My real intention is to bring attention to the the great corruption that has overcome the world in many ways. It is not just in politics that we all know about, but it even extends to other rather innocent academic fields like in the pure science of physics.

When I say Einstein's theory is wrong, many people react with disbelief. How could such a well known theory of physics like Einstein's theory and the formula E=mc? be wrong. That's exactly the issue. When what have been popularly promoted through the mass media have been invalid physics, so much so that such invalid physics have crept into the regular curriculum of physics undergraduate courses in almost all universities in the world. The invalidity of special relativity has been debated non-stopped for a hundred years, but the mass media has all along been muted concerning the dissenting voices.

I know Muslims like to quote the hadith about seeking knowledge - "...go even as far as China to seek knowledge". From what I see, Muslims do not seem to be very different from the "disbelievers" as far as "seeking" knowledge is concern, especially in the field of science and technology. The western universities take the lead and all the rest of the world follows suit happily. Even the top Chinese universities are also echoing what the top universities in the Western world are promoting - about gravitational waves, quarks, Higgs boson,etc; these are all fakes.

Muslims should be able to - if they are indeed enlightened through faith in God - make independent studies in science and not just accept words without critical examinations.

Chan Rasjid

Which one the general relativity or the special relativity?

Salaam

The video is about special relativity. There is an argument that general relativity too is based on special relativity; as such, general relativity too would be invalidated if special relativity is invalidated.

Chan Rasjid.

with the help of modern collective minds and advance tools lot of things are getting clear
better understanding of one theory supercede another theory with some data conatin in new theory still the mystery of time is only fully known by the one who create that time

every theory started from the beggining of time at this universe not the creation of time before bigbangs we think if time was there what was before bigbang ? ( A time of different kind) nothing but time. we programmed in a way that past is always there because we dnt know the law behind time creation and even if we have been told by someone we still not able to understand the law

There was always a Time before Time ( thats how we percieve)

space acts in a same way how hard hard we try to understand the end limit of space we start wondering. let say a point come where its written a note (end of space) still there is a space behind that Note .it could be any thing but not end. so how the space will end ?

@ OP
the link you posted this person is already registered here the chinese one is this you?

The video is by Run Ze Cao, not me. I posted the video as it was done rather professionally and had many responses, some for and some against.

I have 7 original articles myself repudiating Einstein's relativity theory.
http//www.emc2fails.com
Chan Rasjid.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

True science is never disallowed in Islam - simple logic. True science comes from sincerity and honesty of the scientists. False science comes with a willful heart that is bent on pursuing a goal without regard to the truth.

If we study the history physics since Newton, true discovery brought with it real technology that help man to have a greater control over the forces of nature. With Newtonian physics, we have the steam engines, later the gasoline engines as well as the jet turbines driving our airplanes. Chemistry give us the many modern materials to make things for our convenience. The discovery of electricity and magnetism made great impact on modern society. True science always bring about real benefits and conveniences to the ordinary common person.

Einstein's theories, special and general relativity are mathematical games and are invalid as theories about the physical world - the real world. What is the use of speculating about the Big Bang - how the universe began, about gravitational waves. Those are like fictions which you and me could write about, but useless. Remember the hadith about

Beware of knowledge that is of no use!

It is the same with the Standard Model of particle physics that the people at CERN running the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are playing with telling us how great the energies their protons are speeding - with kinetic energy of 7 TeV (Tera electron volts, 10?? eV). What's the point? My finding is that the 7 TeV is fictious - the real energy is 470 MeV, off by a factor of 15, 000! What has quarks, Higg's boson, muons, nutrinos, color charges, etc. brought to us? Nothing real! We still cannot find and produce clean fusion energy from hydrogen (water). A hundred years after Marie Curie, we still have to rely on the very "dirty" and dangerous fission nuclear reactors. Look at Fukushima! How have the physicists at CERN gave us any new benefit? Tesla gave us a lot. What has the relativity theories given us? Nothing! But promises of great knowledge about the edge of the universe, not here and now. You still have to charge your iPhone every three days, not once a year. Which do you prefer - hearing about gravitational waves or having to charge your iPhone only once a year?

The reasons why great amount of funds are still spent on international collaboration on physics research that are useless - like LHC, ITER - is because governments have to rely on physicists to recommend what next big research project to do. But the physicists have been practicing fictitious particles physics all these many decades since the 1960's and they have nothing else! And the politicians who approves of the funds don't know if the physics proposed to them are real or fictitious - that's the condition of the real world. ITER, The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, is a continuation of fusion energy research based on the Tokamak model - a failed model for many decades. ITER is like some gamblers in the stock market who madly makes greater investment after very bad investments - hoping for a miracle! The smart money will cut loss and ask what went wrong? Answer Our modern particle physics are all useless - fictitious. How can you succeed in harnessing real fusion energy based on fictitious particle physics?

China, besides participating in ITER, is said to be about to build the next generation of particle collider twice larger than the LHC. China currently has the mad ambition to tell the world they are building bigger than the biggest - wasting precious resources. The sad thing is that Xi Jinping does not know physics and had to listen to his physicists advisors, and many of those holding top positions comes from the top western universities believing fully in their particle physics and relativity theories. But current particle physics is the sure road to nowhere.

But what can the world do. The media promotes what they promote and any alternative suggestions about physics are all put down. In the end, there is the sort of saying

They plan plans, but Allah has the final plan.

A new short paper of mine.
"The Bucherer Experiment and the Lorentz Force Law"
http//www.emc2fails.com

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Hello siwto,

An interesting site of Ray Flemming
http//www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/rayflemming/

I think this wave particle duality is not acceptable; much of quantum mechanics are still raw and many discoveries are awaiting the right person.

Firstly, a particle is an idealization - only a concept. There is this possibility that when an elementary particle moves in the aether, there is an associated aether "wave" accompanying and associated with the "particle" - so we may detect both wave or particle. This should somehow be normal and natural when our physics are done correctly - not much of a duality to talk about. Light would be a photon "particle" if somehow we could never transform a partial wavelength of light. So there is still a lot unresolved concerning the properties and nature of light.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Thanks Jafar, for reading a scientific paper based only on its scientific content and merit; you're of a nearly extinct species.

For those who do not know much of how the present world of academia works - especially in physics which is dominated by Einstein's relativity theory - there is this peer review system that works much against any attempt at new discoveries. The more popular physics journal in the world (especially western, also probably China) have openly stated that they do not now, as a matter of policy, accept any article that disputes the validity of Einstein's relativity theory; their standpoint is that the theory is one of the best tested and verified physics theory and it serves no purpose for them to consider any critique of the theory! Unbelievable but true! The most active physics online forum follows the same rule and would immediately delete any article disputing Einstein's relativity.

There are not many places in the internet where I can allow my "discovery" be made known to others. What I did initially was I sent out my paper to about emails in groups of 70 x 10 - 700 in all! The addresses are of physics professors/scientists from the universities/research institutes all over the world. The response so far

1. bounced; marked as spam - about 5. One email from a Turkish professor "Spam!Spam!Spam!..." - said three times in the Islamic fashion!
2. clear positive response - 2. One is a nuclear physicists who was the first to succeed in fusion reaction (fusor?). The other is a Korean physics professor whose university is ranked 19/300 "I am very much interested in your theory. I will examined it in greater details".
3. negative response - telling why I am wrong - none; as expected. If I receive unsolicited emails entitled "Human evolves from fish from outer space", "Geocentrism - Earth is center of the universe", I would just delete such emails.
4. total silence - 690/700!

Although the well known formula E=mc? (the atomic bomb formula) is now associated with the name of Einstein, it was not discovered by Einstein. He only made some final refinements to what was discovered by others; somehow the mainstream world preferred his name to be attached to the formula which may, or may not, be justified.

First, a little about Einstein's fame and his theory of relativity (started with special relativity 1905). Einstein's special relativity is today universally accepted as good physics, standard staple in physics in almost all universities worldwide - especially in the west. Nowadays, the name of Einstein in mainstream media is that of a man of the greatest genius, that his physics is one of the greatest and most brilliant representing man's creativity.

In the early days of Einstein's relativity, it was not universally accepted. Many of the greatest physicists of the earlier days rejected relativity theory outright e.g Ernest Rutherford, discovery of proton; Nichola Tesla, "Very likely the greatest inventor of all time and certainly the greatest electrical engineer of all time. Tesla is most well known for his invention of the AC power distribution system that we still use today."; Louis Essen, inventor of atomic clock; Herbert Ives - "...The 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light (a central tenet of relativity) is not merely 'ununderstandable', it is not supported by 'objective matters of fact'; it is untenable...". Even today, after a hundred years, there are still great controversies surrounding whether Einstein's relativity theory is valid or invalid, but the mainstream media has no interest to report any conclusions that run counter to Einstein's theory.

The modern relativistic mechanics related to E=mc? did not come from Einstein. It actually came from Max Planck, a most famous physicists of the time (1920's). He derived the formula for relativistic momentum p
p = m v = 1/(1 - v?/c?) x rest-mass x velocity.
The reason why relativistic mechanics fails (as I showed in my paper) begins with this little new formula p = mv.
The old formula for momentum had always been p=mv, without the gamma ( = 1/(1 - v?/c?)).

They blindly took the original words of Newton's "Principia", the 2nd law of motion
"Force is proportional to change of motion"

Translated into calculus it is
force = rate of change of momentum (motion = momentum p) = dp/dt .
So the new force is
force = d/dt (mv); no more the old force = d/dt(mv) without the gamma .

But they missed the point that even Isaac Newton himself interpreted his second law of motion in only one manner

1. that mass must be constant, not invariant.
2. momentum p = mv, without the new gamma factor; this gives rise to the strict definition of axiom for force force = mass x acceleration.

Our standard units of weights and measures are found only on the fixed kilogram - mass is constant as originally interpreted by Newton. So when they used a new relativistic momentum p=mv, they are using a new definition. But such definitions in physics may not be changed at will - our SI unit of kilogram is a constant, our meter and second too are fixed and universal (unlike Einstein's relativity where space and time may distort and "curve&quot. So the real physical unit of force - the newton - is not valid for use with a redefinition of force to force = d/dt (mv).

This is how special relativity messed up high energy physics.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Our Nuclear Physics All Wrong!

Our current theory to explain nuclear energy is very likely all wrong. The readers may immediately respond with "If nuclear energy physics is all wrong, how come we still could build nuclear reactors?" Physics theory and technology are two different aspects. In 1945, they would still have succeeded in developing the atomic bomb whether E=mc? was correct or fictitious; they already knew that huge energy were released in the fission of U-235 - they had the technology. It is the same with gunpowder. The ancients need no theory of chemistry of the elements as they knew that sulfur, fine charcoal and saltpeter (potassium nitrate) would combine to produce gunpowder. But having a correct nuclear physics theory should be better than holding on to a fictitious theory. A correct theory may point to the way to real advancement in physics; it may be our "bad" nuclear physics that is the cause that our tokamak fusion reactors (to produce unlimited clean fusion energy from water) deliver only "news" and not any tangible results - news and more news - despite 7 decades and billions of dollars spent.

The real culprit is the mass spectrometer - with their most sophisticated equipment on planet earth like the Penning trap - used to weigh atoms. These ultra high-end equipment of nuclear physics proves to be not reliable after all! They weigh atoms and deliver atomic mass values which the particle physicists embrace wholeheartedly. So the physicists found that when U-235 splits into smaller fragments, some mass goes missing, leading them to formulate a "theory of mass defect". They happily put the "missing mass" in the famous Einstein equation E=mc? and transformed it into a huge figure for energy and - "Eureka! I have unraveled the mystery of nuclear energy!". The Almighty God created the world perfect with nothing missing! God made sure that when atoms redistributed themselves during nuclear reactions, He still consider each and every atom uniquely his creature with their mass well preserved.

For the past months, I was examining mass spectrometry, a very advanced technique in physics that could sort charged particles and ions, e.g. electrons, protons, ?H, He?, ??C, and then to compare the masses of two of the particles giving their relative atomic mass. Today, the physics community has their experimental measurements of the atomic masses of every possible nucleus of atoms and their isotopes collected into a shared CODATA database. One has just to look up the open database to know the atomic mass of an element; e.g the 2012 data has

neutron 1.008 664 915 850 amu (atomic mass units)
H-1, hydrogen 1.007 825 032 231
H-2, deuterium 2.014 101 778 120
He-4, helium 4.002 603 254 130
U-235 235.0439301

I wrote a 10 page paper (unpublished), the pdf file of which is available for download at my website
"Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?"
http//www.emc2fails.com

From the official site of ITER (International Thermonuclear Energy Research)
https//www.iter.org/

UNLIMITED ENERGY

Fusion, the nuclear reaction that powers the Sun and the stars, is a potential source of safe, non-carbon emitting and virtually limitless energy. Harnessing fusion's power is the goal of ITER, which has been designed as the key experimental step between today's fusion research machines and tomorrow's fusion power plants.

When will tomorrow arrive? And the "potential" may be diminished to a very low figure with "bad" nuclear physic's backing.

Some basics. In nuclear physics, their basic unit for mass is the amu and we have a knowledge about its conversion to kilogram. In earlier days, the chemists started with Hydrogen as 1 amu; so oxygen weighs 16, nitrogen 14. Today we take the amu scale to have carbon-12 as 12 exact; then oxygen-16 (the most abundant natural isotope, 99.8%) is no more a whole number, but
15.99491461957(17). This "(17)", 17 in bracket, represents the uncertainty in the last two figures.

Even before the 20th century (mass spectrometry invented about 1920), chemists already had the ability to "weigh" atoms. They analyzed the ratio of the amount of elements that would combine to form a compound. As they had already knowledge of their chemical reactions, they could also find the "relative atom mass" - say of oxygen/hydrogen, about 16. The could do electrolysis of water and collect the gases released, oxygen and hydrogen; as the formula of water is HO, they could weigh the amounts of hydrogen and oxygen collected and they would be able to calculate the ratio of one atom oxygen to one atom hydrogen. The figure they got in 1900 was 15.87; they could get only about 2 decimals as the accuracy of their balances - as well as technology then - were limited.

Then in the 1920's, they invented mass spectrometry. Mass spectrometry relies on the fact that if a charged particles or ions (say an atom of oxygen with one electron removed would have a +1 positive charge, as ?O, a positive ion of oxygen-16) are injected into a uniform magnetic field, they would be deflected by amounts that depend on their masses. In this manner, they could sort and identify ions according to their atomic masses. They then developed the method to compare atomic masses of the various atoms. The precision of their technique kept improving until they were able the weigh atoms more precisely then their chemists counterparts. The chemist then could at most weigh atoms to the 2nd or 3rd decimal place (eg, H = 1.008, C = 12.01), but the new technique soon surpassed the chemist and it could reach precision to the 4th or 5th decimals.

An English chemist William Prout in 1815 found that the atoms of elements all seemed to have a mass that are whole numbers of the mass of the hydrogen atom - the so called ?whole number rule? of atomic weights known as Prout?s hypothesis. When the mass spectrometers started to weigh atoms more "accurately", they found that the mass figures "don't add up properly" - something's missing. They expected the helium atom to weigh 4 times that of the hydrogen, but hydrogen has mass 1.008, but helium was just about 4; there was a loss of mass in the synthesis from hydrogen to helium. The physics community then accepted this "mass deficit" or "missing mass" to be correct. They could just stuff this missing mass into Einstein's famous equation E = mc? (E = energy, m= mass, c = light speed) to explain nuclear fusion/fission to be the new source of energy of the sun. What E=mc? means that if you could transform mass to pure energy, the formula would give you the figure! because c? is a huge factor, a little "missing" mass converted to energy became enormous (you could try calculating if planet earth could survive if someone could completely convert 1 kg of rice fully into pure energy!). When U-235 splits into smaller fragments due to radioactivity, only a tiny fractions of the mass involved gets converted to energy - not the whole U-235 atoms! That's how extremely "dirty" fission reactors work.

Well, when they first found the "missing mass", no one then entertained that it was their new fancy toy spectrometers that could be playing tricks! There never was any experimental test to verify if their spectrometers were reliable - not ever! The little (about 0.1%) missing mass could well be their weighing scales were only approximately good. It could even be that if they were to be able to weigh atoms with our verified and high precision beam chemical balances of today, all atoms would have atomic masses equal to that of the mass number (a whole number equal to the number of protons+neutron) in atomic mass units! If this is true, then it would mean the law of mass conservation is again revived - there is not need of E=mc? to combine mass and energy to our current "law of mass-energy conservation". It is just mass alone being conserved - and much simplified without being entangled with energy. This would put and end to the nuclear physics theory of today. We would need to find a new explanation for nuclear energy.

Until today, the accuracy of mass spectrometer that weigh atoms to 10?? has not been verified to be reliable. They could only give precision reached in their measurements - but precision and accuracy are two independent aspects. The most prestigious equipment today for mass spectrometry is the Penning trap that could trap a single particle/ion in a small space of about 1 - 5 centimeters. It seems China is just still building ONE Penning trap (the first) called the LPT (Lanzhao Penning Trap) - we can imagine how costly this piece of equipment should be. You would read news in the media every so often as, in 2017, physicists from Germany and Japan of RIKEN determined the mass of the proton to the "highest precision" to date
https//phys.org/news/2017-07-precise-proton-mass.html

The resulting mass of the proton, determined to be 1.007276466583(15) three times more precise than the presently accepted value.

If any of you were to care to stop for a minute and ponder quietly about what 1.007276466583 means - I believe very few did. The particle physicists are infringing into a domain that once were the preserve of the gods! I can't express with words what it means to "weigh an atom to 11 decimal places!" - you have to use your imaginations. It should be no wonder that such particle physicists from the top universities are commanding such respects and prestige - even the ancient sage emperors of China of Yao and Sun could not achieve such prestige with their magical powers! It is no wonder the whole world now bows in humility to the present day sages with their command of their miraculous science. Fortunately - or unfortunately depending on which side you are on - there is a simple chemical experiment that could be done to conclusively decide if mass spectrometry is correct, or wrong which may mean a full revival of the law of mass conservation; this latter outcome would mean a total collapse our nuclear physics theory.

The relative atomic mass of Na/F based on the current atomic mass from mass spectrometry is
22.989769/18.998403 or 1.210089; this figure may be taken to be without uncertainty as the atomic masses have no uncertainty in the 6th decimal. The ratio of the mass number of Na/F is 23/19 or 1.210526. So the problem reduces to doing a chemical analysis of sodium fluoride NaF using our chemical balance to determine the relative atomic mass of Na/F, whether it agrees with 1.210089 or with 1.210526. Our analytical balances today has enough precision for the experiment, it could measure 1 gram to 1 part in 100,000 or a million. With a fresh analysis of NaF today, we could come out with a value of 1.210089 ? 0.000012 confirming the accuracy of mass spectrometry; or the value may be 1.210526 ? 0.000012 rejecting mass spectrometry and confirming the law of mass conservation - unequivocally.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore,
website http//www.emc2fails.com

Einstein's Relativity is Wrong (14,900 views)
By Run Ze Cao,
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tig3NaTjI
By an undergraduate physics student.

Today, not a single physicist ever write any article trying to repudiate the mechanics of Isaac Newton. As for Einstein's special relativity which was introduced more than a hundred years back in 1905, there have been non-stopped unabated controversies by many physicists over the theory' validity, but their work were never given exposure to the general public.

So, why the non-stopped controversies with special relativity but non with the physics of Newton?

E=mc? and Einstein's Relativity Wrong
http//www.emc2fails.com
Chan Rasjid

Hello all,

The Singaporean of course is me.

Most people would not believe that the famous equation, E= mc?, from Einstein could be wrong. First a little clarification. The formula has two part. The so call mass-energy equivalence - mass may be converted to energy - is not wrong; it is the basis why we have nuclear power. What my discovery shows to be wrong is the the so called relativistic kinetic energy part of E=mc? wrong - relativistic mechanics is wrong.

In 2012, there was the discovery of the Higgs boson which made headline news worldwide. Then, very recently, we have the big news about the detection of gravitational waves. If E=mc? being wrong makes the news, it would not just be headline news, it would mean the world of physics going belly-up! The related physics of E=mc? is the very foundation of high energy physics which is what the most advanced physics research laboratories are using for their calculations - imagine all their work for the past 100 years being rejected overnight. I would not be surprised if people do not have much confidence in my discovery as E=mc? being wrong has unimaginable implications in the world of physics.

I'll just quote from my website
http//www.emc2fails.com
"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc ? Fails"

Abstract. The relativistic mechanics of contemporary physics does not have a defined unit of force. The newton, the SI unit of force, may not be used in any of the relativistic formulas; it is a real unit of force only with Newtonian mechanics which observes Newton's second law of motion as an axiom defining a unit of force as mass x acceleration. Without a unit of force, the application of the work-energy theorem (work=force x distance) produces only a formula that evaluates only to a pure number which has no association with any real unit of energy. All values of energy from relativistic mechanics are, therefore, fictitious.
...
At the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN where protons are propelled to near the speed of light, the purported energy of the relativistic protons is 6.5 TeV (10?? electron volts), but the real value is only 470 MeV ((10 electron volts)) - the reported energy being inflated by a factor of 15,000."

Beta particles going faster than light speed?
http//emc2fails.com/wp/index.php/2016/04/27/beta-particles-going-faster-than-light-speed/

My discovery seems corroborated by the Chinese. In 2009, Chinese physicists who are members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences measured energy through direct calorimetry (energy to heat) and their experiment conclusively repudiated the relativistic energy of special relativity. They concluded that the 7 TeV (10?? electron volts) of energy purportedly acquired by protons in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN have only real energy of about 650 MeV (10 electron volts), off by a factor of 10,000 ? practically the same as what my new theoretical discovery concludes.

The unimaginable may sometimes come true.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.