Earlier in history ‘mass’ and ‘energy’ where seen as two different things; today it’s taken for granted by science in general that ‘mass’ and ‘energy’ are the back-flaps of the same bill, and that ‘energy’ and ‘mass’ are not only properties of each other but also inter-convertible. This is what science refers to as **the ****mass-energy** **equivalence****.**

Nevertheless, the whole idea of mass-energy equivalence arose due to their flawed understanding of mass, matter and energy, and looks at the bottom more like a **toilet hole** where rubbish keeps on floating due to the large amount of peer reviewed nonsense that squeezes the dubious conclusions of first order observational facts to such extend that it blocks the drain-pipe.

So, you may ask, if mass-energy equivalence is rubbish than on what base does science in general justify mass-energy equivalence?

## Why does the mass-energy delusion occur?

Let us investigate this in brief.

The proposal of **mass-energy equivalence**, although much discussion exist about this topic, is said to be put forward by **Einstein, **and resulted as a consequence of his **relativity theory** where he obscurely derived science most mediated, yet worst understood, equation. (See equation 1.)

This formula expresses the idea that relativistic mass (m_{R}) is equivalent and convertible into energy (E) and vice versa; in this equation **c ^{2}**, which is the square of the speed of light, serves literally as the proportionality constant.

When ‘v’ equals zero than the energy, in this case called the rest-energy (E_{0}), is numerical equal to the product of an object’s rest-mass and the speed of light-squared. (See equation 2.)

The first observation that was used by science to validate the mass-energy equivalency relates to David Anderson’s discovery (in 1932) of the positron. The positron is a particle that is in all respect similar to the electron with the exception of its electrical charge that is opposite in sign, i.e. one is said to have positive electric charge while the other is said to have negative electric charge.

Anderson also showed that when a pure energy ray of 1.02 Mev (photonic energy) was absorbed in vacuum then a free electron and positron emerged from it, and that when a slow moving electron and positron collided with each other than they produced two bursts of photonic energy rays with an accumulated energy-content of 1.02 Mev.

When the values of the electron and positron mass which are each equal to 0.510Mev/c^2 and the speed of light in vacuum (2.998×10^8 km/s) were plugged in ‘equation 2′ it was seen that that the energy content equals 1.02 Mev, just as Einstein predicted. The observation that nothing matter-like remains detectable after an electron and positron annihilation (only pure photonic energy), or that photonic energy can seemingly produce matter in agreement with ‘equation 1′, convinced scientists that the stuff that makes up matter and has ‘mass’, is indeed inter-convertible with energy.

Another argument given in favor of their view that mass and energy are indeed inter-convertible comes from the nuclear field where it is said that the nuclear binding’s energy, i.e. the energy required for separating a nucleon from, or confining a nucleon in a nucleus, comes from the mass conversion in energy that is affirmably direct proportional with the observed mass-deficit.

Even though all observations seem to be in line with the first order observational facts Godinci doubts in the validity of these interpretations given the numerous contradictions that are contained in all of them.

Allow us to explain:

If we accept the idea that the energy that holds a nucleus together (nuclear binding’s energy) comes indeed from the mass-energy conversion than we have also to admit that the mass deficit cannot be of relativistic nature because the translation velocity of the nucleus is neglectable in comparison to the speed of light, and so, the binding’s energy can only be ascribed to a deficit in rest-mass. The problem is that rest-mass, which expresses the amount of matter contained in an object, is invariant; hence, the binding’s energy can in this case certainly not come from mass-energy conversion itself.

Coming to terms with so called particle-creation and particle-annihilation requires a more thorough explanation; nevertheless, a clear indication of its fallacy can be easily given. The observed fact that the energy required for so called ‘matter-creation’, and the energy resulting from ‘matter-annihilation’, are quantitative the same clearly suggest to us that the phenomenon of matter-creation and matter-annihilation, as first observed by David Anderson, has in reality nothing to do with matter-creation or annihilation.

The reason for which we take this stand is because it’s a demonstrated fact that designing and fabricating something requires much more energy than disassembling it – e.g. making a car from scratch requires first of all that we have to put the concept together, collect all the required materials, design and calibrate all the different parts for its functioning and assemble them in according to certain specifications; in other words, the disassembling energy of a car will always be less than the energy that was required to produce the car in the first place.

Hence, the observation that so called ‘matter-creation and annihilation’ requires the same amounts of energy indicate to us that these conclusions based on first order observational facts are fallacious. The so called matter-creation and annihilation, as postulated by today’s science, should therefore rather be subscribed to something of the underlying back-ground structure of space, and has nothing to do with the annihilation or creation of matter.

In conclusion, the whole notion of matter-energy creation or mass-energy conversion is according to Godinci delusional.

This post is also available in: Romanian, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish