Conservation of Mass/Energy vs Biggest Flaw of Modern Physics?

The previous post took a look at the proclaimed mass defect in chemical and nuclear reactions releasing energy: A mass defect or loss of mass exactly corresponding to the energy release is to be computed from $E=mc^2$. This showed a flavor of agreement/definition instead of actual real physics with mass defect in contradiction to conservation of mass (1) as a basic principle of physics. We also exhibited the origin of mass as reactivity to a gravitational potential. 

We may compare with conservation of energy (2) as the other basic principle of physics. Here energy is seen as potential to do work and can take the form of potential (e g chemical) energy or kinetic energy connected to motion. If now according to Einstein's $E=mc^2$  energy is "equivalent" to mass, then the two conservation laws (1) and (2) can be replaced by simply conservation of mass + energy (3), which is what Einstein had in mind, presumably: Mass can be converged to energy and vice versa, while the sum mass + energy remains constant. Fair enough. Clearly (3) follows from (1) + (2) and so cannot be disputed. 

But (1) and (2) do not follow from (3) in the presence of mass defect. If mass is really converted to energy,  then neither mass nor energy is conserved, only their sum mass+energy.

So here we stand. Two entities of different origin, mass as reactivity to gravitation, and energy as potential to do work, have been made “equivalent” as an expression of some deep modern physics expressing that mass+energy is conserved, but not both mass and energy separately. 

Is this a step forward to a deeper understanding of the Universe? This connects to the biggest flaw of modern physics which is to not offer a consistent theory including both gravitation and quantum mechanics, despite tremendous efforts by the sharpest minds over more than 100 years. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity of Gravitation are Incompatible!! What can be the reason? After all, the Universe is built from the (a) quantum mechanics of atoms + (b) gravitation. How could (a) and (b) be incompatible? What would a Universe look like if being formed from incompatible physics? An Incompatible Universe?

Is it so that we if we insist that (a) and (b) are the same corresponding to energy being "equivalent" to mass according to $E=mc^2$, then we seem to be led into a dead end where everything is confused or "incompatible". It is like claiming than man = woman, a principle which is causing a lot of confusion in society. For sure there are shared aspects but if two different concepts are made "equivalent" by agreement/definition, then confusion is created. 

It may well be that if gravitation/mass is kept different from atoms/energy, then process can be made, while if confusion is allowed to reign, then no progress is possible. Ready to try?  Take a look at the listed labels on the blog: new quantum mechanics and extended Newtonian gravitation which are certainly compatible! 

In the next post I will investigate what concrete evidence there is that $E=mc^2$ is true physics, and not just an agreement. To prepare recall that Einstein somehow "derived" this relation in his Special Theory of Relativity to be a consequence of a postulate stating that all observes independent of inertial motion will have to measure the speed of light so that they get the same value named constancy of the speed of light. In other words, they have to use clocks and meter sticks to meet this end. More precisely, since 1983 all observers are demanded to use the SI Standard meter stick as the distance traveled by light over a certain length of time. The SI Standard thus commands all observers to agree on the same value of the speed of light: one light second/second = 1. 

But a command, or agreement if no observer objects, is just an agreement and as such is void of true physics. That the Earth is round is not an agreement, but a true physical fact. The agreement before was that the Earth is flat, and it is only recently that this agreement has evaporated. It would today be silly to say that Earth is round because we have agreed that it is. It is not agreement that makes the World go around. It goes around even if there is disagreement. But it is very difficult to get a modern physicist see the difference between agreement and physical fact, definition and theorem in mathematics.  

Modern physicists all agree that the Standard Model is correct, and so this is the way Nature is even if very strange...but understanding that real science boils down to showing that something is not so strange...

Here is an article leading into the next post: 103 years Later. Einstein Proven Correct. So it took modern physicist 103 years to come up with some real experimental evidence of $E=mc^2$. But the experiment is very tricky and so can be questioned. If $E=mc^2$ is indeed correct physics as the incarnation of modern physics, why has it been so difficult to verify experimentally? It would seem more likely that since it is so difficult to demonstrate, it cannot be true physics. Only an agreement that the Earth is flat, which you can argue is true in some sense agreed upon, but which is not really the whole story.