| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | '''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which states that energy ('''E''') of a body is equivalent to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>"... Einstein proves that energy and matter are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc². (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc²''' in general from first principles have failed, though there are many derivations for special cases and experimental verifications.<!-->[[Politics|Political]] pressure,<ref>For example, [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]].</ref> however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. Simply put, '''E=mc²''' is [[liberal claptrap]].<!--> | + | '''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in any body is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>"... Einstein proves that energy and matter are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc². (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc²''' in general from first principles have failed. [[Politics|Political]] pressure,<ref>For example, [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]].</ref> however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. '''''Simply put, E=mc² is [[liberal claptrap]]'''''. |
| | | | |
| − | In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''Einstein A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. | + | In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''Einstein A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so. [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]]. |
| | | | |
| − | [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]]. | + | [[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc² is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring. <ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | [[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. As shown by atomic bombs, matter can in certain circumstances be converted into energy through nuclear fusion or nuclear fission. (This is how the Sun generates energy.) In such limited cases E=mc² accurately calculates the amount of energy released by the amount of matter that is completely converted into energy. The formula E=mc² has little relevance to situations where mass is not converted into energy such as [[chemical reaction]]s or electrostatic interactions.
| + | The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref> |
| − | | |
| − | The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. At virtually all colleges and universities physicists explain how the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]]).<ref>[http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html ''E=mc² passes tough MIT test''], MITNews, Dec 21, 2005</ref><ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref> | |
| | | | |
| | The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E<sub>0</sub>=mc²'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> | | The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E<sub>0</sub>=mc²'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> |
| Line 15: |
Line 13: |
| | {{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}} | | {{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}} |
| | | | |
| − | == E=mc<sup>2</sup>Doesn’t Compute == | + | == [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc<sup>2</sup>Doesn’t Compute] == |
| − | [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc<sup>2</sup>Doesn’t Compute] because the quantities assigned to units of measurement (seconds, kilometres and kilograms), were randomly chosen by humans with no correlation between them. And so cannot validate the tangible energy of a given mass designed in nature with a direct correlation. '''Because random values cannot validate the tangible, the result of E=mc<sup>2</sup> is abstract and so meaningless.''' <ref name="MyFirstRef">[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc<sup>2</sup> Doesn’t Compute] by [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ Jonathan Grey]:</ref> | + | [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc<sup>2</sup> Doesn’t Compute] because the quantities assigned to units of measurement (seconds, kilometres and kilograms), were randomly chosen by humans and thus cannot validate the tangible energy of a given mass designed in nature. '''Because random values cannot validate the tangible''', the result of E=mc<sup>2</sup> is abstract and so meaningless. <ref>[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc<sup>2</sup> Doesn’t Compute] by [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ Jonathan Grey]:</ref> |
| − | | |
| − | Energy, mass and the speed of light in a [[vacuum]] are exact, invariable, designed in nature and have a precise correlation. Throughout the universe, the quantity of energy per given mass and the speed of light are identical.
| |
| − | | |
| − | However, the unit of a [[second]], [[meter]] and [[kilogram]], by which light, distance and mass are measured and give them their value, are arbitrary and manmade and have no natural correlation. When humans assigned the length to a second and distance to a meter and weight to a kilogram, the quantities were chosen randomly and for convenience with no correlation between them. The values humans assigned to units of measurement, (second, kilometer, kilogram). Could easily have been double or half or a million other values? With every one of them giving a different figure for the speed of light, distance and mass. This means because units of measurement are random and have no natural correlation, when they are computed through E=mc<sup>2</sup> to determine the precise and tangible energy of a given mass. Because the answer is random, it is meaningless.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== '''Example:''' ====
| |
| − | [[Antoine Lavoisier]] was a French chemist who designed the metric system in the 18th century. Lavoisier determined the length of a meter as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole at sea level. A litre is one thousandth of a cubic meter of water. A kilogram is the weight of a litre of water. And a gram is a thousandth of a kilogram.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lavoisier initially contemplated on using the equator as the base for the meter. However, because of political instability in some countries the equator runs through. He decided not to use it. But if had, the equator divided by ten million would make the meter four times it’s currently value.
| |
| − | | |
| − | A meter four times its current value will give light speed a figure of 74,948,114.5 meters per second, a quarter of the current value.
| |
| − | | |
| − | However in contradiction, because the kilogram is a thousandth of the water volume of a squared meter, its weight will be increased 64 times (4<sup>3</sup>) that of the current kilograms weight (Height 4 x Width 4 x Depth 4). Thus paradoxically, the kilograms mass/energy is increased 64 times. But when using E=mc<sup>2</sup> with a reduced light speed figure, the answer is lower. E=mc<sup>2</sup> calculates the energy of a current kilogram at 90,000 Trillion Joules. Using a quarter light speed figure, E=mc<sup>2</sup> calculates the energy of a kilogram based on the equators length at 5,625 Trillion Joules. Even though the mass of the kilogram based on the equator is 64 times greater than the mass of the current kilogram. E=mc<sup>2</sup> says it contains a sixteenth of the Joules. Proving no correlation exists between random units of measurement.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The quantities assigned to units of measurement, seconds, kilograms and kilometres, were chosen for convenience. This means they are random and have no natural correlation between them. However, energy, mass and the speed of light in a [[vacuum]] are exact, invariable, designed in nature and have a precise correlation. This means when the random units are computed through E=mc<sup>2</sup> to determine the precise and tangible energy of a given mass. The answer is random and hence meaningless. '''Making the equation nonsense!''' <ref name="MyFirstRef"/>
| |
| | | | |
| | == Description for the layman == | | == Description for the layman == |