Manjunath

Ramu
25 Science "Facts" That Are Proven Wrong

BookRix GmbH & Co. KG

81669 Munich
Introduction

__________________________________________________________________________
General public regards science as beautiful truth. But it is absolutely-absolutely false.
Science has fatal limitations. The whole the scientific community is ignorant about it. It is
strange that scientists are not raising the issues. Science means truth, and scientists are
proponents of the truth. But they are teaching incorrect ideas to children (upcoming scientists)
in schools /colleges etc. One who will raise the issue will face unprecedented initial criticism.
Anyone can read the book and find out the truth. It is open to everyone.
What’s Wrong With F=ma?

If a force F acts on an electron of mass m at rest and produces acceleration a in it, then the
force is calculated from F= ma. Now by rearranging:
m = F/a

Suppose no force is applied, then there is no acceleration produced in the electron. Now
under the condition (F=0, a = 0)
m= F/a = 0/ 0

which is meaningless. Mass cannot be zero. There can be no bigger limitation than this.The
rest mass of the electron is 9.1 × 10 ^ – 31 kg.
What’s Wrong With K = 1/2 × m × v^2?
The kinetic energy of a non-relativistic electron of rest mass m moving a velocity v is given
by:
K =1/2 × m × v^2
Now by rearranging:
m = 2K/v^2
Suppose the electron is brought to rest, then the velocity and kinetic energy of the electron
lapse to zero. Now under the condition (K=0, v = 0) m= 2K/v^2 = 0 / 0
which is meaningless. Mass cannot be zero. There can be no bigger limitation than this. The
rest mass of the electron is 9.1 × 10 ^ – 31 kg.
What’s Wrong With P = mv?
The momentum of a non-relativistic proton of rest mass m moving a velocity v is given by:

P=mv
Now by rearranging: m = P/v. Suppose the proton is brought to rest, then the velocity and
momentum of the proton lapse to zero. Now under the condition (P=0, v = 0)
m= P/v = 0 / 0
which is meaningless. Mass cannot be zero. There can be no bigger limitation than this. The
rest mass of the proton is 1.672 × 10 ^ – 27 kg.
What’s Wrong With K = qV?
If a potential V is applied to an electron of charge q at rest, then the applied potential
produces a kinetic energy K in the electron. The kinetic energy of the electron is calculated
from K = qV.
Now by rearranging: q = K / V. Suppose no potential is applied to the electron, then the
kinetic energy is 0.Now under the condition (K=0, V = 0) q = K / V = 0/0
which is meaningless. Charge cannot be zero. There can be no bigger limitation than this.
The charge of the electron is –1.602 × 10 ^ –19 C.
What’s Wrong With PL ↔ P + L?
PL ↔ P + L
PL = protein - ligand complex (bound protein or bound ligand), P = free protein, L = free
ligand, the equilibrium constant K = (CP × CL) / CPL (where CP, CL and CPL represent the
molar concentrations of P, L and PL respectively), total ligand concentration {CTL= CL + CPL}
and total protein concentration {CTP = CP + CPL}.
If one substitutes CTL – CPL for CL, CTP – CPL for CP and CTP – CP for CPL, then
equilibrium relationship K × CPL = CP × CL becomes:
K {CTP – CP} = {CTL – CPL} × {CTP – CPL}
(K × CTP) – (K × CP) = (CTL × CTP) – (CPL × CTL) – (CPL × CTP) + CPL^2
Now by rearranging:
(K × CTP) – (CTL × CTP) + (CPL × CTP) = – (CPL × CTL) + CPL ^ 2 + (K × CP) CTP {K –
CTL + CPL} = CPL {– CTL + CPL} + (K × CP) But CTL = CPL + CL. Therefore,
CTP {K – CPL – CL + CPL} = CPL {– CPL – CL + CPL} + (K × CP) CTP {K – CL} = – (CPL×
CL) + (K × CP) CTP {K – CL} = (K × CP) – (CPL× CL) {K – CL} =K {CP / CTP} –CL {CPL
/CTP}
Labeling {CP / CTP} as FFP (fraction of free protein) and {CPL/ CTP} as FBP (fraction of
bound protein) then above expression turns into K– CL = (K × FFP) – (FBP × CL)

If FFP = FBP=1, then the LHS = RHS, and the above Eq. is true.
If FFP = FBP≠1, then the LHS ≠ RHS, and the above Eq. is false.

Let us now check the validity of the condition “FFP = FBP=1”.

The total concentration of protein CTP is equal to the uncombined protein concentration CP
plus the concentration of the PL complex.
CTP = CPL + CP
From this it follows that
1= FBP + FFP
If we assume FBP = FFP =1, we get: 1 = 2
The condition FFP = FBP =1 is invalid, since 1 doesn't = 2.
In fact, the only way it can happen that K – [L] = K – [L] is if both FFP = FBP =1. Since FFP
= FBP ≠ 1, above Eq. fails to appreciate the meaning in reasoning.There can be no bigger
limitation than this.
What’s Wrong With 1/0 = ∞?

1/0=∞

Now by rearranging: 0 × ∞ =1. Zero multiplied by anything is zero. 0 × ∞ cannot be 1.There
can be no fatal limitation than this.

What’s Wrong With ∆E = ∆MC ^2?
If an energy ∆E is added to a system, then the added energy ∆E produces ∆M change in
mass of the system. The added energy is calculated from ∆E = ∆M × C^2. Now by
rearranging: C^2 = ∆E /∆M. suppose no energy is added to the system, then the change in
mass of the system is 0. Now under the condition (∆E =0, ∆M = 0) C^2 = ∆E /∆M = 0/0
C^2 = 0 or C = 0
which is meaningless. Constant C cannot be zero. There can be no bigger limitation than
this. The value of C is 3 × 10 ^ 8 m/s.
What’s Wrong With F = qE?
If an electric field E is applied to an electron of charge q at rest, then the electron
experiences a force F = q × E. Now by rearranging: q = F / E. Suppose the applied electric
field is removed, then the electron experiences no force. Now under the condition (E =0, F= 0)
q = F / E = 0/0
which is meaningless. Charge q cannot be zero. There can be no bigger limitation than this.
The value of q is 1.602 ×10 ^ - 19C.
What’s Wrong With PE = m×g×h?
For an object of mass m raised to a height h, the potential energy PE will be equal to m × g
× h (where g = gravitational acceleration of the earth), it will be equal to zero when h equals
zero.
PE = m × g × h Now by rearranging:
mg = PE / h Now under the condition (h=0, PE=0) mg = PE / h =0/0
m = 0 or g = 0
which is meaningless. m and g cannot be zero. There can be no bigger limitation than this.
The value of g is 9.8m/sec^2. The mass is always non-zero.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY?
Back in 1920s, when the corpuscular nature of photon demonstrated by the photoelectric
effect was still being debated, the Compton Effect confirmed the particle like behavior of the
photon. Figuring it all out is what made Compton Effect famous. Compton Effect occurs when
an X ray photon encounters a free or loosely bound electron that is initially at rest. The electron
gains energy and the scattered photon have a wavelength longer than that of the incoming
photon.
From the law of conservation of energy, (m×C^2) + (m0×C^2) = (M×C^2) + (mE×C^2)

(m×C^2) = energy of the X ray photon(before scattering)

(m0×C^2) = energy of the electron (before scattering)
(M×C^2) = energy of the X ray photon(after scattering)
(mE×C^2) = energy of the electron (after scattering)

From this it follows that,

m – M = mE – m0 …. 1
From the law of conservation of momentum, (m × C) = (M × C) + (mE × V)

(m × C) = momentum of the X ray photon (before scattering)

(M × C) = momentum of the X ray photon (after scattering)
(mE × V) = momentum of the electron (after scattering)

From this it follows that

m – M =mE × (V/C) …2
Comparing 1 and 2, we get
mE – m0= mE × (V/C) mE = m0C/ {C – V} … 3
But, according to Einstein’s mass velocity equation mE = m0C/ {C^2 – V^2} ^ ½ …. 4
Comparing 3 and 4, we get

m0C/ {C – V} = m0C/ {C^2 – V^2} ^ ½
{C^2 – V^2} ^ ½ = {C – V}
{C^2 – V^2} = {C – V} ^ 2
{C^2 – V^2}= C^2 + V^2 – 2CV
V = C
The idea that nothing other than photon can travel at the speed of light in vacuum is the key
precept of the Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which itself makes the central
principle of modern physics. If the electron recoils with the velocity V=C, then the fundamental
rules of physics would have to be rewritten.
What’s Wrong With <Ek> = 3/2 × k × T?
The average kinetic energy of the electron at a temperature T is given by: Ek = 3/2 × k × T
where k is Boltzmann’s constant.
Now by rearranging: k = 2 Ek /3T.

At temperature T = 0,
Ek = 0
k = 2 Ek /3T = 2 (0) / 3 (0) = 0
which is meaningless. Constant k cannot be zero. There can be no bigger limitation than this.
The value of k is 1.38 × 10 ^ -23 J/K.
What’s Wrong With Equations of motion?
Equations of motion: v^2 = u^2 +2as v =u + at s =ut+ (1/2 × a × t^2)

v = final velocity, u= initial velocity, t= time, s= displacement, a = acceleration

Suppose u=0, then

v^2 = 2as v=at s= (1/2 × a × t^2) Since v=s/t
a = s/ (2t^2) a = s/t a = 2s/t^2
3 different results.There can be no bigger limitation than this.
What’s Wrong With Power = mass × acceleration × velocity?
Because work equals force times displacement, we can write the equation for power the
following way, assuming that the force acts on a mass m at rest and produces acceleration a in
it: P = W / t = ma × (s / t) where s is the displacement. However, the object’s velocity, v, is just
s divided by t, so the equation breaks down to P = m × a × v Now by rearranging: m = P/av.
Now under the condition (a = 0, v=0, P=0) m = 0/0
which is meaningless. There can be no bigger limitation than this. Mass is always non zero.
What’s Wrong With 2∆E = (GMm/r^2) × ∆r?
Suppose that the two masses are M and m, and they are separated by a distance r. The
power given off by this system in the form of gravitational radiation is: P = - dE/dt = 32 G^4 (M
× m) ^ 2 (M + m) / 5 (C^5 × r^5) …. (1) Gravitational radiation robs the energy of the system.
As the energy of the system reduces, the distance between the masses decreases, and they
rotate more rapidly. The rate of decrease of distance r between the masses versus time is
given by: - dr/dt = 64G^3 (M ×m) (M +m) / 5 (C^5 × r^3) …. (2) Dividing 1 by 2, we get:
2 (dE/dr) = GMm / r^2
where dE is the smallest change in the energy of the system and dr is the smallest change
in distance between the orbiting masses.
Suppose no gravitational radiation is emitted by the system, then dE= 0, dr =0
GMm / r^2 = 2 (dE/dr) = 2 (0/0) = 0
GMm = 0 × r^2
GMm = 0
M = 0 or m =0 or G=0
which means: If the system does not emit gravitational radiation, then the masses of the
orbiting bodies lapse to zero.
Which is meaningless and does not make any logical sense. Gravitational Constant G
cannot be zero.There can be no bigger limitation than this. The value of G is 6.673 × 10 ^ -11
Nm^2 kg^-2.
What’s Wrong With ∆E = h × ∆ν?
If a photon of energy hν collides with an electron at rest, then the energy of the photon
changes by an amount = ∆E = h × ∆ν (where ∆ν = change in frequency of the photon and h =
Planck’s constant).
Now by rearranging: h = ∆E /∆ν.
Now under the condition (∆E = 0, ∆ν=0) then h = ∆E /∆ν = 0/0
which is meaningless. There can be no bigger limitation than this. Constant h cannot be zero.
The value of h is 6.625 × 10 ^ -34 Js.
What’s Wrong With F = qvB?
If the electron of charge q moves at right angles to the magnetic field B, then it experiences
a force F = B × q × v (where v is the velocity of the electron).
Now by rearranging: q = F/ (B×v).
Now under the condition (B=0, F=0, v =0) q = F/ (B×v) = 0/0
which is meaningless. There can be no bigger limitation than this. The charge of the electron
is 1.602 × 10 ^-19 C.
What’s Wrong With Newton’s Third law of motion?
Newton’s Third law of motion: To every action there is always an equal and opposite
reaction.

Case 1:
If a boy throws the rubber ball at the Wall with some force F, the ball strikes the Wall and
comes back to the boy i.e. travelling 10m. Now action and reaction can be understood as
Boy pushes the ball through 10m = Wall rebounds the ball through 10m.
Action = Reaction
Case 2:
If the same boy throws the cloth ball at the Wall with same force F, the ball strikes the Wall
and comes back to the boy i.e. travelling 5m. Now action and reaction can be understood as
Boy pushes the ball through 10m = Wall rebounds the ball through 5m.
Action ≠ Reaction
Black Hole Hawking Radiation Do Not Exist
The image we often see of photons as a tiny bit of light circling a black hole in well-defined
orbit of radius r = 3GM/C^2 (where G = Newton’s universal constant of gravitation, C = speed
of light in vacuum and M = mass of the black hole) is actually quite interesting.
The angular velocity of the photon orbiting the black hole is given by:
ω = C/r
ω = C^4/3GM
For circular motion the angular velocity is the same as the angular frequency. Therefore: ω
= 2π C/λ = C^4/3GM
Since the wavelength of the photon λ = h /mC (where m = mass of the photon and h =
Planck constant) Therefore:
2π mC^2/h = C^4/3GM
From this it follows that 3GM/C^2 = ħ/mC
The energy of the emitted Hawking radiation photon is given by: L = 2.821 kT (where k =
Boltzmann constant and T = black hole temperature).
Since
kT = (ħC^3 / 8πGM) Therefore:
L = 2.821 (ħC^3 / 8πGM) Now by rearranging:
GM / C^2 = 2.821 (ħC / 8π L) But
3GM/C^2 = ħ/mC or GM / C^2 = ħ/3mC
Therefore:
ħ/3mC = 2.821 (ħC / 8π L) mC^2 = 2.968L
mC^2 L
• If a photon with energy mC^2 orbiting the black hole can’t slip out of its influence, and so
how can a Hawking radiation photon with energy L mC^2 is emitted from inside the black hole?

Black Hole Hawking Radiation Do Not Exist

What’s Wrong With I = e × (n/t)?
The quantity of charge flowing through the filament of an incandescent bulb is given by: Q =
current × time Q = I × t If n is the number of electrons passing through the filament in the same
time then Q = n × e Since
Q = n × e Therefore:
n × e = I × t I = e × (n/t) I = e × rate of flow of electrons I = e × r Now by rearranging:
e = I/r Now under the condition (r = 0, I =0) e = I/r = 0/0
which is meaningless. There can be no bigger limitation than this. The charge of the electron
cannot be zero. The value of e is 1.602 × 10 ^ -19C.
What’s Wrong With v × vp = C^2?
For a relativistic particle, the product of particle velocity (v) and phase velocity (vp) is equal
to the square of the velocity of light in vacuum(C^2): v × vp = C^2
Now by rearranging: vp = C^2/v If v = 0, then
vp = ∞
Now under the condition (v=0, vp = ∞) equation C^2 = v × vp can be written as: C^2 = 0 × ∞

which is meaningless. There can be no bigger limitation than this. Constant C^2 cannot be (0
× ∞). The value of C^2 is (3 × 10 ^8 m/s) ^ 2.
What’s Wrong With ∆λ = (h/mC) × (1 − cosθ)?
Compton Scattering Formula:
∆λ = (h/mC) × (1 − cosθ) Where:

∆λ = change in wavelength of the incident photon

h = Planck’s constant = 6.625 x 10 ^-34 Js
m = rest mass of the electron = 9.1 x 10 ^-31 kg
C = speed of light in vacuum = 3 x 10 ^ 8 m/s
θ = scattering angle

The quantity (h ⁄mc) is known as the Compton wavelength of the electron (λc) , it is equal to
2.43×10 ^ −12 m. Now by rearranging: λc =∆λ / (1 − cosθ) Suppose θ = 180°, then ∆λ =0.
Now under the condition (θ = 180°, ∆λ =0) λc= ∆λ / (1 − cosθ) =0/0
which is meaningless. There can be no bigger limitation than this. λc cannot be zero. The
value of λc is 2.43×10−12 m.

What’s Wrong With ∆G = − (n× F×E)?
For a reversible electrode reaction: M ^ n+ (aq) + ne¯↔ M(s), where M ^ n+ is the oxidized
state and M is the reduced state. The change in Gibbs free energy (ΔG) is given by: ΔG = − (n
× F × E) where n is the number of electrons transferred in the reaction, F is the Faraday
constant (96485 C / mol) and E is the electrode potential.
Now by rearranging:
(n × F) = –1 × (ΔG/ E) At equilibrium,
ΔG = 0, E=0
Now under this condition (n × F) = – (ΔG/ E) = –1 × (0/ 0) (n × F) = 0
F = (0 / n) = 0
which is meaningless. There can be no bigger limitation than this. Faraday's Constant
cannot be zero. The value of F is 96485 C / mol.
What’s Wrong With Faraday’s Law of Electrolysis?
Faraday’s law of electrolysis:
n = Q / (z × F)
where:

n is the number of moles of the substance liberated at an electrode

Q is the total electric charge passed through the substance
F = 96485 C / mol is the Faraday constant
z is the valency number of ions of the substance (electrons transferred per ion).

Now by rearranging:
(z × F) = Q/n Suppose no electricity is passed through the substance, then Q=0, n=0
Now under this condition (z × F) = Q/n =0/0
F = (0 /z) = 0
which is meaningless. There can be no bigger limitation than this.Faraday's Constant cannot
be zero. The value of F is 96485 C / mol.
What’s Wrong With Q = c × m × ΔT?
If Q is the amount of heat added to the body of mass m, then the added heat Q produces a
temperature change ΔT in the body. The added heat is calculated from Q = c × m× ΔT (where
c is a constant called the specific heat capacity).
Now by rearranging:
m × c = Q /ΔT
Suppose no heat is added to the body, then ΔT =0
Now under the condition (Q=0, ΔT =0) m × c = Q /ΔT = 0/0
m = 0/c = 0
which is meaningless. Mass cannot be zero. There can be no bigger limitation than this.
What’s Wrong With λ = h/ m v?
The De Broglie wavelength associated with a non-relativistic electron of rest mass m moving
with a velocity v is given by: λ = h/ mv (where h is the Planck’s constant = 6.625 × 10 ^ -34 Js)
If v = 0, then
λ = ∞
The equation λ = h/ mv can be rearranged to: h / m = λ × v Now under the condition (v=0, λ
= ∞) h / m = ∞ × 0
which is meaningless. There can be no bigger limitation than this. Constant (h / m) cannot be
(∞ × 0). The value of (h / m) is 0.728 × 10 ^ -3 Js/kg.
Publisher:
BookRix GmbH & Co. KG
Sankt-Martin-Straße 53-55
81669 Munich
Germany

Text: Manjunath Ramu

Images: Manjunath Ramu
Editing/Proofreading: Manjunath Ramu
Translation: Manjunath Ramu

All rights reserved.

Publication Date: April 22nd 2015

http://www.bookrix.com/-gm4948e58761435

ISBN: 978-3-7368-9103-6

BookRix-Edition, publishing information

We thank you for choosing to purchase this book from BookRix.com. We want to invite you
back to BookRix.com in order to evaluate the book. Here you can discuss with other readers,
discover more books and even become an author yourself.

Thank you again for supporting our BookRix-community.