SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,592
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 858:
Line 858: +
→Science vs. politics: still looking for sources
:No, those verifications weren't just ''attempts'', they were quite successful - and they have been repeated over and over again. That doesn't mean that the theory is necessarily true, as ''verifications'' aren't ''proofs''. But we don't expect proofs in physics, and it's save to say that nearly every physicist would be quite surprised if the Special Theory of Relativity were falsified.
:No, those verifications weren't just ''attempts'', they were quite successful - and they have been repeated over and over again. That doesn't mean that the theory is necessarily true, as ''verifications'' aren't ''proofs''. But we don't expect proofs in physics, and it's save to say that nearly every physicist would be quite surprised if the Special Theory of Relativity were falsified.
::Ed may be onto something. We need to separate the politics from the science. How about starting a seperate article entitled "The politics of E=mc<sup>2</sup>" and then include only claims that can be supported in reliable sources in that new article. I have looked, but I can't find any widespread "anti-E=mc<sup>2</sup>" out there. I have only found conservative support for the civilian use of nuclear energy to produce electricity. Those conservatives claim that nuclear energy is well-understood and reliable, and that engineers do not guess as to how much energy is produced in the reactors. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:53, 6 April 2013 (EDT)
::Ed may be onto something. We need to separate the politics from the science. How about starting a seperate article entitled "The politics of E=mc<sup>2</sup>" and then include only claims that can be supported in reliable sources in that new article. I have looked, but I can't find any widespread "anti-E=mc<sup>2</sup>" out there. I have only found conservative support for the civilian use of nuclear energy to produce electricity. Those conservatives claim that nuclear energy is well-understood and reliable, and that engineers do not guess as to how much energy is produced in the reactors. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:53, 6 April 2013 (EDT)
:::Again, I am willing to do further research and writing, but I can't find any sources for the "anti-E=mc<sup>2</sup>" viewpoint. The politics seems to take the equation as a given and then argues for or against nuclear arms limitations, civilian use of nuclear energy to generate electricity and even educational nuclear reactors on college campuses. Some of the most conservative politicians fought for National Labs spending in their states. Please help me with some good sources. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:51, 9 April 2013 (EDT)