E=mc2 is Wrong – Einstein’s “Special Relativity” Fundamentally Flawed

By   |  December 8, 2009

einstein-tongueIs Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity incompatible with the very equations upon which science’s greatest theory is built? New observations made by many scientists and engineers appear to contradict the great German scientist’s ideas. Apparently there are implicit contradictions present within Relativity’s foundational ideas, documents and equations. One individual has even pointed that quotations from the 1905 document and Einstein’s contemporaries as well as interpretations of the Relativity equations clearly and concisely describe a confused and obviously erroneous theory. It is time therefore, for science to update its thinking on this theory with a comprehensive analysis of the history leading up to, during and after that revolutionary year of Special Relativity.

As this is the 100 year anniversary of the original release of Special Relativity, a review of the original assumptions, documents and ideas which led to the acceptance of this theory is timely and warranted. Every year millions of students are taught this theory without a critical analysis of Relativity. Relativity Theory consists of its two variants Special Relativity and General Relativity and is considered the cornerstone of modern physics.

Albert Einstein borrowed from the ideas of Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Voigt to create a new concept of the universe. His first work in this regard later came to be known as Special Relativity and contained many controversial ideas which today are considered axiomatic. Amongst these are Length Contraction, Time Dilation, the Twin Paradox and the equivalence of mass and energy summarized in the equation E=mc2.

This equation became the shining capstone of the new theory along with its first & second postulates, namely, that the laws of nature are the same from all perspectives and that the speed of light ‘c’ is constant in a vacuum regardless of perspective. Further, the theory also predicted an increase in mass with velocity. Numerous examples have been given of the ‘proof’ of the validity of Special Relativity.

Most notably, experiments using particle accelerators have sped particles to incredible velocities which apparently provide confirmation of Einstein’s theory. However, doubts remain in the scientific community who have never totally given up the comfort of a Newtonian world view. This is readily apparent in that they refer to the Newton’s ‘Law’ of Gravitation whilst Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) are given the polite attribution ‘The Theory of’ or simply SR ‘theory’ and GR ‘theory.’ Einstein would continue working on the ideas of Special Relativity until producing the aforementioned even more controversial treatise.

In his later more comprehensive work called the Theory of General Relativity (1916), Einstein proposed a major re-thinking of cosmology. He conceived of a space time continuum that is curved by mass; in other words, planets, stars, galaxies and other stellar objects cause a curvature of space time. The movement of these objects are determined by the aforementioned curvature.

As a result of these ideas, our understanding of geometry, math, physics, science and the universe would never be the same. However, some scientists are reporting that speed of light is not constant from different experimental observations. One has even reported errors in the fundamental equations. If so, this would require a major rethinking of the known cosmological models and assumptions of modern physics.

Michael Strauss is an engineer and author of Requiem for Relativity the Collapse of Special Relativity. To contact the author visit: www.relativitycollapse.com

Comments? Leave your intelligent feedback down below or consider following CollegeTimes on Facebook or Twitter to stay updated or to get in touch!

Share This Story:

Page ID #34897  -  Last updated on

Please scroll down to leave a comment.

21 Comments on “E=mc2 is Wrong – Einstein’s “Special Relativity” Fundamentally Flawed”  (RSS)

  1. why E=mc2 was wrong plz tell me ?

  2. why E=mc2 was wrong plz tell me

  3. Also, one thing to add. Since E = mc^2, and then m = E/c^2 and c^2 = E/m, and if light were not constant, wouldn’t that mean that at times the energy and mass would change if the speed of light changed?

    I mean, that is against the laws of physics.

  4. I find it fascinating how Scientists, even though this theory has worked and has been correct for many years, try to “downgrade” this equation just so they can feel special about themselves.

    Skeptics seem to forget that Einstein’s equation has allowed us to do many of the things. Unless Scientists want to say that there are multiple ways to solve a problem(which they don’t really), this equation would be right.

  5. GangBen003, and that’s exactly what should be GangBen003 0.03, is the latest product of series GangBen003 condoms, one of the 1969, GangBen condoms and break through the limits is known as the 0.05 mm of thickness, developed a 0.03 mm thick condoms now, global “ultra-thin thinner than 0.03 mm gold ultra-thin condoms in Tokyo, Hong Kong is sell like hot cakes, become grade personage on to be bestowed favor on newly.BUY condoms!!!GangBen 003 special offers, welcome to GangBen 003 stores, our shop sales gangben003 condom, welcome to choose and buy. 冈本003.

  6. hi ,i am a new user, welcome to my website senukexvip

  7. If E=mc^2 then M=E÷c^2 and c^2=E÷m. C^2= C is the constant. E and M are changeable.

    20(e)=5(m)×2^2(c^2) 18(e)=2(m)×3^2(c^2)

    Here’s some thoughts
    You some tar, you burn it the mass turns into energy meaning that e and m are changeable

    You have a ball moving through space as it moves its accelerated slowly by the pull of a distant star,this ball is also collecting smaller balls and absorbing them Into it as it moves and collects matter converting to energy it reaches infinite energy and infinite mass being feed to it. Because of this it accelerates infinitely

    If there was an e-m ratio for every atom that would mean that No atom could acc/decelerated because its energy and mass would always be the same. Say that e=mc^2 only applies when an object is not Acc/decelerating well that would be impossable as force is always working upon everything.

    In a vaccum there is even forces working upon atoms when matter is accelerated down the tube,if there wasn’t a force accelerating the object in that enviorment it wouldn’t move.

    Just some of my thoughts

  8. – Buy Targetted Visitors.

  9. buy for less suprisely

  10. I agree with the correct one

  11. The XXX Stream

  12. the world is more developed now nd the tings got easier …the reason for dat is science which are more developed so it can v true dat Einstein theory is wrng………………….its bad news 4 us dat he is wrong bt he is a great scientist and a great man also……!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  13. Blame you looking on this blog. That’s all I can say. You most beyond question beget made this blog into something thats susceptiveness check and important. You superficially be familiar with so much married to the press, youve covered so scads bases. Tremendous shit from this constituent of the internet. Again, gratitude you germane seeking this blog.”

  14. Einstein’s Special Relativity must correct the invariability of the light velocity. Because the light velocity changes as space and time change. A proof for this is in:
    and http://www.wbabin.net/science/cuong25.pdf

  15. Special theory of relativity is wrong.
    You can check it on

  16. January/February 2010 GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS 13
    Some Experiments that Shook the World
    Sankar Hajra
    Calcutta Philosophical Forum, Salt Lake, AC -54, Sector-1, Calcutta – 700 064, INDIA
    e-mail sankarhajra@yahoo.com
    It is generally believed by the physicists that various experiments/demonstrations/applications –
    experiments of Hahn-Strassmann, Walton-Cockroft, Fermi’s Chicago Experiment, the explosion of the Little
    Boy and the Fat Man, the commercial reaction of nuclear fuel – prove i) conversion of gravitational mass
    into energy, and ii) usability of Uranium and other radioactive elements as proper fuels. We argue that
    these assertions have not been proved in any of those experiments/demonstrations/applications.
    To know whether a fuel is proper fuel or not is to determine
    whether the fuel gives off greater amount of energy when it is
    used than the energy involved in making the fuel from raw
    natural materials. A huge amount of energy is obtained when
    Hydrogen or thermite (a mixture of powdered Aluminium and
    oxide of iron) is burned. But energy obtained from combustion
    of those fuels is not greater than the energy spent to make them
    from natural resources. Therefore, Hydrogen and thermite cannot
    be treated as proper fuels. Electricity could be readily generated
    from combustion of those fuels, but, electricity made
    from those fuels must be more expensive than electricity made
    from coal or petroleum. According to Einstein’s E = mc2 formula,
    1 Kg of any material (preferably Uranium) will give
    9 ´ 1016 joules, or 2 ´ 1016 calories, of heat energy through
    complete nuclear reaction. [ E = mc2 = 1 ´ (3 ´ 108 )2
    joules = 20 ´ 1012 kilocals = 20 t rillion kilocals .] If that
    would be true, then powerful states around the world would
    not compete for oil in the deserts of Arabia. If one ton of Uranium
    of some-ton ‘Little Boy’ bomb could take part in the socalled
    nuclear reaction, then some million of square miles of the
    world would burn, instead of only 1.7 square miles of Hiroshima.
    It not at all possible to give supply of electricity to the
    people from so-called nuclear fuels at a cost lower than fossilfuel
    electricity for the reasons stated above. However, it is possible
    to give ontological lectures on nuclear fission/fusion or to
    earn immense money from so-called nuclear projects.
    The Hahn-Strassmann Experiment
    In 1938, Curie and Savitch exposed Uranium to moving neutrons
    and found that exposed Uranium had then the half-life
    period of 3.5 hours. They thought that some Uranium atoms
    had been converted to Thorium isotopes (which were two
    places below Uranium in the Periodic Table) by this method.
    Strassmann tried to separate Thorium from that irradiated Uranium
    using Iron as carrier, and being unable to do so, maintained
    that there was no Thorium in 3.5-hour substance.
    Curie and Savitch carried out further tests which showed
    that 3.5 hour substance could be precipitated out of the solution
    with Lanthanum as carrier. Lanthanum is a rare earth element,
    and its atoms were believed to be the half of the size of the
    atom of Uranium. So, he hesitantly concluded that 3.5-hour
    substance might be Actinium- a transuranic element of the same
    chemical group as that of Lanthanum, but of much higher
    atomic weight than Lanthanum. [1,2].
    Hahn and Strassmann believed that 3.5-hour substance was
    either Barium or Radium [3]. They made a solution of 3.5-hour
    substance and mixed barium chloride with it. They were unable
    to separate radium from mixture by fractional crystallization.
    Moreover, they found that radioactivity was uniform amongst
    the various Barium fractions at every stage of crystallizations.
    So, they concluded that 3.5-hour substance was not Radium, and
    no other element but Barium [4,5,6].
    The conclusion of Hahn and Strassmann could clearly be disputed
    from many angles. In their micro analysis, they had used
    very Curie techniques. These techniques are interesting, beautiful,
    and elegant. But were these techniques dependable to the
    extent needed to demonstrate a few hundred atoms of an element
    in some grams of another element, especially when Curie
    and Savitch had been hesitant over the method to the extent
    whether the element was Lanthanum or Actinium? To prove
    Barium in irradiated Uranium, Hahn and Strassmann should
    have irradiated a good amount of Uranium for a long time and
    isolated some Barium from it, just like Madam Curie had isolated
    some amount of Radium from pitch blende.
    But no one disputed over the techniques adopted or the conclusion
    drawn by Hahn and Strassmann, since the conclusion
    was in tune with the dream world of the then physicists. The
    then physicists did not question either the doubtful techniques,
    or over the reasoning of Hahn-Strassmann. On the contrary,
    they began to confirm the conclusion, even extend the conclusion,
    and began to report incessantly and quite enthusiastically
    the creation of any set of elements from another set of different
    elements. [7]
    Lise Meitner [8] took the conclusion of Hahn-Strassmann
    Experiment to base her fission theory. According to her, in the
    3.5-hour Curie-Savitch mixture, neutrons have divided Uranium
    into two parts. One part is Barium and the other part is possibly
    Then Frisch calculated classically the energy of motion imparted
    to the supposed parts of uranium atom on the basis repulsion,
    and Meitner calculated relativistically the liberated
    energy per Uranium atom from the so-called loss of gravitational
    mass [8,9,10] which according to her was equal to ( ¢ U –
    Ba -Kr) where ¢ U was the gravitational mass of the Uranium
    atom with the absorbed neutron and 56Ba145?and 36Kr94? were,
    Hajra: Earth Shaking Experiments Vol. 21, No. 1 14
    respectively, the gravitational masses of Barium and Krypton
    According to Meitner and Frisch, in both the calculations,
    the released energy in such a process should be 200 Mev per
    Uranium atom, which was a relief of both the classicists and the
    relativists. Frisch and others [11] were said to have succeeded
    also in demonstrating the ‘burst of ionization’; i.e., the release of
    high-energy in the so-called fission process.
    To demonstrate Barium in the Curie-Savitch solution mixed
    with barium chloride is hardly justifiable, and the Frisch’s observation
    on of burst of ionization when related with Meitner’s
    calculation of the so-called differences of gravitational masses
    of ¢ U and (Ba+ Cr) crosses the limit of any standard of scientific
    The atomic masses of the Uranium atom with the absorbed
    neutron, of the Barium isotope, and of the Krypton isotope were
    unknown to Meitner, so in her calculations, she first assumed
    that the mass defects of an element is a measure of its binding
    energy, and then she calculated the expected available energy
    per Uranium atom from difference in packing fractions between
    Uranium and the elements in the middle of the Periodic Table
    using the results obtained from Aston’s mass spectrograph.
    There can be no physical theory that could match the theoretical
    values with experimental values exactly. To determine
    the atomic masses of the nuclei, Aston’s mass spectrograph uses
    many parameters whose measurements certainly varied at that
    time within 0.1 percent accuracy, or within a more wide range.
    Consequently, a mass defect of 0.1 percent should not be considered
    as experimental proof for the destruction of
    gravitational mass. So, it was useless to explain the so-called
    mass defects by imagining that the mass defect has been
    converted into energy as per Einstein.
    If the gravitational mass of Curie-Savitch substance is less
    than the masses of the absorbed neutrons and the Uranium
    lump, then Meitner should verify that loss of mass by proper
    weighing at source. How is it possible to ascertain the loss of
    gravitational mass in the Curie-Savitch substance from Aston’s
    assertion that there is difference in packing fractions between
    uranium and the elements in the middle of the Periodic Table?
    Destructibility of gravitational mass should be well demonstrated
    by destruction of a good amount of gravitational mass at
    source. It is not logical to search for the loss of mass in Curie-
    Savitch substance in the lines of the photographic plates of Aston’s
    mass spectrograph.
    Moreover, neither Hahn-Strassmann nor Meitner-Frisch
    demonstrated the loss of 0.218 of gravitational mass per Uranium
    atom and consequent evolution of 200 Mev energy in any
    of their experiments. To consider the Curie-Savitch experiment
    to be an example of nuclear reaction for getting a greater
    amount of energy, Meitner and Frisch must prove that ¢ E > E ,
    where E is the energy spent to make Curie-Savitch substance
    and the moving neutron and ¢ E is the energy given off by the
    reaction. They made no such effort. Thus neither the destructibility
    of gravitational mass nor the usability of Uranium as
    proper fuel could be verified by the Hahn-Strassmann Experiment.
    Experiments re Mass-Energy Equivalence
    In text books, it is said that one atomic mass unit (1a.m.u.) is
    equal to 1.66 ´10-27 kg (approximately). The rest mass of proton
    (the nucleus of Hydrogen atom) is 1.00731 a.m.u., and that of
    the neutron is 1.00867 a.m.u. A deuteron (nucleus of heavy Hydrogen)
    is known to consist of a proton and neutron. The rest
    mass of the deuteron is found to be 2.01360 a.m.u. Hence the
    rest mass of the deuteron is less than the combined rest masses
    of neutron and proton by .00238 a.m.u., which is equivalent in
    energy units to 2.22 mev, is called the binding energy of the
    deuteron which somehow cited as the proof of mass energy
    equivalence principle of the relativists.
    The mass of a proton (a Hydrogen ion) was determined by
    the following method. First of all, the value of
    e / m0 where e
    is the charge and
    m0 the rest electromagnetic mass of an electron
    is determined by Thomson’s method, which is possibly a
    sufficiently accurate physical method. Still, that value depends
    upon the proper determinations of E, B , and r (radius of curvature
    of the path of the moving electron) and probable errors
    in the determinations of those quantities are not known.
    Butherer (1909) performed the experiment with accuracy within
    the range of 8 per thousand. But it is said, its latest value
    1.75921 ´ 1011 coulombs/kg contains standard error of
    0.000258 ´ 1011 coulomb/kg; i.e., .16 per thousand, calculations
    being made on the averages of various workers, but neglecting
    the calculations on propagated errors in fundamental measurements
    Then by passing a definite amount of electricity ( Q in coulombs)
    in acidulated water, the amount of evolved Hydrogen
    ( M in kg) is determined. Determination of a definite amount
    of electricity passed through acidulated water depends on the
    determinations of many parameters and the standard errors of
    such determinations are not generally known. Moreover, to
    measure the mass of evolved hydrogen, a scale pan is to be used
    in the long run, which is also another source of inaccuracy.
    Consequently, the standard error of determining Q / M electrochemically
    is high. Edmund C. Potter comments that an accuracy
    of 1 part per thousand is attainable under carefully controlled
    condition [14].
    The determination of the magnitude of the charge on the
    electron again depends on many parameters e.g., h (viscosity
    coefficient of air inside the chamber), d (distance),
    r1 (density
    of oil), and
    r2 (and density of air), and also on the exact validity
    of Stokes’s law. It contains a high amount of standard error.
    Millikan’s own value is half a percent less than the modern,
    tacitly adjusted, value 1.6021917 ´ 10-19 coulomb [15].
    Now, the mass of a proton is determined in substance by the
    following equation combing Faraday’s laws of electrolysis with
    Arrheneus’ notion of electrolytes: W = eM / Q – e / A where W
    is the mass of a proton in kg, e is the magnitude of electronic
    charge in coulomb, M is mass of hydrogen evolved by passing
    Q coulombs of electricity in acidulated water, and
    A = e / m0 ,
    January/February 2001 GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS 15
    being the ratio of the charge to rest electromagnetic mass ( in
    coulomb/kg) of an electron.
    The measure of fundamental constants (including c ,
    e / m0
    or e ) measured by different measurer are all different and the
    range of variation is wide (even 5 per thousand in some cases)
    and statisticians correlate the results and shorten the range of
    variation with desperate mathematical analysis.[cf. i) R.T. Brige,
    Rev. Mod. Phys. 1 (1) (1929); ii) R.T. Birge and D. H. Menzel,
    Physics Rev. 37, 1669 (1931); iii) R.T. Birge , Report in Progress
    in Physics 8, 90 (1941); iv) R.T. Birge, Supplement to Nuovo Cimento
    6, 39 (1957); v) E.R. Cohen and J.W.M. Du Mond , Rev.
    Mod. Physics 37, 537 (1965); vi) B.N. Taylor, W.H. Perker and
    D.N. Landenberg, Rev. Mod. Physics 41, 375, (1969).] Thus we
    see that in determination of the mass of a proton, there is always
    an error of much more than 1 part in a thousand.
    The masses of nuclei determined by mass spectroscopy are
    based on the mass of a Hydrogen nucleus. Hence, the determination
    of the mass of deuteron nucleus contains an error of
    much more than 1 part in a thousand, even considering that the
    error in determining the required ratio in the mass spectrograph
    is 0 part per thousand. The position remains unaltered
    with the replacement of the Hydrogen standard by the Oxygen/
    Carbon standard, or any other standard.
    Chadwick determined the mass of neutron by using a collision
    method based on Newtonian mechanics. He also used
    some parameters whose degrees of accuracy are not known.
    Chadwick’s calculation was at first 1.15 a.m.u. But later he calculated
    the figure to be between 1.005 to 1.008 units. Therefore,
    it could be concluded that the masses of nuclear particles as determined
    by physicists are not absolute.
    Consequently, the mass difference if really exits in the cases
    of any so-called nuclear processes as in i), or any nuclear experiments
    as in ii), are well within the experimental errors, and
    the explanations given by the relativists as E = mc2 does not
    seem to be an example of reasonable analysis.
    Modern physicists cite another nuclear reaction as proof of
    mass-energy conversion. Walton and Cockcroft, two students
    of Rutherford bombarded 3 Li7 nucleus with protons [of energy
    ranging (.5-1) mev] i.e.,
    3 Li7 + 1H1 = 2 2He4
    Mass difference of both the sides is .01864 a.m.u., which is
    equivalent to an energy (.01864´ 931.1=17.35 MeV, which is
    said to be equal to the experimental value.
    From those examples, modern physicists insist on the conversion
    of mass into energy.
    In 1919, Rutherford bombarded gaseous nitrogen with moving
    alpha particles and demonstrating the creation of protons
    by this bombardment, he declared that he has been able to convert
    nitrogen to oxygen through nuclear transmutation. To
    declare such a tall claim he should produce some good amount
    of oxygen and should demonstrate this new element as oxygen
    through proper chemical analysis, which he avoided.
    In 1932, he again declared that his students have been able to
    create Helium by bombarding Lithium with Hydrogen. They
    seemed to demonstrate alpha particles by this bombardment
    but did not demonstrate by proper chemical analyses that the
    alpha-particles are really Helium.
    Fermi’s Chicago Experiment
    Enrico Fermi is said to have set first nuclear chain reaction
    to get continuous release of energy from U-238 in a ‘pile’. The
    experiment was performed at the end of 1942 in Weststands at
    the campus of the University of Chicago. It is said that after
    having been operated there for a few months, the pile was
    moved to the Aragonone laboratory near Chicago.
    Fermi described the so-called chain reaction in this experiment
    in two famous articles, one in Science (Jan. 10, 1947) and
    another in Am. J. of Physics (June 27, 1952). It is known from
    the articles that the pile was constructed in the shape of a flattened
    ellipsoid having the equatorial radius of 388 cm and the
    polar radius 309 cm. Six tons of uranium were distributed
    through the graphite mass in lumps partly of metal and partly
    of metal oxide arranged in a cubic lattice array with about 21
    centimeters in cell side. According to Groueff [17], one commentator
    on the production of nuclear bombs, the Chicago pile
    (CP-1) required 500 tons of graphite and 50 tons of uranium.
    According to Hewlett and Anderson [18], the pile required 400
    tons of graphite and 50 tons of uranium oxide.
    The controlling of the reaction was obtained by inserting in
    the pile some strips of neutron absorbing materials (cadmium
    and in one case boron steel). When the pile was not in operation,
    several of such cadmium strips were inserted in a number
    of slots so as to bring the effective reproductive factor considerably
    low. According to Fermi, the pile could be operated indefinitely
    at a power of 2 KW, and was often operated for the
    periods of order of 1hour or 2 hours up to about 100 KW.
    It is not clear from the articles what types of radiation was
    used in the irradiation hole to initiate the nuclear reaction. Energy
    expended to extract and to cast 6 tons of uranium and uranium
    oxide from their natural sources were not tabulated. Energy
    stored in the huge amount of carbon used in the pile was
    also not considered. Energy expended to make cadmium rods
    and other neutron absorbing materials were not recorded.
    Thus, in this experiment Fermi did not demonstrate that
    ¢ E > E , where ¢ E is the energy obtained from the pile and E
    is the energy spent to make the ingredients of the pile from
    their natural sources, plus the energy of any chemical reactions
    ongoing in the pile during the experiment, plus irradiation energy
    to initiate the reaction.
    The Chicago pile experiment of E. Fermi is a secret defense
    experiment of the U.S.A. Ingredients used in this experiment to
    initiate the reaction as published by American war officials
    were expected to be doubtful. Thus we may conclude that there
    was nothing in the Chicago pile experiment to prove that gravitational
    mass was converted into energy, or that Uranium-238
    acted as proper fuel in the experiment.
    What was more interesting is that the experiment was not at
    all intended to do so. The experiment was intended to show
    that Fermi was able to make in the laboratory a huge amount of
    gamma radiation. Gamma radiation is a form of energy like
    many other forms of radiation originating from chemical reac-
    Hajra: Earth Shaking Experiments Vol. 21, No. 1 16
    tions. Therefore, it could not be out of expectation that he had
    converted such energy out of chemical reactions.
    We know that chemical reactions of certain substances liberate
    heat energy, which could be transformed to a ready supply
    of electricity. This electricity could again be stored as chemical
    energy in batteries, and could be transformed again as heat /
    electricity at a controllable / uncontrollable rate by suitable
    Similarly, by combustion of fossil fuel, electricity could be
    generated. This electricity could, when passed through appropriate
    substances, make billions of negatively-charged highenergy
    particles, and billions of high-energy Hydrogen ions,
    which could be arranged to combine to create high-energy neutral
    Hydrogen particles. As a store of high energy, these highenergy
    neutral Hydrogen particles could be absorbed/adsorbed
    in small volumes of heavy metals through physico-chemical
    process, and could again be liberated at controllable/ uncontrollable
    rates by suitable methods, as had been demonstrated
    first by Fermi in the December of 1942. There was nothing
    against the classical physics/chemistry in the demonstration.
    There was nothing to conclude that what was demonstrated was
    a fission reaction that converts mass into energy.
    In the Chicago pile experiment, Fermi demonstrated before
    the American war officials and war technologists the conversion
    of formal forms of energy into gamma radiation. Nothing else
    was done by him.
    Atomic Bombs
    Journalists generally consider the explosions of the “Little
    Boy” and the “Fat Man” as a definite proof of the usability of
    Uranium as a proper fuel and the instance of the conversion
    gravitational mass into energy. We do not know the ingredients
    used in those bombs. Nor do we know the amount of energy
    spent to make those ingredients.
    Both the bombs radiated a huge amount of gamma radiation
    in the area of explosions. The Hiroshima bomb destroyed only
    1.7 sq. miles of the town. 30 tons of gasoline bombs [24 tons of
    Petroleum / 8 tons of Hydrogen) could destroy such an area.
    Therefore, the Hiroshima bomb is not so powerful as publicized
    by war officials of U.S.A.
    Usability of uranium as a proper fuel and conversion of
    gravitational mass into energy have not been proved from
    those explosions.
    Nuclear Power
    Everything in the nuclear engineering industry is mysterious.
    According to Einstein’s E = mc2 formula, 1 Kg of any
    materials (preferably Uranium) will give through complete
    nuclear reaction heat energy of 9 ´ 1016 joules, or 2 ´ 1016 calories,
    of. [ E = mc2
    = 1 ´ (3 ´ 108 )2
    joules = 20 ´ 1012kiloca ls =
    20 t rillion kiloca ls .]
    But according to Fermi, the electrical energy available (considering
    the overall efficiency of conversion of heat into electricity
    30%) is 6,000,000Kwh /Kg i.e., total heat energy is 20 billion
    Kilocalorie / Kg of Uranium. With the same consideration,
    Hoyle [21] describes that the minimum electrical energy available
    from 1 Kg of enriched Uranium = 30,000 KWH. But according
    to one nuclear man in India, minimum electrical energy
    available from 1 Kg of enriched uranium = 60, 000 KWH.
    According to ERDA, available electrical energy from 1 Kg of
    enriched Uranium is 2,58,200 KWH. But, Miller [23] has
    strongly doubted over the value. According to him, available
    energy is hardly over the half of the publicized value.
    Nuclear physicists insist that the nuclear fuel, viz. so-called
    ‘enriched uranium’, is a mixture of Uranium-238 (96%) and Uranium-
    235 (4%). According to them, Uranium-235 is a natural
    isotope of Uranium-238. Nobody till this day has been able to
    release energy from Uranium-235 in open experiments. Therefore,
    fuel viability of the isotope is doubtful. It is more probable
    that fuel element of the so-called ‘enriched Uranium’ is
    made artificially by the procedure given in the penultimate
    paragraph of Fermi’s Chicago Experiment.
    However, if the enriched Uranium is a mixture of Uranium-
    238 (96%) and said natural Uranium-235 (4%), still then it may
    not act as proper fuel.
    According to Hyett [24], 2000 kilograms of ore (0.1-0.5 %
    Uranium content as used by recent Uranium producers) are required
    to make 1 kilogram of natural Uranium. Natural Uranium
    -238 contains only .7% Uranium 235 which is said to be
    used as fuel. Therefore, 12000 kilograms of ore are required to
    produce 1 kg of enriched Uranium (with 3%-4% Uranium-235)
    After preliminary concentration to remove sand and clay,
    the ore is leached with sulphuric acid and the solution is treated
    with an excess of sodium carbonate to precipitate Iron, Aluminum,
    Cobalt and Manganese. The filtrate is then treated with
    hydrochloric acid and saturated with hydrogen sulphide to precipitate
    Lead and Copper. The filtrate then is treated with an
    excess of sodium hydroxide to precipitate uranium as ammonium
    diurate which is strongly ignited to prepare U3O8. This
    U3O8 is reduced to UO2 by Hydrogen. The di-oxide is converted
    into fluoride by heating it strongly in gaseous hydrogen fluoride.
    The fluoride is then reduced to the metal by means of pure
    metallic calcium.
    Sulphur, sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen sulphide,
    ammonium hydroxide, hydrogen and calcium are not
    available in Nature. In the ultimate analysis, fossil fuel or energy
    from fossil fuel is needed to prepare those things.
    The quantity of energy needed to extract a metal from its ore
    is directly proportional to the purity of metal and the poverty
    of the metal in the ore. It is seen that to extract Iron from its
    80% rich ore, the minimum quantity of coal required is equal to
    the quantity of ore by weight. To produce highly pure Uranium
    from an ore with 0.1%-0.5% Uranium, the minimum energy
    must be 10 times that needed in the iron extraction. Thus, to
    extract 6 kg Uranium-238, fossil fuel equivalent to the energy
    content of 24000 kg of coal may be required. This amounts to
    96 ´ 1010 calories of heat energy. It is said that to make 1 kg of
    reactor quality enriched Uranium, 12,250 KWh electrical energy
    ( 3.57 ´ 1010 calories of heat energy) in some 1400 stages is
    spent [25, 26] (Enrichment is a secret technology. Therefore,
    truthfulness of the datum is doubtful).Therefore, to make 1kg of
    reactor quality of enriched Uranium, a minimum of 100 ´ 1010
    calories of fossil-fuel energy seem to be required (the fossil fuel
    January/February 2001 GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS 17
    energy spent for fluorination before enrichment, fabrication,
    preparation of Zirconium alloy and cladding of fuel elements is
    not considered). But, it is said that 1 kg of enriched Uranium
    burns to give some 100 ´ 1010 caloriesof heat energy [27, 28].
    Similarly, to prepare Plutonium, 9.793 ´ 1013 calories of
    heat energy are required [29]; but, it is said that plutonium
    gives 1.88 ´ 1013 calories of heat through fission [30]. Therefore,
    either uranium or plutonium does not seem to be proper fuel.
    When there will be no fossil fuel to burn, it appears that there
    will be no nuclear fuel to kindle. Nuclear reactors must need, as
    it is said, things such as heavy water, Cadmium rods, and many
    other ancillary materials. Energy spent to make such things is
    also not known.
    Lastly, to trigger the so-called chain-reaction in the reactor,
    it is said that some irradiation techniques are necessary. We do
    not know the amount of energy spent for making such initial
    radiation in the reactor.
    So, for want of required data, it is not possible for us to
    judge the proper fuel viability of enriched uranium. Any reactions
    of the so-called nuclear reactors could hardly prove that
    gravitational mass converts into energy or that uranium could
    be used as proper fuel.
    [.1.] O. Hahn, New Atoms, 19-24 (Elsevier Publishing, New York,
    [.2.] G. Irving, The German Atomic Bomb (Simon and Schuster,
    New York, 1967) 20-31.
    [.3.] O. Hahn, op. cit., 20.
    [.4.] O. Hahn, F. Strassmann, i) Naturwissenschften 27, 11-15 (Jan.
    6, 1939); ii) ibid, 27, No. 6, (1939).
    [.5.] R.W.L., Nature, 143, 3615, Feb.11, 1939.
    [.6.] O. Hahn, A Scientific Autobiography, Appendix I (Charles
    Scribner’s Sons, U. K. 1966).
    [.7.] H.D. Smith, Atomic Energy for Military Purposes, pp. 24-26
    (Princeton University Press, 1946).
    [.8.] i) L. Meitner, O.R. Frisch, Nature, 143 (3615) (Feb. 11, 1939); ii)
    L. Meitner, O.R. Frisch, Nature, 143 (3620) 471-472 (March 18,
    1939); iii) L. Meitner, Nature 143 (3624) 637 (April 15,1939).
    [.9.] A.H. Compton, Atomic Quest, p. 18 (Oxford University Press,
    London, 1956).
    [10] Ibid, 18.
    [11] i) O.R. Frisch, Nature 143 (3616) 276 (Feb. 18, 1939).
    ii) H. Von Halban, F. Joliot, F. Kowarski, Nature, 143, 3620,
    March, 18, 1939, 470-71.
    iii) R. D. Fowler, R. W. Dodson, Nature, 139, 3615, Feb. 11,
    1939,233. ibid,41-42.
    [12] Robert Resnick, Introduction to Special Relativity (Wiley Eastern
    Limited, New Delhi, 1989),128.
    [13] S.K. Muthu, Probability and Errors for Physical Sciences, p.
    385 (Orient Longman, New Delhi, c. 1982).
    [14] Edmund C. Potter, Electrochemistry: Principles and Applications
    [Cleaver-Hume, London, 1961), 16.
    [15] S.K. Muthu, op. cit., p. 342.
    [16] G.E. Bacon, Neutron Physics, p. 8 (Wykeham Publications Limited,
    London, 1969).
    [17] S. Groueff, Manhattan Project, p. 90 (Collins, London, 1967).
    [18] Ed., R. G. Hewlett, O. E. Anderson Jr., The New World, p. 112
    (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1962).
    [19] L.A., Groves, Now It can be Told, pp. 48, 52, 54 (Andre Deutch,
    London, 1963).
    [20] E. Fermi, Collected Papers (1939-1954), Vol. II, pp. 87, 554
    (University of Chicago Press, 1965).
    [21] F. Hoyle, G. Hoyle, Common Sense in Nuclear Energy, p. 67
    (Heinemann Educational Books, London, 1980).
    [22] Raja Ramanna, Future of Nuclear Technology, pp. 8-9 (Bangalore
    University, 1975).
    [23] S. Miller, The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power, p. 163
    (Fraeger Publisher, New York, 1976).
    [24] Ed. L. G. Brookes, H. Motamen (The Economics of Nuclear
    Energy, p. 163 (Chapman and Hall, 1984).
    [25] Ed., Cutler J. Cleveland, Encyclo. of Energy 6, 325 (Elsevier
    [26] Ed., Cutler J. Cleveland, Encyclo. of Energy 4, 390 (Elsevier
    [27] R. Ramanna, & L.V. Krishanan, Elements of Nuclear Power, p.
    57 (Gandhi Centre of Science, 2002).
    [28] R. Ramanna, Future of Nuclear Technology, 8-9 (Bangalore
    University, Bangalore, 1975).
    [29] Ed., Cutler J. Cleveland, Encyclo. of Energy 4, 435 (Elsevier
    2004), ..
    [30] Encylo. Brita. 18, 92A, [1959].

  17. Old theories, concepts, etc should always be challenged otherwise scientific knowledge stops being built upon and instead becomes a religion, this is why many of the old guard deride the new because they are afraid of being shown the flaws in their thinking and cannot handle the bruising of their egos

  18. how sad what some people do to sell a book….

  19. is this for real? the relativity theory?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


Howdy! I'm Jesse, the editor here at CollegeTimes. I hope you find our articles useful, interesting, and inspiring as you make life decisions. Feel free to follow me on Google+, Facebook, or LinkedIn, or get in touch anytime. If you have a unique story tip or article idea for CollegeTimes please email us now at info@collegetimes.tv. You may remain anonymous and/or off the record. Cheers!