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.
 
.
1680043419972.png
 
. .
I am a Muslim convert of over forty years. I started to investigate Einstein's relativity only about ten years ago starting with almost zero knowledge.
Well that was ten years well spent. 2 minutes on Chatgpt could have saved you all the effort.

At least you tried using some kind of scientific reasoning to reach your conclusion. There was the CCP official who 'discredited' the theory of relativity using Chinese Communist Party doctrine to 'prove' Einstein was wrong.
 
. .
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.
 
.
Brother dumped all modern physics into the drain. Kya baat hai

Forum never fails to impress
 
.
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.
Hi,

Even if it is wrong---it has served its purpose---.
 
. . . .
@chanrasjid
Yummm Seeee

I am a Muslim convert of over forty years. I started to investigate Einstein's relativity only about ten years ago starting with almost zero knowledge. My simple journey and observations answers the question why the Muslim world is left behind in science and technology. The reasons:
1) Most Muslim's only think of wanting to enter paradise - not wanting to work in the field of "satanic" scientific forces of nature. But missiles, fighter jets, bombs are satanic and not very polite material.
2) Muslim's have lost their confidence in their own nature. Though the teachers always want to talk about how great is the teaching of the Quran, they still have a low esteem in their own ability in the face of the western world which is the top in science and technology. The Muslim world just swallow whatever physics comes from Princeton, Stanford, MIT and Cambridge without daring to question their findings.
3) Today's Muslims have great words about how great a religion Islam is, but they have lost the true "inner" iman. The first sign of true iman is curiosity about the truth, not swallowing the words of those who pretend to be an authority on a field of knowledge.

How can the Muslim world improve in science and technology when they blindly quote the media and propaganda promoting Einstein's relativity theories. Do those quoting Einstein's relativity know anything about relativity? I believe they do know how to recite the Fatiha and Sura Lailatul Qadar - about how in the month of Ramadan, the Angels and the Spirit come down to perform the mission teaching the Muslim's who have fasted. What knowledge have the Muslims gain from the revelations of the Angels and the Spirit all these years?
U r still where u started 10 years ago...zero knowledge.

Please take ur garbage elsewhere. Ur efforts are not needed...neither in science nor in religion.
 
.
Why are you afraid to debate on that forum ? If your real intention is to make your theory being approved, first thing that you should do is to discuss in the appropriate forum like that. That is just simple logic right ?
I will try that forum later.

You do not know the state of affairs in the mainstream physics world. It is almost official policy that "decent" physics journals (not the predatory journals that charge you and will publish anything) do not accept (anymore) any papers that attempt to critique the validity of Einstein's relativity. Their reply would be in the line "... the relativity theories have been rigorously tested...and found toe be correct... our policy is not to accept any critique of relativity theories...etc".

All popular physics forums (including reddit, stack exchange physics) would delete any post that criticizes the validity of Einstein's relativity theory. I cannot post to any popular forum. Go and see my thread at:
"The Fraud of E=mc² | AnandTech Forums". It was very interesting for me; it allowed me a very good place to debate with 250+ posts; but finally the moderators still preferred to have me out! (currently down for 5 hrs due to maintenance). When the site is up, you can see for yourself the reasons the moderators gave for wanting me out.

If you don't believe, try to post a link to this thread in physicsforum.com(or similar) and see if they allow you any debate.
 
. .
Well that was ten years well spent. 2 minutes on Chatgpt could have saved you all the effort.

At least you tried using some kind of scientific reasoning to reach your conclusion. There was the CCP official who 'discredited' the theory of relativity using Chinese Communist Party doctrine to 'prove' Einstein was wrong.
"At least you tried using some kind of scientific reasoning to reach your conclusion"; does it mean you really, really read a little few sentences from my homepage - that's great. You are a real gem of a person.:-)
 
.
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.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom