# The Fraud of E=mc²

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

#### Chan Rasjid

##### Member
Exactly, the definition of the length is dependent on the assumption that light travels a certain amount of that length in a certain time (and the second assumption that it is a fixed value). This is circular, in that if we employed no other methods to check the length, it could change if the speed of light changed.

I didn't closely read your OP, but you were saying that you couldn't use Joule in E=mc² because a joule is derived from Newtonian physics.

I think both present an interesting thought experiment, but at the end of day both are "good enough."
I think your post is of interest and relevance because it brings out an issue which even a B.Sc physics graduate may not understand too well. Most graduates only follow get B.Sc, get a job, get married... living happily ever after. And then "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto Newton the things that are Newton's".

The implementation of a system of units and measurement need not have anything to do with any physics theory. The definitions of units are only to standardize measurements.

Length for space: Newtonian Euclidean space has three rectangular directions of length. We could use an artifact, a standard meter-rod as the length standard. It need not be related to our physics debate whether the speed of light is dependent or independent of the motion of the observer.
Time and second: We could just go back to the standard year to be the one revolution of the earth round the sun; only thing is it is not as accurate as our atomic standard.
Mass : Our standard with that piece of iridium-platinum artifact kept in Paris was working OK.

#### eelw

##### Diamond Member
How do you know what Newton intended? Any proof of that? Or did he personally tell you in your dreams?
He’s taking the Newton quote to heart

“I leave this problem to the consideration of the reader,”

#### Chan Rasjid

##### Member
How do you know what Newton intended? Any proof of that? Or did he personally tell you in your dreams?
Newton's concept of mass is "quantity of matter".

Say Newton had a gold bullion ingot. If his ingot were not to be corrupted, then its "quantity of matter" would remain the same forever.

Force = d/dt(mv) = ma; m being invariant.

#### Torn Mind

##### Lifer
All these sources you linked to are mainstream's misinterpretation of Newton's second law of motion. These sources are all wrong (Britannica, Quora, physics stack exchange). They don't understand Newton's laws in the manner Newton intended it to be the basis of Newtonian mechanics.

Yes! Force = dp/dt in Newtonian mechanics, but provided momentum p= invariant-mass x velocity.

If you define p=(γ^n)m₀v; for n= 1,2,3...infinity, you would be having infinitely many new "relativistic mechanics" and all these would work in their respective "relativistic world of reality"; they would have nothing at all to do with "Newton's world of reality".
Your statement is incomprehensible because your terms' meanings cannot be comprehended. Why would there be new "relativistic mechanics" for each value n? How does that represent some "relativistic world of reality", whatever that means?

What exactly is "Newton's world of reality". Are you suggesting that everything he presented needs to be accept even if nature operates to the contrary? Newton didn't make the world, he couldn't control the world. He just described things to the best of his capabilities.

All of this is irrelevant to what gamma is, which is to account for the variations in mass of an object depending on velocity. You appear to be wandering into "big word gesticulations" to distract from the essence of the matter.

Mathematical operations are a separate subject from physics and "mainstream" do not apply to established math. The integration of functions is something that is applied to physics but what makes an integral work operates under a mathematical foundation. Integrals are a sum, and conceptually introduced as "finding area under a curve" precisely because we're generally dumb monkeys who don't naturally take to abstraction(and that includes myself).

Gamma is nothing more than the accounting of variation in kg. You do not accept the concept. Whether it's because you seriously are mentally blocked or you are just presenting it just to see how people respond is unknown. The function of mass was assumed constant but has been proven otherwise. Even without a relativity application, mass can vary and hence is represented as a function with variables for "rocket launch math" because it varies and the variation must be modeled accurately.

In addition, while the term "mainstream" denotes a consensus following, it does not also necessarily implies that those in consensus are motivated by external factors such as corrupting influences, exploiting ambiguity of interpretation, or presenting info in a slanted way, especially in the domain of physics. Such connotations of mainstream may apply to other fields, such as media reporting, certain social sciences, nutrition advice, politics etc, but not in physics.

The Standard Model accounts for more than even what Einstein and his contemporaries knew at the time.

Let me know who you get the equipment set up to show light is not constant.

Pohemi

#### Torn Mind

##### Lifer
Newton's concept of mass is "quantity of matter".

Say Newton had a gold bullion ingot. If his ingot were not to be corrupted, then its "quantity of matter" would remain the same forever.

Force = d/dt(mv) = ma; m being invariant.
Descriptive statements(what is) are not the same as normative statements(what ought to be).

It is clear you want Newton's descriptive statements to also be eternal normative statements(what ought to be), using appeals to intuition and Newton's "authority" to establish this.

The implicitly normative statement is that "Newton's definition and laws ought to be followed and cannot be superseded".

Indeed, you state that Newton had implicit normative beliefs behind the laws despite providing no personal testimony from Newton.

This line of thinking can only be necessarily rejected because:
1. Intuition has usually failed to express the functions of "Nature" and
2. no lone scientist actually has "authority" to promulgate anything that has enforceable power over another like legal laws and governments do.
In fact, a central tenet of science proper is that with new evidence, the current paradigm can be challenged and amended if there is good cause shown via new evidence and/or a re-examination of current interpretations.
3. Newton was only describing things to the best of his knowledge and ability, but he is not some all-knowing being.
4. Rather, Newton's definition was based on what could be observed in the 1600s.

Your argument is implicit, and it shall be made explicit. It is as follows:
Newton described mass as what has been already aforementioned (invariant, and the product of density*volume).
Since Newton described it, it ought to be described that way in perpetuity and without challenge into the future
Therefore, anyone who proposes something contrary to the exact definition of F=ma is, a priori, incorrect.

Here, you lapse once again into using a "legal sense" of law as if Newton promulgated such a law and has the power to "enforce" it. In science, laws are descriptive and always subject to change based on new evidence. They cannot be used to charge someone with a violation. Not only that, but the actual definition is based on the integral of a function, which happens to result in F=ma assuming particular parameters.

The difference between legal system laws and scientific laws is that legal system laws prohibit, allow, or compel an action over another person, including businesses. Scientific laws describe things and how things work. One can say legal laws formalize verbs while scientific laws describe nouns.

Legal system laws are developed by legislatures or judges over time. There can also be "unwritten rules of a community". Whatever, there is an Binding Authority with power over the masses. As already mentioned, these rules either allow, prescribe, or prohibit an action and is codified in sentences.

You attempt to turn Newton into a "binding authority" who passed a "law" in which violations can be enforced by dismissing the assertion a priori, one of your key assertions being "Oh, it doesn't match exactly F=ma". That's simply not what scientific laws are. The thought process of dismissing things a priori is also simply not...science. Not to mention that your a priori arguments are fallacious, and thus are logically invalid(invalid meaning the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises).

Science on the other hand, involves at least:
1. Observation
2. Experimentation and repetition of the results
3. Forming concepts and explanation that is subordinate to the observations and experimental results.

Sure, scientists may hold beliefs on what ought to be and even chase hypothesis justifying their opinion, but the body of confirmed knowledge itself only describes the :"what is".

Here's an example of a legal law and "enforcement" regarding Maryland security deposit enforcement, which is Section 8-203.1(a)

(a) A receipt for a security deposit shall notify the tenant of the following:

(1) The right to have the dwelling unit inspected by the landlord in the tenant’s presence for the purpose of making a written list of damages that exist at the commencement of the tenancy if the tenant so requests by certified mail within 15 days of the tenant’s occupancy;

(2) The right to be present when the landlord inspects the premises at the end of the tenancy in order to determine if any damage was done to the premises if the tenant notifies the landlord by certified mail at least 15 days prior to the date of the tenant’s intended move, of the tenant’s intention to move, the date of moving, and the tenant’s new address;

(3) The landlord’s obligation to conduct the inspection within 5 days before or after the tenant’s stated date of intended moving;

(4) The landlord’s obligation to notify the tenant in writing of the date of the inspection;

(5) The tenant’s right to receive, by first–class mail, delivered to the last known address of the tenant, a written list of the charges against the security deposit claimed by the landlord and the actual costs, within 45 days after the termination of the tenancy;

(6) The obligation of the landlord to return any unused portion of the security deposit, by first–class mail, addressed to the tenant’s last known address within 45 days after the termination of the tenancy; and

(7) A statement that failure of the landlord to comply with the security deposit law may result in the landlord being liable to the tenant for a penalty of up to 3 times the security deposit withheld, plus reasonable attorney’s fees.
This law was passed by an entity(MD legislature) with power over a populace. If one is found in contradiction of the terms of the law, the violated can ask for legal relief.

To be in contradiction of the law, one simply has to commit the act of not including the specified terms in a lease.

To prove a violation, the evidence would be a lease with a section on security deposits. If a fact-finder, be it a judge or "administrative body", finds any of the above elements are missing, then the lease is in contradiction to the "law" and thus an judgment can be issued that the "law" was violated and that the deposit be returned.

All these sources you linked to are mainstream's misinterpretation of Newton's second law of motion. These sources are all wrong (Britannica, Quora, physics stack exchange). They don't understand Newton's laws in the manner Newton intended it to be the basis of Newtonian mechanics.

Yes! Force = dp/dt in Newtonian mechanics, but provided momentum p= invariant-mass x velocity.

If you define p=(γ^n)m₀v; for n= 1,2,3...infinity, you would be having infinitely many new "relativistic mechanics" and all these would work in their respective "relativistic world of reality"; they would have nothing at all to do with "Newton's world of reality".
You misrepresent quora and stack exchange. They are community platforms in which those with more training and education than the likes of you provide answers.

Your conceptualization of "wrong" is not in conformity with the actual definition of wrong. Your conceptualization is that "it doesn't match what I think it ought to be". One of the definitions of wrong is "incorrect", of which there are two senses:
1. not in accordance with fact; wrong.
2. not in accordance with particular standards or rules.
Your conceptualization of "wrong" does not match either sense:
A. not that the facts are wrong, as you dispute firmly established experimental evidence
B. nor with the procedure, as you haven't done one iota of actual "science", you have rejected every reasonable experiment, and you have attempted to rejected the concept a priori by utilizing an irrelevant procedure(the treating of Newton's Second Law and it's F=ma as a quasi-legal law).

#### WelshBloke

##### Lifer
It IS respectably wordy.
This set the bar for wordy recently! OP is weak sauce!

Pohemi and skyking

#### WelshBloke

##### Lifer
The speed of light in our laboratory would vary very slightly at different times of the year depending on the motion of the earth through the aether.

I'm going to need you to expand on the bolded before I thought no of you as being full flat earth.

#### skyking

##### Lifer
I'm going to need you to expand on the bolded before I thought no of you as being full flat earth.
That's full MCU

Pohemi

#### Chan Rasjid

##### Member
I'm going to need you to expand on the bolded before I thought no of you as being full flat earth.
There has already been 100+ years of debate about the Michelson-Morley experiment. The mainstream now takes it that the experiment showed a "null result" - meaning the aether does not exist.

My "intuition" says otherwise. Ask Warren Buffet, George Soros - intuition and common sense made them billions!

The Aether, Jeremy Fiennes

The "aether" today is a scientific verbal obscenity, the "unspeakable ae-word" that no
professional physicist shall ever be heard to utter on pain of being branded a deranged
crackpot and saying goodbye to his hopes of a successful career:
"The concept of an aether was long ago discarded as a relic of 19th century
voodoo science."
...
Miller was however no scientific lightweight. A Princeton physics graduate with a
doctorate in astronomy, he headed the Case School physics department from 1893 until
his retirement in 1936. He served as secretary, vice president and president of the
American Physical Society. He was elected to the National Academy of Science. And
was a member of the US National Research Council, becoming chairman of its Physical
Sciences Division.
Apart from this he was an exceptionally careful and rigorous experimentera, who
during his lifetime successfully defended his results against all skeptics. In 1925 he was
awarded \$1000 by the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of
Science for his detection of the aether – something the scientific establishment subsequently declared not to exist!

If anyone deserved a fair hearing it was Miller. He didn't get it. Largely ignored and
isolated in his later years, shortly before his death he gave all his data, more than 300 pages of interferometer readings, to his research associate Robert Shankland with the
somewhat bitter comment to "Analyze them or burn them".

Another definitive paper on the aether (Latest 2018 breakthrough):
"Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory (SUT)"
Chan Rasjid, Singapore

1) There is only one inverse-square law in physics - Coulombs law for electrical charge interactions. The gravitational law is the result of Coulomb's law.
2) There is no "four fundamental forces" of nature. There is only one universal force in nature; it is the Coulomb electric force.
3) Space is filled with an aether. Coulomb's law acts in the aether of space. Light is only a constant when measured in the aether. If an observer has a motion in the aether, speed of light becomes c±v, not invariant as in Einstein's light speed postulate.

Quite Easily Done.

#### WelshBloke

##### Lifer
We have reached full flat earth.

#### Torn Mind

##### Lifer
There has already been 100+ years of debate about the Michelson-Morley experiment. The mainstream now takes it that the experiment showed a "null result" - meaning the aether does not exist.

My "intuition" says otherwise. Ask Warren Buffet, George Soros - intuition and common sense made them billions!

The Aether, Jeremy Fiennes

Another definitive paper on the aether (Latest 2018 breakthrough):
"Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory (SUT)"
Chan Rasjid, Singapore

1) There is only one inverse-square law in physics - Coulombs law for electrical charge interactions. The gravitational law is the result of Coulomb's law.
2) There is no "four fundamental forces" of nature. There is only one universal force in nature; it is the Coulomb electric force.
3) Space is filled with an aether. Coulomb's law acts in the aether of space. Light is only a constant when measured in the aether. If an observer has a motion in the aether, speed of light becomes c±v, not invariant as in Einstein's light speed postulate.

Quite Easily Done.
Irrelevant on all counts.

The citation of Buffet and Soros is irrelevant due to being in a different field and their "success" being the making of money via investments.

Fiennes writes like a high schooler writing fanfiction, showing no training in argument but plenty of fallacies, especially just pulling out famous names.

Then citing your own "paper" and it's illogical drivel is also circular reasoning.

#### igor_kavinski

##### Lifer
Hey, at least the OP does his homework reading a lot of stuff in his (mostly) spare time. I wonder if all the walls of his home are full of scribbles.

#### Pohemi

##### Diamond Member
"Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood....He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever."
It's the only intelligent and logical stance IMHO. It cannot be proven one way or the other, and religious faith is based in emotions like fear...not logic.
Your statement is incomprehensible because your terms' meanings cannot be comprehended. Why would there be new "relativistic mechanics" for each value n? How does that represent some "relativistic world of reality", whatever that means?

What exactly is "Newton's world of reality". Are you suggesting that everything he presented needs to be accept even if nature operates to the contrary? Newton didn't make the world, he couldn't control the world. He just described things to the best of his capabilities...

...You appear to be wandering into "big word gesticulations" to distract from the essence of the matter...

...Gamma is nothing more than the accounting of variation in kg. You do not accept the concept. Whether it's because you seriously are mentally blocked or you are just presenting it just to see how people respond is unknown...
Descriptive statements(what is) are not the same as normative statements(what ought to be).

It is clear you want Newton's descriptive statements to also be eternal normative statements(what ought to be), using appeals to intuition and Newton's "authority" to establish this.

The implicitly normative statement is that "Newton's definition and laws ought to be followed and cannot be superseded".

Indeed, you state that Newton had implicit normative beliefs behind the laws despite providing no personal testimony from Newton.

This line of thinking can only be necessarily rejected because:
1. Intuition has usually failed to express the functions of "Nature" and
2. no lone scientist actually has "authority" to promulgate anything that has enforceable power over another like legal laws and governments do.
In fact, a central tenet of science proper is that with new evidence, the current paradigm can be challenged and amended if there is good cause shown via new evidence and/or a re-examination of current interpretations.
3. Newton was only describing things to the best of his knowledge and ability, but he is not some all-knowing being.
4. Rather, Newton's definition was based on what could be observed in the 1600s.

Your argument is implicit, and it shall be made explicit. It is as follows:
Newton described mass as what has been already aforementioned (invariant, and the product of density*volume).
Since Newton described it, it ought to be described that way in perpetuity and without challenge into the future
Therefore, anyone who proposes something contrary to the exact definition of F=ma is, a priori, incorrect.

Here, you lapse once again into using a "legal sense" of law as if Newton promulgated such a law and has the power to "enforce" it. In science, laws are descriptive and always subject to change based on new evidence....

...You attempt to turn Newton into a "binding authority" who passed a "law" in which violations can be enforced by dismissing the assertion a priori, one of your key assertions being "Oh, it doesn't match exactly F=ma". That's simply not what scientific laws are. The thought process of dismissing things a priori is also simply not...science. Not to mention that your a priori arguments are fallacious, and thus are logically invalid(invalid meaning the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises).

Science on the other hand, involves at least:
1. Observation
2. Experimentation and repetition of the results
3. Forming concepts and explanation that is subordinate to the observations and experimental results...

...You misrepresent quora and stack exchange. They are community platforms in which those with more training and education than the likes of you provide answers...

...Your conceptualization of "wrong" is not in conformity with the actual definition of wrong. Your conceptualization is that "it doesn't match what I think it ought to be"....
...Fiennes writes like a high schooler writing fanfiction, showing no training in argument but plenty of fallacies, especially just pulling out famous names.

Then citing your own "paper" and it's illogical drivel is also circular reasoning.
These summaries are exactly his entire thread premise. Nothing but pseudo-science and claims of "proofs" that he wrote while ignoring and dismissing reality.

#### Torn Mind

##### Lifer

Relativistic rate correction used to be a line item because relativity had not been physically confirmed at the time of inception of the GPS system. They wanted the option to turn it off in case General Relativity was not true. Since GPS operation has proven it to be true, relativistic rate correction is now built in by default. No need to call it out, since the system would not work without it.

Of course, Chan will simply trot out the "establishment" line. While "the establishment" and "mainstream" can be corruptible, that usually manifests itself in the evidence generating/fact-finding process, as "predatory gatekeeping", or interpreting things in manner that doesn't align with the data by denying funding to conduct research(and thereby science).

A GPS system is past that. It's in the application phase of knowledge established. They are made applying the discovered facts.

Meghan54 and Pohemi

#### Chan Rasjid

##### Member
Is there a way to directly verify Einstein's relativistic mass increase with velocity according to E=mc². Yes! An experiment had been done - the 1964 William Bertozzi Experiment. Did the experiment confirm relativistic mass increase? Yes, but for a total SILENCE after.

The concept of the experiment was simple. Electrons were generated by a Van de Graaff generator and accelerated to high relativistic speed - near 95% light speed. The speed of the electrons were measured directly by the time_of_flight method over a distance of about 8m. The electrons would then hit a block of aluminium. The number of electrons can be calculated from the charge absorbed. The kinetic energy of the electrons would then be absorbed (without much loss) by the aluminium and converted to heat energy. This heat energy can be calculated by the rise in temperature of the aluminium.

Now there are just two formulas for kinetic energy:
1) classical; KE = ½mv²
2) relativistic; KE = (γ - 1)m₀c²; γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²)

The measurements of the velocities and energies of the experiment would show if kinetic energy follows formula 1) or 2) above. The experiment showed that 1) was clearly refuted. Formula 2) was confirmed with a 10% accuracy; but this 10% accuracy was enough to clearly show the classical kinetic energy was incorrect for velocities near light speed (> 95%).

Had the Bertozzi experiment dismissed 300 years of Newtonian mechanics and confirmed the new relativistic mechanics of special relativity. The consensus would be a definitive "Yes" if the experiment had been repeated and corroborated by other independent researchers. Till today - after 59 years - no other research group has repeated the Bertozzi experiment.

"Newton's Invariant Mass Has Remained Invariant"

#### sdifox

##### No Lifer

KonoSuba is more real than your drivel.

#### Torn Mind

##### Lifer
E=MC^2 Fully Confirmed April 15, 2008
.

Last edited:
igor_kavinski

#### Chan Rasjid

##### Member
Is there a way to directly verify Einstein's relativistic mass increase with velocity according to E=mc². Yes! An experiment had been done - the 1964 William Bertozzi Experiment. Did the experiment confirm relativistic mass increase? Yes, but for a total SILENCE after.

The concept of the experiment was simple. Electrons were generated by a Van de Graaff generator and accelerated to high relativistic speed - near 95% light speed. The speed of the electrons were measured directly by the time_of_flight method over a distance of about 8m. The electrons would then hit a block of aluminium. The number of electrons can be calculated from the charge absorbed. The kinetic energy of the electrons would then be absorbed (without much loss) by the aluminium and converted to heat energy. This heat energy can be calculated by the rise in temperature of the aluminium.

Now there are just two formulas for kinetic energy:
1) classical; KE = ½mv²
2) relativistic; KE = (γ - 1)m₀c²; γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²)

The measurements of the velocities and energies of the experiment would show if kinetic energy follows formula 1) or 2) above. The experiment showed that 1) was clearly refuted. Formula 2) was confirmed with a 10% accuracy; but this 10% accuracy was enough to clearly show the classical kinetic energy was incorrect for velocities near light speed (> 95%).

Had the Bertozzi experiment dismissed 300 years of Newtonian mechanics and confirmed the new relativistic mechanics of special relativity. The consensus would be a definitive "Yes" if the experiment had been repeated and corroborated by other independent researchers. Till today - after 59 years - no other research group has repeated the Bertozzi experiment.

"Newton's Invariant Mass Has Remained Invariant"
Three centuries of Newtonian mechanics showing not a single instance of failure had been dismissed by the one and single uncorroborated Bertozzi experiment of 1964. As it is customary to summarize in such a situation,...the rest is history. The physicists could now sleep soundly every night resting assured that their relativistic mass had finally replaced the invariant mass of Newton.

It is because of this that the title of the thread is :"The fraud of E=mc²"

Pohemi

#### sdifox

##### No Lifer
Three centuries of Newtonian mechanics showing not a single instance of failure had been dismissed by the one and single uncorroborated Bertozzi experiment of 1964. As it is customary to summarize in such a situation,...the rest is history. The physicists could now sleep soundly every night resting assured that their relativistic mass had finally replaced the invariant mass of Newton.

It is because of this that the title of the thread is :"The fraud of E=mc²"

.

Theory of Relativity is confirmed every time a particle accelerator is used. Show me your experiments.

Meghan54 and Pohemi

#### sdifox

##### No Lifer
My intuition says the Standard Model is a fraud. Subscribe to my Upgraded Model newsletter for a low monthly fee of 5.99 to learn how.

Last edited:
Meghan54 and Pohemi

#### nakedfrog

##### No Lifer
My intuition says the Standard Model is a fraud. Subscribe to my Upgraded Model newsletter for a low monthly fee of 5.99 to learn how.
Can you provide details on how to open my third eye for a small one-time bonus payment? I have a power drill.

#### sdifox

##### No Lifer
Can you provide details on how to open my third eye for a small one-time bonus payment? I have a power drill.

Rear port is acceptable. My stallion will collect.

#### hal2kilo

##### Lifer
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"
I've seen in places that it should be E=MC^n.

#### woolfe9998

##### Lifer
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.