E=mc²

E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism), and numerous attempts to derive E=mc² in general from first principles have failed. Political pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation. Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap .

Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.

Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge.

For more than a century, the claim that E=mc² has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. There have been attempts to find some justification for the equation in already understood processes involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the speculation about antimatter.

The Theory of Relativity has never been able to mathematically derive E=mc² from first principles, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by Henri Poincare in 1904, but the equation E=mc² makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:

“	The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).	”
—Herbert Ives, 1952

Description for the layman

Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²:

“	Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.	”
—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

“	You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.	”
—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

“	It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.	”
—Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University

History of E=mc²

The liberal Public Broadcasting Service explained the history of E=mc² for its NOVA series as follows:

“

Over time, physicists became used to multiplying an object's mass by the square of its velocity (mv²) to come up with a useful indicator of its energy. If the velocity of a ball or rock was 100 mph, then they knew that the energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 squared. If the velocity is raised as high as it could go, to 670 million mph, it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc².

”

Experimental verification

The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles" for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951. The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using E=mc² can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.

They bombarded Lithium atoms with protons having a kinetic energy less than 1 MeV. The result were two (slightly less heavy) α-particles, for which the kinetic energy was measured as 17.3 MeV

${}_{3}^{7}\mathrm {Li} \,+\,{}_{1}^{1}\mathrm {H} \,\rightarrow \,2\,{}_{2}^{4}\mathrm {He}$

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 amus, the mass on the right hand side only 8.0077 amu. The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

$0.00186\,\mathrm {amu} \cdot c^{2}=0.0186\cdot 1.66\cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm {kg} \cdot \left(3\cdot 10^{8}\,\mathrm {\frac {m}{s}} \right)^{2}$

$\approx \,2.79\cdot 10^{-12}\,\mathrm {kg} \mathrm {\frac {m^{2}}{s^{2}}}$

$\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm {MeV}$

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Some claim that the best empirical verification of E=mc² was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in Nature (which is not a leading physics j