Lanyap
Elite Member
- Dec 23, 2000
- 8,158
- 2,187
- 136
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.
Probably.
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.
I have done cut and paste all over the internet. If 95% of sites delete my posts, I'll still have a 5% success rate.You didn't write this.
The Fraud of E=mc²
I am very disappointed with the Muslim world. Muslims like to mention about how the prophet says ...seek knowledge even going as far as China...But mywww.islamicboard.com
I have done cut and paste all over the internet. If 95% of sites delete my posts, I'll still have a 5% success rate.
I have done cut and paste all over the internet. If 95% of sites delete my posts, I'll still have a 5% success rate.
He's a very practical personThat is the definition of shit posting.
"A Tale of Genius with Tragedy"" — Ludwig BoltzmannHe's a very practical person
Committed to his mission. Sadly, scientists will probably start debating his theories exactly one day after he's left planet Earth because such is life.
“A mathematician will recognize Cauchy, Gauss, Jacobi, or Helmholtz after reading a few pages, just as musicians recognize, from the first few bars, Mozart, Beethoven, or Schubert.” — Ludwig Boltzmann
...He spent most of his life defending his theories, but the attacks on his work continued and he began to feel that all his life’s efforts are about to collapse.
No B.Sc. degree of any sort; dropped out of first year engineering, Universtity of Singapore 1970. My physics and "high" mathematics come from self-study - little bits and pieces over the years.Sorry if I missed this as I haven't read the whole thread, but where did you get your physics degree?
see message #134 for more details.So, if the formula is wrong, can you tell us what's the correct formula?
Dear @mxnerd,The fact is OP absolutely did not have any idea.
e=mc2: 103 years later, Einstein proven right
the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only 5 per cent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 per cent?
The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions of quarks and gluons.
Supercomputers Corroborate Einstein's e=mc2 After 103 Years
E=mc2 passes tough MIT test
A direct test of E=mc2
==
I have already debunked this "Direct Test of E=mc²" in my paper: "Mass Energy Equivalence Not Experimentally Verified". In fact, this experiment was high fraud, not just by the team of Pritchard & Co, but a fraud committed by the whole of the physics establishment on the world, a world where the common man does not know much about the fundamentals of physics.The team found that the formula predicting that energy and mass are equivalent is correct to an incredible accuracy of better than one part in a million. That's 55 times more precise than the best previous test.
...Pritchard and colleagues from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Institut Laue Langevin (ILL), Florida State and the University of Oxford report their results in the Dec. 22 issue of Nature. They write: "If this equation were found to be even slightly incorrect, the impact would be enormous -- given the degree to which [it] is woven into the theoretical fabric of modern physics and everyday applications such as global positioning systems."
The v is velocity? The c is velocity of light? The v can be c. The kinetic energy is then ½mc². The fraud is in the ½?2) kinetic energy of a body is given by the well known classical formula: kinetic energy E= ½mv².
We can write the classical kinetic energy formula as: E= ½m₀v²; m₀ is the invariant mass of Newton independent of velocity; it is nothing but just our ordinary never changing mass.The v is velocity? The c is velocity of light? The v can be c. The kinetic energy is then ½mc². The fraud is in the ½?
No B.Sc. degree of any sort; dropped out of first year engineering, Universtity of Singapore 1970. My physics and "high" mathematics come from self-study - little bits and pieces over the years.
Really?The problem with E=mc² is that E is fictitious and does not have any unit in any system of units
The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content; if the energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 10^20 if the energy is measured in ergs and the mass in grams.
Here's a plan: get a janitor job at CERN and figure out what they are doing wrong. When you have enough evidence, you can unmask them before the entire world!The fraud is with CERN.
This fella is basically making an argument from his intuition. So all conversations with him must be kept in mind that he presumes his outlook to be true and will respond accordingly.Really?
In Einstein's 1905 paper Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy Content?
He clearly said (translated to English)
It's all over the internet
This paper is only a supplemental to his previous paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies in the same year 1905
Look, if Richard Fucking Feynman didn't disprove E=mc2, you should really reconsider the foundations of your argument. I find it fantastically unlikely that you've exposed some flaw with it that he somehow missed.We can write the classical kinetic energy formula as: E= ½m₀v²; m₀ is the invariant mass of Newton independent of velocity; it is nothing but just our ordinary never changing mass.
The proper formula for E=mc² is: E=(1/√(1 - v²/c²))m₀c². So if a proton is accelerated to near the light speed, then its total energy goes very high, towards infinity.
Within the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN, the proton was accelerated to near light speed (>99% c). The CERN physicists applied the E=mc² formula to ESTIMATE(energy never ever measured) the protons energy; the proton purportedly reached 7 TeV (7 x 10¹² eV). If we use the classical E=½m₀c², the energy was near 470 MeV (470 x 10⁶ eV), a factor difference of 15,000 times!
The fraud is with CERN.