| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| | Gravitational [[Mass]] is a measure of an object's attractive force to other objects, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]]. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. | | Gravitational [[Mass]] is a measure of an object's attractive force to other objects, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]]. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. |
| | | | |
| − | For more than a century, the claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the [[lamestream media]]. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s, and in the study of [[antimatter]].<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc²." October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | + | For more than a century, the claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the [[lamestream media]]. There have been attempts to find some justification for the equation in already understood processes involved in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s, and in the speculation about [[antimatter]].<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc²." October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> |
| | | | |
| | The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref> | | The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | One aspect of the formula is that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincare]] in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref>
| + | It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincare]] in 1904,<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref> but the equation '''E=mc²''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance: |
| | | | |
| | {{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||Herbert Ives, 1952}} | | {{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||Herbert Ives, 1952}} |