SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 125:
Line 125: + + + + + +
→C is a constant, right?
Ok, I'm getting dizzy reading through all the attacks on this page. I'll ignore all them for now, and just say that as I understand it, <strike>"c" stands for constant, not the speed of light.</strike> I'm no scientist, so I will not try continue offering suggestions. I'll leave it at this: I don't know if the idea behind it is true, and I don't even know what the formula means. However, I believe it refers the energy contained in matter, since certain matter/energy conversions are possible. Can we try to refine this a bit to state what it is/is not, then state why some might not agree? It's up to all you who have made this page, but it seems to be one thing that everyone uses against CP, and from my limited understanding of the topic, I think I just might see why. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:26, 9 February 2016 (EST)<br />
Ok, I'm getting dizzy reading through all the attacks on this page. I'll ignore all them for now, and just say that as I understand it, <strike>"c" stands for constant, not the speed of light.</strike> I'm no scientist, so I will not try continue offering suggestions. I'll leave it at this: I don't know if the idea behind it is true, and I don't even know what the formula means. However, I believe it refers the energy contained in matter, since certain matter/energy conversions are possible. Can we try to refine this a bit to state what it is/is not, then state why some might not agree? It's up to all you who have made this page, but it seems to be one thing that everyone uses against CP, and from my limited understanding of the topic, I think I just might see why. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:26, 9 February 2016 (EST)<br />
''EDIT: Okay, my mistake, "c" is the speed of light. Still, though, this is a theory of the energy contained in matter. You burn wood, you get energy. Perhpas this is an accurate represntaion, maybe not, but at least it's not as bad off as I thought.''--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:38, 9 February 2016 (EST)
''EDIT: Okay, my mistake, "c" is the speed of light. Still, though, this is a theory of the energy contained in matter. You burn wood, you get energy. Perhpas this is an accurate represntaion, maybe not, but at least it's not as bad off as I thought.''--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:38, 9 February 2016 (EST)
:Can you be more specific about "all the attacks on this page" and "one thing that everyone uses against CP"? I'm not denying those attacks, but are you referring to all the attacks, from the outside world, against CP's pages on relativity (which you can get quite a lot of by Googling "Conservapedia+relativity")? Or are you referring to all the attacks on relativity by pages here at CP (such as the "liberal claptrap" reference)? Or are you referring to the apparent opposition between the part of this article above the table of contents and the part below?
:AugustO and I wrote essentially all of the material below the table of contents. We put a huge amount of meticulous work into it. I believe it adequately explains things in terms that non-experts can mostly understand. We try to stay away from the kinds of imprecise statements about "energy contained in matter" that one finds elsewhere. Thinking in terms of "this is a theory of the energy contained in matter" is not a clear way of thinking about the equation. Do you find the presentation confusing? Or perhaps you find other articles confusing? Or you find contradictions among the various articles on the subject confusing? I want to make this article give a satisfactory explanation. Please let me know how I can improve it.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:45, 9 February 2016 (EST)