Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
14,697
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 86:
Line 86: − + + +
Talk:Logical Flaws in E=mc² (view source)
Revision as of 19:14, June 22, 2015
, 19:14, June 22, 2015→Conspiracy Theory: not necessarily a conspiracy
|[[User:VargasMilan]]:||style="background:pink"|You are equivocating; the experiment only demonstrates a rough equality up to the precision of the measurements of the participating physical quantities.
|[[User:VargasMilan]]:||style="background:pink"|You are equivocating; the experiment only demonstrates a rough equality up to the precision of the measurements of the participating physical quantities.
|}
|}
And that is the best you can hope for in ''any'' experiment!
And that is the best you can hope for in ''any'' experiment!
:That should tell you that this supposed law is probably unconfirmable given the limitations of our observations, but especially so for the limited observations of the experiment you are describing. This may be an example of bias on your part toward this particular experiment. It doesn't have to mean that you are part of a conspiracy. You also haven't bothered to address the logical flaws of E=mc<sup>2</sup> that are actually presented by Andy in this article. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 15:14, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
Frankly, Andy, I hope you do better when you are at last answering [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton|a few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]]! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 18 June 2015 (EDT)
Frankly, Andy, I hope you do better when you are at last answering [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton|a few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]]! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 18 June 2015 (EDT)