e=mc2 is considered to be the greatest mathematical and scientific insight of human history. Mark Teller tears Albert Einstein a new orifice and shreds the equation with humorous insight and penetrating logic.
From this I would make the assumption A level physics or maths were not your options... E=MC^2 is a simplification for one thing, it is put so simply, so generally, even the public can grasp it. It is truely much more complex. Also, mass is not constant, rest mass is. As velocity increases so does mass, hence: Mass = Mass {divided by} {square root of} (1 - (velocity^2 {divided by} speed of light^2)).
I don't see any justification for the equation, nor a clear refutation of my arguments.
Can you attach actual units of measurement to each item in your equation and analysis? I have said that you cannot measure atomic energy in terms of distance and time. How about clearly describing how you think such a thing makes sense, and why?
A user left these comments, but they had to be reformatted for publication. To the original author: please join this discussion, and keep a civil tongue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THEIR COMMENT: FIrst of all, there has been Countelss experiments proving e=mc^2. For example fission reactors are a living proof, the phenomena of light(without mass) getting affected by gravity is also described by the relativity side of this equation.
MY RESPONSE: This is the fallacy of the modern age: a crow flies over the town square and it starts to rain, hence crows bring rain, "crow=rain*c2". Since Einstein's equation bore no units, it is not a statement of fact, as the only way to test the equation is with units. But if you use Earth units, the equation is wrong because that is proprietary to Earth and NOT universal. If you assume some sort of unnamed universal units, then you have to demonstrate the clear, proven, reproducible relationship between three types of those units: atomic energy, distance and time. They do not relate, and never will.
Yes, we made big ju-ju fire in a tin can and called it a fission reactor. No, we have not described what is happening in clear, coherent, scientific terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THEIR COMMENT: Second, if you had ANY prior knowledge of science or maths you would know that the accepted unit for energy is Joules not Watts. Watts are Joules/second, a TOTALY different entity. Joules are defined as Newton meters, which are kg x m^2/s^2. SO the units do match
MY RESPONSE: There can be no Earth unit of energy for e=mc2 because that would lock the equation down to planet Earth. This is why I call Einstein a scientific "God": we have elevated him above us and do not require him to follow even the most basic rules of equations or proofs.
Thank you for your correction on Joules. From Wikipedia:
The joule is a derived unit of energy or work in the International System of Units. It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one meter (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second. It is named after the English physicist James Prescott Joule (1818–1889).
One joule can also be defined as:
The work required to move an electric charge of one coulomb through an electrical potential difference of one volt, or one '"coulomb volt" (C·V). This relationship can be used to define the volt. The work required to produce one watt of power for one second, or one "watt second" (W·s) (compare kilowatt hour). This relationship can be used to define the watt.
One joule in everyday life is approximately:
the energy required to lift a small apple one metre straight up. (A mass of about 102 g = 1⁄9.81 kg) the energy released when that same apple falls one metre to the ground. the energy released as heat by a person at rest, every 1/60th of a second.[5] the kinetic energy of a 50 kg human moving very slowly (0.2 m/s). the kinetic energy of a tennis ball moving at 23 km/h (14 mph).[6]
The reason I am so grateful to you is that my jaw is still dragging on the table after reading this absurd definition of a Joule, which I now call "super glue for bad physics", and which rushes ahead of Einstein's absurd equation into the Hall of Shame for the innumerate and the gullible.
Where do I start?
Physicists have invented the Joule to justify Einstein's equation, and to conflate two completely unrelated topics: atomic energy and kinetic/gravitational force. How do you prove that you can lift an apple one meter into the air using one Joule? Please, anyone? Also, what about on Mars? Half a Joule? Jupiter? A hundred Joules? Oops… so much for universality.
Who has proven that an apple falling one meter uses the same energy as that needed to loft it into the air (on Earth?) by one meter? What is the mechanism for lifting the apple? An Apple rocket launcher? A juggling clown? How is the energy measured? In order to establish a unit of energy in distance such as Joule, we need a secondary means of describing this new unit in a way that is accurate, measurable, and irrefutable. We have not even begun this task. What is the meaning of ENERGY in distance and time?
Aren't we just measuring kinetic force here? Kinetic force is the force possessed by objects attracted to other objects, such as the apple falling to Earth. It also applies to the change in mass of particles that gain velocity as they move through space -- very much like a car that gets "heavier" as it accelerates so that, if it hits a brick wall, is speed determines the damage caused by the impact. We may describe this force in Joules, but cannot otherwise assume that it relates to a completely separate topic, atomic energy -- the energy contained in atoms, even when they are at rest.
Let's try a thought experiment worthy of Einstein: An atom is frozen to near absolute zero. It contains VIRTUALLY NO ENERGY. We accelerate it to near the speed of light. It has INCREDIBLE kinetic force (confusingly and commonly referred to as "kinetic energy"). So if we apply Einstein's equation, how can an atom with virtually no energy also possess astronomical kinetic force/energy? The two arenas are unrelated, separate, and cannot be commingled!
These are all excellent points. I had to read it a couple times to understand it, but now that I have - it makes way more sense than Einstein's original theories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THEIR COMMENT: thirdly, fission is completley explained by the equation. There is a natural phenomena called the 'mass defect'. All elements when they have their nuclues split lose mass in the process. to dumb it down: if you had 1 kg of uranium, and you split each of the atoms into half(giving 2 smaller elements as a result) you would have LESS than 1kg left afterwards. THAT MISSING MASS is converted into energy as per the equation. Uranium is used as compred to anyu other element for its property of the ease of splitting the atom. Its easier to split uranium atoms or any other radioactive atoms rather than stable ones.
MY RESPONSE: Yes, it is true that when an atom is disrupted, it releases energy. We have not successfully described this energy, and cannot do so using the speed of light squared, as that measures distance and time and has nothing whatsoever to do with energy.
No, the equation does not describe the difference between fission and fusion. Either address this discrepancy or admit it…
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THEIR COMMENT: forth of all Newtons equation was f=ma not f=mv. Acceleration(a) and velocity(v) are very different. f stands for FORCE, it has NOTHING to do directly with VELOCITY, ENERGY OR SPEED OF LIGHT.
MY RESPONSE: Thank you for your correction on Newton. I took my ute from comments and articles, and should have looked it up. My bad.
It doesn't make any difference. But your remarks that force has nothing to do with energy is insightful, accurate, and a clarion call to physicists who have not taken the time to study this equation. You are singing to the choir.
But hasn't Einstein's theory of relativity allowed the innovation and progress of our knowledge in science like never before? I'm not a scientis so your explanation about "happy = gum-ball count" helped me understand your stance on this, but I feel that it's more like that our understanding of science is always work in progress so one could always assume that an equation can be improved or replaced by a better one as our understanding grows.
Your explanation about writing Einstein's equation on another planet really puts things into context. To use the term "universal" equation so loosely is arrogance and ignorance at its best.
This is shocking to me and at the same time I'm left with even more questions than before I read your thesis. Most of all I'm curious, why have all other scientists and academic institutions ignored these facts for so long? Doesn't the truth basically change all our understanding of the universe?
Didn't Einstein himself doubt his work when he said, "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
I always found the quote above fascinating and the facts right here only emboldens my long held suspicion.
To be honest, my knowledge in physics isn't extensive and I find myself switching sides every time. When I read articles that refute Einstein's brillance then I tend to agree with the facts described, but then I read the articles that defend Einstein and I also see the merit in their arguments. In the end though, the fact that people are able to make so many factual arguments againts his work makes me question the legitimacy of his work as well.
These are all very interesting points you've made here. The main thing is that I think you have proved that Einstein was not the smartest man in the world. You think outside the box and can think creatively like he could. I think he's met his match!
In his early years, Einstein showed very little scholastic ability and at the age of 15 he got poor grades in geography, languages, and in history. Why anybody believes this ignorant man was the most gifted human being ever is beyond me.
Unlike the fabricated stories our schools like to teach our children, Einstein wasn't directly involved in the Manhattan Project. Also, his equation only explains the energy released in an atomic explosion and it doesn't actually teach how build one. He is presented as the world's greatest scientist, when in fact he was more of a manipulator and a wannabe politician at best.
Very nice review indeed. Max Planck was the first person to say that energy at atomic level is quantized but what Einstein did was suggest that at atomic level light emits and absorbs in units of measure called photons. However, this too is a small achievement. Some people suggest that De Pretto published equations before Einstein but he stole it. Others suggest that he stole it from his wife and after he became famous, he left her for a much younger wife. However, there is Absolutely zero proof regarding these claims. Still we don't know if he stole his ideas but it doesn't really matter because he is dead and all the scientists that he stole from (if he did) are also dead.
Here is what I have gathered from this blog about Einstein:
1. Was not an intellectual and did not understand any of the concepts accredited to him. 2. He stole all of his ideas from real scientists and all of his published works were these stolen ideas and that's why his works have no cited references. 3. He didn't understand any of these ideas, and that's why he never debated anyone on them. You can't debate what you don't understand. 4. He knew nothing about mathematics. 5. He never published any scientific papers after his 30s, because he was not a scientist and no one was feeding him any more ideas.
I bet he stole all his famous quotes from other people too.
The Theory of Relativity wasn't even his work to begin with. It was the work of his former classmate and eventual wife, Mileva Maric who helped him with his math. He had a reputation for being lazy and was often reprimanded through all his school years. Through this thesis I got a lot of insights to the technical aspect of this man's fallacy, but I've always known Einstein was a con.
Most of Einstein's works have been seriously questioned and often times discredited by the modern day science community, but for reasons unknown it never makes news. A lot of his work he stole while he worked at the patent office and he just reworked them as his own. So even the poorly written equation weren't his originally.
To be completely honest all this information is hard for me to stomach. On one hand I don't want to believe that I had been fed lies and misinformation about someone whom I believed to be a brillant individual, but at the same token I cannot just ignore the evidence presented on this website. Every single point made here is crystal clear and backed by science, as hard as it may be I need to accept the fact that I've been fooled all my life. Sometimes knowing more complicates things even further.
I don't view Einstein as God. We can't say flat out that the equation is wrong. Perhaps it is insufficient. Wasn't it Einstein himself who said "If a particle were to travel faster than Light it no longer remains Matter"?
Do you have any more info about the quantum paradox where it is impossible to absolutely predict the behavior of particles because they have a dual nature? This is just a concept I could never grasp, and while it seems very likely, I wanted another physicist's opinion...
Wow.. Really a hats off to whoever have made this long assumption and explanation of the same. You really must be a seriously talented geek being interested on the laws of physics and stuff, else it would not have been a normal people awareness to even to challenge this theoretical knowledge. Really, a pleasure to read.
Einstein has been my idol for a long period in my life but after finding some new evidence that clearly doubt the accuracy of his work I am starting to re-evaluate my choice.
This is a great article with a lot of information to check. But, don't throw away your admiration for Einstein just yet. He really was a genius who came up with many other theories. Do more research!
I completely agree with Mark on every remarks he has made so far. Nevertheless a great effort to make these things look straightforward. Good job indeed!
Very interesting and easy to understand refutation of Einstein's famous equation. As a non-physics person, I really enjoyed reading it. It was very enlightening.
James Maxwell had the Theory of relativity 13 years before Einstein published it. I think he stole the ideas of others. Afterall, Einstein worked in a patent office and would have had the opportunity to steal other peoples' ideas. He probably did and is now credited as being a genius. Sounds like propaganda to me.
Is Albert Einstein responsible for the creation of the atomic bomb? It’s certain that the atomic bomb is based on his theories; and, he participated in the writing of a letter directed to the president Franklin D. Roosevelt requesting the creation of an investigation program of the reactions in chain that accelerated the production of the atomic bomb. However, Einstein didn't participate in the elaboration of this program.
Furthermore, he also wrote again to the president to try to persuade it of using the nuclear weapon.
Moreover, who is the real responsible for all damage caused by these bombs, scientists who designed it or people who used it?
Radioactive decay and the energy produced by it where known about before Einstein and Special Relativity. E=mc^2 does not make it possible to build a bomb, it only explains where the energy comes from.
Einstein wrote to Roosevelt urging a bomb be built in response to similar work in Nazi Germany but he himself was a committed and vociferous pacifist. The bomb would have been built if Einstein had signed the letter or not.
Just confused on one thing.... that is, the formula for kinetic energy is Ek=1/2*m*v^2 and that for Potential energy is Ep=m*g*h, yet both forms of energy are measured in joules. Why is this so?
One of Einstein's great insights was to realize that matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing. Matter can be turned into energy, and energy into matter. For example, consider a simple hydrogen atom, basically composed of a single proton. This subatomic particle has a mass of 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 672 kg This is a tiny mass indeed. But in everyday quantities of matter there are a lot of atoms! For instance, in one kilogram of pure water, the mass of hydrogen atoms amounts to just slightly more than 111 grams, or 0.111 kg. Einstein's formula tells us the amount of energy this mass would be equivalent to, if it were all suddenly turned into energy. It says that to find the energy, you multiply the mass by the square of the speed of light, this number being 300,000,000 meters per second (a very large number):
= 0.111 x 300,000,000 x 300,000,000 = 10,000,000,000,000,000 Joules This is an incredible amount of energy! A Joule is not a large unit of energy ... one Joule is about the energy released when you drop a textbook to the floor. But the amount of energy in 30 grams of hydrogen atoms is equivalent to burning hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline!
Albert Einstein was arguably the smartest living man in the last 100 years maybe much more. I don’t by any means question his genius. What a brilliant mind. What a complex man. Einstein’s Folly works like this: The more well-known a quote, the less likely that quote will be attributed to its original author, in turn the more likely that quote will be attributed to Albert Einstein.
Here’s my advice; next time you hear some one say “Albert Einstein said. . . ” just assume that Albert Einstein didn’t actually say it. Don’t bother doing an internet search because you don’t have to be an Einstein to set up a website that tells people that Albert Einsten said “The only thing to fear is fear itself.” Just do a quick translation. “Albert Einstein” means “someone smart but I don’t know who.”
I’m thinking of using Einstein’s Folly to my advantage. Any time I come up with something clever, I’m going to tell people that I got it from Albert Einstein just to help it gain popularity. So when you start hearing people say “Albert Einstein said, ‘Puns are like wine, they’re great unless they’re cheap or overused,’” you’ll know how brilliant I really am.
Of course Einstein’s Folly is not really Einstein’s fault. But since it is all about people falsely giving Einstein credit for things he didn’t say, it’s only right for it to be named after him. After all Albert Einstein once said, “When you’re known for being intelligent, people give you credit for everything.”
I definitely agree that Einstein, though irrefutably a great thinker, is not infallible. His theories are easy to understand, but in my mind (and in your illustrations) they are more figurative than fact.
This is a really important article that can change so much of the physics we're taught. How can we help bring this debate into the forefront of the science world?
From this I would make the assumption A level physics or maths were not your options... E=MC^2 is a simplification for one thing, it is put so simply, so generally, even the public can grasp it. It is truely much more complex.
ReplyDeleteAlso, mass is not constant, rest mass is. As velocity increases so does mass, hence:
Mass = Mass {divided by} {square root of} (1 - (velocity^2 {divided by} speed of light^2)).
And that is only the very TIP of the iceberg.
Thank you for your interesting remarks.
DeleteI don't see any justification for the equation, nor a clear refutation of my arguments.
Can you attach actual units of measurement to each item in your equation and analysis? I have said that you cannot measure atomic energy in terms of distance and time. How about clearly describing how you think such a thing makes sense, and why?
A user left these comments, but they had to be reformatted for publication. To the original author: please join this discussion, and keep a civil tongue.
Delete----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEIR COMMENT:
FIrst of all, there has been Countelss experiments proving e=mc^2. For example fission reactors are a living proof, the phenomena of light(without mass) getting affected by gravity is also described by the relativity side of this equation.
MY RESPONSE:
This is the fallacy of the modern age: a crow flies over the town square and it starts to rain, hence crows bring rain, "crow=rain*c2". Since Einstein's equation bore no units, it is not a statement of fact, as the only way to test the equation is with units. But if you use Earth units, the equation is wrong because that is proprietary to Earth and NOT universal. If you assume some sort of unnamed universal units, then you have to demonstrate the clear, proven, reproducible relationship between three types of those units: atomic energy, distance and time. They do not relate, and never will.
Yes, we made big ju-ju fire in a tin can and called it a fission reactor. No, we have not described what is happening in clear, coherent, scientific terms.
Good points brought up here! Loving the information.
Delete----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReplyDeleteTHEIR COMMENT:
Second, if you had ANY prior knowledge of science or maths you would know that the accepted unit for energy is Joules not Watts. Watts are Joules/second, a TOTALY different entity. Joules are defined as Newton meters, which are kg x m^2/s^2. SO the units do match
MY RESPONSE:
There can be no Earth unit of energy for e=mc2 because that would lock the equation down to planet Earth. This is why I call Einstein a scientific "God": we have elevated him above us and do not require him to follow even the most basic rules of equations or proofs.
Thank you for your correction on Joules. From Wikipedia:
The joule is a derived unit of energy or work in the International System of Units. It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one meter (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second. It is named after the English physicist James Prescott Joule (1818–1889).
One joule can also be defined as:
The work required to move an electric charge of one coulomb through an electrical potential difference of one volt, or one '"coulomb volt" (C·V). This relationship can be used to define the volt. The work required to produce one watt of power for one second, or one "watt second" (W·s) (compare kilowatt hour). This relationship can be used to define the watt.
One joule in everyday life is approximately:
the energy required to lift a small apple one metre straight up. (A mass of about 102 g = 1⁄9.81 kg)
the energy released when that same apple falls one metre to the ground.
the energy released as heat by a person at rest, every 1/60th of a second.[5]
the kinetic energy of a 50 kg human moving very slowly (0.2 m/s).
the kinetic energy of a tennis ball moving at 23 km/h (14 mph).[6]
The reason I am so grateful to you is that my jaw is still dragging on the table after reading this absurd definition of a Joule, which I now call "super glue for bad physics", and which rushes ahead of Einstein's absurd equation into the Hall of Shame for the innumerate and the gullible.
ReplyDeleteWhere do I start?
Physicists have invented the Joule to justify Einstein's equation, and to conflate two completely unrelated topics: atomic energy and kinetic/gravitational force. How do you prove that you can lift an apple one meter into the air using one Joule? Please, anyone? Also, what about on Mars? Half a Joule? Jupiter? A hundred Joules? Oops… so much for universality.
Who has proven that an apple falling one meter uses the same energy as that needed to loft it into the air (on Earth?) by one meter? What is the mechanism for lifting the apple? An Apple rocket launcher? A juggling clown? How is the energy measured? In order to establish a unit of energy in distance such as Joule, we need a secondary means of describing this new unit in a way that is accurate, measurable, and irrefutable. We have not even begun this task. What is the meaning of ENERGY in distance and time?
Aren't we just measuring kinetic force here? Kinetic force is the force possessed by objects attracted to other objects, such as the apple falling to Earth. It also applies to the change in mass of particles that gain velocity as they move through space -- very much like a car that gets "heavier" as it accelerates so that, if it hits a brick wall, is speed determines the damage caused by the impact. We may describe this force in Joules, but cannot otherwise assume that it relates to a completely separate topic, atomic energy -- the energy contained in atoms, even when they are at rest.
Let's try a thought experiment worthy of Einstein: An atom is frozen to near absolute zero. It contains VIRTUALLY NO ENERGY. We accelerate it to near the speed of light. It has INCREDIBLE kinetic force (confusingly and commonly referred to as "kinetic energy"). So if we apply Einstein's equation, how can an atom with virtually no energy also possess astronomical kinetic force/energy? The two arenas are unrelated, separate, and cannot be commingled!
These are all excellent points. I had to read it a couple times to understand it, but now that I have - it makes way more sense than Einstein's original theories.
Delete----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReplyDeleteTHEIR COMMENT:
thirdly, fission is completley explained by the equation. There is a natural phenomena called the 'mass defect'. All elements when they have their nuclues split lose mass in the process. to dumb it down: if you had 1 kg of uranium, and you split each of the atoms into half(giving 2 smaller elements as a result) you would have LESS than 1kg left afterwards. THAT MISSING MASS is converted into energy as per the equation. Uranium is used as compred to anyu other element for its property of the ease of splitting the atom. Its easier to split uranium atoms or any other radioactive atoms rather than stable ones.
MY RESPONSE:
Yes, it is true that when an atom is disrupted, it releases energy. We have not successfully described this energy, and cannot do so using the speed of light squared, as that measures distance and time and has nothing whatsoever to do with energy.
No, the equation does not describe the difference between fission and fusion. Either address this discrepancy or admit it…
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReplyDeleteTHEIR COMMENT:
forth of all Newtons equation was f=ma not f=mv. Acceleration(a) and velocity(v) are very different. f stands for FORCE, it has NOTHING to do directly with VELOCITY, ENERGY OR SPEED OF LIGHT.
MY RESPONSE:
Thank you for your correction on Newton. I took my ute from comments and articles, and should have looked it up. My bad.
It doesn't make any difference. But your remarks that force has nothing to do with energy is insightful, accurate, and a clarion call to physicists who have not taken the time to study this equation. You are singing to the choir.
But hasn't Einstein's theory of relativity allowed the innovation and progress of our knowledge in science like never before? I'm not a scientis so your explanation about "happy = gum-ball count" helped me understand your stance on this, but I feel that it's more like that our understanding of science is always work in progress so one could always assume that an equation can be improved or replaced by a better one as our understanding grows.
ReplyDeleteYour explanation about writing Einstein's equation on another planet really puts things into context. To use the term "universal" equation so loosely is arrogance and ignorance at its best.
ReplyDeleteThis is shocking to me and at the same time I'm left with even more questions than before I read your thesis. Most of all I'm curious, why have all other scientists and academic institutions ignored these facts for so long? Doesn't the truth basically change all our understanding of the universe?
ReplyDeleteDidn't Einstein himself doubt his work when he said, "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
ReplyDeleteI always found the quote above fascinating and the facts right here only emboldens my long held suspicion.
To be honest, my knowledge in physics isn't extensive and I find myself switching sides every time. When I read articles that refute Einstein's brillance then I tend to agree with the facts described, but then I read the articles that defend Einstein and I also see the merit in their arguments. In the end though, the fact that people are able to make so many factual arguments againts his work makes me question the legitimacy of his work as well.
ReplyDeleteThese are all very interesting points you've made here. The main thing is that I think you have proved that Einstein was not the smartest man in the world. You think outside the box and can think creatively like he could. I think he's met his match!
ReplyDeleteIn his early years, Einstein showed very little scholastic ability and at the age of 15 he got poor grades in geography, languages, and in history. Why anybody believes this ignorant man was the most gifted human being ever is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the fabricated stories our schools like to teach our children, Einstein wasn't directly involved in the Manhattan Project. Also, his equation only explains the energy released in an atomic explosion and it doesn't actually teach how build one. He is presented as the world's greatest scientist, when in fact he was more of a manipulator and a wannabe politician at best.
ReplyDeleteVery nice review indeed. Max Planck was the first person to say that energy at atomic level is quantized but what Einstein did was suggest that at atomic level light emits and absorbs in units of measure called photons. However, this too is a small achievement. Some people suggest that De Pretto published equations before Einstein but he stole it. Others suggest that he stole it from his wife and after he became famous, he left her for a much younger wife. However, there is Absolutely zero proof regarding these claims. Still we don't know if he stole his ideas but it doesn't really matter because he is dead and all the scientists that he stole from (if he did) are also dead.
ReplyDeleteHere is what I have gathered from this blog about Einstein:
ReplyDelete1. Was not an intellectual and did not understand any of the concepts accredited to him.
2. He stole all of his ideas from real scientists and all of his published works were these stolen ideas and that's why his works have no cited references.
3. He didn't understand any of these ideas, and that's why he never debated anyone on them. You can't debate what you don't understand.
4. He knew nothing about mathematics.
5. He never published any scientific papers after his 30s, because he was not a scientist and no one was feeding him any more ideas.
I bet he stole all his famous quotes from other people too.
The Theory of Relativity wasn't even his work to begin with. It was the work of his former classmate and eventual wife, Mileva Maric who helped him with his math. He had a reputation for being lazy and was often reprimanded through all his school years. Through this thesis I got a lot of insights to the technical aspect of this man's fallacy, but I've always known Einstein was a con.
ReplyDeleteMost of Einstein's works have been seriously questioned and often times discredited by the modern day science community, but for reasons unknown it never makes news. A lot of his work he stole while he worked at the patent office and he just reworked them as his own. So even the poorly written equation weren't his originally.
ReplyDeleteTo be completely honest all this information is hard for me to stomach. On one hand I don't want to believe that I had been fed lies and misinformation about someone whom I believed to be a brillant individual, but at the same token I cannot just ignore the evidence presented on this website. Every single point made here is crystal clear and backed by science, as hard as it may be I need to accept the fact that I've been fooled all my life. Sometimes knowing more complicates things even further.
ReplyDeleteI don't view Einstein as God. We can't say flat out that the equation is wrong. Perhaps it is insufficient. Wasn't it Einstein himself who said "If a particle were to travel faster than Light it no longer remains Matter"?
ReplyDeleteDo you have any more info about the quantum paradox where it is impossible to absolutely predict the behavior of particles because they have a dual nature? This is just a concept I could never grasp, and while it seems very likely, I wanted another physicist's opinion...
ReplyDeleteSo much informative article. I think also think that Einstein is such a genius which made him World's smartest mathematician and physicist.
ReplyDeleteSo much informative article. I also think that Einstein is the most genius which made him the world's most smartest mathematician and physicist.
ReplyDeleteWow.. Really a hats off to whoever have made this long assumption and explanation of the same. You really must be a seriously talented geek being interested on the laws of physics and stuff, else it would not have been a normal people awareness to even to challenge this theoretical knowledge.
ReplyDeleteReally, a pleasure to read.
I am not ashamed to admit that I didn't understand a half what is written here, but I do know my husband will love your blog.
ReplyDeleteEinstein has been my idol for a long period in my life but after finding some new evidence that clearly doubt the accuracy of his work I am starting to re-evaluate my choice.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great article with a lot of information to check. But, don't throw away your admiration for Einstein just yet. He really was a genius who came up with many other theories. Do more research!
DeleteI completely agree with Mark on his remarks on this. Nevertheless a great effort to make these things straightforward. good job indeed.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Mark on every remarks he has made so far. Nevertheless a great effort to make these things look straightforward. Good job indeed!
ReplyDeleteVery interesting and easy to understand refutation of Einstein's famous equation. As a non-physics person, I really enjoyed reading it. It was very enlightening.
ReplyDeleteThank you for providing such an interesting and easy to understand refutation of E=mc2. As a non-physics person, I found it fascinating.
ReplyDeleteJames Maxwell had the Theory of relativity 13 years before Einstein published it. I think he stole the ideas of others. Afterall, Einstein worked in a patent office and would have had the opportunity to steal other peoples' ideas. He probably did and is now credited as being a genius. Sounds like propaganda to me.
ReplyDeleteIs Albert Einstein responsible for the creation of the atomic bomb?
ReplyDeleteIt’s certain that the atomic bomb is based on his theories; and, he participated in the writing of a letter directed to the president Franklin D. Roosevelt requesting the creation of an investigation program of the reactions in chain that accelerated the production of the atomic bomb. However, Einstein didn't participate in the elaboration of this program.
Furthermore, he also wrote again to the president to try to persuade it of using the nuclear weapon.
Moreover, who is the real responsible for all damage caused by these bombs, scientists who designed it or people who used it?
Radioactive decay and the energy produced by it where known about before Einstein and Special Relativity. E=mc^2 does not make it possible to build a bomb, it only explains where the energy comes from.
ReplyDeleteEinstein wrote to Roosevelt urging a bomb be built in response to similar work in Nazi Germany but he himself was a committed and vociferous pacifist. The bomb would have been built if Einstein had signed the letter or not.
Just confused on one thing.... that is, the formula for kinetic energy is Ek=1/2*m*v^2 and that for Potential energy is Ep=m*g*h, yet both forms of energy are measured in joules. Why is this so?
ReplyDeleteGreat blog.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting facts ... thanks for this!
One of Einstein's great insights was to realize that matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing. Matter can be turned into energy, and energy into matter.
ReplyDeleteFor example, consider a simple hydrogen atom, basically composed of a single proton. This subatomic particle has a mass of
0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 672 kg
This is a tiny mass indeed. But in everyday quantities of matter there are a lot of atoms! For instance, in one kilogram of pure water, the mass of hydrogen atoms amounts to just slightly more than 111 grams, or 0.111 kg.
Einstein's formula tells us the amount of energy this mass would be equivalent to, if it were all suddenly turned into energy. It says that to find the energy, you multiply the mass by the square of the speed of light, this number being 300,000,000 meters per second (a very large number):
= 0.111 x 300,000,000 x 300,000,000
= 10,000,000,000,000,000 Joules
This is an incredible amount of energy! A Joule is not a large unit of energy ... one Joule is about the energy released when you drop a textbook to the floor. But the amount of energy in 30 grams of hydrogen atoms is equivalent to burning hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline!
Albert Einstein was arguably the smartest living man in the last 100 years maybe much more. I don’t by any means question his genius. What a brilliant mind. What a complex man. Einstein’s Folly works like this: The more well-known a quote, the less likely that quote will be attributed to its original author, in turn the more likely that quote will be attributed to Albert Einstein.
ReplyDeleteHere’s my advice; next time you hear some one say “Albert Einstein said. . . ” just assume that Albert Einstein didn’t actually say it. Don’t bother doing an internet search because you don’t have to be an Einstein to set up a website that tells people that Albert Einsten said “The only thing to fear is fear itself.” Just do a quick translation. “Albert Einstein” means “someone smart but I don’t know who.”
I’m thinking of using Einstein’s Folly to my advantage. Any time I come up with something clever, I’m going to tell people that I got it from Albert Einstein just to help it gain popularity. So when you start hearing people say “Albert Einstein said, ‘Puns are like wine, they’re great unless they’re cheap or overused,’” you’ll know how brilliant I really am.
Of course Einstein’s Folly is not really Einstein’s fault. But since it is all about people falsely giving Einstein credit for things he didn’t say, it’s only right for it to be named after him. After all Albert Einstein once said, “When you’re known for being intelligent, people give you credit for everything.”
That's is my thinking!
I definitely agree that Einstein, though irrefutably a great thinker, is not infallible. His theories are easy to understand, but in my mind (and in your illustrations) they are more figurative than fact.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really important article that can change so much of the physics we're taught. How can we help bring this debate into the forefront of the science world?
ReplyDelete