SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 117:
Line 117: + +
→PBS's absurd statement
:In response to SamHB, I appreciate your thoughtful remarks, but I didn't put the PBS quotation in the entry. Someone else did (I'm not bothering to check who, and don't want to criticize anyone for it). Other quotations may be better, but it is important first to clearly state what the assumptions are underlying the formula. Does it work backwards by trying to conserve energy within the framework of the Theory of Relativity? If so, then the formula derivation really is circular, and the mass is not really a meaningful rest mass. Instead, the mass is something manipulated to try to conserve energy from different frames of reference.
:In response to SamHB, I appreciate your thoughtful remarks, but I didn't put the PBS quotation in the entry. Someone else did (I'm not bothering to check who, and don't want to criticize anyone for it). Other quotations may be better, but it is important first to clearly state what the assumptions are underlying the formula. Does it work backwards by trying to conserve energy within the framework of the Theory of Relativity? If so, then the formula derivation really is circular, and the mass is not really a meaningful rest mass. Instead, the mass is something manipulated to try to conserve energy from different frames of reference.
::I really think it's better to have a synopsis of the "pop-sci" garbage, and a debunking thereof, '''first''', an exposition of what the formula means, its assumptions (they're really simple) '''second''', and how we know it is true '''third'''. I know this is, on the face of it, a distasteful order, but the "pop-sci" stuff has so overwhelmed the public's consciousness that we need to address that first. People will be attracted to the article because the equation is so famous, not because they really want to measure isotopic weights. Technical details at the beginning will turn them off, and they will never get to the debunking that's really important. So, if it's OK with you, I'm going to clean up the "pop-sci" stuff first, and leave it at the front. OK? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:12, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
:In response to AugustO, I don't doubt that some experiments may by chance have results consistent with E=mc2, just as a broken clock occasionally has the right time of day. The challenge is to demonstrate the formula across a diversity of experiments and circumstances, which of course has not been successfully done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (EDT)
:In response to AugustO, I don't doubt that some experiments may by chance have results consistent with E=mc2, just as a broken clock occasionally has the right time of day. The challenge is to demonstrate the formula across a diversity of experiments and circumstances, which of course has not been successfully done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (EDT)