Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 152:
Line 152: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton: new section
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)
== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton ==
I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:
'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (<sup>7</sup>Li), of alpha-particles (<sup>4</sup>He) and of protons (<sup>1</sup>H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?
'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockroft and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|<sup>1</sup>H||1.0072 amu
|-
|<sup>4</sup>He||4.0011 amu
|-
|<sup>7</sup>Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?
'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?
'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?
'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?
'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?
'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?
'''8.''' Can you tell me were the mass went? Can you tell me were the energy came from?
'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!
As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.
Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)