approve of building this next-generation supercollider, it would be another first for China - the world's biggest white-elephant supercollider. Very likely, Wang Yifang would be disappointed as China seems to have not reported any progress on approving the project first proposed in 2012.

Chan Rasjid
Singapore.

"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc² Fails"; E=mc² is wrong.
http://www.emc2fails.com
 
Newtonian mechanics is founded on just the three laws of motion. Strictly, these are not laws as in a verifiable law, but are axioms of Newton's mechanics. Axioms are strict hypotheses that must be adhered to. Although the second law of motion was originally presented as: "the force on a body is proportional to the change in motion", it is actually a strict axiom - a definition of what is force. In our modern terminology, it is a definition of force : force = mass (invariant) x acceleration (the well known f=ma).

F=ma gives the SI unit of force newton; kg.m/s².

The modern relativistic mechanics is based on Einstein's special relativity. The foundation of this new mechanics is the second postulate of SR : "The speed of light is a constant (invariant) for all (moving) inertial observers".

Speed in Newtonian mechanics is defined as : distance traversed / time duration. By definition, this speed must be non-invariant, not invariant as in the second postulate of SR. When a car approaches you at 100 kmph and your speed is 100 kmph, then the speed of the approaching car is 200 kmph - it varies with the speed of the observer; this is by definition of the concept of speed in Newtonian mechanics.

By the "stroke-of-a-pen", Einstein proposed a new mechanics that contradicts a definition (of speed) that is fundamental to Newtonian mechanics (readers could read my paper "Trivial Inconsistency Of Special Relativity's Light Postulate"). Of course, this new relativistic mechanics has nothing whatsoever to do with Newtonian mechanics. For two theories, even if there is just one fundamental definitions that differ, then this "one" difference would put the two theories worlds apart - that's the method of the scientific principle.

So what Einstein did with his 1905 paper was to propose a new "world of physical reality" that has nothing to do at all with the old world of "Newtonian physical reality". So whatever conclusions the new physicists found with their "100 experiments" interpreted according to this new mechanics is all correct, but only in the physical reality of special relativity; it has nothing at all to do with the physical reality of the Newtonian world. The "100 experiments" has no relevance as far as classical mechanics is concerned.

Until today, classical mechanics has never once been observed to fail since 1687 when Newton's "Principia" was first published. But the physics academia like to promote the notion the Newtonian mechanics has been disproved by special relativity and that Newtonian mechanics is only "approximately" good for small speeds of objects.

Special relativity and Newtonian mechanics are two independent theory, the one has nothing at all to do with the other. You are free to work in either world, but our world can only accommodate only one "world of physical reality".

"Trivial Inconsistency Of Special Relativity's Light Postulate"
http://www.emc2fails.com

Chan Rasjid.
Singapore.
 
This thread is already 2 years old. I have more to add.

E=mc² is invalid; E fictitious.

"The foundation to good science is honesty".

One may assume that it is easy to be honest. Many a person would claim himself as being honest when engaging in debates, but the reality may be otherwise. Most of the time, the inner self of the "common" man is under the influences acquired in the past and colors and control his outlook in life. It is very difficult for one to break away from acquired habitual prejudices. The reason as to why the supposedly "most famous equation" in physics, E=mc², is invalid is simple to understand provided one can be honest.

The definition of force in classical mechanics comes from Newton's second law:
F = ma - (I);
From this definition of force, the kinetic energy of a particle is the usual:
K.E. = ½ m v² - (II); the SI unit of energy is the Joule.

The relativistic mechanics based on Einstein's special relativity redefines force as:
F=d/dt(m₀v/√(1-v²/c²)) --- (III)
With (III) as the new force and using the work energy theorem (work = force x distance) , a new formula for kinetic energy is obtained:
K.E. = (γ - 1)m₀c² --- (IV)
where γ=1/√(1-v²/c²);

What is the unit of energy in (IV) above? Mainstream physics just assumes the the SI unit of energy is still the classical joule! How could it be. Two different definitions of force (I) and (III) giving rise to energy with the same unit joule! I'll like someone to explain the logic behind how the unit of energy in relativistic mechanics is also the SI joule.

The reality is (III) cannot be used in any manner as a definition of force in any system of units. The force in (III) could only be a pure real number having no real unit as a force - it is fictitious. If force is fictitious, then energy (force x distance) too is fictitious. E in the formula E=mc² is fictitious, thus invalid as a physical formula in physics.

All energy given in high energy physics, including in particle physics of the Standard Model, and nuclear physics is based on the relativistic scale of energy founded on E=mc². This would mean the collapse of most of modern physics, yet the physics world has never admitted to such a collapse.

Why E=mc² is invalid:
http://www.emc2fails.com

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.
 
Chan Rasjid said:
This thread is already 2 years old. I have more to add.

E=mc² is invalid; E fictitious.

"The foundation to good science is honesty".

One may assume that it is easy to be honest. Many a person would claim himself as being honest when engaging in debates, but the reality may be otherwise. Most of the time, the inner self of the "common" man is under the influences acquired in the past and colors and control his outlook in life. It is very difficult for one to break away from acquired habitual prejudices. The reason as to why the supposedly "most famous equation" in physics, E=mc², is invalid is simple to understand provided one can be honest.

The definition of force in classical mechanics comes from Newton's second law:
F = ma - (I);
From this definition of force, the kinetic energy of a particle is the usual:
K.E. = ½ m v² - (II); the SI unit of energy is the Joule.

The relativistic mechanics based on Einstein's special relativity redefines force as:
F=d/dt(m₀v/√(1-v²/c²)) --- (III)
With (III) as the new force and using the work energy theorem (work = force x distance) , a new formula for kinetic energy is obtained:
K.E. = (γ - 1)m₀c² --- (IV)
where γ=1/√(1-v²/c²);

What is the unit of energy in (IV) above? Mainstream physics just assumes the the SI unit of energy is still the classical joule! How could it be. Two different definitions of force (I) and (III) giving rise to energy with the same unit joule! I'll like someone to explain the logic behind how the unit of energy in relativistic mechanics is also the SI joule.

The reality is (III) cannot be used in any manner as a definition of force in any system of units. The force in (III) could only be a pure real number having no real unit as a force - it is fictitious. If force is fictitious, then energy (force x distance) too is fictitious. E in the formula E=mc² is fictitious, thus invalid as a physical formula in physics.

All energy given in high energy physics, including in particle physics of the Standard Model, and nuclear physics is based on the relativistic scale of energy founded on E=mc². This would mean the collapse of most of modern physics, yet the physics world has never admitted to such a collapse.

Why E=mc² is invalid:
http://www.emc2fails.com

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.
Click to expand...

What university math/science department do you work in?
 
BidenPresident said:
What university math/science department do you work in?
Click to expand...
I have never been associated with any university physics department nor have I ever worked in any physics related field.

I am an "amateur" physicists; read up on physics topics as and when I need to understand them.
 
Chan Rasjid said:
I have never been associated with any university physics department nor have I ever worked in any physics related field.

I am an "amateur" physicists; read up on physics topics as and when I need to understand them.
Click to expand...

I'd advise you to not talk about things you know nothing about.
 
Damocles said:
It is true that Einstein's relativity is incomplete and likely will be overthrown over time, however it has successfully passed every test to date. This article in the OP is nonsense.

https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACE...general relativity,same way that Newton's was.
Click to expand...

quote from your linked article:
"An Unfinished Job
Einstein's theory of general relativity has passed every test that it has ever been put to. Nevertheless there are at least four good reasons to think that the theory is incomplete and will eventually need to be overthrown in just the same way that Newton's was. Firstly, general relativity predicts its own demise; it breaks down in singularities,..."
Click to expand...
I protest with all my mind and with all my strength and with all my might of what the article states: that Newton's theory - laws of motion - has been overthrown. It is still fully valid in our physical world under all known situations. It is for this reason that we could have space programs where satellites could be place in earth's orbits - all 100% - using only Newtonian mechanics, nothing of special relativity!

Your Aristotle quote is relevant here: " Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past...". Well, every Jack and Jill would talk about E=mc² without knowing how it has been derived.

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore - a tiny state in S.E.Asia, but well run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top