# Talk:E=mc²

## 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
1H1.0072 amu
4He4.0011 amu
7Li7.0130 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, 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.--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!

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? --AndreaM 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

(1) : spelling of Cockcroft corrected 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? 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.--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)?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? 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 E = mc2. If a math student were to lambast the formula for the surface area of a sphere (A = 4πr2) 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 E = mc2 means is similar. GregG 19:00, 11 November 2012 (EST)

The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to π. 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.--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
$m_{\mathrm{rel}} = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\,\, ?$ 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. 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.--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. 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.--Andy Schlafly 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)
If relativity isn't factored into the GPS design, why does the "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? --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.--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? 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! --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??--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.--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.
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, Wschact 09:32, 14 November 2012 (EST)

## Problematic edit

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, 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?
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.--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 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory
--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? 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. 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 inoculates you against arguments which are b|ased on wishful thinking alone.
@Wschact: the formula E=mc² is virtually omnipresent: I've shown 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 (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...
--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.--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... --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? 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, 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.--Andy Schlafly 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)
 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.
--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 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.--Andy Schlafly 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)

• Aschlafly, you are a 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...
--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? 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. 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... --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.--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:
--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, 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???--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? --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, 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. --AugustO 19:33, 9 January 2013 (EST)

I agree about the Compton scattering validates E=mc2. I also believe that the 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. 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 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, --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 here. It does not demonstrate E=mc^2; it's about electrodynamics under the Lorentz transform.

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) 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.

Peterw 08:20, 11 January 2013 (EST)

Learn out to spell "yesterday" and "happening"! :) LOL DanAP 09:52, 11 January 2013 (EST)
If those are my biggest problems then I'm fairly happy :-) Now corrected. 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....

--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... --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. Avilister 19:14, 15 January 2013 (EST)

## Reversion explained

The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--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?--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?--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 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? --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. Avilister 11:23, 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.

--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. --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.--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.--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???--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.--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.--Andy Schlafly 21:00, 17 January 2013 (EST)
Andy, I know you pride yourself on having an 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? --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. --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. --AugustO 01:00, 18 January 2013 (EST)

So does a mass of 1 kg have energy of c2, or not?--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.--Occultations 21:40, 30 January 2013 (EST)
No - as you messed up the units. --AugustO 01:08, 18 January 2013 (EST)
The mass energy in 1 kg is $1\,\textrm{kg}\cdot\left(3.0 \times 10^8 \frac{\textrm{m}}{\textrm{s}}\right)^2 = 9.0 \times 10^{16}\,\textrm{J}$ (keeping in mind, of course, that a joule is a kilogram-meter-squared-per-second-squared). That's a lot of energy! GregG 01:22, 18 January 2013 (EST)
Or about 21 kilotons of explosive power... or 25 TWh... Or... --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). 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... --DonnyC 02:04, 18 January 2013 (EST)
Indeed, 1kg has an equivalent energy of $9 \times 10^{16}J$ - a immense number: it equals 25TWh - the output of all German power-stations combined in a fortnight. On the other hand, the sun emits $3.8 \times 10^{26}W$ 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 $3.0616 \times 10^{-29}kg$ is transformed into an energy of $2,755 \times 10^{-12}J$
• 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. --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?--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. --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.--Andy Schlafly 00:29, 19 January 2013 (EST)
--AugustO 02:17, 19 January 2013 (EST)
P.S.: I just created proportionality. Hope that helps. --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! --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! --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. --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. 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. 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. 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 ${}^1_0n$ has an atomic weight of 1.008664916 amu, a proton ${}^1_1p$ 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 ${}^{235}_{92}U$ - 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?
--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, 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.

--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. --DonnyC 15:15, 24 January 2013 (EST)

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,

 “ 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. 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. --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. --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 weapons, (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)

--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? --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"! --AugustO 01:20, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, please address these points before reverting to an inferior version of the article! --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 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

1. was the greatest American physicist ever, and perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century,
2. criticized or refuted relativity,
3. 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 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.

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, 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.--Andy Schlafly 18:53, 2 February 2013 (EST)
The Cockcroft and Walton Experiment - as well as the experiments at the MIT in 2005 - have shown that the 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? --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. 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, 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. --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 [3]. 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. 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. --Randall7 20:17, 5 February 2013 (EST)
CP is taking a serious reputational hit from this article. Back in November 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. 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. 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. --DamianJohn 23:00, 7 February 2013 (EST)
We need a way to determine "the best of the public." 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. --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. --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. 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. --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? 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.
--AugustO 10:40, 9 February 2013 (EST)

## Conservapedia proven wrong

I made the following edit at Conservapedia proven wrong:

Date of Prognostication Conservapedia Prediction Actual Result Conservapedia's Response Date of Result
March 25, 2012 E=mc² is liberal claptrap The 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.

--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? --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.--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... --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. [4]
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. PhysicsPerson 19:04, 15 February 2013 (EST)
• There is no other plausible explanation. Of course there are other explanations: the oversight could be rooted in anti-Americanism (not that far fetched a thought in Sweden of the 1970s), personal animosity or envy for his patents and wealth. It could be a combination of all of these - or neither. Furthermore, Robert Dicke didn't have any problems with the Special Theory of Relativity, he used it all the times, and taught his students about it.
• Surely you don't expect a physics journal or any academic to admit such bias. So, the absence of any proof is the proof for you point? That is a direct violation of the first of Conservapedia's Commandments: Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

For short: Robert Dicke, perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a Nobel Prize because he doubted the Theory of Relativity is not true and not verifiable. --AugustO 10:46, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

## 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.

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 () 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 () 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[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. 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 weapons, (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 weapons, (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!

--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, Wschact 08:13, 11 February 2013 (EST)
Is there even a single accomplished physicist who claims that E=mc2 is true, and explains why?--Andy Schlafly 12:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)
Well you could start with this book by Professors Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. 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):
$\Delta m = \frac{\Delta E}{c^2}$
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. 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
 “ 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 m0. When they come together they disintegrate and two gamma rays emerge, each with the measured energy of m0c2. 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... --AugustO 13:43, 11 February 2013 (EST)

## too many reversions needed to include key statements; can suggest edits on talk page

Very well: I suggest that this version is restored: revision 1034198. Reason: it has been shown above that the reversions done by Andrew Schlafly are unscientific. --AugustO 22:33, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Give it a rest. For your sake as well as everyone else. --DamianJohn 22:48, 11 February 2013 (EST)
What good would this do for this article? --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). --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? --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". --DamianJohn 23:27, 11 February 2013 (EST)
That is just not how a meritocracy works... --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 question after 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! --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, 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? --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... --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? 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 blog 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. --DonnyC 20:22, 12 February 2013 (EST)

### "Conservapedia - where intelligence goes to die"

When I discussed the translation of 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 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. --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. 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, Wschact 08:44, 15 February 2013 (EST)

Obviously I agree with Wschact ... --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? 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. 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, 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...
--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 meters, kilogram and seconds, and on the left hand side Joule, an unit which is derived from meters, kilogram and seconds:

$1 Joule = 1 kg \frac{1 m^2}{1 sec^2}$

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.

--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. --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. --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 E=mc2Doesn’t Compute is utter nonsense. It states:
 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. E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute by Grey:
The reasoning behind this thought is very poor (see 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... --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, 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...

--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”

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? CUlator 11:01, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Dear CUlator

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?

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, 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 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, 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... --AugustO 10:34, 15 March 2013 (EDT)

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, 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. 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, 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? 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.
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. 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, 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. Spielman 00:59, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

## Science vs. politics

Is there a way to separate the politics (e.g., "liberal claptrap") from the science on this issue? Below the lead which says the formula has never been verified is a section entitled "Experimental verification".

If this was rather an attempt at verification (which for the sake of argument I'll assume actually failed) then at least we need to change the section heading. --Ed Poor Talk 10:24, 5 April 2013 (EDT)

No, those verifications weren't just attempts, they were quite successful - and they have been repeated over and over again. That doesn't mean that the theory is necessarily true, as verifications aren't proofs. But we don't expect proofs in physics, and it's save to say that nearly every physicist would be quite surprised if the Special Theory of Relativity were falsified.
Ed may be onto something. We need to separate the politics from the science. How about starting a seperate article entitled "The politics of E=mc2" and then include only claims that can be supported in reliable sources in that new article. I have looked, but I can't find any widespread "anti-E=mc2" out there. I have only found conservative support for the civilian use of nuclear energy to produce electricity. Those conservatives claim that nuclear energy is well-understood and reliable, and that engineers do not guess as to how much energy is produced in the reactors. Thanks, Wschact 07:53, 6 April 2013 (EDT)
Again, I am willing to do further research and writing, but I can't find any sources for the "anti-E=mc2" viewpoint. The politics seems to take the equation as a given and then argues for or against nuclear arms limitations, civilian use of nuclear energy to generate electricity and even educational nuclear reactors on college campuses. Some of the most conservative politicians fought for National Labs spending in their states. Please help me with some good sources. Thanks, Wschact 06:51, 9 April 2013 (EDT)