Changes

::When I left the comment above, I had not realized that other people had responded to Gryfin, but that their responses were deleted.  You can check the history of this page for [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AE%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1040260&oldid=1040259 yourself.] I personally do not find this to be an attack, but rather an explanation that E=mc² works in both directions.  You can start with the amount of mass that was converted into energy and the formula will correctly calculate the amount of energy that was released, or you can start with the amount of energy released, and the formula will correctly calculate the amount of mass that was converted.  We are all friends here and can disagree without being disagreeable.  I know that some people are still learning physics or are confused about how E=mc² does '''not''' involve the theory of general relativity.  We now have 100 years of verifiable evidence that the equation shows the relationship between energy and mass.  I have a great deal of respect for AugustO, who has contributed to many areas of this project.  User:Gryfin has limited himself to debating this equation and relativity, perhaps to promote a specific book and website.  The idea of mass-energy equivalence is just as easy to visualize as the idea of potential vs. kinetic energy.  Any good physics book can explain both ideas.

::When I left the comment above, I had not realized that other people had responded to Gryfin, but that their responses were deleted.  You can check the history of this page for [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AE%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1040260&oldid=1040259 yourself.] I personally do not find this to be an attack, but rather an explanation that E=mc² works in both directions.  You can start with the amount of mass that was converted into energy and the formula will correctly calculate the amount of energy that was released, or you can start with the amount of energy released, and the formula will correctly calculate the amount of mass that was converted.  We are all friends here and can disagree without being disagreeable.  I know that some people are still learning physics or are confused about how E=mc² does '''not''' involve the theory of general relativity.  We now have 100 years of verifiable evidence that the equation shows the relationship between energy and mass.  I have a great deal of respect for AugustO, who has contributed to many areas of this project.  User:Gryfin has limited himself to debating this equation and relativity, perhaps to promote a specific book and website.  The idea of mass-energy equivalence is just as easy to visualize as the idea of potential vs. kinetic energy.  Any good physics book can explain both ideas.

::While I wish everyone the best, we must face the fact that many people are judging the entire project based on the contents of this one page, and that some editors are discouraged from participating further in CP based on the way this issue has been handled.  Let's work this out with a spirit of respect, fellowship and understanding. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:29, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

::While I wish everyone the best, we must face the fact that many people are judging the entire project based on the contents of this one page, and that some editors are discouraged from participating further in CP based on the way this issue has been handled.  Let's work this out with a spirit of respect, fellowship and understanding. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:29, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

==Lead paragraph==

==Lead paragraph==

A couple of weeks ago, I moved the discussion of the "popular culture" references to E=mc² to a separate section at the bottom of the article, away from the lead section.  On March 11 it was reverted.  [[Conservapedia:Writing a Good Article]] advises, "The intro paragraph is meant to be a short paragraph which introduces the subject to the reader, generally about four to five sentences long."  I believe we have a well-written article here except for the lead section.  As it stands now, the lead section is not a summary of the rest of the article.  It reads as though someone who does not understand the article came in and added a parody of it to the lead section.  I will wait a week for a reply and then correct the article to conform to CP's style for writing proper articles. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:12, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

A couple of weeks ago, I moved the discussion of the "popular culture" references to E=mc² to a separate section at the bottom of the article, away from the lead section.  On March 11 it was reverted.  [[Conservapedia:Writing a Good Article]] advises, "The intro paragraph is meant to be a short paragraph which introduces the subject to the reader, generally about four to five sentences long."  I believe we have a well-written article here except for the lead section.  As it stands now, the lead section is not a summary of the rest of the article.  It reads as though someone who does not understand the article came in and added a parody of it to the lead section.  I will wait a week for a reply and then correct the article to conform to CP's style for writing proper articles. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:12, 13 March 2013 (EDT)