Disproving Einstein's Energy-Mass Relation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nykill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a claim that Einstein's energy-mass relation, E=mc², is incorrect. Participants explore the implications of this assertion, the nature of proof in physics, and the historical context of Einstein's work. The conversation includes both technical reasoning and personal opinions regarding the validity of the claim and the motivations behind it.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant claims to have a derivation that proves Einstein's energy-mass relation is wrong and seeks advice on how to present this to the public.
  • Another participant questions the logic of the original claim, pointing out a contradiction in the assertion of having a proof while also seeking validation.
  • Some participants suggest that the original poster should disclose their findings without seeking external validation, while others emphasize the importance of peer review in academic contexts.
  • A participant notes that E=mc² may not hold under certain conditions, suggesting that assumptions must be clearly stated in any proof.
  • Another participant argues that proving E=mc² wrong would require more than just an equation and challenges the original poster to consider the implications of their claim on established physical phenomena like nuclear fusion.
  • There is a discussion about Einstein's capabilities, with some participants expressing skepticism about his formulation skills and intelligence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the validity of the original claim regarding E=mc². Multiple competing views remain, with some defending Einstein's equation and others questioning its correctness.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clear assumptions and the historical context of Einstein's work, indicating that the discussion may be influenced by varying interpretations of the energy-mass relation.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying physics, particularly in the areas of theoretical physics and the historical development of scientific theories.

nykill
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
friends i have a derivation which proves that Einstein's Energy mass relation is wrong. I know as far as my knowledge is concerned its true, but want to disclose the thing in front of the world without lossing the credit. Can anyone tell me how this can be done ...will soon disclose the alternate proof of Einsteins energy mass relation
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'll alert the media. :rolleyes:
 
First you say:
nykill said:
...i have a derivation which proves that Einstein's Energy mass relation is wrong.
Then contradictorily you say:
will soon disclose the alternate proof of Einsteins energy mass relation
You cannot prove anything unless you first learn logic.
 
Don't mind them, it's probably that they've heard it many times before from many people. You said you're pretty sure the work you did. So why need someone to check? I say just disclose it to the world! But if you really want other to check it out for you, you can bring it to any University near you and meet the professors there have them take a look at your paper. I've done that many times with my homework.
 
This isn't homework. This is 100 years of physics.
 
Don't forget to note the assumptions too. Certainly E=mc^2 is wrong in certain conditions. Not just because that it using a rounding of boolean equations but because it assumes the the particles to be massless.

We end up using, E^2 = (pc)^2+(mc^2)^2
 
Surely you mean that [itex]E=mc^2[/itex] assumes the particles are at rest... The rest is correct (Photons obey [itex]E=pc[/itex] as the [itex]m^2c^4[/itex] term is equal to zero).
 
To prove that E=mc² is wrong u need a valid proof, more than any equation...

If u can tell that the fusion happenning in the sun making it shine doesn't rely on such an equation than u cna wrote another one based on ur new assumptions...

If u can say that nuclear fissions, nuclear bombs, hydrogen bomb aren't applications for it, than u can easily prove it wrong...

When Einstein made that up, probably he didn't forsee many things that were the result of hsi work, but he was thinking why...He had some image in his mind, Einstein wasn't very good at formulating stuff, and there was the time he needed mathematical help...

So why do u want to prove such a beautifull equation wrong??
 
Einstein wasn't very good at formulating stuff

Yeah, Einstein wasn't very smart at all :rolleyes:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
8K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K