Changes

::::::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=mc², 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)

::::::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=mc², 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=mc² 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=mc² 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=mc², 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=mc²/4?  If the latter, having E become mc²/4 instead of mc², that would indeed be a failure of E=mc².  Is that what you are suggesting?  That is, are you admitting that E=mc² 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)

::::::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=mc², 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=mc²/4?  If the latter, having E become mc²/4 instead of mc², that would indeed be a failure of E=mc².  Is that what you are suggesting?  That is, are you admitting that E=mc² 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)