SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 58:
Line 58: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Cockcroft and Walton Experiment (view source)
Revision as of 01:18, January 8, 2015
, 01:18, January 8, 2015The Large Hadron Collider is generally considered to be modern equipment, and it validates the equation every nanosecond that it runs
:How do you know Andy wasn't referring to just this particular experiment? Or, on the other hand, to the notion that no experiment has yet proved the equivalence? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 18:53, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:How do you know Andy wasn't referring to just this particular experiment? Or, on the other hand, to the notion that no experiment has yet proved the equivalence? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 18:53, 7 January 2015 (EST)
----
Because he didn't say "have not been replicated by re-running the Cockcroft-Walton experiment." He said "have not been replicated."
To all who want to take the position that the Cockcroft-Walton experiment wasn't correct, or didn't validate E=mc², I would point out that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is generally considered to be modern equipment, and it validates the equation every nanosecond that it runs. Also, every periodic table chart hanging in high-school physics and chemistry classrooms illustrates the principle.
Relativity denial at Conservapedia is not for amateurs. The debate has been going on for several years, and very few people (Andy, AugustO, Wschacht, and myself are probably the only ones left) know their way around the issue enough to debate it sensibly. If you jump into this debate not knowing what you are doing, you just run the risk of coming across as a sycophant, which is probably not what you want. The people named above (and several others who are long gone) have been discussing this issue for years, in great detail and with great precision.
If you believe you are qualified to jump into the discussion, please establish your credentials by:
#going to the [[Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity]] page and write up a refutation of every point made there. You can put it right below, on this page.
#going to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Two_millionth_page_view_for_the_.22Counterexamples_to_Relativity.22_page this] section of the Community Portal and answering the three questions that I posed there (precession, time dilation, and mass change, that is, E=mc²).
I believe the questions are very precisely drawn, and I want the same precision in the answers.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:18, 7 January 2015 (EST)