Talk:Logical Flaws in E=mc²

A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton

Andy, please take a shot at Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton! --AugustO 14:29, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

August, you overrely on one outdated experiment that was not even honored for proving E=mc². Even if your somewhat novel view of the significance of the experiment were correct, the formula would still have to comply with logic. Broken clocks are right twice a day, and chance occurrences cannot remedy logical flaws.--Andy Schlafly 14:41, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

• This experiment has been repeated thousands of times, it is done in many physics courses at colleges and universities as it provides an easy understanding of this subject. Therefore, it should be approachable to you. So, quit stalling, and answer the questions, please!
• Everyone who has studied physics as a certain level knows of this experiment. If you wish to convince someone of your "novel view" (more accurate use of this phrase), you should be able to answer this questions and point out your interpretation!

--AugustO 14:45, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

You didn't respond to my points about logic. Also, the Nobel Prize Committee did not claim that the experiment "proved" that E=mc². Do you really think that one experiment from long ago "proved" the formula as a fundamental law of nature? What if the speed of light changes?--Andy Schlafly 15:41, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

• "You didn't respond to my points about logic." I will address them the moment you have answered the Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton.
• "Also, the Nobel Prize Committee did not claim that the experiment "proved" that E=mc²." Nor do I, it just confirms the formula.
• "Do you really think that one experiment from long ago "proved" the formula as a fundamental law of nature?" No, it is just one thread which adds to the rope of the theory. Answering the questions should help to get upon a common ground, showing that you know what you are talking about....
• "What if the speed of light changes?" That will be interesting - do you claim that the speed of light changes regularly while performing the experiment, so for thousands and thousands of time over the last decades? Let's not get to theoretical, just answer the questions...

--AugustO 16:03, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

The speed of light is likely changing incrementally over time. Do you think the energy of matter is changing accordingly per E=mc²?--Andy Schlafly 16:30, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

Given the incremental character of the change, could you please answer the questions, assuming a constant speed of light for the duration of the experiment? Or if you think that the change of the speed of light has an influence on the experiment, please, just put up the relevant formulas: this should give us an opportunity to calculate the change of the speed of light over time!

Otherwise, quit stalling. --AugustO 16:51, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

August, I don't have the data from the experiment, and I wasn't there. But I don't doubt that an experiment can probably be developed, just as a broken clock can be found, to give a desired result or (in the case of a clock) a correct time of day. The meaning of such an experiment is nothing, particularly for a logically flawed hypothesis.--Andy Schlafly 15:40, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

Andy, you seem to be saying that you do not accept experimental science. "An experiment can probably be developed, just as a broken clock can be found, to give a desired result." Really? Are you saying that one can get any desired result just be fudging experimental data long enough? Are you saying that the fact that you weren't present when the original Cockcroft and Walton experiment was performed makes it suspect? Have you considered going to a local college or industrial physics laboratory and asking them to perform the experiment before your very eyes?

Do you really reject experimental science?

Are you saying that, because you believe, without being able to make a convincing argument for it, that the equation is "logically flawed", no experiment confirming it can be trusted? Are you saying that the entire scientific community can't be trusted? Are you saying that the Cockcroft and Walton experiment was not performed? Or that it was performed but it got different results, that Cockcroft and Walton are concealing? That the Nobel Prize committee was in error in awarding the prize? That all nuclear scientists in the world are deceived, and only you know about this? SamHB 00:16, 16 June 2015 (EDT)

One experiment would not prove a formula like E=mc2, and the Cockroft and Watson experiment was not even recognized for being consistent with the formula: [1].

By the way, do you think E=mc2 would be true if the speed of light is changing over time?--Andy Schlafly 00:59, 16 June 2015 (EDT)

Hi Andy, I think you posted the wrong link. The nobel prize speech says "This assertion was satisfactorily confirmed by Cockcroft and Walton, experimental errors being taken into consideration. Somewhat later, more exact investigations based on the same principles gave a complete verification of Einstein's law." BradSmythe 02:13, 16 June 2015 (EDT)

Too bad you can't explain what you think that means—you violated the 90/10 contribution/talk ratio rule. If you had only made a contribution to the articles.... VargasMilan 18:01, 16 June 2015 (EDT)

Andy, it's getting really hard to make sense of your position on the Cockcroft-Walton experiment.

The Cockcroft-Walton experiment, like all of the famous experiments (Michelson-Morley, Geiger-Marsden, Davisson-Germer, etc.) has been replicated, many times, all over the world. It is simply not believable that this experiment was fraudulent and that everyone involved has been engaged in a huge coverup for 80 years.

You could have said something similar about climate science before Climategate and you'd be just as wrong about the extent of bias among scientists regarding particular experiments.

Furthermore, the Cockcroft-Walton experiment is just one of a great many experiments and observations that confirm E=mc^2. It just happens to be the one that AugustO selected.

You are equivocating; the experiment only demonstrates a rough equality up to the precision of the measurements of the participating physical quantities.

To deny the correctness of the Cockcroft-Walton experiment is to deny a great many straightforward and well-known facts, the ones that AugustO put in the questions that he posed on the E=mc^2 talk page several months ago. The answers to all of the questions are obvious, and yet you appear to be denying them. For example, the atomic masses of Lithium, Hydrogen, and Helium, are well known. They are on periodic table charts hanging in science classrooms all over the world, and in the periodic table template here at Conservapedia. Some of the questions are simple arithmetic. Question 7 involved a measurement that was cited in Cockcroft and Walton's paper, and that all scientists have agreed on for 80 years. To suggest that that measurement was fraudulent because you were not present, or because the scientific community can pick whatever particle energy they want and then fudge the experiment to get that result, is ludicrous.

Fallacy of relevance: The experiment's "correctness" is only coextensive with its precision, so denying its correctness beyond the precision of its measurable values is nothing startling, yet you find it necessary to massage vivid descriptions of the calculations involved in a way that suggests emotional attachment. Is this to cover for its lack of relevance?

I have avoided mention of possible changes in the speed of light because that is a red herring. There is no evidence of any perceptible change in recent history. Even if the speed of light were to change by, say, 1 part per billion within the time span of the experiment, c^2 would change by 2 parts per billion, so either E or m (or both) would change by that amount. That is much smaller than the tolerances of the experiment. The best measurement that we currently have of E=mc^2 appears to be about 2 parts per 10 million, so that would not be affected.

If the precisions of the measurements that compose the relations of the physical quantities in the experiment are that inaccurate, how can you say in the first place that the equivalence E=mc^2 (note the equal sign) is "confirm"ed by the experiment? A word of advice: logic is not your strong suit, Sam.

By the way, the link that you gave, [2], and claimed not to have recognized the Cockcroft-Walton experiment for being consistent with E=mc^2, does in fact recognize exactly that, in the 11th paragraph: "a verification was provided by this analysis for Einstein's law concerning the equivalence of mass and energy".

That says it all. Sam derives the meaning of his scientific terminology from an anonymous writer from the Nobel Prize website, the same Nobel Prizes that awarded President Obama a Peace Prize after he campaigned to withdraw American troops from a pacific Iraq. ISIS anyone?

SamHB 01:41, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

You'll notice that I am not Andy. Let this just be a lesson to you that your complaints may be just as tiresome to others as they probably are to him. VargasMilan 03:14, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

Andy, let's talk first about what is (ie.e, the experiment), and then about what if! --AugustO 03:18, 16 June 2015 (EDT)

• All the necessary data of the experiment is listed at Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton. Please answer the questions.
• Physics is about experiments - and not only the experiments you are willing to replicate. So, quit stalling, just answer the questions.
• The outcome of an experiment will always trump philosophical ideas, dogma was only good for Aristotle. So, show us you understanding of the subject and answer the questions.

--AugustO 15:54, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

"One experiment would not prove a formula like E=mc2! - No, it may just confirm it. But we cannot talk about dozens or hundreds of experiments at the same time, let's stick with this one, which is widely regarded is the first one in which this formula was used. You invested so much time to evade the questions, it should be easier just to answer them. Please do so--AugustO 03:11, 16 June 2015 (EDT)

Just a tip...

Articles claiming to highlight "logical flaws" in the ideas of others, probably shouldn't contain logical flaws of their own. As seen by this glaring example:

• if the formula were true, then why hasn't the formula led to anything of value?

--DonnyC 01:14, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

And the "glaring" logical flaw is ...?--Andy Schlafly 01:23, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

Andy, it's nice to see that you are constantly visiting this talk-page. It seems that you are just not willing (able?) to answer my questions - I assume that a little tit-for-tat is more fun than doing the actual maths. After all, "Math class is tough!" , as Barbie said.

--AugustO 02:06, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

Of course it's more fun (easier too)! It's a lot easier to construct a simple modus tollens, than it is to wade through some really difficult math. It's even easier when you affirm the consequent or beg the question with your premises.--DonnyC 02:15, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

So what happened to explanation of the supposedly "glaring" logical flaw in the above-stated defect in the formula?--Andy Schlafly 15:37, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

Even a "true formula" not necessarily leads to "anything of value". "Not leading to anything of value" therefore doesn't say anything about "the correctness of the formula". --AugustO 16:01, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

Silencing the opposition - not a smart move

Now, two of the opponents (User:DannyC and User:BradSmythe) of the views of User:Aschlafly have been blocked by User:VargasMilan. While the block of User:DannyC may be justifiable, User:BradSmythe's block reason "(90/10 rule: excess of talk rather than edits to substantive entries)" doesn't fit his edit history! That is very problematic:

• unfortunately (and perhaps unwillingly) User:VargasMilan creates the impression that User:Aschlafly needs this kind of assistance and maybe even welcomes his opponents to be shut up when debating them. This is emphasized by his remark above: "Too bad you can't explain what you think that means—you violated the 90/10 contribution/talk ratio rule. If you had only made a contribution to the articles...."
• blocking a new user for breaking the 90/10 rule for two years seems excessive. As the stated block reason is wrong, ulterior motives may have played their part.

--AugustO 18:29, 16 June 2015 (EDT)

AugustO, it may not be a smart move, but it is not the move that is actually taking place. BradSmythe also added false information and inserted vulgarity into pages, and besides that, two years for the 90/10 rule is precedented. I agree that the two blocks, now that you have announced both of them, fosters the false impression that I am trying to remove Andy's opponents because it will give him needed argumentative help. But it's neither one of our faults that his opponents are spontaneously imploding, behavior-wise. VargasMilan 18:51, 16 June 2015 (EDT)

I will rethink his BradSmythe's block time in a little while (I accidently took in too much caffeine recently) though one contribution that was removed for being misleading and four talk entries do not make for a very substantial body of work to weigh against his problem edits. And regarding BradSmythe's remarks, since even I was able to spot more than one potential equivocation in the Nobel prize website statement BradSmythe quoted, I am sure someone with a lawyer's grasp of language analysis like Andy can do the same even faster. VargasMilan 04:03, 17 June 2015 (EDT)