## e=mc2

Like so many before him, the famous author Stephen Hawking has declared that this algorithm is the most certifiable fact in all of physics. Yet the equation cannot survive a thoughtful, skeptical review:

# The equation can never be proven because no unit of energy will ever translate to a unit of distance and time. Ironically, like religion, the algorithm is so vague it may be impossible to invalidate.

Einstein’s famous equation would not pass a grade-school math test. Imagine if you were a teacher and your brightest 12-year-old student proudly handed you the following:

happy = gum-ball count {multiplied by} speed of sound 3

• Happy is not clear; how do we quantify or understand it in specific terms? Is there a clear unit of happiness that can be reliably tested?
• How does gum-ball count relate to a happy? Does it make someone happy? How about a dog, or a horse? Does it make them happy? How happy? Or is it just a factor in the equation? If so, why is it here?
• How is speed of sound related to gum-ball count? The two things are numeric. A gum-ball count can be confirmed manually. The speed of sound is known: 761 miles per hour. If the gum-ball count is 100, do we just multiply it by the number 761? What if the speed of sound is stated in metric instead of imperial units — 341? That would reduce the result. Yet a valid equation cannot produce varying results when using identical input data.
• Why is the speed of sound cubed? What if it was raised to the power of 4? Or 4 million? Would that make a significant difference? Perhaps we could use a smaller unit of happiness. Then we could raise speed of sound to virtually any number, and the equation would still resolve properly.
• Based on the issues cited here, the equation appears to be hopelessly vague. Therefore it can neither be proven nor disproven. The equation must be struck because it states no facts.

Einstein’s equation suffers from the same flaws:

• e for energy is not clear because it lacks a unit. It can only be tested by providing a unit such as watt or BTU. But then the equation becomes proprietary to Earth, where the unit exists, and illegal everywhere else in the universe, where the unit is not known.
• m for mass is a physical count that never changes anywhere in the universe. But how does the atomic weight relate to energy? Only one way is possible: for each proton or neutron in an atom, one dose of energy is produced. This is asserted and not proven.
• How does c for speed of light relate to a unit of energy? The equation cannot calculate values that do not already relate using a known conversion. There isn’t one.
• Why is the speed of light squared? What if it was raised to the power of 4? Or 4 million? Would that make a significant difference? Perhaps we could use a smaller unit of energy. Then we could raise speed of light to virtually any number, and the equation would still resolve properly.
• Based on the issues cited ere, the equation appears to be hopelessly vague. Therefore it can neither be proven nor disproven. The equation must be struck because it states no facts.

An equation can work without specific units, but there are strict rules to regulate the interaction between the variables.

Let’s take one of the most-utilized equations in the history of human civilization:

rate { multiplied by } time = distance

What are the units? Notice that none are stated or required. Yet if we pipe in the wrong types of variables:

very fast { multiplied by } a very long time = distance

The equation is now vague; it relies on subjective interpretation, and the units of the variables do not inherently relate. It is broken.

The implied rules of all mathematical algorithms is: if the variables can be related directly and objectively, there is at least some possibility of resolution. Otherwise, the expression does not qualify as an equation.

# Writing this equation on a foreign planet would be comical, and would never qualify for their version of a Nobel prize.

Imagine for a moment a planet called Burth. A humanoid male named Eisenstine is born on this planet who discovers the same “universal” equation that our friend Einstein developed. But he must write it in Burth units:

• Energy is expressed by a weott rather than the Earth watt. So it must be converted.
• Distance is expressed by a pile rather than an Earth mile. So it must be converted.
• Time is expressed by a clour rather than an Earth hour. So it must be converted.

The Earth equation e=mc2 must be written by Eisenstine as:

e {weotts} * 0.0000059876598064964066598640987648794696070424905235253250970975744 = m { the atomic mass } multiplied by ( the speed of light {piles per clour} * 147.4590864896924o874985096546364309898765098346643864 ) squared

Eisenstine submits the equation to the Science Committee, claiming it to be the greatest discovery in the history of planet Burth. Some time later, he receives a crudely typed rejection slip, stating that the equation is overly complex, and not convincing.

Meanwhile, on Earth, where the same equation can be written as e=mc2, Albert Einstein is widely considered to be the most intelligent person ever born.

# Einstein was a Victorian mathematician who worshipped the magic of light, so assumed that light was the basis of all physics. In fact, it is just another phenomenon of a complex universe.

Try this: walk into a saloon, sit down, and tell the patrons that you will bet them \$20 that they cannot answer this question accurately:

“If Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated, and lived 14 years longer, could he have traveled to Europe and patted baby Einstein on the head?”

The answer is yes. Albert Einstein was born in 1879, during the Victorian Era. To a young Einstein, a horse and carriage ride under the night sky provided a delightful opportunity to behold the entire universe in the twinkling of astronomical light. The impression that light was the magical expression of the universe stuck with him; when he saw Emilie du Chatelet’s equation, f=mv2, he was quick to convert it to e=mc2 (c stands for the speed of light). No further research was required or performed.

If you want to win a bar bet against a bright young college student, try this question: “How many chalk boards of calculations did Einstein write before arriving at e=mc2?”

These facts should restrain our tendency to think of Albert Einstein as a “modern” physicist, or someone who slaved over his precious algorithm.

# The public believes the equation resulted in the atomic bomb. But only mathematical ignorance caused scientists to believe that a fission reaction would release a huge amount of energy. Indeed, the equation can easily argue against itself.

Albert Einstein’s visionary equation became so popular among scientists that it reshaped the history of human beings. This is how scientists deduced that an atomic weapon would be extraordinarily powerful. From:

e = mc2

… and using English units for the speed of light in miles per hour:

c = 186,000 { miles per second } * 60 { seconds per minute } * 60 { minutes per hour } = 670,616,629

… they calculated that each uranium atom in a fission reaction would produce:

e = 238.029 { the atomic weight of uranium } * 670,616,629 = 159,626,205,584.24

Indeed, uranium was picked over other possible materials because it was not only unstable (radioactive), but had a very heavy atomic weight.

Ignoring for a moment the these “rocket scientists” relied on obscure English measurements for the speed of light (miles and hours), the unit of energy is where we jump off a mathematical cliff. What unit of energy should a scientist have used for this equation? A conservative thinker might have selected one of the smallest units of energy known to mankind: the electron volt, equivalent to 1.60217646 x 10-19 joules. This is also a good choice because it ties into atomic structure better than other units. Let’s try Einstein’s equation again, from our last stopping-off point:

e = 159,626,205,584.24 { times the number of electron volts per joule, 1.60217646E-19 } = 0.000000025574934898619 joules

Not much energy, huh? We can exchange energy with matter and vice-versa, but it produces virtually no energy at all. Numerate scientists may never have invented the atomic bomb. Even if they had, they would have certainly propped the thing in a garbage can and sat around sipping beers, waiting for the “poof”.

Of course, anyone living in Hiroshima in 1945 knows that the danged thing blowed-up-real-good, so the calculation using electron volts is clearly not accurate. But what is accurate? No one knows. And this equation has not brought us any closer to understanding the truth.

# The equation was stolen from prior physicists without proper credit or acknowledgment.

Willem Gravesande performed physical experiments to measure the force behind falling objects based on their velocity.

Willem Gravesande dedicated his career to learning about physics through physical experiments. The most notorious of these involved dropping brass balls various heights into clay, so he could measure the impact of the balls based on their weight and velocity.This test inspired Emilie du Chatelet (see below), who in turn radically reshaped Albert Einstein’s view of how energy and matter could be equated.More about Willem Gravesande from WikiPedia.
Emilie du Chatelet literally gave her life to distill Gravesande’s field work into the equation f=mv2.

In a time when women were not known as intellectuals, Emilie du Chatelet became famous for her extraordinary mathematical and analytical skills. She originally emerged onto the French scientific scene as Voltaire’s lover and muse. But even Voltaire had to admit that she was majorly responsible for one of his most renowned scientific works.When du Chatelet read about Willem Gravesande’s experiments with brass balls (see above), she leaped at the opportunity to revise Isaac Newton’s formula, f=mv, into f=mv2. This alteration triggered Albert Einstein to rewrite the formula in a much broader context as e=mc2.Tragically, du Chatelet discovered that she had become pregnant at age 42, and knew that her odds of surviving the birth were almost nil. She worked day and night to complete her proof. A week after the birth of her daughter, Emilie du Chatelet died. The baby passed away shortly thereafter.Neither Gravesande nor du Chatelet were ever credited with their ground-breaking work that formed the basis of Einstein’s equation.Of du Chatelet, Voltaire dryly remarked, “Her only fault was that she was not born a man.”Read more about Emilie du Chatelet here and here.

Modern physicists have refined and restated this force as kinetic energy (KE), but only after Einstein snatched and altered it.In the centuries since du Chatelet’s death, scientists and mathematicians have performed rigorous experiments on falling objects, and have arrived at a much clearer equation to replace du Chatelet’s f=mv2:

KE (kinetic energy) = 1/2 mv2

Since f=mv2 is no longer valid, Einstein’s theory is doubly damned. It has no basis, even in its original form.Unfortunately, Albert Einstein had already planted his flag as e=mc2, and no one in the scientific community found the courage to point out that du Chatelet’s originating equation was invalid. So Einstein’s work was allowed to stand, unchallenged.

A brave and sound scientific community would have compelled Einstein to rewrite his famous algorithm as:

e = 1/2 mc2

… but this would have exposed the equation’s many other flaws, as we can see in this article. So, as usual, pious conformity carried the day.

# After the theft, Einstein altered the variables within the equation, destroying its validity as a scientific proof.

e began as force, but now represents atomic energy. The unit of energy is never stated, but is required for a proof to be established. Also, if a unit is given, it will always be wrong, since that will be an Earth unit, and is unknown elsewhere in the universe.

If you are like me, you assume that thousands (if not millions) of physical tests have now been run on e=mc2 to prove its veracity. There is only one way for a physical test to take place:

e { in a known Earth unit such as calories, watts, joules, etc. } times the known atomic weight, a universal number times ( the speed of light squared )

So who gets to decide what unit of energy to use? Whatever one we select, we are doomed. That unit will only be known here on Earth. Hence the equation is not universal.

m began as the weight of an object, as measured by its attraction to a gravitational host such as Earth. Einstein conflated this into the total atomic weight of the material being tested. This placed the atomic table directly into the equation as a hard numerical factor, without any proof or basis whatsoever.

We must not gloss over the fact that du Chatelet’s original equation described mass as the physical weight of an object falling to Earth. When Einstein inserted the atomic weight of the object, he obliterated all of the previous physical proofs and adventured into new and totally unproven territory. Although the atomic weight of atoms does indeed affect its weight, that does not justify using the atomic weight as a hard factor in an equation. Einstein decided to study energy in his algorithm. What does energy have to do with gravitational force? Nothing at all. Either way, relevance is not the same as equivalence.

The hard-factoring of the atomic table also assumes that for each integer of atomic weight, we would theoretically achieve one unit of potential energy. This is loose and reckless. We created the most powerful weapon on Earth from deuterium, which has only one proton and one neutron. The atom bomb is from a very heavy material, plutonium. Why are they so different in atomic weight? White dwarves explode because of the formation of iron. Is the iron imploding at the instance of the supernova? If so, perhaps what is hyper-stable is also hyper-energetic. These concepts must be thoroughly investigated before we casually assert that all atoms are created equal.

The equation finishes with c2 — the speed of light squared — but ignores the actual units of distance and time (miles per hour). Stripped of its context, the physical number 670 million is obscure, and irrelevant anywhere in the universe other than the planet Earth.

In example after example, scientists discussing e=mc2 have calculated the value for the speed of light squared as:

c = 186,000 { miles per second } * 60 { seconds per minute } * 60 { minutes per hour } = 670,616,629

The number 670 million seems huge, doesn’t it?

Now let’s try one of Einstein’s own thought experiments. You come from another planet, in the Alpha Centauri system. Miraculously, it is the same size as Earth, and as fate would have it, you use all of the same units of measurement as we do here. Except for one: you only have one unit of distance, called a Kintuk. It is 670 million miles long. You don’t have any other way of measuring distance. You discover the “universal” theory through which energy and matter interchange, and you write it from your perspective:

e = m c squared

c = 1 Kintuk

c squared = 1 Kintuk squared or 1 times 1, which equals 1

Therefore, the final equation is:

e = m

Energy equals matter. Is there a single physicist on planet Earth who believes this to be true? Yet we have just proven it. All we had to do was visit another planet!

The speed of light (or its value squared, cubed, etc.) is not a large number in relative terms. It only wows the innumerate. The larger an object is, the faster it moves. Just ask an elephant.

Now for another thought experiment: You are a very large creature, so enormous that the Big Bang is the size of the puny cloud created by a firecracker explosion. So you throw the firecracker into the air. It is moving at ten of your (very large) feet per second. The firecracker explodes, causing the Big Bang. Question: how fast is the Big Bang itself (the exploding firecracker) moving from your perspective, but measured in Earth’s “speed of light”, which theoretically can never be exceeded?

First, we calculate your scale of reality in distance:

3 feet = 14 billion Earth light years { the flash of the Big Bang firecracker only occupies about three feet of your space }

1 foot = app. 4.33 billion Earth light years

1 foot = the speed of light { times } 4.33 billion { times } 60 seconds per minute { times } 60 minutes per hour { times } 24 hours per day { times } 365.25 days per Earth year { times } 186,000 { times } 5280

1 foot = in Earth feet: 134,195,740,208,640,000,000,000,000

To keep things simple, the scale of time is the same as Earth, one second for one second.

Finally, the firecracker is thrown at 10 (very large) feet per second. How does this translate to Earth’s “speed of light”?

Rate of firecracker movement = 10 (very large) feet per second.

10 (very large) feet = 1,341,957,402,086,400,000,000,000,000 Earth feet

The rate per second = 1,341,957,402,086,400,000,000,000,000 Earth feet { divided by } the number of feet traversed by the Earth’s speed of light in one second

The number of feet traversed by the Earth’s speed of light in one second = 186000 { times } 5280 feet = 982,080,000

The rate per second = 1,341,957,402,086,400,000,000,000,000 Earth feet { divided by } 982,080,000

The rate per second = 1,366,444,080,000,000,000 times the Earth speed of light.

The speed of light in this huge perspective is infinitesimally tiny. You might even be tempted to theorize that “Nothing can move slower than the speed of light”.

Elephants are huge, ungainly creatures. It is hard to imagine how they even begin to run. But run, they do, and as fast as the speediest human marathon winner. The larger a thing is, the faster it moves. The universe is massive, so is always moving many times the speed of light, even as it strolls through whatever context it exists in.

c2 occupies the original location of v for velocity, a variable. It is illegal to replace a variable with a constant.

For those of you who think of math as a mystery (or a punishment), take heart. You don’t need to be a professor to see what is wrong here. Do you remember this famous equation? This is how we figure out when two airplanes collide after departing from separate airports at a specific time of day, and traveling at a designated speed on an intersecting flight path:

rate {times} time = distance

Now let’s go all “Einstein” on the equation:

c {the speed of light} {times} time = distance

The rate has become the speed of light, and can never be anything else. So the equation’s original purpose is unreachable, since you can never enter a rate. Much worse, the other two variables — time and distance — must compensate by growing disproportionally. Imagine the sorts of physics that would emerge from this simple editorial adjustment! Now you can comprehend the absurdity of Einstein’s mathematical leap.

# We already know that atomic particles have traveled faster than the speed of light, even though the equation declares this to be physically impossible.

Recent scientific experiments have discovered particles that commonly move faster than the speed of light.

The Big Bang produced an expansion so massive and instantaneous that it could not have taken place unless the original atomic elements traveled faster than the speed of light.

The Big Bang occurred some 14 billion years ago, producing all of the materials necessary for the modern universe. Unfortunately for Einstein devotees, the explosion was almost instantaneous. The primitive universe sprouted so quickly that its atomic elements must have moved much faster then the speed of light.

Scientists defending Einstein’s equation have cooked up the explanation that the Big Bang was really an inflation more than an explosion of particles. The universe is seen as balloon being pumped up. Everything we know as Earthlings exists on the surface of the balloon, not inside of it. We are hardly moving at all. But the balloon is expanding at an enormous rate.

The inflationary theory of the Big Bang has become so influential that we must take a few moments to consider it:

Imagine the Earth as the Big Bang according to the Inflationary Theory. The massive body of the Earth is the air within the balloon. All that lives on the planet sits on or very near the surface, or within the thin layer of air floating above the planet. You are a microbe, trying to understand the extent of all existence. You possess a very powerful telescope, and can easily see the highest-flying birds, and the lowest-crawling underwater creatures. Can you deduce that you exist on a growing balloon called the Earth, that most of what exists is in beneath you, and that you are really only a surface dweller?

1. If you look out at all that exists from the microbe’s perspective, you should see a shaped reality, where elements — even ones very high in the sky — fade and disappear gradually over the curvature of the Earth. This is not true from what we can see through our telescopes.
2. You (as a microbe) should see a much larger expanse of reality across than out. Also, in both directions, you would see a hard boundary where everything simply disappears rather than fading off due to distance. This directly disagrees with everything we Earthlings observe through our telescopes. The universe is immense and infinite in all directions, and the only reason we do not see more of it is because our equipment is limited. The farthest objects are faded. It is obvious that more lies beyond them.
3. You (as a microbe) would not likely see the origin of the Big Bang (perhaps 3% chance of that), but it you were lucky enough to see it, you would notice huge gaps in the expansion away from it, since most of the activity would be “around the corner” from your position. This is not the case with our current picture of the universe. We know where the Big Bang came from, and can clearly see the pattern of expansion — not around the corner from us, but amidst us.

Cosmological inflation is sexy and mysterious, but how do we then isolate and test it? If we find neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light, are they just inflating? Catch-all story-book theories like this require an equal dose of skepticism to prevent us from misunderstanding what is sitting right in front of us.

# The equation does not explain why fusion is so much more powerful than fission

When mankind created the hydrogen bomb, we vastly exceeded the bar set by the primitive atom bomb. Indeed, the H-bomb contains an atom bomb just to set it off! Intuitively, you would guess that this new weapon must use ever-larger atomic elements as well. But that is not the case. The hydrogen bomb uses some of the lightest elements in the atomic scale, H2 and H3. How is it possible that a weapon with only 1% of the weight of uranium explode with a force 4 times more powerful? Is there more fuel? Not significantly.The damning fact is that Einstein’s equation does not predict that fusion is much powerful than fission. E=mc2 simply states that a certain amount of energy will be released when matter is converted to energy. It is wrong.When Einstein’s minions are confronted with this flaw, they insist that the difference is that the amount of fuel that actually participates in the reaction varies between the two processes. There is no evidence to support this notion — it’s just another piece of magic math performed by Einstein’s devotees to prop up the broken equation.

# The speed of light is too unreliable to be a constant, but is the main foothold of this equation.

Though Einstein’s equation treats the speed of light as a constant, light does not flow constantly in the universe. It varies under gravitational influences. At the event horizon of a black hole, the gravity is so powerful that light is trapped — and stops dead in its tracks. It is inappropriate to say that the speed of light is itself a universal measurement of anything.Light is like the rest of us — a feather floating on the river of the universe, oblivious of the forces sweeping it along.

# Einstein’s other work in physics appears to be insightful. None of it relies on e=mc2.

In his lifetime, Albert Einstein conducted many thought experiments. These led him to contribute unique and tenacious theories about the universe. He deserves credit for that:

• Conceived of the notion of space-time, and how gravitational objects indent and reshape its “fabric”.
• Stated that light could be regarded as a series of particles.
• Clarified and explained the Brownian motion of particles.
• Created the theory of General Relativity. Most of the points within it can survive the demotion of e=mc2.
• Explained the quantum paradox where it is impossible to absolutely predict the behavior of particles because they have a dual nature.
• Assisted and expanded on the work of the Indian physicist Bose in describing the mysterious “boson” particles.
• Along with de Sitter, first described the concept of “dark matter”.

Like all geniuses, Einstein could also be defiant and dictatorial. E=mc2 expressed his arrogance and his fantasies, but little of his common sense.

# Modern thinkers have shamed themselves by treating Einstein as a God. They lost their objectivity, and fell into the lazy habit of assuming things are true because so many others believe them. Scientists cling to this equation as if it were a baby blanket.

Math and physics are the normal domain of intellectuals nested comfortably in the branches of lofty universities throughout the world. It is their job to look far over our heads and describe things they see. But they must also bear the burden of skeptical review and analysis.

These elitists have have propped e=mc2 upon a royal pillow and bandied it before the innumerate masses as if to say, “This is why we are physicists… and you are not.”

No educated individual should allow their fondness for a person or idea compromise an otherwise clear mind, lest they be coddled by their friends, blinded by their heroes, and chided by their successors.