[]Moderator: The previous user has been suspended 10 days for promoting anti-science, lying to a new user, endorsing fraud, and failing to understand the subject being discussed. Also, I hate when people lazily quote the whole body of a previous message in a way that adds zero value to the conversation.]

Actually, E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² and vE = pc² have extremely good experimental support. The author and the previous poster are not engaged in the practice of science but the denial of science in favor of their preconceptions. The points raised in support of something different from special relativity are specious and unsupported by evidence. If anything, they reveal that the author does not understand the evidence being stated, and has built a castle in the air.

Specifically, c is not an assumed conversion factor but it is required when assuming that all inertial observers agree on Maxwell's equations as the laws of physics -- an assumption that the GPS system demonstrates is accurate thousands of times per minute around the world.

The paper is not written in the style of scientific paper, which tend to be concise and focused on a single topic while the paper gives a long history of physics which doesn't connect with the topic at hand. The history's only purpose would seem to pad the references with science that the author does not understand.

His 2008 paper: http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr_22_4_14.pdf mathematically contradicts itself in the abstract.

So what is "b" ?
In the 2008 paper, the author takes the Compton wavelength of a particle of mass m, λ = h/(m c) and Wien's displacement law for the relation between peak wavelength of emitted light from a blackbody of a certain temperature, λ = (1/x) h c / (k T), and the definition of Boltzmann's constant which relates temperature and the energy scale on a per-degree-of freedom basis, E = k T.

The author takes these equations, divorced from their physical theories and the assumptions that relate to their use.
E = k T = (1/x) h c / λ = (1/x) m c²
This is not physics -- just non-scientifically motivated abuse of algebra.

Then the author just assumes that this result is of some universal significance and asserts b = c/x should have the stature of a constant of nature.

What is x? x is the positive solution to x e^x = 5 (e^x - 1) and can be expressed in Mathematica as: 5 + ProductLog[-5 e^-5] and is approximately 427/86.
Thus b has the units of speed and is about 0.2014 c or to 19 digits of precision 60379770.53645369948+ m/s

To the extent that the author writes b = 62494236.2 m/s, this represents a calculation error which I trace to unreliable sources for physical constants. Instead of using 2.8977685 * 1.429 / 6.62606896 = 0.624942362, the best figures give 2.8977721 * 1.3806488 / 6.62606957 = 0.603797701 which is in good agreement with my algebra and the exact value of c.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Brog...article_duality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bwien
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?k
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h

Thank you very much repenner.
Makes me wonder what credibility does the european journal of scientific research have.
Has anyone reviewed this paper or written about it? How did the author get away with such nonsense?

There are over 100 fake journals -- journals that strive to present the illusion of being peer reviewed but are actually vanity presses in which the author pays to get virtually any paper published. They have fake editorial boards made up of real scientists who were either conned into agreeing to referee a journal that had no intention of consulting them or were never consulted about being listed in the first place. Naturally, they have impressive titles or titles similar to those of real scientific journals.

There are other journals, while not designed to be fake, have low editorial standards and weak peer review. Sometimes this is in the beginning, sometimes the lead editor goes nutty.

Lots of scientists (not necessarily on a percentage basis) go nutty in their later years, a consequence of being right all the time + confirmation bias leads to the lazy conclusion that all their new ideas must be right. So it's something of a tragedy when this happens to a great light in a field or the editor of a highly respected journal.

Recently, I've found examples of plagiarism from book covers in the body of papers. It's hard to believe such a paper would ever be published in a journal of repute or by respectable authors with good intentions. Indeed, two different known crackpots used the same quote. Negative reputations like these are tracked also, because imitation of the form of science without doing science is not flattery -- it's just lying about important stuff and treated as such by people paid to chase down what is real and true in our universe.

So the only way to navigate this mess is familiarity and reputation. Scientists who practice science cluster around the journals that make sense to their profession. Librarians who have limited budgets to support such scientists endeavor to measure this reputation so as to invest funds in the more respectable journals. Like Google's PageRank system, it is not perfect, but is a big step in the right direction.