Physics A: Refutation of Rest Energy E=mc2 - Revision history

ClaudeBot: Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup)

2026-07-18T23:34:00Z

Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:34, 18 July 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\| author = [[Johann Marinsek]]		\| author = [[Johann Marinsek]]
	\| published = 2008		\| published = 2008
	~~\| journal = [[None]]~~
	}}		}}

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-02T02:49:44Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 1 January 2017
Line 18:		Line 18:
	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|physics refutation rest energy e mc]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|physics refutation rest energy e mc]]

	[[Category:New Energy]]		[[Category:New Energy\|physics refutation rest energy e mc]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-01T17:54:00Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 1 January 2017
Line 16:		Line 16:
	</blockquote> The formula E = <span ar-sa?="" roman?;="" new="" times="" mso-fareast-language:="" mso-bidi-language:="" de-at;="" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-ansi-language: DE-AT; mso-fareast-font-family: ">g</span>mc<sup>2</sup> for binding energy is based on the mass/energy conversion formula E = mc<sup>2</sup> that relates energy to inert rest mass. Here it is shown that this relation is mistaken because applied to fission it violates the energy conservation bookkeeping rule!  This failure of the formula for rest energy is an indication that the derivation is		</blockquote> The formula E = <span ar-sa?="" roman?;="" new="" times="" mso-fareast-language:="" mso-bidi-language:="" de-at;="" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-ansi-language: DE-AT; mso-fareast-font-family: ">g</span>mc<sup>2</sup> for binding energy is based on the mass/energy conversion formula E = mc<sup>2</sup> that relates energy to inert rest mass. Here it is shown that this relation is mistaken because applied to fission it violates the energy conservation bookkeeping rule!  This failure of the formula for rest energy is an indication that the derivation is

	[[Category:Scientific Paper]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|physics refutation rest energy e mc]]

	[[Category:New Energy]]		[[Category:New Energy]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2016-12-30T16:29:22Z

Imported from text file

New page

{{Infobox paper
| title = Physics A: Refutation of Rest Energy E=mc2
| author = [[Johann Marinsek]]
| published = 2008
| journal = [[None]]
}}

==Abstract==

Empiricists can be impressed only by experimental outcomes that counter the predictions of a formula. This is done here for fission of U-235: <blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> U-235 + n ?? Ce-140 + Zr-94 + 2n + Q (208 MeV calculated)

</blockquote> Because the atomic sub particles p, e, n are not converted into energy, the binding energy of the daughter elements and the energy released (Q) can be only due to the binding energy of the parent element! The energy imbalance is obvious:

<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> 1784 MeV ?? 1173 MeV + 815 MeV + 208 MeV

</blockquote> The formula E = <span ar-sa?="" roman?;="" new="" times="" mso-fareast-language:="" mso-bidi-language:="" de-at;="" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-ansi-language: DE-AT; mso-fareast-font-family: ">gmc2 for binding energy is based on the mass/energy conversion formula E = mc2 that relates energy to inert rest mass. Here it is shown that this relation is mistaken because applied to fission it violates the energy conservation bookkeeping rule!  This failure of the formula for rest energy is an indication that the derivation is

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:New Energy]]