Against E=mc^2

[anantchowdhary]

Please ,physics gurus analyse this paper and enlighten me about the validity of the paper.

Is the person correct.I cant tell as i dont know the mathematics involved

 

[coalquay404]

What paper?

 

[anantchowdhary]

Errr..Sorry forgot the link

http://www.wbabin.net/ajay/einstein.htm [Broken]

 

[nakurusil]

Errr..Sorry forgot the link

http://www.wbabin.net/ajay/einstein.htm [Broken]

This is a crank paper, has been refuted multiple times.

 

[anantchowdhary]

i dont know how this person says that acceleration is not in direction of force
there fore angle HAS to be zero degrees

 

[ZapperZ]

I know that there are many instances that one needs to figure out why such-and-such crackpottery is wrong, etc. I can definitely see how that can be worthwhile. However, and especially for those who have not been on here that long, we have tried that, and it didn't work. It is why, in our GUIDELINES, we have clearly disallowed such discussions in the main forums. There are simply an infinite number of crackpottery out there, and we will be doing nothing else other than debunking such things if we allow them in here.

So consider this as the LAST time a thread like this is allowed in here. Understand?

Zz.

 

[Doc Al]

This is a crank paper, has been refuted multiple times.

A crank paper published in a crank journal. Check out the list of papers!

Even better, check out the list of Misc. Rejections. They actually published the rejection letters their anti-relativity tripe received from real journals. Hilarious!

Thread closed.