Difference between revisions of "Talk:Logical Flaws in E=mc²"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(Just a tip...: new section)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
::::::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!  
 
::::::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. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:51, 14 June 2015 (EDT)
 
::::::Otherwise, quit stalling. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:51, 14 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?
 +
--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 01:14, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

Revision as of 00:14, 15 June 2015

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August, you overrely on one outdated experiment that was not even honored for proving E=mc2.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)

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)