Jump to: navigation, search


78 bytes added, 05:41, 1 March 2013
restoring full introduction
'''E=mc&sup2;''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which states asserts that the energy ('''E''') of a which makes up the [[matter]] in any body is equivalent equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c&sup2;''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>"... Einstein proves that energy and matter are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc&sup2;. (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [ Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' in general from first principles have failed, though there are many derivations for special cases and experimental verifications.<!-->[[Politics|Political]] pressure,<ref>For example, [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]].</ref> however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. Simply put, '''''Simply put, E=mc&sup2;''' is [[liberal claptrap]]'''''.<!-->
In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc&sup2;''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''Einstein A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so. [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].
[[Biblical Scientific ForeknowledgeMass]] predicts that there is no unified theory a measure of light and matter because they were created at different timesan object's inertia, in different waysother words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, as described in the intrinsic [[Book energy]] of Genesisan object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. The equation Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc&sup2; does is not present a unified theory of light and matter, so limited to nuclear reactions; it is consistent with applies to chemical reactions and even to the Bibleenergy stored in a compressed spring. <ref></ref>
[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. As shown by atomic bombs, matter can in certain circumstances be converted into energy through nuclear fusion or nuclear fission. (This is how the Sun generates energy.) In such limited cases E=mc&sup2; accurately calculates the amount of energy released by the amount of matter that is completely converted into energy. The formula E=mc&sup2; has little relevance to situations where mass is not converted into energy such as [[chemical reaction]]s or electrostatic interactions. The claim that '''E=mc&sup2;''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of &quot;[[energy]]&quot; for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. At virtually all colleges and universities physicists explain how Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]]).<ref>[ ''E=mc&sup2; passes tough MIT test''], MITNews, Dec 21, 2005</ref><ref>[ John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[ Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[ Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc&sup2;''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref>
The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[ Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E<sub>0</sub>=mc&sup2;'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref>
== Description for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms '''E=mc&sup2;''':<ref>[ Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc&sup2; explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref>{{cquote|'''''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.'''''|||Neil deGrasse Tyson, Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
Siteadmin, bureaucrat, check user, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrator