Talk:Attempts to prove E=mc²

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Andy, while reading this "article", I could feel my braincells dying. --AugustO (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

Conservation of energy

The argument in some "proofs" is that although overall energy, kinetic plus potential, is conserved, the potential energy can manifest itself as an increase in the resting mass

Especially as you are giving a fission fusion example, you should know that kinetic plus potential, is generally not conserved. --AugustO (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

Potential Energy

the potential energy can manifest itself as an increase in the resting mass

Please elaborate - perhaps by giving an example. --AugustO (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

From SamHB

Hang in there, AugustO! We need those braincells.

Seriously, this article is way below the standards of scientific lucidity that I have come to expect. I thought for about one minute about how I would write a "rebuttal" page, the way I have done elsewhere, and realized that it can't be done. I simply can't understand what the article is trying to say, in any of its statements.

The references to "overall energy", "bootstrap the kinetic energy", and "resting mass" simply make no sense. One can cut through all that by simply noting that four Hydrogen atoms can fuse into one Helium atom, releasing energy. (Don't believe it? Go outside during the day and look up.) The Helium atom weighs less than the four Hydrogen atoms. No amount of writing about circularity in proofs can get around that fact.

Taking one specific example:

"It is common for atheists to claim that E=mc² is proven by what are, in fact, ordinary chemical reactions that emit energy." Aside from the fact that it has nothing to do with atheism, scientists do accept that it applies to chemical reactions as well, but they don't use chemical reactions to "prove" the formula, any more than people would try to "prove" Quantum Mechanics and Schrödinger's equation by watching a tennis game. The effects of Quantum Mechanics are believed to apply to tennis balls, though no conceivable experiment could verify that. One needs to do experiments in the atomic domain, such as looking at atomic spectra, to deduce Schrödinger's equation, and that is in fact how the equation was worked out. So people can conclude, from E=mc², that a freash flashlight battery weighs about a picogram more than a spent one, even though it would not be possible to measure that. So, no, no one claims that the equation is proven by chemical reactions, and to somehow work that into this article, as evidence that proofs are flawed, makes no sense.

SamHB (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

Thank you for your work! --AugustO (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

False claims section

The false experiments section should be removed. The fusion example given does demonstrate the formula as mass is lost. No mass appears to be lost in chemical reactions due to the small amount of energy they might release.

In fact, the formula relating the rest mass of a particle can be derived without Einsteinian relativity. [1]

Also it should be cited which experiments agree and disagree with the formula. For example [2] agrees with relativity.

The only thing I found that disagreed (only a quick Google search as above) was this [3]. However as this is the same person who invented the papimi device which seems to be a scam and hence questions as to whether his claim about the equation is reliable[4]. Furthermore, in the fourth mathematical 'proof' he the first Pythagorean equation

is incorrect since that is is not related to the momentum of the body. Although I have not found fault with the other (only looked at first three) I spotted this in a matter of seconds. Given that he claims to be a professor and is offering 100,000 euros (or two of his papimi devices) if anyone falsifies his proofs, this is highly dubious.

I have not got time to look at the other 'proof' (including experimental) but shall do shortly. Richardm (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2016 (EDT)

Well, as you can see, I recently attempted to fix that section, and got reverted. There are thousands of articles explaining why relativity is true; there's really no need for you to search for them. And crackpot articles denying relativity can also be found. The one you cite is typical. Panos Pappas's other claims indicate that he is quite, uhhh, interesting.
I have been trying for years to make Conservapedia not be a source of crackpot relativity denial. I (and AugustO, and you, and many others from the past) have made good progress, but, as you can see, we're not there yet. SamHB (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2016 (EDT)