# The Fraud of E=mc²

#### Chan Rasjid

##### Member
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 not 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).

This post of mine would be deleted almost immediately if I try to post in any mainstream science forum. The whole world seems to be together to protect the fake physics of Einstein's relativity. There is nothing much I could do even though I know much of physics around relativity and E=mc² is wrong.

Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.
Perknose
Forum Director

Last edited by a moderator:

#### BoomerD

##### No Lifer
Interesting first post.

#### [DHT]Osiris

##### Lifer
This post of mine would be deleted almost immediately if I try to post in any mainstream science forum.
Probably because it's wrong.

If you've got a better formula that explains non-quantum physics, I encourage you to post/publish it. Otherwise, whine elsewhere at your lack of importance and general shabbiness.

#### IBMJunkman

##### Senior member
ChatGPT says E=MC2 is valid.

#### Chan Rasjid

##### Member
Probably because it's wrong.

If you've got a better formula that explains non-quantum physics, I encourage you to post/publish it. Otherwise, whine elsewhere at your lack of importance and general shabbiness.
Not "Probably because it's wrong", but probably because it's right.

If you write an article that gives clear evidence of how the Chinese government detains Uigurs in concentration camps, do you think you could have it published in Xinhua News Agency?

Nuclear energy produced through radioactive decay (fission) does not come from mass being lost due to the sum of masses of final decay products being less than the original decaying nucleus - there is no "loss mass" converted to energy per E = mc². The law of conservation of mass is universal. The principle of mass energy equivalence is wrong.

Also, nuclear energy has nothing to do with any strong nuclear force within the nucleus of atoms. There is only one universal force in nature - it is the same old Coulomb electric force. Energy within the nucleus is still the same old Coulomb electric energy, but packed extremely powerfully, many of orders compared to simple chemical energy. See my articles : "Mass Energy Equivalence Not Experimentally Verified", "Coulomb Electric Gravity"

#### Muse

##### Lifer
E=mc^2 is valid. It's amazing that this patent office clerk determined it. However, it's verifiable as is practically everything else Albert Einstein came up with. He was also a great philosopher. He'd applied for jobs as a physicist, positions in academia previous to his developments but been turned down, hence his work as a clerk. Eventually, of course, he got the recognition he deserved, but it took a long time.

.

Last edited:

#### Chan Rasjid

##### Member
ChatGPT says E=MC2 is valid.
Most interesting reply It would be informative if you could briefly explain how ChatGPT comes to the conclusion.

nm

#### Muse

##### Lifer
Most interesting reply It would be informative if you could briefly explain how ChatGPT comes to the conclusion.
Perhaps the same way Einstein did.

.

#### BoomerD

##### No Lifer
Maybe the mods could move this to "ask a technical professional" so the OP can find someone as smart as he is...

(personally, I suspect "he" is a bot or something like ChatGPT, not an actual hooman bean.)

#### SKORPI0

##### Lifer
It been validated over the years. If it wasn't, scientist/physicist would have done so years ago.

Last edited:
Pohemi

#### Lost_in_the_HTTP

##### Lifer
Does this guy know Kenny?

Did they meet in an old school?

#### sdifox

##### No Lifer
Have you considered investigating food facility fires?

#### UNCjigga

##### Lifer
LIGO and the gravitational waves they’ve detected, as well as years of post detection analysis, say that you’re wrong.

Pohemi and NTMBK

#### [DHT]Osiris

##### Lifer
Not "Probably because it's wrong", but probably because it's right.

#### lxskllr

##### No Lifer
Maybe the mods could move this to "ask a technical professional" so the OP can find someone as smart as he is...

(personally, I suspect "he" is a bot or something like ChatGPT, not an actual hooman bean.)

:shrugs:

#### Chan Rasjid

##### Member
It been validated over the years. If not, scientist/physicist would have done so years ago. https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/meaning-emc2/
"...If not, scientist/physicist would have done so years ago. " means you're making assumptions.

Isn't it better that you read the argument given in my original post - it has only 24 lines! If my argument is flawed, just say so; I'll leave it to others to make their judgments

#### brianmanahan

##### Lifer
does this explain why an airplane on a treadmill can't take off?

#### Chan Rasjid

##### Member
There is no need of any counter formula. Just remove all relativistic physics that is founded on the the mass-energy equivalence of E=mc². It indeed would lead to a catastrophic change in the landscape of physics as it means all of particle physics, QED, nuclear physics, etc. would have to be removed. The disintegration would be beyond words and imagination.

But that's how truth sometimes works.

#### igor_kavinski

##### Lifer
Does this guy know Kenny?

Did they meet in an old school?
Kenny would be overjoyed to meet this guy. A match made in heaven!

#### IronWing

##### No Lifer
There is no need of any counter formula. Just remove all relativistic physics that is founded on the the mass-energy equivalence of E=mc². It indeed would lead to a catastrophic change in the landscape of physics as it means all of particle physics, QED, nuclear physics, etc. would have to be removed. The disintegration would be beyond words and imagination.

But that's how truth sometimes works.
It's not that simple. Relativity works very well to describe the real world at the macroscopic level. You would have to show how it doesn't work. Do this and you'll be not only famous but you'd be engaged in actual science.

#### igor_kavinski

##### Lifer
It would be informative if you could briefly explain how ChatGPT comes to the conclusion.
Feed your theory into ChatGPT and see what you get.

#### [DHT]Osiris

##### Lifer
There is no need of any counter formula. Just remove all relativistic physics that is founded on the the mass-energy equivalence of E=mc². It indeed would lead to a catastrophic change in the landscape of physics as it means all of particle physics, QED, nuclear physics, etc. would have to be removed. The disintegration would be beyond words and imagination.

But that's how truth sometimes works.
Then you're going to need something to explain all of that. You don't get to handwave one of the simplest and far-reaching formulas of all time because you don't like it.

Pohemi

#### Chan Rasjid

##### Member
It's not that simple. Relativity works very well to describe the real world at the macroscopic level. You would have to show how it doesn't work. Do this and you'll be not only famous but you'd be engaged in actual science.
"Relativity works very well to describe the real world at the macroscopic level" is subjective. It is like talk about life after death. The Buddhist, Christian, Muslim or the Tibetans all have their views. The only acknowledged common fact is people do die.

The most important fact relating to science in the real world is what actually work, not just words/descriptions. Most of all our present day technology comes from experimental research in classical physics(from before the 1930s)- non have come from special or general relativity. No nuclear physicist/engineer designing their fission reactors ever need to go back to their drawing board and find help with the formula E=mc² - none!

People defending special relativity would often like to bring out how GPS cannot work without "relativistic" adjustments added, but did they ever ask the Chinese scientists who designed the Beidou system?