Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
14,697
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 93:
Line 93: + + − + + + +
Talk:Logical Flaws in E=mc² (view source)
Revision as of 01:19, June 25, 2015
, 01:19, June 25, 2015→Conspiracy Theory: answer to AugustO
::*''"That should tell you that this supposed law is probably unconfirmable given the limitations of our observations, "'' Every experiment we perform, every observation we make is limited by the accuracy of measurement. No reason to discard with physics!
::*''"That should tell you that this supposed law is probably unconfirmable given the limitations of our observations, "'' Every experiment we perform, every observation we make is limited by the accuracy of measurement. No reason to discard with physics!
::: Well, Augusto, then you agree with Andy. The mathematical "language" seems wrong.
::*''"but especially so for the limited observations of the experiment you are describing."'' To a certain extant, this experiment provides us with one data point - an observation consistent with E=mc². I'll gladly hear another explanation for the outcome of the experiment - this explanation can then be tested with other experiments (and there are many others out there...)
::*''"but especially so for the limited observations of the experiment you are describing."'' To a certain extant, this experiment provides us with one data point - an observation consistent with E=mc². I'll gladly hear another explanation for the outcome of the experiment - this explanation can then be tested with other experiments (and there are many others out there...)
::: You seem to have a better grasp of the scientific language. I saw the slide presentation on your web page which showed an even closer precision in a different experiment. What would be a good way to compare the mass of the major particles of that experiment to the mass of the precision error? (I think it's mentioned in percentages so it might take some work). Is the precision error a big mass or a small mass?
::*''"This may be an example of bias on your part toward this particular experiment."'' I chose this experiment as it was discussed with Andrew Schlafly before (I think, he even was the one to bring it up in the first place). Therefore, I hoped this would reduce the effort to answer my questions.
::*''"This may be an example of bias on your part toward this particular experiment."'' I chose this experiment as it was discussed with Andrew Schlafly before (I think, he even was the one to bring it up in the first place). Therefore, I hoped this would reduce the effort to answer my questions.
::*''"You also haven't bothered to address the logical flaws of E=mc2 that are actually presented by Andy in this article."'' As I stated above: I will address them the moment Andrew Schlafly has answered the [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]].
:::Okay, but you were committed to the "language" of the experiment because you found it appealing too. Does this kind of "abbreviation" tend to distort your thinking about it? Andy seems to think so.
::*''"You also haven't bothered to address the logical flaws of E=mc2 that are actually presented by Andy in this article."'' As I stated above: I will address them the moment Andrew Schlafly has answered the [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]].
:::Let me give you hint about measurements: every measurement has a precision. It's not a very nice fact because what it means is that every measurement has a ''second'' number that you have to do math with. Just when you thought you knew how to solve a long math problem, it turns out you have twice as much math to do! Then there are ''probabilities'' of the ''precision''. Three times as much math!
:::Fortunately, the one advantage is that they can be fairly easy to think about even if very difficult to describe precisely. Let's say you have a cube where the length is 99% accurate, the height is 99% accurate and the width is 99% accurate. What is the accuracy of the volume of the cube if all the inaccuracies are inaccuracies of smallness? You might think it's 99% since all the accuracies match. But what you do is multiply them through .9900000 x .9900000 x .9900000 = .970299..., and you get only about 97.03% accurate for the volume. You might want to learn more about the accuracies of your measurements and how big of a mass the total inaccuracy is to see the size of the mass that might be "missing" from the equation. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:19, 24 June 2015 (EDT)
::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:31, 24 June 2015 (EDT)
::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:31, 24 June 2015 (EDT)