SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,666:
Line 1,666: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Unified theory?: Long reply.
Sam, I just noticed your recent edit and it reminded me that I've wanted to get back to you about [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] issues. Promoters of the theory feel it unifies mass and energy (E=mc<sup>2</sup>), yet many expensive attempts for a century have failed to unify mass and energy. Would you agree that mass and energy probably cannot be unified by a theory? Happy New Year's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:31, December 31, 2021 (EST)
Sam, I just noticed your recent edit and it reminded me that I've wanted to get back to you about [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] issues. Promoters of the theory feel it unifies mass and energy (E=mc<sup>2</sup>), yet many expensive attempts for a century have failed to unify mass and energy. Would you agree that mass and energy probably cannot be unified by a theory? Happy New Year's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:31, December 31, 2021 (EST)
:I must say I'm absolutely astonished at what you seem to be trying to say here. As though there's a huge and profound disconnect between the way you use the words "mass", "matter", and "unify", and the way virtually everyone else uses those words.
:The "unificaton" of matter and energy can be said to have begun with the invention of mass spectrometry around 1920, showing a mass change with radioactive energy release. (This was, of course, the famous formula E=mc².) This connection has since been developed in sophisticated and profound ways, with perhaps the best "unification", without going overboard with quantum mechanics, being the "Stress-energy tensor" of Relativity. This is the <math>T_{\mu\nu}</math> in the Einstein field equation <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}</math>. It gives rise to gravity. It is indifferent to whether it represents matter or energy—they both create gravity. They are "unified" in every sense of the word, as scientifically literate people interpret these terms.
:So I am utterly baffled at your suggestion that "many expensive attempts for a century have failed" to find this unification. What attempts? When? What was the experimental equipment? Experimental protocol?
:The only statements I've seen to the effect that they can't be "unified" is in articles here at Conservapedia. Such as [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=edit§ion=62 this statement in the "Biblical scientific foreknowledge"] article, which says, without supporting reference, that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by scientists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of theoretical unification with matter." Admittedly, a "grand unified theory" is taken by the scientific community to be something beyond simple unification of matter and energy, but the BSF article specifically discounts the possibility, on Biblical grounds, of a unification of light and matter.
:I utterly reject the notion that scientific advances can be discounted in advance on Biblical grounds. And my reading of various Fundamentalist articles does not find any such assertions regarding light and matter having been created on different days. As far as I know, Conservapedia is the only place that promotes this notion. Though my reading of Fundamentalist literature has admittedly been spare, limited primarily to the notion that the speed of light has changed significantly, or that there is some kind of "time dilation field" explaining the enormous disconnect between Creationist theory and the scientific community.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:35, January 2, 2022 (EST)
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}