Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton
<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</big></big></big>
<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</big></big></big>
== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ==
I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:
'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (<sup>7</sup>Li), of alpha-particles (<sup>4</sup>He) and of protons (<sup>1</sup>H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?
'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|<sup>1</sup>H||1.0072 amu
|-
|<sup>4</sup>He||4.0011 amu
|-
|<sup>7</sup>Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?
'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?
'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?
'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?
'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?
'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?
'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?
'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!
As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.
Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc<sup>2</sup>'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockcroft¹ claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockcroft's¹ lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
(1) : spelling of ''Cockcroft corrected [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:22, 25 April 2012 (EDT)
== A little clarification? ==
== A little clarification? ==