Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
798 bytes added ,  22:02, April 8, 2012
This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics
Line 449: Line 449:  
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless,  E=mc² could be observed.
 
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless,  E=mc² could be observed.
 
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
 
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
===Answer to the above===
 +
 +
Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-speech.html], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951.  I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc<sup>2</sup>.
 +
 +
One comment above suggests that E=me<sup>2</sup> was accepted long before 1932.  Based on what, mere politics?  This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932.  Folks, E=mc<sup>2</sup> seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,482

edits

Navigation menu