E=mc^2

[Hrothgar]

consider the source

If you're referring to the statements made by astronauts that went to the moon please consider the possibility they weren't there and merely having to corroborate a knee jerk answer.

(WeNeverWentToTheMoon.com) FAKE MOON LANDING TOTALLY EXPOSED - YouTube

[Ben2503]

back to the topic

My brain is in a loop. Please help me out.

If c is speed of light in vacuum then shouldn't the mass-energy equivalence be Energy in vacuum equals mass in vacuum times speed of light in vacuum? It isn't in a vacuum if it has mass in the same vacuum, is it? Or am I just going senile?

Check this again.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ti2GAXJf0

[indio007]

AP David: On The Laws Of Nature | EU2014

AP David's talk considered the sources of the modern idea of 'Laws of Nature,' or as they are more usually known nowadays, 'physical laws.' He began by articulating the difference between descriptive and prescriptive laws: nature as directly observed versus nature idealized into geometric or other mathematical relationships. This beginning leads to surprisingly large consequences for the way in which new ideas are received by the gatekeepers of mainstream cosmology. It turns out that the revolutionary thinkers of The Enlightenment found in the Laws of Nature an attractive "divine" quality. In particular they saw ideal geometries in planetary and other celestial motions. David will suggest that the willful conflation of descriptive and prescriptive tenets in modern science, especially but not only in mathematical physics, has led to some dire consequences for science itself. He believes that as EU theorists offer their electrical interpretations, it is critically important to understand the religious nature of institutionalized resistance.

AP David: On The Laws Of Nature | EU2014 - YouTube

[cikljamas]

It is clear that from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing "Einstein's" theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of the motivating factors in Eddington's decision to promote Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington's glowing support of Einstein, one need ask only the question: "Would Eddington have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?" This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German scientists after World War I. What better way than to elevate the "enemy" theorist Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to become peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental objectivity that is the essential demeanour of any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein.

The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science. The BIPP asked, "Was this the hoax of the century?" and exclaimed, "Royal Society 1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!" McCausland stated that "In the author's opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein's general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science".

It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy. Read more: AULIS Online – Different Thinking

INTRODUCTION ?

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity published in 1916, light coming from a star far away from the Earth and passing near the Sun will be deviated by the Sun?s gravitational field by an amount that is inversely proportional to the star?s radial distance from the Sun (1.745'' at the Sun's limb). This amount (dubbed the full deflection) is twice the one predicted by Einstein in 1911, using Newton's gravitational law (half deflection). In order to test which theory is right (if any), an expedition led by Eddington was sent to Sobral and Principe for the eclipse of May 29, 1919 (1). The purpose was to determine whether or not there is a deflection of light by the Sun's gravitational field and if there is, which of the two theories mentioned above it follows.

The expedition was claimed to be successful in proving Einstein's full deflection [1,2]. This test was crucial to the general approval that Einstein's general theory of relativity enjoys nowadays.

However, this experimental result is obviously not in accordance with the result found in chapter ten. This is not a problem, as we will show that the deflection was certainly not measurable. We will see that the effect of the atmospheric turbulence was larger than the full deflection, just like the Airy disk. We will also see how the instruments could not give such a precise measurement and how the stars distribution was not good enough for such a measurement to be convincing. Finally, we will discuss how Eddington's influence worked for Einstein's full displacement and against any other possible result.

Source: Forum Wissenschaft und moralische Verantwortung - The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science

[aljhoa]

Check this again.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ti2GAXJf0

Al

[indio007]

INTRODUCTION ?

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity published in 1916, light coming from a star far away from the Earth and passing near the Sun will be deviated by the Sun?s gravitational field by an amount that is inversely proportional to the star?s radial distance from the Sun (1.745'' at the Sun's limb). This amount (dubbed the full deflection) is twice the one predicted by Einstein in 1911, using Newton's gravitational law (half deflection). In order to test which theory is right (if any), an expedition led by Eddington was sent to Sobral and Principe for the eclipse of May 29, 1919 (1). The purpose was to determine whether or not there is a deflection of light by the Sun's gravitational field and if there is, which of the two theories mentioned above it follows.

The expedition was claimed to be successful in proving Einstein's full deflection [1,2]. This test was crucial to the general approval that Einstein's general theory of relativity enjoys nowadays.

However, this experimental result is obviously not in accordance with the result found in chapter ten. This is not a problem, as we will show that the deflection was certainly not measurable. We will see that the effect of the atmospheric turbulence was larger than the full deflection, just like the Airy disk. We will also see how the instruments could not give such a precise measurement and how the stars distribution was not good enough for such a measurement to be convincing. Finally, we will discuss how Eddington's influence worked for Einstein's full displacement and against any other possible result.

Source: Forum Wissenschaft und moralische Verantwortung - The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science

The only thing you need is Eddington's notes. It was raining.
I flat out lied to the world.
Here's a complete dismantling of gravitational lensing.

The Failed Attempts to Detect Macro Lensing" by Edward Dowdye, Jr
Edward Dowdye, Jr.: The Failed Attempts to Detect Macro Lensing | EU2012 - YouTube