SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 172:
Line 172: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Community Portal (view source)
Revision as of 04:56, December 22, 2014
, 04:56, December 22, 2014→Two millionth page view for the "Counterexamples to Relativity" page: My response
:::::Does it really? SamHB described a process where '''mass''' disappears - you answered that ''there is nothing startling about an emission or loss of '''energy'''''. This gives the impression that you think of mass and energy as somewhat interchangeable. I know that you don't think so, that's why I asked for you to ''"rephrase your point #3"''. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:26, 21 December 2014 (EST)
:::::Does it really? SamHB described a process where '''mass''' disappears - you answered that ''there is nothing startling about an emission or loss of '''energy'''''. This gives the impression that you think of mass and energy as somewhat interchangeable. I know that you don't think so, that's why I asked for you to ''"rephrase your point #3"''. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:26, 21 December 2014 (EST)
::::::When something decays to a lower energy state it can emit energy. That is not relativity, that is not E=mc<ref>2</ref>, and that is not "mass-energy equivalence."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 21 December 2014 (EST)
::::::When something decays to a lower energy state it can emit energy. That is not relativity, that is not E=mc<sup>2</sup>, and that is not "mass-energy equivalence."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 21 December 2014 (EST)
:::::::Agreed - but you are talking about '''energy'''. The question is where is the '''mass''' of .005229 amu? (Take a look [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton|here]]...)--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:56, 21 December 2014 (EST)
:::::::Agreed - but you are talking about '''energy'''. The question is where is the '''mass''' of .005229 amu? (Take a look [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton|here]]...)--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:56, 21 December 2014 (EST)
::::::::You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:51, 21 December 2014 (EST)
::::::::You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:51, 21 December 2014 (EST)
I had not intended for this to re-open the entire discussion, including the Cockcroft-Walton experiment. Aside from pointing out the 2 millionth view, the goal was to ask 3 '''very narrowly drawn''' questions. So narrowly drawn that they '''were not about relativity!'''. Not directly, anyway. They were about 3 observable phenomena, and the intent was to ask for explanations, relativity or otherwise, about them. For the second and third questions, Andy sort of did give explanations, though they were totally unsatisfactory by the standards of contemporary science.
I specifically asked for explanations that were indpependent of people's opinions, beliefs, or behavior. I guessed that Andy would either ignore the questions, or give off-topic answers. I got the latter. I got comments about relativity, honesty of "Newtonians", "relativists", liberalism, Nobel prizes, doctorates, research funding, Robert Dicke, Jimmy Carter, oil, and discrepancies with modern measuring technology. (Really? Are you saying that the anomalous precession ''does not occur''? It's been observed since 1843. Are you saying that modern measurements show that the precession is zero, and that Leverrier was seeing something that isn't there?).
Let me restate the questions in their simplest possible form. Note that I am not asking about relativity.
#Anomalous precession. Why does it occur?
#:
#Time dilation. Why does it occur?
#:
#Non-conservation of mass. Why does it occur?
Andy did give a sort of explanation for the 2nd and 3rd of these: "The laws of physics are not invariant at every point" and "There is nothing startling [about this]".
Here is why those answers are completely unsatisfactory. Suppose that Johannes Kepler, when presented with Tycho Brahe's exhaustive data on planetary motion, including the puzzling retrograde motion of Mars, Jupier, and Saturn, had simply said "Well, I guess that, at some points in the Solar System, at some times, some planets go backward for a while." Or "There's nothing startling about this, Mars sometimes just goes backwards." He would simply be abandoning science to the capriciousness of nature. He didn't do that. He was a '''SCIENTIST'''. He looked for an ''explanation''. He and Isaac Newton worked out a formulation that explained it. They didn't just say that the laws of nature are just something random at various places in the solar system, they came up with a physical law that was valid (relative to the measurements of the day) ''at all places and times in the Solar System''.
The time dilation in the Earth's gravitational field is not just something random. It is known, and explained, with great precision. You can set your clock by it. (Literally!) To not be startled, or at least intrigued, by the time dilation, when time can be measured, and found not to dilate, between two points that are at the same altitude, shows a serious lack of scientific curiosity. Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?
The same thing goes for the mass discrepancy. Conservation of mass had been known, with extreme precision, by 1900. Scientists were in fact startled and intrigued by its non-conservation. By the way, it can be measured with greater accuracy now than 82 years ago, and it still holds, or do you deny that it happens? Can you cite modern precise measurements that show that the discrepancy is zero? Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?
==Categories==
==Categories==