A direct test of E=mc2, Einstein Year 2005

[Into the Night]

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.

Energy is not fictitious. Energy is not a force either. It is not work either.
Einstein's theory has not been falsified.

There is no such thing as 'mainstream' science or 'mainstream' physics. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a magazine, journal, paper, pamphlet, website, etc.
Newton has only one law of motion: f=ma. It does not define force, mass, or acceleration. It only describes their relationship with each other.
Einstein's equation does not define energy, mass, or the speed of light. It only describes their relationship with each other for a specific limited case (the full equation covers all cases. e=mc^2 is a simplification of the equation for a special case, called 'rest mass', mass that is moving at zero speed in your own frame of reference).

Math errors: Unit errors.
Logic errors: Redefinition fallacies (hypothesis<->theory, work<->energy, force<->energy, joule<->void, newton<->joule).

 

[Into the Night]

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.

If you are going to study physics, learn the history of various theories of science, how they came to be, learn the difference between 'definition' and 'relation', learn mathematics for algebra and calculus, learn what each of the units used are in science and why, learn what the natural constants and how they were developed, and indeed what science is and is not.

Science is not a journal, paper, magazine, academy, society, group, class, university, college, government agency, 'experiments', laboratory, title, degree, prize, voting bloc, hypothesis, religion, scientist, or any person or people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You really should be careful of the unit errors in your line of reasoning. Combining incompatible units as an attempt at falsification is itself an error.
You should also learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory of science.

You cannot falsify any theory by conducting math errors and unit errors.

 

[Into the Night]

I'd advise you to not talk about things you know nothing about.

Take your own advice, Sock.

 

[BidenPresident]

Take your own advice, Sock.

you need to be violently murdered

 

[Chan Rasjid]

Energy is not fictitious. Energy is not a force either. It is not work either.
Einstein's theory has not been falsified.

There is no such thing as 'mainstream' science or 'mainstream' physics. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a magazine, journal, paper, pamphlet, website, etc.
Newton has only one law of motion: f=ma. It does not define force, mass, or acceleration. It only describes their relationship with each other.
Einstein's equation does not define energy, mass, or the speed of light. It only describes their relationship with each other for a specific limited case (the full equation covers all cases. e=mc^2 is a simplification of the equation for a special case, called 'rest mass', mass that is moving at zero speed in your own frame of reference).

Math errors: Unit errors.
Logic errors: Redefinition fallacies (hypothesis<->theory, work<->energy, force<->energy, joule<->void, newton<->joule).

I think I have to do a lot of "pondering" over your reply. It seems our understanding of the process of science and of mechanics differs in many aspects.

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

 

[Into the Night]

We have free speech. We all may express our opinions publicly as long as they are deemed socially acceptable.

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore - the most enlightened country in the world!

Define 'socially acceptable'. Who decides what is 'socially acceptable'? You? Me? And on what basis?

JPP has set up certain rules describing what they consider 'socially acceptable' while posting on this forum, but outside of that, there is no specific overall definition.
Do you have the right to insult someone in a bar to his face? Sure you do, but you had better be prepared for the consequences of making that decision! You could easily get damaged, and no government can prevent that.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

E=mc^2 is part of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. This equation is a simplification of the full equation and refers to mass at 'rest mass', or mass that is moving at zero speed relative to your own frame of reference.
Yes, the article in the OP is nonsense. It's line of reasoning depends on unit errors and mathematical errors, redefinition things like 'force' and 'energy', and generally just discards theories of science.

Indeed, this person as written many articles in his blog based on just such nonsense.

 

[Into the Night]

quote from your linked article:

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.

The Theory of Special Relativity applies to all space flight and indeed all cases, whether motion is at zero speed in your own frame of reference, or at light speed in your own frame of reference. It applies all the time, everywhere. It is never set aside anywhere for any length of time.

Indeed, GPS is accurate +-30ftxz and +-100ftz because of compensations to the system based on this law.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

E = mc^2 works just fine. In terms of atoms and nuclear fission / fusion, C^2 is 931 Mev (931 million electron volts) as the measure of energy in one au at the speed of light. So, you take the au (atomic mass units) of an atom, and then the resulting mass of the fission fragments or new atom (in the case of fusion) and that is the energy released.

For one atom of U235 undergoing fission, the result is about 200 Mev released. For two atoms of Hydrogen being fused into an atom of Helium the energy released is about 4 to 6 Mev.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/334088/calculating-energy-released-in-nuclear-fission

Sorry, but I'm not going to put up all the equations and formulae beyond that, but Einstein's equation does work as advertised.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

E = mc^2 works just fine. In terms of atoms and nuclear fission / fusion, C^2 is 931 Mev (931 million electron volts) as the measure of energy in one au at the speed of light. So, you take the au (atomic mass units) of an atom, and then the resulting mass of the fission fragments or new atom (in the case of fusion) and that is the energy released.

For one atom of U235 undergoing fission, the result is about 200 Mev released. For two atoms of Hydrogen being fused into an atom of Helium the energy released is about 4 to 6 Mev.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/334088/calculating-energy-released-in-nuclear-fission

Sorry, but I'm not going to put up all the equations and formulae beyond that, but Einstein's equation does work as advertised.

In the pursuit of truth in science, I have to disagree with your view that "Einstein's equation does work as advertised" despite my view being totally at odds with the mainstream physics academia. My position is that all and everything - including the so-called experimental verifications - that have been said in the past hundred plus years about Einstein's special relativity are false.

My recent post #13 has given a most convincing proof as to why E=mc² is invalid. E=mc² in derived directly by using a new redefinition of force: F=d/dt(m₀v/√(1-v²/c²)) -- (I) replacing the Newtonian F=ma -- (II). The new force is then used in the work-energy theorem (work=energy=Integral(force x distance)) which finally give rise to the formula E=mc². No matter how you view the new force redefinition (I), there is no way the new definition may be used in any system of physical units of measure. When force is fictitious (just a real number with no associated real physical unit) in the work-energy theorem, the resulting energy too would just be a number in the real number system of the mathematics we are relying on; its is only a pure real number which has no association with any real units in any system of units of measurement in science. I have provided a refutation of E=mc² that is as simple a proof as is possible.

If the physics world cannot accept this argument of mine, then there is nothing more I could do.

I know how you are trying to defend special relativity by citing nuclear interactions as producing huge amount of energy not found in chemical interactions. You seem to imply that E=mc² is the only explanation of nuclear energy. My various papers have shown there is no nuclear strong force, that the source of nuclear energy from within the nucleus of the atom is still the same Coulomb electric force.

Nuclear energy does not come from any conversion of mass to energy based on E=mc²

The supposed mass defect as measured through mass spectrometry and supplied by the NIST nuclide data is a result of the systemic error of mass spectrometry - there is no mass defect. The mass of a nuclide is simply its mass number in amu.

Various papers including:
"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Fails"
"Mass Energy Equivalence Not Experimentally Verified"
"Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory (SUT)"
http://www.emc2fails.com
Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

 

[Taichiliberal]

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.

INDEED!

 

[Taichiliberal]

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??

Bravo!

 

[Taichiliberal]

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.

Please explain the purpose of posting your theories in the nomenclature (supposedly) of the particular field of study to a general audience wholly unfamiliar with them. You are not educating, but rather pontificating in such a fashion as to be confident of no real equal challenge.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

Please explain the purpose of posting your theories in the nomenclature (supposedly) of the particular field of study to a general audience wholly unfamiliar with them. You are not educating, but rather pontificating in such a fashion as to be confident of no real equal challenge.

Why do you wonder why I post a strictly physics topic in this JPP forum where, as you say, the audience is usually not familiar with physics. Isn't it the same with the mass media which, every so often, would tell us how scientists from which prestigious institute conducts another experiment which again verify Einstein's general relativity; or posting a picture taken of a black hole somewhere near the edge of the universe; or about how an experiment has detected gravitational waves which is predicted by Einstein's general relativity theory, etc.

It should not be surprising we may have some regular members here who may be trained in physics.

Various physics papers including:
"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Fails"
http://www.emc2fails.com
Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

 

[Into the Night]

Why do you wonder why I post a strictly physics topic in this JPP forum where, as you say, the audience is usually not familiar with physics.

You are not familiar with physics. You are not even discussing physics. You are denying many theories of science instead.

Isn't it the same with the mass media which, every so often, would tell us how scientists from which prestigious institute conducts another experiment which again verify Einstein's general relativity; or posting a picture taken of a black hole somewhere near the edge of the universe; or about how an experiment has detected gravitational waves which is predicted by Einstein's general relativity theory, etc.

Science has no proofs. It is not an institute, academy, society, college, university, government agency, degree, licence, certificate, or any other sanctification. It is not a picture either. There is no known 'edge' or boundary of the Universe.

It should not be surprising we may have some regular members here who may be trained in physics.

You ain't one of 'em. Fortunately, there ARE people familiar with many laws of physics, including me. If you can get him out of snide response mode, you can learn a lot from IBDaMann as well. gfm7175 has also picked up on some theories of science and understands them pretty well.

Various physics papers including:

Science is not a paper, magazine, journal, pamphlet, or website.

"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Fails"
http://www.emc2fails.com
Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

Discarding a theory of science is not physics, dude.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Please explain the purpose of posting your theories in the nomenclature (supposedly) of the particular field of study to a general audience wholly unfamiliar with them. You are not educating, but rather pontificating in such a fashion as to be confident of no real equal challenge.

Why do you wonder why I post a strictly physics topic in this JPP forum where, as you say, the audience is usually not familiar with physics. Isn't it the same with the mass media which, every so often, would tell us how scientists from which prestigious institute conducts another experiment which again verify Einstein's general relativity; or posting a picture taken of a black hole somewhere near the edge of the universe; or about how an experiment has detected gravitational waves which is predicted by Einstein's general relativity theory, etc.

It should not be surprising we may have some regular members here who may be trained in physics.

Various physics papers including:
"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Fails"
http://www.emc2fails.com
Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

1. You start off by answering a question with a question. That is NOT an answer, that is a dodge.

2. Stating as to how main stream media (msm) presents scientific discoveries and the explanations (or theories) behind such a discovery is STILL NOT answering my question. Instead you're giving a MOOT POINT.

3. Like it or not, msm presents things in a fashion that the average person unfamiliar with the science can understand (in as much as allowed by the time frame of the segment). They won't have an intricate understanding with all the ramifications, but they will get the gist.

4. You appear to just wanting to troll the internet in hopes of having someone with a "physics" background like you debate the issue....either that or you just like trying to impress the masses that you're some type of unappreciated authority. Whatever keeps you off the streets at night. Adios.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

1. You start off by answering a question with a question. That is NOT an answer, that is a dodge.

2. Stating as to how main stream media (msm) presents scientific discoveries and the explanations (or theories) behind such a discovery is STILL NOT answering my question. Instead you're giving a MOOT POINT.

3. Like it or not, msm presents things in a fashion that the average person unfamiliar with the science can understand (in as much as allowed by the time frame of the segment). They won't have an intricate understanding with all the ramifications, but they will get the gist.

4. You appear to just wanting to troll the internet in hopes of having someone with a "physics" background like you debate the issue....either that or you just like trying to impress the masses that you're some type of unappreciated authority. Whatever keeps you off the streets at night. Adios.

George Orwell:

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

If you have read the papers at my website, you would have seen that I have dismissed almost all of modern physics including all of particle physics of the Standard Model, nuclear energy theory, etc. This is so as most of modern physics rely on the scale of energy based on E=mc²; and the "E" in E=mc² is just a pure number in the real number system, an "E" that is fictitious - has no real physical unit! The protons within the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) reportedly have been accelerated to energy levels of 7 TeV (10¹²) when, as computed classically with K.E = ½mv², its energy is just 470 MeV(10⁶), off by a factor of 15,000!

It is wrong to insist that I should only communicate my findings to only people versed in physics. It is right for me to let the average person know the lies and fraud propagated by the physics academia at large. I have confidence in my findings and it is just natural that I would publicize my findings to as large an audience as I could reach out to, including here in JPP.

This is a time of universal deceit when falsehood reigns supreme, especially in the field of physics. For anyone who seeks truth, it is the person's duty to speak up and to warn others not to fall for falsehood.

Various physics papers including:
"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Fails"
http://www.emc2fails.com
Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

 

[Taichiliberal]

George Orwell:
If you have read the papers at my website, you would have seen that I have dismissed almost all of modern physics including all of particle physics of the Standard Model, nuclear energy theory, etc. This is so as most of modern physics rely on the scale of energy based on E=mc²; and the "E" in E=mc² is just a pure number in the real number system, an "E" that is fictitious - has no real physical unit! The protons within the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) reportedly have been accelerated to energy levels of 7 TeV (10¹²) when, as computed classically with K.E = ½mv², its energy is just 470 MeV(10⁶), off by a factor of 15,000!

It is wrong to insist that I should only communicate my findings to only people versed in physics. It is right for me to let the average person know the lies and fraud propagated by the physics academia at large. I have confidence in my findings and it is just natural that I would publicize my findings to as large an audience as I could reach out to, including here in JPP.

This is a time of universal deceit when falsehood reigns supreme, especially in the field of physics. For anyone who seeks truth, it is the person's duty to speak up and to warn others not to fall for falsehood.

Various physics papers including:
"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Fails"
http://www.emc2fails.com
Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

Hey genius, I DID NOT say you were lying. All I said was that you're not putting out your theory and opinions in a fashion that can be readily understood by those with no scientific background, degrees or interests in science in general. Capice?

Trying to utilize my logo quote to categorize your SELF ADMITTED THEORECTICAL CLAIM as a truism is disingenuous at best. Then you double down with a repetition of your initial post followed with some self aggrandizing clap trap.

Essentially, you're just a troll with an axe to grind. No point in my continuing to engage you. You may have the last word. Carry on then.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

Hey genius, I DID NOT say you were lying. All I said was that you're not putting out your theory and opinions in a fashion that can be readily understood by those with no scientific background, degrees or interests in science in general. Capice?

Trying to utilize my logo quote to categorize your SELF ADMITTED THEORECTICAL CLAIM as a truism is disingenuous at best. Then you double down with a repetition of your initial post followed with some self aggrandizing clap trap.

Essentially, you're just a troll with an axe to grind. No point in my continuing to engage you. You may have the last word. Carry on then.

[Abu Dawud ~ Hadith Sahih]:

"The Messenger (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “I guarantee a house in the surroundings of Paradise for a person who avoids quarreling, even if he knows he is in the right.”

It is best that we engage only in a polite debate and not let it degenerate to "quarreling".

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Hey genius, I DID NOT say you were lying. All I said was that you're not putting out your theory and opinions in a fashion that can be readily understood by those with no scientific background, degrees or interests in science in general. Capice?

Trying to utilize my logo quote to categorize your SELF ADMITTED THEORECTICAL CLAIM as a truism is disingenuous at best. Then you double down with a repetition of your initial post followed with some self aggrandizing clap trap.

Essentially, you're just a troll with an axe to grind. No point in my continuing to engage you. You may have the last word. Carry on then.

[Abu Dawud ~ Hadith Sahih]:
It is best that we engage only in a polite debate and not let it degenerate to "quarreling".

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

translation: junior was nailed for his blather, and tries to blow passed it. He fails. I'm done with him.