Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:E=mc²

2013-03-11T15:39:45Z

Gryfin: /* Reply from Gryfin to AugustO in regard to “another kind of nonsense” */

<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</big></big></big>

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockcroft¹ claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockcroft's¹ lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

(1) : spelling of ''Cockcroft corrected [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:22, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== A little clarification? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I'm trying to understand your assertion that the "energy" of an object is a function of "electrostatics." I wonder if you can explain a little more about this.

For example, how is energy derived from electrostatic charge? Can you show the equation for doing this?

Are you basing this on the common practice of expressing energy in electron-volts?

Do neutral particles such as neutrons or uncharged atoms have energy, even though they have no charge?
[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 21:54, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.

:Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

::Unfortunately this doesn't really answer any of my questions. Yes, an electric field can apply a force. But the "strength" of an electric field is actually the same as a gravitational field: both decrease inversely as the square of the radius. The difference is that the strength of an electric field increases much more rapidly in proportion to charge than gravity does in proportion to mass.

::Also, electric fields exert a force only on charged particles, which why I asked how we can calculate the energy of uncharged particles such as neutrons. Do they even have energy in the sense that you mean it?

::And finally, I would still like to see the equations used to calculate the energy of a particle based on electrostatic charge. How much energy does an electron have? Is it the same as the energy of a proton (the charge is equal but opposite, but the mass is greater)?[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 15:05, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

:: Why is it preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared, but not preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their '''''kinetic''''' energy has thereby increased in proportion to their speed squared? [[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:53, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

== "E=mc2 does expressly purport to relate all matter to light" ==

Mr. Schlafly, could you please explain this statement? It appears that this is a misunderstanding of the relationship of the mass-energy equivalence embodied by the equation <math>E=mc^2</math>. If a math student were to lambast the formula for the surface area of a sphere (<math>A = 4\pi r^2</math>) as relating roundness to the number 4 or spheres to squares, they would rightly be criticized for this obvious misunderstanding of a mathematical formula. I think your misunderstanding of what <math>E=mc^2</math> means is similar. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 19:00, 11 November 2012 (EST)

:The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to <math>\pi</math>. But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)
::Is your concern that the constant "c" happens to be the speed of light? Or do you dispute the concept of relativistic mass, where
::<math>m_{\mathrm{rel}} = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\,\, ? </math> Are you saying that the speed of light does not belong in either equation, and that the "c" should be something else? There are a number of equations in Einstein's Special Theory besides E=mc2 and they hold together as far as they go. Everyone agrees that a general theory of relativity has not been developed, but the ideas of mass energy equivalence and relativistic mass fit the data. The designers of nuclear reactors and satellite systems use these equations with success. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:47, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
::::With all due respect, relativity was factored into the design of the GPS satellite system. If you want to calculate the energy release of an atomic bomb, E=mc2 is very useful. We don't know with great precision the speed of light, and we don't know with great precision the value of "c". But God gave us brains and curiosity, so we will learn more precise values for both. So far, they match. If someday in the future, someone calculates "c" and measures the speed of light to more decimal places and discovers that they are different, I will have an open mind as to why. The constant "c" carries through consistently in Einstein's calculations for the Special Theory. The coincidence that "c" happens to equal the speed of light is one of the beautiful things about God's universe. Although I do not spend my life's work on theoretical physics, I am pleased that God has inspired some very smart people to devote their lives to thinking about relativity, and I wish them success and happiness. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::::Relativity was not factored into the GPS design, and E=mc2 has never been useful in any other way.

:::::We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::::::If relativity isn't factored into the GPS design, why does the "[http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/1995-SPS-signal-specification.pdf GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM STANDARD POSITIONING SERVICE SIGNAL SPECIFICATION]" (and you can't get more official than ''that'') state that they have to compensate for relativistic effects? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:30, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Andy, why don't you answer August's question? What happens to that lost mass? And how do you explain E=mc 2 accounting for it exactly? The truth is that you live in a dream world. Your "insights" may sound like a nice way to view the world but when faced with a REAL counterexample and asked to back up your assertions you always just hide your head in the sand and fail to respond. Or use your classic 2+2=4 argument. Lol.--[[User:DamonRoss|DamonRoss]] 12:23, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::::The equation does not define rest mass in terms of the speed of light. The equation defines relativistic mass in terms of the speed of light. If the equation were to define rest mass in terms of the speed of light it would have rest mass on the opposite side of the equation to the speed of light. Is your objection down to a fundamental flaw in your understanding of how equations work? [[User:VictorA|VictorA]] 08:03, 14 November 2012 (EST)

== Still waiting for an answer.... ==

In March 2012 I asked this question:
:'' Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass? ''
I'm still waiting for an answer! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:55, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

:But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::Of course not. A clock that goes backwards is correct 4 times a day. No-one would suggest that that makes it even better.--[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 21:52, 30 January 2013 (EST)

::Do you say that the size of the diminution of mass just ''"happens"'' to coincide with the observed energy calculated via E=mc²?
::But how can there be a loss of mass? If you don't think that the energy-mass-equivalence is valid, what's about conservation of mass?
::Your "answer" is as good as a link to a video of fluffy kittens - or some proverb written in Chinese. In short, it is no answer at all, as '''you don't explain the diminution of mass.'''
::''"It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. "'' That's just not true, I'm afraid.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 13 November 2012 (EST)
:::I know a number of physicists who are good conservatives and good Christians. They take their children to Sunday school. They don't like seeing government wasting money. And they believe in Einstein's theory of special relativity. At one time, the Roman Catholic Church taught that the Earth was the center of the solar system rather than the Sun. I personally believe that the Church's view on that subject did not have a reliable source in the Bible. I understand how the Book of Genesis has been viewed as being in tension with Darwin's theory of evolution, but I don't see special relativity having the same tension with the Bible.
:::The question is whether the contradiction between the Bible and the equation E=mc2 is so direct and widely acknowledged that CP's users should receive an article that disparages the equation? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:32, 14 November 2012 (EST)
==Problematic edit==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1018287&oldid=1018232 This edit] is a bit vexing and does not reflect the consensus reached on the talk page. I understand the criticism directed toward the General Theory of Relativity, but for the reasons stated further down the article, E=mc2 does fit the experimental data. Based on everything that I have read, it is consistent with the Bible. I do not want to get into the middle of a pre-existing emotional dispute, but I thought that I had come up with language that fit both sides. CP is short on editorial manpower, and all of our time is very valuable. I am disappointed on how this was handled. Many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:46, 15 November 2012 (EST)
: Perhaps we could separate the experimental results from the general validity of E=mc2. I was thinking of something like:
:''Some experimental results appear to show that when a small amount of mass is lost in a nuclear reaction there is an accompanying release of energy (approx x eV per amu of mass lost).''
:Sorry I can't calculate x, but it can be just a number without any c, light speed etc 
:''The conversion factor (x) is indeed close to the square of the speed of light if appropriate units are used. However:''
*:''The experiement has been done with only a limited number of nuclear reactions and in specific environments. This does not prove that this will occur for every nuclear reaction in every environment, and cannot possibly prove that E=mc2 is always true''
:I'm assuming here that we accept the experiemental results as far as they go. If not, even better - we can link to some evidence that they are flawed
*:''The experimental results do not prove that the conversion factor (x) is '''exactly''' the square of the speed of light. More accurate measurements may show that it is different'' 
*:''No one has a convincing explanation of '''why''' E might possibly equal mc2. The most likely explanation is that the Creator designed it this way for some reason that we don't understand.''
:Would something like that help clarify the true position?
:[[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 15:47, 8 January 2013 (EST)

::No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)

:::*''No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred.'' That's just a ''non sequitur''
:::*''There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula.'' Why should there by? It works!
:::*''It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.'' No, it's not - that's just wishful thinking of you part. Even undergraduates can perform experiments which show relativistic effects - see [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory]
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Actually, it gets demonstrated in practice about 3x1010 times for every watt-second of power generated by a nuclear power plant. Aside from observation, the theoretical question of ''why'' it should be true (and why the proportionality constant must be c2) was logically deduced, by Poincare, Einstein, and perhaps others (Roger Schlafly would be an expert on this point), before it was ever observed. The last paragraph of Einstein's 1905 paper, after deducing it theoretically, speculated that it might actually be observed in Radium decay. It was, and the rest is history.

Clear expositions of why it must be true on theoretical grounds are not always easy to come by. I like to think that the page I wrote on another wiki gives a clear and concise proof. Anyone interested in my making it available here? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:06, 8 January 2013 (EST)

I know that Albert Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, and that no prizes were awarded during World War II. But didn't E=mc2 show up a lot in the work of [[Hans Bethe]] on nuclear reactions and energy production in stars (1967 prize). Hans Bethe lead the theoretical team at Los Alamos which designed the bombs dropped on Japan and certainly used the relationship on a day to day basis. So, I don't believe it is correct to say that "No Nobel Prize has been given for this implausible formula." I think that so many Nobel Prize winning discoveries in high energy physics depend on E=mc2 or further confirm the relationship that it would be hard to argue that the Nobel committee has been boycotting E=mc2 as pseudoscience. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:46, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:@SamHB: Having performed such an experiment for yourself is much more impressive than just thinking about actions in nuclear power plants or stars far away. Such an experiment [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|inoculate]]s you against arguments which are b|ased on wishful thinking alone.
:@Wschact: the formula E=mc² is virtually omnipresent: I've shown [[#Aschlafly, could you give us... |above]] that Cockcroft used the formula in his Nobel-lecture. Aschlafly tends to ignore such information.
:@Aschlafly: What do you think of the experiment for undergraduates ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory])? Have thousands of students falsified their results to fit the current "dogma"? Do you have another theory which makes predictions that are different from those of Einstein's theory, but which is consistent with this experiment? And could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? The energy involved is to much for a chemical reaction...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:34, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::Broken clocks are precisely correct twice a day too. One or two bizarre experiments in more than a century of trying to prove the formula as a general proposition are hardly persuasive. The [[Nobel Prize]] committee wants to recognize the formula has being demonstrated, but can't. There is no logical support for the formula, as peer reviewed articles have virtually admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::The experiment for the undergraduates is hardly bizarre - what results would you expect? If you don't get the results as described, this means that '''your clock''' is broken, while the clock which most of us use is correct uncountable times a day. And please, could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? This is another non-bizarre and often repeated experiment... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:25, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::[Sorry, I think I put this in the wrong place originally]. It's certainly a strange-looking formula. When refuting it should I be saying that mass is not actually being converted to energy in these reactions (i.e. the experiments are flawed and either mass is not being lost or the energy comes from somewhere else or something)? Or is it that mass is indeed being converted to energy but E=mc2 is not a correct/meaningful/useful way to describe it? [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 15:06, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::Thank you Peterw. Clearly, energy is converted from matter. Just consider the energy source of hydrogen bombs and the Sun. Does anyone object to reverting the edit cited at the top of this section? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:04, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::::Mass is not a function of the speed of light. A century of effort (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to try to connect the two has struck out. Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::*This is neither an answer to the question "''What do you think of the experiment for undergraduates ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory])?''" nor to the ''"[[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]]''".
::::::*We are not talking about chemical reactions - that's just a diversion, showing a lack of understanding of the processes involved. We are talking about energies much greater than those involved in a chemical reaction! May I refer you to one of my comments above which you ignored earlier:
::::::{|class="wikitable" style="background:lightgrey"
|
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*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]] 02:36, 10 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Thanks Andy, that's pretty clear - mass is not being converted to energy, therefore E=mc2 is nonsense. I've got two kids who are being taught this stuff at school so I can now set them straight.
::::::Regards [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 17:22, 10 January 2013 (EST)

== High School Experiment ==

August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula. You might your view why a [[Nobel Prize]] was not given for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:*Aschlafly, you are a [[Andrew Schlafly|former engineer]], therefore you should have the competence to review an experiment for undergraduates!
:*Not everything which is true can be shown at a high-school. You may say that in this case, the theory is beyond the scope of this project, but that is not the case: certainly the readers of this encyclopedia should be informed about such things, even if they can't do the maths themselves - or perform the experiments. This demands of the editors of articles like this one that they are willing to get the knowledge of the subject! Indeed they should get more information than is put into the article at the end. A good teacher should know a little bit more than the curriculum of his pupils...
:*And please, could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? I always try to answer your questions - and the questions in the section above aren't that demanding...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:52, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::What's the relevance of the Nobel Prize? Was a Nobel Prize ever given for Intelligent Design, Flood Geology, Baraminolgy, anti-vaccine experiments, the link between breast cancer and abortion or creation science? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 15:00, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::As to why no Nobel Prize was given for it, I believe that the main factor was that Albert Einstein had already received the prize for his related work and since the prize was so new, there was a great reluctance to give it to the same person twice. There are a number of other Nobel Prizes awarded for related work that involve E=mc2 such as Hans Bethe's explanation of how energy is generated inside the Sun. Turning to the experimental side, there was a Nobel Prize given to John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton. While a high school student does not have the instrumentation sensitive enough to recreate that experiment, you could take high schools students to an "atom smasher" facility for a tour. For example, Fermilab outside Chicago has an excellent visitor's center which has a number of exhibits and demonstrations suitable for high school (and younger) students. The models help visualize the various aspects of atomic (and subatomic) interactions.

:::One interesting calculation is to give high school students the size of a hydrogen bomb and ask them to calculate the amount of energy that will be released when the bomb detonates. (I certainly would not want that experiment to be conducted for real at my high school.) I hope this helps, and if so, perhaps some of the materials from the talk page can be incorporated into the main article. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:10, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::*Wschact, I agree with you on the matter of the Nobel Prize
::::*The calculation is interesting, but it is impossible to prove its validity: the mass-defect simply can't be measured... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:19, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::The significance of no [[Nobel Prize]] for this is the same as the significance of the dog that didn't bark: dogs want to bark, and the Nobel Prize committee wants to honor atheistic, nonsensical theories like relativity, but there is nothing there, there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:24, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::That's your opinion. Wschact offered another explanation. We could talk about this all day without getting closer to the truth - so let's get on more solid ground:
:::::::*Aschlafly, how do you interpret the [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory] ?
:::::::*Could you give the answers to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? You only have to follow the steps...
:::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:53, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::I agree with AugustO's comments as well. If Andy could respond to those questions, we will know how to proceed to fix up this article and to write others. For example, if E does not equal mc2, what can we say in the Hans Bethe article about his contributions? How can we discuss synchrotrons? Why does it take more energy to push a particle as the speed of the particle approaches c? I understand the controversy on this website about evolution vs. creation vs. intelligent design, but E=mc2 appears to be an isolated debate with opponents of the equation lacking biblical support or a coherent world-view. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:52, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Isn't someone going to explain the high school experiment that supposedly proves that Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, thereby unifying gravity and light???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Please read what I wrote above. For your convenience: ''"Not everything which is true can be shown at a high-school. You may say that in this case, the theory is beyond the scope of this project, but that is not the case: certainly the readers of this encyclopedia should be informed about such things, even if they can't do the maths themselves - or perform the experiments. This demands of the editors of articles like this one that they are willing to get the knowledge of the subject! Indeed they should get more information than is put into the article at the end. A good teacher should know a little bit more than the curriculum of his pupils... "''
::::::::::And please, could you give the answers to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:15, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::With all due respect, as discussed many times on this page, E=mc2 does ''not'' "unify gravity and light". It addresses the conversion between matter and energy. The ''m'' is not gravitational mass. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)
===An experiment performed at high-schools===
I think that experiments on [[Compton Scattering]] are performed at high-schools. While generally used to show that electromagnetic rays may act like particles, Einstein's mass-energy relationship is used in the process. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:33, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:I agree about the Compton scattering validates E=mc2. I also believe that the [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory] could be performed by high school students with proper adult supervision. It would make a great science project. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:57, 10 January 2013 (EST)
::Aschlafly, you created the article on [[Compton Scattering]], but I can only guess how much you know about this subject, as it was just one in a flurry of [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070602221148&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Aschlafly similar very short articles], all copied and pasted from the [Talk:Compton Scattering|public domain]. So if you are not familiar with the experiment, have a look at the derivation of the Compton formula: it relies heavily on the mass-energy equivalence [[E=mc²]]!
::This experiment was performed at my gymnasium by our teacher - due to the gamma radiation it would be a nightmare to have pupils to conduct the experiment for themselves.
::Aschlafly, I reread your comments on this talk-page, and for me they are strangely disappointing: you are rarely arguing from physics, but mostly from politics. Or to quote you: ''You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true.''
::Please answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] and show us that you actually know what you are talking about.
::Thank you, --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Neither the high school experiment, nor anything else about E=mc^2, purports to unify gravity and light. E=mc^2 does not relate to gravity; it would work in outer space. The "m" is ''inertial mass'', not gravitational mass. The correspondence between the two is incidental, and relates to Einstein's equivalence principle (a completely different phenomenon) and the Eotvos experiment.

"Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed". Not so. It is a common misconception that E=mc^2 relates only to nuclear processes. It actually relates to all processes, though nuclear ones are the only ones for which the difference in mass can be reasonably measured. No one doubts the quantitative results, for nuclear processes, detailed on the article page. The equation E=mc^2, initially formulated on theoretical grounds, is in excellent agreement with those results. There is nothing about the theoretical underpinnings to suggest that there is some "threshold" below which Δm is zero, or that it only applies to certain types of interactions. There is good reason to believe that it applies everywhere, even though the mass difference, in the case of chemical reactions, is not readily measurable.

By the way, another "table-top" demonstration of relativity may be found [http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf here]. It does not demonstrate E=mc^2; it's about electrodynamics under the Lorentz transform.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:36, 10 January 2013 (EST)
:Thank you for sharing that experiment about generating and measuring DC current. A high school student could easily understand the physics, and the equipment could be made in the Industrial Arts shop. I miss my high school science fair days. (sigh) [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:28, 11 January 2013 (EST)

== Source of heat in a nuclear power station ==

Andy, I explained this to the kids yesterday and it was an eye-opener for them. The teacher hadn't mentioned that E=mc2 was only a theory and might not be happening (well,what would you expect?). Anyway, they did ask me a good question that I couldn't answer. Where does the heat come from in a nuclear power station? They're only 12 so I just need something simple.

It looks to me like Uranium is reacting and turning into other things. Is this just a normal chemical reaction and the heat comes from the chemical changes just like, say, gunpowder? Of course they're being told that the heat comes from a loss of mass, and is thousands of times more than a chemical reaction would produce, so I want to make sure I'm on solid ground saying that it isn't. I did a search but couldn't find references to where the heat comes from other than mass being converted into energy and something called Free Energy which I don't understand.

[[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 08:20, 11 January 2013 (EST)
:Learn out to spell "yesterday" and "happening"! :) LOL [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 09:52, 11 January 2013 (EST)

::If those are my biggest problems then I'm fairly happy :-) Now corrected. [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 09:57, 11 January 2013 (EST)

== It is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[light]]. ==

I changed this sentence to ''It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. ''. My reasons:
*The reader should decide for himself whether the statement is meaningless or nonsensical
*The older version showed a misunderstanding of [[proportionality]]: in a proportionality, two variables (in this case matter and energy) are related by use of a constant (in this case c²). The older version implied a relationship between matter and the proportionality constant - which is nonsense. As Aschlafly stated above ''"Mass is not a function of the speed of light."'' Here he is right - as the function of a constant would be necessarily constant itself, but we know that there are different masses....

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 14 January 2013 (EST)

:Aschlafly, before your next reversion of my edit, please address my concerns above. And you still haven't answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 16 January 2013 (EST)

== Citations Needed ==
This article really needs many citations. If a statement is made, for example, about people being unable to pursue a career in the sciences without accepting the topic of the article, some sort of source really should demonstrate that. Similar citations are needed elsewhere in the article. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 19:14, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:The truth is that there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between between politics and E=mc2, and the idea that there is one is only your personal opinion. Why do you think that you receive such little support on this idea?--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 21:25, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::Additionally, the page for this is just a mess. The opening section claims it to be liberal claptrap, while the rest of the article lists experiments that conclusively prove it to be true (None of which I think I've ever seen you directly address). If real-world results contradict your supposed logic, perhaps there is a problem with your logic?--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 21:31, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::Aschlafly, that's not an explanation, that's just rhetoric: it's not about truth, it's about physics. Until now, you have failed to show that you have any knowledge of the matters discussed: you won't address any questions which require you to actually think about the subject and perhaps even take out a bit of paper and a pen (like [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]])! Your position seems to be rooted in ignorance and wishful thinking, your arguments are just political talking points. That's not good enough when everybody else is talking about physics.
:::A little bit annoyed, yours [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:50, 17 January 2013 (EST)
::::''science is not by liberal consensus'': not an answer to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]], again. Are you stalling? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)

:The truth, it seems, is what ''you'' define it to be, and not what dozens or hundreds of rigorously performed scientific studies support. Studies that have been repeated and re-tested for the better part of a century. Frankly, you're entirely unqualified to present yourself as an authority on a scientific topic like this. Have you ever looked into the data? Ever? Like, even a little? If you had, you'd have seen all sorts of phenomena that can't really be explained without E=mc^2. The fact that it can't be derived from first principles is entirely irrelevant in the face of all of the empirical data. For example, how can you explain the difference between the mass of an alpha particle and the sum of the masses of its four separate constituents? Hint: That missing mass didn't just go nowhere. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 11:23, 17 January 2013 (EST)

== Andrew Schlafly's comments ==

I reread the talk-page and gathered Andrew Schlafly's comments:
{|class="wikitable"
!1
|Beware of claims that the rest of the world completely agrees with something. Unanimously passed legislation is often the very worst kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 December 2012 (EST)
|-
!2
|It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!3
|Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!4
|JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!5
|The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!6
|The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!7
|The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!8
|The problem is that '''E=m2''' does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!9
|No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!10
|AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!11
|It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!12
|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)
|-
!13
|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)
|-
!14
|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)
|-
!15
|The formula '''E=mc2''' 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)
|-
!16
|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)
|-
!17
|Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!18
|You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!19
|No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!20
|But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]
|-
!21
|(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!22
|The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!23
|"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!24
|Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!25
|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=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 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=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!26
|The formula cannot be derived ''in any sensible way'', not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!27
|This took only one search on the internet: [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes 7 failed attempts to prove E=mc2].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!28
|A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!29
|That sounds like what the paper would have to say in order to be published, yes. An academic journal will withdraw its acceptance of a paper if it conflicts with the [[Theory of Relativity]] in any way. Anyone in academia who criticizes the Theory of Relativity in any way, no matter how minor, is risking the end of his professional career due to liberal orthodoxy. [[Robert Dicke]], the greatest American physicist ever, was denied the [[Nobel Prize]] because he criticized the Theory of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!30
|The claim that something "is the most accurately tested theory in physics" is a canard often heard by defenders of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Step back, look at the phrase objectively, and it's easy to see that such a claim is unscientific. Indeed, such a claim sounds like something one would hear in politics. Not only are there more than three dozen [[Counterexamples to Relativity|counterexamples disproving the Theory of Relativity]], but the claim on which it was based (the advance of the perihelion of Mercury) is now disproof of the theory. But notice how few people are interested in reviewing more precise data, and instead cite imprecise data that are a half-century old or more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!31
|Robert Dicke's criticism of the general theory of relativity is well-known. For that, he was disqualified from receiving the Nobel Prize, despite being the most accomplished American physicist ever.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!32
|Then why hasn't William Bertozzi won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!33
|If this were a "simple demonstration of a basic principle," then that would be all the more reason why it should be recognized with a [[Nobel Prize]], given the lack of a prize for the same principle. Indeed, has any [[Nobel Prize]] been awarded for a purported confirmation of E=mc2? (Cockcroft's work did not claim to confirm the equation.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!34
|It's completely logical. Some liberal claptrap is even too much for the [[Nobel Prize]] committee, and that's worth pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.
|-
!35
|Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
|-
!36
|The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to <math>\pi</math>. But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!37
|It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!38
|We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!39
|It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:Of course not. A clock that goes backwards is correct 4 times a day. No-one would suggest that that makes it even better.--[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 21:52, 30 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!40
|No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!41
|Broken clocks are precisely correct twice a day too. One or two bizarre experiments in more than a century of trying to prove the formula as a general proposition are hardly persuasive. The [[Nobel Prize]] committee wants to recognize the formula has being demonstrated, but can't. There is no logical support for the formula, as peer reviewed articles have virtually admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!42
|Mass is not a function of the speed of light. A century of effort (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to try to connect the two has struck out. Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!43
|August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula. You might your view why a [[Nobel Prize]] was not given for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!44
|The significance of no [[Nobel Prize]] for this is the same as the significance of the dog that didn't bark: dogs want to bark, and the Nobel Prize committee wants to honor atheistic, nonsensical theories like relativity, but there is nothing there, there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:24, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!45
|The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!46
|Folks, a century of attempts to unify gravity and light '''''have been unsuccessful'''''. E=mc2 is a science fiction goal that billions of dollars in attempts have been unable to achieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!47
|Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them. Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)
|}

Andrew (Aschlafly? Andy?), these comments show that you may understand politics, but not physics. Indeed, some are contradictory: in '''24''' you say ''Simply put, the Theory of Relativity is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations.'', while in '''27''' we read ''This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932.'' and in '''42''' ''there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation. ''

What is it: we have experiments which show that the formula is applicable in many occasions: indeed, no situation has been found where it doesn't work. And what is a ''mathematical theory'' other than a logical conclusion?

Other comments are simply untrue, like '''39''': ''It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. '' E=mc² has been used in countless experiments!

Not one of the comments shows that you are willing to put some work into your answers - like looking at the experiments or the data. These comments are best described by your own words:

'''You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true.'''

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:This is impressive AugustO! I think I understand Mr. Schlafly's opposition to E=mc2 now. The theory states that mass and energy are equivalent. But looking at Aschlafly's hand waiving exercise, that is simply not the case. For he clearly has expended a great deal of energy to produce very little substance. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:23, 17 January 2013 (EST)

::Folks, a century of attempts to unify gravity and light '''''have been unsuccessful'''''. E=mc2 is a science fiction goal that billions of dollars in attempts have been unable to achieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:::Have you even read anything that anyone has posted here? Address the experiments that prove it true. The main article and talk page are full of them. What is wrong with them? How are they flawed? How is E=mc2 used incorrectly in each of them? How do you explain E=mc2 fitting perfectly into each of them? You have essentially repeated yourself, over and over, without addressing any actual facts, once.--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 20:10, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them. Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:No, there has been no [[unified field theory]] discovered that joins the 4 known forces of nature. Now, let's get back to E=mc2.--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:32, 17 January 2013 (EST)

::Yet that is precisely what E=mc2 purports to do. After a century of trying, many realize it is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:::Andy, I know you pride yourself on having an [[Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness|Open mind]], so let me ask you this: Has the possibility ever occurred to you that you do not really know what you are talking about when it comes to subjects outside your field of expertise, theoretical physics being an example? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:21, 17 January 2013 (EST)
::::@Aschlafly, Einstein did not claim E=mc2 to be a unified theory. If he had, he would have said so and called it a day back in 1905 instead of spending the latter years of his research in the 1950's looking for a unifying theory. You do understand that the 'c2' portion of the equation is just a constant, right? It's simply the maximum speed that any change in a field or massless particle can propagate. So we can actually remove "light" (which seems to be a sticking point for you) from the equation and substitute any wave or field whose speed is independent of the motion of the observer and the wave's source. So you could replace light with anything that travels that fast. You could even plug in gravity in lieu of light if that better suits your fancy. If it could be proven that "bad news" traveled at the speed of light you could plug that in as well.

::::The point being is I think somewhere along the way you got tripped up on the what the formula actually expresses versus what you ''think'' it says. This is witnessed by your statement of: "''Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared''". Indeed. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them.'' No, it isn't. If you take a look at the sections above, you will see that you generally get responses. I'm afraid we are missing substantial answers from you, like to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]].
:::::''Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???'' That's not what ''E=mc²'' is about, in the same way that ''A=πr²'' isn't about unifying area and π
:::::If you don't start to do actual physics, your list of answers just becomes a parade of ignorance. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:00, 18 January 2013 (EST)

So does a mass of 1 kg have energy of c2, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:Yes. Just as a mass of 1 kg has kinetic energy of one half times its velocity squared, so it has mass energy of c2.--[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 21:40, 30 January 2013 (EST)

:No - as you messed up the units. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:08, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::The mass energy in 1 kg is <math>1\,\textrm{kg}\cdot\left(3.0 \times 10^8 \frac{\textrm{m}}{\textrm{s}}\right)^2 = 9.0 \times 10^{16}\,\textrm{J}</math> (keeping in mind, of course, that a joule is a kilogram-meter-squared-per-second-squared). That's a lot of energy! [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:22, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::Or about 21 kilotons of explosive power... or 25 TWh... Or... --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 01:36, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::: You are out by a factor of 1000. A kiloton of TNT-equiv is approximately 4.185*10e12 Joules. The kiloton equivalent for the figure GregG gave would be about (given he didn't use the approapriate figure for the speed of light in a vacuum I'll approximate as well) 20000 kilotons (20 megatons). [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:53, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::::Correct. I was doing the conversion in my head. It's should be something around 21,500 kilotons (21.5 megatons). Which of course would make my subsequent conversion incorrect as well. I guess that would make me.... wait for it... wrong. Thanks for the correction DVergne. Wow! It's surprisingly easy to admit you're wrong! Maybe other people will try it... --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 02:04, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::::::Indeed, 1kg has an equivalent energy of <math>9 \times 10^{16}J</math> - a immense number: it equals 25TWh - the output of all German power-stations combined in a fortnight. On the other hand, the sun emits <math>3.8 \times 10^{26}W</math> this means that it loses roughly 15 Trillion kg each second - or the mass of our Moon in less than 57 days.
::::::But we have had other examples of the equation on this talk-page:
::::::*In Cockroft's experiment, a mass of <math>3.0616 \times 10^{-29}kg </math> is transformed into an energy of <math>2,755 \times 10^{-12}J</math>
::::::*In Compton's experiment, rays having a frequency of a couple of EHz are used. The photons have an energy W=h*f, and interact with electrons as having a mass of W/c².
::::::This is about measurement, not politics. And please, Andrew, answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]: those questions may be difficult for a lawyer, but nor for an engineer. So, I'd like the engineer in you to answer the questions, not the lawyer to give another political statement. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:11, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Science fiction is great stuff ... as long as one doesn't start believing it, or allow it to take time away from truths, such as the [[Bible]]. Suppose I drink a glass of water, which has mass of about 0.5 pounds (roughly 1 kg). Zero calories, of course. Yet do you maintain that my energy increases in proportion to the speed of light squared?

What percentage of people who believe relativity's crass, silly materialism are likely to read the [[Bible]] earnestly, or pursue other real truths?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:Andy, first 0.5 pounds is not roughly 1 kg. Second, your gastrointestinal tract performs chemical reactions, it's not a nuclear fusion plant. Thirdly, I have no clue what percentage of people who accept the theory of relativity are likely to read the Bible, but I'm guessing you have some sort of figure in mind. From your line of questioning it would appear that a) you fundamentally do not understand the topic under discussion and b) you're trying to change the subject. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:50, 18 January 2013 (EST)

::Good point about the arithmetic - a glass of water is closer to 0.22 kg in weight than to 1 kg. But the underlying point remains the same: drinking a class of water does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. It's science fiction, and not very good at that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 19 January 2013 (EST)

:::*The underlying point is that '''you are not doing science but rhetorics'''. I get the impression that you are not able to answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]: have you forgotten everything you learned to become an engineer?
:::*''[it] does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. '' Don't you even understand [[proportionality]]?
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:17, 19 January 2013 (EST)
:::P.S.: I just created [[proportionality]]. Hope that helps. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:21, 19 January 2013 (EST)

=== Andrew Schlafly's answers in the section above ===
Andrew, you still ignore experimental evidence, but repeat and repeat again that [[E=mc²]] is nonsensical, etc. Furthermore, you offer a thought experiment: ''drinking a class of water does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. '' Well, if you drank this glass of water and then got transferred to the center of the sun, it would burn a tiny little bit longer then if you would have been transferred without drinking it. For you this may seem counterintuitive: therefore take a step back and answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] - keep an open mind! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:41, 19 January 2013 (EST)

== Robert Dicke, the greatest physicist of the 20th century ==

Andrew, such over-the-top statements just help to erode your credibility when it comes to physics. I understand that you won't accept [[Albert Einstein]] - the common choice - for this title. But [[Werner Heisenberg]], [[Max Planck]], [[Niels Bohr]], [[Lise Meitner]], [[Erwin Schrödinger]], [[Richard Feynman]] were at least his equals! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:You seem to prefer liberal theoreticians who were long on speculation, but short on experimental achievements. Robert Dicke actually built and discovered things, like the lock-in amplifier, in addition to theorizing.unsigned comment from Aschlafly 23:32, 18 January 2013
::If you prefer experimentalists, what's about [[Edward Teller]], [[Robert Oppenheimer]], [[Stanislaw Ulam]] or [[Enrico Fermi]]? I don't claim that any of those is the ''greatest physicist of the 20th century'', but they are not less great than [[Robert Dicke]]. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:24, 19 January 2013 (EST)
::You're clearly not very familiar with the way the field of physics actually works. The field is divided into theorists and experimenters. Theorists try to figure out how everything should be working, and come up with (surprise) theories about what those might be. In some cases, they take data sets created by those folks that have been experimenting and try to figure out why they contain the data they have (which is typically not the data that was expected). The fact that they don't have much in the way of experimental accomplishments doesn't really much matter because ''that isn't their job''. When they do finish a theory of something, some intrepid experimenter out there will pick it up and try to either prove or disprove that theory via experiment. This cycle continues thus pretty much perpetually. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 21:56, 21 January 2013 (EST)
::Is there any evidence anywhere (please, show me a link to an article somewhere - news, actual science, whatever - that shows that you didn't just make this up) that Dicke was denied a Noble Prize just because he didn't accept relativity? It took quite a while for physicists to come around to the idea of relativity, just as it took time for the reality of quantum mechanics to sink in. Meanwhile empirical evidence was mounting and it sort of became hard to deny after taking a look at the real data. I'm not too familiar with this Dicke figure (given that I'm an undergrad in physics, that makes me question whether he was the greatest of his century), but it may very well be that he just never had a chance to really sit down and examine the data. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 17:10, 30 January 2013 (EST)

== Nuclear Energy ==

In the interest of consistency, I have removed a section of the [[nuclear energy]] article to bring it in line with this article. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:40, 19 January 2013 (EST)

:Perhaps before gutting other articles, Andrew Schlafly could try to answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]. Or perhaps this one, concerning nuclear fusion and fission:
::'''An neutron <math>{}^1_0n</math> has an atomic weight of 1.008664916 amu, a proton <math>{}^1_1p</math> has a mass of 1.007276466 amu, an electron has a mass of 0.000548580 amu. Therefore 92 protons, 92 electrons and 143 neutrons have a combined mass of 236.9589872 amu. But an atom of <math>{}^{235}_{92}U</math> - consisting of 92 protons, 92 electrons and 143 neutrons has a mass of 235.0439299. Does a liberal conspiracy hide roughly 1.915 amu of any atom of this isotope?
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:14, 19 January 2013 (EST)
:::I will try one last time to explain this. Suppose that blowing up an atomic bomb with 1 lb of Uranium releases x amount of energy, and blowing up an atomic bomb with 2 lbs of Uranium releases 2x amount of energy, and blowing up an atomic bomb with 3 lbs of Uranium releases 3x amount of energy. Could we then conclude that the energy released by the atomic bomb was proportional to its mass? (If we invented a new unit of measuring energy "the Wschact" where one Wschact equaled the amount of energy released by converting one kg of uranium into energy), the equation would be: E (in Wschact units) = m (mass in kg)
::: The proportionality constant would be 1 (Wschact per kg).
::: Is it possible that (for some liberal claptrap reason) we could define the metric system of energy units in a way that the proportionality constant was set equal to a number that equals the speed of light squared? But because energy is measured in Joules, we have E =mc2, where c2 converts between Wschacts and Joules.
:::Any kid would agree that if you double the size of a bomb, the explosion would be twice as powerful. So this is a very intuitive equation. I hope this helps. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:43, 19 January 2013 (EST)

== Editing the Article ==

Andrew Schlafly, I'd appreciate if you'd abstain from editing this article: you haven't answered any questions on the underlying physics and mathematics (like [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]), and therefore haven't shown any understanding of the subject. Simply put, shouting "claptrap, claptrap, claptrap" again and again doesn't make a convincing argument.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:18, 21 January 2013 (EST)

== Simple question ==

This line appears in the introduction: "... ''light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis''". So my question to Mr. Schlafly is this: does the light in this statement refer to the entire electromagnetic spectrum? A simple yes or no will suffice, but if you are willing to expound on your answer, it would be appreciated. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:15, 24 January 2013 (EST)

== This article has a number of mistakes ==

For example, light isn't the same as energy. Light contains energy but so does '''oil'''.

Also mass, acceleration and force are all connected by Newton's laws, F=ma. So,
{{cquote|Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces,}} doesn't make sense because mass and forces are connected through that equation.

I'd correct it but, unlike the spirit of a wiki, this page is uneditable. It simply gets reverted. Thanks. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 16:29, 25 January 2013 (EST)

== personal essay shouldn't be linked from encyc. article ==

This rule seems to be made up on the spot... Fact is that numerous encyclopedic articles at Conservapedia link to "personal essays": see [[Atheism]] (linking to [[Essay: The question atheists fear]]), [[Evolution]] (linking to [[Essay: Atheism and evolution essays]]), [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] (linking to [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]), [[Jesus Christ]] (linking to [[Essay: The Way of Salvation]] and [[Essay: Christians and the Law of Moses]]), [[Torah]] (linking to [[Essay: Christians and the Law of Moses]]), etc.

So there seems to be no reason not to link to [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] - especially as the article [[E=mc²]] has many characterizations of an essay itself. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:48, 27 January 2013 (EST)
:I think you have made some very good points AugustO, but its time to move on. Accept the fact that the article will not be changing and you will have a happier time of it. Its time to let the readers decider for themselves whether they accept Mr Schlafly's unconventional approach or not. You are beginning to get repetitive and I suspect there are some admins who are out to get you. Don't give them the satisfaction. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:15, 27 January 2013 (EST)

== Problems with the newest edit.. ==

*''The popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public.'' It's perhaps the most recognizable formula today. But I doubt that this was the result of one television series.
*''But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so. '' You keep using this word (unified). I don't think that it means what you think it means. Having mass, energy and the speed of light all appearing in one single equation doesn't necessarily unify these concepts!
*''The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. '' This is your position, Andrew Schlafly. Nearly all physicists think different - even though they fail to convince you! Therefore it should be made clear that this is the position of critics of the theory...
*''Undeterred, [[liberal]] [[PBS]] insists that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]].'' It's not just PBS, it's virtually all physicists. At the moment, the source is taken from PBS, I'll add other sources which will show that nearly all physicists join in the conspiracy to promote [[E=mc²]]. (like http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/content/articles/2008/research-digest/student-papers/einstein/einstein2019s-theory-of-relativity-implications-beyond-science)
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 29 January 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, you still haven't answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]! And you have added nothing of physical or mathematical substance to the article on the [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]]! Could you please do so? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

''Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that...'' Yes, they can. And they can be found at the websites of the top schools. Andrew Schlafly, I dare you to find a top-10 physics department which doesn't make such "claims"! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:20, 30 January 2013 (EST)

:Andrew Schlafly, please address these points before reverting to an inferior version of the article! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:54, 1 March 2013 (EST)

==Enough is enough. Andy, please stop it==
This has gone on long enough. It's time for you to pay attention to what everyone else, and the evidence, and logic, are telling you. You have been engaging in what appears to be deliberate obfuscation, willful misunderstanding of terms and concepts, and repeated attempts to change the subject, for long enough. It's time to stop.

You have attempted to change the subject to Bible reading. There is a cute comic on the subject of correlation vs. causation [http://xkcd.com/552/ here].

You have attempted to change the subject to politics. It has nothing to do with liberalism. While moral relativism is a phenomenon more commonly associated with liberals than with conservatives, that has absolutely nothing to do with relativity.

You have attempted to change the subject to the relative merits of theoreticians and practical scientists/inventors, and the preferences of the Nobel prize judges. It's true that Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger didn't invent any devices (as far as I know), but they discovered quantum mechanics. The Nobel committee gives great weight to theoretical advances. Maybe you disagree with that policy, but that's the policy. Robert Dicke, in addition to being an inventor, was a good theoretician. But your assertions that he
#was the greatest American physicist ever, and perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century,
#criticized or refuted relativity,
#was denied the Nobel Prize because because of this
are all questionable and excessive. Inventing the lock-in amplifier was nice, but you don't win Nobels for that. There are many other American physicists (Michelson, Morley, Feynmann, Weinberg, Bethe, Compton, Anderson, Glashow, Bardeen, Brattain, Shockley, etc. etc.) that one could claim were superior. And, if one goes outside the United States but stays within the 20th century, the list is even longer—Bohr, Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, etc. Also, I assume you know that ''Dicke accepted special relativity'', as did every other scientist worthy of the name. His disagreement was over the claim that general relativity explains gravity. He accepted the metric tensor on 4-dimensional spacetime, and Riemann's tensor, and Ricci's tensor, and Einstein's tensor, and that gravity arises from Ricci's and Einstein's tensors. He simply had a different "scalar-tensor" formulation than Einstein, about how Ricci's and Einstein's tensors arise from matter. His theory becomes equivalent to Einstein's if the coupling constant (ω) goes to infinity. And you must know, because you have cited the article [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html here], spacecraft measurements ''have definitively refuted the Brans-Dicke theory.'' (The article is currently behind a subscription firewall, but I have read it.) You do not win Nobels for proposing theories that, brilliant though they may be, are wrong. And your often-repeated statement that he was denied a Nobel for criticizing relativity is preposterous. He didn't criticize it, and you don't know why he never won the prize. There are many physicists, and few prizes, and many worthy people never win the prize.

You have accused the Nobel committee, and many other people, of being liberals, and of being biased against criticism of relativity. Even if true, that has nothing to do with whether E=mc^2 is correct. Even if universities would never give a faculty post to someone who criticizes relativity (a completely unsupported claim), that has nothing to do with whether E=mc^2 is correct.

You have repeated the meaningless term "liberal claptrap" again and again. It has no place in a discussion of an equation, and it convinces no one.

You have repeatedly maintained that, since this equation doesn't "unify" gravity and light, or gravity and matter, or gravity and the strong force, it can't be right. Unification of fundamental forces is not easy. And even though unification of all fundamental forces has not been achieved, it is still the case that the mass of an alpha particle plus a Radon-222 nucleus is less than that of a Radium-222 6 nucleus.

You have made what seems to me to be willful attempts to obfuscate issues and terms, like gravity, light, mass, and energy:
*E=mc^2 has nothing to do with gravity. The only connection is that the Earth's gravity provides a convenient way of measuring the mass of produce in grocery stores. "m" is for inertial mass, a scientific concept that you must have learned about at Princeton. The masses of various particles (more about that later) are measured with a mass spectrometer, not with a scale.
*E=mc^2 doesn't directly relate to light. The phrase "speed of light" is just a convenient term for the time-vs.-space calibration constant of relativity. It happens that light travels at that speed. Now the intellectual distinction between the speed at which light travels and the calibration constant was not understood clearly in the early days, but it is now known, from the relativistic formulation of electromagnetism in terms of the Faraday tensor, that the calibration constant "c" appears in the wave equation, deduced from Maxwell's equations. This derivation is not usually handled at the undergraduate level, and you may not have seen it. But it isn't necessary for an understanding of E=mc^2. The speed "c" is fundamental. Light travels at that speed because of the 4-tensor formulation of electrodynamics, using the Faraday tensor on Minkowski space-time. "c" appears in E=mc^2 because it is fundamental to the Lorentz transform.
*Your claims about your "energy increasing by mc^2" when you drink water seems to be a ludicrous attempt to confuse what it means to "have energy". It's not the same thing as what you hear about in advertisements for "energy drinks". You don't "have" that energy in the sense of being able to leap tall buildings or bench-press 1000 pounds.. I'm sure you know that, and are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue. The only sense in which one "has" that energy in any normal sense of the release of energy, is that if you combined with an anti-Andy made of antimatter, the energy would be released, and, if you and the anti-Andy had consumed a liter of water and anti-water respectively, that much more energy would be released. But other than that, the energy is not accessible. Of course you *can* release energy, albeit a microscopically smaller amount than mc^2, when you consume more nutritious substances, like cake.

Now, getting to the nuclear reactions, this is the sense, and the only sense, in which E=mc^2 is meaningful. You've seen, and apparently ignored, the extensive discussion above and on the article page, but I'll go through it one more time. Please pay close attention.

The mass of the Radium-226 atom is 226.0254098 amu, which is 3.753239901×10-25 kg. I hope you accept this.

The mass of the Radon-222 atom is 222.0175777 amu, which is 3.6866882892×10-25 kg.

The mass of the Helium-4 atom (alpha particle) is 4.002603254 amu, which is 6.64647848859×10-27 kg.

When a Radium-226 atom undergoes alpha decay, it turns into a Radon-222 atom plus a Helium-4 atom, which have a combined mass of 3.753153074×10-25 kg.

These don't add up. 8.682702295×10-30 kg were lost. OK?

Now the energy released is 4.871 MeV, which is 7.8042×10-13 Joules.

The ratio of the energy released to the mass lost is 8.9882×1016 meters squared per second squared.

The square root of that is 2.998×108 meters per second. It is a speed, and it matches the speed of light.

This relationship has been verified for many many reactions.

That's all that E=mc^2 is saying. Nothing more. Nothing about eating cake.

So, instead of repeatedly calling it "liberal claptrap", you would do a much better job of convincing people that the equation is incorrect by coming up with some other explanation for why a radium atom loses 4.871 Mev / c^2 of mass when it emits a 4.781 MeV alpha particle.

Now I will agree that E=mc^2 is surprisingly hard to derive, for such a simple equation. Correct and understandable derivations are actually hard to come by—''Spacetime Physics'' by Taylor and Wheeler finally gets to it, in an extremely complicated way, starting around page 120. At the risk of being immodest, I recommend my own derivation on another wiki as being fairly direct. You can find it by Googling the exact quoted phrase "sees the light traveling a longer distance". Whether it is a "rigorous proof" is in the eye of the beholder.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:59, 31 January 2013 (EST)
:It is human to become so emotionally invested in a position, that there is no room left for logic or reasoning. A strong organization has ways to handle such situations. There are always at least two viewpoints to every dispute, and it always helps to try to invest some time into trying to understand both viewpoints. I agree with SamHB that "Enough is enough." A lot of people who care about CP have spent a lot of time reading this talk page and editing the article. If we all want CP to thrive and progress, we need to work together to find a way forward. Perhaps we could draw three number out of a hat at random and then count down the alphabetical list of editors to randomly select a committee to review this page. (If number 4 was drawn, the 4th editor on the list would be selected.) Everyone could make a pitch to the Committee, they would edit the page, and we would stop talking past each other. If anyone has a better way forward, please propose one. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:47, 2 February 2013 (EST)

::Would the supporters of E=mc2 be OK with E=mc1.5? It has just as much logical basis, which is nil.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 2 February 2013 (EST)
:::The [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]] - as well as the experiments at the [http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html MIT in 2005] - have shown that the [[Direct proportionality|constant of proportionality]] is c². And that's what all the mathematical derivations for special cases show, too: here is a neat trick for an engineer - develop mc² as a Taylor series (using the relativistic mass) and look closely at the first terms. That wouldn't work with c3/2
:::BTW: You are always asking questions, awaiting answers - why are you not answering to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:06, 2 February 2013 (EST)

::Andy, Isaac Newton would agree that the exponent would have to be 2 if it's anything. F=ma. Energy is defined as the force times distance, so the units of energy have to be mass times distance squared over time squared. The exponent is fixed because of the definitions of energy and acceleration in classical Newtonian physics. Of course this says nothing about the magnitudes of E, m or v but it does say any other exponent violates Newton's world. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 19:52, 2 February 2013 (EST)
:::No one person has a monopoly on the truth. No one person has the definitive Bible interpretation. So far, I have not seen any Biblical basis for Andy's views on E=mc2. Nor, have I seen any scientific basis for Andy's views. While I respect Andy a great deal, he seems to have unique views on the interpretation of this equation. So, it would be best if everyone could agree to move the resolution of this issue into dispassionate hands. CP editors would feel more confident in the strength of the website's leadership, and our users would gain more trust in CP's contents. Many CP editors see no conflict between E=mc2 and their religious views. Many CP editors see a big difference between the theory of special relativity and the theory of general relativity. Everyone knows that the exponent must be 2 in order for the units to come out right. Many, many sources say that E=mc2 is used to design atom bombs and that relativistic effects were taken into account in the design of the GPS system. The United States government even issued a postage stamp featuring the equation. Can we please resolve this in a manner that will reflect well on both CP and its leadership? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 13:36, 4 February 2013 (EST)
::::Wschact I feel that this article is at an impasse. If Mr. Schlafly was presenting an alternative theory that was internally consistent, matched all empirical observations, and could be shown to be held by another living soul... then we could work out a compromise article that was informative to the reader. Instead this article consists of factual information that has been liberally seasoned with Andy's editorial commentary and unsubstantiated claims. This has the effect of making it read like a someone with a split-personality wrote it. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:22, 4 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Too right everyone, this article (in fact, this whole website) is nothing more than one person's point of view. And it makes the whole website look silly [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=530196357001380&set=a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035&type=1]. That's why I suggest moving on to a different encyclopedia. Like Wikipedia or a different conservative one. There are plenty conservative ones that are created for the sole reason that Mc. Schlafly is making this his own. I say we all abandon him. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 19:23, 4 February 2013 (EST)
::::::It may be tempting to just ignore this article from now on and accept that it will never be corrected because of Mr. Schlafly's inflexibility. But Conservapedia is not just any blog, it is supposedly an educational resource for students. It is irresponsible and shameful to present unsubstantiated opinions as scientific fact in such a forum. Let's hope/pray that Mr. Schlafly can see this from all of the constructive criticisms and comments on this talk page. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:17, 5 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::CP is taking a [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=530196357001380&set=a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035&type=1 serious reputational hit] from this article. Back in November [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1018287&oldid=1018232 I edited the article to reflect both viewpoints but was reverted.] Further requests for guidance from Andy have been ignored. I pray that some home-schooled student will not rely upon this article to write a college admission essay to his or her detriment. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:20, 7 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::Since all the editors participating in this discussion except one are in agreement, why not edit the article and revert and changes made by the dissenting voice? That's basically what's been happening to this point, except in reverse. Its tyranny by a minority and certainly does not represent either the way that a nominal democracy should work or, indeed, how the scientific method works. I take some small solace from the knowledge that the truth itself cares not what this article says and instead continues to be true regardless of Andy's opinions. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 22:19, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::You make the mistake of assuming that this is a democracy. It is a meritocracy, which means that the view with the most merit is accepted. The most meritorious user here is Andy. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:00, 7 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::We need a way to determine "the best of the public." [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:15, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::"He who pays the piper . . ." I do sympathise with you and AugustO, but I think its time to move on. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:30, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::::Sorry, not good enough. ''Merit'' is all good and well, but it isn't a substitution for ''competence''. You can earn merits in one field, and still be incompetent in another. IMO it is the right thing to try to help a otherwise meritorious person not to look like a rambling fool in an area where he oversteps the boundaries of his knowledge. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:55, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::::Let's be absolutely clear here. Are you saying that Aschlafly is "incompetent", that he "look(s) like a rambling fool", and that he is "overstep(ping)" the boundaries of his knowledge? If the answers are "yes, yes, and yes", then please say what you mean directly! Beating around the bush is a liberal trait. [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 08:09, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::::::'' Beating around the bush is a liberal trait.'' As is incivility. Yes, I'm disappointed by the current state of the article, yes, I'd say that the article is kept in its current state not because of mathematical or physical arguments, but because of the lack of those. Yes, I sometimes get crestfallen by the lack of scientific insight, but no, I wouldn't formulate my frustration the way you want me to do it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:36, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Then who exactly is "incompetent"? Who "look(s) like a rambling fool"? Who is guilty of "incivility"? Why is it so hard for liberals to speak directly? [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 09:02, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::::::::*Again, I phrase my criticism as poignant as possible in a civil environment. After all, there should be a discussion and not a shouting match.
::::::::::::::::*''Why is it so hard for liberals to speak directly?'' I don't know - perhaps you should ask a liberal? Or were you just calling me a liberal in a very indirect way? You wouldn't do something so intricate, would you?
::::::::::::::::Conclusion: Please don't stir the pot - the situation is volatile enough.
::::::::::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:40, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== [[Conservapedia proven wrong]] ==

I made the following edit at [[Conservapedia proven wrong]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of Prognostication
!''Conservapedia'' Prediction
!Actual Result
! ''Conservapedia'''s Response
!Date of Result
|-
|March 25, 2012
|''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=next&oldid=970256 E=mc² is liberal claptrap]''
|The [[E=mc²|same page]] lists experiments which verify the formula and other pages on Conservapedia show how this formula is used in reality ([[Compton Scattering]], [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]].) Especially [[Talk:E=mc²]] shows that the statement ''E=mc² is liberal claptrap'' is a conviction only held by Andrew Schlafly, for which no mathematical or physical reason is given.
|
|
|}
This got reverted by Andrew Schlafly, stating ''an entry like this is not the place for argument - E=mc2 claim reverted''. Again, no physical or mathematical reason was given. Andrew, you have still not answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]], you have not shown any understanding of the physics or mathematics involved - though you have had many opportunities to do so (see, e.g., [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]] and [[Talk:Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]]). For all practical purposes, you - and by extension Conservapedia - have been proven to be wrong.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 22:48, 8 February 2013 (EST)

== Robert Dicke ==

''For example, [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]].''

Is there any source for this claim? I couldn't find one. Is this just made up? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:11, 9 February 2013 (EST)

:There is no other plausible explanation. Surely you don't expect a physics journal or any academic to admit such bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)

::So it ''is'' only your personal opinion, rooted in your belief that you are the one to know who should and should not be awarded the Nobel Prize. Yes, Robert Dicke was scooped in the experimental detection of background radiation for which Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson were awarded half the prize in 1978, but unless you have at least some proof that this was related to his opinion on ''general relativity'' (not special relativity, here he agreed with Einstein), you can only say something like: ''For example, '''''some speculate''''' that [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]].''
::BTW: I personally think that it would have been apt if Robert Dicke shared the prize with Penzias and Wilson for this important test of the Big Bang model of the universe.
::And could you please answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? It is nice that you address any political or historical point raised here on this talk-page, but you should answer to the physical and mathematical questions, too: those are the important ones... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:28, 10 February 2013 (EST)
:::About Robert Dicke, Wilson and Penzias and the Nobel prizes. One thing is that you can only get a Nobel Prize for an experiment with an explanation. Never for just a theory (Stephen Hawking never got a Nobel for his radiation). Dicke predicted CMB radiation but he wasn't the first to observe it. Wilson and Penzias observed it first completely by accident, and luckily Penzias talked to Dicke and found out what the thing he observed was. It was Dicke's theory but they observed it. So they got the Nobel. That's how it works. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation]
:::And I don't understand why there's so much emphasis on Nobel prizes in this article. Obviously the Nobel prize committee isn't a neutral party. Does that matter? Are people really not going to question an equation because they're afraid that they'll never get a Nobel? Only about 500 people got a Nobel so far, out of millions of scientists. Clearly that isn't a motivating factor. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 19:04, 15 February 2013 (EST)

== Reasons to restore the version of Feb 10, 2010 ==

Andrew Schlafly, you reverted some edits, claiming that you ''restored "Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap" and other truths''. "Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap" doesn't become a truth just because you are repeating it! I'll take you through some of the edits - again - and I hope that you won't make this kind of silly reversion again.

{|class="wikitable"
!Andrew Schlafly
!Rest of the World
!Comment
|-
|'''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in any body is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.
|'''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which states that energy ('''E''') of a body is equivalent to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.
|The formula is called the mass-energy-equivalence - this is reflected by the version on the right.
|-
|
|there are many derivations for special cases and experimental verifications
|Yes, there are: some of those can be found later in the article
|-
|For example, [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]]
|
|Any source for this statement? No. It's a conspiracy, so the statement is true because there is no proof for it! Anyway, Robert Dicke only had problems with the '''general theory''', and not with this formula.
|-
|Simply put, '''E=mc²''' is [[liberal claptrap]].
|Entering the phrase: "''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap''" into commonly-used search engines, reveals that an overwhelming majority of the internet community considers Conservapedia's claims (more accurately described as, Andy Schlafly's unsubstantiated assertions) to be a subject fit for ridicule<ref>http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/274938_Conservapedia-_E=MC2_Is_Liber</ref><ref>http://www.christianforums.com/t7643473/</ref><ref>http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=87194</ref><ref>http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-politics-religion/728843-e-mc%B2-liberal-claptrap.html</ref><ref>http://www.computernewbie.info/wheatdogg/2012/04/29/fisking-conservapedia-is-emc2-really-liberal-claptrap/</ref><ref>http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/maximum-retardation-alert/</ref><ref>http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/off-his-meds/</ref>.
|Andrew, you seem to think that this follows from the sentences above - but it doesn't. It's not even an opinion you have, it's a kind of gut-feeling.
|-
|But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.
|
|That has nothing to do with the formula.
|-
|Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]].
|At virtually all colleges and universities physicists explain how the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]]).
|That's why I added quotes from the physics department at the MIT - hardly a second-tier college. You are ignoring inconvenient facts to make a misleading statement!
|}

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:03, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:I think the table fairly summarizes the differences. I have still yet to see any Biblical argument against E=mc2. The only controversial application of E=mc2 is in nuclear energy and atomic bombs. While the Ten Commandments teach that "Thou shall not kill" and dropping two atomic bombs on Japan caused horrific suffering, most conservatives and Christians believe that the war was shortened and many lives were saved. They would say that the discovery of nuclear technology just in time was God inspired. If Germany or Russia developed the bomb before the United States, the world would be a dictatorship by now. When Einstein approach FDR about starting a Manhattan Project, FDR could have said that the idea was "liberal claptrap" and refused to devote scarce resources to building atomic bombs. Instead, he authorized a massive expedited program. Most conservatives are glad that he did, and have supported nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants ever since.

:The theory of special relativity is different from general relativity. E=mc2 is a part of special relativity but is worth its own separate article. Whatever feelings Andy (or anyone else) has about general relativity should be kept out of this article. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:13, 11 February 2013 (EST)

::Is there even a single accomplished physicist who claims that E=mc2 is true, and explains why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

::: Well you could start with [http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760 this book] by Professors Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 12:36, 11 February 2013 (EST)

::::Perhaps Mr. Schlafly would be comfortable with the original interpretation (which I'll write slightly differently to make my point):
::::<math>\Delta m = \frac{\Delta E}{c^2}</math>
::::which states only that a system's mass will change by a small amount when it releases or absorbs energy. It's still E=mc2; the difference is the definition of m and E. For example, it describes the rather difficult-to-ignore fact that a 4He nucleus weighs less than the two deuterons from which it was formed. This concept is easier to prove than the more general statement of mass-energy equivalence. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 13:06, 11 February 2013 (EST)

:::::''Is there even a single accomplished physicist who claims that E=mc2 is true, and explains why?'' - Andrew Schlafly, you could start with Richard Feynman's ''Lectures on Physics'', Book 1, 15-9 "''Equivalence of mass and energy''", which closes with the words
{{cquote|''This theory of equivalence of mass and energy has been beautifully verified by experiments in which matter is annihilated - converted totally to energy: An electron and a positron come together at rest, each with a rest mass <math>m_0</math>. When they come together they disintegrate and two gamma rays emerge, each with the measured energy of <math>m_0c^2</math>. This experiment furnishes a direct determination of the energy associated with the existence of the rest mass of a particle''|||Richard Feynman}}
:::::But you can take any textbook covering the special theory of relativity... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:43, 11 February 2013 (EST)

== References ==
<references/>

== too many reversions needed to include key statements; can suggest edits on talk page ==

Very well: I suggest that this version is restored: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&oldid=1034198 revision 1034198]. Reason: it has been shown above that the reversions done by Andrew Schlafly are unscientific. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 22:33, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:Give it a rest. For your sake as well as everyone else. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:48, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::What good would this do for this article? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 22:57, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:::None whatsoever. But then your complaining about it won't do anything either. Besides, no-one who wants to read about theoretical physics will read this article for its content. (Though they may find other reasons to look at it). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:00, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::::No, those who know something about physics just will have a good laugh. The problem are the readers who don't know much yet. It is probably the most famous formula in physics, so pupils may read this article: Can you imagine a pupil using this material for a home-work? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:05, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Any pupil that used this for homework would get an F, obviously. I wouldn't worry about young kids using this page. This formula is not used in school, and anyone who has any need to use it at university would not come here. The main point though is that Andy has made it perfectly clear that there will be no changes to the article and that is the end of it. You quoted the Anderson story of the Emperor's new clothes. Allow me to quote a lesson from the ''Pied Piper of Hamelin'': "He who pays the piper calls the tune". --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:27, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::::::That is just not how a meritocracy works... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:36, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, your refusal to address any question of mathematical or physical substance - like [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] - makes this proposal to ''"suggest edits on talk page"'' farcical. I repeat what I stated on your talk-page:
:''Your ''might makes right'' approach isn't becoming for the article on [[E=mc²]]! You are reminding me of the eponymous character in Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes", only that in this version everyone from the very beginning is telling the emperor that he is naked, but he insists on parading through the streets nonetheless! ''
You are asking [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=1029966&oldid=1029962 question] after [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=1034125&oldid=1034090 question], but you are ignoring the answers, you don't answer substantial questions yourself and you failed to show that you know the mathematics or physics involved. You are acting like a lawyer in a room of scientists, following the old saying:
:''"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."''
You are pounding the table a lot! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

What is our goal? If everyone can show some diplomacy we can have a win-win situation. I know one editor here wants to score "points" against what he views as the liberal scientific establishment. I am unclear as to why the E=mc² article is an appropriate place for this. The downside to the article in its current form is that it is widely ridiculed and undercuts CP's credibility regarding many well-written articles. I think that AugustO had a better approach. He included some of the religious views as a separate paragraph, but also had a paragraph that said that E=mc² fits the experimental data. Now that the article has been protected from editing, I would be interested in hearing how Andy proposes to develop a new version that has less opinion and more valuable information. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:49, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:A bit of friendly advice AugustO... You know how a certain editor on CP answers every instance of comment or criticism with a debate challenge over the [[15 questions nobody cares about]]? Well, I'm sorry to say, you're starting to sound like that with the whole [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] thing. Andy's never going to answer your (or anyone else's) question on this topic. Andy doesn't know what he's talking about. Andy also knows, that the entire internet knows, that Andy doesn't know what he's talking about. Yet, it hasn't deterred him in the least. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why that is so? --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:58, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::Thank you for this advice: I admit this ''ceterum censeo'' can sound annoying. I'd beg to differ in one regard: those ''15 questions'' have been answered again and again, while my [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] have been ignored... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:38, 12 February 2013 (EST)

'''Proposed solution:''' (1) Andy unprotects the article and allows AugustO to edit it without Andy's further reverting. (2) We include a "See also" section at the bottom of the article that links to one or more debate pages. The debate pages could cover why Conservatives favor a nuclear arsenal and the peaceful use of nuclear energy to make electricity while liberals do not. (3) Whatever reservations Andy has about the tensions between the Bible and the general theory of relativity is confined just to the [[General theory of relativity]] article and not spread to unrelated physics articles. This would allow everyone to get what they want. If someone on the Internet reads about CP and decides to visit the E=mc² article to see for himself, he will see that the criticisms are false. The E=mc² article will be accurate, and the concerns about general relativity will be expressed in the relevant place. How about it? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:32, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:@Wschact - You seem to gravitate towards solutions that would require Andy to relinquish editorial control over his own <s>blog</s> encyclopedia. Most of us know that's never going to happen. Your modest proposal amounts to "Let's lock Andy in his playpen so people will take CP seriously again". Good luck with that. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:22, 12 February 2013 (EST)

=== "Conservapedia - where intelligence goes to die" ===

When I [[Talk:idou|discussed the translation]] of [[idou|ἰδοὺ]] in the Conservapedia Bible Project, I was the first time confronted with an absolute inadequate stile of argument: instead of scholarly sources, spurious claims on google counts were made, statements were made out of thin air, and the subject was kicked down the road by announcing answers which never came. In the end, Andrew Schlafly just stopped addressing the topic.

I observe something similar with the article on [[E=mc²]] - only that the points made are even worse: ''The liberal media and professors also insist that Hugo Chavez is alive and recovering.'' That makes [[E=mc²]] wrong how? Andrew Schlafly hasn't shown the slightest understanding of the mathematics or physics involved, and missed every opportunity [[Talk:E=mc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|to do so.]]

The article has become detrimental to Conservapedia: it is a monument of Andrew Schlafly's ignorance on this matter. If we (all the other editors interested in this subject) aren't allowed to align this article with reality, the next best thing would be to delete it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:13, 13 February 2013 (EST)
:If the people who check out the criticisms find a correct article, CP will gain credibility. But if they find that the article was deleted, they will be left to their own imaginations as to why the article was pulled. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 02:20, 13 February 2013 (EST)
===New consensus===
Does anyone object to AugustO's version? It acknowledges the "controversy" but also states the facts. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:44, 15 February 2013 (EST)
::Obviously I agree with [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] ... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 15 February 2013 (EST)
:::Since the page has been unlocked and nobody objected, why don't you edit it to reflect the new consensus? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:49, 17 February 2013 (EST)
::::I have a problem with the wording of "The formula E=mc² has little relevance to situations where mass is not converted into energy such as chemical reactions or electrostatic interactions." (I believe this is part of "AugustO's version" but correct me otherwise.) The theory of relativity doesn't classify some types of reactions as "mass is not converted to energy". It says that whenever there is a change in energy, there is a corresponding change in mass. It doesn't matter if it's two deuterons sticking together to form a 4He nucleus, or two refrigerator magnets sticking together. Yes, the mass change is immeasurably small for non-nuclear reactions, but the formula still holds. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 00:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Of course, you are correct that E=mc2 applies to any change in mass. We need to address Andy's very interesting argument as to what happens when a person drinks a glass of water. To my knowledge, drinking a glass of water does not change from the prior state where the person is just holding a glass of water. In general, in most common day-to-day experiences (except for basking in the warmth of the Sun), any change in mass is so small that the energy released by everyday chemical reactions exceeds the energy released by converting mass into energy. Does Spielman have an alternative wording, or should we stick with the current "liberal claptrap" formulation? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:48, 22 February 2013 (EST)
*I hadn't realized that the page wasn't protected any longer. Now I performed the edit "to reflect the new consensus".
*E=mc² seems to be applicable to any situation - though it is only derived for special cases. Not only can mass be transformed to energy, energy itself shows the characteristics of mass, best demonstrated by photons in a gravitational field.
*We can only calculate but not measure the difference of mass before and after a TNT explosion - or the detonation of an atomic bomb: the mass differences are so tiny while the reactions are so powerful. But I don't think that this is a problem, we just have to look for more suitable examples. The same is true for quantum mechanics: we can apply the uncertainty principle to a speeding car, but it will have no practical consequences...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)

== Another kind of nonsense: [[User:Gryfin]]'s contribution ==

Dear Gryfin, it doesn't matter that the units are arbitrary - as long as they are used consistently: in the MKS system, you have on the right hand side [[meter]]s, [[kilogram]] and [[second]]s, and on the left hand side [[Joule]], an unit which is ''derived'' from meters, kilogram and seconds:

<math>1 Joule = 1 kg \frac{1 m^2}{1 sec^2}</math>

But you can use any other system - as long as the unit for force is derived as [Force] = [mass] × [length] / [time]² and therefore, the unit of work is [Work] = [Force] × [length] = [mass] × [length]² / [time]² (here, [entity] indicates the unit used to measure the entity).

Only if you violate this consistency, you have to introduce conversion factors - which can be easily derived: most (American) introductory textbooks on physics talk about such necessary conversions on the first pages.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:16, 27 February 2013 (EST)

== Censorship is not the way of the future ==

Andrew Schlafly, as a teacher you should know that correcting mistakes is not a form a censorship! Do I really have to remind you of the first Commandment of Conservapedia:
::'''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.'''
Your edits to the article are neither true not verifiable, as you have demonstrated here on the talk page: you have never given a cconvincing mathematical or physical argument for you position. May I remind you of [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? Those are not the only questions you have dodged - every time a discussion on this talk-page isn't about politics, but hard science, you chose to ignore it! Frankly, I came to the conclusion that you are not able to answer such basic questions on physics - and therefore, you shouldn't edit the article. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:27, 27 February 2013 (EST)
:Yikes AugustO, enough is enough surely. You have to know by now that the article will never change and yet you keep on and on. Rest assured that virtually everyone except Andy agrees with you and let that be enough. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 04:44, 27 February 2013 (EST)
::Andrew Schlafly, you undid my edit to [[E=mc²]], claiming that you were ''restoring information''. But even you must have seen that the restored section titled '''[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2Doesn’t Compute]''' is utter nonsense. It states:
::::{|class="wikitable" style="background:grey"
|''[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute] because the quantities assigned to units of measurement (seconds, kilometres and kilograms), were randomly chosen by humans and thus cannot validate the tangible energy of a given mass designed in nature. '''Because random values cannot validate the tangible''', the result of E=mc2 is abstract and so meaningless. [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute] by [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/Jonathan Grey]:
|}
::The reasoning behind this thought is very poor (see [[Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2#Another kind of nonsense: User:Gryfin's contribution|here]]), and the whole section is an attempt on link-farming.

::As for you original contributions: I came to the conviction that you don't defend them at the talk-page as they cannot be substantiated in any way. So they only resort (instead of arguing their physical or mathematical merits) is to crowbar them into the article via your edit war - a war you'll win not by having the better arguments, but by abusing your powers. In my opinion that is very sad... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:37, 28 February 2013 (EST)
This page continues to be visited by the public, and it draws traffic from websites that uses the page to ridicule Conservapedia as a whole. I think the best approach is to fix the E=mc2 article and move the criticism of the theory of general relativity to a less visible and more appropriate page. I understand that Andy has concerns about general relativity, but they do not belong on this page. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

===Choosing ignorance over knowledge===

Andrew Schlafly, you haven't answered to any suggestion made to [[Talk:E=mc²]] since Feb 11, 2013. Your only action is to revert edits made to [[E=mc²]]. Your behavior is disappointing, you don't defend your ideas, you conserve the current state of the article just by ''fiat'', thereby cementing the appearance of ignorance and idiocy which was summarized in the net under '''Conservapedia - where intelligence goes to die'''.

Ignoring those who want to improve the article and refusing to discuss your ideas is such a cowardly move that I never expected it from you: you are reminding me of a toddler who hides under his blanket, waiting for reality to go away...

This tactic may even work in the short range: your critics may get frustrated, editors like I become disillusioned and will edit less and less, someone else will say something even more stupid somewhere in the net and will divert the attention from this article, etc. But unfortunately for you, reality is there to stay...

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

== Reply from Gryfin to AugustO in regard to “another kind of nonsense” ==

Dear [[AugustO]], thank you for your comment.

Your comment is effectively saying E=mc2 is a dimensional consistent equation. A dimensional consistent equation is when the physical law is independent of the units used to measure the physical variables. Which E=mc2 is not. At the equations essence, E=mc2 is declaring the physical variable (energy) is quantified by and so dependent on the units inputted. Hence, E=mc2 is not a dimensional consistent equation.

You also say, as long as the unit for force is derived as Force = mass × length / time2 you can use any other system. To determine if you are correct in your statement, calculate using metric and imperial systems the energy contained in 0.453kg and a pound (lb). I lay you a wager. If the answers gives an identical amount of energy for the same amount of mass I’ll say I’m wrong. But if the answers are not identical, reinstate my article I posted on the 27th Feb 2013.

You also say; a correlation exists between meters, kilograms, seconds and Joules. The relationship between the four units is a manmade relationship determined after the units were created. This means the relationship is arbitrary in nature and so can’t define the tangible of nature.

The unit of a second had its origins in ancient Babylon. The Babylonians used a counting system based on 60. The system derived from counting the segments on each finger using their thumb, hence 12 hours. The 12 was multiplied by the five digits on their other hand, giving 60. The Babylonians had a 12 hour clock, only measuring the daylight hours from dawn to dusk. A 12 hour clock lasting one day will have a light speed figure of 599,584 km per second, twice its current figure.

The next phase in the clocks development was done by the Egyptians. They adopted the Babylonian clock. With the stars playing a major part in Egyptian life, they needed to account for the night time. The Egyptians modified the Babylonian clock by added another 12 hours. The 24 hour clock established the length of our second and light speed at 299,792 km per second.

The Greeks and Romans used a counting system based on 10. But instead of devising a clock of 10 hours divided by 100 minutes by 100 seconds, they simply embraced the Egyptian 24 hour clock. A 10 hour clock will have a light speed figure of 259,020 km per second

A base 16 numbering system can divide down to one (16, 8, 4, 2, 1), making it a superior system to 10 or 12. If seconds, minutes, hours was established on a base 16 numbering system, light speed will be 395,234 km per second.

The length of our second is only one of countless lengths we could have had, each giving a different figure to the speed of light. The length of our second is only by chance, and so is our light speed figure.

The values allocated to meters and kilograms were assigned by Antoine Lavoisier, a French chemist who designed the metric system in the 18th century. Lavoisier determined the length of a meter as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole at sea level. A litre is one thousandth of a cubic meter of water. A kilogram is the weight of a litre of water.

Lavoisier initially contemplated on using the equator as the base for the meter. However, because of political instability in some countries the equator runs through. He decided not to use it. But if had, the equator divided by ten million would make the meter four times its current value. This will give light speed a figure of 74,948,114.5 meters per second, a quarter of the current value. But in contradiction, a meter four times its length will make the kilogram 64 times greater than its current weight because it is based on a thousandth of a squared meter (43).

The values attributed to units of measurement were chosen for convenience, and each one could have been one of countless values with countless permutations between them. Thus, the correlation between them is manmade and not a natural correlation; unlike the correlation between energy and mass.

Until the day when humans have knowledge to determine the energy of mass and establish the correlation between them, any equation to determine the correlation is abstract. Or are you claiming, the units of measurement we use today were chosen, against incalculable odds, exactly correct and can define the tangible energy of mass. In which case, it's lucky the ancient Babylonians counted the 12 segments on their fingers and not their 10 fingers.

I expected the scientific community to reject my controversial statement on E=mc2 because, although it's correct, it doesn’t fit in with their theories. But I thought Conservapedia, which doesn’t squirm from speaking its mind, would give my statement sanctuary.

Please reinstate my article I posted on the 27th Feb 2013. It is correct and not as you say, '''“another kind of nonsense”'''

[[User:Gryfin|Gryfin]] March 06 2013

I'd like to see your calculations. The speed of light is 984,000,000 ft/sec, squared is 967,000,000,000,000,000, divided by the acceleration of gravity to get energy is 30,000,000,000,000,000 ft-lb.

1 ft/lb is 1.3558 joules

The speed of light is 984,000,000 ft/sec, squared is 967,000,000,000,000,000, divided by the acceleration of gravity to get energy is 30,000,000,000,000,000 ft-lb.

The speed of light is 300,000,000 m/sec. squared is 90,000,000,000,000,000. divided by kg/lb is 40,700,000,000,000,000. Divided by 1.3588 is 30,000,000,000,000,000.

But, hey, perhaps you forgot about the 32? [[User:CUlator|CUlator]] 11:01, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Dear [[CUlator]]

Thank you for your comment.

The part of the discussion you are obviously referring to is, computing the same quantity of mass using two different systems, imperial and metric, through E=mc2.

You have not done this. You only divided one constant by another (speed of light & acceleration of gravity). On the metric side of your example you convert the squared light speed (which is the same in both systems because it's the distance light travels in a second squared), to the imperial system before converting ft/lb to Joules. You did not use E=mc2 to calculate equal quantities of mass using metric and imperial systems.

The discussion is about E=mc2 and arbitrary systems of measurement with no correlation. Even though calculating different systems through E=mc2was a side issue to the discussion. I maintain that when using E=mc2 to compute equal amounts (0.453kg and a pound (lb)) using the imperial and metric systems. The answers will not be the same. The answers will be in calories and Joules. Then convert calories to Joules.

But most importantly, you ignored the thrust of the discussion, which is: Arbitrary values cannot validate the tangible. On one side of the equation is Energy, which has a precise amount per given mass. On the other side of the equation are manmade units of measurement with no relationship to Energy contained within mass. When humans decided what value to assign to a Joules, they assigned the amount of energy used when applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre. This has no relationship to Energy contained within mass. Until the twentieth century, burning was used to release energy from mass. This is only a tiny percentage of the potential energy. With fission in twentieth century a lot more energy per mass was released, but still only a percentage. In the future, probably hundreds of years, even more energy will be released using methods undreamt of at present. The Energy per mass and if different types of energy co-exist within mass is unknown and will remain unknown for many years! So how can an equation using arbitrary units of measurement quantify the unknown?

I look forward to your reply

[[User:Gryfin|Gryfin]] March 11 2013

Talk:E=mc²

2013-03-06T15:26:33Z

Gryfin: /* Choosing ignorance over knowledge */

Theory of relativity

2013-02-26T15:10:21Z

Gryfin:

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

The '''Theory of Relativity''' is a theory of physics, that proponents argue is the best way to discribe the universe at speeds of near light speed (299,792,458 meters/second). It has been repeatedly confirmed by experiments. Criticism of the theory, however, caused physicist [[Robert Dicke]] to be denied the [[Nobel Prize]] for his flat-out rejection of what has been experimentally confirmed. It is unlikely tenure or a Ph.D would be awarded to any critic of the theory for the same reason.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:

*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.

Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world. To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for Relativity.<ref>Increasingly the Nobel Prize Committee has attempted to relate its physics awards to Relativity in some way, including perhaps 20 of the more recent prizes.</ref> Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis''.<ref>http://ephysics.fileave.com/physics/Essen/oxford5-essen.pdf</ref> Relativity is in conflict with [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincare developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincare's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There “is” action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincare relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientist have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

At one time the anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seemed to support the Theory of General Relativity, but increasingly accurate measurements show a divergence of the data from the theory.<ref>[[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref> There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

== The concept behind Eddington’s experiment is flawed ==
Eddington measured the angle of a deflected light wave off the coast of West Africa during the 1919 eclipse and confirmed Einstein’s theory of relativity. But . . . for a light wave to produce an angle, means the light wave was pulled round to Eddingtons line of sight. Proving the image used in comparison was not the image destined for West Africa, but an image already offset, thus increasing the angle. The error in this experiment is difficult to explain but easy to visualise. To see diagrams explaining the error, click [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ here] and then click on the front cover image and go to page 5 and 6. <ref>[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute] by [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ Jonathan Grey]:</ref>

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations. <ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910's, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930's, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released.

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref>. Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>.

Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used <ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref>. The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. The primary resistance to this approach came from mathematicians unable to do the integration without an exponent of precisely 2, and they insisted, incorrectly, that was impossible for the exponent to be slightly different from 2. Due to this desire for mathematical elegance rather than objective observation-based science, Newcomb's approach was not pursued. Furthermore as can be seen from the table below the measured values of the anomalous precessions of other planets agree well with the predictions of general relativity but poorly with those predicted by Newcomb and Hall.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

:The following table show some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, the fastest speed, and the highest gravitational pull. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement .<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|43.5(5)
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|8(5)
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|5(1)
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|
|}

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One was the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, if assumptions are made, could make the energy loss appear consistent with the predicted radiation. Those observations have not been followed up with more recent, precise data, raising questions about whether the pulsar data is consistent with the theory today.

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref>. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>.

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]]<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>.

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, ie, when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 <ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref>. A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of [[federal funding]] of physics research today.<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref> In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar [[LIGO]] project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref>

{{Relativity}}

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.

E=mc²

2013-02-26T15:05:50Z

Gryfin:

'''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which states that energy ('''E''') of a body is equivalent to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>"... Einstein proves that energy and matter are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc². (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc²''' in general from first principles have failed, though there are many derivations for special cases and experimental verifications.

In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''Einstein A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s.

[[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. As shown by atomic bombs, matter can in certain circumstances be converted into energy through nuclear fusion or nuclear fission. (This is how the Sun generates energy.) In such limited cases E=mc² accurately calculates the amount of energy released by the amount of matter that is completely converted into energy. The formula E=mc² has little relevance to situations where mass is not converted into energy such as [[chemical reaction]]s or electrostatic interactions.

The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. At virtually all colleges and universities physicists explain how the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]]).<ref>[http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html ''E=mc² passes tough MIT test''], MITNews, Dec 21, 2005</ref><ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </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 "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, 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 E0=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 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}}

== E=mc2Doesn’t Compute ==
[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2Doesn’t Compute] because the quantities assigned to units of measurement (seconds, kilometres and kilograms), were randomly chosen by humans with no correlation between them. And so cannot validate the tangible energy of a given mass designed in nature with a direct correlation. '''Because random values cannot validate the tangible, the result of E=mc2 is abstract and so meaningless.''' <ref name="MyFirstRef">[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute] by [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ Jonathan Grey]:</ref>

Energy, mass and the speed of light in a [[vacuum]] are exact, invariable, designed in nature and have a precise correlation. Throughout the universe, the quantity of energy per given mass and the speed of light are identical.

However, the unit of a [[second]], [[meter]] and [[kilogram]], by which light, distance and mass are measured and give them their value, are arbitrary and manmade and have no natural correlation. When humans assigned the length to a second and distance to a meter and weight to a kilogram, the quantities were chosen randomly and for convenience with no correlation between them. The values humans assigned to units of measurement, (second, kilometer, kilogram). Could easily have been double or half or a million other values? With every one of them giving a different figure for the speed of light, distance and mass. This means because units of measurement are random and have no natural correlation, when they are computed through E=mc2 to determine the precise and tangible energy of a given mass. Because the answer is random, it is meaningless.

==== '''Example:''' ====
[[Antoine Lavoisier]] was a French chemist who designed the metric system in the 18th century. Lavoisier determined the length of a meter as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole at sea level. A litre is one thousandth of a cubic meter of water. A kilogram is the weight of a litre of water. And a gram is a thousandth of a kilogram.

Lavoisier initially contemplated on using the equator as the base for the meter. However, because of political instability in some countries the equator runs through. He decided not to use it. But if had, the equator divided by ten million would make the meter four times it’s currently value.

A meter four times its current value will give light speed a figure of 74,948,114.5 meters per second, a quarter of the current value.

However in contradiction, because the kilogram is a thousandth of the water volume of a squared meter, its weight will be increased 64 times (43) that of the current kilograms weight (Height 4 x Width 4 x Depth 4). Thus paradoxically, the kilograms mass/energy is increased 64 times. But when using E=mc2 with a reduced light speed figure, the answer is lower. E=mc2 calculates the energy of a current kilogram at 90,000 Trillion Joules. Using a quarter light speed figure, E=mc2 calculates the energy of a kilogram based on the equators length at 5,625 Trillion Joules. Even though the mass of the kilogram based on the equator is 64 times greater than the mass of the current kilogram. E=mc2 says it contains a sixteenth of the Joules. Proving no correlation exists between random units of measurement.

The quantities assigned to units of measurement, seconds, kilograms and kilometres, were chosen for convenience. This means they are random and have no natural correlation between them. However, energy, mass and the speed of light in a [[vacuum]] are exact, invariable, designed in nature and have a precise correlation. This means when the random units are computed through E=mc2 to determine the precise and tangible energy of a given mass. The answer is random and hence meaningless. '''Making the equation nonsense!''' <ref name="MyFirstRef"/>

== Description for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms '''E=mc²''':<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc² explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref>{{cquote|''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.''|||Neil deGrasse Tyson, Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

== History of '''E=mc²''' ==

The [[Public Broadcasting Service]] explained the history of '''E=mc²''' for its NOVA series as follows:<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc²''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref>

{{cquote|Over time, [[physicist]]s became used to multiplying an object's mass by the square of its [[velocity]] (mv²) to come up with a useful indicator of its energy. If the velocity of a ball or rock was 100 mph, then they knew that the energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 squared. If the velocity is raised as high as it could go, to 670 million mph, it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc².}}

==Experimental verification==
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> for which they were honored with the [[Nobel Prize]] in physics in 1951. The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using ''E=mc²'' can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref>

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]]s, the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Some claim that the best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The authors state in their article in ''Nature'' magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10−7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

The decay path of [[Uranium]] that figured in the ''Hahn-Strassmann experiment'' may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. There are a large number of fission paths and fission products, but they were searching for the chemical signature of [[Barium]].)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. This very issue came up on the [[Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos]]. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc2.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10-36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10-8Joules. Using the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, we get v=110x1012meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light.
However, the classical formula breaks down at speeds close to <math>c</math>, and indeed, as the speed of a massive object approaches <math>c</math>, the object's kinetic energy approaches <math>+\infty</math>.

Several scientists have gone on record stating that the neutrinos, which have mass, travel at precisely the speed of light. If true, this disproves the [[Theory of Relativity]] and the claim that '''E=mc2'''. However, it is more likely that those scientists are using language inaccurately. It is impossible to measure the speed of neutrinos precisely. What is meant is the difference between the speed of light and the speed of the neutrinos is too small to measure.

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700's, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863 kg.
The mass lost is .00002301 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10-18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.04 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830 kg.

The mass lost is .00002703 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.39 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc² explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.04 * 1012
| .00002301 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.39 * 1012
| .00002703 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16

If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10-10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

==See also==
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]
[[Category:Bible]]

Theory of relativity

2013-02-25T16:25:36Z

Gryfin:

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

The '''Theory of Relativity''' is a theory of physics, that proponents argue is the best way to discribe the universe at speeds of near light speed (299,792,458 meters/second). It has been repeatedly confirmed by experiments. Criticism of the theory, however, caused physicist [[Robert Dicke]] to be denied the [[Nobel Prize]] for his flat-out rejection of what has been experimentally confirmed. It is unlikely tenure or a Ph.D would be awarded to any critic of the theory for the same reason.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:

*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.

Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world. To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for Relativity.<ref>Increasingly the Nobel Prize Committee has attempted to relate its physics awards to Relativity in some way, including perhaps 20 of the more recent prizes.</ref> Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis''.<ref>http://ephysics.fileave.com/physics/Essen/oxford5-essen.pdf</ref> Relativity is in conflict with [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincare developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincare's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There “is” action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincare relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientist have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

At one time the anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seemed to support the Theory of General Relativity, but increasingly accurate measurements show a divergence of the data from the theory.<ref>[[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref> There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

== The concept behind Eddington’s experiment is flawed ==
Eddington measured the angle of a deflected light wave off the coast of West Africa during the 1919 eclipse and confirmed Einstein’s theory of relativity. But . . . for a light wave to produce an angle, the light wave must have been pulled round to Eddingtons line of sight. This proves the image used in comparison was not the image destined for West Africa, but an image already offset, thus increasing the angle. To see diagrams explaining the error, click [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ here] and click on the front cover image, and then go to page 5 and 6. <ref>[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute] by [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ Jonathan Grey]:</ref>

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations. <ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910's, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930's, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released.

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref>. Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>.

Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used <ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref>. The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. The primary resistance to this approach came from mathematicians unable to do the integration without an exponent of precisely 2, and they insisted, incorrectly, that was impossible for the exponent to be slightly different from 2. Due to this desire for mathematical elegance rather than objective observation-based science, Newcomb's approach was not pursued. Furthermore as can be seen from the table below the measured values of the anomalous precessions of other planets agree well with the predictions of general relativity but poorly with those predicted by Newcomb and Hall.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

:The following table show some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, the fastest speed, and the highest gravitational pull. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement .<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|43.5(5)
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|8(5)
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|5(1)
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|
|}

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One was the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, if assumptions are made, could make the energy loss appear consistent with the predicted radiation. Those observations have not been followed up with more recent, precise data, raising questions about whether the pulsar data is consistent with the theory today.

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref>. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>.

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]]<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>.

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, ie, when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 <ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref>. A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of [[federal funding]] of physics research today.<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref> In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar [[LIGO]] project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref>

{{Relativity}}

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.

E=mc²

2013-02-25T16:16:03Z

Gryfin:

'''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in any body is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>"... Einstein proves that energy and matter are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc². (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc²''' in general from first principles have failed. [[Politics|Political]] pressure,<ref>For example, [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]].</ref> however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. Simply put, '''E=mc²''' is [[liberal claptrap]].

In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''Einstein A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so. [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. 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 the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc² is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring. <ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref>

The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </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 "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, 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 E0=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 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}}

== [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2Doesn’t Compute] ==
[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute] because the quantities assigned to units of measurement (seconds, kilometres and kilograms), were randomly chosen by humans and thus cannot validate the tangible energy of a given mass designed in nature. '''Because random values cannot validate the tangible''', the result of E=mc2 is abstract and so meaningless. <ref>[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute] by [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ Jonathan Grey]:</ref>

== Description for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms '''E=mc²''':<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc² explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref>{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

== History of '''E=mc²''' ==

The [[Public Broadcasting Service]] explained the history of '''E=mc²''' for its NOVA series as follows:<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc²''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref>

{{cquote|Over time, [[physicist]]s became used to multiplying an object's mass by the square of its [[velocity]] (mv²) to come up with a useful indicator of its energy. If the velocity of a ball or rock was 100 mph, then they knew that the energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 squared. If the velocity is raised as high as it could go, to 670 million mph, it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc².}}

==Experimental verification==
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> for which they were honored with the [[Nobel Prize]] in physics in 1951. The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using ''E=mc²'' can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref>

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]]s, the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Some claim that the best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The authors state in their article in ''Nature'' magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10−7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

The decay path of [[Uranium]] that figured in the ''Hahn-Strassmann experiment'' may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. There are a large number of fission paths and fission products, but they were searching for the chemical signature of [[Barium]].)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. This very issue came up on the [[Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos]]. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc2.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10-36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10-8Joules. Using the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, we get v=110x1012meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light.
However, the classical formula breaks down at speeds close to <math>c</math>, and indeed, as the speed of a massive object approaches <math>c</math>, the object's kinetic energy approaches <math>+\infty</math>.

Several scientists have gone on record stating that the neutrinos, which have mass, travel at precisely the speed of light. If true, this disproves the [[Theory of Relativity]] and the claim that '''E=mc2'''. However, it is more likely that those scientists are using language inaccurately. It is impossible to measure the speed of neutrinos precisely. What is meant is the difference between the speed of light and the speed of the neutrinos is too small to measure.

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700's, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863 kg.
The mass lost is .00002301 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10-18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.04 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830 kg.

The mass lost is .00002703 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.39 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc² explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.04 * 1012
| .00002301 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.39 * 1012
| .00002703 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16

If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10-10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

==See also==
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]
[[Category:Bible]]