Our material life would just go on as usual as our technology would not stop working because we talk less about the theories/speculations behind them. Our national electrical power grids, nuclear power stations, nuclear bombs, our computers would all run. The only thing difficult would be the physics teachers who would have to rewrite the books/syllabuses to teach in physics.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.
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.
I know that the formula E=mc² is often referred to as the atomic bomb formula - it is not true.kind of like the disintegration from a nuclear fission/fusion bomb
which was developed because E=mc^2
All you have to do is show your work.I know that the formula E=mc² is often referred to as the atomic bomb formula - it is not true.
It is indeed true that nuclear energy and its power is tremendously greater then energy from chemical reactions. The reason for the difference is simply because nuclear energy is released from within the nucleus of atoms when the atoms undergo nuclear transformation to other elements. Chemical energy comes only from the changes in atomic bonds in molecules and these involve only energy changes due to the orbital electrons of the molecules. The atoms participating in chemical reactions do not undergo nuclear transformation to other elements.
The second truth is that the energy released from within the nucleus of atoms is also the plain old Coulomb electrical energy - but of great potential energy. There is no mass loss as present day physics would want us belief; that a small mass loss of δm, when put into E=mc² would give a huge amount of energy E =(δm) c² - it is not true.
I know that the formula E=mc² is often referred to as the atomic bomb formula - it is not true.
It is indeed true that nuclear energy and its power is tremendously greater then energy from chemical reactions. The reason for the difference is simply because nuclear energy is released from within the nucleus of atoms when the atoms undergo nuclear transformation to other elements. Chemical energy comes only from the changes in atomic bonds in molecules and these involve only energy changes due to the orbital electrons of the molecules. The atoms participating in chemical reactions do not undergo nuclear transformation to other elements.
The second truth is that the energy released from within the nucleus of atoms is also the plain old Coulomb electrical energy - but of great potential energy. There is no mass loss as present day physics would want us belief; that a small mass loss of δm, when put into E=mc² would give a huge amount of energy E =(δm) c² - it is not true.
"You think the equation is flawed? Submit a detailed, evidence-supported paper to a peer-reviewed physics journal."This is pretty hilarious.
You know why this post would be deleted in mainstream science forums? Because Einstein's theory holds up under real-world scrutiny. It's a model that has been tested many, many times over the decades.
Climate science deniers and anti-vaxxers use this same "big, bad mainstream" tactic. They're preying on people who are both fundamentally ignorant of scientific principles and desperate to feel special by clinging to an anti-establishment idea. They can pretend they're caretakers of a privileged truth under siege by an evil authority, without having to do things like... say, understand physics.
But that's not how science works. Real science, good science, is upheld by constant experimentation and peer review. Relativity is the prevailing model because there's a broad consensus based on observable evidence and sustained testing, not because there's some sinister cabal propping up E=mc2. You think the equation is flawed? Submit a detailed, evidence-supported paper to a peer-reviewed physics journal. Don't whip up a crude one-page website and then moan that no one listens to you.
A friendly note: Chan by his admission is a first-year university dropout and has only ever held "odd jobs." Why would we trust anyone who wasn't even in school for long enough to learn about the theory of relativity in detail, much less know enough about it to formulate a thoughtful challenge? Chan, you're a joke; please leave.
I have about 20 papers uploaded to my website - it's my all and everything. What else can I say.All you have to do is show your work.
Rewrite them to what, exactly? If you've got something better, please tell us.The only thing difficult would be the physics teachers who would have to rewrite the books/syllabuses to teach in physics.
Good for you. Did you submit these papers to a scientific journal?I have about 20 papers uploaded to my website - it's my all and everything. What else can I say.
See my paper "Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory (SUT)".You don't understand the four fundamental forces. Gravity, electric, strong/weak nuclear. Your understanding doesn't even scratch the surface. Seriously, do yourself a favor and take at least 5 semesters of Calculus (to partial differential equations minimum) and 20 credits of physics.
Sorry but I can't explain concepts that took me years to learn in a forum thread!
But deluding yourself isn't a good way to live.
"You think the equation is flawed? Submit a detailed, evidence-supported paper to a peer-reviewed physics journal."
I have already submitted my proof/argument (my all and everything) in my original post - it is only 24 lines long. But I prefer to submit it to you instead of to some "peer-reviewed physics journal". If you found my argument to be flawed, please let me know. I'll just let others offer their judgement.
So this is fun, if we can just decide we don't agree with fundaments of physics, why stop there?You believe in the four fundamental forces of nature, but I don't. I believe that there is only one universal force in nature
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.
E=mc2 Relativistic Mechanics Invalid, 相对论错误
E=mc2 kinetic energy fictitious; relativistic mechanics has no defined force unit; the SI Newton only valid for Newtonian mechanics. 爱因斯坦的相对论是错误的; E = mc2 没有真正的物理单位。www.emc2fails.com
I am an independent researcher from Singapore mainly interested in physics. I dropped out of university many years ago after first year engineering. My interest in physics remains and over the years I do read up on the subject.
As long as one is following the scientific method and applying sound reason and analysis to evidence and is open to being wrong, one is a scientist. The odds of someone with no formal education and research experience in a particular field contributing an innovation or overturning previous findings is very low but not impossible.Hmm...