SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 196:
Line 196: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Logical Flaws in E=mc² (view source)
Revision as of 05:21, February 23, 2016
, 05:21, February 23, 2016Replies. VM, please stop pestering me.
::::No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I don't know what the consequences of a change in ''c'' would be. Relativity doesn't address that possibility. Nor do I know what the consequences of an increase in the atomic weight of Iron would be, but presumably Newton's law of motion, ''F=ma'' would have to adapt, so that it would take more force to get a given amount of acceleration of a given piece of Iron. I don't know what the consequences of that would be for the universe as a whole. But I doubt that it would overthrow ''F=ma''. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:06, 21 February 2016 (EST)
::::No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I don't know what the consequences of a change in ''c'' would be. Relativity doesn't address that possibility. Nor do I know what the consequences of an increase in the atomic weight of Iron would be, but presumably Newton's law of motion, ''F=ma'' would have to adapt, so that it would take more force to get a given amount of acceleration of a given piece of Iron. I don't know what the consequences of that would be for the universe as a whole. But I doubt that it would overthrow ''F=ma''. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:06, 21 February 2016 (EST)
:::::What more evidence do we need of Sam having relativity on the brain? To him, not only is E=mc<sup>2</sup> an equation, he actually thinks it's a ''definition''. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 20:27, 22 February 2016 (EST)
:::::What more evidence do we need of Sam having relativity on the brain? To him, not only is E=mc<sup>2</sup> an equation, he actually thinks it's a ''definition''. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 20:27, 22 February 2016 (EST)
::::::Huh? When did I say it's a definition? Definition of what? Definition of energy? Definition of mass? Definition of the speed of light? Definition of 2? Definition of the exponentiation operation?
::::::Whenever I get into a controversy with someone, you seem to come along and throw meaningless statements and claims at me. Particularly in the field of relativity, you seem to be totally out of your depth. I would suggest that you (a) read some books about relativity to become well versed in the subject, and (b) go to the relativity category here at Conservapedia and read the articles contained therein. Study carefully what the issues are among Andy, AugustO, and myself. (As well as Kate Sorenson and a number of other people.)
::::::Andy at least has a reasonably good grasp of the issues. Not good enough, but reasonably good. For example, he knows what it means to draw the distinction between the Nobel announcement for the CockCroft-Walton experiment specifically citing its confirmation of E=mc<sup>2</sup>, or not citing it. And AugustO or I (I don't remember who) fixed the page because of that. And he has something of a grasp of what it would mean, if a fundamental constant of physics were to change, for the various equations in which that constant appears. But you don't seem to "get it" at all, so you just throw around foolishness about having "relativity on the brain", or losing my mind, or "pseudoscience that leavens science" or "enthronement catalytical of the growth of liberal dogma". I recommend that if, after reading the articles in the relativity category, you still don't understand what's going on, you should ask Andy to help you. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:21, 23 February 2016 (EST)
:::::In response to SamHB, it is not a scientific rebuttal to say that other equations might also break as ''c'' changes speed. Maybe other equations are flawed too, or maybe they aren't. E=mc<sup>2</sup> obviously does break as ''c'' changes speed, and thus cannot be true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:13, 22 February 2016 (EST)
:::::In response to SamHB, it is not a scientific rebuttal to say that other equations might also break as ''c'' changes speed. Maybe other equations are flawed too, or maybe they aren't. E=mc<sup>2</sup> obviously does break as ''c'' changes speed, and thus cannot be true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:13, 22 February 2016 (EST)
::::::Well, I guess you seem to be saying that equations of physics break when fundamental constants change. Would this include the de Broglie formula <math>p = E/c\,</math>? Or the equation of appearing in electromagnetism <math>c^2 = \epsilon\mu\,</math>? If the speed of light were to change, would existing de Broglie "matter waves" have their momentum change? Would the constant <math>\epsilon\,</math>, or <math>\mu\,</math>, change? For E=mc<sup>2</sup>, if the speed of light were to double, would the potential energy in an object quadruple? Or, alternatively, would the mass attributable to that energy be divided by 4? Or would the equation have to be replaced with E=mc<sup>2</sup>/4? If the latter, having E become mc<sup>2</sup>/4 instead of mc<sup>2</sup>, that would indeed be a failure of E=mc<sup>2</sup>. Is that what you are suggesting? That is, are you admitting that E=mc<sup>2</sup> now, but would have to change to something else, leaving E and m the same, for a change in c? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:21, 23 February 2016 (EST)