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.
 
A flawed experiment repeated a hundred times will give the same flawed hundred identical results. Repeated flawed interpretations have no scientific value.

Just tell me, in my OP proof, where is the flaw if any?

I have said all these "confirmed" are flawed, flawed experiments and flawed interpretations of the experiments - hundreds of such failed experiments.


My theory is in the twenty original papers uploaded at my website.
Neither me nor anyone else with an iota of understanding in math and science is going to entertain ur nonsense and waste their time on going through ur "papers".

If u wish to prove Einstein's theory wrong...it is u who needs to disprove what has already been experimentally demonstrated and provide an alternative explanation for the observed phenomena(like gravitational lensing, time dilation, etc). U can't just claim whatever u want to claim and brush aside a mountain of evidence just with a simple statement that it is flawed.

U sound no different than that idiot ppl keep posting the video of on this thread.
- spouting nonsense bullshit
- claiming Einstein is wrong for attention
- having no grasp on science
- making a fool of urself and being a waste of bandwidth.
 
Neither me nor anyone else with an iota of understanding in math and science is going to entertain ur nonsense and waste their time on going through ur "papers".

If u wish to prove Einstein's theory wrong...it is u who needs to disprove what has already been experimentally demonstrated and provide an alternative explanation for the observed phenomena(like gravitational lensing, time dilation, etc). U can't just claim whatever u want to claim and brush aside a mountain of evidence just with a simple statement that it is flawed.

U sound no different than that idiot ppl keep posting the video of on this thread.
- spouting nonsense bullshit
- claiming Einstein is wrong for attention
- having no grasp on science
- making a fool of urself and being a waste of bandwidth.
An argument between two people - you and me - does not have any ending. It is not my aim to engage in any nonstop argument.

My aim in my OP is to publish my findings why Einstein's relativity and E=mc² are wrong. It is to let others find out for themselves if they have any interest. My argument in the OP - a simplest of argument - shows why E=mc² is invalid - fictitious. My duty is only to publicize what I have discovered. It is for others to examine it or to ignore it.
 
I have uploaded about twenty original papers at my website

How many of these "original papers" have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in an indexed scientific journal?
 
How many of these "original papers" have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in an indexed scientific journal?
None!:(

I don't ask that you review any of my original papers, just the 22 lines proof I included in my OP.
 
May be you should consider that if you are to be taken credibly.
None of my papers would pass any of the more well known or "decent" journals. Nowadays, they want high mathematics to accompany physics. Even if an argument refuting Einstein's relativity is correct, it would never ever get published.

Peer review is nothing much more than a closed exclusive club. It has the ability to exclude whatever they wish to exclude. If the editor of a journal is a Tsinghua University physics professor whose tenure relies on his having published many papers in Einstein's relativity, would he accept any paper refuting the very papers he has published. This is just the reality in academia.

[edit] "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." - Orwell.
 
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.
OK, Give us the mathematics of your theory. Also how would explain the wave properties of a particle as it approaches the speed of light?

I am a Muslim convert of over forty years. I started to investigate Einstein's relativity only about ten years ago starting with almost zero knowledge. My simple journey and observations answers the question why the Muslim world is left behind in science and technology. The reasons:
1) Most Muslim's only think of wanting to enter paradise - not wanting to work in the field of "satanic" scientific forces of nature. But missiles, fighter jets, bombs are satanic and not very polite material.
2) Muslim's have lost their confidence in their own nature. Though the teachers always want to talk about how great is the teaching of the Quran, they still have a low esteem in their own ability in the face of the western world which is the top in science and technology. The Muslim world just swallow whatever physics comes from Princeton, Stanford, MIT and Cambridge without daring to question their findings.
3) Today's Muslims have great words about how great a religion Islam is, but they have lost the true "inner" iman. The first sign of true iman is curiosity about the truth, not swallowing the words of those who pretend to be an authority on a field of knowledge.

How can the Muslim world improve in science and technology when they blindly quote the media and propaganda promoting Einstein's relativity theories. Do those quoting Einstein's relativity know anything about relativity? I believe they do know how to recite the Fatiha and Sura Lailatul Qadar - 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?
Not quite true, I have stated many a times that if you want to get close to understanding Allah's work then you can do it through Science and more specifically Physics, Chemistry and biology.
 
Last edited:
I think he was attempting to be sarcastic lol. As what you said did not have anything to correlate from a scientific method stand point. Your origin theory was based on bunch of assumptions coming from your mind.

Well, sure it comes out of my mind. After i had the idea i searched in google if some other also have similar ideas and HEY! there are a lot of science papers with topic "multiverses" and topic "singularity cant be a point". So it is not me, it is you.
 
OK, Give us the mathematics of your theory. Also how would explain the wave properties of a particle as it approaches the speed of light?
I am not sure what you meant by "give us the mathematics of your theory". I have no knowldege of quantum mechanics.

I have various paper at my website and they do have mathematics, though just only undergraduate calculus:
"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Fails"
"Nuclear Binding Energy Fails (Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?)"
"Mass Energy Equivalence Not Experimentally Verified"
"Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory (SUT)"
and others

Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.

Not quite true, I have stated many a times that if you want to get close to understanding Allah's work then you can do it through Science and more specifically Physics, Chemistry and biology.
What you have stated is your belief, but the actual state of the Muslim world is as what I posted above. Very, very few Muslims have the faith to believe in themselves. They swallow whole - hook, line, and sinker - of everything of physics if they hear it comes from Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Cambridge. A Muslim may find truth only if he could question things by himself, not just by believing in media propaganda.
 
I am not sure what you meant by "give us the mathematics of your theory". I have no knowldege of quantum mechanics.

I have various paper at my website and they do have mathematics, though just only undergraduate calculus:
"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Fails"
"Nuclear Binding Energy Fails (Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?)"
"Mass Energy Equivalence Not Experimentally Verified"
"Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory (SUT)"
and others

Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.


What you have stated is your belief, but the actual state of the Muslim world is as what I posted above. Very, very few Muslims have the faith to believe in themselves. They swallow whole - hook, line, and sinker - of everything of physics if they hear it comes from Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Cambridge. A Muslim may find truth only if he could question things by himself, not just by believing in media propaganda.
The foundation of Science at Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Cambridge and world was laid by the Muslims, lol. Where would the world be with Islamic mathematics , still stuck in picturesque diagrams of Archimedes diagrams and pictures? As for India other than fabrication of perceived contributions to mathematics and Science there is no evidential scientific development until the Mughals brought it. .
 
An argument between two people - you and me - does not have any ending. It is not my aim to engage in any nonstop argument.

My aim in my OP is to publish my findings why Einstein's relativity and E=mc² are wrong. It is to let others find out for themselves if they have any interest. My argument in the OP - a simplest of argument - shows why E=mc² is invalid - fictitious. My duty is only to publicize what I have discovered. It is for others to examine it or to ignore it.
If ppl and journals are ignoring u...ur "research papers" are not peer reviewed...
...and u have zero evidence to offer...that coupled with the fact that this is not ur field(area of study) to begin with...

...perhaps u should look more inward(at the possibility of u being wrong) rather than doubling down on ur initial claims and continue to dismiss a well established theory along with its mountain of evidence.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom