Jump to: navigation, search


5,192 bytes added, 07:28, 31 March 2012
/* Protection of the Article */
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc<sup>2</sup> is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''<sup>2</sup> in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x10<sup>17</sup> ft lb to 1.4564x10<sup>17</sup> ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::The formula '''E=mc<sup>2</sup>''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 6.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''<sup>2</sup> is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
== Bare links ==
I noticed that [ this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)