Changes

:::::::::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.

:::::::::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.

:::::::::To deny the correctness of the Cockcroft-Walton experiment is to deny a great many straightforward 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.

:::::::::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.