SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Logical Flaws in E=mc² (view source)
Revision as of 05:41, June 18, 2015
, 05:41, June 18, 2015It's really hard to understand your position on this.
::::::::::::Too bad you can't explain what you think that means—you violated the 90/10 contribution/talk ratio rule. If you had only made a contribution to the articles.... [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 18:01, 16 June 2015 (EDT)
::::::::::::Too bad you can't explain what you think that means—you violated the 90/10 contribution/talk ratio rule. If you had only made a contribution to the articles.... [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 18:01, 16 June 2015 (EDT)
:::::::::Andy, it's getting really hard to make sense of your position on the Cockcroft-Walton experiment.
:::::::::The Cockcroft-Walton experiment, like all of the famous experiments (Michelson-Morley, Geiger-Marsden, Davisson-Germer, etc.) has been replicated, many times, all over the world. It is simply not believable that this experiment was fraudulent and that everyone involved has been engaged in a huge coverup for 80 years.
:::::::::Furthermore, the Cockcroft-Walton experiment is just one of a great many experiments and observations that confirm E=mc^2. It just happens to be the one that AugustO selected.
:::::::::To deny the correctness of the Cockcroft-Walton experiment is to deny a great many straightfoward and well-known facts, the ones that AugustO put in the questions that he posed on the E=mc^2 talk page several months ago. The answers to all of the questions are obvious, and yet you appear to be denying them. For example, the atomic masses of Lithium, Hydrogen, and Helium, are well known. They are on periodic table charts hanging in science classrooms all over the world, and in the periodic table template here at Conservapedia. Some of the questions are simple arithmetic. Question 7 involved a measurement that was cited in Cockcroft and Walton's paper, and that all scientists have agreed on for 80 years. To suggest that that measurement was fraudulent because you were not present, or because the scientific community can pick whatever particle energy they want and then fudge the experiment to get that result, is ludicrous.
:::::::::I have avoided mention of possible changes in the speed of light because that is a red herring. There is no evidence of any perceptible change in recent history. Even if the speed of light were to change by, say, 1 part per billion within the time span of the experiment, c^2 would change by 2 parts per billion, so either E or m (or both) would change by that amount. That is much smaller than the tolerances of the experiment. The best measurement that we currently have of E=mc^2 appears to be about 2 parts per 10 million, so that would not be affected.
:::::::::By the way, the link that you gave, [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/press.html], and claimed not to have recognized the Cockcroft-Walton experiment for being consistent with E=mc^2, does in fact recognize exactly that, in the 11th paragraph: "a verification was provided by this analysis for Einstein's law concerning the equivalence of mass and energy".
:::::::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:41, 18 June 2015 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy, let's talk first about ''what is'' (ie.e, the experiment), and then about ''what if''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:18, 16 June 2015 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy, let's talk first about ''what is'' (ie.e, the experiment), and then about ''what if''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:18, 16 June 2015 (EDT)