Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + + + + + +
Talk:Logical Flaws in E=mc² (view source)
Revision as of 20:03, June 14, 2015
, 20:03, June 14, 2015no edit summary
:::You didn't respond to my points about logic. Also, the [[Nobel Prize]] Committee did not claim that the experiment "proved" that E=mc<sup>2</sup>. Do you really think that one experiment from long ago "proved" the formula as a fundamental law of nature? What if the speed of light changes?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 14 June 2015 (EDT)
:::You didn't respond to my points about logic. Also, the [[Nobel Prize]] Committee did not claim that the experiment "proved" that E=mc<sup>2</sup>. Do you really think that one experiment from long ago "proved" the formula as a fundamental law of nature? What if the speed of light changes?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 14 June 2015 (EDT)
::::*"You didn't respond to my points about logic." I will address them the moment you have answered the [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]].
::::*"Also, the [[Nobel Prize]] Committee did not claim that the experiment "proved" that E=mc<sup>2</sup>. Nor do I, it just ''confirms'' the formula.
::::*"Do you really think that one experiment from long ago "proved" the formula as a fundamental law of nature?" No, it is just one thread which adds to the rope of the theory. Answering the questions should help to get upon a common ground, showing that you know what you are talking about....
::::*"What if the speed of light changes?" That will be interesting - do you claim that the speed of light changes regularly while performing the experiment, so for thousands and thousands of time over the last decades? Let's not get to theoretical, just answer the questions...
::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:03, 14 June 2015 (EDT)