Changes

'''E=mc&sup2;''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in an unmoving object is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c&sup2;''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>The implausible equation claims that "energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc&sup2;. (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is '''E&sup2;=(mc&sup2;)&sup2;+(pc)&sup2;''', where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]].  In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles have failed<ref name="wvarticles">Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4^th one derives the formula:

'''E=mc&sup2;''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in an unmoving object is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c&sup2;''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>The implausible equation claims that "energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc&sup2;. (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is '''E&sup2;=(mc&sup2;)&sup2;+(pc)&sup2;''', where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]].  In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles have failed. However, it is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this [[equation]]. [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. '''''Simply put, E=mc&sup2; is [[liberal claptrap]]'''''.

*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]

*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]

*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]

*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]

*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]</ref>. [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. '''''Simply put, E=mc&sup2; is [[liberal claptrap]]'''''.

In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc&sup2;''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''Einstein A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.  [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc&sup2;''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''Einstein A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.  [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration.  In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.  Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified.  Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc&sup2; is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring<ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref>.

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration.  In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.  Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified.  Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc&sup2; is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring. <ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref>

The claim that '''E=mc&sup2;''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of &quot;[[energy]]&quot; for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals.  Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and speculations about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html  Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''],  Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc&sup2;'']  October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref>

The claim that '''E=mc&sup2;''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of &quot;[[energy]]&quot; for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals.  Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and speculations about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html  Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''],  Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc&sup2;'']  October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles<ref name="wvarticles"/>, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E₀=mc&sup2;'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles (see the [http://www.conservapedia.com/E%3Dmc%C2%B2#See_also See also] section for a derivation), and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E₀=mc&sup2;'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref>

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc&sup2;''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc&sup2;''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:

==Claims of experimental verification==

==Claims of experimental verification==

In 1932 an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, performed the first artificial nuclear transmuation, an experiment which is replicated in courses on modern physics at colleges and universities around the world hundreds of times each year: ''&quot;their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles&quot;''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> for which they were honored with the [[Nobel Prize]] in physics in 1951.  The equation was verified by that experiment, though neither the Nobel Committee nor the prize recipients made any claim to that effect.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref>

In an experiment which is replicated in courses on modern physics at colleges and universities around the world hundreds of times each year, in 1932 an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of ''&quot;their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles&quot;''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> for which they were honored with the [[Nobel Prize]] in physics in 1951.  Neither the Nobel Committee nor the prize recipients made any claim to verify ''E=mc&sup2;''.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref>

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[&alpha;-particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[&alpha;-particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Some claim that the best empirical verification of '''E=mc²''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>. The authors state in their article in ''Nature'' magazine that &quot;Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10⁻⁷, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.&quot;

Some claim that the best empirical verification of '''E=mc²''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>  The authors state in their article in ''Nature'' magazine that &quot;Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10⁻⁷, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.&quot;

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

== References ==

== References ==

 

[[Category:relativity]]

[[Category:relativity]]

[[Category:physics]]

[[Category:physics]]

[[Category:science]]

[[Category:science]]

[[Category:Bible]]

[[Category:Bible]]