Physics A: Refutation of Rest Energy E=mc2: Difference between revisions
Imported from text file |
Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| author = [[Johann Marinsek]] | | author = [[Johann Marinsek]] | ||
| published = 2008 | | published = 2008 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
</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|physics refutation rest energy e mc]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:34, 18 July 2026
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Physics A: Refutation of Rest Energy E=mc2 |
| Author(s) | Johann Marinsek |
| Published | 2008 |
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:
U-235 + n ?? Ce-140 + Zr-94 + 2n + Q (208 MeV calculated)
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:
1784 MeV ?? 1173 MeV + 815 MeV + 208 MeV
The formula E = 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