Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

E=mc²

2015-05-15T00:31:12Z

JonathanRH13: Increased clarity

'''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in an unmoving object is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>The implausible equation claims that "energy and mass 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> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is '''E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²''', where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>How dare you asses try to cite Herny Reich's honest and scientific (unlike this wiki) Youtube channel, as a way to "prove" your point. I didn't notice this until now, but wow, you disgusting swine. In fact, this video by Henry only validates the theory more, making you look like the hypocritical fools you are. Disgusting, lying, bigotted, idiotic, lazy, stealing, plagiarizing, unaccomplished, parasitic, cheating, psychopathic, insane, stupid, fools. Why don't you actually do something with your life instead of sitting in front of a computer all day, editing and protecting this wiki relentlessly?</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 both of its forms, in general from first principles have failed. However, it is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this [[equation]]. [[Politics|Political]] pressure, 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]]'''''. <ref>Before you fools block me, I'd like to take some time to explain myself. YOU ARE ALL BREAKING THE LAW BY PLAGIARIZING. If you were nice, you'd thank me. But of course you won't. Nevertheless, let me put it this way: you bigotted fools, who claim to love their country and claim to be good Christians, are breaking the law of both your country and your religion by plagiarizing, which is essentially lying and stealing, which are direct violations of the 8th and 9th Commandments. You hypocritical imbeciles. As for this page, I doubt any of you have the intellectual capabilities to understand the true and beautiful implications of this theory discovered by a man whose accomplishments make yours look like crap in comparison, to say the least. In short, GROW UP, YOU IDIOTS!!</ref>

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 not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and speculations 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 (see the [http://www.conservapedia.com/E%3Dmc%C2%B2#See_also See also] section for a derivation), 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> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref>

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] 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}}


== 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.}}

==Claims of experimental verification==
In an experiment which is replicated in courses on modern physics at colleges and universities around the world hundreds of times each year, in 1932 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. Neither the Nobel Committee nor the prize recipients made any claim to verify ''E=mc²''.<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]], 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.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc2 was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> 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]]

Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula:
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]

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

E=mc²

2015-05-15T00:05:35Z

JonathanRH13: Remove vandalism, added clarity

'''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in an unmoving object is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>The implausible equation claims that "energy and mass 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> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is '''E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²''', where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</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 both of its forms, in general from first principles have failed. However, it is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this [[equation]]. [[Politics|Political]] pressure, 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]]'''''. <ref>Before you fools block me, I'd like to take some time to explain myself. YOU ARE ALL BREAKING THE LAW BY PLAGIARIZING. If you were nice, you'd thank me. But of course you won't. Nevertheless, let me put it this way: you bigotted fools, who claim to love their country and claim to be good Christians, are breaking the law of both your country and your religion by plagiarizing, which is essentially lying and stealing, which are direct violations of the 8th and 9th Commandments. You hypocritical imbeciles. As for this page, I doubt any of you have the intellectual capabilities to understand the true and beautiful implications of this theory discovered by a man whose accomplishments make yours look like crap in comparison, to say the least. In short, GROW UP, YOU IDIOTS!!</ref>

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 not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and speculations 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 (see the [http://www.conservapedia.com/E%3Dmc%C2%B2#See_also See also] section for a derivation), 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> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref>

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] 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}}


== 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.}}

==Claims of experimental verification==
In an experiment which is replicated in courses on modern physics at colleges and universities around the world hundreds of times each year, in 1932 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. Neither the Nobel Committee nor the prize recipients made any claim to verify ''E=mc²''.<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]], 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.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc2 was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> 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]]

Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula:
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]

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

Battle of Marmiton River

2015-05-14T23:52:49Z

JonathanRH13: Reverted vandalism and plagiarism

{{ACWbattle
|name=Battle of Marmiton River Shiloh Creek, Charlot’s Farm
|image=
|begin=October 25, 1864
|end=Same day
|place=Vernon County, Missouri
|theater=Trans-Mississippi Theater
|campaign=Price’s Missouri Expedition
|result=Union victory
|combatants1=
|combatants2=Army of Missouri
|commanders1=[[John H. McNeil]] Brigadier General, USA
|commanders2=[[Sterling Price]] Major General, CSA
|strength1=
|strength2=
|casualties1=
|casualties2=
}}
Following the Battle of Mine Creek, Maj. Gen. Sterling Price continued his cartage towards Fort Scott.(''NPS summary'') <---So you admit you're plagiarizing, huh, Karajou? What scum you are!! Lying, cheating, stealing!! SOOOO Christian of you!!!

{{Template:Campaignbox Price's Missouri Expedition}}
{{Template:ACW Battles of 1864}}

[[Category:American Civil War Battles]]

Debate:Bias in conservapedia

2015-05-14T23:50:08Z

JonathanRH13: Removed strawman argument by liberals

== Opportunity for Debate ==

This seems like a good place to begin a discussion of why some views must go unchallenged on this site. For example, if one feels that a subject like George W. Bush is complete, that is, not needing any further information, then by all means--lock it. Unfortunately, many of these instances smack of censorship of the truth. Shouldn't some of the controversy surrounding the president be addressed? Or, is Conservapedia really just a forum for unchecked, unquestioning dogma? I just think we need to talk. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Examples of Bias in Conservapedia==

The growing list of examples of bias and errors on Conservapedia. Please add to this.

1. Conservapedia condemns the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. despite B.C.E. and C.E. being the recognized standard world-wide. The change was made to not alienate other cultures around the world, since using B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) is supposed to be an international standard, not an American standard only.
: - One rebuttal to this accusation is that the A.D./B.C. standard has never been an "American standard only" and, worldwide, is the prevailing system for measuring time.

2. Conservapedia gives credit to America, Christianity (sometimes radical Christianity and Creationism), and Conservative views, many times forgetting other factors involved, other countries, other religions, and other points of view. On the main page, Conservapedia even says that "Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America". However, often full credit is not due to either Christianity or America, the world does not revolve around Christian Americans.

3. Conservapedia claims it is correcting the Liberal bias found in Wikipedia, yet Wikipedia shows both sides of possible debates in the majority of their articles. Conservapedia on the other hand only includes the arguments for the conservative view, and Christian view. Conservapedia, while claiming to be less biased, includes an article called "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" which slanders Wikipedia in many ways, often giving incorrect information and irrelevant arguments against its articles.

4. Conservapedia lets anyone with a Conservative, Christian point of view to edit their pages, but any edits done from another point of view are removed, while Wikipedia lets anyone from any point of view edit their pages, and payed experts and scientists edit and make changes to keep the information extremely accurate.

5. Conservapedia claims that twice as many Americans identify themselves as Conservative compared to Liberal, while three times as many editors identify themselves as Liberal as compared to Conservative on Wikipedia. This claims compares a self-selected user categorization with a representative poll. Furthermore it compares only 2 of 131 possible categories in Wikipedia, with 2 of 3 possible answers in the poll. And it is possible to choose more than one category in Wikipedia, while in the poll respondent had to choose one possible answer. These are are fundamental difference that make any comparison between the Wikipedia numbers and the representative Harris poll a folly. There is no logic, truth, or relevance in saying that Wikipedia is 6 times more Liberal than the American public, and we also must remember than Wikipedia is meant for the entire world, not just Americans.

6. Conservapedia also condemns Wikipedia for claiming 1.5 million articles, but not all of them being useful. However, Wikipedia never claimed that their articles were educational. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia which contains information about anything and everything.

7. Conservapedia restricts editing of many pages that are considered to be controversial, but some of these pages are purely restricted because visitors with non-conservative, non-christian, or non-american views correct the biased material.

8. The majority of articles about animals include an amazingly short stub of relevant information (generally the animal's description), while the last 80% of the article or so is all about the creation of said animal. In most cases, the creation section of these articles only includes the views of Creationists, and there is little to no mention of Evolution, despite the evidence supporting it.

9. In more than one case, Evolution is also thrown aside and discarded with completely false information about the dating of fossils being incorrect, despite the method of dating fossils (carbon dating) being incredibly accurate. Evolution is generally thrown aside because the fossil evidence proving the Earth's age is at least several million years old (if not several billion), conflicts with the views of Young Earth Creationists. Evolution is also discarded because of the apparent lack of mid-evolution evidence, despite there being many examples of such.

10. References are seldomly cited, even on the most popular of pages, and when they are cited, they often include very little literature and many websites which are statistically much less accurate. The majority of the time, if there are sources, most if not all of the sources will be relating only to the Christian/Creationist, Conservative, American point of view, therefore anything written about the other side of any possible debates are being written with no sources, and the sources used for the Conservative side of the debate are almost always extremely biased.

11. On the main page, the Conservapedia claims that it includes 4,700 educational articles that are student-friendly. However, the majority of the articles are extremely short stubs with few to no references that show only a single point of view. Also, the majority of the articles are written with poor grammar and a low grade reading level, which is hardly appropriate for student use.

12. Conservapedia has since edited the following statement which was included on the main page: "Conservapedia has over 4,100 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics, including more than 350 lectures and term lists." However, to claim that Conservapedia is scientific when it often states that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect solely because "there is no evidence" or that it's "just a theory" despite fossil evidence and many animals, including humans backing up this theory, is very unscientific.

13. Conservapedia also displays is bias through the use of American spelling of words only, and in fact points out that Wikipedia uses the "foreign" spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. This is true, however the English language was derived in England - where the spelling of words most certainly is correct if they invented the language. The so called "foreign" spelling of English words on Wikipedia is in fact correct for the rest of the world, and it should not have to cater to any country which uses different spelling which is in fact an altered version of the original, correct, English language. The fact that Wikipedia redirects to the original English spelling of American words shows that they are serving the entire world, and it is in fact convenient for everyone in this case.

14. Articles such as the one on Kangaroos, and the one on Dinosaurs have ridiculous claims which are used solely to support the Young Earth Creationist view. For example, the article states that from the Origins Theory Model that Kangaroos originated in the Middle East. However, Kangaroos would have had absolutely no way of travelling as far as they would need to during Pangea to end up in Australia, and even moreso after Pangea. Kangaroos can only live in a certain climate, and it is physically impossible for them to have originated in the Middle East. The only references are to Christian and Creationist websites, which are extremely biased and try as hard as they can to prove that their ideas are the one and only correct ones. The article on dinosaurs is similar, and has very little about dinosaurs living millions of years ago. Instead, the article focuses on how creationists believe that fossil evidence is incorrect because of dating methods (even though this is physically impossible to be incorrect, since carbon dating is extremely precise). There are no references citing where these fossil records could possibly be proven wrong in any way, and even mentions that the Young Earth Creationists believe this primarily because of biblical sources, which can hardly be used as a reference. Once again the only other references cite Creationist and Christian websites only. There is absolutely no mention of even the possibility of an ice age, a meteor, or anything else relevant, it is purely talk about Creationism, and to try and support its claims it says there is even a possibility that these dinosaurs still live on Earth without us seeing them (even with satellite technology somehow).

15. There are many more examples of these biased articles, all you have to do is look around. I encourage others who are outraged at the complete inaccuracy of these articles, and complete lack of anything even remotely non-Christian, non-Creationist, non-Conservative, and non-American, to add more examples to this list to show that Conservapedia is much more biased than Wikipedia, which it is attempting to "fix".

16. Conservapedia argues against Wikipedia on the basis that when discussing political candidates it tends to contain information that presents conservative politicians in a negative light while ignoring similar information for liberal politicians. Conservapedia has the same modus operandi but in reverse and to the extreme. If one looks at the Hillary Clinton page, most of the information there discusses scandals or failures but does not provide any examples of accomplishments. The page on Mike Huckabee is entirely positive and had no information about recent information until an informed individual added it. Conservapedia fails to present all politicians in equally positive and negative light.

17. See the [[Creationism]] page

18. See the [[E=mc^2]] page

19. See [[any page]]

[[Category: Debates about Conservapedia]]

Rick Astley

2015-05-14T23:46:40Z

JonathanRH13: Removed vandalism

Rick Astley (born Lancashire, 1966) is a pop/soul singer most famous for the use of his song 'Never Gonna Give You Up', in the internet prank known as a [[Rickroll]].

Possibly due to the [[meme]]tic success of the above prank<ref>[http://www.bestactever.com]</ref>, he has been nominated in the MTV Europe awards for being the best music act ever<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7646807.stm]</ref>, an accolade he won on 7 November 2008 following a tense period of delay voting.<ref>http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/61840960</ref> <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ</ref>

==References==

<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Astley, Rick}}
[[Category:Musicians]]

USS O'Bannon (DD-450)

2015-05-14T23:43:42Z

JonathanRH13: Reverted plagiarism from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_O'Bannon_(DD-450)#1943

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:OBannonDD450.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|USS ''O'Bannon'' (DD-450)
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Career
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:US Naval Jack 48 stars.png|48px|United States Navy Jack]]
|-
|-
| Class:
| ''Fletcher''
|-
| Laid down:
| 03 March 1941
|-
| Launched:
| 19 February 1942
|-
| Commissioned:
| 26 June 1942
|-
| Decommissioned:
| 30 January 1970
|-
| Fate:
| Sold for scrapping, 06 June 1970
|-
! colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy;"| General characteristics
|-
| Displacement:
| 2,700 t
|-
| Length:
| 376 ft 4 in
|-
| Beam:
| 39 ft 9 in
|-
| Draft:
| 13 ft
|-
| Speed:
| 35.5 knots
|-
| Complement:
| 273 officers and men
|-
| Armament:
| five 5" guns; six 20mm guns; 10 torpedo tubes
|}
'''USS ''O'Bannon''''' (DD-450) was a [[destroyer]] which saw extensive service in [[World War II]]. She was named for Lieutenant [[Presley Neville O’Bannon]], [[United States Marine Corps]] (1784-1850), the first American to raise the flag against an enemy on foreign soil.

The second ship to bear the name, ''O’Bannon'' was laid down by Bath Iron Works Corporation, Bath, Maine on 3 March 1941, and launched 19 February 1942. She was sponsored by Mrs. E. F. Kennedy, a descendent of Lieutenant O’Bannon; and commissioned at Boston 26 June 1942, Comdr. E. R. Wilkinson in command.

==World War II service==
''O’Bannon'' briefly trained for war in the [[Caribbean]] and sailed from Boston 29 August 1942 for the Southwest Pacific where the long and arduous battle for [[Guadalcanal]] had just begun. For over a year the Navy, stretched thin to cover its world-wide commitments at a period when new ships were just beginning to join the fleet in any number, was to fight and fight again in the [[Solomon Islands]] in one of the most bitterly contested campaigns of history, wresting air and sea control from the Japanese, and providing the Marine Corps and the Army with every possible support as they gained ground inch by inch on the myriad islands. ''O’Bannon'' played a valiant part in these endeavors, which was to win for her a [[Presidential Unit Citation]].

Based at Noumea, New Caledonia, ''O’Bannon'' first escorted ''Copahee'' (CVE–12) on a run to Guadalcanal where on 9 October, twenty Marines flew their Wildcats off Copahee’s decks, desperately needed as reinforcements at beleaguered Henderson Field. Through the remainder of the month ''O’Bannon'' sailed the [[New Hebrides]] and southern Solomons on escort duty. On 7 November at Noumea, she joined Rear Admiral Daniel J. Callaghan’s Support Group, ready to sail with a convoy carrying critical reinforcements, replacements, food, ammunition, and aviation material.

On the approach to Guadalcanal, ''O’Bannon'' sighted and fired on a surfaced enemy submarine, holding it down while the convoy passed safely. On the evening of 12 November, the partially unladen transports were attacked by fifteen enemy torpedo bombers, all but one were shot down. ''O’Bannon'' fired on four of the downed enemy planes. Now came word that the Japanese were moving south in force. Two battleships, a light cruiser and 14 destroyers were bound to destroy Henderson Field by bombardment, to break up the American reinforcement mission, and to cover reinforcement movements of their own. ''O’Bannon'' and the other ships of the Support Force, two heavy and three light cruisers, and eight destroyers, confronted the greatly superior enemy early 13 November in [[Ironbottom Sound]], so named for the number of ships on both sides sunk there during the Guadalcanal campaign. ''O’Bannon'' boldly attacked the Japanese battleship ''Hiei'', closing so near that the battleship could not depress her guns far enough to fire on the gallant destroyer. ''O’Bannon’s'' gunfire, in combination with the attacks of the rest of the force, damaged Hiei so badly that she was a sitting duck for the air attack which sank her next day. This [[Naval Battle of Guadalcanal]] was long and desperate; two American light cruisers, in one of which Admiral Callaghan lost his life, and four destroyers were lost, while two Japanese destroyers were sunk and ''Hiei'' prepared for her doom. Above all, the Japanese were turned back, and Henderson Field saved from destruction. The importance of this success is illustrated by the fact that next day Henderson aviators sank eleven enemy troop transports attempting to reinforce the island.

===The "potato" incident===
Through October 1943, ''O’Bannon'' protected landings, carried out escort duties from Noumea and [[Espiritu Santo]] to Guadalcanal and [[Tulagi]], joined in bombardments at Guadalacanal, Munda, Kolombangara, and shouldered her share of the nightly patrols up the “Slot” between the Solomons, guarding against Japanese reinforcements. Retiring from such a run early 5 April, ''O’Bannon'' sighted on the surface and fired on Japanese submarine ''RO–34'', damaging the conning tower. However, both vessels drifted so close to each other that ''O'Bannon's'' guns could not be depressed far enough to be effective, and the Japanese crew came out on deck to ready the sub's 5-inch gun. Several sailors then grabbed hold of an unusual option: on deck was a crate of potatoes, and the sub was pelted with them. Apparently thinking they were hand grenades, the sub crew darted back into their vessel, which was ordered to dive. Unfortunately, the damage to the conning tower let water rush in and the sub sank.

But a week later, a second battle had to be fought in the same waters against a Japanese cruiser, five destroyers and four destrover-escorts. The same American force sank the Japanese cruiser and turned the smaller ships away, losing none themselves.

For the next two months, ''O’Bannon'' spent most of her time in Vella Gulf, guarding landings, intercepting Japanese troop convoys and their covering escorts, and fighting off air attacks. With the aid of sister destroyers, she sank a number of barges, two submarine chasers, an armed boat, and a gun boat on various patrols. The climax of operations in the area was the [[Battle of Vella Lavella]], 6 October, brought on by Japanese attempts to evacuate their troops from that island. With ''Selfridge'' (DD–357) and ''Chevalier'' (DD–451), ''O’Bannon'' made the first attack on the evacuation force, a group of nine or ten destroyers and smaller armed craft. The three American ships contacted six enemy destroyers, shrugged at the odds, and raced at 33 knots to launch torpedoes and open gunfire. Japanese destroyer ''Yugumo'' was turned into a blazing hulk, but both ''Selfridge'' and ''Chevalier'' took torpedo hits. ''O’Bannon'' was close on ''Chevalier’s'' stern when the latter was struck, and the most radical maneuvers could not keep her from swinging into her sister’s side. The enemy retired with three newly-arrived American destroyers in pursuit, while ''O’Bannon'' guarded her stricken sisters, rescuing the survivors of ''Chevalier''.

''O’Bannon'' made battle repairs at Tulagi, then sailed to the west coast for overhaul. By 18 March 1944 she was back in the Solomons, ready for her part in the series of westward-moving amphibious assaults which won New Guinea. Again, it was escort and bombardment repeatedly until 18 October, when ''O’Bannon'' cleared Hollandia to escort reinforcements for the invasion of Leyte. The convoy was brought in safely 24 October, the eve of the [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]]. ''O’Bannon'' guarded the Northern Transport area and patrolled the entrances to Leyte Gulf during the battle, coming under air attack. Thus she played her part in the definitive destruction of the Japanese Navy.

Through June 1945 ''O’Bannon'' operated primarily in the [[Philippines]], serving in the escort or assault force for the long roll call of invasions: Ormoc, Mindoro, Lingayen, [[Bataan]], [[Corregidor]], Palawan, Zamboanga, Cebu, Caraboa. Air attacks were frequent in the early period, and ''O’Bannon'' splashed several raiders. During the Lingayen offensive, 31 January 1945, ''O’Bannon'', with three other destroyers, attacked and sank an enemy submarine (Japanese records studied after the war indicate it was most likely ''RO–115''). At the end of April and early in May, ''O’Bannon'' interrupted her Philippine operations to give fire support at Tarakan, [[Borneo]] and cover minesweeping operations there.

''O’Bannon'' rendezvoused with a group of escort carriers off [[Okinawa]] on 17 June, and guarded them as they struck against Sakashima Gunto. In July it was the large carriers that she protected as they flew strikes on northern [[Honshu]] and [[Hokkaido]]. With the close of the war, ''O’Bannon'' patrolled the coast of Honshu until 27 August, when she joined two other destroyers to escort ''Missouri'' (BB–63) into Tokyo Bay. There she patrolled until 1 September. She then sailed to [[San Francisco]] and [[San Diego]], where she decommissioned after overhaul 21 May 1946.

==Korean War==
Between 17 January 1949 and 10 February 1950, ''O’Bannon'' was converted to an escort destroyer at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. She was redesignated DDE–450, 26 March 1949, and recommissioned 19 February 1951 to serve out of Pearl Harbor. She sailed for her first tour of duty with the [[United Nations]] forces repelling Communist agression in [[Korea]] 19 November, and during the next seven months she guarded carriers at sea as their air groups struck targets in Korea; served as flagship for the Wonsan Element, East Coast Blockade and Escort Group; fired on enemy gun emplacements, road and rail supply routes, ammunition depots, and troop concentrations; and protected convoys moving between Korea and Japan.

A training period out of Pearl Harbor began upon her return home 20 June 1952, and she took part in AEC operations off Eniwetok. ''O’Bannon'' cleared Pearl Harbor late in April 1953 for the Far East where her primary mission was screening carriers. Thereafter she served on the Taiwan Patrol and in exercises off Japan and Okinawa.

==Between Korea and Vietnam==
Between the [[Korean War]] and the [[Vietnam War]], ''O’Bannon'' took her part in the intricately planned schedule which assures the United States that its 7th Fleet is always composed of ships and men whose readiness for any emergency is at its keenest. For ''O’Bannon'' this has meant an alternation of roughly six-month deployments to the Far East and periods spent in training operations and necessary overhauls at Pearl Harbor. While in the Far East, she visited ports in Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, [[Australia]] and [[New Zealand]], with brief, welcome recreation calls at [[Hong Kong]]. She was often in either New Zealand or Australia for the annual commemoration of the [[Battle of the Coral Sea]], a time of national rejoicing in those countries at which Americans are particularly welcome. She conducted combined operations training with the SEATO allies as well as exercising with Marines at Okinawa and taking part in exercises preparing for any conceviable demand that might be made on the 7th Fleet. While at Pearl Harbor, she often aided in training reservists in addition to her own training, and at various times sailed down-range for space orbits and missile shots. In the summer and fall of 1962, she took part in atomic tests at Johnston Island.

==Vietnam War==
''O’Bannon'' first closed the coast of Vietnam during her 1964–5 deployment, when on 26 December she left Hong Kong to patrol and conduct hydrographic surveys. Much of her 1966 tour was spent as planeguard for ''Kitty Hawk'' (CV–63) while the carrier’s jets struck targets in South and North Vietnam to lessen Communist ability to wage war in the South. For a week each in May and June ''O’Bannon'' fired shore bombardments, destroying Vietcong base camps, troop concentrations, and small craft.

The veteran destroyer returned via Yokosuka to Pearl Harbor 30 July. During operations out of home port, she trained for Apollo space craft recovery operations in August and was a member of the contingency recovery force for the [[Gemini 11]] space flight early in September. She visited Guam in the spring of 1967 and returned home early in July to prepare for another Far Eastern deployment.

''O’Bannon'' got under way for Japan 28 September, reached Yokosuka 7 October and Subic Bay on the 15th. She returned to the war zone with ''Constellation'' (CV–64) and operated as plane guard on Yankee Station through 4 November. After a fortnight’s respite at Subic Bay and Hong Kong ''O’Bannon'' sailed to Da Nang for shore bombardment. She visited Taiwan early in December but returned to the fighting on the 15th to provide gunfire support just south of the DMZ. Two days later she helped to rescue the crew of an American plane which had been hit over the DMZ and had managed to crash just off shore. An enemy battery shelled the destroyer during the operation but failed to score.

On 30 January 1970, ''O'Bannon'' was decommissioned in a ceremony at Pearl Harbor on 30 January 1970, and sold for scrap two years later.

''O’Bannon'' received the Presidential Unit Citation and 17 battle stars for World War II service, and 3 battle stars for Korean War Service.

==Presidential Unit Citation==
THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

WASHINGTON

The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the PRESIDENTIAL UNIT CITATION to the

UNITED STATES SHIP O’BANNON

for service as set forth in the following

CITATION:

''“For outstanding performance in combat against enemy Japanese forces in the South Pacific from October 7, 1942, to October 7, 1943. An aggressive veteran after a year of continuous and intensive operations in this area, the U.S.S. O’BANNON has taken a tremendous toll of vital Japanese warships, surface vessels and aircraft. Launching a close range attack on hostile combatant ships off Guadalcanal on the night of November 13, 1942, the O’BANNON scored three torpedo hits on a Japanese battleship, boldly engaged two other men o’ war with gunfire and retired safely in spite of damage sustained. During three days of incessant hostilities in July 1943, she gallantly stood down Kula Gulf to bombard enemy shore positions in coverage of our assault groups, later taking a valiant part in the rescue of survivors from the torpedoed U.S.S STRONG while under fierce coastal battery fire and aerial bombing attack and adding her fire power toward the destruction of a large Japanese naval force. In company with two destroyers, the O’BANNON boldly intercepted and repulsed nine hostile warships off Vella Lavella on October 7, 1943, destroying two enemy ships and damaging others. Although severely damaged, she stood by to take aboard and care for survivors of a friendly torpedoed destroyer and retired to base under her own power. The O’BANNON’s splendid achievements and the gallant fighting spirit of her officers and men reflect great credit upon the United States Naval Service.”''

For the President,

/s/ Frank Knox
Secretary of the Navy
----

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/o1/obannon-ii.htm]}}}.
|}

[[category:United States Navy]][[Category:Destroyers]][[Category:World War II]]

Eye wall

2015-05-14T23:40:40Z

JonathanRH13: Reverted plagiarism and additional vandalism from http://w1.weather.gov/glossary/index.php?letter=e Note this was referenced, however plagiarism is unacceptable

<ref>http://www.weather.gov/glossary/index.php?letter=e</ref>

==See Also==

*[[Hurricane]]
*[[Eye (Hurricane)]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Weather]]
[[Category:Meteorology]]

Battle of Spotsylvania Court House

2015-05-14T23:38:34Z

JonathanRH13: Removed more plagiarism from http://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Battle_of_Spotsylvania_Court_House

{{ACWbattle
|name=Battle of Spotsylvania Court House
|image=[[File:Battle-of-the-Wilderness-Chappel.jpg|300px]]
|begin=8 May 1864
|end=21 May 1864
|place=Spotsylvania County, Virginia
|theater=Eastern Theater
|campaign=Overland Campaign
|result=Inconclusive
|combatants1=[[Army of the Potomac]]
|combatants2=[[Army of Northern Virginia]]
|commanders1=[[Ulysses S. Grant]] Lieutenant General, USA
|commanders2=[[Robert E. Lee]] General, CSA
|strength1=100,000
|strength2=52,000
|casualties1='''17,555''' est.
|casualties2='''12,000''' est.
}}

{{Template:Campaignbox Overland Campaign}}
{{Template:ACW Battles of 1864}}
{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| Some of this work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.nps.gov/frsp/wildspot.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:American Civil War Battles]]

Battle of Aquia Creek

2015-05-14T23:36:25Z

JonathanRH13: Removed all plagiarism from http://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Battle_of_Aquia_Creek

{{ACWbattle
|name=Battle of Aquia Creek
|image=
|begin=May 29, 1861
|end=June 1, 1861
|place=Stafford County, Virginia
|theater=Eastern Theater
|campaign=Blockade of the Chesapeake Bay
|result=Inconclusive
|combatants1=USS ''Thomas Freeborn'' USS ''Anacostia'' USS ''Resolute'' USS ''Pawnee''
|combatants2=
|commanders1=James H. Ward Commander, USN
|commanders2=Daniel Ruggles Colonel, CSA
|strength1=3 U.S. gunboats
|strength2=Battery garrison
|casualties1=10 total (US and CS)
|casualties2=10 total (US and CS)
}}

{{Template:Campaignbox Chesapeake Blockade}}
{{Template:ACW Battles of 1861}}
[[Category:American Civil War Battles]]

Battle of Sewell's Point

2015-05-14T23:35:33Z

JonathanRH13: Reverted plagiarism from http://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Battle_of_Sewell%27s_Point

{{ACWbattle
|name=Battle of Sewell's Point
|image=
|begin=18 May 1861
|end=19 May 1861
|place=Sewell's Point, near Norfolk, Virginia
|theater=Eastern Theater
|campaign=Blockade of Chesapeake Bay
|result=Inconclusive
|combatants1=USS ''Monticello'' USS ''Thomas Freeborn''
|combatants2=Light Guard, 6th Georgia Reg.
|commanders1=Henry Eagle Captain, USN D.L. Braine Lieutenant, USN
|commanders2=Walter Gwynn Brigadier General, CSA Peyton Colquitt Captain, CSA
|strength1=Two Union gunboats
|strength2=Battery garrison
|casualties1=None
|casualties2=Wounded: 1
}}

==References==
*[http://dlxs2.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;g=moagrp;xc=1;q1=colquitt;rgn=full%20text;idno=ofre0005;didno=ofre0005;view=image;seq=0679 The Official Records; various reports from the battle]
*[http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m14/monticello-i.htm USS ''Monticello'', from the ''Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships'']
*[http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t4/thomas_freeborn.htm USS ''Thomas Freeborn'', from the ''Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships'']

{{Template:Campaignbox Chesapeake Blockade}}
{{Template:ACW Battles of 1861}}

[[Category:American Civil War Battles]]

Mexican War

2015-05-14T23:30:56Z

JonathanRH13: Reverted plagiarism from http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-08.htm

The '''Mexican War''', or '''Mexican-American War''' In Mexico it is called '''''la intervención norteamericana''''' (the North American Intervention (Though in that context 'intervention' is synonymous with 'invasion')) or '''''la guerra del 47''''' (the War of '47), was a major war between the [[United States]] and [[Mexico]] from 1846 to 1848, in response to the U. S. [[Texas Annexation|annexation]] of [[Texas]] in 1845.

Pushed by Democrats, especially newly elected President [[James K. Polk]] and outgoing President [[John Tyler]], Congress on March 1, 1845, jointly resolved to admit the independent Reopublic of Texas into the Union as a state. Whigs generally were opposed, Mexico had long warned that annexation meant war, and brushing aside American offers to negotiate and British offers to mediate, the Mexican government promptly broke off diplomatic relations and sent troops into the disputed region claimned by both Mexico and the Republic of Texas, and now claimed by the United States. Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to move U.S. Army forces to a point "on or near" the Rio Grande to repel any invasion from Mexico.

:: The ''Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) granted U.S. citizenship to Mexicans living in the territory ceded by Mexico to the United States. '' <ref> [http://www.crfforum.org/topics/?topicid=35&catid=8&view=document&id=76] </ref>

{{Clear}}

== See also ==

*[[Mexican History]]
*[[Immigrants]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/mexican.htm The Mexican War]
==Further reading==
* Bauer K. Jack. ''The Mexican War, 1846-1848''. (1974); good on military action.
* Brack, Gene M. "Mexican Opinion, American Racism, and the War of 1846," ''The Western Historical Quarterly'' Vol. 1, No. 2 (Apr., 1970), pp. 161-174 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-3810%28197004%291%3A2%3C161%3AMOARAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G in JSTOR]
* Crawford, Mark; Heidler, Jeanne T.; Heidler, David Stephen, eds. ''Encyclopedia of the Mexican War'' (1999) (ISBN 157607059X)
* De Voto, Bernard, ''Year of Decision 1846'' (1942), very well written popular history
* Fowler, Will. ''Santa Anna of Mexico'' (2007) 527pp; the major scholarly study [http://www.amazon.com/Santa-Anna-Mexico-Will-Fowler/dp/0803211201 excerpt and text search]
* Frazier, Donald S. ed. ''The U.S. and Mexico at War'', (1998), 584; an encyclopedia with 600 articles by 200 scholars
* Hamilton, Holman, ''Zachary Taylor: Soldier of the Republic'' , (1941)
* Heidler, David S. and Heidler, Jeanne T. ''The Mexican War.'' (2005). 225 pp. basic survey, with some key primary sources
* Henderson, Timothy J. ''A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and Its War with the United States'' (2007), survey [http://www.amazon.com/Glorious-Defeat-Mexico-United-States/dp/0809049678/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212926581&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search][http://www.amazon.com/Glorious-Defeat-Mexico-United-States/dp/0809061201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195721131&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Johnson, Timothy D. ''Winfield Scott: The Quest for Military Glory'' (1998)
* McCaffrey, James M. ''Army of Manifest Destiny: The American Soldier in the Mexican War, 1846-1848'' (1994)[http://www.amazon.com/Army-Manifest-Destiny-1846-1848-Experience/dp/0814755054/ref=pd_sim_b_title_2 excerpt and text search]
* Meed, Douglas. ''The Mexican War, 1846-1848'' (2003). 96pp by British scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Mexican-War-1846-1848-Essential-Histories/dp/0415968402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195667399&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Rives, George L. "Mexican Diplomacy on the Eve of War with the United States," ''The American Historical Review'' Vol. 18, No. 2 (Jan., 1913), pp. 275-294 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28191301%2918%3A2%3C275%3AMDOTEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2 in JSTOR]
* Sellers Charles G. ''James K. Polk: Continentalist, 1843-1846'' (1966), the standard biography [http://www.historyebook.org/ vol 1 and 2 are online at ACLS e-books]
* Smith, Justin H. ''The War with Mexico'' 2 vol (1919); Pulitzer Prize; [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&mkt=en-us&scope=books&FORM=LIVSOP#q=Smith%2C%20Justin%20H.%20The%20War%20with%20Mexico%20&filter=all&start=1&t=Z_FmZjpeBxxaF_mVSZGsCw&sq=Smith%2C%20Justin%20H.%20The%20War%20with%20Mexico%20 online vol 1]; [http://books.google.com/books?id=0VNOyhWAyMAC&printsec=toc&dq=Smith,+Justin+Harvey.+The+War+with+Mexico&as_brr=1 online vol 2] Pulitzer Prize winner.
* Smith, Justin H. "American Rule in Mexico," ''The American Historical Review'' Vol. 23, No. 2 (Jan., 1918), pp. 287-302 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28191801%2923%3A2%3C287%3AARIM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U in JSTOR]
* Winders, Richard Price. ''Mr. Polk's Army'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Polks-Army-Experience-University/dp/1585441627/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195667722&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

====Notes====
<references/>

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:Mexican History]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Battle of Seven Pines

2015-05-14T23:26:45Z

JonathanRH13: Removed plagiarism from http://www.civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Battle_of_Seven_Pines

{{ACWbattle
|name=Battle of Seven Pines Fair Oaks
|image=
|begin=31 May 1862
|end=1 June 1862
|place=[[Fair Oaks Station]] Henrico County, Virginia
|theater=[[Eastern Theater]]
|campaign=[[Peninsula Campaign]]
|result=Inconclusive
|combatants1=[[Army of the Potomac]]
|combatants2=Army of Virginia
|commanders1=[[George B. McClellan]] Major General, USA
|commanders2=[[Joseph E. Johnston]] General, CSA [[Gustavus W. Smith]] Major General, CSA
|strength1=40,000 est.
|strength2=40,000 est.
|casualties1='''5031''' Killed: 790 Wounded: 3,594 Missing/captured: 647
|casualties2='''6,134''' Killed: 980 Wounded: 4,749 Missing/captured: 405
}}
Why don't you lazy scum make your own original articles? Huh, you lying, stealing, cheating, lazy bastards?
{{Template:Campaignbox Peninsula Campaign}}
{{Template:ACW Battles of 1862}}

==References==
<references/>

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #DC143C;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #F08080; color: black; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #F08080; color:black;"|License:
|style=" background-color: #F08080;"| Some of this work is in the '''Public Domain''' because it is a work of an agency under the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #F08080; color:black;"|Source:
|style="background-color: #F08080;border-top: 2px #DC143C"| File available from {{{1|[http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hh/33/index.htm] }}}.
|}

[[Category:American Civil War Battles]]

Battle of Hampton Roads

2015-05-14T23:24:30Z

JonathanRH13: Removed plagarism from http://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Battle_of_Hampton_Roads

{{ACWbattle
|name=Battle of Hampton Roads
| image=[[File:Moni.jpg|300px]]
|begin=8 March 1862
|end=9 March 1862
|place=Hampton Roads, Virginia
|theater=[[Eastern Theater]]
|campaign=[[Penninsula Campaign]]
|result=Draw; blockade preserved
|combatants1=U.S. Navy blockading squadron
|combatants2=C.S. Navy
|commanders1=[[John L. Worden]] Lieutenant, USN
|commanders2=[[Franklin Buchanan]] Captain, CSN
|strength1=[[USS Cumberland|USS ''Cumberland'']] [[USS Congress|USS ''Congress'']] [[USS Minnesota|USS ''Minnesota'']] [[USS Roanoke|USS ''Roanoke'']] [[USS Monitor|USS ''Monitor'']]
|strength2=[[CSS Virginia|CSS ''Virginia'']]
|casualties1=409 men killed or wounded Two warships sunk
|casualties2=21 men killed or wounded
}}

----

==References==
<references/>
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 3 (''The Blockade''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Foote, Shelby. ''The Civil War: A Narrative (vol 2 "Fort Donelson to Memphis")'', Time Inc, by arrangement with Random House, New York (1998)
*Nevins, Allan. ''The War for the Union: War Becomes Revolution 1862-1863'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York (1960)

==See Also==
*[[American Civil War: 1861]]
*[[American Civil War: 1862]]

==Links==
*[http://www.wideopenwest.com/~jenkins/ironclads/ironclad.htm Ironclads and Blockade Runners of the Civil War]
====From the ''Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships'':====
*[http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m9/merrimack-ii.htm USS ''Merrimack'' / CSS ''Virginia'']
*[http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m13/monitor-i.htm USS ''Monitor'']
*[http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/c12/congress-iv.htm USS ''Congress'']
*[http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/c16/cumberland-i.htm USS ''Cumberland'']
*[http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m11/minnesota-i.htm USS ''Minnesota'']

{{Template:Campaignbox Peninsula Campaign}}
{{Template:ACW Battles of 1862}}
[[Category:American Civil War Battles]]
[[Category:United States Navy]]
[[Category:Naval Battles]]
{{DEFAULTSORT: Hampton Roads, Battle of}}

Battle of Roan's Tan Yard

2015-05-14T23:23:23Z

JonathanRH13: Removed plagarism from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Roan's_Tan_Yard

{{ACWbattle
|name=Battle of Roan's Tan Yard Silver Creek
|image=
|begin=January 8, 1862
|end=Same day
|place=Randolf County, Missouri
|theater=Trans-Mississippi Theater
|campaign=Operations in Northeast Missouri
|result=Union victory
|combatants1=1st Missouri Cavalry 2nd Missouri Cavalry 4th Ohio Cavalry 1st Iowa Cavalry
|combatants2=5th Regiment, 3rd Division Missouri State Guard
|commanders1=W.M.G. Torrence Major, USA
|commanders2=J.A. Poindexter Colonel, CSA
|strength1=450
|strength2=800
|casualties1='''25''' Killed: 6 Wounded: 19
|casualties2='''148''' Killed: 40 Wounded: 80 Captured: 28
}}

{{Template:Campaignbox NE Missouri}}
{{Template:ACW Battles of 1862}}

[[Category: American Civil War Battles]]

Battle of the Wilderness

2015-05-14T23:21:21Z

JonathanRH13: Removed plagarism from http://www.nps.gov/frsp/wildspot.htm

{{ACWbattle
|name=Battle of the Wilderness
|image=
|begin=5 May 1864
|end=7 May 1864
|place=Spotsylvania and Orange Counties, Virginia
|theater=Eastern Theater
|campaign=Overland Campaign
|result=Inconclusive
|combatants1=[[Army of the Potomac]]
|combatants2=[[Army of Northern Virginia]]
|commanders1=[[Ulysses S. Grant]] Lieutenant General, USA
|commanders2=[[Robert E. Lee]] General, CSA
|strength1=101,895
|strength2=61,025
|casualties1='''17,666''' Killed: 2,246 Wounded: 12,037 Missing/captured: 3,383
|casualties2='''11,125''' Killed: 1,495 Wounded: 7,928 Missing/captured: 1,702
}}
The '''Battle of the Wilderness''' was a savage battle during the [[American Civil War]], fought May 5–7, 1864 between the Confederate [[Army of Northern Virginia]] under General [[Robert E. Lee]] and the Union [[Army of the Potomac]] under newly-assigned Lieutenant General [[Ulysses S. Grant]]. Although a tactical victory for Lee, the battle was the beginning of a period of attrition against the Confederates, which would only end just under a year later at Appomattox.

==References==
*[http://civilwarhome.com/wildernessor.htm Official records of the battle, from Civilwar.com]

{{Template:Campaignbox Overland Campaign}}
{{Template:ACW Battles of 1864}}
{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| Some of this work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.nps.gov/frsp/wildspot.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:American Civil War Battles]]