The Fraud of E=mc²

[Lanyap]

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.

https://vixra.org/author/chan_rasjid_kah_chew

 

[Chan Rasjid]

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 my

www.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.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

Sorry if I missed this as I haven't read the whole thread, but where did you get your physics degree?

 

[sdifox]

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.

That is the definition of shit posting.

 

[igor_kavinski]

That is the definition of shit posting.

He'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.

 

[mxnerd]

So, if the formula is wrong, can you tell us what's the correct formula?

 

[Chan Rasjid]

He'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 Tale of Genius with Tragedy"" — Ludwig Boltzmann
The Man who Trusted Atoms

A Tale of Genius with Tragedy — Ludwig Boltzmann

The Man who Trusted Atoms

www.cantorsparadise.com

“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.

He died...Boltzmann's work on the kinetic theory of gases were not recognized while he was alive; "It was not long after his death that his work gained acceptance and recognition". Today, statistical mechanics is an important branch of classical physics.

 

[Torn Mind]

He's also got a Google groups discussion from 2014. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/BUW0xVdfqk4/m/0Xp2kn6vhKMJ

My epigenetics are perfectly resistant to such foolishness...because my dad got a Ph.D in physics(and didn't tell me anything. One he died. Two, he didn't actually give a damn). His master's thesis was an extension of Cauchy's integral formula.

This thread and work is no thesis. Just the fallacious argumentation of a guy who desires something that will never come to be and maybe isn't even original, as relativityoflight.com has a more refined sophistry arguing the exact same non-reality.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

Sorry if I missed this as I haven't read the whole thread, but where did you get your physics degree?

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.

There may be such a thing called destiny. The question of luck and destiny is like the chicken and the egg question- which comes first.
"Blessed is he who is born with luck and good destiny,
One blessing good, two blessings better." -- Anonymous.

I was born not unlucky or with a bad destiny - Allah knows best. It was just that my dumbness quotient was a little on the high side. There is some belief (Buddhist, Taoist, ancient Chinese) that a persons life is determined by his first seven years. This may not be surprising given the fact that good children come from good families; bad children from broken families. There may also be the possibility that the fate of a child may be affected by the parents, dependent on their nett of: ∑ good deeds+ bad deeds.

Besides all the above, come our early friendships, the companies we keep as a teenager while still easily influenced. Luckily for me, my teenage years was in the 1960s when science and technolgy was growing at the fastest. I had a childhood friend who was from a "good" school - Singapore is famous for school classification, the good schools and bad schools - and his interest in science seemed to have rubbed off onto me; this remains for the rest of my life.

In Singapore, we have compulsory military national service, two years full time and then weeks of reservist trainings till forty. I was doing reservist training (at 35) and met a corporal who was doing his Ph.D in atomic physics. So I used the opportunity to ask him about physics. It was from him that I first heard about the four fundamental forces and about how there was a search for a Grand Unified Theory to unify all of the four forces into one theory - the Holy Grail of physics.

After the in-camp training, I was thinking about how to unity the four forces - whoever is not interested to be the first to DO SOMETHING. Sitting in bed, a note book and a pen in hand, I started working; I mean "thinking".
The result of my thinking was not fruitful. I came to the conclusion that the totality of my physics consists of two laws in physics:
1) Newton's inverse square law of gravitation.
2) The Coulomb's inverse square law of electrical interaction.
There was no other. The Lorentz transformation, special relativity, mass energy equivalence of E=mc², etc. existed only in my parallel universe.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

So, if the formula is wrong, can you tell us what's the correct formula?

see message #134 for more details.

The formula E=mc² is basically about how a body's mass and kinetic energy increases exponentially towards infinity when a body - or a particle, e.g. electron, proton - is accelerated to reach a speed close to that of light speed. The formula is wrong.

The correct formula is that from Newton and classical mechanics:
1) Newton's concept that mass is "quantity of matter", an invariant independent on the speed of the body.
2) kinetic energy of a body is given by the well known classical formula: kinetic energy E= ½mv².

 

[sdifox]

 

[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

==

 

[Chan Rasjid]

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

==

Dear @mxnerd,

I have to say this. If there were to be a hundred papers published in peer reviewed journals supporting E=mc² and just the lone one paper of mine that disputes the validity of the formula, a person who reads my paper and accepts my argument may still reject the other published one hundred papers. There is nothing illogical or irrational about such a situation; the person has made a study of the question and finally concludes that E=mc² is invalid. It is all a matter of judgment.

If you have accepted the views of the other scientists and rejects my argument dismissing E=mc², it is your conclusion. I have no rights to forbid you from making your own decisions.

"E=mc2 passes tough MIT test"

E=mc2 passes tough MIT test

news.mit.edu

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."

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 experiment was high fraud as there was nought in the experiment that relates to measuring any energy relating to mass changes. It was an experiment that used a different nuclear reactions, sulfur and silicon, to deduce the mass of a neutron and compared the result with the accepted mass of neutron done using nuclear interactions of the deuteron. The "one part per million" is the new deduced mass of the neutron as compared to the accepted mass, nothing at all related to any verification of E=mc². [EDIT] Furthermore, the calculation of the deduced mass of the neutron relies on the use of the formula E=mc²!

 

[Torn Mind]

Your papers are the equivalent of a high schooler articulating an emotional outburst.

Like seriously, other people had their work validated by another.

(I don't even know why I care so much. Maybe because my dad walked over the coals and that shit got passed down physically. Because I certainly have no love for him)

 

[mv2devnull]

2) kinetic energy of a body is given by the well known classical formula: kinetic energy E= ½mv².

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?

 

[Chan Rasjid]

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?

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.

 

[SKORPI0]

The 18 Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Physics

The more we learn about the universe, the more questions seem to arise. Our picks for the biggest open questions remaining in physics.

www.livescience.com

 

[sdifox]

This just in, CERN has been cryptomining with the oodles of energy they have, not doing LHC experiments!

 

[mxnerd]

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.

So why should people believe in you?

 

[Chan Rasjid]

So why should people believe in you?

Try chatGPT.

 

[mxnerd]

@Chan Rasjid chatGPT is god now?

 

[mxnerd]

The problem with E=mc² is that E is fictitious and does not have any unit in any system of units

Really?

In Einstein's 1905 paper Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy Content?
He clearly said (translated to English)

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.

The erg is a unit of energy equal to 10^−7 joules

It's all over the internet

https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/E=mc%5E2.pdf

https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

This 3 page paper is only a supplemental to his previous paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies in the same year 1905

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

www.fourmilab.ch

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=e5855180cf7393f306aa47d957a196019e30ef07

 

[igor_kavinski]

The fraud is with CERN.

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!

P.S. Don't tell 'em about your papers!

 

[Torn Mind]

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

https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/E=mc%5E2.pdf

https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

This paper is only a supplemental to his previous paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies in the same year 1905

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

www.fourmilab.ch

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=e5855180cf7393f306aa47d957a196019e30ef07

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.

It's not an outlook based from scientific practice, but more like bad philosophy(fallacies all over).

 

[nakedfrog]

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.

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.

The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. I Ch. 15: The Special Theory of Relativity

www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu