Singaporean self-taught physicist says Einstein is wrong

UltimaOnline SG

Physics is not my area, so I have no comments on who knows better, self-taught physicist Singaporean Chan Rasjid, or Einstein?

Nonetheless, he at least deserves a shout out, if for no other reason than his bold proclamation that he can prove Einstein got it wrong.

Chan Rasjid's Physics website : http://www.emc2fails.com/

Chan Rasjid's Physics blog : http://emc2fails.com/wp/

Chan Rasjid's Physics articles : http://www.emc2fails.com/article.html

gekpohboy SG

ok can.

MyPillowTalks SG

Very interesting, but I am very not familiar with the topics and concepts he discussed. My level of physics not there yet....

gekpohboy SG

Can someone enlighten me, what is he trying to sell?

He's not the first person to make this claim. There are other people who made this claim before him.

This guy just wrote a few paragraphs of "research paper" and claimed that whatever equation he is writing about is wrong.

(Where's the experiment data and stuff, to support his claim? Where's the recommendation for further research? Etcetera.)

Furthermore, this guy never cleared first year of University. He also has no proper work experience. How you want me to believe him?

If he say that "religion is science not yet explained", maybe I still can bother to read what he has to say. But, on a topic that has been already very much researched on, I don't think this guy is qualified to question its accuracy.

Chanrasjid SG

Hello,

I just happen to find this thread that links to my physics website. Many thanks. I was just wondering why there is a recent upsurge of visits to my website from Singapore; there is usually very few visits from here.

I am trying to sell my name.

I am also selling the “truth”. You say there is no free lunch! I sell you the truth free! Price : $0.00; GST : $0.00.

I do have some regret I did not get a B.Sc. degree. One from Singapore’s NUS can go very far – even bring us to the moon!

If I say 1+2=3, is it correct? Do I need work experience or paper qualifications.

I can assure you “religion is NOT science not yet explained”. Religion is far, far beyond science.

I have a recent thread in a very popular Malaysian forum Lowyat.net with some discussions. It is relevant to this post.

Higgs boson, LIGO’s Gravitational waves, etc., Einstein’s relativity invalid
https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/4213664

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

UltimaOnline SG

Welcome, Chan Rasjid.

I felt you deserved at least the opportunity to share your personal views and convictions, and your passion for sharing these is very clear. That's why I shared your website link.

Physics is not my area though, so I won't be participating in your discussions. You may not find many physics people on this forum, so this will probably be an inactive forum for your purpose. You should certainly register and share your ideas on many more physics forums on the internet.

All the best, Chan Rasjid!

Hello,

I am trying to sell my name.

I am also selling the “truth”. You say there is no free lunch! I sell you the truth free! Price : $0.00; GST : $0.00.

I do have some regret I did not get a B.Sc. degree. One from Singapore’s NUS can go very far – even bring us to the moon!

If I say 1+2=3, is it correct? Do I need work experience or paper qualifications.

I can assure you “religion is NOT science not yet explained”. Religion is far, far beyond science.

I have a recent thread in a very popular Malaysian forum Lowyat.net with some discussions. It is relevant to this post.

Higgs boson, LIGO’s Gravitational waves, etc., Einstein’s relativity invalid
https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/4213664

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Chanrasjid SG

Hello,

There are not many forums that allow posts that go against the mainstream views; posts dismissing Einstein’s relativity theories would not be allowed in the main physics forum. So my posts are only in such general discussion forums only.

I also have posted one long blog post (English) in Chinadaily.com:
“Chen-Ning Yang Correct, China Should Not Build Super Particle Collider”,
http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/blog-2497357-37460…

China – the Chinese – seems to like building the “biggest”. My take is that if Xi Jinping or the Chinese government were to just follow the hype of Western particle physicists, they are going to end up with the “Greatest White Elephant Particle Accelerator”, (GWEPA 鬼都怕) – working at 1:15,000 from the stipulated operational power rating.

I know it is unbelievable for most people to hear someone calling “the experts are all wrong”, especially when the experts all come from the highest ranking universities/institutes in the world such as Princeton, MIT, Cambridge, Fudan, Tsinghua, CERN, Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP China).

But then, at times, the real world works in strange and unexpected ways. You don’t know when Pompeii would be buried while their inhabitants were having a nice Italian dinner; when the Mongol hordes of Genghis khan would skirt around the Great Wall of China attacking the Song; when heavier machines can fly defying some professors of the time of the Wright’s brothers; when they tell you the sophisticated theories of “bongkus risks spread” that can magically make things with zero risk – if you believe!

Einstein’s relativity theory is trivially invalid – if you read and think without being confused. The Higgs boson, LIGO’s gravitational waves,etc and all these fanciful things are indeed fanciful – fantasies if only you knew.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Bio-Hawk SG

Hello,

I also have posted one long blog post (English) in Chinadaily.com:
“Chen-Ning Yang Correct, China Should Not Build Super Particle Collider”,
http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/blog-2497357-37460…

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Appreciate you for the fact that you took the effort to learn and share. As for the proof,I strongly suggest you send it to British professors who can take a look. There have been few in the past like Ramanujan who had a different approach and it reuquired someone versed in current research world to translate. All the best wishes.

Chanrasjid SG

Youhei Tsubono,

The Institute of Science,

The University of Tokyo,

The website of the professor examines much of modern physics, disagreeing with many of mainstream's views.

Special relativity is wrong:

http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/relativ.html

Black hole is useless, because it's just fiction:

http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/ccritic.html

And many other topics.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

gekpohboy SG

Chan Rasjid, since you so smart, can tell me, why did Isaac Newton rape his Son, and call that method "Newton-Raphson"? Is this real or fake?

Chanrasjid SG

Of all miracles, there is none greater than man;
Of all mysteries, there is none greater than the mystery of man.
Why he loves some things and hates some others.
Why some words are music to his hears and some grates.
Curved space and quarks, black holes and the expanding universe;
They pale in comparison to what is within the breast of man.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Chanrasjid SG

The LHC is not working to specifications...

The CERN physicists operating the Large Hadron Collider(LHC) believe that they could push their protons to higher - and yet higher - energy levels with stronger machines. The theory is based on the Lorentz electric force: F = qE (force is electric field per unit charge). As long as the protons pass through additional electric field regions, they would gain greater energy; there is no upper limit for energy according to the mechanics of special relativity. Currently, the physicists of CERN reported that they have propelled protons to energy level of 7 TeV (10¹² electron-volt). Is it true?

The belief of the CERN physicists is outdated by a hundred years. The Lorentz force law: F = q(E + vxB) was developed at about 1890. At that time, Hendriek Lorentz and others had not much information on particles that travel near light speed and they assumed that the law was true even for particles at near light speed. They were wrong. Their Lorentz force law was only a very approximate law for charge particles at low speeds. The law fails when charged particles reach near the light speed.

The so called "proof" of mass increasing with speed as founded on special relativity come from experiments such as that of the 1908 Bucherer experiment. But the interpretation of the Bucherer experiment was wrong; it was not a proof that mass increases with speed, but that the Lorentz force law (which is the underlying assumption of the experiment) was wrong - it was only an approximation. When the Lorentz law is corrected, the result would come back to the original definition of the invariant mass of Newton - the invariant quantity of matter. The author has a shortpaper which reinterpreted the Bucherer experiment to give the corrected Lorentz force law:
The Bucherer Experiment And The Lorentz Force Law

Instead of : F = q(E + vxB), the corrected Lorentz force law is now :
F= q((1+v²/c²)√(1-v²/c²)E + √(1-v⁴/c⁴)vxB) -- (I)
q is the electric charge of a particle moving at speed v; c = speed of light in vacuum; E = electric field; B=magnetic field.

The CERN physicists have their protons passing through regions after regions with strong electric fields E and think that, by such accelerations, they could accelerate their protons to ever higher levels of energy (only limited by the power of their machines) - but it is only a belief. They relied on the force equation: F=qE; so with push after push of E on the charge q, there is no limit to the pushing and so the energy of the protons have no limit - as they believe. But with the corrected law (I), we can see from the square-root factor of √(1-v²/c²) that as the speed of the protons reach near that of light speed c, the electric force become weaker and weaker. Extra pushing does not work any more as the force tends to zero; pushing becomes like we pushing against air - emptiness.

Currently, the CERN physicists purportedly have accelerated protons within the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to energy as high as 7 TeV, moving at speed greater than 99. 99% of the speed of light. But none of the physicists ever measured the quoted actual energy figure of 7 TeV - it is only a figure based on their theory, from their formula. There is no known technique at present to "catch" a proton flying past at near speed of light and to determine its energy experimentally. So the CERN physicists use the "next-best-option" - they use their kinetic energy formula and compute a theoretical energy figure, hoping (probably with a prayer) that it is what the energy is in reality.

If kinetic energy is computed based on the non-relativistic classical formula of ½mv² - where mass is correctly invariant - a proton's energy is limited to a maximum of ½mc² or 470 MeV (10⁶ electron-volt), the 7 TeV being overstating energy by a factor of 15,000. If their energy formula is wrong, their theory would simply collapse.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Chanrasjid SG

Bidhas De,
B. Sc. (Honors in Physics), Presidency College, Univ. of Calcutta (1967)
M. S. (Astronomy; Radioastronomy), Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (1970)
Ph. D. (Applied Physics), Univ. of California, San Diego (1973)

http://www.bibhasde.com

On the current state of physics.

http://www.bibhasde.com/physicsessays.html

HOW THEY CORRUPT THE UNIVERSE

"So the current situation with the state of physics is this: They do not have a clue what a photon is, but they can tell you in great exactitude what all goes on inside a proton inside a nucleus inside an atom. They do not know what magnetic field is, but they can tell you the exact proportion of the quark-and-gluon solution from which the universe reportedly began. They cannot tell you when Aphrodite rose from the ocean, but they can give the exact DOB data on our universe. Today, full-grown adults - who shave and everything - sitting in bigtime chairs in bigtime universities, slinging bigtime equations and guzzling real taxpayer dollars will tell you with a straight face that they have pretty much got the universe figured out (Yes, The Universe!). They know how it began, when it began, and they know it is made of x% ordinary matter, y% dark matter and z% dark energy, with x + y + z = 100 (They have left no room for you to add salt to taste). You think I am 'funning'? Not in this case. Nobel Prizes have been handed out in great numbers for ‘achievements’ of this type.

The following is not a joke I made up. It is a quote from a prestigious journal, dated 5 January 2007:

The basic features of the universe have now been determined: It is 13.7 billion years old, spatially flat, and expanding at an accelerating rate; it is composed of atoms (4%), exotic dark matter (20%), and dark energy (76%); and there is evidence that galaxies and other structures were seeded by quantum fluctuations."

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.