Changes

'''Attempts to prove E=mc²''' are futile because there is no mass-energy equivalence.  But that has not stopped people, including [[liberals]] who avoid the [[Bible]], from insisting that they have cleverly developed a "proof" of E=mc², and thereby established a mass-energy equivalence which, in fact, does not exist.

'''Attempts to prove E=mc²''' are futile because there is no mass-energy equivalence.  But that has not stopped people, including [[liberals]] who avoid the [[Bible]], from insisting that they have cleverly developed a "proof" of E=mc², and thereby established a mass-energy equivalence which, in fact, does not exist.

Many of these "proofs" are either circular in logic, or assume unproven (and often implausible) premises. A common defect to these "proofs" is an unjustified assumption that the energy and momentum of a physical system have a dependence on velocity akin to a moving participle.

 

Many of these "proofs" are either circular in logic, or assume unproven (and often implausible) premises.  

 

The typical defect in these proofs is an unstated premise that the [[Theory of Relativity]] must be consistent with the conservation of energy, and then implicitly redefine mass as a function of energy so that energy is then conserved under Relativity.

Many of these "proofs" use contrived thought experiments to try to bootstrap the kinetic energy of a moving particle into an assertion about the energy of a resting mass.  Aside from changes in potential energy, there is no direct connection between the kinetic energy of a moving mass and its rest energy.

Many of these "proofs" use contrived thought experiments to try to bootstrap the kinetic energy of a moving particle into an assertion about the energy of a resting mass.  Aside from changes in potential energy, there is no direct connection between the kinetic energy of a moving mass and its rest energy.