Changes

356 bytes added ,  23:20, April 8, 2012
→‎Answer to the above: the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma
Line 456: Line 456:  
One comment above suggests that E=me<sup>2</sup> 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=mc<sup>2</sup> seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
 
One comment above suggests that E=me<sup>2</sup> 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=mc<sup>2</sup> seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
 
:"This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically"--It is more correct to say that the formula cannot be mathematically derived from first principles (in the way that Kepler's laws can be derived from Newton's law of universal gravitation) rather than that the formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically.  Indeed, experimental observation reveals that the added energy is proportional to the mass lost in a linear fashion, with <math>c^2</math> as the slope.  These are the same sorts of phyiscal observations that allow you to deduce laws like <math>F = ma</math> (apply varying amounts of force to a mass and see what the resulting acceleration is).  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:38, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
 
:"This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically"--It is more correct to say that the formula cannot be mathematically derived from first principles (in the way that Kepler's laws can be derived from Newton's law of universal gravitation) rather than that the formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically.  Indeed, experimental observation reveals that the added energy is proportional to the mass lost in a linear fashion, with <math>c^2</math> as the slope.  These are the same sorts of phyiscal observations that allow you to deduce laws like <math>F = ma</math> (apply varying amounts of force to a mass and see what the resulting acceleration is).  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:38, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
::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)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,482

edits