SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 209:
Line 209: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→E=mc^2: new section
I sent you an email. Keep up the good work! It is appreciated. 00:23, 11 June 2015 (EDT)
I sent you an email. Keep up the good work! It is appreciated. 00:23, 11 June 2015 (EDT)
== E=mc^2 ==
The reason I called your edit malicious is that it is not true that I was just sneaking in previous material. I rewrote the Cockcroft/Walton paragraph ''yet again''. Your edit comment said that I was just doing the same thing again. I wasn't. You need to read edits before you just blindly revert them. The same thing goes for your earlier reversion, when you put a redundant pair of sentences ''back in''. You need to pay attention. Many aspects of your recent behavior suggest that you are allowing some kind of personal vendetta to negatively impact your contributions to CP.
So now let's go through the Cockcroft/Walton paragraph paragraph in detail:
::"In 1932 an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton ...."
Do you dispute their nationality? Do you dispute that it was a nuclear transmutation? Do you dispute that it was the first? Do you dispute that they won the Nobel Prize for it?
::"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei ...."
Do you dispute that the Nobel announcement said that?
::"This experiment is replicated ... hundreds of times each year."
(That comment, in fact almost all of this paragraph was written by AugustO, as part of his battle with Andy, not by me. AugustO and I have been fighting over this in email.)
Do you dispute that the experiment is frequently replicated?
::"Neither the Nobel Committee nor the prize recipients made any claim to verify ....."
(This is the thing I was specifically trying to clarify) Do you dispute that verifying E=mc^2 was the not the goal of either the experiment or the Nobel Committee?
::"... the equation had already been known and understood for many years ..."
Do you dispute that? Atomic weights and mass defects ("packing fractions") had been known since the early 30's. Do you dispute that? Can you explain, in your own words, how the awareness of atomic weights and mass defects evolved in the early decades of the 20th century?
::"analysis of the experiment does in fact verify the equation."
Do you dispute that? Did you read AugustO's explanation? Have you looked at a table of atomic weights?
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:41, 14 June 2015 (EDT)