SkipCaptcha
9
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 645:
Line 645: − − :::It's certainly a strange-looking formula. When refuting it should I be saying that mass is not actually being converted to energy in these reactions (i.e. the experiments are flawed and either mass is not being lost or the energy comes from somewhere else or something)? Or is it that mass is indeed being converted to energy but E=mc<sup>2</sup> is not a correct/meaningful/useful way to describe it? [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 12:20, 9 January 2013 (EST)
→Problematic edit
::No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)
::No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)
:::*''No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred.'' That's just a ''non sequitur''
:::*''No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred.'' That's just a ''non sequitur''