Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2013-04-21T18:20:24Z

Spielman: /* #47: Historical evidence suggests that the year used to have 360 days. However, Relativity cannot explain how the orbit or the rotation of Earth could have changed enough to give us the current 365.24-solar-day year. */

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
See also the page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?

:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Actually, I'm terrible at chemistry! My background is in physics and math. You talk about ideal gasses in any physics class where you discuss thermodynamics. But yeah, that's one of the classical misunderstandings among creationists. One thing I saw suggested that next time someone brings it up, ask them about the other laws of thermodynamics. What I also like about the second law of thermodynamics argument is that they don't seem to understand what entropy ''is'' and ''why'' it increases. So yeah, next time someone brings it up ask them about those things. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::I say go for it. You've justified why they should be deleted and your justification has met with no objection. If somebody wishes to restore them, they are welcome to object here.

::::::::As an aside, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of math and physics types on here. It is interesting how the life sciences tend to be predominantly liberal, whereas there's a more even distribution of political ideology in the physical sciences. There are conservative biologists (my old PI, for example), but they are very few and very far between. Knowledge of evolution does not seem to be a factor here, because understanding / acceptance of evolution is nearly universal in all of the sciences. In biology, there is a (seemingly true, in my experience) stereotypical "personality" in each of the sub-disciplines; to reference other fields, the age-old dichotomy between chemists and chemical engineers seems to mostly hold true. I have always wondered if the "personality" of the fields would lead to the observed political differences, or if maybe there is something deeper.

::::::::Because I am afraid that my above observation may be taken grossly out of context, I must add to it the disclaimer that I am not in any way suggesting "indoctrination" of students in one field versus another (or making some other similarly fatuous insinuation). I am simply making an observation, and speculating on its possible cause. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:25, 12 January 2012 (EST)

These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::'''re: 15.''' The existence of gravitons was hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. General relativity, by itself, does not predict the existence of gravitons. Furthermore, money spent testing a hypothesis that is ultimately not supported is not "wasted" (otherwise, I'd be out of a job)--the knowledge gained in testing the hypothesis allows a better hypothesis to be formulated.

:::'''re: 18.''' General relativity correctly predicted gravitational lensing, the existence of black holes, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Additionally (and this is the first example that I can come up with off of the top of my head, RSchlafly probably knows a few better ones), relativistic effects must be compensated for to maximize the accuracy of satellite-based GPS systems.

:::'''re: 24.''' Black hole formation results in a net increase in entropy when considering the system as a whole. If you were to consider just the mass of the resultant black hole as a closed system, the degeneracy forces outweigh the net gravitational force significantly enough to prevent collapse into a schwarzschild radius. In just overcoming this by itself (as theoretically happens in super-massive black holes), there would be a massive output of emitted particles (radiation), which would still result in a net increase in the entropy of the system.

:::These counterexamples are not valid. Plain and simple. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::: General relativity did not predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. It predicted that the expansion would be slowing. Most physicists say that the GR equations must be modified to accommodate the accelerating expansion.
:::: I don't get the entropy argument. I always assumed that a black hole would have all the entropy of the collapsing star and matter falling in. Is there a source for saying that black holes have low entropy? As the footnote says, Hawking has an explanation. Is there something wrong with that explanation? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Um...I ''did'' address all your concerns, Andy....

<blockquote>
These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money. '''Wait, gravitons are predicted by GR?! Please send me a link to the derivation!!!'''

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do. '''I did!!!! Not to be rude, but did you see what I wrote above? Dirac equation! Spin! Antiparticles! Quantum Field theory! Particle physics! The Standard Model!'''

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease '''Yes, yes, yes, temperature increase is unknown to physics!'''
</blockquote>

:::::(Again I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering if there was a glitch or something b/c, as I said, these were all addressed above.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:48, 13 January 2012 (EST)

The footnote for #8 says that the calculations are "complicated or contrived", and that the fundamental formula was "conformed" to match the observed perihelion precession. No one doubts that the derivation is complicated. But "conformed" seems to say that something was "tweaked" to match the precession. The formula is complicated to solve but simple to write: <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>. There's nothing in it that can be "tweaked"--not 8, not pi, and not K (Newton's constant of gravitation.)[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:08, 21 January 2012 (EST)
:Yep, this is also confusing to me. Does Andy Schlafly know relativity? As you said, nothing can be tweaked in that equation (to "conform" to whatever events). The tensor that represents curvature has to have divergence 0, so that energy-momentum is locally conserved, and the 8*pi*G is determined from the fact that it has to reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field limit. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== Recent reversion ==

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], while your recent change did keep the link to the rebuttal page, don't you think it would only be fair to also keep the note that the page is controversial? Regardless who is actually right or wrong, I don't think it would be fair to anyone reading 'The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia' for them to pick up the impression that the ideas on this page are not very widely disputed. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 16:05, 29 January 2012 (EST)

: The whole article is a list of relativity controversies. It says at the top that it is contrary to what liberals promote. Isn't that clear? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:04, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:: The point is, I think, that the very idea that there is a liberal/conservative division on this is itself controversial. Personally, I have not seen the issue raised anywhere except on Conservapedia, and even then only by a very small subset of contributors.
:: On a broader point, if opposing liberal points of view is, by definition, controversial, and given that such opposition is the ''raison d'être'' of Conservapedia, wouldn't a better tagline be "The Controversial Encyclopaedia"?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)

: It's a common tactic for the media to label someone they don't like as "controversial". But does anyone ever hear a liberal theory or politician called "controversial"? Was [[Ted Kennedy]] ever called "controversial" by the media?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::Does this make [[string theory]] conservative, as it is often labeled ''controversial''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::No, I didn't suggest that ''everything'' the media disparages as "controversial" is conservative. String theory is a challenge to liberal orthodoxy from the Left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:18, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Just to nail this down [[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], do you or do you not think that this page is controversial?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Also, your question about Ted Kennedy looks rhetorical with the implied answer of 'no', and yet the answer is very clearly 'yes'. Googling "Ted Kennedy" and "controversial" gives 6.4 million hits. Obviously that doesn't mean the term is being applied to him in all cases, but in many of them (e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/us/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-controversy#slide=1) it clearly is. Can you clarify the point you were making about him?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:27, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::: The term "controversial" is not a good term for [[string theory]]. The major aspects are not disputed. A subject is not conservative just because some journalist mislabels it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:14, 31 January 2012 (EST)

::::::That's the problem with science journalism these days. It overstates the implications of a lot of findings, oversimplifies key concepts, and often fails to accurately convey consensus opinions in a particular field. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 17:35, 31 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Just wanted to add to this: I have never seen GR disputed anywhere but here. (Save for quantum gravity, of course). [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:28, 2 February 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos do not travel faster than light ==
The same lab that originally broke the story has confirmed a flaw in their experiment. Dr. Sandro Centro stated, ''"In fact I was a little sceptical since the beginning, now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos.[...]I think they were a little bit in a hurry to publish something that was astonishing, and at the end of the day it was a wrong measurement."[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682]

: I hope he did not mean to say that, because neutrinos going at the speed of light would still contradict relativity (or other experiments). Neutrinos have mass, and must go slower than the speed of light. The article has a better statement: "they find that the neutrinos do travel at the same speed as light, within a small error range." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:02, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

I took the part out - again: have a look at the [http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html updated press-release] by CERN regarding the experiment:
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:48, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

:The updates and corrections for the benefit of Relativists are less than persuasive. Is anyone claiming quote above ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is inaccurate? Note, by the way, that the CERN experiment is not the only one that suggested neutrinos can travel at least as fast as the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:57, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, perhaps you could write to either the ICARUS Collaboration or CERN seeking clarification of their results. After reading the actual paper[http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.3433.pdf](not the press release), it seems that the team is quite confident that their latest results are in complete agreement with Relativity. "''Based on seven neutrino events, our result is in excellent agreement with Lorentz dependent velocities of neutrinos and of light. Neutrinos and GPS measurements are found to be sharply coincident in time within an uncertainty of a few nanoseconds, in disagreement with the superluminal result reported by the OPERA Collaboration.''" Yet you contend that the results from the very same experiment actually ''disproves'' Relativity. In this instance I simply think you are wrong. But who's to say that my interpretation of an article is any more accurate than yours? Obviously, we both can't be right. I think there must be a better way to settle this matter than combing through press releases. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 13:33, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The new, updated claims seem more like [[political correctness]] than real science. Does the paper compare the updated results to the independent prior findings, by another experiment, that also suggested that neutrino speeds conflict with the politicized desires of Relativists?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:55, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Political correctness? Come off it Schlafly. You do realize that there's far more fame and glory to be had for a physicist to prove GR wrong than there is to add to the growing list of supporting evidence? You do understand that, right? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 01:57, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The opposite is obviously true. Those who even question the [[Theory of Relativity]] are risking their careers. No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity; no associate professor can expect to receive tenure if he does likewise; and no tenured professor will ever win the [[Nobel Prize]] for questioning relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::: Yep, and no one will ever win a Nobel prize for questioning whether the Earth is round either. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 18:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::: There aren't 39 counterexamples to the spherical shape of the Earth. But if a doctoral candidate, tenure-track professor, or [[Nobel Prize]] wannabe repeats one of the 39 [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], then he's risking retaliation against his career by liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:52, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::: There aren't 39 counterexamples to relativity and [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity|this page]] documents in detail what's wrong with each alleged "counterexample". The acceptance of relativity has to do with the theory passing extensive experimental scrutiny and nothing to do with "liberals". --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 19:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly said: "''No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity[...]''" Yes. If a doctoral candidate whipped out almost any of your "counterexamples", in anything short of a joking fashion, they most likely would be signaling the end of their academic carrier. Why? It's simple. Advanced degrees are awarded to students who have shown a mastery of their particular field of study. Presenting this list of counterexamples in a doctoral thesis would only go towards illustrating that the student does not have a thorough understanding of SR or GR and thus should not offered a degree. No political correctness. No liberal conspiracy.
 Aschlafly went on to say: "''...no tenured professor will ever win the [[Nobel Prize]] for questioning relativity.''" You are 100% correct on this one. Why? Because anybody can sit around questioning anything. It doesn't take any particular knowledge, skill, education, or keen intellect to lob endless unanswerable questions. Otherwise Glenn Beck would have won the Nobel (and every other prize) by now. No, the proverbial (and many times literal) money is in ''answering'' questions. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 14:09, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I'm in the process of getting a debate under way on 'GPS and Relativity' over at [[Talk:Theory of relativity]]. A this stage I would rather just have some references, especially any which show that Relativity is not used in the GPS system. Once we have some good references to look at, possibly in a week or two, we can then consider the evidence. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 08:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

== Biblical Examples ==

You can't really use the Bible to prove that the Bible is correct. While I'm not disputing the Bible, that doesn't change the fact that it's a tautological argument. I could easily "prove" relativity by saying "Einstein said such-and-such" and conclude therefore that such-and-such is true. But in reality, that wouldn't prove anything because I'd essentially be saying "Einstein said this, therefore what Einstein said is correct". It's no different for the Bible. Even if we were to argue that the Bible represents absolute truth, keep in mind that our source for that is the Bible itself, so regardless of what you believe, it's still a tautological argument. I'm not going to remove the Biblical examples without discussion, but I don't think they belong here. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:31, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== The roundness of the sun ==

I'm not completely familiar with the general and special theories of relativity, but what do they have to say about the roundness of the sun? [[User:DennyR|DennyR]] 12:41, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:There is a relationship, though it's somewhat roundabout. See item #4 in the rebuttal page. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:54, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

== Gravitational waves found ==

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article]

== Lede quote ==

I would argue if anything needs to be changed it's the detail in point 4. The lede quote is recent and relevant, and more sources for it are available than just LiveScience. In looking into it more just now, I've found it's progressed. Apparently the evidence against relativity was so concerning to the scientific community they began immediately trying to explain it away and forced the person in charge to resign.[http://news.discovery.com/space/opera-leaders-resign-after-no-confidence-vote-120404.html][http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html] Evidence that the original results are wrong was just finished.[http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html] This displays the level of bias in the scientific community though, in trying to do all they can to protect the doctrine of relativity, and make it appear more substantiated and certain than it is. Maybe the quote should be removed, but it should be mentioned in point 4 regardless. That such major evidence was found in recent months against relativity and the scientific community sought so hard to cover it up, is news indeed. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 05:47, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

:No one mentioned in those articles believes that neutrinos travel faster than light. I don't see how the OPERA leaders' resignations provide any evidence. Sounds more like their team was ticked off at them for making them all look like fools. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 13:12, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
::The fact that it occurred like that shows relativity today is still under investigation, and not necessarily a proven fact - right? The scientific community is still trying to persuade everyone there is evidence for it. The effort to prove relativity correct is ongoing, rather than established like it was portrayed. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:23, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

==Removing material==
Unless you are the site owner, please do not remove, dilute, or water down, or adulterate the items here. This page is extremely famous, and represents the views of the site owner. It has been quoted and cited in print and internet articles all over the world. It has over 1.8 million page views, more than 10 times as many as either the [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] and the [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] articles. If you think something is wrong, the [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] article is the place to bring it up.

:I suppose "2+2=4" represents my views also, but the truth does not care whether I or anyone else agrees.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 6 September 2012 (EDT)

::Touché! Your point is well taken. Though I doubt that taking such a daring and controversial stand would get 1.8 million page views. :-) [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 22:36, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

== 27. RE:PSR B1913+16 ==
<blockquote>
Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
</blockquote>
I would like to suggest that this be removed as both points (1. lack of data and 2. divergence from relativistic predictions) were disproved by the publishing of [http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/722/2/1030/ this paper] in The Astrophysical Journal in 2010. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:35, 8 April 2013 (EDT)
==Force acting on a mass==
The example, "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?" needs to be rephrased to be more clear. Are we talking about measuring the force applied to the object or mesuring the change in trajectory of the object? The force acts on the object, but the sentence is currently phrased as if there are two possible different answers. The force will cause the trajectory of the object to change, which can be measured in specified frames of reference.

A good example would be a particle accelerator, or synchrotron. A charge particle is traveling at speeds that approach the speed of light. A magnetic field is applied to the particle to keep it traveling in a circular path. As the speed of the particle increases, the force applied to the particle must increase to keep it in the track of the particle accelerator. The force is applied at a right angle to the velocity of the particle. The calculations to determine the force needed to hold the particle to a circular path are well-tested and verified. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 22:42, 8 April 2013 (EDT)

==#47: Historical evidence suggests that the year used to have 360 days. However, Relativity cannot explain how the orbit or the rotation of Earth could have changed enough to give us the current 365.24-solar-day year.==
To the best of my knowledge, this has no relevance toward proving nor disproving the General or Specific Theory of Relativity... However, very little of my physics training was in the field, so please correct me if I'm wrong. If there is no objection, I will be removing it after the mandated 24 hour waiting period. (unless the length of day suddenly changes again, I suppose it might be shorter/longer than 24 hours in that case) [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 13:18, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

:According to liberals, General Relativity predicts all gravitational interactions. It follows that whenever a gravity-related prediction is incorrect, Relativity has been disproven, don't you agree? Somehow the length of the day or year has changed, even though Relativity says the orbit should be static. Would you also support removing the other gravity-based examples #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #21, #41, #43, #44, #45? Of course not. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 14:20, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Relativity

2013-04-21T16:48:33Z

Spielman: 360-day year

Talk:E=mc²

2013-03-28T04:59:57Z

Spielman: /* Lead paragraph */ delta-m

<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
:User:Gryfin is ignoring the constant refinements made to the definitions of the SI units. In 1983, the definition of a meter was changed to "The distance traveled by light in vacuum in 1/299792458 second". Given that the experiments were conducted in SI units and Energy is measured in Joules, the proportionality constant determined by those measurements works out to be the speed of light (in SI units) squared. This has nothing to do with light or relating the speed of light to mass or to the Book of Genesis. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:12, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
::When I left the comment above, I had not realized that other people had responded to Gryfin, but that their responses were deleted. You can check the history of this page for [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AE%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1040260&oldid=1040259 yourself.] I personally do not find this to be an attack, but rather an explanation that E=mc2 works in both directions. You can start with the amount of mass that was converted into energy and the formula will correctly calculate the amount of energy that was released, or you can start with the amount of energy released, and the formula will correctly calculate the amount of mass that was converted. We are all friends here and can disagree without being disagreeable. I know that some people are still learning physics or are confused about how E=mc2 does '''not''' involve the theory of general relativity. We now have 100 years of verifiable evidence that the equation shows the relationship between energy and mass. I have a great deal of respect for AugustO, who has contributed to many areas of this project. User:Gryfin has limited himself to debating this equation and relativity, perhaps to promote a specific book and website. The idea of mass-energy equivalence is just as easy to visualize as the idea of potential vs. kinetic energy. Any good physics book can explain both ideas.
::While I wish everyone the best, we must face the fact that many people are judging the entire project based on the contents of this one page, and that some editors are discouraged from participating further in CP based on the way this issue has been handled. Let's work this out with a spirit of respect, fellowship and understanding. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:29, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
:::Gryfin, you seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between basic units and derived units. As for ''Arbitrary values cannot validate the tangible.'' That sounds nice, but doesn't make sense. But I won't get drawn into a discussion on lofty topics with someone who has problems with the very basics... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 15 March 2013 (EDT)

==Lead paragraph==
A couple of weeks ago, I moved the discussion of the "popular culture" references to E=mc2 to a separate section at the bottom of the article, away from the lead section. On March 11 it was reverted. [[Conservapedia:Writing a Good Article]] advises, "The intro paragraph is meant to be a short paragraph which introduces the subject to the reader, generally about four to five sentences long." I believe we have a well-written article here except for the lead section. As it stands now, the lead section is not a summary of the rest of the article. It reads as though someone who does not understand the article came in and added a parody of it to the lead section. I will wait a week for a reply and then correct the article to conform to CP's style for writing proper articles. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:12, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

:I agree that the Lead seems at odds with the rest of the article. The conflict, as I see it, is that on the one hand we want to make referenced verifiable statements, but on the other hand, we don't want to give any credence to a crackpot theory that drives people away from scripture. I think we can accomplish both. There are plenty of articles on non-Christian and liberal topics -- Islam, Communism, etc. Why not present E=mc^2 as a similar system of beliefs. Accurately parrot what a group of people say about matter and energy, but effectively bracket all the content with "liberals believe (_____)". Then everything within those brackets can at least be the actual claptrap that liberals promote. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 11:27, 17 March 2013 (EDT)
::From everything that I have read, social conservatives and political conservatives believe that E=mc2 is true. I understand that there is some controversy about general relativity, but I have never read any coherent source that explains how it "drives people away from scripture." E=mc2 is one of many beautiful facts about nature that support the idea of a creator; many people say that the development of the Atom bomb just in time to end World War II was God-inspired. Please direct me to a serious source to the contrary, and I will take a look. (A self-published book is not the type of reliable source that would convince me.) Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:19, 21 March 2013 (EDT)

:::Maybe there is evidence that RINOs like Karl Rove or Arnold Schwarzenegger believe the equation, but I've never heard a real conservative support it. I think Mr Schlafly himself used language to the effect that it moves people away from the Bible. Isn't that "coherent" enough? [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 15:51, 21 March 2013 (EDT)
::::You weren't able to find out the views of Karl Rove or Arnold Schwarzenegger on the subject of an esoteric point of the Theory of Relativity? Why is that? Could it be that one is a political activist and the other is a former bodybuilder, actor, and governor? Like most people, they can't be expected to have specific views on this. I would guess that you would not get any specific answer if you were to ask other people of various political stripes--Nancy Pelosi, Bill O'Reilly, Todd Akin, Barack Obama, Paul Ryan, and so on.
::::So here's what I suggest you do. Talk to people you know, who you believe are true conservatives. I don't know who your contacts would be--people in your church, school, work, whatever. Now, don't ask them whether they have evidence about the truth or falsity of E=mc^2, they probably won't know. But you can ask about the atomic weights of Radium, Radon, and Helium, and that will give you an answer. Now most people don't go around with the atomic weights of various isotopes on the tip of their tongue either. So ask this: How would you go about finding the atomic weights of these elements? Before the rise of the internet, the answer would be simple. Look in a physics textbook, or in Encyclopedia Brittanica or whatever. Now they might name a web site, perhaps Wikipedia, or some textbook. They might name Conservapedia. Disclaimer: I just added the atomic weights here at Conservapedia, and you might consider me a biased observer. So you might not want to take my word for it. (If you think there are better, conservative, values for these, feel free to edit them in. You might want to set the atomic weights of all isotopes to the nucleon number times the atomic weight of neutral Hydrogen. That would make E=mc^2 false. But I digress.) Anyway, find out what people think. Good luck. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:01, 21 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::We need to be fair to the reader. To have a coherent article, the article must first state what the equation means, then give its history, then report why the people who believe it including the experimental evidence, then present the arguments from the people who do not believe it and finally, throw in the popular culture items. This lets the reader follow the discussion. The lead paragraph should not become so long as to defeat its summary purpose. Please remember our responsibility to have a coherent encyclopedia not a tit for tat word game. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:39, 24 March 2013 (EDT)
I am going to wait a week for further comments, and if nobody objects, I will make the reorganization discussed above. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:42, 27 March 2013 (EDT)
:It sounds like the most convincing evidence supports an interpretation of E=mc^2 where 'm' represent a ''change'' in mass corresponding to a ''change'' in energy 'E'. We should explain the formula in these terms. Then, point out the extended interpretation of mass-energy equivalence, with the disclaimer that it is a liberal idea. It would be supported by the example of matter/antimatter annihilation, if such a thing were real. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 00:59, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

Talk:E=mc²

2013-03-21T19:51:24Z

Spielman: /* Lead paragraph */ couldn't find any conservatives to back it up

Talk:E=mc²

2013-03-17T15:27:18Z

Spielman: /* Lead paragraph */

Compton Scattering

2013-03-07T04:44:03Z

Spielman: /* Explanation */ removing notion of rest-energy; minor grammar

'''Compton Scattering''' is the collision process between a [[X-ray]] or a [[gamma ray]] and a bound atomic electron where only part of the energy of the electromagnetic ray is transferred to the electron.

The effect was at first observed by [[Arthur Holly Compton]] in 1923 at Washington University in St. Louis and explained in his article ''"A Quantum Theory of the Scattering of X-ray by Light Elements"''<ref>Arthur H. Compton: ''A Quantum Theory of the Scattering of X-ray by Light Elements'', The Physical Review, Vol. 21, No. 5, May, 1923</ref>. Compton was rewarded the 1927 [[Nobel Prize]] in Physics for this discovery.

[[File:Compton Scattering Diagram.png|thumb|246px|right]]Arthur H. Compton ''treated the x-ray photons as particles and applied conservation of energy and conservation of momentum to the collision of a photon with a stationary electron.''<ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/quantum/compeq.html#c1 Compton Scattering Equation], ''Hyperphysics'', C. R. Nave, Georgia State University</ref>. He used the [[Planck]] relationship and the [[E=mc²|relativistic energy expression]] to derive the ''standard Compton formula'':

<math>\Delta \lambda = \frac{h}{m_e c} (1-\cos \theta)</math>

Here, Δλ denotes the difference between the wavelengths of the incoming and the scattered ray, while θ is the angle of scattering.

== The Compton Experiment ==
A collimated beam of high-energy photons, e.g. emitted from a radioactive 137Cs source or an X-ray emitter hits a target, e.g. a rod of graphite. A [[scintillation counter]] is used to measure the number and the energy of the deflected photons at various angles.

== Classical Expectation ==
The number of photons should vary with the angle of the deflection, while the energy (i.e., the wavelength) of the photons should remain unchanged.

== Observation ==
While indeed many of the scattered photons have an unchanged wavelength, there are some which lost energy, i.e., their wavelength lengthened. This lengthening depends on the angle of the deflection only.

==Explanation==
The lengthening of the wave-length happens when a photon interacts with a free electron in the material. The effect can be calculated along the following lines.

1) '''Conservation of energy''': We assume that before the collision, the electron is nearly at rest, so its kinetic energy is zero: <math>E_e=0</math>. The photon has an energy of <math>E_{\gamma}= h f</math>, where <math>h</math> is Planck's constant, and <math>f</math> is its initial frequency. After the interaction, the photon's frequency changed to <math>f'</math>, so its energy is now <math>E'_{\gamma} = h f'</math>. The kinetic energy of the electron after the collision is <math>E'_e = \sqrt{p^2_e c^2 + m^2_e c^4} - m^2_e c^2</math>. (Here, <math>m_e</math> is the mass of the electron.) We get the equation;

<center><math> h f = h f' +\sqrt{p^2_e c^2 + m^2_e c^4} - m_e c^2</math></center>

(here, <math>\vec{p_e}</math> is the momentum of the electron after the event)

2) '''Conversation of momentum''': As we assume that the electron is nearly at rest at first, its initial momentum is zero. The momentum of the photon is at first <math>\vec{p_p}</math> and then <math>\vec{p'_p}</math>. The momentum of a photon can be calculated via <math>p = E/c = {h f}/c</math>.

Looking at the picture, we see that

<math>p^2_e = (\vec{p_p}-\vec{p'_p})\cdot (\vec{p_p}-\vec{p'_p}) = </math>
<math>p^2 + p'^2 - 2 p p' \cos \theta</math>, thus

'''I''': <math>(p_e c)^2 = (h f)^2 + (h f')^2 - 2 h^2 f f' \cos \theta</math>

Squaring <math> h (f-f') + m_e c^2 = \sqrt{p^2_e c^2 + m^2_e c^4} </math> and rearranging leads to:

'''II''': <math>(p_e c)^2 = (h f)^2 + (h f')^2-2 h^2 f f' + 2m_e c^2 (h f - h f')</math>

We equate our '''I''' and '''II''' and get:

<math>-2 h^2 f f' \cos \theta = -2 h^2 f f' + 2 m_e c^2(h f - h f')</math>

This we rearrange to:

<math> \frac{1}{h f'} - \frac{1}{h f'} = \frac{1}{m_e c^2} (1 - \cos \theta)</math>

As for a photon <math>f \lambda = c</math>, we can bring this into Compton's form:

<math>\lambda' - \lambda = \Delta \lambda = \frac{h}{m_e c} (1 - \cos \theta)</math>

This describes exactly the effect observed by Compton! Compton himself used a similar derivation, also including the relativistic energy expression.

== Probability of Compton Scattering ==

The probability for Compton scattering is approximately proportional to the [[atomic number]] Z, and for energies greater than 500 [[keV]] approximately proportional to <math>\frac{1}{E^\gamma}</math>,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ie.lbl.gov/education/glossary/glossaryf.htm|title=Glossary of Nuclear Science Terms|accessdate=January 10, 2013}}</ref> the energy of the [[gamma ray]] [[photon]].

== Reference ==
<references />
[[category:physics]]
[[category:Physics experiments]]

Talk:E=mc²

2013-02-22T05:23:32Z

Spielman: /* New consensus */

<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)

==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)

User talk:Spielman

2013-02-21T04:29:56Z

Spielman: /* Warning */ sneaky how?

{{welcome}}[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:13, 7 February 2013 (EST)
==Warning==
Nice try with the sneaky edit to [[dog]]. We're not stupid, you know. [[User:Brenden|Brenden]] 15:53, 13 February 2013 (EST)

:I don't see the sneakiness. Are you under the mistaken impression that I authored that paragraph? I ''reverted'' [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dog&diff=1024598&oldid=1024569 this edit] by [[User:MattyD]] which deleted a large section from the article [[dog]]. Under different circumstances, I might have given the other editor the benefit of the doubt, but MattyD has been permanently blocked and the deleted section had been stable for more than a year. Safest course of action was to revert. My [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dog&diff=next&oldid=1024608 edit summary] accurately stated what I had done. I admit I didn't pay very close attention to the content after the first few sentences. It does get a bit strange at the end. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 23:29, 20 February 2013 (EST)

Feedback

2013-02-13T18:00:54Z

Spielman: /* Negative feedback */ application to control systems

When a signal is looped back into the system that produced it, the resulting effect is called '''feedback'''.

Feedback can be positive or negative, but these terms do not imply whether the feedback is wanted or not.

Feedback causes the output to depend not only on the current values of the inputs but on what they were in the past, because one input is actually the prior output. This is why an electrical [[circuit]] with feedback is called a sequential electric circuit. One main element of sequential electric circuits is the [[flip flop]].

==Positive feedback==
In general, feedback is positive when the reaction of the system goes in the same direction as the initial signal. The most likely best-known example for this is [[audio feedback]]. An example of a non-technical feedback loop is the spreading of a rumor in the mass media: One person makes a plausible claim and other sources repost it, causing yet more sources to post it.

==Negative feedback==
When the system reacts to a signal by going into the opposite direction, there is a negative feedback. For example, a thermostat reacts to temperature changes by countering the observed trend: When the temperature sinks under the lower border, it increases the temperature; and when the temperature is above the upper border, it reduces the temperature.

Negative feedback is an important concept in linear control systems. Often one needs to maintain a property of some apparatus at a desired value. For example, the speed of a car, the temperature of an oven, or the thickness of a wire being drawn in a factory may need to be held very constant. In such systems, the value of that property is measured continuously and compared to the desired value -- the "set point". The deviation from the set point is returned to the apparatus as negative feedback, so that the system responds in a way to reduce the deviation. A system with a very slow response, such as the steering of a ship, can be challenging because the over-correction from a too-strong feedback can lead to oscillations. Systems that are inherently unstable, such as a broomstick balanced on one's finger, are also challenging. In such systems, whether the feedback loop is closed by human or machine, it is necessary to carefully filter the signals to ensure stability. Conservatives tend to be more skilled than liberals in this endeavor, as evidenced by their predominance in such fields as big rig drivers and fighter pilots.

[[Category:Electronics]]

Dog

2013-02-13T17:09:18Z

Spielman: Undo revision 1024598 by MattyD (talk) restoring blanked section

{{Taxonomy|image = akitadog.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|suborder = Caniformia |family = Canidae|genus = Canis|species = lupus|sub = C. l. familiaris (Domesticated dog)}}

'''Dogs''' are one of the most well-known domesticated [[species]], with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for thousands of years.

Offspring are called ''pups'' (or ''puppies'') until around a year old. The collective noun for a group of offspring is a ''litter''.

Research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers of the [[America]]s brought dogs of some sort with them. The case in [[Australia]] is not so clear. The [[dingo]] was not found in [[Tasmania]], evidence that it was introduced to Australia after Tasmania became an island after the last Ice Age. It was introduced to Australia either in a subsequent wave of immigration or by Asian visitors.

== Scientific details ==
Dogs (scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'') are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]], divided into a multitude of different breeds all in principle capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example).

Fossils of canine skulls smaller than those of wolves have been found with human artifacts, with dates based on evolutionary assumptions estimated to between 130,000 and 190,000 years ago.<ref name="DK">Kingsley, Danny, [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s513072.htm Humans live a dog's life]</ref> whilst DNA evidence has been used to suggest that dogs diverged from wolves between 100,000 and 135,000 years ago.<ref name="DK" />
<ref>Vila, Carles; Carles Vila, Peter Savolainen, Jesus E. Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, Wayne, Robert F. (1997-01-30; accepted 1997-04-14). [http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog], ''Science'' 276: 1687-1689. Retrieved on 2006-12-09.</ref>
Secular archeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 12,000 BC-10,000 BC and with certainty at 7,000 BC. <ref>Scott, John Paul (1965), Dog behavior: The genetic basis, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74338-1.</ref>

Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other creature on the planet. Due to selective breeding by man, however, many breeds of dog have significant [[gene|genetic]] disorders. These include hip dysplasia (common with German Shepherds), and respiratory problems caused by shortening of the face, as seen with Boxer dogs and the Bulldog's lip. To overcome the prevalence of genetic disorders rendered common by inbreeding, many breeders regularly practice outcrossing, or introducing new material into a breed line via mating with other kinds of dog. This restores vigor to a breed and can decrease the likelihood of genetic disorders manifesting.

== Bites ==
Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the [[United States of America|United States]] seeks medical help for a dog bite, with approximately 800,000 such bites per year requiring medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref>
Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

== Uses ==

Dogs are used for many purposes:
[[File:Divot the Therapy Dog.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Divot was a therapy dog at Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, [[Florida]]]]
*Being a companion for the old or lonely
*Guarding property and livestock
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]]
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain and water rescue
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]]
*Providing assistance to people with disabilities
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking, interrogation, and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s
*To detect cadavers, explosives, or illegal drugs (German Shepherds are commonly trained to do so by police)
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges, sleighs, and dogcarts
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles, speak, and walk the tightrope
* For fighting, now illegal in most places, e.g. everywhere in USA
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today

Today most dogs in western countries are kept for [[pet|companionship]] only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]]. Muslims see dogs as unclean, and often kill dogs found as pets <ref>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2065873,00.html</ref>.

==Conservative Nature of Dogs==
Dogs are known for their loyalty, making them one of the most [[conservative]] pets. Dogs represent [[Real America]]; they are often found on farms in [[red states]] and not in cities, where [[liberal]] apartment rental agreements often prevent renters from having dogs. Dogs are an important part of [[family values]], as the quintessential American family is often featured with a dog. Dogs also are often used to search out Muslim terrorists, serving America honorably in the army and police forces across the county.

Compared with lazy, entitled cats, dogs represent the epitome of a conservative animal. Historically, dogs earned their role in the home through hard work herding animals and assisting men with hunting. Cats, on the other hand, were worshiped as false idols in ancient societies and do little to earn their keep in the home. Liberals often use dogs to their political advantage - [[Barack Hussein Obama]] keeps a dog in the White House. This is clearly a liberal ploy to win over dog owners in crucial [[swing states]]. In reality no true dog would voluntarily be a part of the liberal propaganda machine, especially given how many liberals are [[atheist]] and the proven link between [[atheism and bestiality]].

==Further reading==
* [http://www.mastiffexperts.com Mastiff Experts]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Nb_zl_canines}}
{{Template:Dog breeds}}
[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Talk:E=mc²

2013-02-11T18:08:01Z

Spielman: /* Reasons to restore the version of Feb 10, 2010 */ always proof-read!

<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)

==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)

== 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]].
|
|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)

Talk:E=mc²

2013-02-11T18:06:43Z

Spielman: /* Reasons to restore the version of Feb 10, 2010 */ delta-m?

<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)

==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)

== 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]].
|
|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 &sup4;He 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)

E=mc²

2013-02-11T14:32:48Z

Spielman: Reasserting that the theory is not specific to nuclear reactions

'''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. 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. 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}}

== 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]]

E=mc²

2013-02-11T01:24:19Z

Spielman: E=mc^2 contains no footnotes limiting it to nuclear reactions

'''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.) Liberals claim 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. 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}}

== 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]]

Capacitor

2013-02-08T19:07:14Z

Spielman: added description

A '''capacitor''' is an [[electrical]] component used to store electrical charge, block DC current, or filter low frequencies out of a signal.

A capacitor consists of two large-area plates of conductive material separated by a thin insulator. To make the structure compact, the plates are made from thin flexible sheets, which can be rolled up. Each sheet is then connected to one of the capacitor's leads.

If a current, carried by electrons, is pushed through a capacitor, excess electrons accumulate on one plate. The excess charge repels electrons from the opposite plate, and they leave out the other lead. The longer the current flows, the more charge accumulates and the more [[voltage]] is generated across the capacitor. If the capacitor is then removed from the source of current, the voltage may persist indefinitely.

==See also==
*[[Resistor]]
*[[Inductor]]

[[Category:Electronics]]

Inductor

2013-02-08T03:07:37Z

Spielman: better description of inductor and transformer

An '''inductor''' (also referred to as a "choke" or a "coil") is an [[electrical]] component used to store electrical energy, or [[filter]] high frequencies out of a signal.

The typical inductor is a coil of wire, which may have a ferritic core to increase the inductance. As the electric current is increased, the changing magnetic field in the core induces a voltage in the wire opposing the change in current. As the current is reduced, the voltage opposes this change as well, acting to maintain the current. Because it resists changes in motion, the inductor's action is similar to that of mass in a mechanical system.

If two inductors share the same core, a changing current in one wire will induce a voltage in the other wire, even though they are not in electrical contact. This configuration is called a [[transformer]], a device used widely in [[alternating current]] circuits.

==See also==
*[[Resistor]]
*[[Capacitor]]

[[Category:Electronics]]

White dwarf

2013-02-08T02:14:23Z

Spielman: /* Fate of White Dwarfs */ my understanding is that 1a supernovas are not the result of a collision

[[Image:White dwarf stars browse.jpg|thumb|White Dwarf Stars photographed by the Hubble Space Telescope.]]

A '''White dwarf''' is the electron-degenerate remnant of a [[star]] that has exhausted the nuclear fuel in its core and subsequently lost its outer layers. It represents the final stage of [[Stellar_Evolution|stellar evolution]] for most stars, including our own [[Sun]].<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113..409F</ref> White dwarfs are extremely dense - a white dwarf with a mass equivalent to our Sun would be compacted into a volume no greater than the Earth. As there is no more thermonuclear fusion within white dwarfs, their only source of [[light]] and [[heat]] is leftover thermal energy.

Typically any star between 0.5 and 8 solar masses will end its life as a white dwarf. Most of these dwarfs are primarily made up of [[carbon]] and [[oxygen]], however stars of 4 solar masses or more will have the ability to fuse carbon, which will result in a white dwarf chiefly made up of oxygen, [[neon]], and [[magnesium]].<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ASPC..334..165W</ref> Any star greater then 8 solar masses will eventually develop a core that will be too massive to support by electron-degeneratcy (the [[Chandrasekhar limit]]) and collapse. This collapse will result in a [[supernova]], and depending on the star's mass, the end result will be a [[neutron star]] or a [[black hole]].

==Formation of White Dwarfs==

When star that has a mass of less then 8 solar masses reaches the end of its life on the main sequence by consuming all of its [[hydrogen]] fuel in the core, all but the least massive (less than 0.5 solar masses) will enter the [[red giant]] phase of its evolution. At this point the core of these stars will become hot enough to fuse [[helium]] into carbon and oxygen. For most of these stars, the core will cease fusion once all the helium is consumed, not having the sufficient mass to raise the temperature enough to fuse carbon. For the heaviest stars under 8 solar masses though, carbon fusion will occur, but once all the carbon in the core is consumed, there is not enough heat to fuse the heavier elements available (usually oxygen, and neon).

At this point the star will have a carbon-oxygen core (or for the higher mass stars, a oxygen-neon core) surrounded by an inner shell of helium and an outer shell of hydrogen. The shells of hydrogen and helium will then be expelled and form a [[planetary nebula]] around the star, exposing the remnant core which is the white dwarf the vast majority being the carbon-oxygen variety.<ref>http://www.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk/teaching/phy213/phy213_lowmass.html</ref>

===Helium Dwarf===

''Helium dwarfs'' exist as a result of mass loss in a [[binary star|binary system]].<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362..891B</ref> The helium white dwarf '''SDSS J091709.55+463821.8''', the least massive white dwarf known is an example of this. It is part of a binary system where most of its mass has been lost to its more massive neighbor.

Stars with less than 0.5 solar masses will never be able to fuse helium in their cores once all the hydrogen fuel is consumed. It is theorized that they will also become helium white dwarfs, chiefly made up of helium-4 atoms. Because such low-mass stars have such a long lifespan (on the order of around one trillion years for a low mass [[red dwarf]]), it is believed that none have completely consumed their core hydrogen fuel yet.<ref>http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/planneb/planneb.html</ref>

==Fate of White Dwarfs==

As a white dwarf is no longer powered by thermonuclear fusion, all the light and heat generated is from remaining thermal energy. Thus, the star will very slowly cool over time into a hypothetical ''black dwarf'', where it can no longer emit light or heat in significant quantities. As the time period required for this to occur is longer than 13.7 billion years, no black dwarf is expected to exist yet. Even when the black dwarf state is reached, the stellar remnant itself is still expected to continue to exist indefinitely.

A white dwarf that is part of a binary system may gradually draw in matter from its companion star. If it accumulates enough mass to exceed the Chandrasekhar limit it will explode in a [[Supernova#Type_1a|type Ia supernova]]. What remains is an even denser object known as a [[neutron star]].

==Internal structure of a White Dwarf==

White dwarfs range in mass from 0.17 to 1.33 solar masses with the majority between 0.5 and 0.7 solar masses. Their volume though is roughly that of the Earth. As such, a typical white dwarf has a density of 1x103 kg/m3 which is around 200,000 times the density of the Earth or one million times the density of the Sun.

This density is brought about by [[gravity]] crushing the [[electrons]] of [[atoms]] together. Normally electrons with the same spin cannot occupy the same energy level, therefore only two electrons can occupy a single energy level (as electrons can spin only one of two ways). Because in a white dwarf the electrons are forced so closely, all the energy levels of the atoms are filled with electrons, and because no more than two electrons can fill the energy levels in the atoms within the white dwarf, the star becomes [[degenerate]]. At this point, there is insufficient gravity to compress the matter any more, as [[quantum mechanics]] will not allow for it, preventing the white dwarf from collapsing any further, stabilizing it.<ref name="nasa">http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/dwarfs.html</ref>

Gravity at the surface of a white dwarf is around 100,000 times that of the Earth, the result is that heavier atoms in the atmosphere will sink into the surface, leaving only the lightest elements behind. Thus the thin atmosphere is made up mainly of [[hydrogen]] and [[helium]]. The temperature at this surface can range from 40,000 to 8,000 K, although white dwarfs as cool as 3,900 K have been found. The cooler the white dwarf, the older it is likely to be as they lose thermal energy over time.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...612L.129G</ref> The surface itself is composed of a crust of [[carbon]] and [[oxygen]], the bottom of which is believed be a crystalline lattice.<ref name="nasa">http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/dwarfs.html</ref>

==Observations of White Dwarfs==

[[Image:White Dwarves'.jpg‎ ‎|thumb|left|White Dwarf Stars in M4]]
There are several ways to observe white dwarf stars. The first white dwarf to be discovered was found because it is a companion star to Sirius, a bright star in the constellation [[Canis Major]]. In 1844, [[astronomer]] [[Friedrich Bessel]] noticed that [[Sirius]] had a slight back and forth motion, as if it was orbiting an unseen object. In 1862, the optician and [[telescope]] maker [[Alvan Clark]] observed the predicted companion. This star was later determined to be a white dwarf. This pair are now referred to as Sirius A and B, B, being the white dwarf. The orbital period of this system is about 50 years.

[[Adriaan Van Maanen]] discovered the first lone white dwarf in 1917, now named after him as [[Van Maanen's Star]]. Over time, several other faint white stars were discovered to have high proper motion, indicating they were relatively near the [[Solar System]], confirming them as white dwarfs as well. The term white dwarf itself was first coined by [[Willem Luyten]] in his observation of these stars in 1922.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AAS...20720501H</ref> By 1939 18 such stars were known, increasing to over 100 by 1950, and over 9,000 known today.

The [[Hubble Space Telescope]], with its 2.4 meter mirror and advanced optics, has been successfully viewing white dwarfs with its Wide Field and Planetary Camera. In August of 1995, this camera observed more than 75 white dwarfs in the [[globular cluster]] M4 in the constellation [[Scorpius]]. These white dwarfs were so faint that the brightest of them was no more luminous than a 100 watt light bulb seen at the [[Moon|moon's]] distance.

== Sources ==
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/dwarfs.html

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]

White dwarf

2013-02-08T02:02:20Z

Spielman: grammar & spelling

[[Image:White dwarf stars browse.jpg|thumb|White Dwarf Stars photographed by the Hubble Space Telescope.]]

A '''White dwarf''' is the electron-degenerate remnant of a [[star]] that has exhausted the nuclear fuel in its core and subsequently lost its outer layers. It represents the final stage of [[Stellar_Evolution|stellar evolution]] for most stars, including our own [[Sun]].<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113..409F</ref> White dwarfs are extremely dense - a white dwarf with a mass equivalent to our Sun would be compacted into a volume no greater than the Earth. As there is no more thermonuclear fusion within white dwarfs, their only source of [[light]] and [[heat]] is leftover thermal energy.

Typically any star between 0.5 and 8 solar masses will end its life as a white dwarf. Most of these dwarfs are primarily made up of [[carbon]] and [[oxygen]], however stars of 4 solar masses or more will have the ability to fuse carbon, which will result in a white dwarf chiefly made up of oxygen, [[neon]], and [[magnesium]].<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ASPC..334..165W</ref> Any star greater then 8 solar masses will eventually develop a core that will be too massive to support by electron-degeneratcy (the [[Chandrasekhar limit]]) and collapse. This collapse will result in a [[supernova]], and depending on the star's mass, the end result will be a [[neutron star]] or a [[black hole]].

==Formation of White Dwarfs==

When star that has a mass of less then 8 solar masses reaches the end of its life on the main sequence by consuming all of its [[hydrogen]] fuel in the core, all but the least massive (less than 0.5 solar masses) will enter the [[red giant]] phase of its evolution. At this point the core of these stars will become hot enough to fuse [[helium]] into carbon and oxygen. For most of these stars, the core will cease fusion once all the helium is consumed, not having the sufficient mass to raise the temperature enough to fuse carbon. For the heaviest stars under 8 solar masses though, carbon fusion will occur, but once all the carbon in the core is consumed, there is not enough heat to fuse the heavier elements available (usually oxygen, and neon).

At this point the star will have a carbon-oxygen core (or for the higher mass stars, a oxygen-neon core) surrounded by an inner shell of helium and an outer shell of hydrogen. The shells of hydrogen and helium will then be expelled and form a [[planetary nebula]] around the star, exposing the remnant core which is the white dwarf the vast majority being the carbon-oxygen variety.<ref>http://www.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk/teaching/phy213/phy213_lowmass.html</ref>

===Helium Dwarf===

''Helium dwarfs'' exist as a result of mass loss in a [[binary star|binary system]].<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362..891B</ref> The helium white dwarf '''SDSS J091709.55+463821.8''', the least massive white dwarf known is an example of this. It is part of a binary system where most of its mass has been lost to its more massive neighbor.

Stars with less than 0.5 solar masses will never be able to fuse helium in their cores once all the hydrogen fuel is consumed. It is theorized that they will also become helium white dwarfs, chiefly made up of helium-4 atoms. Because such low-mass stars have such a long lifespan (on the order of around one trillion years for a low mass [[red dwarf]]), it is believed that none have completely consumed their core hydrogen fuel yet.<ref>http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/planneb/planneb.html</ref>

==Fate of White Dwarfs==

As a white dwarf is no longer powered by thermonuclear fusion, all the light and heat generated is from remaining thermal energy. Thus, the star will very slowly cool over time into a hypothetical ''black dwarf'', where it can no longer emit light or heat in significant quantities. As the time period required for this to occur is longer than 13.7 billion years, no black dwarf is expected to exist yet. Even when the black dwarf state is reached, the stellar remnant itself is still expected to continue to exist indefinitely.

Sometimes white dwarfs, if they are in binary systems, may collide and fuse, forming a star that exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit and explode in a [[Supernova#Type_1a|type Ia supernova]].

==Internal structure of a White Dwarf==

White dwarfs range in mass from 0.17 to 1.33 solar masses with the majority between 0.5 and 0.7 solar masses. Their volume though is roughly that of the Earth. As such, a typical white dwarf has a density of 1x103 kg/m3 which is around 200,000 times the density of the Earth or one million times the density of the Sun.

This density is brought about by [[gravity]] crushing the [[electrons]] of [[atoms]] together. Normally electrons with the same spin cannot occupy the same energy level, therefore only two electrons can occupy a single energy level (as electrons can spin only one of two ways). Because in a white dwarf the electrons are forced so closely, all the energy levels of the atoms are filled with electrons, and because no more than two electrons can fill the energy levels in the atoms within the white dwarf, the star becomes [[degenerate]]. At this point, there is insufficient gravity to compress the matter any more, as [[quantum mechanics]] will not allow for it, preventing the white dwarf from collapsing any further, stabilizing it.<ref name="nasa">http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/dwarfs.html</ref>

Gravity at the surface of a white dwarf is around 100,000 times that of the Earth, the result is that heavier atoms in the atmosphere will sink into the surface, leaving only the lightest elements behind. Thus the thin atmosphere is made up mainly of [[hydrogen]] and [[helium]]. The temperature at this surface can range from 40,000 to 8,000 K, although white dwarfs as cool as 3,900 K have been found. The cooler the white dwarf, the older it is likely to be as they lose thermal energy over time.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...612L.129G</ref> The surface itself is composed of a crust of [[carbon]] and [[oxygen]], the bottom of which is believed be a crystalline lattice.<ref name="nasa">http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/dwarfs.html</ref>

==Observations of White Dwarfs==

[[Image:White Dwarves'.jpg‎ ‎|thumb|left|White Dwarf Stars in M4]]
There are several ways to observe white dwarf stars. The first white dwarf to be discovered was found because it is a companion star to Sirius, a bright star in the constellation [[Canis Major]]. In 1844, [[astronomer]] [[Friedrich Bessel]] noticed that [[Sirius]] had a slight back and forth motion, as if it was orbiting an unseen object. In 1862, the optician and [[telescope]] maker [[Alvan Clark]] observed the predicted companion. This star was later determined to be a white dwarf. This pair are now referred to as Sirius A and B, B, being the white dwarf. The orbital period of this system is about 50 years.

[[Adriaan Van Maanen]] discovered the first lone white dwarf in 1917, now named after him as [[Van Maanen's Star]]. Over time, several other faint white stars were discovered to have high proper motion, indicating they were relatively near the [[Solar System]], confirming them as white dwarfs as well. The term white dwarf itself was first coined by [[Willem Luyten]] in his observation of these stars in 1922.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AAS...20720501H</ref> By 1939 18 such stars were known, increasing to over 100 by 1950, and over 9,000 known today.

The [[Hubble Space Telescope]], with its 2.4 meter mirror and advanced optics, has been successfully viewing white dwarfs with its Wide Field and Planetary Camera. In August of 1995, this camera observed more than 75 white dwarfs in the [[globular cluster]] M4 in the constellation [[Scorpius]]. These white dwarfs were so faint that the brightest of them was no more luminous than a 100 watt light bulb seen at the [[Moon|moon's]] distance.

== Sources ==
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/dwarfs.html

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Monopoly (board game)

2013-02-06T17:20:28Z

Spielman: /* Board Variations */ tokens

[[Image:Monopoly Mascot.jpg|100px|''Monopoly'''s mascot, Rich Uncle Pennybags.|thumb|right]]
'''''Monopoly''''' is an American [[board game]] based on the economic concept of [[monopoly]]. According to Parker Brothers, it was designed by Charles B. Darrow in 1934. Originally distributed by Parker Brothers, ''Monopoly'' is now the property of Hasbro under the Parker Brothers brand. ''Monopoly'' is one of the best-known American board games, and is immensely popular worldwide, having been published in 80 countries and 26 languages.

==History==
''Monopoly'''s development has its roots in the [[Great Depression]] and earlier, where it was first developed to understand the adversarial process of finance, and then as a means to make light of the financial problems posed by real monopolists. ''The Landlord's Game'' was an earlier board game that is very similar to ''Monopoly''.

The modern game of ''Monopoly'' was developed by Charles Darrow of Germantown, Pennsylvania, who had trouble supporting his family after the stock market crash of 1929 and during the Depression. He developed the game based on [[Atlantic City]], [[New Jersey]], where he spent summers. He initially took the game to Parker Bros., who rejected it because of "fifty-two fundamental errors" such as game length and complicated rules. He and a printer friend produced it in a [[Philadelphia]] department store. When Darrow could no longer keep up with demand, Parker Bros. took over the game. Royalties made Darrow a millionaire.
The [[Great Britain|British]] agents of Parker Brothers decided to replace the American properties with ones based on locations around [[London]]. This version was sold throughout [[Commonwealth of Nations|British Commonwealth]] countries, except for [[Canada]], which used the American version.<ref>[http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa121997.htm History of ''Monopoly'']</ref>

==Gameplay==
[[File:Monopoly board.jpg|thumb|right|200px|A game of ''Monopoly'']]
In ''Monopoly'', two or more players (with one player acting as Banker and Auctioneer) take turns rolling dice and moving their tokens clockwise through boxes drawn around the edges of a square board based on street names in [[Atlantic City]]. If the player rolls doubles, he or she gets an extra turn. Upon landing in a box, a player may buy the property from the bank if no other player owns it, auction the property through the Bank to the highest bidder, pay rent to the player who owns it, or draw a Chance or Community Chest card. Landing on Luxury Tax costs the player $75. For Income Tax, the player must pay either $200 or 10% of the total of (1) the player's cash and (2) the purchase price of all the player's properties and improvements. When the player passes Go, he/she collect $200. If the player lands on Jail or Free Parking, nothing happens. If the player rolls doubles three times in a row, he/she goes to jail. The player can also go to jail if he/she lands on the corner box marked Go To Jail, or gets a Chance or Community Chest card stating to go to jail. To get out of jail, the player must pay the $50 fine, roll doubles on his or her turn or use a "get out of jail free" card. Rent and property costs increase as one goes around the board. The purple and light blue properties are on the South edge, magenta and orange on the West edge, red and yellow on the North edge, and green and dark blue on the East edge. Rents are doubled if the player owns all of a color. Railroad rents increase for each additional railroad the player owns: one railroad is $25 in rent, two is $50, three is $100 rent, and owning all four will garner $200 in rent. Owning one of the two utilities will garner five times the number the player rolled on the dice, and owning both utilities will garner ten times the dice number. Building houses on the player's lot increases rents; after 4 houses, the player can erect a hotel instead. Houses and hotels are only bought from the bank, never from other players, and there is a fixed supply, which can lead to housing shortages. Not all deals are done with the bank. Players may sell or trade properties, which is often a key part of gaining a monopoly by buying all properties of a color group. A player wins the game by being the last one in the game and bankrupting his or her opponents. Players may avoid bankruptcy by morgtaging a property for one half of the face price of the property, selling houses and hotels for one half the price of the buildings, or trading. If a player still does not have enough assets, they are removed from the game. <ref>[http://www.hasbro.com/monopoly/default.cfm?page=history History of the ''Monopoly'' Game] at Hasbro</ref>

==House Rules==
Some players have added extra rules, called "House Rules", such as fines paid into a kitty in the center of the board and collected by whomever lands on Free Parking, collecting double salary when landing on GO, traveling on railroads, double buildings, "free market" (not needing a monopoly to build), instant hotels, partnerships (two players form a monopoly), utilities are treated as railroads, uneven building, unlimited buildings, immunity from rent, game starting auction, double priced and rent properties, two game boards in play, no building, trading, or collecting from Jail, and many more.<ref>[http://www.playagaingames.com/games/monopoly/home_rules/''Monopoly'' House Rules]</ref>

==Board Variations==
Overseas versions have cities appropriate for the their marketplace; for example, the British version of the game has squares based upon areas within London.

Several authorized and unauthorized versions have been created featuring different American cities, sports teams, comic book covers, movies and more.

The tokens identifying each player are cast-metal representations of ordinary objects. With the first release of the game, the tokens were an iron, racecar, shoe, thimble, top hat, and battleship. A Scottie dog and wheelbarrow were added in the early 1950s. In 2013, possibly bowing to pressure from [[Facebook]] [[liberal]]s, the utilitarian iron - symbol of hard work and family - will be replaced by a cat, an icon popular among city elites.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324590904578287660117722952.html?mod=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks_1</ref>

==''Anti-Monopoly''==
''Anti-Monopoly'' is a book by retired San Francisco economics teacher Ralph Anspach that apparently discusses the darker side of the history of the Monopoly board game and its makers.<ref>[http://www.antimonopoly.com/the_book.html ''Anti-Monopoly'']</ref> There is also a board game with the same title. The ''Anti-Monopoly'' game is a negative variant of the regular game, with more updated properties. Most of the board is initially owned by a few players (The Monopolists), who are pitted against the other players (Competitors) in an attempt to break down the Monopoly.
==References==
<references/>
[[category:Board games]]

Neutron

2013-01-20T18:18:48Z

Spielman:

[[Image:310px-Beta Negative Decay svg.png|right|thumb|300px|The [[Feynmann diagram]] of the neutron beta decay process]]
A '''neutron''' is the neutral particle in an [[atom]]'s [[nucleus]]. It is a [[baryon]], comprised of two down [[quark]]s and an up [[quark]] It keeps the positive protons in the nucleus from being pushed apart from each other by their like charges. A lack or excess of neutrons causes an atom to become unstable; [[beta decay|beta radiation]] is the conversion of a neutron into a [[proton]] which emits an [[electron]] and an [[anti-electron neutrino]]. Although neutrons comprise a large part of all matter, they are inherently unstable if not bound to a nucleus, and decay into a proton and an electron in a brief period of time.

==See Also==

*[[Atom]]
*[[Proton]]
*[[Electron]]
*[[Periodic table of the elements]]
*[[Quark]]
*[[nucleon]]

==Links==

*[http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/09/18/study_contradicts_neutron_theory/8801/ Study contradicts neutron theory]

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

Photon

2013-01-06T05:36:21Z

Spielman: rewording

A '''photon''' is a particle of light.

Since Newton's publication of his [[Opticks]] in 1704, his corpuscle theory of light dominated the world of physics. However, this changed in the 19th century with experiments done by [[Fresnel|Augustin-Jean Fresnel]] and [[Young|Thomas Young]], which supported [[Huygens|Christian Huygens]]'s wave theory. One of the proofs for this is that light experiences [[Optics#Physical_optics|interference]] and [[Optics#Physical_optics|diffraction]], which would not be displayed if light were a classical particle. Furthermore, [[James Clerk Maxwell]] theoretical prediction of electromagnetic waves, together with [[Hertz|Heinrich Hertz]] experiments led to conclude that light was an electromagnetic wave.

However, a phenomenon called the [[photoelectric effect]] led to a different conclusion. The photoelectric is the emission of electrons from a metal which is illuminated with light. This by itself is in no contradiction to the wave theory of light, but certain peculiarities of it were. For example, it was observed that no electrons were emitted unless the frequency of light was greater than a threshold frequency, regardless of how intense the light beam was. Also, the energy of the emitted electrons was dependent only on the light frequency, not in its intensity. Since the energy of a wave depends on its amplitude, which in turn is related to its intensity, this was in contradiction with the wave theory of light.

[[Albert Einstein]] solved this problem arguing that light is really a particle, which was called a photon, each of which carry an energy given by ''h*f'', where ''h'' is [[Planck's constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the light. More intense light involves more photons, but the energy of each photon individually depends only on its frequency. This explained why there is a threshold frequency before a metal emits electrons: A single photon must be energetic enough to knock out an electron, and so increasing the intensity (sending more photons) will not solve the problem. Only increasing the frequency (increasing the energy per photon) will do.

In standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, light behaves both as a wave and as a particle. The existence of photons is now well accepted by the physics community, and its implication has gone well beyond the photoelectric effect.

Photons are [[bosons]], that is, particles that have integer [[Quantum_field_theory#Field_Bosons_Mediate_Action_At_a_Distance|spin]]. In [[quantum field theory]], photons are the mediators of the [[electromagnetic force]].

==See also==
*[[Optics#Physical_optics|Interference]]

[[category:physics]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2013-01-02T15:25:13Z

Spielman: Energy conservation in an inertial frame

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-12-19T21:48:10Z

Spielman: muon ref

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-12-19T21:46:43Z

Spielman: unexpected muons

Public-key encryption

2012-12-04T01:34:59Z

Spielman:

'''Public-key encryption''' is an asymmetric [[encryption]] method in which 2 complementary keys are used. What gets encrypted by one of the keys can be decrypted only by the other. Generally one key of the pair is kept safe by an individual and the other key is distributed as widely as possible, after which two things can be done.

If a message can be decrypted using the widely distributed ("public") key, it proves that the author of the message is the individual that holds the private key. Conversely, if a message is encrypted by the public key, it can only be decrypted by the key that was kept safe (the "private" key), making it possible to send a confidential message to the holder of the private key knowing only the public key. While this is the general principle of operation, many modifications are made in order to ensure practical and quick encryption.

Well-known public-key encryption algorithms include '''Diffie-Hellman''' and '''RSA'''. In Diffie-Hellman, the hardness is based on the [[discrete logarithm]]; in RSA it is [[factoring]].

==Diffie-Hellman key exchange protocol==
This is a method to secure a channel from eavesdroppers, by agreeing on an encryption key. It is used to let 2 parties agree on a key to be used for encrypting their communications, without actually transmitting said key on the channel between them. If somebody is eavesdropping he will not be able to deduce the key agreed upon from listening to the data.

The main problem is the "man in the middle attack". Instead of merely eavesdropping, an attacker would place himself between the 2 parties trying to communicate, and he would participate in the key exchange. The spy would agree on one key with the first party, agree on another key with the second party. Then he is able to decrypt (and re-encrypt and retransmit) the data sent over the channel.

However the protocol is useful because it raises the difficulty of eavesdropping. A spy would have to be able to place himself "in between" the two parties he intends to spy on. Also, the spy needs to actively participate in the conversation in order to be able to spy. If he were to put a listening device on the cable, for example, he would not be able to understand the messages sent.

"Diffie-Hellman key exchange", relies on the fundamental [[hardness|difficulty]] of [[computing]] the discrete logarithm of a number in the [[Group (mathematics)|group]] ''G''. It was invented by [[Whitfield Diffie]] and Martin Hellman in 1976. The protocol proceeds in three steps:

# Alice decides on a large prime number ''p'' which defines a multiplicative group ''G'' in which to work, with [[generator]] ''g''
# Alice chooses a secret integer ''a''. She sends ''ga'' mod ''p'' to Bob
# Bob chooses a different integer ''b'', and sends ''gb'' mod ''p'' to Alice
# Alice computes ''(gb)a'', while Bob computes ''(ga)b''

At this point both parties (Alice and Bob) have the same (secret) information (ga*b mod p), and can use the shared secret as a key for sending [[encryption|encrypted]] messages back and forth by the usual methods.

An example conversation (in practice much larger prime numbers will be used) :

# Alice chooses a prime p = 43, which defines a multiplicative group with 43 elements, 0 to 42. Our secret key will be one of the elements in the group, which means it will be a value from 0 to 10. Since p is prime, any element is a [[generator]], so we can pick any number between 0 and 42, let's say we pick 28. Any number between 0 and 42 will do for the generator. In practice the generator needs to be "relatively" prime to p, modulo p. This means g and p must have no common factors, when calculating mod p.

# Alice then sends p and g to Bob, who now also knows p = 43 and g = 28
# Alice chooses her secret number a, let's say 58. She calculates ga mod p = 2858 mod 43 = 17, and sends 17 to Bob
# Bob chooses his secret number b, let's say 39. Bob sends gb mod p = 2839 mod 43 = 2 to Alice
# Alice calculates her version of the secret value gab using gb (the value she received from Bob) : (gb)a mod p = 258 mod 43 = 4
# Bob calculates his version of the secret value gab using ga (the value he received from Alice) : (ga)b mod p = 1739 mod 43 = 4
Alice and Bob have agreed on an encryption key, gab = 4, and only sent values that can only be used to calculate the key with great difficulty : p = 43, g = 28, ga = 17 and gb = 39. If you want to find out the key, your only choice is to try and determine either a or b. This can only be done by calculating g1, g2, g3, g4, g5, ... and compare with the ga value, until found.

By increasing p, the procedure of looking for a can be made arbitrarily difficult. These days p is generally chosen to be "relatively large", meaning that it should require "a bit less" than 256 bits to represent. Determining a would take on average 2255 steps (although some algorithms can do it in slightly less steps) to determine a.

==RSA encryption==
"RSA" stands for "[[Ron Rivest|Rivest]]–[[Shamir]]–[[Adelman]]",<ref>[http://www.all-acronyms.com/?t=rsa&d=rivest%2Dshamir%2Dadelson ''AllAcronyms.com'']</ref><ref>[http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/courses/mct/Handouts/notes-6.pdf Course notes] from G6016 "Networks", at the [[University of Sussex]]</ref> the three [[MIT]] researchers who discovered the RSA algorithm in 1977.

RSA is based on the fundamental difficulty of [[factoring]] large integers into [[prime]]s.

The RSA algorithm was put to the test in 1991, when RSA Laboratories released the "RSA Factoring Challenge". The challenge consisted of a list of progressively larger numbers, which, when fully decrypted, read "The magic words are [[squeamish ossifrage]]."<ref>[http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/1393.html "The Magic Words Are Squeamish Ossifrage"], by Atkins, Graff, Lenstra, and Leyl</ref> Although the challenge was withdrawn in 2007, the RSA algorithm is still widely considered acceptable for business purposes.

==GCHQ==
The mathematics of public key cryptography, and specifically RSA, are now generally recognized to have been first developed at the British government signals intelligence department [[GCHQ]] (Government Communications Headquarters). In 1975 three mathematicians at GCHQ, James Ellis, Clifford Cocks and Malcolm Williamson devised the mathematics for a public key system. However, due the limited computing power available at the time, the idea was not developed into a practical system, and due to the secret nature of the established, papers on the subject were not released to the general mathematical community. The discoveries of Rivest, Shamir and Adelman, although later, were entirely independent.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-11475101</ref>

==Example==
#
Fred needs to send documents to many people. They don't need to be secure, but its important that they know for certain that the message actually came from Fred.
* Fred '''encrypts''' the message using his ''private key''. (only fred knows this key)
* Fred sends the encrypted message
* George gets the message (so do many other people , it's not important)
* George '''decrypts''' the message using Fred's ''Public key''.
* Only a message coded with the private key can be decoded wth the public key so George knows it came from Fred.
#
* George drafts a reply and '''encrypts''' it with Freds ''Public key''.
* only Freds ''private key'' can '''decrypt''' the message , so it is secure
* Fred receives the message and decrypts it
* it's a valid message but Fred cant know who sent it , anyone with the public key could send to him.

This form of public key encryption works best with sets of private and public keys.

==References==
<references/>

== See Also ==
# [http://www.networkworld.com/news/64452_05-17-1999.html | Public key encryption for Dummies]
# http://www2.krellinst.org/UCES/archive/modules/charlie/pke/

[[Category:Cryptography]]

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-12-03T22:04:02Z

Spielman: #-stuff

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

Unlike most essay pages, anyone is welcome to contribute. We ask that you abide by the usual guidelines—do not remove non-vandal, non-parody, non-libelous material without discussing it first on the talk page, or explaining after-the-fact for serious problems.

#(vague example about black holes)
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see <ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref>. This behavoiur, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galillean, Newtonian and Einsteinian, are quite safe for now.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.''
#:This observation is interesting, but the predictions of oblateness come from analysis of fluid mechanics; relativity is not involved, and the cited paper makes no mention of relativity.
#:
#:We expect a very large rotating body to show oblateness according to well-known principles involving centrifugal force. This is particularly easy to observe with Jupiter, though the other planets, including Earth, show it too. Scientists do not know why the Sun exhibits nearly zero oblateness, but relativity is not believed to be the cause.
#:
#:Now it happens that there ''is'' a connection between solar oblateness and the calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and that involves General Relativity. When checking the observed precession against the effect predicted by Relativity, one needs to subtract the effect of solar oblateness, along with the other effects, such as equinoctial precession and the gravitational effects of other planets. The effect of solar oblateness is a mere .0254 arcseconds per century, insignificant in comparison with precession (about 5500) and other planets' gravity (about 550). The figure of .0254 was calculated based on what fluid dynamics predicted, and was subtracted in the figures quoted below in item #9. When that tiny effect is removed, the error bars still overlap that for the GR prediction.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>. The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#:::The politicized rush to rehabilitate the Theory of Relativity was far from convincing, and the "resolution" was a clear statement that is flatly contrary to the Theory.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct. Saying that, every time someone finds some phenomenon that is puzzling, that shows that relativity is wrong, is not a convincing way to do science. The cited paper is about unexpected behavior of some spacecraft as they use "gravity assists" in near-Earth flybys. The hypothesized causes involve errors in the mathematical models to calculate such effects as relativistic effects (the detailed calculation of them, not the question of whether they exist), tidal effects, Earth radiation pressure, or atmospheric drag. The paper suggests that most of those can be ruled out, though there could be round-off and integration errors, or errors in the spherical harmonic representation of Earth's gravity field.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:'''Update:''' Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has neen reported<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref>. The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:Spacetime has very definite curvature near any massive object—this is what makes gravity work. The '''global''' curvature of spacetime is an altogether different issue. Whether the average global curvature is zero has consequences for cosmological theories, but it has essentially no effect on the curvature that keeps the Earth in its orbit. If it did have an effect, the issue would have been settled long ago.
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical) GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, has been proposed.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 17 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::the "standard model", with strange/charm/top/bottom/mu/tau
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.
#''General Relativity predicts how the gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon generate ocean tides. However, in the summer of 2009, tides along the East Coast of the United States were higher than expected.''
#:This one is utterly absurd. The calculation of the gravity of the Sun and Moon in producing tides has been known for hundreds of years, explained by Newtonian gravity. The effect of relativity on this is microscopic.
#:
#:The cited article is about the many things affecting the gross behavior of tides. Keep in mind that the factors affecting the tides involve a lot of hard-to-precisely-quantify things such as wind and ocean currents, and the melting of glaciers. As an example of how imprecise things are, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans differ in mean height by about 8 inches at the Panama Canal, and the tides are about 20 feet on the Pacific side and 1 foot on the Atlantic side. As another example, tides in the Bay of Fundy are as high as 53 feet. Tides are not a simple calculation from Newtonian or Einsteinian mechanics. The difference between Newtonian gravitation and Einsteinian gravitation is utterly insignificant in comparison to these gross effects.
#''The supermassive black hole within the Andromeda galaxy puzzled researchers by increasing in brightness by a factor of 100 in 2006.''
#:This item is about unexpected behavior of the supermassive black holes at the centers of many galaxies. Black holes are a prediction of relativity. The fact that people are still learning new things about them is hardly surprising.
#:
#:The cited article never mentions relativity or the possibility that relativity is wrong. In fact, the entire discussion is in the context of black holes. The second study was about a black hole at the center of a galaxy apparently wandering out of place. The hypothesis is that a merger of two galaxies was involved, and "the theoretical prediction is that when two black holes merge, the newly combined black hole receives a 'kick' due to the emission of gravitational waves ..." Gravitational waves are, of course, a specific prediction of general relativity.
#''Scientists are unable to explain a June 2012 cluster of earthquakes in Ireland.''
#:This one is even more absurd than the one above about tides. We cannot fathom why anyone would think earthquakes are a counterexample to relativity.
#''Apparently, the equations of General Relativity do not apply to the motions of extra-solar planets.''
#:This refers to a recently discovered planetary system in which another star is closer than had previously been seen in such a system. Systems involving two stars and a planet constitute the "three body problem", which has never been solved analytically. But if only one of the objects is massive, such as the Sun, the system can be stable for all practical purposes, which is why the solar system is effectively stable even though it is a many-body problem. But two stars make the system much more problematical. In the past, such systems have had the other star far enough away that it has essentially no effect. The Gamma Cephei system is different, and scientists are eager to analyze it in detail. They are frustrated in this by the extremely scant data about the planet's orbit, since that information has to be gleaned from tiny spectroscopic shifts (in only one dimension!) of the two stars.
#:
#:The effect of Relativity on this is, of course, the precession of the "perihelion" due to the effects of General Relativity. From the information that has been gathered, the precession should be about 1.14 arcseconds per Earth century, or about 1/37th that of Mercury. The precession of Mercury was established with accurate visual observations. Measuring something 1/37th as large, from the Doppler shift in spectroscopic measurements, is utterly beyond current technology. Other than that, there is no reason to consider relativity. Classical mechanics will do just fine.
#''General Relativity fails to predict the Allais Effect.''
#:A quick Google search will show that there is no "concerted effort to suppress knowledge about the phenomenon". Tom van Flandern (no darling of those who accept relativity; he has been cited at Conservapedia in the "Lack of evidence for Relativity" section) explains the phenomenon in his 2003 paper [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v67/i2/e022002 Allais gravity and pendulum effects during solar eclipses explained]: "Here we show that an unusual phenomenon that occurs only during solar eclipses, rapid air mass movement for the bulk of the atmosphere above normal cloud levels, appears to be a sufficient explanation for both the magnitude and behavior of the anomaly previously reported in these pages."

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-11-20T18:47:50Z

Spielman: reference for Allais Effect

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-11-20T02:22:07Z

Spielman: Allais effect

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-09-11T18:00:16Z

Spielman: merging two entries that are both about the Earth gravity-assists

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

Unlike most essay pages, anyone is welcome to contribute. We ask that you abide by the usual guidelines—do not remove non-vandal, non-parody, non-libelous material without discussing it first on the talk page, or explaining after-the-fact for serious problems.

#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:'''Update:''' Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has neen reported<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref>. The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see <ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref>. This behavoiur, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galillean, Newtonian and Einsteinian, are quite safe for now.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.''
#:This observation is interesting, but the predictions of oblateness come from analysis of fluid mechanics; relativity is not involved, and the cited paper makes no mention of relativity.
#:
#:We expect a very large rotating body to show oblateness according to well-known principles involving centrifugal force. This is particularly easy to observe with Jupiter, though the other planets, including Earth, show it too. Scientists do not know why the Sun exhibits nearly zero oblateness, but relativity is not believed to be the cause.
#:
#:Now it happens that there ''is'' a connection between solar oblateness and the calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and that involves General Relativity. When checking the observed precession against the effect predicted by Relativity, one needs to subtract the effect of solar oblateness, along with the other effects, such as equinoctial precession and the gravitational effects of other planets. The effect of solar oblateness is a mere .0254 arcseconds per century, insignificant in comparison with precession (about 5500) and other planets' gravity (about 550). The figure of .0254 was calculated based on what fluid dynamics predicted, and was subtracted in the figures quoted below in item #9. When that tiny effect is removed, the error bars still overlap that for the GR prediction.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>. The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct. Saying that, every time someone finds some phenomenon that is puzzling, that shows that relativity is wrong, is not a convincing way to do science. The cited paper is about unexpected behavior of some spacecraft as they use "gravity assists" in near-Earth flybys. The hypothesized causes involve errors in the mathematical models to calculate such effects as relativistic effects (the detailed calculation of them, not the question of whether they exist), tidal effects, Earth radiation pressure, or atmospheric drag. The paper suggests that most of those can be ruled out, though there could be round-off and integration errors, or errors in the spherical harmonic representation of Earth's gravity field.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:What? Is has been observed
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical)GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, has been proposed.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 17 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::the "standard model", with strange/charm/top/bottom/mu/tau
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.
#''General Relativity predicts how the gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon generate ocean tides. However, in the summer of 2009, tides along the East Coast of the United States were higher than expected.''
#:This one is utterly absurd. The calculation of the gravity of the Sun and Moon in producing tides has been known for hundreds of years, explained by Newtonian gravity. The effect of relativity on this is microscopic.
#:
#:The cited article is about the many things affecting the gross behavior of tides. Keep in mind that the factors affecting the tides involve a lot of hard-to-precisely-quantify things such as wind and ocean currents, and the melting of glaciers. As an example of how imprecise things are, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans differ in mean height by about 8 inches at the Panama Canal, and the tides are about 20 feet on the Pacific side and 1 foot on the Atlantic side. As another example, tides in the Bay of Fundy are as high as 53 feet. Tides are not a simple calculation from Newtonian or Einsteinian mechanics. The difference between Newtonian gravitation and Einsteinian gravitation is utterly insignificant in comparison to these gross effects.
#''The supermassive black hole within the Andromeda galaxy puzzled researchers by increasing in brightness by a factor of 100 in 2006.''
#:This item is about unexpected behavior of the supermassive black holes at the centers of many galaxies. Black holes are a prediction of relativity. The fact that people are still learning new things about them is hardly surprising.
#:
#:The cited article never mentions relativity or the possibility that relativity is wrong. In fact, the entire discussion is in the context of black holes. The second study was about a black hole at the center of a galaxy apparently wandering out of place. The hypothesis is that a merger of two galaxies was involved, and "the theoretical prediction is that when two black holes merge, the newly combined black hole receives a 'kick' due to the emission of gravitational waves ..." Gravitational waves are, of course, a specific prediction of general relativity.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-09-11T17:57:33Z

Spielman: merging two entries that are both about the Earth gravity-assists

Semiconductor

2012-09-09T20:13:49Z

Spielman: super-->semi and qualify the statement

A '''semiconductor''' is a conductor whose resistance decreases with increased temperature. Semiconductors in common commercial use consist of a lattice of a group four element, typically [[silicon]] or [[germanium]]. The [[electron]]s that cause current flow are bound in the lattice, with on average 1 free electron per 250,000 atoms. When energy (usually heat) is supplied to the conductor electrons are freed from the lattice and conduction occurs. More energy increases the number of free electrons up to a point where the substance loses its conductivity.

==Theories Behind Semiconductors==

Conduction in semiconductors is through two methods, conduction through electrons free of the lattice (those in the conduction band) and conduction by positive holes.

===Band Theory===

Electrons held in the lattice and unable to conduct electricity are referred to as being in the "valance band" (as they are in the outer shell of the atom). Electrons which have been promoted to higher energy orbitals and are free to conduct are referred to as being in the "conduction band". Electrons in the conduction band are able to transmit electricity.

===Positive Hole Theory===

The positive hole theory is that when an electron leaves its position in the lattice a positive hole is formed in its absence. This hole is then filled by another electron which in turn leaves a hole in its path which is filled by another electron and so on so forth. The apparent movement of "positive holes" mimics the movement of positive charges, and hence semiconductors can be referred to as conducting by positive holes. This occurs in the valance band.

==Doping==

Doping occurs when a group four atom in the lattice is replaced with either a group three or a group five atom at the rate of about one per one million.

===p type===

p type semiconductors occur when the lattice is doped with a group three element. As these elements only have three valance electrons there is a positive hole already in existence in the lattice, which allows ready conduction by positive holes. As a result, the majority charge carriers in p-type semiconductors are positive holes, and the minority charge carriers are electrons in the conduction band.

===n type===

n type semiconductors occur when the lattice is doped with a group give element. As these elements have five valance electrons there is an extra electron "floating" in the lattice (only four valance electrons are needed to bond to other atoms). As a result conduction can occur without needing to input large amounts of energy, and the majority charge carriers are electrons in the conduction band (the minority charge carriers being positive holes).

==Uses==

Semiconductors are not used to replace ordinary conductors, given that their resistance remains significantly higher at all temperatures. However, their unique properties can be exploited by creating a n-p junction, when an n-type and a p-type semiconductor are placed together. The electrons in the conduction band of the n-type substance fill up some of the positive holes in the p-type conduction, producing a negative charge on the p-type side and hence an electric field which creates a "zone of exclusion". This zone of exclusion can be utilized in many instances, including in solid state devices acting as diodes (ensuring direction of current in one direction only) and triodes (increasing the current flowing through a circuit) and in solar cells. The former of these has replaced transistor valves in appliances such as radios and photocells.

[[Category: Technology]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-09-09T20:11:58Z

Spielman: Gamma Cephei system

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-09-09T05:31:15Z

Spielman: Earthquake anomally

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-09-05T17:12:22Z

Spielman: /* Lede quote */ resignation is irrelevant

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-09-05T05:06:23Z

Spielman: Contradicted item #4

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-09-04T04:16:08Z

Spielman: unexplained fluctuations in M31 black hole

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-09-04T04:02:18Z

Spielman: anomalous delta-V in Galileo and NEAR

Buckminsterfullerene

2012-08-31T00:33:39Z

Spielman: rewording

'''Buckminsterfullerene''', often colloquially known as 'buckyballs', is an [[allotrope]] of [[carbon]]; it is the only molecular form, at C60. It was jointly discovered by Sir Harold Kroto, Richard E. Smalley and Robert F. Curl who received the 1996 [[Nobel Prize]] in [[chemistry]] for their work. It was named after the [[geodesic]] architecture of [[Richard Buckminster Fuller]], which it resembled<ref>[http://www.science.org.au/nova/024/024key.htm Science.org: Buckyballs]</ref>. It is commonly referred to as a "buckyball", in reference to its [[soccer]]-ball-like structure.

Other atoms can fit inside the hollow structure of Buckminsterfullerenes, leading to important applications. For example, introducing a [[lead]] or [[iron]] atom to the center will make the substance [[paramagnetic]]. A [[sugar]] in the center makes the fullerene soluble in water. A cluster of [[sulfur]] atoms makes it explosive. Also toxic molecules can be trapped there for safe introduction into the human body. By changing the ionisation potentials of the buckyballs, these trapped molecules can be released more easily. The two principal centers for producing these compounds are Umeå in [[Sweden]] and Bachelburg in [[Germany]].

==See also==
* [[Nanotechnology]]

==External links==
<references/>

[[category:Chemical Compounds]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-08-31T00:30:09Z

Spielman: new example: Unexplained high tides

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-07-20T18:35:07Z

Spielman: /* Counterexamples to Recent Experiments */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "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" in part because "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.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Whether GPS was designed based on Relativity or not may be irrelevant. Whether or not Relativity is necessary for the clocks to run efficiently and accurately, also irrelevant. Observations of the satellites are still consistent with the predictions of General and Special Relativity as evidenced here: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp. Please not that this is an article by the same Tom Van Flandern quoted on this site as saying that relativity is unnecessary for GPS calculations, so I trust this is a source you will accept. Here he is saying here that while relativity may be UNNECESSARY for those calculations, it is still CONFIRMED by our observations.[[User:Williagz|Gus Williams]] 14:03, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
All right, can Andy Schlafly explain how adjusting the exponent in the law of gravity accounts for the orbits of the other planets? You know the reason why no one considers that as an alternative? Are you ready?! '''Because it doesn't work!''' And can you tell me why Einstein came up with GR? Was it to explain the orbit of Mercury? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 21:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:::In response to your first question, the reason is purely political. Any grad student who suggests that tweaking the exponent in Newtonian mechanics is an interesting approach worth more attention will thereby eliminate his chances for obtaining a PhD.

:::In response to your second point, GR was tweaked to explain the Mercury perihelion precession, but now the more precisely observed data fail to match the theory. Grad students and Nobel Prize wannabes are clever enough to keep quiet about it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy: You make an interesting point about people not thinking that the Newcomb/Hall theory of planetary precession is an interesting approach—I hadn't thought about that aversion. I'm not sure why you think that people who take an interest in that theory would eliminate their chances of getting a PhD—people take an interest in historical aspects of science all the time. I can think of a few discarded scientific theories that are commonly discussed in science classes: The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, the "plum pudding" model of the atom, and the phlogiston theory of combustion come to mind. The first two are very commonly taught in science classes. I think this is because they do a very good job of illustrating the scientific method and the value of careful analytical thinking. The phlogiston theory also illustrates careful thinking, but it isn't discussed in science classes nearly as much. My guess is that this is because it's harder to visualize. You can easily make a diagram in a textbook of the epicycles of Ptolemy and the ellipses of Kepler. And the model of electrons circling the nucleus, as per the Rutherford atom, is pretty much the logo for all things atomic. Lavoisier's (and others') experiments with combustion don't make for as dramatic an illustration.

The Simon Newcomb / Asaph Hall theory of planetary precession, unfortunately, seems to be even less photogenic. The effect being explained, 43 arcseconds per century, may be hard to get sudents excited about. But I doubt whether anyone jeopardizes their academic or research careers by being interested in it.

Idea: How about if I write some articles about the 4 theories (Ptolemy/Kepler, pudding/Rutherford, phlogiston/oxidation, and Newcomb/Einstein)? We could create a category for discarded scientific theories.

But I won't get to it any time soon. I'm very busy at Ameriwiki.

By the way, I have to thank you for the "E=mc^2" article. It really sharpened my thinking about the issues involved in special relativity, and it contributed to the outline of the articles I'm writing at Ameriwiki.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

::: Ugh, the reasons GPS devices don't contain the "rigorous transformations" that relativity "would seem to require" is very simple. The satellites are in geosynchronous orbits, and the difference in time that relativity causes only need to be calculated once. From then on, it's simply a case of adding a few ns every day to the satellite clocks to account for this. I would've thought that was obvious to an expert. And only an expert should be attempting to write authoratively on the theory of relativity! A certificate in physics does not an expert make. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 15:09, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, how do you explain that adjusting the exponent in Newtonian gravity doesn't account for the orbits of the other planets? You say it has to do with politics. It has nothing to do with politics--the other theory just doesn't work! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:33, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

:I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits. The orbit of Mercury would be far more sensitive to such a tweak than anything else.

:The broader question remains: isn't the [[censorship]] of any alternative to the [[Theory of Relativity]] obvious? If the theory were correct, then there would be no need for [[liberals]] to censor debate or alternative theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

::*''I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits.'' Do you have any calculations which would affirm this belief of yours? AFAIK, Simon Newcomb's and Asaph Hall's idea was discarded when excellent measurements for the Moon were made by Ernest W. Brown which didn't fit the predictions of Newcomb and Hall. This was in the early 20th century...
::*Today Computer simulations allow for an easy test of alternatives to Newton's exponent. Any student should be able to create one and see for himself that it doesn't work out.
::*The influence of the exponent on ''apsidal angles'' was discussed be Newton himself. It's still of interest today: a central system in which the exponent is 1 is easily imaginable (swing a weight on a spring around your head). And you will find publications on these subjects still today.
::That said:
::*Why don't you run a simulation for yourself?
::*''Alternative theories'' are discussed - and mostly discarded. That's the way physics works. Theories doesn't become true because you ''believe'' in them, they become more and more trustworthy when their predictions are verified over and over again.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

:::The Newcomb-Hall theory doesn't need anyone, liberal or otherwise, to censor it. It censors itself, by being wrong. It has been shown to be wrong many times, including Ernest Brown's observations, and some data published right here at [[Theory of relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|Conservapedia]].

:::Probably the best refutation at present is with artificial satellites, since their orbital period is so short. If you want to argue for the Newcomb-Hall theory, your best bet would be to find data showing that the periapsis of the International Space Station precesses by .013 degrees per month. That is an enormous precession, easily observed. The orbital eccentricity is only .001, but, since the ISS is so close and is in constant contact by radio and radar, there should be extremely good data. You should probably contact the author of the [http://www.heavens-above.com/ Heavens Above] web site. It has a huge amount of information on things like this.

:::I think that you will find that what you are up against is not liberals, but facts. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 12:44, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:GR is '''disproven''''' now by the precession of Mercury. See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I checked [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and the number for the observed precession in the note are unreferenced. To be credible there has to be a reference for this number.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 12:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Committee Criticism ==

That section of the article criticizes the Nobel Committee for not awarding a prize to a scientist who questions relativity, then immediately notes that no awards have been given for work related to relativity. Perhaps it'd be better to remove this contradiction; pick a poison and stick to it, so to speak. Alternatively, it may be more honest just to remove the section. --[[User:PaPatriot|PaPatriot]]

:What's contradictory about that? It's similar to how the Obama Administration won't appoint anyone who is [[pro-life]], and yet Obama won't campaign on being pro-[[abortion]]. That's not a contradiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:07, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

== Bending of light in Newtonian gravity ==

All right, can someone show me exactly how light is bent by gravity in Newtonian gravity? Photons have zero mass, so, according to Newtonian gravity, they should not feel gravity. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:56, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:*Newton's Corpuscular theory of light didn't state that the mass of the photons is zero. It was just obvious that it is very tiny
:*For the actual calculation, the mass of the photon cancels out
:*[[Johann Georg von Soldner]] did the calculations in 1801 - Newton's theroy was still going strong, then. ([http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung Über die Ablenkung eines Lichtstrals von seiner geradlinigen Bewegung] English: ''On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion''). The predicted effect was to tiny to be observed accurately in his time
:*Newton's corpuscular theory became unpopular since the 1820s, so this line of thought wasn't followed up.
:*Here is a modern re-calculation [http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1031v6 Bending of light: A classical analysis]
:From Sendler's essay: ''Hoffentlich wird es niemand bedenklich finden, daß ich einen Lichtstral geradezu als schweren Körper behandle. Denn daß die Lichtstralen alle absoluten Eigenschaften der Materie besitzen, sieht man an dem Phänomen der Aberration, welches nur dadurch möglich ist, daß die Lichtstralen wirklich materiel sind. – Und überdies, man kann sich kein Ding denken, das existiren und auf unsere Sinne wirken soll, ohne die Eigenschaft der Materie zu haben. –''
:''Hopefully no one will take offense that I looked at a ray of light as an object of mass. That every ray of light has the absolute properties of matter is seen from the phenomenon of aberration, which is only possible because the rays are really material. — and furthermore, one can think of no thing which exists and interacts with our sense without having the properties of matter.''
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:45, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Yeah, I've heard of that. But the photon has zero mass. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:20, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Newtonian physics doesn't know about zero-mass particles, hence it doesn't make a unique prediction. One possible interpretation is to say "zero mass -> zero gravitational force -> no bending". Another interpretation is to take the mathematical limit of the equations for ''m''->0. Since ''ma = GMm/r2'', the mass of the photon cancels and you get ''a = GM/r2'', even in the limiting case ''m=''0. This leads to bending by half the amount as predicted by relativity (and observed). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 22:47, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Conflation of Relativity and Relativism & Robert H. Dicke & Barack Obama ==

There appears to be significant resistance to relativity that is largely unfounded. The theory is in no way contradictory to Christian beliefs, or religion in general. As a conservative, right wing encycloepdia, I expect resistance to moral relativism.

From reading the article, it appears many of the authorship appear to conflate Einstein's relativity with moral relativism. The two concepts are entirely and utterly unrelated other than both containing the word "relativ". Newton's model of gravity as a simple inverse square law is a very close approximation to Einstein's model. The difference is Newton's is very slightly inaccurate and cannot be used where extreme accuracy is needed. Relativity can.

What's the difficulty with relativity here? The central premise is very basic and seems pretty self evident upon a little thought. There is no absolute frame of reference in a universe in which everything moves relative to everything else. Something can only be defined as moving with respect to (relative to) something else. And there you have it, general relativity.

There is also a problem with the section on Robert H. Dicke. He wasn't a major critic of relativity. Indeed, he developed some of the most stringent tests (relativity is highly falsifiable). It passed them. All.

I tracked down and read the article regarding relativity and law (Obama, etc.). It is quite a nice analogy, and is no way an attempt to use relativity to justify anything. The analogy is more closely related to the uncertainty principle - you cannot measure a particles position without changing or influencing it. You cannot just observe, as you have to intervene in order to do so. The same is true in American law (with a much stronger reliance on test cases, etc, than in say, English law). You cannot deal with one case without it having vast implications for others. That is all the paper is saying. Again, there is no agenda against conservatism or religion in this paper.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:45, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Clocks on Trains - alternative theory ==

Someone better come up with a really good explanation as to why a clock on a train will show a different time to a clock next to the track, after the train has travelled for a length of time. This has been done, and relativity predicted the difference (due to time dilation). If relativity is definitely un-true (the premise of this article), then what IS causing the difference in times?

The above GPS argument makes a similar case, but trains are easier to understand. The difference in time on these clocks has nothing at all to do with quantum physics. Noone try and claim it is, and that they don't have to prove it because it's a logical statement. Anyone who thinks they can logically infer QM (which is inherently illogical by human perception) needs to see a shrink.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:51, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Counterexamples to Recent Experiments ==

Recently, experiments have been published in Science, directly measuring general relativistic time dilation effects using atomic clocks placed about a metre apart. Do we have any idea how to refute this? The reference I provide is to a newspaper summary of the findings [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einsteins-theory-is-proved--and-it-is-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html]. I have also read the paper and see no loopholes.
--[[User:DanPW|DanPW]] 12:49, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

:Probably our best bet is personal attacks on the researcher, Chou, or possibly [[NIST]]. I suspect Chou was not born in this country. He may have an agenda to confuse American citizens. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 14:35, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Stairmaster

2012-04-22T03:10:53Z

Spielman: /* Dogs and cats */ new section

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:51, 9 December 2011 (EST)}}

== [[Family values]] ==

I have reverted your [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Family_values&action=historysubmit&diff=974869&oldid=955900 edit] at Family values, because I think you were not doing it in good faith. Parody is a blockable offense; we are an encyclopedia, uncyclopedia. Keep that in mind next time.[[User:DorMouse|DorMouse]] 22:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

== Dogs and cats ==

I thought you would appreciate this cartoon: [http://www.buzzflash.com/anderson/04/10/and04053.html http://www.buzzflash.com/anderson/04/10/and04053.html]
Cheers, [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 23:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-04-21T20:35:55Z

Spielman: radius-->eccentricity; the first reference is talking about eccentricity, not radius. The second reference makes no mention of GR

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref group="note">See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]]. Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the [[Bible]], a book that outsells ''New York Times'' bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref> Here is a list of 39 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref> ''Sound like [[global warming]]?''
#The orbital eccentricity of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref><ref>creation.com/moon&search=123233422queery=10101001.php</ref>
#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Subatomic particles with mass have a speed observed to be as fast as the speed of light ("we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos"<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682</ref>), which contradicts Relativity because the [[Lorentz factor]] is then infinite.<ref>http://www.hindustantimes.com/Roll-over-Einstein-Law-of-physics-challenged/Article1-749189.aspx - note that a similar observation of faster-than-light speeds was also made in 2007 (with a larger margin of error).</ref><ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-science-neutrinos-light-idUSTRE7AH0T720111118</ref> Neutrinos were observed to travel at the speed of light by an independent experiment also: "Their neutrinos traveled at precisely the speed of light, not faster or slower."<ref>http://junkscience.com/2012/03/21/no-you-still-cant-go-faster-than-light/</ref>
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by [[Earth]] ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen, nonexistent "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref> "Dark matter mysteriously missing around sun. Theories say neighborhood should be filled with it, but new study shows otherwise."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47101905</ref>
#The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "[[dark energy]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref group="note">In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of Relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming Relativity.</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref group="note">If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.</ref>
#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref group="note">Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref group="note">For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]]. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref group="note">Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref group="note">Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "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" in part because "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> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
#Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref group="note">In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor. It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.</ref>
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
#Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
#The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because ''both'' twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.<ref group="note">Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|aether]] does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]]. However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.<ref group="note">Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime".</ref>
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal]</ref>
#Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."<ref>http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping1.pdf</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504223</ref>
#Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279</ref>

(add to list)

''For a discussion of attempts to rebut some of these counterarguments, see [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

== See also ==
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[E=mc²]]

== Notes ==
<references group="note"/>
== References ==

{{Reflist}}

{{Relativity}}
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:science]]

Hydrogen bomb

2012-04-21T16:48:58Z

Spielman: stray phrase that should have been removed before

[[Image:Hbomb.jpg|right|200px]]
The '''hydrogen bomb''' (H-Bomb), is far more powerful and deadly than the [[atomic bomb]] that was dropped on [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki]] to end [[World War II]]. In 1950, President [[Harry Truman]] started a program to develop the H-Bomb and it became the major weapon of the [[Cold War]], though it was never used.

Developed first by the [[United States of America]], the viability of the H-bomb was proven with a massive detonation in 1952 by the USA on an [[atoll]] of the [[Marshall Islands]] in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. The H-bomb consists of the release of massive energy when hydrogen atoms are fused together at very high temperature and pressure to form helium nuclei. The scientists instrumental in its development were the Hungarian immigrant [[Edward Teller]] and Polish immigrant [[Stanislaw Ulam]].

In 1953, the [[Soviet Union]] was the first to produce an explosion which made use of nuclear fusion, greatly alarming the United States which had hoped to retain its nuclear lead indefinitely. However, this Soviet device was a huge ground-based installation rather than a deliverable weapon. It was not a "true" fusion bomb because the main use of the fusion reaction was not to produce explosive energy, but to produce a neutron flux which had the effect of boosting the fission reaction. That is, most of the explosive energy came from nuclear fission. The Soviet Union later developed a bomb similar to the Teller-Ulam design, and its scientists claimed to have invented it independently of the American bomb.

Subsequently Great Britain, France and China have all developed their own hydrogen bombs. Negotiations between the US and Russia have also drastically cut both those nations' arsenals, although both retain very large nuclear stockpile. Israel is also widely suspected to maintain a small nuclear arsenal, though the government has never confirmed or denied these reports. This is known in Israel as the "policy of deliberate ambiguity". The US maintained a similar policy throughout the [[Cold War]], whereby it would "Neither Confirm Nor Deny" the specific deployment of nuclear weapons. However, this differs from Israeli policy; Israel neither confirms or denies possessing nuclear weapons, while the U.S. policy merely did not disclose the specific locations of nuclear weapons.

Interestingly, the Japanese were the first 'victims' of the H-bomb. A fishing boat was near the site of a test, and the fishermen received a severe amount of radiation, returning home very sick. Their catch was unloaded and sent to the market, causing a slump in the fish market, as no-one knew which of the fish were contaminated and thus refrained from buying fish for a while. <ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2592990 Atomic Bomb Health Benefits Documented]</ref>

==Mechanisms==
The Hydrogen Bomb works by using a shell of fissile material surrounding a hydrogen pellet. When the shell is detonated, a massive amount of pressure is exerted onto the hydrogen atoms, causing them to fuse into helium, and release energy.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Weapons]]
[[Category:Cold War]]

Hydrogen bomb

2012-04-21T00:44:45Z

Spielman: There's no evidence that India, Pakistan or South Africa have hydrogen bombs

[[Image:Hbomb.jpg|right|200px]]
The '''hydrogen bomb''' (H-Bomb), is far more powerful and deadly than the [[atomic bomb]] that was dropped on [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki]] to end [[World War II]]. In 1950, President [[Harry Truman]] started a program to develop the H-Bomb and it became the major weapon of the [[Cold War]], though it was never used.

Developed first by the [[United States of America]], the viability of the H-bomb was proven with a massive detonation in 1952 by the USA on an [[atoll]] of the [[Marshall Islands]] in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. The H-bomb consists of the release of massive energy when hydrogen atoms are fused together at very high temperature and pressure to form helium nuclei. The scientists instrumental in its development were the Hungarian immigrant [[Edward Teller]] and Polish immigrant [[Stanislaw Ulam]]. In 1956, the United States successfully detonated an H-bomb after being dropped from a military aircraft.

In 1953, the [[Soviet Union]] was the first to produce an explosion which made use of nuclear fusion, greatly alarming the United States which had hoped to retain its nuclear lead indefinitely. However, this Soviet device was a huge ground-based installation rather than a deliverable weapon. It was not a "true" fusion bomb because the main use of the fusion reaction was not to produce explosive energy, but to produce a neutron flux which had the effect of boosting the fission reaction. That is, most of the explosive energy came from nuclear fission. The Soviet Union later developed a bomb similar to the Teller-Ulam design, and its scientists claimed to have invented it independently of the American bomb.

Subsequently Great Britain, France and China have all developed their own hydrogen bombs, although South Africa has since dismantled its programme after negotiations with the international community. Negotiations between the US and Russia have also drastically cut both those nations' arsenals, although both retain very large nuclear stockpile. Israel is also widely suspected to maintain a small nuclear arsenal, though the government has never confirmed or denied these reports. This is known in Israel as the "policy of deliberate ambiguity". The US maintained a similar policy throughout the [[Cold War]], whereby it would "Neither Confirm Nor Deny" the specific deployment of nuclear weapons. However, this differs from Israeli policy; Israel neither confirms or denies possessing nuclear weapons, while the U.S. policy merely did not disclose the specific locations of nuclear weapons.

Interestingly, the Japanese were the first 'victims' of the H-bomb. A fishing boat was near the site of a test, and the fishermen received a severe amount of radiation, returning home very sick. Their catch was unloaded and sent to the market, causing a slump in the fish market, as no-one knew which of the fish were contaminated and thus refrained from buying fish for a while. <ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2592990 Atomic Bomb Health Benefits Documented]</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Weapons]]
[[Category:Cold War]]

Laser

2012-04-17T18:29:01Z

Spielman: clearing up some of the language around beam divergence

[[Laser]] is a word formed from the acronym "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation."

Light from a laser is both temporally [[coherent]], meaning it is of a single pure color, and spatially coherent, meaning that it can be easily formed into a thin beam or focused to a small spot. The angle at which a laser beam spreads is determined by [[diffraction]]; a wide beam will diverge more slowly than a narrow beam. Many cheap laser pointers exhibit excess beam dissipation due to cheap manufacturing. This is much more of a problem with Indian and Chinese-manufactured components, as American manufacturers are held to higher standards in workmanship and materials. <ref>http://www.thechinaexpat.com/what-everybody-ought-to-know-about-chinese-manufacturing/</ref>

The use of lasers is very important in [[science]] and [[medicine]]; they have also become ubiquitous in [[CD-ROM]] and [[DVD]] players and as pointers.
[[http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/]] They're also used in bar code scanners.
<references/>
[[category:technology]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-16T16:06:24Z

Spielman: /* Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "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" in part because "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.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-13T20:51:37Z

Spielman: /* Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession */ new section

Theory of relativity

2012-04-13T20:43:51Z

Spielman: /* Lack of evidence for Relativity */ mercury precession: removed phrase that contraticted first sentence of paragraph

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

The '''theory of relativity''' has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments, such as precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error. Criticism of the theory, however, caused physicist [[Robert Dicke]] to be denied the [[Nobel Prize]], and it is unlikely tenure or a Ph.D would be awarded to any critic of the theory.

'''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 famous equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

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).

==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. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.<ref>''Ibid.''</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. This is the typical scientific method, wherein a hypothesis is created, tested, adjusted, and further tested.

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>

==Fallacious Claims of Experimental Verification of 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.

: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 with the last column of the table.<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
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|-
|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 confirmed the energy loss consistent with the predicted radiation.

*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.

===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.

Superconductivity

2012-04-09T18:42:05Z

Spielman:

'''Superconductivity''' is a property exhibited by some materials at very low temperatures. It was discovered by Kamerlingh Onnes in 1911. Superconductivity is characterized by two phenomena. First, the disappearance of all electrical [[resistance]] below a certain temperature (known as the critical temperature). Second, the exclusion of any magnetic fields from the bulk of the material below the same temperature. This second property is known as the "Meissner Effect".

There are two types of superconductors. Type I superconductors are usually pure metals or alloys. They are characterized by having a single critical magnetic field, above which the superconductivity is destroyed. Lead (critical temperature Tc 7.2K) and aluminium (critical temperature 1.2K) are both type I superconductors. A microscopic theory explaining the behaviour of type I superconductors was developed by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer.

A type II superconductor has both an upper (Hc2) and lower (Hc1) critical magnetic field. When the applied field (H) is less than Hc1, the field is excluded, as with a type I superconductor. When H>Hc2, superconductivity is destroyed. Between these limits, the field penetrates the bulk of the superconductor along thin lines of "normal" (non-superconducting) regions. Type II superconductors can operate under significantly higher magnetic fields; they are used commercially to make strong magnets. Examples of type II superconductors include Nb3Sn (Tc=18K) and the high-temperature copper-oxide materials such as YBa2Cu3O7 (Tc=90K).

The oxide superconductors represent a new class of materials, with critical temperatures as high as 138K. As yet these is no widely accepted theory to describe the microscopic behaviour of these superconductors.
[[category:physics]]

Superconductivity

2012-04-06T21:14:05Z

Spielman:

'''Superconductivity''' is a property exhibited by some materials at very low temperatures. It was discovered by Kamerlingh Onnes in 1911. Superconductivity is characterized by two phenomena. First, the disappearance of all electrical [[resistance]] below a certain temperature (known as the critical temperature). Second, the exclusion of any magnetic fields from the bulk of the material below the same temperature. This second property is known as the "Meissner Effect".

There are two types of superconductors. Type I superconductors are usually pure metals or alloys. They are characterized by having a single critical magnetic field, above which the superconductivity is destroyed. Lead (critical temperature Tc 7.2K) and aluminium (critical temperature 1.2K) are both type I superconductors. A microscopic theory explaining the behaviour of type I superconductors was developed by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer.

A type II superconductor has both an upper (Hc2) and lower (Hc1) critical field. When the applied magnetic field (H) is less than Hc1, the field is excluded, as with a type I superconductor. When H>Hc2, superconductivity is destroyed. Between these limits, the field penetrates the bulk of the superconductor along thin lines of "normal" (non-superconducting) regions. Type II superconductors can operate under significantly higher magnetic fields; they are used commercially to make strong magnets. Examples of type II superconductors include Nb3Sn (Tc=18K) and the high-temperature copper-oxide materials such as YBa2Cu3O7 (Tc=90K).

The oxide superconductors represent a new class of materials, with critical temperatures as high as 138K. As yet these is no widely accepted theory to describe the microscopic behaviour of these superconductors.
[[category:physics]]