Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: − + − +
fmt ref
[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the force 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]].
[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the force 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]]. 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>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc²."] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref> The energy released in matter/antimatter annihilations corresponds to E=mc<sup>2</sup>; for example the annihilation of an electron and a positron (each with rest energy of 0.511 mega electron volts according to E=mc<sup>2</sup>) results in the release of two [[gamma ray]] [[photon]]s, which each have energy 0.511 mega electron volts.<ref>[http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Antimatter.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory] ''The ABC of Nuclear Science''</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>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Tyson, Peter ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref> The energy released in matter/antimatter annihilations corresponds to E=mc<sup>2</sup>; for example the annihilation of an electron and a positron (each with rest energy of 0.511 mega electron volts according to E=mc<sup>2</sup>) results in the release of two [[gamma ray]] [[photon]]s, which each have energy 0.511 mega electron volts.<ref>[http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Antimatter.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory] ''The ABC of Nuclear Science''</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 Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E<sub>0</sub>=mc²''], American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)</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 Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E<sub>0</sub>=mc²''], American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)</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 Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation], Herbert E. Ives, JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)</ref> but the equation '''E=mc²''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:
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 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation''], JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)</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}}