What's new

E=mc² invalid; much of modern physics as the Standard Model, QED, nuclear physics fictitious.

The Einstein's most famous equation E=mc² is invalid. Most of modern physics is founded on relativistic mechanics which is based on this equation; such physics includes particle physics, quantum electrodynamics(QED) and nuclear physics. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN in Geneva is a supercollider developed to investigate particle physics. As particle physics is just fiction, it is a huge waste of human effort and financial resources to operate such an enormously expensive facility. It is in the interest of the world to know not to be mislead into a labyrinth leading to nowhere.

The proof that E=mc² is invalid is simple; it is given below.

Newton's 2nd law defines force with:
F = d/dt(mv) = ma --- (I)
m = invariant mass or quantity of matter in Newton's 'Principia'. Force in SI unit is the newton (N). The unit of energy would be joule(J) or newton-meter(N.m).

After Einstein's introduction of special relativity in 1905, the relativists developed a new relativistic mechanics to replace Newtonian mechanics and claimed it to have replaced Newtonian mechanics to be the proper mechanics in the natural world; it is supposed valid for all speed including near light speed. RElativistic mechanics starts with a new definition of force:
F=d/dt(mv/√(1-v²/c²)) --- (II)
With (II) as the new force and using the work energy theorem, a new formula for kinetic energy is derived:
KE = (γ - 1)m₀c² --- (III)
where γ=1/√(1-v²/c²); by a assuming that a particle at rest has a rest energy given by m₀c² and adding it to (III), we derive the so called: Total energy = KE + rest-energy = γm₀c²; in other words:
E=mc² --- (IV)
where E represents the total energy of a particle and m or γm₀ is the relativistic mass dependent on velocity.

The problem with E=mc² is that E is fictitious and does not have any unit in any system of units (such as the SI system). This is because the force in (II) above cannot in any way be used to define a unit of force in any system of unit; the physics world just assumed that (II) also defines a force where it has the same unit newton(N) as in classical mechanics. How could that be! the newton is specifically defined using (I) and not (II). When force in relativistic mechanics is fictitious, the result of using the work-energy theorem only result in a fictitious energy for work without any associated real unit. But mainstream physics assumes that the energy E in E=mc² is also in the SI unit joule(J). Of course it cannot be!

What this imply is that all physics founded on relativistic mechanics are fictitious including particle physics of the Standard Model, quantum electrodynamics(QED), nuclear physics (theory).

Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.
 

chanrasjid

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Sep 6, 2017
45
0
16
Country
Singapore
Location
Singapore
I think E=mc² is valid....if....

Where should i begin? At best with the singularity. It is said that the whole universe emerge out of a singularity,out of a "point". But at the same time physics says that the whole universe cant match into a singularity, into a "point". So it is to discuss if this singularity is not a point, but maybe a "door" to a other space/universe and the "birth" of our universe was just an exchange of energy from the other space/universe into ours (whereas the existenz of energy creates the space and with the creation of the space there comes the time and so on). If so, then there the rules of thermodynamics are also to question cause if there is/was one "door" into another space/universe, why there should be not more other of these "doors" to even multiple other space/universe exist? And if this is the case, then the rules of thermodynamic are only true if there is no "door" what brings energy in the system from an other space/universe - or an other kind of "door", what brings energy out of our space/universe into an other space/universe. So me think E=mc² is valid - if there are no "doors" at or around the massure point.
I have to admit my physics is not yet up to your mark.:(
 

chanrasjid

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Sep 6, 2017
45
0
16
Country
Singapore
Location
Singapore
Not a theoretical physicist, but proving Einstein’s theory as invalid is the holy grail of any scientific achievement. If there is even an iota of facts in it, then it would have been discarded long ago.

I’m pretty sure the poster also supports flat earth theory.
Aristotle taught that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. It was only in the 16/17th century that Galileo demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong. It took 15 centuries for a cultish belief to be dispelled!

The Catholic Church taught that the planets and the sun all orbited around the earth. It took centuries before the Church finally had to acknowledge its mistake.

The cult of Einstein's relativity may still last for another hundred years.
 
Jan 29, 2011
17,707
-6
30,881
Country
India
Location
United States
Aristotle taught that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. It was only in the 16/17th century that Galileo demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong. It took 15 centuries for a cultish belief to be dispelled!

The Catholic Church taught that the planets and the sun all orbited around the earth. It took centuries before the Church finally had to acknowledge its mistake.

The cult of Einstein's relativity may still last for another hundred years.

Why don't you publish a paper and justify your claims with solid evidence.
 

CodeforFood

FULL MEMBER
Mar 4, 2019
646
1
525
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Haha, dont worry, me neither :lol: Me just read physic statements and do some thoughts about. "What if" is my prefered way to try to understand :-)
I think he was attempting to be sarcastic lol. As what you said did not have anything to correlate from a scientific method stand point. Your origin theory was based on bunch of assumptions coming from your mind.
 

Cookie Monster

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 31, 2016
3,959
6
6,081
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Aristotle taught that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. It was only in the 16/17th century that Galileo demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong. It took 15 centuries for a cultish belief to be dispelled!

The Catholic Church taught that the planets and the sun all orbited around the earth. It took centuries before the Church finally had to acknowledge its mistake.

The cult of Einstein's relativity may still last for another hundred years.
Aristotle didn't back up his argument with experiments(as this wasn't the norm in those days)
...Galileo demonstrated his counter argument experimentally(as in proof).

Catholic Church didn't prove their claims. Copernicus and a few others laid out their heliocentric models that was verified through observations...
...and as more and more progress happened...it was confirmed beyond doubt.

What u claim the "cult of Einstein"...
...is nothing but ur retarded argument. Einstein's theory of relativity has been proven. A bunch of phenomenon that Einstein's theory of relativity predicts has been proven. It is u who has yet to provide any proof of any of ur BS.
 

ARMalik

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 7, 2017
5,778
-7
10,709
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
The Einstein's most famous equation E=mc² is invalid. Most of modern physics is founded on relativistic mechanics which is based on this equation; such physics includes particle physics, quantum electrodynamics(QED) and nuclear physics. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN in Geneva is a supercollider developed to investigate particle physics. As particle physics is just fiction, it is a huge waste of human effort and financial resources to operate such an enormously expensive facility. It is in the interest of the world to know not to be mislead into a labyrinth leading to nowhere.

The proof that E=mc² is invalid is simple; it is given below.

Newton's 2nd law defines force with:
F = d/dt(mv) = ma --- (I)
m = invariant mass or quantity of matter in Newton's 'Principia'. Force in SI unit is the newton (N). The unit of energy would be joule(J) or newton-meter(N.m).

After Einstein's introduction of special relativity in 1905, the relativists developed a new relativistic mechanics to replace Newtonian mechanics and claimed it to have replaced Newtonian mechanics to be the proper mechanics in the natural world; it is supposed valid for all speed including near light speed. RElativistic mechanics starts with a new definition of force:
F=d/dt(mv/√(1-v²/c²)) --- (II)
With (II) as the new force and using the work energy theorem, a new formula for kinetic energy is derived:
KE = (γ - 1)m₀c² --- (III)
where γ=1/√(1-v²/c²); by a assuming that a particle at rest has a rest energy given by m₀c² and adding it to (III), we derive the so called: Total energy = KE + rest-energy = γm₀c²; in other words:
E=mc² --- (IV)
where E represents the total energy of a particle and m or γm₀ is the relativistic mass dependent on velocity.

The problem with E=mc² is that E is fictitious and does not have any unit in any system of units (such as the SI system). This is because the force in (II) above cannot in any way be used to define a unit of force in any system of unit; the physics world just assumed that (II) also defines a force where it has the same unit newton(N) as in classical mechanics. How could that be! the newton is specifically defined using (I) and not (II). When force in relativistic mechanics is fictitious, the result of using the work-energy theorem only result in a fictitious energy for work without any associated real unit. But mainstream physics assumes that the energy E in E=mc² is also in the SI unit joule(J). Of course it cannot be!

What this imply is that all physics founded on relativistic mechanics are fictitious including particle physics of the Standard Model, quantum electrodynamics(QED), nuclear physics (theory).

Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.

I understand where you are coming from. The only reason why I think E=mc² is misleading is because in my view the Universe is MUCH MORE COMPLICATED and humans do not even understand 0.1% of the Universe. In my view, there exists frequencies and wavelengths which can travel much faster than Human dictated speed of light 299 792 458 m / s. Secondly, I do not believe a word of what comes out from the mouths and minds of Jews like Einstein. It is all gibberish.
 

chanrasjid

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Sep 6, 2017
45
0
16
Country
Singapore
Location
Singapore
Aristotle didn't back up his argument with experiments(as this wasn't the norm in those days)
...Galileo demonstrated his counter argument experimentally(as in proof).

Catholic Church didn't prove their claims. Copernicus and a few others laid out their heliocentric models that was verified through observations...
...and as more and more progress happened...it was confirmed beyond doubt.

What u claim the "cult of Einstein"...
...is nothing but ur retarded argument. Einstein's theory of relativity has been proven. A bunch of phenomenon that Einstein's theory of relativity predicts has been proven. It is u who has yet to provide any proof of any of ur BS.
I fully understand your position. The wiki page on special relativity says SR proven by "hundreds of of experiments" and even named a lists. But I reject all hundreds of the experimental proofs.

There is this common misconception that science - especially physics - is absolutely proven if verified by experiments, especially when done in the laboratory. No! Even so called experimental verification is "relative", dependent on a person's interpretation.

To me all the experimental proofs of special relativity are irrelevant and all such experimental proofs have to be flawed. I have found fundamental logical inconsistencies in special relativity (see papers uploaded at my website) which implies that special relativity is a failed theory. By definition, there cannot be any manner of experimental verification of, or right predictions from, a failed physical theory.
 

chanrasjid

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Sep 6, 2017
45
0
16
Country
Singapore
Location
Singapore
Brother dumped all modern physics into the drain. Kya baat hai

Forum never fails to impress
Would your daily live suffer a wee bit if all of modern physics got dumped into the drain? Nothing that your are now enjoying of our modern world would be lost to you. Your internet would still be up, your fridge will still be good, your cars would still run. Your only lost may be stories from the media about how gravitational waves have now been detected coming from the edge of the universe, about LHC collider discovered the Higgs boson, etc... - stories. Jesus says we don't live by bread alone, but we still can live without stories of fantacies.

The fact is that all of modern physics - particle physics of Higgs boson, quarks, neutrino, Einstein's relativity theories, quantum electrodynamics,etc... - have not given us a single technological breakthrough that enters into our daily lives. All of our current technological conveniences comes from old-style classical physics that came from before these "modern physics" (please don't bring up GPS needs SR to work!).
 

chanrasjid

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Sep 6, 2017
45
0
16
Country
Singapore
Location
Singapore
"Fraud of E=mc²"

This is the most interesting thread that allowed me to debate fully; the thread has 219 posts, the longest ever allowed me ever. Still, in the end, the moderators want me out. You can read the reasons at the last few posts.
 

Krptonite

FULL MEMBER
Jun 5, 2018
1,134
3
1,606
Country
India
Location
India
I understand where you are coming from. The only reason why I think E=mc² is misleading is because in my view the Universe is MUCH MORE COMPLICATED and humans do not even understand 0.1% of the Universe. In my view, there exists frequencies and wavelengths which can travel much faster than Human dictated speed of light 299 792 458 m / s. Secondly, I do not believe a word of what comes out from the mouths and minds of Jews like Einstein. It is all gibberish.
Frequencies and wavelength travel as fast as velocity and speed. They are units of measurements not objects. Units of measurements cannot travel so your assertion is unclear, can you expound a bit.

Yes, as humans we are unaware of what we do not know, but what we do know is backed by rigorous scientific approach so they can be depended upon.


No object with mass can go faster than the speed of light, thats what the theorem says, might i ask which mass according to you can travel faster than light, its not an arbitrarily selected speed limit, it has a detailed scientific explanation behind it, I'd recommend reading up on it.

"Fraud of E=mc²"

This is the most interesting thread that allowed me to debate fully; the thread has 219 posts, the longest ever allowed me ever. Still, in the end, the moderators want me out. You can read the reasons at the last few posts.
You havent really debated. Members who actually gave or decide to engage with you, you shut them down citing lack of copy pasting ability. Type out those points instead of copy pasting and debate about it instead of excusing away the debate. If thats too much open chatgpt ask it the same question and you can copy paste that. So far you haven't defended or engaged in any kind of debate at all.

If you feel that your assertion is true, prove it. The onus is on the person asserting a claim. Relativistic theory has been proved and its applications recreated innumerable times this past century.

Propose a hypothetical experiment that can prove your hypothesis and ill do the same which says otherwise. Let actual results talk instead of words, this is physics not philosophy.
 
Last edited:

Cookie Monster

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 31, 2016
3,959
6
6,081
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I fully understand your position. The wiki page on special relativity says SR proven by "hundreds of of experiments" and even named a lists. But I reject all hundreds of the experimental proofs.

There is this common misconception that science - especially physics - is absolutely proven if verified by experiments, especially when done in the laboratory. No! Even so called experimental verification is "relative", dependent on a person's interpretation.

To me all the experimental proofs of special relativity are irrelevant and all such experimental proofs have to be flawed. I have found fundamental logical inconsistencies in special relativity (see papers uploaded at my website) which implies that special relativity is a failed theory. By definition, there cannot be any manner of experimental verification of, or right predictions from, a failed physical theory.
Unfortunately for u...proof doesn't work based on ur acceptance and rejection of it. The reason why proof based anything is accepted in every field around the world is bcuz it gets the same results no matter how many times it is repeated, wherever it is repeated. If any random joe like u can just refuse experimental evidence then humans would have never been able to collectively agree on anything throughout time making it impossible to acquire knowledge and make progress.

Einstein put his theory forward which made certain predictions theoretically...these were then confirmed and some still continue to be confirmed thus far. U on the other hand have no value to add of any sort other than wasting everyone's time. If u want to be taken seriously then come up with ur own theory...once ur theory is confirmed experimentally and Einstein is PROVEN wrong...then u can make claims like "Einstein was wrong".
 

chanrasjid

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Sep 6, 2017
45
0
16
Country
Singapore
Location
Singapore
You havent really debated. Members who actually gave or decide to engage with you, you shut them down citing lack of copy pasting ability. Type out those points instead of copy pasting and debate about it instead of excusing away the debate. If thats too much open chatgpt ask it the same question and you can copy paste that. So far you haven't defended or engaged in any kind of debate at all.
I don't use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter nor chatGPT. Most serious posters just type out what they want to say and posts. This is the first time I find a post from a .png image.


If you feel that your assertion is true, prove it. The onus is on the person asserting a claim. Relativistic theory has been proved and its applications recreated innumerable times this past century.
I have given in an earlier reply why I reject all and every claim about how special relativity has been verified by experiments. Passing the ball between you and me would not end such a two-person debate.
Propose a hypothetical experiment that can prove your hypothesis and ill do the same which says otherwise. Let actual results talk instead of words, this is physics not philosophy.
I have uploaded about twenty original papers at my website
 

chanrasjid

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Sep 6, 2017
45
0
16
Country
Singapore
Location
Singapore
Unfortunately for u...proof doesn't work based on ur acceptance and rejection of it. The reason why proof based anything is accepted in every field around the world is bcuz it gets the same results no matter how many times it is repeated, wherever it is repeated. If any random joe like u can just refuse experimental evidence then humans would have never been able to collectively agree on anything throughout time making it impossible to acquire knowledge and make progress.
A flawed experiment repeated a hundred times will give the same flawed hundred identical results. Repeated flawed interpretations have no scientific value.

Just tell me, in my OP proof, where is the flaw if any?
Einstein put his theory forward which made certain predictions theoretically...these were then confirmed and some still continue to be confirmed thus far.
I have said all these "confirmed" are flawed, flawed experiments and flawed interpretations of the experiments - hundreds of such failed experiments.

U on the other hand have no value to add of any sort other than wasting everyone's time. If u want to be taken seriously then come up with ur own theory...once ur theory is confirmed experimentally and Einstein is PROVEN wrong...then u can make claims like "Einstein was wrong".
My theory is in the twenty original papers uploaded at my website.
 

Clutch

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 3, 2008
15,974
-3
22,988
The Einstein's most famous equation E=mc² is invalid. Most of modern physics is founded on relativistic mechanics which is based on this equation; such physics includes particle physics, quantum electrodynamics(QED) and nuclear physics. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN in Geneva is a supercollider developed to investigate particle physics. As particle physics is just fiction, it is a huge waste of human effort and financial resources to operate such an enormously expensive facility. It is in the interest of the world to know not to be mislead into a labyrinth leading to nowhere.

The proof that E=mc² is invalid is simple; it is given below.

Newton's 2nd law defines force with:
F = d/dt(mv) = ma --- (I)
m = invariant mass or quantity of matter in Newton's 'Principia'. Force in SI unit is the newton (N). The unit of energy would be joule(J) or newton-meter(N.m).

After Einstein's introduction of special relativity in 1905, the relativists developed a new relativistic mechanics to replace Newtonian mechanics and claimed it to have replaced Newtonian mechanics to be the proper mechanics in the natural world; it is supposed valid for all speed including near light speed. RElativistic mechanics starts with a new definition of force:
F=d/dt(mv/√(1-v²/c²)) --- (II)
With (II) as the new force and using the work energy theorem, a new formula for kinetic energy is derived:
KE = (γ - 1)m₀c² --- (III)
where γ=1/√(1-v²/c²); by a assuming that a particle at rest has a rest energy given by m₀c² and adding it to (III), we derive the so called: Total energy = KE + rest-energy = γm₀c²; in other words:
E=mc² --- (IV)
where E represents the total energy of a particle and m or γm₀ is the relativistic mass dependent on velocity.

The problem with E=mc² is that E is fictitious and does not have any unit in any system of units (such as the SI system). This is because the force in (II) above cannot in any way be used to define a unit of force in any system of unit; the physics world just assumed that (II) also defines a force where it has the same unit newton(N) as in classical mechanics. How could that be! the newton is specifically defined using (I) and not (II). When force in relativistic mechanics is fictitious, the result of using the work-energy theorem only result in a fictitious energy for work without any associated real unit. But mainstream physics assumes that the energy E in E=mc² is also in the SI unit joule(J). Of course it cannot be!

What this imply is that all physics founded on relativistic mechanics are fictitious including particle physics of the Standard Model, quantum electrodynamics(QED), nuclear physics (theory).

Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.




 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom