Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
By assuming that Relativity is true and that energy is conserved, the formula itself is assumed also.
Line 9: Line 9:  
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.
 
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.
+
Proponents of the formula rarely state their assumptions clearly.  In fact, they assume what they purport to prove:  that Relativity can make sense only if energy is somehow directly related to mass based on the speed of light.  By assuming that Relativity is true and that energy is conserved, the formula itself is assumed also.
 +
 
 +
Many of the "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.
    
== Example of circularity in "proofs" ==
 
== Example of circularity in "proofs" ==
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,565

edits

Navigation menu