I'm confused is this stupid, or advanced stupid?
Successful troll thread OP. Looks like you got bites on your line from pretty much everyone who still posts here
The claim has credibility that Albert Einstine plaugerized the famous formula e=mc^2.
...........................
Write a pome about our newly discovered physics, sir!this thread makes me feel young again
relativistically speaking
There are numerous definitions of invalid. Of which the sense you are using it in is that "something is without foundation in fact or truth".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.
Here, your usage of the word "new" is duplicitous. New in one sense can mean something completely recent and devoid of past developments. This is not the case. The formula is clearly an adjustment, one in which the results for low velocities are so insignificant that the result is essentially the same as the "classical definition".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.
Unitless numbers abound and are the results of real concepts. Heck, some funcitnosn are "undefined" and geometry is based on postulates.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.
OP's link redacted.
Perknose
Forum Director
Good breakdown. You have more patience and tolerance for nonsense than I do. I'm not a physics expert either, but I do have enough basic understanding to recognize that this one is full of it, heh.Also, I didn't get past undergrad physics but Chan, you're underdeveloped.
P.S, my garbage dad did get a Ph.D in Physics...obviously a least little bit of him did pass down to me.
Classical mechanics is not any approximation to the mechanics of special relativity as mainstream like to drill into students (Newton == Einstein at small speed). From the 2nd postulate of SR, the relativists developed a completely new mechanics with their new "world of reality" independent of our common sense Newtonian world of reality. Only one of the reality is consistent with our natural world, not both.Sophistry on display.
OP doesn't get it.
The rebuttals thought...are also lacking, so much so...they aren't even rebuttals.
Chan, you fail to:
It is well known that classical mechanics is a good appoximation up to a point. OP, in his education and emotional arrested development, simply can't comprehend something just a bit more complicated.
- Grasp the process of science
- which is observation and validating that observation after much measurement and effort.
- While scientists can because extraordinarily pretentious and cannot be trusted for anything outsider their domain, the knowledge and expertise of someone in the natural sciences is usually beyond question since nature thankfully...is mostly immune to intervention on the scales of determination, with nutrition and food being a rather noteworthy exception....
- accept that c^2 has indeed been measured and thus the adjustment added to the denominator is correct.
E=mc² is invalid in physics because E is just a real number that cannot be associated with any real unit in any system of units we need for physical measurements in science.There are numerous definitions of invalid. Of which the sense you are using it in is that "something is without foundation in fact or truth".
There is no duplicity in my use of a "new" definition of force for relativistic mechanics.Here, your usage of the word "new" is duplicitous. New in one sense can mean something completely recent and devoid of past developments. This is not the case. The formula is clearly an adjustment, one in which the results for low velocities are so insignificant that the result is essentially the same as the "classical definition".
Even if we grant that the definition of "new", a formula cannot be rejected solely because it is new. (Appeal to novelty)
Newton's second law is actually an axiom, a definition of force in his "Mathematical Principle of Natural Philosophy". It is a component of the fundamental framework which must be adhered to in order to develop the mechanics of our natural world (It is akin to axioms in mathematics - you change the axiom, you're dealing with a completely new mathematics). So changing the definition of force to F=d/dt(γmv) is NOT JUST A NEW HYPOTHESIS.In addition, the particular process of science is always open to new hypothesis(open does not mean without hostile hubris and resistance from the ancien regiem, even if the scientists are non-religious. The "Pope complex" is very real within science) and evidence.
It is not a valid argument that changing something from Newton's rules necessarily invalidates the new concept. For Newton too, was just merely a human who managed to observe and conceptualize phenomena like apples falling from trees. But electromagnetic waves are not apples, and behave differently enough that classical physics is insufficient for them. Newton is not omniscient; he didn't understand everything, but brought to light something to be understood.
Force must never ever be without a real unit as it would make energy to be without a real unit. A physics formula dealing with energy cannot have E to be fictitious through definition.Unitless numbers abound and are the results of real concepts. Heck, some funcitnosn are "undefined" and geometry is based on postulates.
Your use of the word "fictitious" is grating as well. Because seriously, "a calculated value is unitless, therefore it is fake", in direct contradiction to the fact it is real because it is derived from a process of observation, then calculations.
Dimensionless quantity - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There is no argument that something gets invalidated simply because a quantity is dimensionless.
I would not argue on the proper use of the word "fraud". Mainstream physics has promoted the idea that nuclear energy is from E=mc².Science guys are not the best rebutters and are impatient. You got your fair reading and response now. Now go cry in a corner.
In addition, the legal guy of me takes issue with your use of the term "fraud". Fraud has multiple components, in which at least
1. a statement of fact is made
2. That statement of fact was false
3. the individual knew it was false
4. It was for financial or material gain.
5. reasonable reliance on the truthfulness of that statement
6. Harm caused by the fraudulent act.
Even if one assumes that somehow E=mc^2 is false, it doesn't necessarily make it fraud if the indvidiual didn't know, didn't get a "gain" from it, or it caused no harm. But the facts are clear it is true and arguing "my monkey brain can't comprehend it but I'll try to use fallacies to make my intuition become reality" is the height of delusion, and delusion in particular is one of the most wretched properties of mankind. In fact, I can respect the murderer who knows he wants to take someone out over someone who causes death but thinks he's doing something benevolent.
Also, I didn't get past undergrad physics but Chan, you're underdeveloped.
P.S, my garbage dad did get a Ph.D in Physics...obviously a least little bit of him did pass down to me.
Called it. He's a stubborn idiot.I'll honestly be surprised if he reads that and actually ponders it for a moment. Maybe though...
I think that photo of him says it all. Much better than his arguments here. Sometimes a picture IS worth 1000 words.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
Real guy. Much wow.
And apparently, that site is 6 years old. Dude has an axe to grind.
Kinda sad. What intellect he has left, he has decided to waste it on this lost cause.I think that photo of him says it all.
You know, pi has never sat right with me either, I'm sure all those extra numbers after the decimal are just the work of Big Digit. Henceforth, pi = 3. My exhaustive and well-considered post serves as proof that we really don't need all that extra .14159 et cetera nonsense. It only makes sense for pi to be a round number, because pies are round. Think about it, who benefits from there being an endless stream of numbers after the decimal? BIG DIGIT.
There's several reasons I'm convinced that we live in a simulation. Pi is one of them.You know, pi has never sat right with me either, I'm sure all those extra numbers after the decimal are just the work of Big Digit. Henceforth, pi = 3. My exhaustive and well-considered post serves as proof that we really don't need all that extra .14159 et cetera nonsense. It only makes sense for pi to be a round number, because pies are round. Think about it, who benefits from there being an endless stream of numbers after the decimal? BIG DIGIT.
I wish the programmers weren't so violent.There's several reasons I'm convinced that we live in a simulation. Pi is one of them.
Ambivalent, how often does an average programmer care about a datapoint?I wish the programmers weren't so violent.
I used to know how Pi was derived, now I rely on my calculators to apply the algorhythms. However, the approval of that stuff was no doubt implemented by deep state woke science geeks. You may have noticed that circles and balls aren't as round as they once were. Even earth has lost its once spherical characteristics. Full moons aren't full like they used to be. Don't look at the sun now, even with protection, you'll have a rude awakening. Heaven help us!There's several reasons I'm convinced that we live in a simulation. Pi is one of them.
This thread reminds me a bit of the long ago years-long thread on the immenent breakthroughs coming in low energy cold fusion...