What's new

My Discovery That Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Wrong.

Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
4
Dear readers,

First, a little clarification why I post here and not in those active physics forums in the internet. In nearly all physics forums in the western world, any post that questions the validity of physics related to Einstein's relativity would be deleted automatically. I have not many venue to discuss my recent discovery.

Most people would not believe that the famous equation, E= mc², from Einstein could be wrong. First a little clarification. The formula has two part. The so call mass-energy equivalence - mass may be converted to energy - is not wrong; it is the basis why we have nuclear power. What my discovery shows to be wrong is the the so called relativistic kinetic energy part of E=mc² wrong - relativistic mechanics fails.

In 2012, there was the discovery of the Higgs boson which made headline news worldwide. Then, very recently, we have the big news about the detection of gravitational waves. If it is confirmed that E=mc² is wrong, it would not just be headline news, it would mean the world of physics going belly-up! The related physics of E=mc² is the very foundation of high energy physics which is what the most advanced physics research laboratories are using for their calculations - imagine all their work for the past 100 years being rejected overnight. I would not be surprised if people do not have much confidence in my discovery as E=mc² being wrong has unimaginable implications in the world of physics.

I'll just quote from my website:
E=mc2 Wrong
"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc ² Fails":
[14 pages; anyone who understands Newton's second law would understand the paper easily]

Abstract. The relativistic mechanics of contemporary physics does not have a defined unit of force. The newton, the SI unit of force, may not be used in any of the relativistic formulas; it is a real unit of force only with Newtonian mechanics which observes Newton's second law of motion as an axiom defining a unit of force as mass x acceleration. Without a unit of force, the application of the work-energy theorem (work=force x distance) produces only a formula that evaluates only to a pure number which has no association with any real unit of energy. All values of energy from relativistic mechanics are, therefore, fictitious (the kinetic energy may only be calculated with the old classical KE= 1/2 mv²).
...
At the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN where protons are propelled to near the speed of light, the purported energy of the relativistic protons is 6.5 TeV (10¹² electron volts), but the real value is only 470 MeV (10⁶ electron volts) - the reported energy being inflated by a factor of 15,000."

My discovery seems corroborated by the Chinese. In 2009, Chinese physicists who are members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences measured energy through direct calorimetry (energy to heat) and their experiment conclusively repudiated the relativistic energy of special relativity. They concluded that the 7 TeV (10¹² electron volts) of energy purportedly acquired by protons in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN have only real energy of about 650 MeV (10⁶ electron volts), off by a factor of 10,000 – practically the same as what my new theoretical discovery concludes.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
 

Mike Cash

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
16,454
Ratings
1,568
I googled you.

Is there any place on the internet where you won't post this?
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
940
Ratings
137
You know that that's a shortened version of the actual equation, right?
http://gizmodo.com/5955723/do-you-know-the-rest-of-einsteins-most-famous-equation said:
E=mc² only describes objects that have mass but aren't moving. The full equation, used for bodies in motion, is E²=(mc²)²+(pc)² where that extra 'p' represents the momentum of an object.
 
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
4
You know that that's a shortened version of the actual equation, right?
The proper formula is : E= γm₀c² -- (I); where γ=1/√(1 - v²/c²), m₀ = invariant rest mass.

The identify E²=(mc²)²+(pc)² -- (II) comes from (I) together with the new definition of relativistic momentum as :
p = γm₀v.

The identity (II) is the central identity underlying current relativistic mechanics which is the foundation of modern high energy physics. If the identity (II) fails, the Standard Model of particle physics collapses - all of quarks, gluons, leptons, etc..,including the Higg's boson...whatever would have to be cast aside, five decades of fruitless sojourn.

E= γm₀c² fails. It comes from the derivation of relativistic kinetic energy K = (γ-1)m₀c²; E = K + mc² or total relativistic energy = kinetic energy + rest-energy. K is obtained by the application of the concept of : work = force x distance. Relativistic mechanics starts with a new definition for (relativistic) momentum: p = γm₀v together with a new definition of (relativistic) force as force :
F = d/dt(γm₀v) -- (III)

The Newtonian units of force and energy, e.g. the newton, Joule are valid only in Newtonian mechanics and not for any new randomly created mechanics. The relativistic definition of force in (III) is only a pure number yet to be associated with any real units of force. So force in relativistic mechanics is fictitious; so also would energy in the derived formula for kinetic energy.

So the identify E²=(mc²)²+(pc)² fails. So does the Standard Model of particle physics fail. The Standard Model is the model of physics as practiced by the physicists of CERN.

Besides the 2009 Chinese experiment which refuted relativistic kinetic energy, others before did discover such failures.

The Failure of E=mc 2, Peter Graneau (2005):
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/GraneauIE61.pdf

"Problems with the mass-energy law arose in the restricted area of electrodynamics. It was not until the 1980s, decades after Einstein’s death, that Pappas of the University ofAthens, Greece, demonstrated with a ballistic pendulum that, if momentum is conserved, E=mc² predicts the consumption of far more energy than was actually expended in his experiment. In the same way, the mass-energy law has been disproved with railguns and inductiion motors.
...
It was discovered that the measured momentum, electromagnetically imparted to the impulse pendulum, required, according to E=mc², the impact of 52.4 MJ of field energy.The energy stored in the capacitor bank and actually expended to drive the pendulum was, however, only 25.6 kJ. This meant E=mc² overestimated the Maxwell field energy impinging on the pendulum by a factor of more than 2,000. Hence, Einstein’s law (E=mc²) failed to comply with experiment"
Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
341
Ratings
49
You know in my research group, we were just having a discussion about all the weird theories physicists get sent by strangers...

Even if you could somehow prove that relativity is "wrong", it would be "wrong" in the same way that Newtonian physics is: an inexact representation of the physical world that nonetheless has varied and useful applications. You're using a practical application of the theory of relativity every day if you use GPS, and that seems to work pretty well.

The whole "Einstein was wrong" concept often has antisemitic undertones to it as well. e.g. see Deutsche Physik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not saying this is always the motivation behind these theories but the history of refuting relativity is such that one should tread carefully.
 
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
4
You know in my research group, we were just having a discussion about all the weird theories physicists get sent by strangers...

Even if you could somehow prove that relativity is "wrong", it would be "wrong" in the same way that Newtonian physics is: an inexact representation of the physical world that nonetheless has varied and useful applications. You're using a practical application of the theory of relativity every day if you use GPS, and that seems to work pretty well.

The whole "Einstein was wrong" concept often has antisemitic undertones to it as well. e.g. see Deutsche Physik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not saying this is always the motivation behind these theories but the history of refuting relativity is such that one should tread carefully.
GPS, Relativity, and pop-Science Mythology
Popular science frequently promotes the idea that the Global Positioning System serves not only as a means of position determination but also as a convenient test for Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. The claim made is that if certain adjustments were not made to counter the predictions of this theory, calculated positions would quickly become very inaccurate. Hence anyone with a functioning GPS receiver has already confirmed the theory to be correct and the pizza delivery guy would not have arrived at your home were it not for the adjustments.
About GPS, I am well aware of the claim that it will not work if not for incorporation of relativistic corrections to the clocks. I am not a qualified physicists and do not really know how GPS works. Nevertheless, I know the basics of special relativity and have arrived through my own studies that it is a failed theory - a failed theory cannot contribute anything towards a working engineering system.

I have read other qualified persons (B.Sc physics/ engineering) who explain that a global positioning system is basically a very precise and ingenious engineering feat where the clocks could be synchronized to requirements without any so-called "relativistic" adjustments. I have not studied GPS myself and so have to just choose a side to trust.

I think it is a myth that GPS need special relativity in order for it to work. There are five countries which have their own global positioning systems - US, Europe, Russia, China and India. Common sense tells us that no government would reveal how their system works as it has critical military significance. So we cannot take on face value popular internet myths and assume it to be facts.

"weird theories" exist only in our everyday talk. When it comes to a serious decision on a scientific theory, it is either a valid theory or an invalid theory - there is nothing in between. The scientific method is strict and sometimes strident. It basically consists of experimental verification of a theory and nothing much more. A theory either fails or passes experimental tests as long as those tests have been found and accepted to be reliable. So a theory is either accepted as valid or rejected as invalid.

Newtonian mechanics consists of the laws of motion together with the law of gravitational attraction. It has been accepted as valid without controversy since its very beginning as it predicts Kepler's laws of planetary motion which had been verified in Newton's time. So the acceptance of Newtonian mechanics is solely through experimental verification. It is the same standard of the scientific method that has to be applied to special relativity to decide if it is to be accepted or rejected.

That all physical theories is an "inexact representation of the physical world" is never an issue concerning what is science or the scientific method. It is common sense that when we measure the length of an object with a ruler, there is bound to be an uncertainty in the measurement. We just have to know the significance of uncertainties that are always present in any set of experimental data. Uncertainty in experimental data is purely a technical issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with the philosophy behind the scientific method.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
 
Top