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.
 
.
I still am wondering if this guy is doing some next level humor/trolling or he is totally nuts.
The so called papers are crap, presents zero evodence and just says Einstein's equations are flawed. Where is ur proof? U think all this is a joke? Any dummy can just spew crap and call established scientific facts as fake and flawed?
 
.
I still am wondering if this guy is doing some next level humor/trolling or he is totally nuts.
The so called papers are crap, presents zero evodence and just says Einstein's equations are flawed. Where is ur proof? U think all this is a joke? Any dummy can just spew crap and call established scientific facts as fake and flawed?

Yes, everyone can. But i like this thinking out of the box. It helps to check the mainstream.

 
.
Yes, everyone can. But i like this thinking out of the box. It helps to check the mainstream.


With some scientific evidence, not just high school level stuff and saying it hoax. And there r many theories out there, by researchers, who spend most of their life working in this field. When a college dropout comes and tries to call them all fake then it is funny. There are many theories that say bigbang is not the beginning, nothing new, infact there r theories that say the big bang keeps happening again n again in a loop.
 
.
With some scientific evidence, not just high school level stuff and saying it hoax. And there r many theories out there, by researchers, who spend most of their life working in this field. When a college dropout comes and tries to call them all fake then it is funny. There are many theories that say bigbang is not the beginning, nothing new, infact there r theories that say the big bang keeps happening again n again in a loop.
Mostly there is no true "evidence" but "assumptions". You even also can describe the form of a spiral galaxy by electromagnetism and not by gravitation. And so on. There is a lot out there and mainstream isnt even prove in total, only in parts with "assumptions" and tricks like "assuming dark matter and dark energy".
 
.
Yes, everyone can. But i like this thinking out of the box. It helps to check the mainstream.

Just for those who may be interested. The promotion of Einstein's relativity theories and corresponding relativistic physics such as E=mc² is one big fraud perpetrated onto the world. The following paper of mine shows the full detail in one classic case by four top physicists from supposedly prestigious institution. The experiment was fraud - plain and simple.

MASS-ENERGY EQUIVALENCE NOT EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED. June 2018:
2.4. 2005 Direct Test Of E=mc 2 (published in Nature magazine).
In the ‘Year_Of_Physics_2005’, four physicists from the MIT, NIST and the Institute Laue Langevin, Geno-
ble, France (ILL) conducted an experiment that was entitled ‘Direct Test Of E=mc 2 ’ [4]. It gave the accuracy of the result as: 1−4(mc 2 )/E = −1.4 ± 4.4 × 10 −7 or accurate to 0.00004%. With this degree of accuracy, such an experiment would indeed put to rest any doubts about the hypothesis of mass-energy equivalence given precisely by E = mc2. Unfortunately - and rather incomprehensible - the experimenters had a critical misunderstanding of their very own experi ment. The experiment was not an experiment that verified mass-energy equivalence, but rather an experiment to deduce the mass of the neutron based on the assumption of E = mc 2 . We will see why.
(Please read the full experiment by downloading the free pdf paper)

There never was anything with the slightest semblance of verifying mass energy equivalence of E=mc². The 0.00004% accuracy was comparing a new experiment to deduce the mass of the neutron using elements sulfur and silicon and to compare the new deduced mass to the current accepted mass based on heavy hydrogen, or deuteron. The difference was 0.00004%. It has nothing to do with verifying E=mc². To "add insult to injury", any experiment to deduce the mass of the neutron need to make use of the formula E=mc²! Not to verify E=mc².
 
.
You may not be aware that all of nuclear physics remains the same without the formula E=mc²; no living nuclear physicists ever need the formula in the design of nuclear reactors or nuclear bombs. The nuclear physicists only need to know great amounts of energy are released in nuclear fission, that's all about it - they only need to "capture" the energy, not asking questions how the energy get released.

Of course, if we know the true theory of nuclear energy, we may have great new breakthrough in physics, but the world may not like this to happen; it is better they follow the wrong formula of E= mc² and remain ignorant of greater control over nuclear energy.

See my paper: "Coulomb Electric Gravity". The source of nuclear energy is truly from within the nucleus of atoms, but the source is still the same Coulomb electric energy, but in a highly condensed form.

Particle physics is all imagination. Not a single new technology has come from the decades of experimentation that the CERN physicists have done with the LHC collider.


Of course the nuclear energy is "quiet real". You don't need to know the chemistry of the elements to know gunpowder is real; 2 kg probably is enough to blow a man dead. You only have to make sure you buy from a reliable seller and don't get the fake stuff.

@MastanKhan

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?

brother , angels can whisper the "Ar-rooh/Spirit" also known as the Devine guidance/messages, any day of the year ------.
 
.
Just for those who may be interested. The promotion of Einstein's relativity theories and corresponding relativistic physics such as E=mc² is one big fraud perpetrated onto the world. The following paper of mine shows the full detail in one classic case by four top physicists from supposedly prestigious institution. The experiment was fraud - plain and simple.

MASS-ENERGY EQUIVALENCE NOT EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED. June 2018:

(Please read the full experiment by downloading the free pdf paper)

There never was anything with the slightest semblance of verifying mass energy equivalence of E=mc². The 0.00004% accuracy was comparing a new experiment to deduce the mass of the neutron using elements sulfur and silicon and to compare the new deduced mass to the current accepted mass based on heavy hydrogen, or deuteron. The difference was 0.00004%. It has nothing to do with verifying E=mc². To "add insult to injury", any experiment to deduce the mass of the neutron need to make use of the formula E=mc²! Not to verify E=mc².
Why dont you show his paper?

 
.
Just for those who may be interested. The promotion of Einstein's relativity theories and corresponding relativistic physics such as E=mc² is one big fraud perpetrated onto the world. The following paper of mine shows the full detail in one classic case by four top physicists from supposedly prestigious institution. The experiment was fraud - plain and simple.

MASS-ENERGY EQUIVALENCE NOT EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED. June 2018:

(Please read the full experiment by downloading the free pdf paper)

There never was anything with the slightest semblance of verifying mass energy equivalence of E=mc². The 0.00004% accuracy was comparing a new experiment to deduce the mass of the neutron using elements sulfur and silicon and to compare the new deduced mass to the current accepted mass based on heavy hydrogen, or deuteron. The difference was 0.00004%. It has nothing to do with verifying E=mc². To "add insult to injury", any experiment to deduce the mass of the neutron need to make use of the formula E=mc²! Not to verify E=mc².
The equation does not suggest that mass and energy are equivalent in my humble opinion. Has anyone successfully accelerated something C squared and demonstrated that?
Energy and mass can be interchangeable as long as speed of light times squared is factored. Mr chanrasjid sitting on a chair giving his/her wordly wisdom is not interchangeable (however much i would like him/her to be interchangeable) and be perceived as energy.
 
Last edited:
.
The equation does not suggest that mass and energy are equivalent in my humble opinion. Has anyone successfully accelerated something C squared and demonstrated that?
Energy and mass can be interchangeable as long as speed of light times squared is factored. Mr chanrasjid sitting on a chair giving his/her wordly wisdom is not interchangeable (however much i would like him/her to be interchangeable) and be perceived as energy.

Me think that first we have to find the particle from what quarks (and thus neutrons) are made of...and maybe one or more level down to find the particle what itself come to existenz by nature when energy turns into this particle, when energy turns into mass by nature.
 
.
Me think that first we have to find the particle from what quarks (and thus neutrons) are made of...and maybe one or more level down to find the particle what itself come to existenz by nature when energy turns into this particle, when energy turns into mass by nature.
Just to clear any misunderstanding, mass energy equivalence does not require a mass to be accelerated to c, light speed, to get energy. Say we have a 1 kg gold bullion bar. If somehow you can make the bar disappear in "thin air" - or destroyed - you should get a huge amount of energy : E = 1 x 299792458² Joule of energy based on E=mc² (Don't ask me if it is enough to flatten Islamabad).

I don't claim that we would never be able to create mass from energy; I currently have not found any theory of creating mass from energy. Even if mass may be create from energy, the formula need not be E=mc². In my paper :
"Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory (SUT)"

My Simple Unified Theory does no include quarks. The neutron is just another state of the hydrogen atom with the same mass as ¹H, or proton mass + neutron mass. Basically, all matter is made of only protons and electrons, an initial simplification only.

The ether of space has mass. So it may be possible that protons, electron may be created from the ether material or protons, electrons may be un-created and go back to the ether of space. I have no clue yet.
 
.
The equation does not suggest that mass and energy are equivalent in my humble opinion

Just to clear any misunderstanding, mass energy equivalence does not require a mass to be accelerated to c, light speed, to get energy. Say we have a 1 kg gold bullion bar. If somehow you can make the bar disappear in "thin air" - or destroyed - you should get a huge amount of energy : E = 1 x 299792458² Joule of energy based on E=mc² (Don't ask me if it is enough to flatten Islamabad).

I don't claim that we would never be able to create mass from energy; I currently have not found any theory of creating mass from energy. Even if mass may be create from energy, the formula need not be E=mc². In my paper :
"Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory (SUT)"

My Simple Unified Theory does no include quarks. The neutron is just another state of the hydrogen atom with the same mass as ¹H, or proton mass + neutron mass. Basically, all matter is made of only protons and electrons, an initial simplification only.

The ether of space has mass. So it may be possible that protons, electron may be created from the ether material or protons, electrons may be un-created and go back to the ether of space. I have no clue yet.
understood that acceleration is not required. However speed of light is relevant in the equation. Also all the reactional momentum to when we hit a particle is due to the acceleration of and chain reaction creating exponential energy emission which in turns has momentum associated with its interchangeable state(mass).
 
.
Just to clear any misunderstanding, mass energy equivalence does not require a mass to be accelerated to c, light speed, to get energy. Say we have a 1 kg gold bullion bar. If somehow you can make the bar disappear in "thin air" - or destroyed - you should get a huge amount of energy : E = 1 x 299792458² Joule of energy based on E=mc² (Don't ask me if it is enough to flatten Islamabad).

I don't claim that we would never be able to create mass from energy; I currently have not found any theory of creating mass from energy. Even if mass may be create from energy, the formula need not be E=mc². In my paper :
"Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory (SUT)"

My Simple Unified Theory does no include quarks. The neutron is just another state of the hydrogen atom with the same mass as ¹H, or proton mass + neutron mass. Basically, all matter is made of only protons and electrons, an initial simplification only.

The ether of space has mass. So it may be possible that protons, electron may be created from the ether material or protons, electrons may be un-created and go back to the ether of space. I have no clue yet.

Sounds partially like the "electric universe theory". The by me mentioned "particle that is created out of energy by nature" would also be "un-created" back into energy if it doesnt manage to form "higher particles" with other of its kind. This "create/un-create" idea often comes in some physic discussions. Me think something like that it has to be.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom