Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:E=mc²

2013-03-28T20:15:01Z

Occultations:

<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</big></big></big>

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockcroft¹ claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockcroft's¹ lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

(1) : spelling of ''Cockcroft corrected [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:22, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== A little clarification? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I'm trying to understand your assertion that the "energy" of an object is a function of "electrostatics." I wonder if you can explain a little more about this.

For example, how is energy derived from electrostatic charge? Can you show the equation for doing this?

Are you basing this on the common practice of expressing energy in electron-volts?

Do neutral particles such as neutrons or uncharged atoms have energy, even though they have no charge?
[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 21:54, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.

:Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

::Unfortunately this doesn't really answer any of my questions. Yes, an electric field can apply a force. But the "strength" of an electric field is actually the same as a gravitational field: both decrease inversely as the square of the radius. The difference is that the strength of an electric field increases much more rapidly in proportion to charge than gravity does in proportion to mass.

::Also, electric fields exert a force only on charged particles, which why I asked how we can calculate the energy of uncharged particles such as neutrons. Do they even have energy in the sense that you mean it?

::And finally, I would still like to see the equations used to calculate the energy of a particle based on electrostatic charge. How much energy does an electron have? Is it the same as the energy of a proton (the charge is equal but opposite, but the mass is greater)?[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 15:05, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

:: Why is it preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared, but not preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their '''''kinetic''''' energy has thereby increased in proportion to their speed squared? [[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:53, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

== "E=mc2 does expressly purport to relate all matter to light" ==

Mr. Schlafly, could you please explain this statement? It appears that this is a misunderstanding of the relationship of the mass-energy equivalence embodied by the equation <math>E=mc^2</math>. If a math student were to lambast the formula for the surface area of a sphere (<math>A = 4\pi r^2</math>) as relating roundness to the number 4 or spheres to squares, they would rightly be criticized for this obvious misunderstanding of a mathematical formula. I think your misunderstanding of what <math>E=mc^2</math> means is similar. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 19:00, 11 November 2012 (EST)

:The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to <math>\pi</math>. But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)
::Is your concern that the constant "c" happens to be the speed of light? Or do you dispute the concept of relativistic mass, where
::<math>m_{\mathrm{rel}} = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\,\, ? </math> Are you saying that the speed of light does not belong in either equation, and that the "c" should be something else? There are a number of equations in Einstein's Special Theory besides E=mc2 and they hold together as far as they go. Everyone agrees that a general theory of relativity has not been developed, but the ideas of mass energy equivalence and relativistic mass fit the data. The designers of nuclear reactors and satellite systems use these equations with success. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:47, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
::::With all due respect, relativity was factored into the design of the GPS satellite system. If you want to calculate the energy release of an atomic bomb, E=mc2 is very useful. We don't know with great precision the speed of light, and we don't know with great precision the value of "c". But God gave us brains and curiosity, so we will learn more precise values for both. So far, they match. If someday in the future, someone calculates "c" and measures the speed of light to more decimal places and discovers that they are different, I will have an open mind as to why. The constant "c" carries through consistently in Einstein's calculations for the Special Theory. The coincidence that "c" happens to equal the speed of light is one of the beautiful things about God's universe. Although I do not spend my life's work on theoretical physics, I am pleased that God has inspired some very smart people to devote their lives to thinking about relativity, and I wish them success and happiness. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::::Relativity was not factored into the GPS design, and E=mc2 has never been useful in any other way.

:::::We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::::::If relativity isn't factored into the GPS design, why does the "[http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/1995-SPS-signal-specification.pdf GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM STANDARD POSITIONING SERVICE SIGNAL SPECIFICATION]" (and you can't get more official than ''that'') state that they have to compensate for relativistic effects? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:30, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Andy, why don't you answer August's question? What happens to that lost mass? And how do you explain E=mc 2 accounting for it exactly? The truth is that you live in a dream world. Your "insights" may sound like a nice way to view the world but when faced with a REAL counterexample and asked to back up your assertions you always just hide your head in the sand and fail to respond. Or use your classic 2+2=4 argument. Lol.--[[User:DamonRoss|DamonRoss]] 12:23, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::::The equation does not define rest mass in terms of the speed of light. The equation defines relativistic mass in terms of the speed of light. If the equation were to define rest mass in terms of the speed of light it would have rest mass on the opposite side of the equation to the speed of light. Is your objection down to a fundamental flaw in your understanding of how equations work? [[User:VictorA|VictorA]] 08:03, 14 November 2012 (EST)

== Still waiting for an answer.... ==

In March 2012 I asked this question:
:'' Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass? ''
I'm still waiting for an answer! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:55, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

:But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::Do you say that the size of the diminution of mass just ''"happens"'' to coincide with the observed energy calculated via E=mc²?
::But how can there be a loss of mass? If you don't think that the energy-mass-equivalence is valid, what's about conservation of mass?
::Your "answer" is as good as a link to a video of fluffy kittens - or some proverb written in Chinese. In short, it is no answer at all, as '''you don't explain the diminution of mass.'''
::''"It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. "'' That's just not true, I'm afraid.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 13 November 2012 (EST)
:::I know a number of physicists who are good conservatives and good Christians. They take their children to Sunday school. They don't like seeing government wasting money. And they believe in Einstein's theory of special relativity. At one time, the Roman Catholic Church taught that the Earth was the center of the solar system rather than the Sun. I personally believe that the Church's view on that subject did not have a reliable source in the Bible. I understand how the Book of Genesis has been viewed as being in tension with Darwin's theory of evolution, but I don't see special relativity having the same tension with the Bible.
:::The question is whether the contradiction between the Bible and the equation E=mc2 is so direct and widely acknowledged that CP's users should receive an article that disparages the equation? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:32, 14 November 2012 (EST)
==Problematic edit==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1018287&oldid=1018232 This edit] is a bit vexing and does not reflect the consensus reached on the talk page. I understand the criticism directed toward the General Theory of Relativity, but for the reasons stated further down the article, E=mc2 does fit the experimental data. Based on everything that I have read, it is consistent with the Bible. I do not want to get into the middle of a pre-existing emotional dispute, but I thought that I had come up with language that fit both sides. CP is short on editorial manpower, and all of our time is very valuable. I am disappointed on how this was handled. Many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:46, 15 November 2012 (EST)
: Perhaps we could separate the experimental results from the general validity of E=mc2. I was thinking of something like:
:''Some experimental results appear to show that when a small amount of mass is lost in a nuclear reaction there is an accompanying release of energy (approx x eV per amu of mass lost).''
:Sorry I can't calculate x, but it can be just a number without any c, light speed etc 
:''The conversion factor (x) is indeed close to the square of the speed of light if appropriate units are used. However:''
*:''The experiement has been done with only a limited number of nuclear reactions and in specific environments. This does not prove that this will occur for every nuclear reaction in every environment, and cannot possibly prove that E=mc2 is always true''
:I'm assuming here that we accept the experiemental results as far as they go. If not, even better - we can link to some evidence that they are flawed
*:''The experimental results do not prove that the conversion factor (x) is '''exactly''' the square of the speed of light. More accurate measurements may show that it is different'' 
*:''No one has a convincing explanation of '''why''' E might possibly equal mc2. The most likely explanation is that the Creator designed it this way for some reason that we don't understand.''
:Would something like that help clarify the true position?
:[[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 15:47, 8 January 2013 (EST)

::No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)

:::*''No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred.'' That's just a ''non sequitur''
:::*''There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula.'' Why should there by? It works!
:::*''It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.'' No, it's not - that's just wishful thinking of you part. Even undergraduates can perform experiments which show relativistic effects - see [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory]
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Actually, it gets demonstrated in practice about 3x1010 times for every watt-second of power generated by a nuclear power plant. Aside from observation, the theoretical question of ''why'' it should be true (and why the proportionality constant must be c2) was logically deduced, by Poincare, Einstein, and perhaps others (Roger Schlafly would be an expert on this point), before it was ever observed. The last paragraph of Einstein's 1905 paper, after deducing it theoretically, speculated that it might actually be observed in Radium decay. It was, and the rest is history.

Clear expositions of why it must be true on theoretical grounds are not always easy to come by. I like to think that the page I wrote on another wiki gives a clear and concise proof. Anyone interested in my making it available here? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:06, 8 January 2013 (EST)

I know that Albert Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, and that no prizes were awarded during World War II. But didn't E=mc2 show up a lot in the work of [[Hans Bethe]] on nuclear reactions and energy production in stars (1967 prize). Hans Bethe lead the theoretical team at Los Alamos which designed the bombs dropped on Japan and certainly used the relationship on a day to day basis. So, I don't believe it is correct to say that "No Nobel Prize has been given for this implausible formula." I think that so many Nobel Prize winning discoveries in high energy physics depend on E=mc2 or further confirm the relationship that it would be hard to argue that the Nobel committee has been boycotting E=mc2 as pseudoscience. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:46, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:@SamHB: Having performed such an experiment for yourself is much more impressive than just thinking about actions in nuclear power plants or stars far away. Such an experiment [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|inoculate]]s you against arguments which are b|ased on wishful thinking alone.
:@Wschact: the formula E=mc² is virtually omnipresent: I've shown [[#Aschlafly, could you give us... |above]] that Cockcroft used the formula in his Nobel-lecture. Aschlafly tends to ignore such information.
:@Aschlafly: What do you think of the experiment for undergraduates ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory])? Have thousands of students falsified their results to fit the current "dogma"? Do you have another theory which makes predictions that are different from those of Einstein's theory, but which is consistent with this experiment? And could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? The energy involved is to much for a chemical reaction...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:34, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::Broken clocks are precisely correct twice a day too. One or two bizarre experiments in more than a century of trying to prove the formula as a general proposition are hardly persuasive. The [[Nobel Prize]] committee wants to recognize the formula has being demonstrated, but can't. There is no logical support for the formula, as peer reviewed articles have virtually admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::The experiment for the undergraduates is hardly bizarre - what results would you expect? If you don't get the results as described, this means that '''your clock''' is broken, while the clock which most of us use is correct uncountable times a day. And please, could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? This is another non-bizarre and often repeated experiment... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:25, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::[Sorry, I think I put this in the wrong place originally]. It's certainly a strange-looking formula. When refuting it should I be saying that mass is not actually being converted to energy in these reactions (i.e. the experiments are flawed and either mass is not being lost or the energy comes from somewhere else or something)? Or is it that mass is indeed being converted to energy but E=mc2 is not a correct/meaningful/useful way to describe it? [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 15:06, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::Thank you Peterw. Clearly, energy is converted from matter. Just consider the energy source of hydrogen bombs and the Sun. Does anyone object to reverting the edit cited at the top of this section? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:04, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::::Mass is not a function of the speed of light. A century of effort (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to try to connect the two has struck out. Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::*This is neither an answer to the question "''What do you think of the experiment for undergraduates ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory])?''" nor to the ''"[[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]]''".
::::::*We are not talking about chemical reactions - that's just a diversion, showing a lack of understanding of the processes involved. We are talking about energies much greater than those involved in a chemical reaction! May I refer you to one of my comments above which you ignored earlier:
::::::{|class="wikitable" style="background:lightgrey"
|
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
|}
::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:36, 10 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Thanks Andy, that's pretty clear - mass is not being converted to energy, therefore E=mc2 is nonsense. I've got two kids who are being taught this stuff at school so I can now set them straight.
::::::Regards [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 17:22, 10 January 2013 (EST)

== High School Experiment ==

August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula. You might your view why a [[Nobel Prize]] was not given for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:*Aschlafly, you are a [[Andrew Schlafly|former engineer]], therefore you should have the competence to review an experiment for undergraduates!
:*Not everything which is true can be shown at a high-school. You may say that in this case, the theory is beyond the scope of this project, but that is not the case: certainly the readers of this encyclopedia should be informed about such things, even if they can't do the maths themselves - or perform the experiments. This demands of the editors of articles like this one that they are willing to get the knowledge of the subject! Indeed they should get more information than is put into the article at the end. A good teacher should know a little bit more than the curriculum of his pupils...
:*And please, could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? I always try to answer your questions - and the questions in the section above aren't that demanding...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:52, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::What's the relevance of the Nobel Prize? Was a Nobel Prize ever given for Intelligent Design, Flood Geology, Baraminolgy, anti-vaccine experiments, the link between breast cancer and abortion or creation science? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 15:00, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::As to why no Nobel Prize was given for it, I believe that the main factor was that Albert Einstein had already received the prize for his related work and since the prize was so new, there was a great reluctance to give it to the same person twice. There are a number of other Nobel Prizes awarded for related work that involve E=mc2 such as Hans Bethe's explanation of how energy is generated inside the Sun. Turning to the experimental side, there was a Nobel Prize given to John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton. While a high school student does not have the instrumentation sensitive enough to recreate that experiment, you could take high schools students to an "atom smasher" facility for a tour. For example, Fermilab outside Chicago has an excellent visitor's center which has a number of exhibits and demonstrations suitable for high school (and younger) students. The models help visualize the various aspects of atomic (and subatomic) interactions.

:::One interesting calculation is to give high school students the size of a hydrogen bomb and ask them to calculate the amount of energy that will be released when the bomb detonates. (I certainly would not want that experiment to be conducted for real at my high school.) I hope this helps, and if so, perhaps some of the materials from the talk page can be incorporated into the main article. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:10, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::*Wschact, I agree with you on the matter of the Nobel Prize
::::*The calculation is interesting, but it is impossible to prove its validity: the mass-defect simply can't be measured... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:19, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::The significance of no [[Nobel Prize]] for this is the same as the significance of the dog that didn't bark: dogs want to bark, and the Nobel Prize committee wants to honor atheistic, nonsensical theories like relativity, but there is nothing there, there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:24, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::That's your opinion. Wschact offered another explanation. We could talk about this all day without getting closer to the truth - so let's get on more solid ground:
:::::::*Aschlafly, how do you interpret the [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory] ?
:::::::*Could you give the answers to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? You only have to follow the steps...
:::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:53, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::I agree with AugustO's comments as well. If Andy could respond to those questions, we will know how to proceed to fix up this article and to write others. For example, if E does not equal mc2, what can we say in the Hans Bethe article about his contributions? How can we discuss synchrotrons? Why does it take more energy to push a particle as the speed of the particle approaches c? I understand the controversy on this website about evolution vs. creation vs. intelligent design, but E=mc2 appears to be an isolated debate with opponents of the equation lacking biblical support or a coherent world-view. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:52, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Isn't someone going to explain the high school experiment that supposedly proves that Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, thereby unifying gravity and light???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Please read what I wrote above. For your convenience: ''"Not everything which is true can be shown at a high-school. You may say that in this case, the theory is beyond the scope of this project, but that is not the case: certainly the readers of this encyclopedia should be informed about such things, even if they can't do the maths themselves - or perform the experiments. This demands of the editors of articles like this one that they are willing to get the knowledge of the subject! Indeed they should get more information than is put into the article at the end. A good teacher should know a little bit more than the curriculum of his pupils... "''
::::::::::And please, could you give the answers to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:15, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::With all due respect, as discussed many times on this page, E=mc2 does ''not'' "unify gravity and light". It addresses the conversion between matter and energy. The ''m'' is not gravitational mass. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)
===An experiment performed at high-schools===
I think that experiments on [[Compton Scattering]] are performed at high-schools. While generally used to show that electromagnetic rays may act like particles, Einstein's mass-energy relationship is used in the process. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:33, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:I agree about the Compton scattering validates E=mc2. I also believe that the [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory] could be performed by high school students with proper adult supervision. It would make a great science project. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:57, 10 January 2013 (EST)
::Aschlafly, you created the article on [[Compton Scattering]], but I can only guess how much you know about this subject, as it was just one in a flurry of [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070602221148&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Aschlafly similar very short articles], all copied and pasted from the [Talk:Compton Scattering|public domain]. So if you are not familiar with the experiment, have a look at the derivation of the Compton formula: it relies heavily on the mass-energy equivalence [[E=mc²]]!
::This experiment was performed at my gymnasium by our teacher - due to the gamma radiation it would be a nightmare to have pupils to conduct the experiment for themselves.
::Aschlafly, I reread your comments on this talk-page, and for me they are strangely disappointing: you are rarely arguing from physics, but mostly from politics. Or to quote you: ''You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true.''
::Please answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] and show us that you actually know what you are talking about.
::Thank you, --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Neither the high school experiment, nor anything else about E=mc^2, purports to unify gravity and light. E=mc^2 does not relate to gravity; it would work in outer space. The "m" is ''inertial mass'', not gravitational mass. The correspondence between the two is incidental, and relates to Einstein's equivalence principle (a completely different phenomenon) and the Eotvos experiment.

"Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed". Not so. It is a common misconception that E=mc^2 relates only to nuclear processes. It actually relates to all processes, though nuclear ones are the only ones for which the difference in mass can be reasonably measured. No one doubts the quantitative results, for nuclear processes, detailed on the article page. The equation E=mc^2, initially formulated on theoretical grounds, is in excellent agreement with those results. There is nothing about the theoretical underpinnings to suggest that there is some "threshold" below which Δm is zero, or that it only applies to certain types of interactions. There is good reason to believe that it applies everywhere, even though the mass difference, in the case of chemical reactions, is not readily measurable.

By the way, another "table-top" demonstration of relativity may be found [http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf here]. It does not demonstrate E=mc^2; it's about electrodynamics under the Lorentz transform.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:36, 10 January 2013 (EST)
:Thank you for sharing that experiment about generating and measuring DC current. A high school student could easily understand the physics, and the equipment could be made in the Industrial Arts shop. I miss my high school science fair days. (sigh) [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:28, 11 January 2013 (EST)

== Source of heat in a nuclear power station ==

Andy, I explained this to the kids yesterday and it was an eye-opener for them. The teacher hadn't mentioned that E=mc2 was only a theory and might not be happening (well,what would you expect?). Anyway, they did ask me a good question that I couldn't answer. Where does the heat come from in a nuclear power station? They're only 12 so I just need something simple.

It looks to me like Uranium is reacting and turning into other things. Is this just a normal chemical reaction and the heat comes from the chemical changes just like, say, gunpowder? Of course they're being told that the heat comes from a loss of mass, and is thousands of times more than a chemical reaction would produce, so I want to make sure I'm on solid ground saying that it isn't. I did a search but couldn't find references to where the heat comes from other than mass being converted into energy and something called Free Energy which I don't understand.

[[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 08:20, 11 January 2013 (EST)
:Learn out to spell "yesterday" and "happening"! :) LOL [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 09:52, 11 January 2013 (EST)

::If those are my biggest problems then I'm fairly happy :-) Now corrected. [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 09:57, 11 January 2013 (EST)

== It is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[light]]. ==

I changed this sentence to ''It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. ''. My reasons:
*The reader should decide for himself whether the statement is meaningless or nonsensical
*The older version showed a misunderstanding of [[proportionality]]: in a proportionality, two variables (in this case matter and energy) are related by use of a constant (in this case c²). The older version implied a relationship between matter and the proportionality constant - which is nonsense. As Aschlafly stated above ''"Mass is not a function of the speed of light."'' Here he is right - as the function of a constant would be necessarily constant itself, but we know that there are different masses....

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 14 January 2013 (EST)

:Aschlafly, before your next reversion of my edit, please address my concerns above. And you still haven't answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 16 January 2013 (EST)

== Citations Needed ==
This article really needs many citations. If a statement is made, for example, about people being unable to pursue a career in the sciences without accepting the topic of the article, some sort of source really should demonstrate that. Similar citations are needed elsewhere in the article. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 19:14, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:The truth is that there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between between politics and E=mc2, and the idea that there is one is only your personal opinion. Why do you think that you receive such little support on this idea?--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 21:25, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::Additionally, the page for this is just a mess. The opening section claims it to be liberal claptrap, while the rest of the article lists experiments that conclusively prove it to be true (None of which I think I've ever seen you directly address). If real-world results contradict your supposed logic, perhaps there is a problem with your logic?--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 21:31, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::Aschlafly, that's not an explanation, that's just rhetoric: it's not about truth, it's about physics. Until now, you have failed to show that you have any knowledge of the matters discussed: you won't address any questions which require you to actually think about the subject and perhaps even take out a bit of paper and a pen (like [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]])! Your position seems to be rooted in ignorance and wishful thinking, your arguments are just political talking points. That's not good enough when everybody else is talking about physics.
:::A little bit annoyed, yours [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:50, 17 January 2013 (EST)
::::''science is not by liberal consensus'': not an answer to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]], again. Are you stalling? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)

:The truth, it seems, is what ''you'' define it to be, and not what dozens or hundreds of rigorously performed scientific studies support. Studies that have been repeated and re-tested for the better part of a century. Frankly, you're entirely unqualified to present yourself as an authority on a scientific topic like this. Have you ever looked into the data? Ever? Like, even a little? If you had, you'd have seen all sorts of phenomena that can't really be explained without E=mc^2. The fact that it can't be derived from first principles is entirely irrelevant in the face of all of the empirical data. For example, how can you explain the difference between the mass of an alpha particle and the sum of the masses of its four separate constituents? Hint: That missing mass didn't just go nowhere. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 11:23, 17 January 2013 (EST)

== Andrew Schlafly's comments ==

I reread the talk-page and gathered Andrew Schlafly's comments:
{|class="wikitable"
!1
|Beware of claims that the rest of the world completely agrees with something. Unanimously passed legislation is often the very worst kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 December 2012 (EST)
|-
!2
|It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!3
|Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!4
|JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!5
|The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!6
|The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!7
|The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!8
|The problem is that '''E=m2''' does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!9
|No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!10
|AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!11
|It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!12
|The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!13
|The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!14
|You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!15
|The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!16
|Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!17
|Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!18
|You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!19
|No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!20
|But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]
|-
!21
|(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!22
|The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!23
|"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!24
|Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!25
|Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-speech.html], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951. I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 was accepted long before 1932. Based on what, mere politics? This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!26
|The formula cannot be derived ''in any sensible way'', not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!27
|This took only one search on the internet: [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes 7 failed attempts to prove E=mc2].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!28
|A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!29
|That sounds like what the paper would have to say in order to be published, yes. An academic journal will withdraw its acceptance of a paper if it conflicts with the [[Theory of Relativity]] in any way. Anyone in academia who criticizes the Theory of Relativity in any way, no matter how minor, is risking the end of his professional career due to liberal orthodoxy. [[Robert Dicke]], the greatest American physicist ever, was denied the [[Nobel Prize]] because he criticized the Theory of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!30
|The claim that something "is the most accurately tested theory in physics" is a canard often heard by defenders of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Step back, look at the phrase objectively, and it's easy to see that such a claim is unscientific. Indeed, such a claim sounds like something one would hear in politics. Not only are there more than three dozen [[Counterexamples to Relativity|counterexamples disproving the Theory of Relativity]], but the claim on which it was based (the advance of the perihelion of Mercury) is now disproof of the theory. But notice how few people are interested in reviewing more precise data, and instead cite imprecise data that are a half-century old or more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!31
|Robert Dicke's criticism of the general theory of relativity is well-known. For that, he was disqualified from receiving the Nobel Prize, despite being the most accomplished American physicist ever.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!32
|Then why hasn't William Bertozzi won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!33
|If this were a "simple demonstration of a basic principle," then that would be all the more reason why it should be recognized with a [[Nobel Prize]], given the lack of a prize for the same principle. Indeed, has any [[Nobel Prize]] been awarded for a purported confirmation of E=mc2? (Cockcroft's work did not claim to confirm the equation.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!34
|It's completely logical. Some liberal claptrap is even too much for the [[Nobel Prize]] committee, and that's worth pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.
|-
!35
|Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
|-
!36
|The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to <math>\pi</math>. But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!37
|It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!38
|We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!39
|It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:Of course not. A clock that goes backwards is correct 4 times a day. No-one would suggest that that makes it even better.--[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 21:52, 30 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!40
|No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!41
|Broken clocks are precisely correct twice a day too. One or two bizarre experiments in more than a century of trying to prove the formula as a general proposition are hardly persuasive. The [[Nobel Prize]] committee wants to recognize the formula has being demonstrated, but can't. There is no logical support for the formula, as peer reviewed articles have virtually admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!42
|Mass is not a function of the speed of light. A century of effort (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to try to connect the two has struck out. Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!43
|August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula. You might your view why a [[Nobel Prize]] was not given for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!44
|The significance of no [[Nobel Prize]] for this is the same as the significance of the dog that didn't bark: dogs want to bark, and the Nobel Prize committee wants to honor atheistic, nonsensical theories like relativity, but there is nothing there, there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:24, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!45
|The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!46
|Folks, a century of attempts to unify gravity and light '''''have been unsuccessful'''''. E=mc2 is a science fiction goal that billions of dollars in attempts have been unable to achieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!47
|Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them. Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)
|}

Andrew (Aschlafly? Andy?), these comments show that you may understand politics, but not physics. Indeed, some are contradictory: in '''24''' you say ''Simply put, the Theory of Relativity is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations.'', while in '''27''' we read ''This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932.'' and in '''42''' ''there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation. ''

What is it: we have experiments which show that the formula is applicable in many occasions: indeed, no situation has been found where it doesn't work. And what is a ''mathematical theory'' other than a logical conclusion?

Other comments are simply untrue, like '''39''': ''It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. '' E=mc² has been used in countless experiments!

Not one of the comments shows that you are willing to put some work into your answers - like looking at the experiments or the data. These comments are best described by your own words:

'''You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true.'''

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:This is impressive AugustO! I think I understand Mr. Schlafly's opposition to E=mc2 now. The theory states that mass and energy are equivalent. But looking at Aschlafly's hand waiving exercise, that is simply not the case. For he clearly has expended a great deal of energy to produce very little substance. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:23, 17 January 2013 (EST)

::Folks, a century of attempts to unify gravity and light '''''have been unsuccessful'''''. E=mc2 is a science fiction goal that billions of dollars in attempts have been unable to achieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:::Have you even read anything that anyone has posted here? Address the experiments that prove it true. The main article and talk page are full of them. What is wrong with them? How are they flawed? How is E=mc2 used incorrectly in each of them? How do you explain E=mc2 fitting perfectly into each of them? You have essentially repeated yourself, over and over, without addressing any actual facts, once.--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 20:10, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them. Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:No, there has been no [[unified field theory]] discovered that joins the 4 known forces of nature. Now, let's get back to E=mc2.--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:32, 17 January 2013 (EST)

::Yet that is precisely what E=mc2 purports to do. After a century of trying, many realize it is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:::Andy, I know you pride yourself on having an [[Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness|Open mind]], so let me ask you this: Has the possibility ever occurred to you that you do not really know what you are talking about when it comes to subjects outside your field of expertise, theoretical physics being an example? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:21, 17 January 2013 (EST)
::::@Aschlafly, Einstein did not claim E=mc2 to be a unified theory. If he had, he would have said so and called it a day back in 1905 instead of spending the latter years of his research in the 1950's looking for a unifying theory. You do understand that the 'c2' portion of the equation is just a constant, right? It's simply the maximum speed that any change in a field or massless particle can propagate. So we can actually remove "light" (which seems to be a sticking point for you) from the equation and substitute any wave or field whose speed is independent of the motion of the observer and the wave's source. So you could replace light with anything that travels that fast. You could even plug in gravity in lieu of light if that better suits your fancy. If it could be proven that "bad news" traveled at the speed of light you could plug that in as well.

::::The point being is I think somewhere along the way you got tripped up on the what the formula actually expresses versus what you ''think'' it says. This is witnessed by your statement of: "''Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared''". Indeed. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them.'' No, it isn't. If you take a look at the sections above, you will see that you generally get responses. I'm afraid we are missing substantial answers from you, like to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]].
:::::''Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???'' That's not what ''E=mc²'' is about, in the same way that ''A=πr²'' isn't about unifying area and π
:::::If you don't start to do actual physics, your list of answers just becomes a parade of ignorance. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:00, 18 January 2013 (EST)

So does a mass of 1 kg have energy of c2, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:Yes. Just as a mass of 1 kg has kinetic energy of one half times its velocity squared, so it has mass energy of c2.--[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 21:40, 30 January 2013 (EST)

:No - as you messed up the units. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:08, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::The mass energy in 1 kg is <math>1\,\textrm{kg}\cdot\left(3.0 \times 10^8 \frac{\textrm{m}}{\textrm{s}}\right)^2 = 9.0 \times 10^{16}\,\textrm{J}</math> (keeping in mind, of course, that a joule is a kilogram-meter-squared-per-second-squared). That's a lot of energy! [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:22, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::Or about 21 kilotons of explosive power... or 25 TWh... Or... --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 01:36, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::: You are out by a factor of 1000. A kiloton of TNT-equiv is approximately 4.185*10e12 Joules. The kiloton equivalent for the figure GregG gave would be about (given he didn't use the approapriate figure for the speed of light in a vacuum I'll approximate as well) 20000 kilotons (20 megatons). [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:53, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::::Correct. I was doing the conversion in my head. It's should be something around 21,500 kilotons (21.5 megatons). Which of course would make my subsequent conversion incorrect as well. I guess that would make me.... wait for it... wrong. Thanks for the correction DVergne. Wow! It's surprisingly easy to admit you're wrong! Maybe other people will try it... --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 02:04, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::::::Indeed, 1kg has an equivalent energy of <math>9 \times 10^{16}J</math> - a immense number: it equals 25TWh - the output of all German power-stations combined in a fortnight. On the other hand, the sun emits <math>3.8 \times 10^{26}W</math> this means that it loses roughly 15 Trillion kg each second - or the mass of our Moon in less than 57 days.
::::::But we have had other examples of the equation on this talk-page:
::::::*In Cockroft's experiment, a mass of <math>3.0616 \times 10^{-29}kg </math> is transformed into an energy of <math>2,755 \times 10^{-12}J</math>
::::::*In Compton's experiment, rays having a frequency of a couple of EHz are used. The photons have an energy W=h*f, and interact with electrons as having a mass of W/c².
::::::This is about measurement, not politics. And please, Andrew, answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]: those questions may be difficult for a lawyer, but nor for an engineer. So, I'd like the engineer in you to answer the questions, not the lawyer to give another political statement. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:11, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Science fiction is great stuff ... as long as one doesn't start believing it, or allow it to take time away from truths, such as the [[Bible]]. Suppose I drink a glass of water, which has mass of about 0.5 pounds (roughly 1 kg). Zero calories, of course. Yet do you maintain that my energy increases in proportion to the speed of light squared?

What percentage of people who believe relativity's crass, silly materialism are likely to read the [[Bible]] earnestly, or pursue other real truths?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:Andy, first 0.5 pounds is not roughly 1 kg. Second, your gastrointestinal tract performs chemical reactions, it's not a nuclear fusion plant. Thirdly, I have no clue what percentage of people who accept the theory of relativity are likely to read the Bible, but I'm guessing you have some sort of figure in mind. From your line of questioning it would appear that a) you fundamentally do not understand the topic under discussion and b) you're trying to change the subject. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:50, 18 January 2013 (EST)

::Good point about the arithmetic - a glass of water is closer to 0.22 kg in weight than to 1 kg. But the underlying point remains the same: drinking a class of water does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. It's science fiction, and not very good at that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 19 January 2013 (EST)

:::*The underlying point is that '''you are not doing science but rhetorics'''. I get the impression that you are not able to answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]: have you forgotten everything you learned to become an engineer?
:::*''[it] does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. '' Don't you even understand [[proportionality]]?
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:17, 19 January 2013 (EST)
:::P.S.: I just created [[proportionality]]. Hope that helps. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:21, 19 January 2013 (EST)

=== Andrew Schlafly's answers in the section above ===
Andrew, you still ignore experimental evidence, but repeat and repeat again that [[E=mc²]] is nonsensical, etc. Furthermore, you offer a thought experiment: ''drinking a class of water does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. '' Well, if you drank this glass of water and then got transferred to the center of the sun, it would burn a tiny little bit longer then if you would have been transferred without drinking it. For you this may seem counterintuitive: therefore take a step back and answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] - keep an open mind! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:41, 19 January 2013 (EST)

== Robert Dicke, the greatest physicist of the 20th century ==

Andrew, such over-the-top statements just help to erode your credibility when it comes to physics. I understand that you won't accept [[Albert Einstein]] - the common choice - for this title. But [[Werner Heisenberg]], [[Max Planck]], [[Niels Bohr]], [[Lise Meitner]], [[Erwin Schrödinger]], [[Richard Feynman]] were at least his equals! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:You seem to prefer liberal theoreticians who were long on speculation, but short on experimental achievements. Robert Dicke actually built and discovered things, like the lock-in amplifier, in addition to theorizing.unsigned comment from Aschlafly 23:32, 18 January 2013
::If you prefer experimentalists, what's about [[Edward Teller]], [[Robert Oppenheimer]], [[Stanislaw Ulam]] or [[Enrico Fermi]]? I don't claim that any of those is the ''greatest physicist of the 20th century'', but they are not less great than [[Robert Dicke]]. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:24, 19 January 2013 (EST)
::You're clearly not very familiar with the way the field of physics actually works. The field is divided into theorists and experimenters. Theorists try to figure out how everything should be working, and come up with (surprise) theories about what those might be. In some cases, they take data sets created by those folks that have been experimenting and try to figure out why they contain the data they have (which is typically not the data that was expected). The fact that they don't have much in the way of experimental accomplishments doesn't really much matter because ''that isn't their job''. When they do finish a theory of something, some intrepid experimenter out there will pick it up and try to either prove or disprove that theory via experiment. This cycle continues thus pretty much perpetually. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 21:56, 21 January 2013 (EST)
::Is there any evidence anywhere (please, show me a link to an article somewhere - news, actual science, whatever - that shows that you didn't just make this up) that Dicke was denied a Noble Prize just because he didn't accept relativity? It took quite a while for physicists to come around to the idea of relativity, just as it took time for the reality of quantum mechanics to sink in. Meanwhile empirical evidence was mounting and it sort of became hard to deny after taking a look at the real data. I'm not too familiar with this Dicke figure (given that I'm an undergrad in physics, that makes me question whether he was the greatest of his century), but it may very well be that he just never had a chance to really sit down and examine the data. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 17:10, 30 January 2013 (EST)

== Nuclear Energy ==

In the interest of consistency, I have removed a section of the [[nuclear energy]] article to bring it in line with this article. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:40, 19 January 2013 (EST)

:Perhaps before gutting other articles, Andrew Schlafly could try to answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]. Or perhaps this one, concerning nuclear fusion and fission:
::'''An neutron <math>{}^1_0n</math> has an atomic weight of 1.008664916 amu, a proton <math>{}^1_1p</math> has a mass of 1.007276466 amu, an electron has a mass of 0.000548580 amu. Therefore 92 protons, 92 electrons and 143 neutrons have a combined mass of 236.9589872 amu. But an atom of <math>{}^{235}_{92}U</math> - consisting of 92 protons, 92 electrons and 143 neutrons has a mass of 235.0439299. Does a liberal conspiracy hide roughly 1.915 amu of any atom of this isotope?
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:14, 19 January 2013 (EST)
:::I will try one last time to explain this. Suppose that blowing up an atomic bomb with 1 lb of Uranium releases x amount of energy, and blowing up an atomic bomb with 2 lbs of Uranium releases 2x amount of energy, and blowing up an atomic bomb with 3 lbs of Uranium releases 3x amount of energy. Could we then conclude that the energy released by the atomic bomb was proportional to its mass? (If we invented a new unit of measuring energy "the Wschact" where one Wschact equaled the amount of energy released by converting one kg of uranium into energy), the equation would be: E (in Wschact units) = m (mass in kg)
::: The proportionality constant would be 1 (Wschact per kg).
::: Is it possible that (for some liberal claptrap reason) we could define the metric system of energy units in a way that the proportionality constant was set equal to a number that equals the speed of light squared? But because energy is measured in Joules, we have E =mc2, where c2 converts between Wschacts and Joules.
:::Any kid would agree that if you double the size of a bomb, the explosion would be twice as powerful. So this is a very intuitive equation. I hope this helps. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:43, 19 January 2013 (EST)

== Editing the Article ==

Andrew Schlafly, I'd appreciate if you'd abstain from editing this article: you haven't answered any questions on the underlying physics and mathematics (like [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]), and therefore haven't shown any understanding of the subject. Simply put, shouting "claptrap, claptrap, claptrap" again and again doesn't make a convincing argument.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:18, 21 January 2013 (EST)

== Simple question ==

This line appears in the introduction: "... ''light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis''". So my question to Mr. Schlafly is this: does the light in this statement refer to the entire electromagnetic spectrum? A simple yes or no will suffice, but if you are willing to expound on your answer, it would be appreciated. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:15, 24 January 2013 (EST)

== This article has a number of mistakes ==

For example, light isn't the same as energy. Light contains energy but so does '''oil'''.

Also mass, acceleration and force are all connected by Newton's laws, F=ma. So,
{{cquote|Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces,}} doesn't make sense because mass and forces are connected through that equation.

I'd correct it but, unlike the spirit of a wiki, this page is uneditable. It simply gets reverted. Thanks. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 16:29, 25 January 2013 (EST)

== personal essay shouldn't be linked from encyc. article ==

This rule seems to be made up on the spot... Fact is that numerous encyclopedic articles at Conservapedia link to "personal essays": see [[Atheism]] (linking to [[Essay: The question atheists fear]]), [[Evolution]] (linking to [[Essay: Atheism and evolution essays]]), [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] (linking to [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]), [[Jesus Christ]] (linking to [[Essay: The Way of Salvation]] and [[Essay: Christians and the Law of Moses]]), [[Torah]] (linking to [[Essay: Christians and the Law of Moses]]), etc.

So there seems to be no reason not to link to [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] - especially as the article [[E=mc²]] has many characterizations of an essay itself. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:48, 27 January 2013 (EST)
:I think you have made some very good points AugustO, but its time to move on. Accept the fact that the article will not be changing and you will have a happier time of it. Its time to let the readers decider for themselves whether they accept Mr Schlafly's unconventional approach or not. You are beginning to get repetitive and I suspect there are some admins who are out to get you. Don't give them the satisfaction. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:15, 27 January 2013 (EST)

== Problems with the newest edit.. ==

*''The popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public.'' It's perhaps the most recognizable formula today. But I doubt that this was the result of one television series.
*''But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so. '' You keep using this word (unified). I don't think that it means what you think it means. Having mass, energy and the speed of light all appearing in one single equation doesn't necessarily unify these concepts!
*''The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. '' This is your position, Andrew Schlafly. Nearly all physicists think different - even though they fail to convince you! Therefore it should be made clear that this is the position of critics of the theory...
*''Undeterred, [[liberal]] [[PBS]] insists that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]].'' It's not just PBS, it's virtually all physicists. At the moment, the source is taken from PBS, I'll add other sources which will show that nearly all physicists join in the conspiracy to promote [[E=mc²]]. (like http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/content/articles/2008/research-digest/student-papers/einstein/einstein2019s-theory-of-relativity-implications-beyond-science)
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 29 January 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, you still haven't answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]! And you have added nothing of physical or mathematical substance to the article on the [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]]! Could you please do so? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

''Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that...'' Yes, they can. And they can be found at the websites of the top schools. Andrew Schlafly, I dare you to find a top-10 physics department which doesn't make such "claims"! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:20, 30 January 2013 (EST)

:Andrew Schlafly, please address these points before reverting to an inferior version of the article! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:54, 1 March 2013 (EST)

==Enough is enough. Andy, please stop it==
This has gone on long enough. It's time for you to pay attention to what everyone else, and the evidence, and logic, are telling you. You have been engaging in what appears to be deliberate obfuscation, willful misunderstanding of terms and concepts, and repeated attempts to change the subject, for long enough. It's time to stop.

You have attempted to change the subject to Bible reading. There is a cute comic on the subject of correlation vs. causation [http://xkcd.com/552/ here].

You have attempted to change the subject to politics. It has nothing to do with liberalism. While moral relativism is a phenomenon more commonly associated with liberals than with conservatives, that has absolutely nothing to do with relativity.

You have attempted to change the subject to the relative merits of theoreticians and practical scientists/inventors, and the preferences of the Nobel prize judges. It's true that Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger didn't invent any devices (as far as I know), but they discovered quantum mechanics. The Nobel committee gives great weight to theoretical advances. Maybe you disagree with that policy, but that's the policy. Robert Dicke, in addition to being an inventor, was a good theoretician. But your assertions that he
#was the greatest American physicist ever, and perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century,
#criticized or refuted relativity,
#was denied the Nobel Prize because because of this
are all questionable and excessive. Inventing the lock-in amplifier was nice, but you don't win Nobels for that. There are many other American physicists (Michelson, Morley, Feynmann, Weinberg, Bethe, Compton, Anderson, Glashow, Bardeen, Brattain, Shockley, etc. etc.) that one could claim were superior. And, if one goes outside the United States but stays within the 20th century, the list is even longer—Bohr, Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, etc. Also, I assume you know that ''Dicke accepted special relativity'', as did every other scientist worthy of the name. His disagreement was over the claim that general relativity explains gravity. He accepted the metric tensor on 4-dimensional spacetime, and Riemann's tensor, and Ricci's tensor, and Einstein's tensor, and that gravity arises from Ricci's and Einstein's tensors. He simply had a different "scalar-tensor" formulation than Einstein, about how Ricci's and Einstein's tensors arise from matter. His theory becomes equivalent to Einstein's if the coupling constant (ω) goes to infinity. And you must know, because you have cited the article [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html here], spacecraft measurements ''have definitively refuted the Brans-Dicke theory.'' (The article is currently behind a subscription firewall, but I have read it.) You do not win Nobels for proposing theories that, brilliant though they may be, are wrong. And your often-repeated statement that he was denied a Nobel for criticizing relativity is preposterous. He didn't criticize it, and you don't know why he never won the prize. There are many physicists, and few prizes, and many worthy people never win the prize.

You have accused the Nobel committee, and many other people, of being liberals, and of being biased against criticism of relativity. Even if true, that has nothing to do with whether E=mc^2 is correct. Even if universities would never give a faculty post to someone who criticizes relativity (a completely unsupported claim), that has nothing to do with whether E=mc^2 is correct.

You have repeated the meaningless term "liberal claptrap" again and again. It has no place in a discussion of an equation, and it convinces no one.

You have repeatedly maintained that, since this equation doesn't "unify" gravity and light, or gravity and matter, or gravity and the strong force, it can't be right. Unification of fundamental forces is not easy. And even though unification of all fundamental forces has not been achieved, it is still the case that the mass of an alpha particle plus a Radon-222 nucleus is less than that of a Radium-222 6 nucleus.

You have made what seems to me to be willful attempts to obfuscate issues and terms, like gravity, light, mass, and energy:
*E=mc^2 has nothing to do with gravity. The only connection is that the Earth's gravity provides a convenient way of measuring the mass of produce in grocery stores. "m" is for inertial mass, a scientific concept that you must have learned about at Princeton. The masses of various particles (more about that later) are measured with a mass spectrometer, not with a scale.
*E=mc^2 doesn't directly relate to light. The phrase "speed of light" is just a convenient term for the time-vs.-space calibration constant of relativity. It happens that light travels at that speed. Now the intellectual distinction between the speed at which light travels and the calibration constant was not understood clearly in the early days, but it is now known, from the relativistic formulation of electromagnetism in terms of the Faraday tensor, that the calibration constant "c" appears in the wave equation, deduced from Maxwell's equations. This derivation is not usually handled at the undergraduate level, and you may not have seen it. But it isn't necessary for an understanding of E=mc^2. The speed "c" is fundamental. Light travels at that speed because of the 4-tensor formulation of electrodynamics, using the Faraday tensor on Minkowski space-time. "c" appears in E=mc^2 because it is fundamental to the Lorentz transform.
*Your claims about your "energy increasing by mc^2" when you drink water seems to be a ludicrous attempt to confuse what it means to "have energy". It's not the same thing as what you hear about in advertisements for "energy drinks". You don't "have" that energy in the sense of being able to leap tall buildings or bench-press 1000 pounds.. I'm sure you know that, and are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue. The only sense in which one "has" that energy in any normal sense of the release of energy, is that if you combined with an anti-Andy made of antimatter, the energy would be released, and, if you and the anti-Andy had consumed a liter of water and anti-water respectively, that much more energy would be released. But other than that, the energy is not accessible. Of course you *can* release energy, albeit a microscopically smaller amount than mc^2, when you consume more nutritious substances, like cake.

Now, getting to the nuclear reactions, this is the sense, and the only sense, in which E=mc^2 is meaningful. You've seen, and apparently ignored, the extensive discussion above and on the article page, but I'll go through it one more time. Please pay close attention.

The mass of the Radium-226 atom is 226.0254098 amu, which is 3.753239901×10-25 kg. I hope you accept this.

The mass of the Radon-222 atom is 222.0175777 amu, which is 3.6866882892×10-25 kg.

The mass of the Helium-4 atom (alpha particle) is 4.002603254 amu, which is 6.64647848859×10-27 kg.

When a Radium-226 atom undergoes alpha decay, it turns into a Radon-222 atom plus a Helium-4 atom, which have a combined mass of 3.753153074×10-25 kg.

These don't add up. 8.682702295×10-30 kg were lost. OK?

Now the energy released is 4.871 MeV, which is 7.8042×10-13 Joules.

The ratio of the energy released to the mass lost is 8.9882×1016 meters squared per second squared.

The square root of that is 2.998×108 meters per second. It is a speed, and it matches the speed of light.

This relationship has been verified for many many reactions.

That's all that E=mc^2 is saying. Nothing more. Nothing about eating cake.

So, instead of repeatedly calling it "liberal claptrap", you would do a much better job of convincing people that the equation is incorrect by coming up with some other explanation for why a radium atom loses 4.871 Mev / c^2 of mass when it emits a 4.781 MeV alpha particle.

Now I will agree that E=mc^2 is surprisingly hard to derive, for such a simple equation. Correct and understandable derivations are actually hard to come by—''Spacetime Physics'' by Taylor and Wheeler finally gets to it, in an extremely complicated way, starting around page 120. At the risk of being immodest, I recommend my own derivation on another wiki as being fairly direct. You can find it by Googling the exact quoted phrase "sees the light traveling a longer distance". Whether it is a "rigorous proof" is in the eye of the beholder.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:59, 31 January 2013 (EST)
:It is human to become so emotionally invested in a position, that there is no room left for logic or reasoning. A strong organization has ways to handle such situations. There are always at least two viewpoints to every dispute, and it always helps to try to invest some time into trying to understand both viewpoints. I agree with SamHB that "Enough is enough." A lot of people who care about CP have spent a lot of time reading this talk page and editing the article. If we all want CP to thrive and progress, we need to work together to find a way forward. Perhaps we could draw three number out of a hat at random and then count down the alphabetical list of editors to randomly select a committee to review this page. (If number 4 was drawn, the 4th editor on the list would be selected.) Everyone could make a pitch to the Committee, they would edit the page, and we would stop talking past each other. If anyone has a better way forward, please propose one. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:47, 2 February 2013 (EST)

::Would the supporters of E=mc2 be OK with E=mc1.5? It has just as much logical basis, which is nil.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 2 February 2013 (EST)
:::The [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]] - as well as the experiments at the [http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html MIT in 2005] - have shown that the [[Direct proportionality|constant of proportionality]] is c². And that's what all the mathematical derivations for special cases show, too: here is a neat trick for an engineer - develop mc² as a Taylor series (using the relativistic mass) and look closely at the first terms. That wouldn't work with c3/2
:::BTW: You are always asking questions, awaiting answers - why are you not answering to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:06, 2 February 2013 (EST)

::Andy, Isaac Newton would agree that the exponent would have to be 2 if it's anything. F=ma. Energy is defined as the force times distance, so the units of energy have to be mass times distance squared over time squared. The exponent is fixed because of the definitions of energy and acceleration in classical Newtonian physics. Of course this says nothing about the magnitudes of E, m or v but it does say any other exponent violates Newton's world. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 19:52, 2 February 2013 (EST)
:::No one person has a monopoly on the truth. No one person has the definitive Bible interpretation. So far, I have not seen any Biblical basis for Andy's views on E=mc2. Nor, have I seen any scientific basis for Andy's views. While I respect Andy a great deal, he seems to have unique views on the interpretation of this equation. So, it would be best if everyone could agree to move the resolution of this issue into dispassionate hands. CP editors would feel more confident in the strength of the website's leadership, and our users would gain more trust in CP's contents. Many CP editors see no conflict between E=mc2 and their religious views. Many CP editors see a big difference between the theory of special relativity and the theory of general relativity. Everyone knows that the exponent must be 2 in order for the units to come out right. Many, many sources say that E=mc2 is used to design atom bombs and that relativistic effects were taken into account in the design of the GPS system. The United States government even issued a postage stamp featuring the equation. Can we please resolve this in a manner that will reflect well on both CP and its leadership? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 13:36, 4 February 2013 (EST)
::::Wschact I feel that this article is at an impasse. If Mr. Schlafly was presenting an alternative theory that was internally consistent, matched all empirical observations, and could be shown to be held by another living soul... then we could work out a compromise article that was informative to the reader. Instead this article consists of factual information that has been liberally seasoned with Andy's editorial commentary and unsubstantiated claims. This has the effect of making it read like a someone with a split-personality wrote it. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:22, 4 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Too right everyone, this article (in fact, this whole website) is nothing more than one person's point of view. And it makes the whole website look silly [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=530196357001380&set=a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035&type=1]. That's why I suggest moving on to a different encyclopedia. Like Wikipedia or a different conservative one. There are plenty conservative ones that are created for the sole reason that Mc. Schlafly is making this his own. I say we all abandon him. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 19:23, 4 February 2013 (EST)
::::::It may be tempting to just ignore this article from now on and accept that it will never be corrected because of Mr. Schlafly's inflexibility. But Conservapedia is not just any blog, it is supposedly an educational resource for students. It is irresponsible and shameful to present unsubstantiated opinions as scientific fact in such a forum. Let's hope/pray that Mr. Schlafly can see this from all of the constructive criticisms and comments on this talk page. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:17, 5 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::CP is taking a [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=530196357001380&set=a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035&type=1 serious reputational hit] from this article. Back in November [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1018287&oldid=1018232 I edited the article to reflect both viewpoints but was reverted.] Further requests for guidance from Andy have been ignored. I pray that some home-schooled student will not rely upon this article to write a college admission essay to his or her detriment. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:20, 7 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::Since all the editors participating in this discussion except one are in agreement, why not edit the article and revert and changes made by the dissenting voice? That's basically what's been happening to this point, except in reverse. Its tyranny by a minority and certainly does not represent either the way that a nominal democracy should work or, indeed, how the scientific method works. I take some small solace from the knowledge that the truth itself cares not what this article says and instead continues to be true regardless of Andy's opinions. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 22:19, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::You make the mistake of assuming that this is a democracy. It is a meritocracy, which means that the view with the most merit is accepted. The most meritorious user here is Andy. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:00, 7 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::We need a way to determine "the best of the public." [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:15, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::"He who pays the piper . . ." I do sympathise with you and AugustO, but I think its time to move on. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:30, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::::Sorry, not good enough. ''Merit'' is all good and well, but it isn't a substitution for ''competence''. You can earn merits in one field, and still be incompetent in another. IMO it is the right thing to try to help a otherwise meritorious person not to look like a rambling fool in an area where he oversteps the boundaries of his knowledge. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:55, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::::Let's be absolutely clear here. Are you saying that Aschlafly is "incompetent", that he "look(s) like a rambling fool", and that he is "overstep(ping)" the boundaries of his knowledge? If the answers are "yes, yes, and yes", then please say what you mean directly! Beating around the bush is a liberal trait. [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 08:09, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::::::'' Beating around the bush is a liberal trait.'' As is incivility. Yes, I'm disappointed by the current state of the article, yes, I'd say that the article is kept in its current state not because of mathematical or physical arguments, but because of the lack of those. Yes, I sometimes get crestfallen by the lack of scientific insight, but no, I wouldn't formulate my frustration the way you want me to do it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:36, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Then who exactly is "incompetent"? Who "look(s) like a rambling fool"? Who is guilty of "incivility"? Why is it so hard for liberals to speak directly? [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 09:02, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::::::::*Again, I phrase my criticism as poignant as possible in a civil environment. After all, there should be a discussion and not a shouting match.
::::::::::::::::*''Why is it so hard for liberals to speak directly?'' I don't know - perhaps you should ask a liberal? Or were you just calling me a liberal in a very indirect way? You wouldn't do something so intricate, would you?
::::::::::::::::Conclusion: Please don't stir the pot - the situation is volatile enough.
::::::::::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:40, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== [[Conservapedia proven wrong]] ==

I made the following edit at [[Conservapedia proven wrong]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of Prognostication
!''Conservapedia'' Prediction
!Actual Result
! ''Conservapedia'''s Response
!Date of Result
|-
|March 25, 2012
|''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=next&oldid=970256 E=mc² is liberal claptrap]''
|The [[E=mc²|same page]] lists experiments which verify the formula and other pages on Conservapedia show how this formula is used in reality ([[Compton Scattering]], [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]].) Especially [[Talk:E=mc²]] shows that the statement ''E=mc² is liberal claptrap'' is a conviction only held by Andrew Schlafly, for which no mathematical or physical reason is given.
|
|
|}
This got reverted by Andrew Schlafly, stating ''an entry like this is not the place for argument - E=mc2 claim reverted''. Again, no physical or mathematical reason was given. Andrew, you have still not answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]], you have not shown any understanding of the physics or mathematics involved - though you have had many opportunities to do so (see, e.g., [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]] and [[Talk:Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]]). For all practical purposes, you - and by extension Conservapedia - have been proven to be wrong.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 22:48, 8 February 2013 (EST)

== Robert Dicke ==

''For example, [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]].''

Is there any source for this claim? I couldn't find one. Is this just made up? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:11, 9 February 2013 (EST)

:There is no other plausible explanation. Surely you don't expect a physics journal or any academic to admit such bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)

::So it ''is'' only your personal opinion, rooted in your belief that you are the one to know who should and should not be awarded the Nobel Prize. Yes, Robert Dicke was scooped in the experimental detection of background radiation for which Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson were awarded half the prize in 1978, but unless you have at least some proof that this was related to his opinion on ''general relativity'' (not special relativity, here he agreed with Einstein), you can only say something like: ''For example, '''''some speculate''''' that [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]].''
::BTW: I personally think that it would have been apt if Robert Dicke shared the prize with Penzias and Wilson for this important test of the Big Bang model of the universe.
::And could you please answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? It is nice that you address any political or historical point raised here on this talk-page, but you should answer to the physical and mathematical questions, too: those are the important ones... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:28, 10 February 2013 (EST)
:::About Robert Dicke, Wilson and Penzias and the Nobel prizes. One thing is that you can only get a Nobel Prize for an experiment with an explanation. Never for just a theory (Stephen Hawking never got a Nobel for his radiation). Dicke predicted CMB radiation but he wasn't the first to observe it. Wilson and Penzias observed it first completely by accident, and luckily Penzias talked to Dicke and found out what the thing he observed was. It was Dicke's theory but they observed it. So they got the Nobel. That's how it works. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation]
:::And I don't understand why there's so much emphasis on Nobel prizes in this article. Obviously the Nobel prize committee isn't a neutral party. Does that matter? Are people really not going to question an equation because they're afraid that they'll never get a Nobel? Only about 500 people got a Nobel so far, out of millions of scientists. Clearly that isn't a motivating factor. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 19:04, 15 February 2013 (EST)

== Reasons to restore the version of Feb 10, 2010 ==

Andrew Schlafly, you reverted some edits, claiming that you ''restored "Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap" and other truths''. "Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap" doesn't become a truth just because you are repeating it! I'll take you through some of the edits - again - and I hope that you won't make this kind of silly reversion again.

{|class="wikitable"
!Andrew Schlafly
!Rest of the World
!Comment
|-
|'''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in any body is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.
|'''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which states that energy ('''E''') of a body is equivalent to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.
|The formula is called the mass-energy-equivalence - this is reflected by the version on the right.
|-
|
|there are many derivations for special cases and experimental verifications
|Yes, there are: some of those can be found later in the article
|-
|For example, [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]]
|
|Any source for this statement? No. It's a conspiracy, so the statement is true because there is no proof for it! Anyway, Robert Dicke only had problems with the '''general theory''', and not with this formula.
|-
|Simply put, '''E=mc²''' is [[liberal claptrap]].
|Entering the phrase: "''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap''" into commonly-used search engines, reveals that an overwhelming majority of the internet community considers Conservapedia's claims (more accurately described as, Andy Schlafly's unsubstantiated assertions) to be a subject fit for ridicule<ref>http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/274938_Conservapedia-_E=MC2_Is_Liber</ref><ref>http://www.christianforums.com/t7643473/</ref><ref>http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=87194</ref><ref>http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-politics-religion/728843-e-mc%B2-liberal-claptrap.html</ref><ref>http://www.computernewbie.info/wheatdogg/2012/04/29/fisking-conservapedia-is-emc2-really-liberal-claptrap/</ref><ref>http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/maximum-retardation-alert/</ref><ref>http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/off-his-meds/</ref>.
|Andrew, you seem to think that this follows from the sentences above - but it doesn't. It's not even an opinion you have, it's a kind of gut-feeling.
|-
|But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.
|
|That has nothing to do with the formula.
|-
|Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]].
|At virtually all colleges and universities physicists explain how the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]]).
|That's why I added quotes from the physics department at the MIT - hardly a second-tier college. You are ignoring inconvenient facts to make a misleading statement!
|}

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:03, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:I think the table fairly summarizes the differences. I have still yet to see any Biblical argument against E=mc2. The only controversial application of E=mc2 is in nuclear energy and atomic bombs. While the Ten Commandments teach that "Thou shall not kill" and dropping two atomic bombs on Japan caused horrific suffering, most conservatives and Christians believe that the war was shortened and many lives were saved. They would say that the discovery of nuclear technology just in time was God inspired. If Germany or Russia developed the bomb before the United States, the world would be a dictatorship by now. When Einstein approach FDR about starting a Manhattan Project, FDR could have said that the idea was "liberal claptrap" and refused to devote scarce resources to building atomic bombs. Instead, he authorized a massive expedited program. Most conservatives are glad that he did, and have supported nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants ever since.

:The theory of special relativity is different from general relativity. E=mc2 is a part of special relativity but is worth its own separate article. Whatever feelings Andy (or anyone else) has about general relativity should be kept out of this article. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:13, 11 February 2013 (EST)

::Is there even a single accomplished physicist who claims that E=mc2 is true, and explains why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

::: Well you could start with [http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760 this book] by Professors Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 12:36, 11 February 2013 (EST)

::::Perhaps Mr. Schlafly would be comfortable with the original interpretation (which I'll write slightly differently to make my point):
::::<math>\Delta m = \frac{\Delta E}{c^2}</math>
::::which states only that a system's mass will change by a small amount when it releases or absorbs energy. It's still E=mc2; the difference is the definition of m and E. For example, it describes the rather difficult-to-ignore fact that a 4He nucleus weighs less than the two deuterons from which it was formed. This concept is easier to prove than the more general statement of mass-energy equivalence. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 13:06, 11 February 2013 (EST)

:::::''Is there even a single accomplished physicist who claims that E=mc2 is true, and explains why?'' - Andrew Schlafly, you could start with Richard Feynman's ''Lectures on Physics'', Book 1, 15-9 "''Equivalence of mass and energy''", which closes with the words
{{cquote|''This theory of equivalence of mass and energy has been beautifully verified by experiments in which matter is annihilated - converted totally to energy: An electron and a positron come together at rest, each with a rest mass <math>m_0</math>. When they come together they disintegrate and two gamma rays emerge, each with the measured energy of <math>m_0c^2</math>. This experiment furnishes a direct determination of the energy associated with the existence of the rest mass of a particle''|||Richard Feynman}}
:::::But you can take any textbook covering the special theory of relativity... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:43, 11 February 2013 (EST)

== References ==
<references/>

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

Very well: I suggest that this version is restored: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&oldid=1034198 revision 1034198]. Reason: it has been shown above that the reversions done by Andrew Schlafly are unscientific. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 22:33, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:Give it a rest. For your sake as well as everyone else. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:48, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::What good would this do for this article? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 22:57, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:::None whatsoever. But then your complaining about it won't do anything either. Besides, no-one who wants to read about theoretical physics will read this article for its content. (Though they may find other reasons to look at it). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:00, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::::No, those who know something about physics just will have a good laugh. The problem are the readers who don't know much yet. It is probably the most famous formula in physics, so pupils may read this article: Can you imagine a pupil using this material for a home-work? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:05, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Any pupil that used this for homework would get an F, obviously. I wouldn't worry about young kids using this page. This formula is not used in school, and anyone who has any need to use it at university would not come here. The main point though is that Andy has made it perfectly clear that there will be no changes to the article and that is the end of it. You quoted the Anderson story of the Emperor's new clothes. Allow me to quote a lesson from the ''Pied Piper of Hamelin'': "He who pays the piper calls the tune". --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:27, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::::::That is just not how a meritocracy works... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:36, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, your refusal to address any question of mathematical or physical substance - like [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] - makes this proposal to ''"suggest edits on talk page"'' farcical. I repeat what I stated on your talk-page:
:''Your ''might makes right'' approach isn't becoming for the article on [[E=mc²]]! You are reminding me of the eponymous character in Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes", only that in this version everyone from the very beginning is telling the emperor that he is naked, but he insists on parading through the streets nonetheless! ''
You are asking [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=1029966&oldid=1029962 question] after [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=1034125&oldid=1034090 question], but you are ignoring the answers, you don't answer substantial questions yourself and you failed to show that you know the mathematics or physics involved. You are acting like a lawyer in a room of scientists, following the old saying:
:''"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."''
You are pounding the table a lot! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

What is our goal? If everyone can show some diplomacy we can have a win-win situation. I know one editor here wants to score "points" against what he views as the liberal scientific establishment. I am unclear as to why the E=mc² article is an appropriate place for this. The downside to the article in its current form is that it is widely ridiculed and undercuts CP's credibility regarding many well-written articles. I think that AugustO had a better approach. He included some of the religious views as a separate paragraph, but also had a paragraph that said that E=mc² fits the experimental data. Now that the article has been protected from editing, I would be interested in hearing how Andy proposes to develop a new version that has less opinion and more valuable information. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:49, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:A bit of friendly advice AugustO... You know how a certain editor on CP answers every instance of comment or criticism with a debate challenge over the [[15 questions nobody cares about]]? Well, I'm sorry to say, you're starting to sound like that with the whole [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] thing. Andy's never going to answer your (or anyone else's) question on this topic. Andy doesn't know what he's talking about. Andy also knows, that the entire internet knows, that Andy doesn't know what he's talking about. Yet, it hasn't deterred him in the least. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why that is so? --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:58, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::Thank you for this advice: I admit this ''ceterum censeo'' can sound annoying. I'd beg to differ in one regard: those ''15 questions'' have been answered again and again, while my [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] have been ignored... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:38, 12 February 2013 (EST)

'''Proposed solution:''' (1) Andy unprotects the article and allows AugustO to edit it without Andy's further reverting. (2) We include a "See also" section at the bottom of the article that links to one or more debate pages. The debate pages could cover why Conservatives favor a nuclear arsenal and the peaceful use of nuclear energy to make electricity while liberals do not. (3) Whatever reservations Andy has about the tensions between the Bible and the general theory of relativity is confined just to the [[General theory of relativity]] article and not spread to unrelated physics articles. This would allow everyone to get what they want. If someone on the Internet reads about CP and decides to visit the E=mc² article to see for himself, he will see that the criticisms are false. The E=mc² article will be accurate, and the concerns about general relativity will be expressed in the relevant place. How about it? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:32, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:@Wschact - You seem to gravitate towards solutions that would require Andy to relinquish editorial control over his own <s>blog</s> encyclopedia. Most of us know that's never going to happen. Your modest proposal amounts to "Let's lock Andy in his playpen so people will take CP seriously again". Good luck with that. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:22, 12 February 2013 (EST)

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

When I [[Talk:idou|discussed the translation]] of [[idou|ἰδοὺ]] in the Conservapedia Bible Project, I was the first time confronted with an absolute inadequate stile of argument: instead of scholarly sources, spurious claims on google counts were made, statements were made out of thin air, and the subject was kicked down the road by announcing answers which never came. In the end, Andrew Schlafly just stopped addressing the topic.

I observe something similar with the article on [[E=mc²]] - only that the points made are even worse: ''The liberal media and professors also insist that Hugo Chavez is alive and recovering.'' That makes [[E=mc²]] wrong how? Andrew Schlafly hasn't shown the slightest understanding of the mathematics or physics involved, and missed every opportunity [[Talk:E=mc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|to do so.]]

The article has become detrimental to Conservapedia: it is a monument of Andrew Schlafly's ignorance on this matter. If we (all the other editors interested in this subject) aren't allowed to align this article with reality, the next best thing would be to delete it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:13, 13 February 2013 (EST)
:If the people who check out the criticisms find a correct article, CP will gain credibility. But if they find that the article was deleted, they will be left to their own imaginations as to why the article was pulled. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 02:20, 13 February 2013 (EST)
===New consensus===
Does anyone object to AugustO's version? It acknowledges the "controversy" but also states the facts. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:44, 15 February 2013 (EST)
::Obviously I agree with [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] ... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 15 February 2013 (EST)
:::Since the page has been unlocked and nobody objected, why don't you edit it to reflect the new consensus? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:49, 17 February 2013 (EST)
::::I have a problem with the wording of "The formula E=mc² has little relevance to situations where mass is not converted into energy such as chemical reactions or electrostatic interactions." (I believe this is part of "AugustO's version" but correct me otherwise.) The theory of relativity doesn't classify some types of reactions as "mass is not converted to energy". It says that whenever there is a change in energy, there is a corresponding change in mass. It doesn't matter if it's two deuterons sticking together to form a 4He nucleus, or two refrigerator magnets sticking together. Yes, the mass change is immeasurably small for non-nuclear reactions, but the formula still holds. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 00:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Of course, you are correct that E=mc2 applies to any change in mass. We need to address Andy's very interesting argument as to what happens when a person drinks a glass of water. To my knowledge, drinking a glass of water does not change from the prior state where the person is just holding a glass of water. In general, in most common day-to-day experiences (except for basking in the warmth of the Sun), any change in mass is so small that the energy released by everyday chemical reactions exceeds the energy released by converting mass into energy. Does Spielman have an alternative wording, or should we stick with the current "liberal claptrap" formulation? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:48, 22 February 2013 (EST)
*I hadn't realized that the page wasn't protected any longer. Now I performed the edit "to reflect the new consensus".
*E=mc² seems to be applicable to any situation - though it is only derived for special cases. Not only can mass be transformed to energy, energy itself shows the characteristics of mass, best demonstrated by photons in a gravitational field.
*We can only calculate but not measure the difference of mass before and after a TNT explosion - or the detonation of an atomic bomb: the mass differences are so tiny while the reactions are so powerful. But I don't think that this is a problem, we just have to look for more suitable examples. The same is true for quantum mechanics: we can apply the uncertainty principle to a speeding car, but it will have no practical consequences...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)

== Another kind of nonsense: [[User:Gryfin]]'s contribution ==

Dear Gryfin, it doesn't matter that the units are arbitrary - as long as they are used consistently: in the MKS system, you have on the right hand side [[meter]]s, [[kilogram]] and [[second]]s, and on the left hand side [[Joule]], an unit which is ''derived'' from meters, kilogram and seconds:

<math>1 Joule = 1 kg \frac{1 m^2}{1 sec^2}</math>

But you can use any other system - as long as the unit for force is derived as [Force] = [mass] × [length] / [time]² and therefore, the unit of work is [Work] = [Force] × [length] = [mass] × [length]² / [time]² (here, [entity] indicates the unit used to measure the entity).

Only if you violate this consistency, you have to introduce conversion factors - which can be easily derived: most (American) introductory textbooks on physics talk about such necessary conversions on the first pages.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:16, 27 February 2013 (EST)

== Censorship is not the way of the future ==

Andrew Schlafly, as a teacher you should know that correcting mistakes is not a form a censorship! Do I really have to remind you of the first Commandment of Conservapedia:
::'''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.'''
Your edits to the article are neither true not verifiable, as you have demonstrated here on the talk page: you have never given a cconvincing mathematical or physical argument for you position. May I remind you of [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? Those are not the only questions you have dodged - every time a discussion on this talk-page isn't about politics, but hard science, you chose to ignore it! Frankly, I came to the conclusion that you are not able to answer such basic questions on physics - and therefore, you shouldn't edit the article. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:27, 27 February 2013 (EST)
:Yikes AugustO, enough is enough surely. You have to know by now that the article will never change and yet you keep on and on. Rest assured that virtually everyone except Andy agrees with you and let that be enough. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 04:44, 27 February 2013 (EST)
::Andrew Schlafly, you undid my edit to [[E=mc²]], claiming that you were ''restoring information''. But even you must have seen that the restored section titled '''[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2Doesn’t Compute]''' is utter nonsense. It states:
::::{|class="wikitable" style="background:grey"
|''[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute] because the quantities assigned to units of measurement (seconds, kilometres and kilograms), were randomly chosen by humans and thus cannot validate the tangible energy of a given mass designed in nature. '''Because random values cannot validate the tangible''', the result of E=mc2 is abstract and so meaningless. [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute] by [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/Jonathan Grey]:
|}
::The reasoning behind this thought is very poor (see [[Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2#Another kind of nonsense: User:Gryfin's contribution|here]]), and the whole section is an attempt on link-farming.

::As for you original contributions: I came to the conviction that you don't defend them at the talk-page as they cannot be substantiated in any way. So they only resort (instead of arguing their physical or mathematical merits) is to crowbar them into the article via your edit war - a war you'll win not by having the better arguments, but by abusing your powers. In my opinion that is very sad... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:37, 28 February 2013 (EST)
This page continues to be visited by the public, and it draws traffic from websites that uses the page to ridicule Conservapedia as a whole. I think the best approach is to fix the E=mc2 article and move the criticism of the theory of general relativity to a less visible and more appropriate page. I understand that Andy has concerns about general relativity, but they do not belong on this page. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

===Choosing ignorance over knowledge===

Andrew Schlafly, you haven't answered to any suggestion made to [[Talk:E=mc²]] since Feb 11, 2013. Your only action is to revert edits made to [[E=mc²]]. Your behavior is disappointing, you don't defend your ideas, you conserve the current state of the article just by ''fiat'', thereby cementing the appearance of ignorance and idiocy which was summarized in the net under '''Conservapedia - where intelligence goes to die'''.

Ignoring those who want to improve the article and refusing to discuss your ideas is such a cowardly move that I never expected it from you: you are reminding me of a toddler who hides under his blanket, waiting for reality to go away...

This tactic may even work in the short range: your critics may get frustrated, editors like I become disillusioned and will edit less and less, someone else will say something even more stupid somewhere in the net and will divert the attention from this article, etc. But unfortunately for you, reality is there to stay...

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

== Reply from Gryfin to AugustO in regard to “another kind of nonsense” ==

Dear [[AugustO]], thank you for your comment.

Your comment is effectively saying E=mc2 is a dimensional consistent equation. A dimensional consistent equation is when the physical law is independent of the units used to measure the physical variables. Which E=mc2 is not. At the equations essence, E=mc2 is declaring the physical variable (energy) is quantified by and so dependent on the units inputted. Hence, E=mc2 is not a dimensional consistent equation.

You also say, as long as the unit for force is derived as Force = mass × length / time2 you can use any other system. To determine if you are correct in your statement, calculate using metric and imperial systems the energy contained in 0.453kg and a pound (lb). I lay you a wager. If the answers gives an identical amount of energy for the same amount of mass I’ll say I’m wrong. But if the answers are not identical, reinstate my article I posted on the 27th Feb 2013.

You also say; a correlation exists between meters, kilograms, seconds and Joules. The relationship between the four units is a manmade relationship determined after the units were created. This means the relationship is arbitrary in nature and so can’t define the tangible of nature.

The unit of a second had its origins in ancient Babylon. The Babylonians used a counting system based on 60. The system derived from counting the segments on each finger using their thumb, hence 12 hours. The 12 was multiplied by the five digits on their other hand, giving 60. The Babylonians had a 12 hour clock, only measuring the daylight hours from dawn to dusk. A 12 hour clock lasting one day will have a light speed figure of 599,584 km per second, twice its current figure.

The next phase in the clocks development was done by the Egyptians. They adopted the Babylonian clock. With the stars playing a major part in Egyptian life, they needed to account for the night time. The Egyptians modified the Babylonian clock by added another 12 hours. The 24 hour clock established the length of our second and light speed at 299,792 km per second.

The Greeks and Romans used a counting system based on 10. But instead of devising a clock of 10 hours divided by 100 minutes by 100 seconds, they simply embraced the Egyptian 24 hour clock. A 10 hour clock will have a light speed figure of 259,020 km per second

A base 16 numbering system can divide down to one (16, 8, 4, 2, 1), making it a superior system to 10 or 12. If seconds, minutes, hours was established on a base 16 numbering system, light speed will be 395,234 km per second.

The length of our second is only one of countless lengths we could have had, each giving a different figure to the speed of light. The length of our second is only by chance, and so is our light speed figure.

The values allocated to meters and kilograms were assigned by Antoine Lavoisier, a French chemist who designed the metric system in the 18th century. Lavoisier determined the length of a meter as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole at sea level. A litre is one thousandth of a cubic meter of water. A kilogram is the weight of a litre of water.

Lavoisier initially contemplated on using the equator as the base for the meter. However, because of political instability in some countries the equator runs through. He decided not to use it. But if had, the equator divided by ten million would make the meter four times its current value. This will give light speed a figure of 74,948,114.5 meters per second, a quarter of the current value. But in contradiction, a meter four times its length will make the kilogram 64 times greater than its current weight because it is based on a thousandth of a squared meter (43).

The values attributed to units of measurement were chosen for convenience, and each one could have been one of countless values with countless permutations between them. Thus, the correlation between them is manmade and not a natural correlation; unlike the correlation between energy and mass.

Until the day when humans have knowledge to determine the energy of mass and establish the correlation between them, any equation to determine the correlation is abstract. Or are you claiming, the units of measurement we use today were chosen, against incalculable odds, exactly correct and can define the tangible energy of mass. In which case, it's lucky the ancient Babylonians counted the 12 segments on their fingers and not their 10 fingers.

I expected the scientific community to reject my controversial statement on E=mc2 because, although it's correct, it doesn’t fit in with their theories. But I thought Conservapedia, which doesn’t squirm from speaking its mind, would give my statement sanctuary.

Please reinstate my article I posted on the 27th Feb 2013. It is correct and not as you say, '''“another kind of nonsense”'''

[[User:Gryfin|Gryfin]] March 06 2013

I'd like to see your calculations. The speed of light is 984,000,000 ft/sec, squared is 967,000,000,000,000,000, divided by the acceleration of gravity to get energy is 30,000,000,000,000,000 ft-lb.

1 ft/lb is 1.3558 joules

The speed of light is 984,000,000 ft/sec, squared is 967,000,000,000,000,000, divided by the acceleration of gravity to get energy is 30,000,000,000,000,000 ft-lb.

The speed of light is 300,000,000 m/sec. squared is 90,000,000,000,000,000. divided by kg/lb is 40,700,000,000,000,000. Divided by 1.3588 is 30,000,000,000,000,000.

But, hey, perhaps you forgot about the 32? [[User:CUlator|CUlator]] 11:01, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Dear [[CUlator]]

Thank you for your comment.

The part of the discussion you are obviously referring to is, computing the same quantity of mass using two different systems, imperial and metric, through E=mc2.

You have not done this. You only divided one constant by another (speed of light & acceleration of gravity). On the metric side of your example you convert the squared light speed (which is the same in both systems because it's the distance light travels in a second squared), to the imperial system before converting ft/lb to Joules. You did not use E=mc2 to calculate equal quantities of mass using metric and imperial systems.

The discussion is about E=mc2 and arbitrary systems of measurement with no correlation. Even though calculating different systems through E=mc2was a side issue to the discussion. I maintain that when using E=mc2 to compute equal amounts (0.453kg and a pound (lb)) using the imperial and metric systems. The answers will not be the same. The answers will be in calories and Joules. Then convert calories to Joules.

But most importantly, you ignored the thrust of the discussion, which is: Arbitrary values cannot validate the tangible. On one side of the equation is Energy, which has a precise amount per given mass. On the other side of the equation are manmade units of measurement with no relationship to Energy contained within mass. When humans decided what value to assign to a Joules, they assigned the amount of energy used when applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre. This has no relationship to Energy contained within mass. Until the twentieth century, burning was used to release energy from mass. This is only a tiny percentage of the potential energy. With fission in twentieth century a lot more energy per mass was released, but still only a percentage. In the future, probably hundreds of years, even more energy will be released using methods undreamt of at present. The Energy per mass and if different types of energy co-exist within mass is unknown and will remain unknown for many years! So how can an equation using arbitrary units of measurement quantify the unknown?

I look forward to your reply

[[User:Gryfin|Gryfin]] March 11 2013

User talk:Occultations

2013-03-07T04:37:15Z

Occultations: Reply

I suggest that if your intention is solely to prove Andy wrong you will not last very long. How about contributing constructively as well as whining. I expect you to make some solid contributions soon. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:30, 15 February 2013 (EST)

I'm not planning to contribute here, and I'm not whining or trying to prove anyone wrong, but I was just browsing the other day when I saw something that I thought was an honest mistake, and I tried to correct it. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 23:37, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2013-02-15T22:13:03Z

Occultations: /* An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth */

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''

----



__TOC__
==Page moved==
Archive index also created.
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==

This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.

:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades. The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:
{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}
:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)

:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.
:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

::Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.
*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.
*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.
*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.
*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.
*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down. Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST)

::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption. But machines (and mechanism) are generally not halted that way.
::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?
::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.
::*Will you ever give us a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)

:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy. Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible. Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)

::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

===Conclusion===
*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.
*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.
*Aschlafly's proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.

I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)

Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)

[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)

== Rates ==

I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant.

Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Dog Races ==

Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==

The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Historical Counterexamples ==

''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref>
*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]

But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:

''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''

I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)

:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point: the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth. Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:
{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}
::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source]. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation. [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== A mathematician's take ==

Hello,
I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:

<blockquote>
If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.
</blockquote>

I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).

For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these four alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.

Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.

Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:You raise an interesting point; a lack of independence among variables does affect the probability of the outcome. But that effect is offset by the greater likelihood (more than 10%) that those indicators of a young earth are correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::I would like to come in on the side of EricAlstrom here. For one thing, his analysis of your use of probability theory is bang on, and in no way does your response answer his points. Even deeper, your basis for "the likelihood of the counterexamples being greater than 10%" is based purely on your own opinion. Why exactly are these counterexamples more likely to be correct than radio carbon dating is to be false? [[User:DanPW| Dan W]] 5 May 2012

== AGW if true, would prove a young earth ==

If the earths systems were so unstable that a very very small amount of carbon released by humans could disrupt them, then they could not have lasted billions of years. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 13:44, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Only 99% certain? ==

I see you have doubts about your chosen theory Ashafly. I would have thought a Bible believing Christian like yourself would have no doubts about the Creation account as told in Genesis. What contradictions in the Bible have convinced you to believe that the Biblical account may not be 100% true? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:29, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:EJames, entries on a wiki are collaborative efforts. Also, this particularly entry does not utilize [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:55, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean? I don't understand about your statement about 'utilizing faith'. Is the Biblical account of Creation 100% true or not? If you feel you can't commit to 100% you must have serious doubts. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Template ==

The page is protected from editing. Could a sysop replace the list in ''See also'' with <nowiki>{{Counterexamples}}</nowiki>? [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 11:13, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:18, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

== Magnetic Field of the Earth ==

In this article there is a claim that the earth's magnetic field is weakening so fast, that extrapolating back in time, there is no room for an old earth since the intensity would have melted the earth. However, this isn't true. Earth's magnetic field changes strength and even reverses sometimes, (Gee et al. 2000; Gubbins et al. 2006) so this claim should be removed.

== An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth ==

If large earthquakes are getting more frequent then there will be more of them in the future, and there were fewer of them in the past. This suggests that the Earth cannot exist for much longer in the future. But it doesn't say anything about how long the Earth has existed in the past. So this is clearly a bad example. I'll remove it if no-one objects. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 22:45, 11 February 2013 (EST)

I've removed the counterexample based on the growing number of large earthquakes. If we compare it with some of the other counterexamples:
* The intelligence of humans is rapidly '''declining''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of cancer is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The number of natural, pure-bred dogs is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The flow of water in the Colorado River is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The frequency of large earthquakes is '''increasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
it's clear that it doesn't fit the pattern. It looks like it was just a mistake. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:32, 13 February 2013 (EST)

It turns out that I can't edit [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Could someone else please do it. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:35, 13 February 2013 (EST)

:The earthquake counterexample does fit the pattern because it shows the Earth is not in a steady state, but is in a period of transition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 14 February 2013 (EST)
::If earthquakes come in cycles, then it would not argue either way. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:27, 15 February 2013 (EST)

::So the Earth is in a period of change, ok, but you can't conclude that before this period of change there was nothing because the Earth didn't exist. Maybe there was a period when the frequency of large earthquakes decreased, or stayed the same. Why should this 40-year doubling go on unchanged for 6000 years? And this counterexample definitely '''is''' different from the others, in that something is '''increasing''', whereas in all the others something is '''decreasing'''. I think this counterexample is much weaker than the others, and should be dropped. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 17:13, 15 February 2013 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2013-02-13T21:35:14Z

Occultations: /* An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth */

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2013-02-13T21:32:56Z

Occultations: /* An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth */

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''

----



__TOC__
==Page moved==
Archive index also created.
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==

This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.

:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades. The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:
{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}
:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)

:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.
:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

::Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.
*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.
*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.
*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.
*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.
*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down. Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST)

::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption. But machines (and mechanism) are generally not halted that way.
::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?
::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.
::*Will you ever give us a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)

:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy. Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible. Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)

::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

===Conclusion===
*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.
*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.
*Aschlafly's proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.

I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)

Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)

[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)

== Rates ==

I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant.

Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Dog Races ==

Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==

The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Historical Counterexamples ==

''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref>
*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]

But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:

''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''

I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)

:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point: the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth. Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:
{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}
::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source]. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation. [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== A mathematician's take ==

Hello,
I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:

<blockquote>
If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.
</blockquote>

I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).

For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these four alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.

Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.

Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:You raise an interesting point; a lack of independence among variables does affect the probability of the outcome. But that effect is offset by the greater likelihood (more than 10%) that those indicators of a young earth are correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::I would like to come in on the side of EricAlstrom here. For one thing, his analysis of your use of probability theory is bang on, and in no way does your response answer his points. Even deeper, your basis for "the likelihood of the counterexamples being greater than 10%" is based purely on your own opinion. Why exactly are these counterexamples more likely to be correct than radio carbon dating is to be false? [[User:DanPW| Dan W]] 5 May 2012

== AGW if true, would prove a young earth ==

If the earths systems were so unstable that a very very small amount of carbon released by humans could disrupt them, then they could not have lasted billions of years. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 13:44, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Only 99% certain? ==

I see you have doubts about your chosen theory Ashafly. I would have thought a Bible believing Christian like yourself would have no doubts about the Creation account as told in Genesis. What contradictions in the Bible have convinced you to believe that the Biblical account may not be 100% true? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:29, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:EJames, entries on a wiki are collaborative efforts. Also, this particularly entry does not utilize [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:55, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean? I don't understand about your statement about 'utilizing faith'. Is the Biblical account of Creation 100% true or not? If you feel you can't commit to 100% you must have serious doubts. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Template ==

The page is protected from editing. Could a sysop replace the list in ''See also'' with <nowiki>{{Counterexamples}}</nowiki>? [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 11:13, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:18, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

== Magnetic Field of the Earth ==

In this article there is a claim that the earth's magnetic field is weakening so fast, that extrapolating back in time, there is no room for an old earth since the intensity would have melted the earth. However, this isn't true. Earth's magnetic field changes strength and even reverses sometimes, (Gee et al. 2000; Gubbins et al. 2006) so this claim should be removed.

== An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth ==

If large earthquakes are getting more frequent then there will be more of them in the future, and there were fewer of them in the past. This suggests that the Earth cannot exist for much longer in the future. But it doesn't say anything about how long the Earth has existed in the past. So this is clearly a bad example. I'll remove it if no-one objects. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 22:45, 11 February 2013 (EST)

I've removed the counterexample based on the growing number of large earthquakes. If we compare it with some of the other counterexamples:
* The intelligence of humans is rapidly '''declining''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of cancer is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The number of natural, pure-bred dogs is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The flow of water in the Colorado River is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The frequency of large earthquakes is '''increasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
it's clear that it doesn't fit the patterm. It looks like it was just a mistake. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:32, 13 February 2013 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2013-02-12T03:45:56Z

Occultations: /* An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth */ new section

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''

----



__TOC__
==Page moved==
Archive index also created.
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==

This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.

:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades. The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:
{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}
:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)

:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.
:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

::Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.
*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.
*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.
*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.
*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.
*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down. Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST)

::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption. But machines (and mechanism) are generally not halted that way.
::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?
::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.
::*Will you ever give us a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)

:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy. Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible. Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)

::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

===Conclusion===
*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.
*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.
*Aschlafly's proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.

I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)

Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)

[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)

== Rates ==

I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant.

Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Dog Races ==

Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==

The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Historical Counterexamples ==

''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref>
*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]

But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:

''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''

I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)

:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point: the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth. Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:
{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}
::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source]. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation. [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== A mathematician's take ==

Hello,
I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:

<blockquote>
If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.
</blockquote>

I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).

For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these four alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.

Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.

Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:You raise an interesting point; a lack of independence among variables does affect the probability of the outcome. But that effect is offset by the greater likelihood (more than 10%) that those indicators of a young earth are correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::I would like to come in on the side of EricAlstrom here. For one thing, his analysis of your use of probability theory is bang on, and in no way does your response answer his points. Even deeper, your basis for "the likelihood of the counterexamples being greater than 10%" is based purely on your own opinion. Why exactly are these counterexamples more likely to be correct than radio carbon dating is to be false? [[User:DanPW| Dan W]] 5 May 2012

== AGW if true, would prove a young earth ==

If the earths systems were so unstable that a very very small amount of carbon released by humans could disrupt them, then they could not have lasted billions of years. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 13:44, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Only 99% certain? ==

I see you have doubts about your chosen theory Ashafly. I would have thought a Bible believing Christian like yourself would have no doubts about the Creation account as told in Genesis. What contradictions in the Bible have convinced you to believe that the Biblical account may not be 100% true? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:29, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:EJames, entries on a wiki are collaborative efforts. Also, this particularly entry does not utilize [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:55, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean? I don't understand about your statement about 'utilizing faith'. Is the Biblical account of Creation 100% true or not? If you feel you can't commit to 100% you must have serious doubts. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Template ==

The page is protected from editing. Could a sysop replace the list in ''See also'' with <nowiki>{{Counterexamples}}</nowiki>? [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 11:13, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:18, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

== Magnetic Field of the Earth ==

In this article there is a claim that the earth's magnetic field is weakening so fast, that extrapolating back in time, there is no room for an old earth since the intensity would have melted the earth. However, this isn't true. Earth's magnetic field changes strength and even reverses sometimes, (Gee et al. 2000; Gubbins et al. 2006) so this claim should be removed.

== An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth ==

If large earthquakes are getting more frequent then there will be more of them in the future, and there were fewer of them in the past. This suggests that the Earth cannot exist for much longer in the future. But it doesn't say anything about how long the Earth has existed in the past. So this is clearly a bad example. I'll remove it if no-one objects. -- [[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 22:45, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Talk:E=mc²

2013-01-31T02:52:15Z

Occultations: Rebutting Andy's comment about a broken clock

Talk:E=mc²

2013-01-31T02:40:31Z

Occultations: /* Andrew Schlafly's comments */ Answering Andy's question

Talk:Best of the public

2012-12-24T13:38:24Z

Occultations: /* What's the difference between "experts" and "the best of the public?" */

== A third "Invisible Hand?" ==

Andy,

I think you may be underestimating the importance of the concept you've articulated. It seems to be that best of the public, when applied to an academic endeavor, creates a third "Invisible Hand"--an "Invisible Hand of Insight," if you will, with the power to lead to deeper and more powerful insights than conventional, expert-dominated processes.

Indeed, it may well be that best of the public is, in fact, the driving mechanism behind '''all''' of the Invisible Hands. Certainly, Smith's Invisible Hand can only function in a free market, where the best of the public is free to produce goods and generate wealth. The Invisible Hand of Marriage only functions in a society where those who believe in the value of the family are free to marry and raise children to share those values--again, the best of the public coming to the fore.

Thus, best of the public would be a central force. When applied to economic matters, it would result in Smith's invisible hand; when applied to social matters, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Marriage, and when applied to intellectual, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Insight.

In fact, best of the public provides a powerful means of explaining exactly why big government liberalism is so harmful. Invariably, dependency on big government intervention interferes with the best of the public, and thus, with the ability of the Invisible Hands to act.

Really, a remarkable piece of insight. It succinctly and concisely identifies the engine behind conservatism. Well done, indeed!

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:18, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:That's brilliant, Ben. You (or the public!) could develop your marvelous insight further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::Well, thank you, Andy! I'm honored and flattered that you find it so. I'll certainly work on this (and I hope others will, too)...but perhaps tomorrow, when I'm not nodding off at the keyboard. :) Have a pleasant evening! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I think there may be Coase theorem implications as well. When property is owned individually, by the public, regardless of what property or who owns it, an economic system flourishes. However when property is owned collectively, even by well meaning institutions run by experts and people who think they know best for others, economic decline and catastrophe are inevitable. It is almost as if an invisible hand guiding the public works better than the all too visible hand of the experts. --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 23:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:I may work this into my final lecture for my Economics class, which I must complete tomorrow (Wednesday). Perhaps students -- and the best of the public here -- can develop it even further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Boston Marathon ==

It's not quite true that "anyone can enter" the Boston Marathon--I cannot,as I have yet to meet their standard of completing a marathon with a time better than 3 hours 10 minutes (the minimum required for a male in my age group). [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That's a new strict condition. Good point to raise it. I'll replace the Boston Marathon with the New York Marathon to avoid that issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::It's interesting to note that the Boston Marathon has resulted in few world records--one men's and two women's, none more recent than a quarter of a century ago--and all three of those were controversial in some way. On the other hand, the Chicago Marathon, which lacks the restrictive entry requirements of the Boston Marathon--has had four, and the Berlin Marathon--which prides itself on the number of people who participate, and also doesn't appear to have an entrance requirement--has had 7, the most of any marathon. This would seem to be strong corroborative evidence that the best of the public principle is valid; otherwise, you'd expect the races that only allow "expert" runners to produce the most records. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's an intriguing insight, Ben--you should add it to the article, and I should consider setting my marathon goals "lower" and find a cheap flight to Berlin!! [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 19:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::The Chicago Marathon actually sets so many records because it is held in a very mild time of year, and Chicago is an incredibly flat city. The Fargo Marathon features a similar route without hills, and is used by many to qualify to the Boston Marathon.--[[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 23:09, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Would somebody please add to our [[Marathon]] article the number and type of records set at each major venue? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 26 December 2009 (EST)

The [[Boston Marathon]] is only for runners who have completed at least one marathon, and they must meet the designated time standard that corresponds with their age group [http://www.marathonguide.com/news/regfeatures/BostonQualifying.cfm]

The [[US Open]] tennis championship runs a free qualifying tournament beforehand, [http://queens.about.com/cs/sports/a/us_open.htm]
but top players don't have to qualify.

The US Open chess tournament has a $135 registration fee (waived for grandmasters).

So there is somewhat of a [[barrier to entry]], but it seems intended just to weed out people who aren't serious about competing. It's not like academic [[peer review]], which is often abused to censor new ideas that challenge the mainstream. In America, many sports and games are genuine arenas of competition where skill and ability can rise to the surface. (I must make an article about this.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:44, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:I think that's a good distinction to make, Ed. If I really wanted to run in the Boston Marathon, I could go out and run around my block to train. Eventually, I'd be in good enough shape to make the grade, and could easily do so by running in a smaller marathon. I wouldn't have to go to "Marathon School," or establish my bonafides; there wouldn't be a panel of marathon runners sitting in judgment to determine whether or not my running technique was worthy of inclusion. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Kasparov vs. the World ==

This is a fascinating article and I'm sure you're on to something here. I have another apparent "counterexample", the close consideration of which I hope can lead to new insights on this topic, and I certainly don't expect to refute it. In 1999 the chess champion Kasparov played a match in which his opponent's moves were decided by popular vote. More than 50,000 players participated, but Kasparov emerged victorious nonetheless. Do you have any reflections on this match, and can it help refine the notion of "best of the public"? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That seems much more like an example of mob rule than of Best of the Public! If the opponent's moves were the ''best'' suggested moves rather than just the ones the mob voted for, I suspect Kasparov would have had a harder time. What we're doing here at CP isn't decided by popular vote of 50,000 random people; rather it is truly the best of the public. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::Daniel raises an excellent point. Simple majority vote doesn't ensure that the best of the public will prevail. If anything, it makes it very difficult. Suppose ten of those 50,000 players were capable of beating Kasparov. All of them saw clearly which moves would defeat him; all of them voted for those moves. Unfortunately, twenty thousand not-so-good players all voted for a different set of moves--resulting in a win for Kasparov. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:03, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::Benp hits it right on the nose. Kasparov's victory just shows he's better than the average chess player, since good and bad players voting on moves will be average. We already knew Kasparov was better than average. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Super point by JimR, and even better responses. As noted in response, we don't decide by majority vote here. The winner of a gold medal at the Olympics is not chosen by popular vote either.

::::The better analogy is if Kasparov played a "best of the public" opponent consisting of a ''Conservapedia''-like, rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move. Timing would be an obstacle but in the real pursuit of knowledge there are no constraints of chess clocks. Kasparov would lose a contest against the best of the public. Indeed, if the best of the public could use computers, as our best of the public can, there would be no doubt that Kasparov would lose.

::::Thanks for the tantalizing point that illustrates how powerful the "best of the public" is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Ah, you're right of course! But that there could be ten of those (non-expert) players capable of beating him seems extremely unlikely to me -- any such player could turn professional and make large sums of money, and so probably would for economic reasons. On the other hand I am sure that for each move, there were members of the public who found the ideal move, one which would give the best overall chance. Can this fit into the theory? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Although I am not sure of the exact situation in this particular game, I have seen games played on other forums following this format. What tends to happen is one or two people (self titled "experts" usually) monopolize the conversation and shut out the rest of the people who want to contribute. Since the public views are largely ignored by a vocal minority who are more interested in self aggrandizement than success, the process results inevitably in failure.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::As an interesting aside, this is perhaps much why Wikipedia is such a failure - a vocal minority want to argue and set aside the persuasive arguments of others primarily for their own sense of well being rather than helping the project.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Brilliant point. I suppose it is a thin line between the "best of the public" and the "worst of the public"! Wikipedia, with its lack of meaningful rules, approaches the "worst of the public." As with the US Constitution, the rules make all the difference in bringing out the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

A better analogy with the advancement of knowledge would be Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against the best of the public. Kasparov would lose nearly all of those games. Limiting the contests to just one game at a time artificially helps Kasparov in a way that is not realistic in the search for knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Actually, this is a common event in chess (called a "simul" for short), in which a grandmaster plays a large number of members of the public at once. Usually the master dominates the event, while losing a few games -- in one performance the great Jose Raul Capablanca played 103 games simultaneously, winning 102 of them and settling for a draw in the other. Kasparov has played these too and I don't think he ever lost nearly all. Now, perhaps this isn't the "best of the public" he's up against, but if he's playing against more specialized members of the public, aren't these just more experts? Understand that I appreciate this observation, and I'm just hoping to refine my understanding of it! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 22:05, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia. As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time. If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves. Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::It occurs to me that the most interesting experiment might be one that just cut Kasparov out entirely-- Have a chess match between the mob and the Best of the Public. Let one side's moves be determined by a majority vote and the other's by the Best of the Public. Can there be any doubt who would win? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 22:25, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Having a chess game where the public goes up against the public is an interesting concept, but wouldn't prove anything. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that we don't share brain power or intelligence directly with other human beings. We can collaborate and share ideas, which can lead to new discoveries, but I can't add my brain power directly to BenP's intelligence, and Andy can't use mine. One other thing: what exactly makes the 'best of the public'? Is it Education, scope or depth of knowledge, morals? Is it an amalgamation of traits, and if so, which traits? In my opinion it begets a slippery slope. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::In response to JimR, I am familiar with those simultaneous matches, and I recall my brother [[User:RSchlafly]] competing in one as a youngster (and as a member of the public) when a grandmaster visited our small town. As I recall, the expert beat everyone except RSchlafly, who was then playing simply as a random young member of the public.

:::::But while that made for a powerful childhood experience, it wasn't what I really meant here. I suggested Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against opponents, ''each'' of whom consisted of a process generating the best of the public. If Kasparov focused all his efforts on one or two of those matches, then he might win those, but he would lost perhaps 98% of the matches overall (simultaneous matches are difficult for the person who must hop from board to board). This set-up of course allows the public to harness its greater numbers to its advantage, as often many minds are better than one. But this is a closer analogy to the advancement of knowledge than artificially limiting the contest to merely one chess match between one man and everyone else, a structure that benefits the one man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

To me, the idea of the public, collectively knowing what is a better solution, or having the power to best the so-called experts, mirrors the ideas put forward by Ronald Reagan.

It was Reagan, at his first inauguration, who famously declared that '''"in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; ''government is the problem.''"''' President Reagan went on to outline his idea that the "common citizen" was more likely to come up with the right solutions to our problems than all the government "experts" combined.

Of course it is a proven fact that all of the great innovations of America have come from the public, not experts or Big Government. Perhaps I am being too obtuse here, drawing a comparison to the ideas of Reagan and Andy's point. To me the similarities seem striking! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:42, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==What's the difference between "experts" and "the best of the public?"==
:This is an interesting discussion, though I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between an expert and the "best of the public." Isn't an expert precisely that, someone among the public who was gifted enough at something to go through specialized training and become even better? From my own experience, I had a certain degree of musical talent as a child, but would not have excelled had it not been for great teachers and hours of hard work. I calculated the other day that I've practiced the piano somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 hours in my lifetime, with probably around 2000 of those being intensive private work with a teacher of some kind. It's probably true that one of my gifted 10-year-old students could play better on a good day than I could on a bad day, but the experience does count for a lot.

:I realize that when it comes to certain problems (the kind of systemic problems Reagan talked about come to mind), common sense counts for a lot more than expertise. But at any rate, I don't see how translating the Bible or playing chess is more a matter of common sense than experience. That's why Kasparov vs. the World shows precisely that talent and expertise can beat amateurs putting their heads together. Having thousands of hours of work under your belt gives you a much more comprehensive perspective, much more depth, than having a few good and untested ideas. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:03, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::I agree completely, and I feel you are exposing an aspect of the problem which needs to come to light. There is a difference between [[expertise]] (as in actually having the skill of playing the piano well) and holding the status of an [[expert]]. Expertise must be manifested, while being called an expert is often only political.

::They awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore, even though he knows nothing about [[global warming]] science and has been scolded by British courts for lying to the public. He's an example of the kind of "expert" who retards progress in science and the humanities.

::The promise of online encyclopedia projects is that contributors with true expertise (such as yourself) will emerge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:32, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Excellent points, but in response to JDWpianist an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits. Typically experts are from middle or upper class families that value credentials. Women who have children during those ages -- the most natural ages for childbearing, are disqualified. Also, criticizing the mainstream or saying something politically incorrect is a disqualification. Only a tiny percentage of the public fits this narrow track of an "expert".

:::The best of the public draws on the entire population, including those who worked full time during the formative age group but developed expertise later, and those who reject the politics of academia. With the far greater numbers and freedom from political restraints (politics in the sense of political correctness), the "best of the public" is far better and yet is remains a largely untapped resource. Obviously there is self-interested opposition by entrenched interests to even developing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:48, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::(Replying to TK above) An excellent modern example of one person getting the answer when hundreds of government experts were failing is the [[Challenger disaster]]. It was maverick physicist [[Richard Feynmann]] who deduced that rubber sealing rings exposed to excessive cold had cracked. Meanwhile, all the "experts" were going through a process that almost seemed designed to '''hide''' this fact.

::Of course, if Feynmann weren't a celebrity he never would have been able to penetrate the stonewall of the investigation (coverup?), but that's precisely my point. At Conservapedia (and some other online encyclopedia projects), we are opening up the possibility of criticizing the mainstream - and we are showing the mainstream to be wildly incorrect in many instances. The recent exposure of the climate fraud (see [[Climategate]]) is something we've been covering here for over 2 years.

::But it's not just us on the Internet (a purely American invention, by the way). It's American democracy, with [[freedom of the press]], which allows the best ideas to bubble up and reach the surface. No one can put a lid on the truth here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:11, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Ed brings up an interesting example, and I can think of a few other cases in the sciences where a non-expert or group of non-experts has had important ideas. It would be an interesting experiment to attempt to harness the "best of the public" toward a specific problem in science. For example, if I set up a Wiki with rules along the lines of CP (or even just used CP), recruited helpful and skilled editors, and had access to the most important data, what is the chance that the editors would be able to improve on the theory of relativity, showcasing the power of the "best of the public"? I think the answer is probably no. But perhaps such a program could succeed with something a little easier first. I more interested in the principle of the thing and the limitations of the BoP methodology. Do you think it would be possible to utilize the best of the public in such a manner, toward a very specific goal? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 10:43, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, let's take a slightly different example. If you took a group of students and showed them an "unsolvable" math problem, what are the odds that the best of them would be able to solve it, when the solution had eluded the experts for years? Of course, this is a little bit of a trick question, as it actually happened--George Dantzig, a student, copied down two problems from the board. Not realizing that they were on the board as examples of theorems for which nobody had been able to work out a proof, he proceeded to do exactly that. Had he known that the problems were "unsolvable"--in other words, had he been more fully immersed in the subculture of expertise--he likely wouldn't have even attempted to solve them. It might not work so well all the time, but it undoubtedly works. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:52, 18 December 2009 (EST)

'''To Andy:''' That's an interesting distinction, the first time I've heard it put that way. Still one point for me is unclear. Are you saying that the "best of the public," as per your definition, is made up of people who '''do''' have expertise in a field, just not the credentials required for them to be called "experts?" Or are you saying, rather, that one does not need to invest time and hard work in a field at all to contribute meaningfully to it?

'''To Ed:''' There's a certain blindspot that can indeed occur with experts: I'm no conspiracy theorist, so I'll always assume "groupthink" over "coverup" in these types of situations unless extraordinary evidence surfaces. As to this blindspot, I'm reminded of a quote from the great British music-critic Donald Francis Tovey, noting that when approaching certain complex musical passages, analysts can be guilty of "making an exhaustive chemical analysis of a plum-pudding and omitting to ascertain that the cook had boiled it in a cloth." Sometimes the simplest explanations are invisible to the technically-minded experts, but we also can't forget that the right answers are always found by people who know their stuff, whatever their credentials. In other words, Joe the Plumber could not have made any meaningful guess as to what brought the Challenger down. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:15, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:JDWpianist, you still seem to cling to the "expert" point of view, as though being "smart" means having superb insights, while not being "smart" means an incapability to do so. In fact, excellence can appear from unexpected places. Bob Beamon set a record for the long jump that lasted perhaps 30 years even though he was not generally a great long-jumper. Or purely mechanically, a broken clock is ''more'' precise than a working clock is, twice a day. Some of the very best songs (e.g., American Pie) have been by artists incapable of anything comparable.

:Whether you understand occasional insights as inspired achievement, the work of the Spirit, or simply luck, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that greatness often comes from outside of the recognized experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:: Purely mechanically, a clock that goes backwards is ''more'' precise than a broken clock, 4 times a day. A clock that runs 1000 times faster than normal is correct 2000 times a day.[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 08:38, 24 December 2012 (EST)

::But how to decide when a broken clock is precise? To check the two times a day, you need another chronometer, i.e., a kind of expert in time-keeping :-)
::It's the same problem as with Perelman's proof: you need someone to recognize that something marvelous has happened.
::Take for instance the ''squaring of a circle''. Every mathematician knows that it is impossible, using only a ruler and a compass. But nevertheless, there are lots of ''members of the public'' who think that they found a way, and are just ignored by the ''mainstream mathematicians''...
::AFAIK, in the beginning of the 20th century, the university of Goettingen employed a mathematician just for the task to refute all the attempts of laymen to proof Fermat's conjecture: many of the public where inspired by Paul Wolfskehl's reward, all of them were wrong.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:56, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::(edit conflict)
::(You can call me John by the way...) Actually, I have a very open mind about this, as it's been clear to me for a long time that creativity and inspiration are very different animals than competence and technique. And all of these are still different from the issue of "credentials" you gave earlier. Your "American Pie" example blurs the lines between these: it was a great song written by a competent professional singer/songwriter. The fact that Don McClean was able to write a song at all shows that he at least knows how to sing, how to play an instrument or two, how to set text to a melody, and how harmony works together with melody. Any one of these are considerable technical achievements, and that's why not everyone can write a song, much less a good one. The fact that he hasn't come up with anything comparably great has little to do with his abilities as a musician, and more to do with a lack of inspiration or creativity.

::My biggest question is still with the definition of expert. Ideas are different things than achievements, don't you agree? Would the Wright Brothers have succeeded without expertise in engineering, math, and a deep understanding of scientific trial and error? Those skills did not fall from the sky. So are you saying that your definition of "expert" is only a matter of credentials, regardless of abilities obtained through practice and hard-earned knowledge? Or are you saying that the "best of the public" don't need credentials '''or''' an ability to turn ideas into achievements? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::John, an "expert" is someone who has traditional credentials, is recognized by his peers, and plays the system often to maximize credit for himself. If you're suggesting I'm somehow against learning and hard work, I'm obviously not. Contributions by non-experts typically, but not necessarily always, are by people who picked up their own knowledge through hard work and non-conventional paths. There can be "flashes of genius" too, like the woman who woke up in the middle of the night with verses to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." If you're determined to deny a role for inspired wisdom, then obviously I'd disagree with you about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:52, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::An expert ''plays the system often to maximize credit for himself''. This addendum to your prior explanation guarantees at least that no one will see himself as an expert under your definition.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 01:01, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Frank, what are you talking about? Let me tell you about myself. I love math, and my career goal is to become a math professor - do what I love all day and get payed for it? Sign me up! In order to do this, I have to make sure that my work is accredited to me. I freely admit that in pursuing my goal of becoming an expert in mathematics, I will try to make sure that my work is attributed to me. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:11, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*at least for me,''playing the system'' seems to invoke only negative connotations
::::::*would you say that Perelman is an ''expert mathematician''?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:03, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you're defining expert as somebody who is extremely good at something, as you seem to be inclined to do. If you accept our position here, then no, since he [http://top.rbc.ru/society/22/08/2006/94703.shtml doesn't even work in the field]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:59, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::FrankC, your talk, talk, talk is contrary to our [[90/10 rule]]. Your solitary substantive edit in your last ten is of a trivial nature. Please contribute substantively, for your benefit and that of others.

::::::::In response to your question, Perelman ''rejected'' an attempt by "experts" to honor him as one of their own: he ''declined'' the Fields Medal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::Gee Andy, if you put it that way, who would want to call himself an expert? :)

::::All joking aside, this is a very stimulating topic, and I believe that there are some very vital issues being raised by the whole debate, some of the most vital I've seen on Conservapedia so far. That's why, you'll notice, I came into this thread not with criticisms and complaints, but only with questions.

::::That being said, I'll agree to disagree on your definition and many of the examples on the main page, for several reasons. I'll lay them out for you, and you can feel free to integrate what's valuable to you and ignore the rest:
::::*As my quip at the top implied, this definition has such a negative slant that it basically ensures no one will dare disagree with the formulation "The best of the public is better than a group of experts." It's the classic [http://www.richarddooling.com/index.php/2006/11/08/if-by-whiskey-before-the-campaign-speeches-fade/ "if by whiskey"] problem. When you said up above that I "seem to be clinging to the expert position," I would have to agree with you, but only according to the dictionary definition of expert: "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject."
::::*This definition lumps all areas of knowledge or skills together. This is especially a problem with fields in which experts, by your definition, simply ''do not exist''. Take your musical examples: it's essentially meaningless to call pop/rock singer/songwriters "the best of the public," because there's no such thing as a credentialed path in pop songwriting. Artists rise or fall from obscurity based on the quality or popularity of their songs, and there's no clique of credentialed pop songwriting academics conspiring to keep anyone out. Therefore, everyone who writes a song or a song text, by your definition, is "the best of the public." These examples, and any others having to do with creative pursuits, are strawmen.
::::*It's the same problem with inventions that represent something radically new. Take the Wright Brothers: at the time they invented the first successful flying machine, there were no "aviation experts." There were lots of ''competitors'', some who had successfully scored government grants, and like with any new invention, there were several competing factions and a lot of harsh words thrown around. This is not the same as a clique of credentialed elitist experts trying to keep the Wright Brothers out of the picture. By definition, whenever something new is invented, your kind of "expert" is nowhere to be found.
::::*Your definition excludes professions where credentials are desirable and even necessary. Obviously, you would prefer a surgeon who's been to medical school performing your triple bypass, or a licensed pilot flying the plane you're on. Perhaps this problem solves itself, because your concept deals mostly with innovations and new insights, whereas these fields I mention require competence and conservatism by definition. Still, it might be a thought worth considering as you sharpen your argument on the main page.
::::*To sum it all up, the definition you created is applied inconsistently in the page's examples. I would recommend narrowing the page's focus to the fields with a real opposition between groupthinking closed-minded experts and open-minded mavericks.

::::For the record, I do think that you're on to something very important with this concept. The dialectic of "inspired wisdom" vs. "entrenched thinking" is a compelling one. As a musician, teacher, and writer on music, I deal with this problem daily in my own work. It's my hope and prayer that after I've become one of those entrenched members of the academic establishment, I'll still have an open mind for ideas that come from outside of the maistream. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:34, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::John, you make many points in your comment above. The bottom line is that you deny how wrong, how biased, and how unproductive groups of experts are. For example, in the Wright Brothers case you avoid the basic point and instead remark that there were no "aviation experts" at that time. Aviation is simply a branch of mechanical engineering; it existed and its experts insisted that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible. Similarly, re: music, your comments are again off-point to the observation that one-hit wonders are better than what the "expert" musicians produce in pop music.

:::::The fundamental insight here is not simply opposition by the establishment, but rather that the best of the public really is better at innovating, at communicating, at open-mindedness, at being free of fear of retaliation, and at honesty than any group of experts is. There are many, many reasons experts are second-best, yet you only recognize one or two.

:::::This debate illustrates how efficient a political explanation is. Liberals ''prefer'' a system of control by experts because experts can be so easily influenced and controlled themselves. The global warming scam is just one of many illustrations. Also, liberals rely on reassurances by experts that, for example, Hell somehow does not exist. It's a misplaced reliance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I had intended to just let my suggestions stand, but I think you've fundamentally misunderstood my position, so I'll try to clarify it:
::::::Your main point, as I understand it, is that in every field there is a group of credentialed experts who are the gatekeepers of all ideas falling under their domain. Because of their narrow-mindedness and orthodoxy, they are unable to produce any radically new insights. Therefore, people who fall outside of this group, "the best of the pubic" as you call them, will produce the most interesting insights. Have I understood this much correctly?
::::::The problem with this model is, if there's no group of credentialed experts in a certain field, then there's nothing to compare. If "the best of the public" represents anyone outside of this elite group, then without the elite group everybody counts as the best of the public.
::::::According to your definition there '''''is''''' no group of recognized experts in creative fields; you can't go to the university and get a songwriting degree, there are no distinguished professors in songwriting at Princeton (last I checked). In your last post, you said something about "expert" musicians, but then you're falling back on the traditional definition, not your own. The fact that your original definition doesn't work with pop music means that either the definition is flawed, or the examples do not match your definition.
::::::My basic position is, I'm in total agreement with the spirit of your argument: that essentially, the best ideas come from outside of the established modes of thinking. But I believe the main page does not yet express that concept with clear-headed logic, as there are too many examples that do not fit with your definitions. You've embraced a very narrow definition of "expert" and are unable to use it consistently through to the end. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:54, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::John, I don't see logic or specifics in your comment. "Nothing to compare," you say. Of course there's something to compare: the output of experts to the output of the best of the public. And in every field, the latter wins easily, as the many specific examples show.

::::::::You keep returning to music and ignoring all the other fields, but the same observation holds true in music. One-hit wonders are an undeniable phenomenon, and they surpass the best of the experts. The "credentialing" in music includes acclaim by peers and the prestige of insider awards and status, just as in other fields. The Beatles were experts, yet no song they produced was as good or as appreciated as the one-hit wonders.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Andy, I guess we're just talking past each other now. That probably means it's time that we agree to disagree and call it a day. Again, congratulations on a fascinating new concept, and good luck as you refine it further. Merry Christmas to you and your family. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:50, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::That's kind of you John. We can always revisit this issue some time next year. Merry Christmas to you and your family!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:00, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Andy, were the Beatles really experts? Yes, they certainly knew a good deal about music and were payed to make it, but were they trained as musicians? Eventually they became acknowledged as one of the best bands, just as eventually Galois is now recognized as a brilliant mathematician, but does that make them experts? I'd say both are examples of the best of the public! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:38, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Galois is a superb example to add to the entry. The Beatles were thoroughly embraced and given awards and held out to the public as "experts". Academic training in music seems less significant, as John pointed out. But there's room for debate at the margins.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::Andy and JDW are in partial agreement, and I hope the article can reflect that agreement. But as for me, I'll just say that there have been many times when the "credentialed crowd" has used their credentials as a crowbar to hit newcomers over the head when they challenged mainstream expertise. That's the real story here.

::Now, the challenger can often be a mere beginner. I've lost count of how many situations I've walked into, where I could see clearly what others were overlooking. Some people call this beginner's luck. But there are many situations when an outsider or newcomer has been able to point out a marvelous new approach to an old problem - which, sooner or later, comes to be recognized as having hit the nail on the head.

::I might be departing a bit from the theme of "best of the public" here, but going off on tangents is what I do best around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:16, 24 December 2009 (EST)

== Linux/open-source an example of this? ==

Is this reasonable to add to the [[Linux]] article? I thought I would ask this here, instead of the talk page for Linux, to hopefully reach more members and get some feedback. Even though many of the developers throughout the [[Open source|open source movement]] could be considered experts (in the colloquial sense that they know their field very well and apply that knowledge with considerable dedication and skill) they are not experts in the modern sense. I would argue that the collaborative efforts of the open source community could be considered the "[[Best of the public]]," as even computer users without programming knowledge file bug reports and use the products daily, therefore increasing the quality incrementally. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 11:31, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Excellent insight. Please do include this example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::Thank you; I'll include this immediately. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:06, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Even Microsoft acknowledges this power:
:::*"The ability of the [[open source|OSS process]] to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing." [http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html leaked internal memo] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)
::::I updated the [[Open source|open source]] and [[Linux]] articles accordingly. Should I add your reference to the open source article, Ed, or leave that to you? I feel we should include it as a great testament to its progress (especially if Microsoft feels partially threatened by it, as other parts of your link seem to indicate).[[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:28, 18 December 2009 (EST)
:::::The funny thing is that while [[Linux]] shows how good The Best of the Public can be, [[Microsoft]] simultaneously shows the other end; being a company that is looked down upon by very many informaticians, while it is generally seen as the best IT company in the world. A closer look on their software, though, shows that their products are of very poor quality, and their programs would probably not be nearly as populair if it wasn't for Microsoft's monopoly in the IT market. [[User:MalP|MalP]]

== Perelman ==

I don't know for sure about the rest of the details, but calling him an "unknown" is an exaggeration. Perelman received a PhD from a top university and was already noted for his slick proof of the "Soul theorem" in Riemannian geometry, which had already become commonly taught. No, he wasn't a leading mathematician, but he was not unknown by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 11:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:The Perelman example is quite interesting: who ''decided'' that Perelman found a proof? The public? No, a couple of experts... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What you have to understand is that "best of the public" doesn't exclude experts, or make light of their expertise. It just acknowledges the very obvious truth that they're not the ''only'' ones with expertise, and allows other voices and other perspectives to be heard. Rather than "I'm an expert, therefore you have to listen to my ideas," it's "You have good ideas, therefore we will listen." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:32, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict)I expected the Perelman example to ruffle the feathers of expert-defenders, precisely because it illustrates the point so well. I don't think "Perelman received a PhD from a top university," though I have an open mind about it (I think he received something other than a PhD from an institution ranked nowhere near the international top). More importantly, Perelman was not given a permanent job, was not recognized as an expert, and indeed was somewhat ostracized by the experts to the point where he was left to produce his great work on his own from his mother's apartment. Then an expert allegedly tried to take the credit!

:::Note that Perelman himself has been highly critical of the expert mentality in mathematics, to the point where he sacrificed much money to turn down the experts' honors. Sorry, not even mathematical experts are better than the "best of the public," despite the discomfort some will have with that revelation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::At the risk of beating the drum too loudly on ClimateGate, it was outside mathematicians (not climate "experts") who showed the [[Michael Mann]]'s denial of the worldwide [[Medieval Warm Period]] was statistically unsound (at best) and really just a crude example of [[academic fraud]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Excellent point, Ed. Could you add an item to the entry about who those outside mathematicians were? (I don't know).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:57, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*[[Climategate mathematicians]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I'm not arguing that Perelman doesn't belong on the list, I'm arguing that to call him an "unknown" is simply wrong. He had done other fairly important work before this. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::You are probably right about his degree not being from a top university internationally; but it was at Leningrad, one of the top schools in Russia. He then held positions at Steklov, SUNY Stony Brook, Berkeley, and Courant. These are all major research centers -- off the top of my head I can name Fields medalists currently at each of them except Courant, and it wouldn't surprise me I'm forgetting one there too. Perelman apparently had job offers from Stanfold and Princeton -- such offers go only to the very top prospects, and certainly not "unknowns". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:23, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Wow, you're awfully tough on me here, JimR. You can decide for yourself whether you're applying a [[double standard]] in your reaction. Note, for example, in a very well-written article by the liberal Independent, it describes Perelman as an "unknown Russian" right in its headline.[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-an-unknown-russian-quietly-solved-a-puzzle-that-has-baffled-the-finest-mathematicians-for-a-century-538077.html] Is that article also objectionable?

::::::::As to your statement that Perelman "held positions," those positions were insulting for someone on track to produce the greatest proof of our time. Those schools may well have Fields medalists in respectable positions, but that's the point: Perelman was never offered a respectable position commensurate with his talent. Your argument is as fallacious as bragging that a brilliant coach was offered a staff position ... as water boy.

::::::::Tell you what: I'll change "unknown" to "little known." OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Looks good to me. Thanks! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:14, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Manhattan project ==

The ''Manhattan project'' seems to be an ultimate example for a great innovations of America which came not from the public, but from experts and ''Big Government''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:But follow the project back to its roots, Frank. You'll find that many of those whose ideas led the government to pursue that line of research are a splendid example of "best of the public." Nobody's saying that experts can't take the ball and run with it, but frequently, it's someone outside their little circle who tosses the ball in the first place. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Wright Brothers ==

People seem keen to find counter-examples, so let's talk about some examples. What about the Wright Brothers? They certainly weren't part of any elite fraternity of engineers--neither one even graduated from high school. Their endeavors were greeted with open mockery and accusations of fraud from the "experts" of the aviation community, particularly in Europe. They're certainly one of the finest examples of what American ingenuity and can-do attitude can accomplish. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:15, 19 December 2009 (EST)
:(whacks own forehead in mock despair) I should have thought of that myself! Not only did they make a lighter, more powerful engine, but they weren't professionals at all: mere bicycle mechanics, really. And yet they solved the crucial aspect of [[powered flight]]: controlling the aircraft in the air. Their idea of warping the wings prefigured [[ailerons]], and was the chief reason their flights succeeded while everyone else's ended in crash after crash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:59, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Galileo ==

Another maverick, wasn't astronomer [[Galileo Galilei]] largely self-taught? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:Galileo isn't a clear-cut case. He was more of a political figure who was wrong about some basic stuff (like tides). His own contributions were not substantial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What's about [[Albert Einstein]]? In 1905, he was an unknown clerk at a Swiss patent's office, but the leading experts of his field instantly accepted his work! [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:27, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::Intriguing suggestion, but also potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:39, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::It seems like sometimes overcompensation occurs. A member of the public is scoffed at by the experts, turns out to be right, and is eventually put on a pedestal and held to be infallible. I doubt that Einstein would approve of the way people treat his theories as if they were unquestionable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:04, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::''"If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"'' The same can be said about mathematicians in general - most of the public will shy away from this area. And though the feuds over precedence between mathematicians are legendary ([[Cardano]]/[[Tartaglia]],[[Newton]]/[[Leibniz]]), generally mathematicians are more respected for their work than their positions and titles (Paul Erdős).
:::::But it's a game played by experts in front of other experts: the ''public'' doesn't understand most questions (''Consider a compact 3-dimensional manifold V without boundary. Is it possible that the fundamental group of V could be trivial, even though V is not homeomorphic to the 3-dimensional sphere?''), and even less the answers (''No'').
:::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:34, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: The public is 6 billion people and, yes, many of them are capable of understanding higher math. Your comment, Frank, illustrates the very harm caused by an "experts only" mentality. By false pretending that no one else can understand something, the "experts only" mentality shuts out and censors many people who are brighter and more productive than the arrogant experts ... as Perelman and others like him are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: But Perelman is an expert:
:::::::''an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits.''
:::::::He filled his years of ''specialized learning'' with a degree of a ''Candidate of Sciences'', the soviet version of a Ph.D. He didn't dibble around with mathematics as an amateur ([[Fermat]]), he was a full-time scientist.
:::::::He's an eccentric expert, but an expert nonetheless.
:::::::BTW, the segment of the 6 billion people who understand mathematics way beyond ''higher math'' are called ''experts'' or ''mathematicians'' (well, sometimes ''physicists'').
:::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Frank, you're simply redefining "expert" more broadly once you see how members of the public achieve more than experts do. In Perelman's case, he didn't even have a math job, and he expressly criticized and repudiated the math experts who control the field. Apparently Perelman has even given up math because of the suffocation (and non-productivity) caused by the math experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::*When he proved the theorem, Perelman had a ''math job'' (several, I think...)
::::::::*Aren't you an expert in law? Do you have a ''law job''? If you hadn't, would you be no expert any longer?
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:23, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::''Justice'' seems to be an interesting test for your principle: though ''juries'' introduce a public element (I don't think that they are meant to be the ''best of the public''), it doesn't seem to be a good advice for a defendant to do without an expert counsel, i.e., a lawyer. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:45, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::...but haven't you just answered your own question, Frank? If expertise was the be-all and end-all of justice, then there would be no need for a jury; the matter would be entirely in the hands of the judge and the attorneys. However, the Founding Fathers, while respecting the expertise of such individuals, ultimately chose to trust in the wisdom of the public to render a verdict. Would you argue that their choice was unwise? I think our system of justice has worked out pretty well, personally. In fact, I think you may have offered up one of the finest and clearest examples of the principle yet. "Best of the public" is ''exactly'' what jury deliberation represents--the faith that a group drawn from the public, without any special credentials or qualifications, can, through deliberation and collaboration, achieve insight. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:27, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::I like the jury example too. Cases aren't decided by panels of lawyers, but by a (hopefully) representative sample of one's peers, drawn from all walks of life. They don't have to have expertise in law to be given good instructions by the judge as to what laws matter in the case at hand, and they are trusted to use those instructions and the evidence to render a fair verdict. It's not a perfect system, but I feel there are no better alternatives so far. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:02, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Formatting ==

Would it make more sense to create a section for the examples under the table of contents? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:06, 19 December 2009 (EST)

: That would be great, Ben! Please continue to improve as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== A different take on this ==

I've been reading this thread and watched the Colbert segment mentioned in the article, and I think I figured out the inherent problem with the phrase "The best of the public is better than a group of experts".

As others have pointed out above, the best of the public are often experts themselves. The definition of "a group of experts" was then qualified to state that it's not expertise that's bad, but the groupthink, stubbornness or elitism that can result when experts in a field have a reluctance to embrace radical change or innovative ideas even when they are proven to be right. That's why I like the open source analogy - Microsoft was content to decide how fast the browser should be improved and in what ways, but the Mozilla project was more innovative because it was driven bottom-up by merit instead of top-down by policy.

Christianity experienced this when Martin Luther posted his Theses. He was certainly an expert on religion and the Bible, but his ideas were out of favor with the ''establishment'' leading the Catholic Church, which was resistant to change. His work didn't invalidate Catholicism, but public acceptance of his insights led to some bad practices being ended by the Catholic Church, and triggered the entire Protestant Reformation.

In short, it's not expertise that's the problem, it's a group of people declaring that they are the gatekeepers for contributions to a field of expertise, and subsequently stifling innovation. What I'd suggest as an alternative is this: "The best innovations of the public can outdo the ''established'' experts". This isn't as catchy as the original, but it seems to hit the core point without sounding as self-contradicting. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 00:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:You make some interesting and challenging points, and I hope to respond more fully tomorrow. But as a quick response, I feel you overlook key issues, such as "inspired wisdom" (e.g., Gospel of Mark, or authorship of "Battle Hymn of the Republic") and also how "expertise" can have a blinding effect as well as a beneficial one (e.g., Wright Brothers, Fosbury Flop). In sum, any alternative articulation of the rule would have to explain the many examples, and I'm afraid yours isn't quite there. But thanks for sparking thought about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:21, 22 December 2009 (EST)
::I'm not looking to take anything away from contributions that comes from flashes of insight, but those are really in a different category altogether. It seems like harnessing of the power of individuals shouldn't necessarily depend on some of them having inspired moments of insight or inspired wisdom, because I thought the whole point of the original comment is that the best ideas need to be allowed to surface and circulate regardless of how they came about.
::I'm also not sure I understand how my comments overlooked what you call thee "blinding effect of expertise". What I was trying to say is that when experts form an establishment that acts as the filter, judge and jury of new ideas in a given field, the result can be helpful (i.e. in determining the safety of new drugs before they are allowed to be sold) or harmful (i.e. tying up the use of valuable radio spectrum while "expert" stakeholders with billions at stake decide how it should best be used). In an ideal world there can be any number of experts out there, but little to no barrier for the circulation and promotion of the best ideas from among them. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 08:44, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::ChrisY, you don't specifically address the many diverse and specific examples of where the "best of the public" is better than any group of experts. And I don't see anything ambiguous or confusing about the phrase the "blinding effect of expertise." Becoming an expert means committing oneself to a particular approach, and that obviously has a blinding effect on innovation and alternative approaches. An alternative approach might even discredit an expert's lifetime of work, which no one would expect him to welcome. It's been observed that innovation cannot occur until the older generation of "experts" passes away, and even that the 40 years of Israelites wandering in the desert was intended to erase the debilitating mindset of slavery. "Experts" have a mindset, and it's less productive than the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's typical of liberals to muddy the waters with verbal quibbles. Everyone knows what we meant when we said the public can often outdo the experts. The word ''expert'' is clearly understood in that context, Chris, to mean "established experts" or "acknowledged experts". Only a fool (or an enemy) would think (or suggest) that we meant that having expert knowledge was useless.

If I see any more of this malarkey here, I'm going to start deleting comments and blocking accounts. Kindly confine your comments to points that are relevant to improving the article.

It's one thing to disagree, and that sort of feedback can often be editorially valuable, but to pretend not to understand is [[liberal deceit|deceitful]]. You have been warned. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed, for your sage remarks and policy. Honestly, the more I review the objections here, the more I think it boils down to this: liberals cling to the (absurd) view that experts ''define'' the truth, and can eliminate accountability (like Hell). Such a view is shocked by the reality that experts are not even as good as the best of the public at what the experts do, let alone about things experts know nothing about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::I offered some constructive comments above that were described by others as "interesting and challenging", and now they're "malarkey". Sorry I said anything at all, Ed. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 20:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Examples, part 2 ==

We have many examples of the best of the public making extraordinary achievements, but non of experts being wrong or creating obstacles. Off the top of my head, Lord Kelvin claiming heavier than air flight was impossible and that radioactivity was impossible. I'll try and think of more examples (not right now, I am leaving for a 5 hour drive in a few minutes) but soon. What does everybody think of these kinds of examples? Worth including? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:40, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:Sounds great. That's interesting about Lord Kelvin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::I almost think that should be an article unto itself. It's certainly an important topic. Not sure what it would be called, though. "Expert Obstructionism?" "Expert Error?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:14, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:::The obstructionism is a bigger problem, but the error is a problem too and its term is more concise and easier to remember. So I'll start "[[Expert Error]]" and have another entry called "[[Expert Obstructionism]]" that redirects to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::I would strongly recommend going back to the line of "Expert Obstructionism", which is an actual problem. There's nothing wrong with anyone, even experts, making errors as long as they are accepting of being corrected. To criticize error itself is to criticize the spirit of risk-taking, which I doubt folks here want to do. I recall Edison saying something along the line of "I can fail many times, but I only have to succeed once", and the number of failed attempts at a viable light-bulb filament before his success. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:::::You make a valid point, but "obstructionism" is a clumsy label and errors by experts are a big problem and intrinsically different to correct. An expert's insistence on an erroneous position is inherently obstructionist, so in practice there may be little difference between the two labels. If you see something included where an expert erred but welcomed correction, then let's discuss it, but those examples are few and far between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::::You're right, Andy. How about "Expert Blindness" or "Expertise Blindness"? This is simpler, and ties into points you've made above. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:13, 24 December 2009 (EST)

* As an ethnic Hungarian, [[Ignaz Semmelweiss]]' status as an outsider seemed to undermine his credibility and, despite the clear evidence that he compiled, doctors refused to accept that they were killing their own patients. [http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2009/01/the-semmelweiss-mystery.html]

He was the first to compile systematic and practical evidence for what later came to be known as Pasteur's [[germ theory of disease]]. He was truly the "best of the public", but vilified and rejected by the experts of his time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:Superb suggestion, Ed. I'm familiar with that case and it does illustrate the point well. Would you like to add it?

:Chris, I don't think "blindness" is an appropriate metaphor. "Blindness" implies an ''involuntary'' disability. Expert errors and obstructionism are very intentional.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 24 December 2009 (EST)
:::For those who are interested in expanding [[Expert Error]], there are a TON more in my one reference that I haven't added (some because they weren't experts in the field they were commenting on, eg, Einstein on geology) but are still very interesting. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:24, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::I also see a tie-in to [[Upward mobility]], a concept that liberals routinely ignore with a deafening, reverberating silence. They love to pretend that our economic system is so unfair as to be repressive, when precisely the opposite is true: we've designed it to all cream to rise to the top. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Founding Fathers]]==
America can be thought of as the best of the public. The framers came together as a group, not as experts but to represent the colonists. The nations articles of confederation were crafted in such a way that describes authentic representation, public servants, elected by the public, serving the needs of the public and not themselves. Nobody back then would believe that the public, on its own, would come to the same conclusion and separate from the British Kingdom.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:That's really odd. I could've sworn I'd included our democratic republic as an outstanding example of "best of the public"--as opposed to the European ideal of "expert" hereditary nobility, or the mobocracy of pure democracy. Did it get removed for some reason? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::Ah, found it--it was in the text of the article, but not the list of examples. Fixed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

Interesting about the Founding Fathers: they tried to ensure the Best of the Public in government. They restricted the franchise to only property owners. This was intended so that only those with intelligence and a work ethic could vote. The point was to ensure that only the best of the public could control government. This was the real check against mobocracy. A mobocracy occurs in anytime time and place where there's universal franchise.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 11:30, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:Thanks for your fascinating point about how Founders might have viewed the restriction on franchise. But the universal franchise may have made the nation more conservative in many respects. Many [[pro-lifers]], for example, would not have qualified for voting under the Founders' view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

My main point was that if you want to talk about how the founders prevented mobocracy, restricting the franchise ought to be mentioned, since this is a method that they obviously used. However, to respond to your point, yes maybe people of good conscience would have been barred from voting. The point of restricting the franchise was not to ensure that every good person voted, but to ensure that all (or at least most) voters were good. It seems obvious to restrict the franchise, after all, intelligent or capable of government is a prerequisite to just government. If this is so, then it seems only natural to restrict the franchise to those who have proven themselves to be intelligent and/or hard working, so that only those people can control the government. I find it incredibly hypocritical sometimes, that people praise the founding fathers for the government they set up, but ignore that that government had restricted franchise. Finally, I'm almost certain that if George Washington could see the state of our republic with universal franchise, he would horrified.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 19:20, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: You make a libertarian point here, and you make it well. But if you were correct about this, then the wealthier a society is, the less socialistic it should be. That's not true. Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest states, and one of the most socialistic. When it was poor, it was more conservative than today. An increase in wealth sometimes brings an increase in [[liberal]] falsehoods.

: I'm not convinced that limiting franchise would limit the size of government or liberal falsehoods. I think our nation is more [[conservative]] with universal franchise than it was when franchise was limited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:21, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

My point was not that wealth should dictate the franchise, but that there should be qualifications, and I have alternatives to property ownership. Further, if universal franchise made the government more conservative, how do you explain the election of George Bush or Barack Obama. It's obvious that a limited franchise would result in more limited government. Take any nanny state program like social security, universal health care, or free public education, and you find that the wealthy aren't the ones who actually benefit from these programs. Only the poor can stand to benefit from these programs. Take into account also, the way our tax system is set up. The federal tax system, taxes the poor substantially less than the rich. Many Americans pay no taxes at all because they are poor. Why would the wealthy be in favor of a tax system that favors the poor over the rich. So at this point, not only is the tax system redistributing the wealth, but the government is running programs (that no one has any intention of stopping) that give goodies like education and health care to the poor. Now, if the American voters are so conservative, answer this: why does the government favor the poor so much. Better yet, tell me why poor Americans will vote for a flat tax rate, which would increase their taxes. I sincerely doubt that universal franchise has helped, and it's obvious that a qualified voter is always preferable to unqualified voter. Wealth isn't necessarily the ideal qualification, but if only rich people had been voting throughout American history, I doubt we'd have social security. The current problem is that many wealthy people have been taught to accept a particular ideology without question. When you have an open mind, it's hard to deny the wisdom of the Founding Fathers limiting the franchise. The problem is, most people have been taught from their childhood to accept universal franchise unquestionably.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:22, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:Your theory, while ostensibly using logic, doesn't match up with the data: wealthy areas tend to be very liberal. Atheists, who tend to be wealthy, want bigger government to squeeze out charity and religion.

:If wealth were such a factor in political decisions, then why did the socialistic Obama raise far more money than the more conservative McCain? Studies show that church attendance is a better predictor of voting patterns than wealth.

:The flat tax is opposed for valid reasons in addition to invalid ones. Taxing consumption can distort the free market and might increase the power of government over the free market. It would also further marginalize the states.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Remember, wealth doesn't necessarily have to be the qualification. To respond to your points though, atheists are a political minority. Nobody in politics cares about winning the atheist's vote. On the McCain question, no one liked McCain enough to support him (he was a liberal trying to beat a liberal). You still haven't refuted many of my significant arguments. The tax system favors the poor and productive, and why would the poor vote against this? If the poor are so conservative then explain while they'll vote for a tax increase.You'd probably find that the middle class is the most reliably conservative group. It's true, the wealthy and elites are part of the problem, but they didn't do it alone. Why would the rich want to have a tax system where they have to pay more, or a government where their tax dollars along go to fund free government programs for the poor, it only redistributes their wealth.

But back to voter qualifications, rather than wealth, let's say military service is a qualification for voting. You have to serve as an officer for at least five years before you can vote. Voters would have intense physical training, meaning they wouldn't be adverse to suffering, they would have good education, and they would be selfless. This is simply a suggestion; I'm open to other ideas on how to limit the franchise. Universal franchise is a uniquely modern idea. Few republics of the past have accepted the idea: the greeks, the thirteen colonies.
Finally, if mobocracy is so bad, then universal franchise is obviously bad. Mobocracy occurs whenever all citizens are allowed to influence the government, even if they do it through elected representatives. Remember, I never said that wealth was the qualification, or that only the wealthy should vote, but there should be some qualification.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:03, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lincoln ==

Your "Best of the Public" is a terrific idea! I've watched CP for some time and I've been really impressed with the quality of conservative thinking here. I've made my first humble attempt at contributing to your great encyclopedia and I really hope you appreciate it. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:08, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:How about some more "humble" edits that are even better? Lincoln was a wealthy railroad attorney, a congressman in the 1840s, has a monument in his honor today, and is praised by every expert from here to Kalamazoo. Surely we can find better examples of non-experts today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::But he ''wasn't'' an expert in national politics when he became president! [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:47, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::Your example raises more questions than it answers. Lincoln was more qualified than other potential and actual presidents, and it's unclear what you think Lincoln achieved that an expert would not have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::I wonder, though: would [[Sarah Palin]] qualify? Though she's certainly an established figure today, she worked her way up to the governorship of Alaska largely on her own merits, which in turn prompted McCain to select her as his running mate. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:16, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::Thank you for responding to my point, Mr Schlafly. Clearly you are more expert on this than I am and I stand corrected. I simply thought that the contrast between Presidents Lincoln and Buchanan was a striking example of the much less qualified (much less expert!) person becoming a much greater president. Does any other US president fit your concept of the "best of the public" achieving great things? Chester Arthur, maybe? A tax-cutting president who brought honesty back into national politics. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::::"Alec", your sarcasm is silly, and your knowledge of history is not overwhelming. Lincoln had been on the national stage for years before being nominated and elected president. His contest in 1858 against Stephen Douglas, for example, attracted national interest and substantive debates. How about some substantive editing now?

:::::Ben raises an interesting question about Palin. She does succeed against the best efforts of the experts. She did have an early impact on the health care bill, but perhaps it's too early to assess her achievements. I've got an open mind about that interesting pick, though, and perhaps it would make for good addition, at least on a tentative basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I cheerfully admit that, being British, my knowledge of USA history is not comprehensive. But it doesn't seem very polite to describe my description of Chester Arthur as sarcastic. I understood he rose from complete obscurity on the national political stage to become a much-respected president. Clearly I got that one wrong and I defer to your expertise. I shall try to think of some "Best of the Public" in a different field of achievement. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:36, 26 December 2009 (EST)

[[Abraham Lincoln]] is an example of the parallel concept of "[[self-made man]]". He also courageously bucked a major trend ([[slavery]]) and made a lot of insightful observations on human nature and society. Let's not try to fit every round block into a square hole.

Several non-contributors have logged in merely to dispute the major point of the article, rather than help us contributors write it. They have muddied the waters, brought up irrelevant points and so on. Clearly liberals dislike the idea that individuals can contribute to society by marching to a different drummer. They want us all to dance to their tune, or to sit back passively while they establish a totalitarian dictatorship where they can call the shots.

If they could create a genuine paradise by taking away our freedom, I suppose I might be interested (in a theoretical way), but since the track record of the anti-freedom crowd has only and always been sheer misery, then they'll have to count me out. Liberals praise communism and socialism as progressive trends which naturally arise when the time is right, but real progress in the world is almost always made by outstanding individuals. Sometimes, these men are credentialed experts, but all too often the experts are the people who tell you that your discovery is impossible. (Like the farmer who, when told what a giraffe looked like, said, "There ain't no such animal.")

The best of the public are people who (despite their lack of credentials or position) have made important contributions to American life and often even world-wide benefit. We need to provide more support for these pioneers and whistle-blowers, rather than trying to destroy them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 29 December 2009 (EST)

==Stopping terrorists and other mass murderers==

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126180624205805587.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read Yawn] how many more examples do we need? Here, a passenger - not a "trained flight attendant" - subdued some fool trying to set an airplane seat on fire. And don't forget the [[Colin Ferguson]] case, where two stockbrokers talked it over before deciding to tackle the Long Island Railroad shooter.
The supreme case is the [[9/11]] Pennsylvania downing of Flight 93 (see [[Todd Beamer]]).

Experts failed to stop the Middle East man who only wanted to "steer" (not take off or land) a jumbo jet, fearing lest the as investigators they would be charged with "[[racial profiling]]" for '''correctly''' identifying someone who fit the terrorist profile.

Then there are all the school shootings when a teacher (not a cop or security guard) runs to his car, gets his gun, and stops the killer with a shot - or the mere '''threat''' of a shot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 26 December 2009 (EST)
:This clearly proves why less gun control is needed. The more sane people with scatterguns in their trunk, the less likely someone is to try shooting ("Are ya feeling lucky?). [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 20:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Question ==

Isn't this an ambiguous, uncertain, open, indistinct, doubtful concept, like "public interest" or "common well-being"? Who decides what is "best of the public" anyway?

Happy 2010! --[[User:Evelyn|Evelyn]] 11:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

: Interesting comment, but isn't your suggested focus on "who decides" illustrative of the problem with experts? Why is it necessary for anyone to "decide"? No one "decides" for everyone else, for example, who wins the gold medal in the 100-meter dash at the Olympics, or whether 2+2=4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

::Sorry I couldn't reply you earlier, but Mr. Poor prevented me from doing it. Anyway, it seems that those examples of "Best of the public" demonstrate that "experts" are not necessary, which would be a great mistake. As an "approach to education, scholarship, and biblical translation", as you boldly stated, the best of the public is still a very open concept, and ultimately does it work only after it has been validated by everybody, or what? --[[User:EvelynM|EvelynM]] 21:25, 27 December 2009 (EST)

Andy makes a good point here, and this certainly works for matters of mathematical certainty, but what about those more subjective instances? Music, especially, comes to mind as a field in which no one can say objectively what the "best" is, nor is "expert" even well-defined in the field of popular music. What makes The Beatles experts but not Don McLean? I believe both were largely self-taught, and neither had extensive training in performance or composition at institutions such as Julliard. The Beatles were more successful, but certainly success does not equate to expert or the idea of best of the public is a paradox. I think Elvis is a better example of an expert, as most of his hits were written by other professional/expert songwriters, and the same goes for much of the pop music of today. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 10:23, 28 December 2009 (EST)

== Definition ==

The definition of "Best of the public" is currently scattered along the length of the article. Many of the supporting examples are given before the term has been explained, and the reader must piece it together for himself over the course of reading the full page. If it's alright with others here, I'm going to try to attempt a clear definition of the term to put in the opening paragraph. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 13:32, 14 January 2010 (EST)

: Please do ... as long as it does not dilute the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:13, 14 January 2010 (EST)

== Arthur Ashe ==

Perhaps Arthur Ashe's stunning upset victory to win Wimbledon should be included next.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
:Didn't he also receive a presidential medal of freedom? I may be thinking of someone else, but if so, the top civilian award might stand for something too. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:10, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
::Looks like it was awarded posthumously. I don't know too much about him since I was pretty young in '93, but so far he has my vote. (references for the medal: [http://www.nndb.com/people/228/000023159/][http://essentialtennis.com/spotlight/2010/04/arthur-ashe-citizen-of-the-world/] )[[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:13, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

== "The ark was built by amateurs, but professionals built the Titanic” ==

The header above is a famous quote that seems to epitomize the point of this article. [http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_ark_was_built_by_amateurs_but_professionals_built_the_titanic/ I don't know who to attribute the quote to], and I'm not sure how to incorporate it into this encyclopedic article, so I thought I'd mention it here. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 23:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

== Personally speaking... ==

I find that technical expertise trumps folk wisdom and nickel know-how a lot of the time. I pay a mechanic to fix my car, even though my friends and I hanging around for a couple of hours could do an adequate job, and I go to a doctor when I'm under the weather, even though I know some remedies for coughs and colds. The doctor and the mechanic have spent years learning their trade; I've got nothing on that.

:Do you think this contradicts anything in [[best of the public]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Clarence Thomas quote ==

The Thomas quote is being misunderstood in the context of this article - he's clearly saying that he believes the 'bloggers' who complain about his clerks are a little self-important - 'jumped-up' as it were, and not as well informed or educated as his clerks. His "that's the attitude you're dealing with" comment is obviously referring to the fact that their bragging about their supposed superiority annoys him, and he ''doesn't'' think that the 'bloggers' know more than his clerks. I'm new here so I didn't want to just take it out without discussion. [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 13:30, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Common Law ==

I deleted Common Law as an example because the Common Law was created by experts-judges and attorneys who received formal training in the subject, passed some sort of licensing exam, had their decisions were reviewed by peers, who were similarly trained, etc. [[User:Lawstudent|Lawstudent]] 20:33, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:Nearly all of the common law developed before there was any formal legal training or licensing exams. Many of the attorneys and judges were simply ordinary people drawn to that field.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:27, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== Further questions on experts ==

I'm sorry if some of this is covered above, but I haven't read through all of the comments, as there's an awful lot of them. I have a question about what constitues an expert, especially in the sports section. Don Larsen, a starting pitcher for the Yankees in the World Series, seems like as much of an expert as one can get in that field. Sure, he's not as well known as Sandy Koufax or Cy Young, but he's hardly an amateur. Likewise Tom Brady. Yeah, he was second string, as most quarterbacks are in their early careers, and if experts "undergo highly specialized training, and in the process, become immersed in a sub-culture of like experts" then I can't see how playing football for a major college team doesn't qualify. Just because he wasn't a star from the get-go like Peyton Manning was, I don't see how his training and career in the NFL make him much different than any other player, except that his talents weren't recognized early on. If they had been, would that have somehow made him an expert? Above Einstein was dismissed because it was "potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"" I think the same could be said for Tom Brady today. The Dallas Mavericks too. They may not have had as well known players as the Lakers, but these are guys who had been playing professional basketball for years, earning millions of dollars doing so, and surely basketball had been the focus of most of their efforts in college. I'm not sure simply being an underdog can necessarily make one the best of the public rather than an expert, especially when their backgrounds are nearly identical. The musician section is also somewhat confusing. I don't see what sets some of these one hit wonders apart from other musicians in their expertise. If they had no formal musical training then I guess that would qualify them, but that's true of many (perhaps most) contemporary popular musicians. Lennon and McCartney had little, if any, formal training, they just had the basic talent to write and perform popular music. The only bands or musicians that would seem to fit the article's definition of "expert" would be ones who attended Julliard or something, or at least studied music performance or composition at some higher level. Outside of classical music, that's probably very few in this day and age, and I don't see what warrants a mention of someone like Johnny Nash over just about any other more successful musicians. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 14:08, 3 March 2012 (EST)

== Is this really the definition? ==
I was reading this article when this line in the intro jumped out at me: "''"Best of Public" means, in the most straightforward sense, someone who is conservative and disagrees with most experts on a particular subject.''" Is that really the most basic definition of "best of the public"? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:27, 7 March 2012 (EST)
== Chicago Marathon==
I am not clear how the Chicago Marathon is in keeping with the spirit of this article. That Marathon is managed and promoted by professional experts. They solicit sponsorship that funds prize money and travel expenses paid to invited elite runners that come from around the world (mostly from East Africa). It has been a long time since American runners have won that race. Perhaps a better example might be the Marine Corps Marathon which refuses to pay prize money, but still attracts good winning times. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:01, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

Polyhedron

2012-09-10T00:20:05Z

Occultations: Correction - faces need not be regular polygons.

A '''polyhedron''' is a three dimensional shape which is bounded by [[polygon]]s.

[[Image:PlatonicSolids.jpg|right|600px|thumb|The five regular convex polyhedra, also known as the Platonic Solids]]

A regular polyhedron is a polyhedron all of whose faces are identical regular polygons, and all of whose vertices have the same number of faces around each vertex. There are only five regular convex polyhedra—polyhedra in which the all of the faces are on the outside of the polyhedron.<ref>As opposed to four "star polyhedra" in which the "faces" of the polyhedron slice into the polyhedron</ref>. They are:

*The tetrahedron ("tetra-" meaning "four")
*The cube or hexahedron ("hexa-" meaning "six")
*The octahedron ("octa-" meaning "eight")
*The dodecahedron ("dodeca-" meaning "twelve")
*The icosahedron ("icosa-" meaning "twenty")

Role-playing games often use dice in the shape of tetrahedra, octahedra, dodecahedra, and icosahedra, as well as traditional cubical dice and nonregular decahedra.

Because the dodecahedron has twelve sides, decorative calendars are sometimes made in the shape of a dodecahedron, with one month printed on each face.

==Notes==

For a full description of polyhedra see: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Polyhedron.html

<references/>

[[Category:Geometry]]

Talk:E=mc²

2012-08-21T20:53:01Z

Occultations: /* A little clarification? */

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Another way of thinking about is this. Consider your typical AA batery, it is not a difficult stretch of the mind to understand that this battery stores electrical energy, approximately 2Ampere-hours at 1.5v which is approximately 5000J worth of STORED electical energy. Now, CONSUMING this battery does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 5000J the same way that consuming a pound of cake does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 1lb*c^2, you are still limited by your ability to convert between different energy sources. So A RC car would be able to use that battery to move around for several hours, YOU on the other hand will most likely just pass the battery through your body and the basic chemicals that are storing this electric energy will come out unaltered. The same way that a pound of cake can sustain you for a day, but try stuffing it into the battery compartment of your RC car and it won't move an inch. "Mass-energy" works much the same way, sure consuming a pound of cake increases your "rest energy" or by an enormous amount, but in reality there is no way to convert mass directly to energy so its much the same as swallowing a battery or stuffing cake into the RC car. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 17:05, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''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?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockcroft¹ claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockcroft's¹ lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

(1) : spelling of ''Cockcroft corrected [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:22, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:My dad's grandfather [[Charles Lane Poor]] also disagreed with this paper, although I think he eventually came around once enough evidence piled up for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:36, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::Why ''also''? There is no evidence that Bohr disagreed with the paper (therefore the statement about Bohr is ''factually incorrect'', i.e., false) and the fabrication was removed from the article. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:18, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:Bohr and Einstein, though friends, had a famous debate about the new theories. If it was not about the particular 1905 paper you have in mind, then what were the Bohr–Einstein debates about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
::They had famous debates about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates quantum mechanics], which has nothing to do with the 1905 paper. I'm not aware of any debates about relativity. Can you provide a reference? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:09, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Indeed, it is well known that Bohr and Einstein discussed quantum-mechanics - here is Niels Bohr's own account of these discussions: ''[http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/dk/bohr.htm Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics]''. Please keep in mind that Bohr was just 20 years old in 1905 - and only decided that year to drop philosophy and take up physics! If you can find any debate of Bohr and Einstein on purely relativistic matters, that will come as a surprise. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:41, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

== Some questions ==

I still don't understand why (a) Andy Schlafly doesn't know the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass and (b) he seems obsessed over the speed of light in the equation. The m in the equation is inertial mass! As others have stated, when talking about gravitational mass, you need to consider general relativity.What E=mc^2 says is that mass is just a form of energy. It says nothing about the unification of electromagnetism and gravity (it doesn't even say anything about gravity!). Moreover, do you, Andy Schlafly, understand that electromagnetism is not the only theory that has c as a special value? All massless particles travel at the speed of light. In GR, gravity travels at the speed of light.

If you deny it, how do you account for changes in mass in nuclear reactions? How do you account for electron-positron annihilation as well as dozens of other examples of reactions that don't conserve mass in particle physics?

And by the way, as has been pointed out, if you deny special relativity, you have to reject Maxwell's equations. Are they a liberal conspiracy as well? --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

:As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

:Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Your first point: It's good that we all agree that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. (This is the fundamental hypothesis of general relativity, by the way.) But the term "mass" always means "inertial mass". Gravity never appears anywhere in special relativity. Even if Newton's constant of universal gravitation ("G") were zero, that is, we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there is no gravity, special relativity, the Lorentz transform, and E=mc^2 would still be true. There should be no mention of gravity anywhere in the article. But the second sentence of the article refers to "mass (i.e., gravity)". Please take that out. I would do it myself, but I'd get it wrong, since I don't know what point you were trying to make.

::Your second point: That chemical reactions that cause energy to be released result in a reduction of the final mass most certainly '''''is''''' astounding. No one had ever seen this, or suspected it, before E=mc^2, and it is doubtful that anyone has seen it to this day, since the effect is so small for chemical reactions. The phenomenon is known only because we know that E=mc^2 is true.

::Your third point: Yes, Maxwell's equations were developed decades before relativity, and survived just fine before anyone suspected that E=mc^2. Your claimed "assertion that people 'have to reject Maxwell's equations' based on relativity" is not made by anyone. It's the ''denial'' of relativity that would necessitate a denial of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations imply relativity, though Maxwell didn't realize it. In fact, it was an analysis of Maxwell's equations, not the Michelson-Morley experiment, that led to relativity. If we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there were no electric or magnetic forces, relativity would still be true.

::[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 23:36, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:::You didn't respond to my point about [[Arthur Eddington]], who was the biggest promoter of the [[Theory of Relativity]] in the English world.
::::The reason is that has nothing to do with E=mc^2. Your point about Eddington was presumably referring to the alpha=1/137 business, right? I am aware of that. It was in the late 1930's. Would you like me to write an article about it? I'd be glad to do so. Eddington's promotion of relativity in England was in the 1920's, after the eclipse (his book was in 1923), and was about ''general'' relativity. E=mc^2 is in ''special'' relativity, and was widely accepted by then. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Of course it's been based on meaningful physical observations. To be more precise, it's based on repeated experiments where the relation between the observed mass loss and the observed energy release is E=mc2. I really don't know what your problem is, but to challenge the validity of something as thoroughly confirmed as E=mc2 is not going to get you anywhere. The equation is valid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 03:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::My comments were aimed at people who accept that both mathematical theory and experimental observations have a role to play, and that they complement each other. There is no cart and no horse. Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, involves both elegant mathematics and observation, and the observations buttress the theory very well. It's possible for people to get carried away with the mathematics, as Eddington did with the 137 business, but that hasn't happened with relativity. And yes, if you don't accept relativity, you can't make Maxwell's equations work correctly, though Maxwell didn't realize that at the time. It was only later that Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein fixed that. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

''As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc². ''
Aschlafy, it may not come as a surprise, but you are wrong again:
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

===Answer to the above===

Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-speech.html], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951. I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 was accepted long before 1932. Based on what, mere politics? This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:"This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically"--It is more correct to say that the formula cannot be mathematically derived from first principles (in the way that Kepler's laws can be derived from Newton's law of universal gravitation) rather than that the formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically. Indeed, experimental observation reveals that the added energy is proportional to the mass lost in a linear fashion, with <math>c^2</math> as the slope. These are the same sorts of phyiscal observations that allow you to deduce laws like <math>F = ma</math> (apply varying amounts of force to a mass and see what the resulting acceleration is). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:38, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::The formula cannot be derived ''in any sensible way'', not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Could you please give us some references to these failed attempts? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 19:22, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::This took only one search on the internet: [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes 7 failed attempts to prove E=mc2].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Aschlafly, your reading of Cockcroft lecture is insufficient. He writes: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units, '' so he thinks that energy can be provided by decreasing the mass of an object. And if you do a little math, you can see for yourself that he uses Einstein's formula to calculate the amount.
:::::As for the ''seven failed attempts'': Even if there were mathematical errors in the papers as your ''"source"'' suggests, it is not clear that they render the calculations invalid!
:::::I'm impressed which sources you are willing to ignore, and which seem to be absolutely acceptable,,,
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:29, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
::::I assume you've read the book and not just that chronology, Andy? Looks like an interesting read, even though the [http://einsteinsmistakes.com/the_author_5.html author] is a [[Professor values|professor]] in liberal [[Vermont]] and has written a [http://www.amazon.com/Special-Relativity-A-Modern-Introduction/dp/0971313415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333999210&sr=8-1 textbook] on special relativity. Incidentally, amazon.com gives access to a few pages of "Einstein's mistakes". Let me quote from page 330: "His (Einstein's) first derivations of this equation, although flawed, convinced physicists that the energy-mass relation ought to be of general validity. In 1905, Einstein did not have available the mathematical tensor techniques needed for a correct derivation of this formula, but he instigated the theoretical investigations that later led von Laue and Klein to the correct derivation." Could you explain in more detail why you think the attempts failed? Von Laue and Klein's attempts would be particularly interesting, because your reference claims they were correct. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:28, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper? I doubt it, as your statement isn't entirely correct. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:06, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean the paper by Hecht (2011)? That's also interesting. Let me quote from the Conclusions (I happen to have access to the paper): "Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E=mc^2 to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F=ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0=mc2. Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F=ma." ... "That aside, countless experiments from Cockcroft and Walton63 to Rainville et al.64 have, with increasing accuracy, confirmed that E0=mc2 is one of the greatest insights of the 20th century." But maybe that's not the paper you mean? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 17:18, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::That sounds like what the paper would have to say in order to be published, yes. An academic journal will withdraw its acceptance of a paper if it conflicts with the [[Theory of Relativity]] in any way. Anyone in academia who criticizes the Theory of Relativity in any way, no matter how minor, is risking the end of his professional career due to liberal orthodoxy. [[Robert Dicke]], the greatest American physicist ever, was denied the [[Nobel Prize]] because he criticized the Theory of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::::And that doesn't sound like someone who actually read the paper! Drawing your conclusions just from your interpretation of the abstract (and wishful thinking) doesn't make a compelling argument. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How does Asclafly explain electron-positron annihilation? How do you explain that quantum electrodynamics (which is a relativistic theory) is the most accurately tested theory in physics? What's the theoretical basis for the spin of the electron if you deny SR? And are you telling me that Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Galilean transformations? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:13, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::The claim that something "is the most accurately tested theory in physics" is a canard often heard by defenders of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Step back, look at the phrase objectively, and it's easy to see that such a claim is unscientific. Indeed, such a claim sounds like something one would hear in politics. Not only are there more than three dozen [[Counterexamples to Relativity|counterexamples disproving the Theory of Relativity]], but the claim on which it was based (the advance of the perihelion of Mercury) is now disproof of the theory. But notice how few people are interested in reviewing more precise data, and instead cite imprecise data that are a half-century old or more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::You're getting a bit muddled here. One valid counterexample can deliver a fatal, knockdown blow to a purely philosophical / logical argument. Scientific theories (and their corresponding mathematical equations), however, are judged on the width and depth of their explanatory power, rather than on their ability to hold true in ''all'' cases. This is why we can still use Newton's equations to describe the motion of everything we can reasonably expect to bump into in everyday life. They might not hold true in ''all'' cases, but they still have sufficient explanatory bite to be very, very useful.

:::::::::::If you wish to pursue this line of reasoning, then you'll have to reject Newton's equations because of the instances where they fall down and fail to make accurate predictions. I'm pretty sure that you don't want to do that. --[[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 20:23, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Andy, I think you are underestimating both the scientific savvy and the inquisitiveness of the contributors here. First, as you well know, but presumably don't like, those "counterexamples" are all wrong, and probably everyone here, except you, knows it. They have been refuted on the "rebuttal" page. Second, and this is my more important point, your claim that "few people are interested in reviewing more precise data" is not correct. I would be interested in reviewing such data, as would nearly everyone else here. Please post the data. Don't bother with the full observed precession of 5600 (or whatever) seconds relative to the old equinoctial frame, or 574 seconds with the new celestial frame. However that is calculated, the precession, after accounting for all the usual factors like gravitational effects of other planets and solar oblateness, is supposed to be 42.98 seconds or so. Please give a citation for the data showing that the GR figure is wrong. This argument has gone on for too long. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:17, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

===Robert Dicke===
*Aschlafly, have you any reason to believe that R. Dicke had any problem with the special theory of relativity?
*Your reverence for R. Dicke is understandable, but surprising in light of your statement about the equivalence principle: ''It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.'' R. Dicke took quite an effort to perform experiments on this ''hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance''.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:12, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Robert Dicke's criticism of the general theory of relativity is well-known. For that, he was disqualified from receiving the Nobel Prize, despite being the most accomplished American physicist ever.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

::Robert Dicke's criticism of the '''general''' theory of relativity may be well known, but we are here firmly in the realm of the '''special''' theory of relativity. And he didn't have problems with that one - so why have you? Are you a more able physicist than Robert Dicke? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Speed and Kinetic Energy of Relativistic Electrons ==

William Bertozzi [http://muj.optol.cz/richterek/data/media/ref_str/bertozzi1964.pdf performed some experiments] in 1964 to exemplify the effects of the theory of special relativity. W. Bertozzi undertook the effort to measure the values involved as directly as possible. He writes:
:''In the past few decades, the successful operation of multi-MeV accelerators and the planning and interpretations of many high-energy physics experiments have affirmed and illustrated the results of special relativity. However, because these efforts generally involved many other concepts, the relations of relativity are not demonstrable from the data in a simple quantitative manner. The purpose of this paper is to describe an experiment that was performed to help fill the need for such simple and direct data for the teaching of relativity.'' (p. 551)
And from the concluding remarks:
:''The Newtonian relation, usually adequate for the description of the motion of bodies at very low speeds, is obviously in disagreement with this high-speed data. Equally apparent is the conformity of the experimental data to the Einstein relation with its prediction of a limiting speed.''
So, these experiments seem to be performed with Aschlafly in mind! Perhaps Aschlafly can explain the data in a non-relativistic way (via quantum dynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or even nuance of ἰδού?)
But there are even [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977 experiments for undergraduates] which show relativistic effects:
:''We have developed an undergraduate laboratory experiment to make independent measurements of the momentum and kinetic energy of relativistic electrons from a \beta -source. The momentum measurements are made with a magnetic spectrometer and a silicon surface-barrier detector is used to measure the kinetic energy. A plot of the kinetic energy as a function of momentum compared to the classical and relativistic predictions clearly shows the relativistic nature of the electrons. Accurate values for the rest mass of the electron and the speed of light are also extracted from the data. '' Robert E. Marvel, Michael F. Vineyard
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:02, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Then why hasn't William Bertozzi won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Why should he? It is a relatively simple demonstration of a basic principle. Do you intend to ignore everyone who didn't get a Nobel prize? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:58, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::If this were a "simple demonstration of a basic principle," then that would be all the more reason why it should be recognized with a [[Nobel Prize]], given the lack of a prize for the same principle. Indeed, has any [[Nobel Prize]] been awarded for a purported confirmation of E=mc2? (Cockcroft's work did not claim to confirm the equation.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I find it fascinating how you on the one hand use the Nobel Prize as a source of authority when it hasn't been awarded for things you don't believe in and on the other hand berate the Nobel Prize as nothing more than liberal claptrap when it hasn't been awarded for things you do believe in. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 14:52, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It's completely logical. Some liberal claptrap is even too much for the [[Nobel Prize]] committee, and that's worth pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

== A reminder ==

Aschlafly, could you please answer the questions in the questions in the section above: [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ]]?

I'm interested in your interpretation of their results. (But please take into consideration that a chemical reaction releases perhaps the 1,000,000th part of the energy per unit of mass as the reaction observed by Cockcroft and Walton.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:28, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== Does Andy Schlafly Understand what E=mc^2 means? ==

Aschlafly, do you know what E=mc^2 means? You say that "E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light." No. What it says is that matter is just another form of energy. That's it! It says nothing about unification of electromagnetism and gravity. Moreover, the m in the equation is inertial mass, not gravitational mass! If you look at any decent book on SR, it is the inertial mass that appears in the equations of relativistic energy-momentum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 09:42, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

== Open questions ==

Many questions in the sections above are still unanswered and I'm especially waiting for Aschlafly to answer those in the section ''[[Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]''.

Aschlafly, could you at least provide me with your interpretation of the bolded sentence of Cockcroft's lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. '''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units'''''? Feel free to show your calculations!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:03, 5 May 2012 (EDT)

== Many leading scientists ... ==

...(including Lord Rutherford and Princeton Physics Professor [[Robert Dicke]]) rejected the [[Theory of Relativity]].

This article is about a result of the ''special theory of relativity''.
*Robert Dicke had no problems with the ''special theory'', he proposed an alternative to the ''general theory''. Or do you have a source where he attacked the ''special theory''?
*Ernest Rutherford thought that it was not beautiful, but he didn't reject the theory. Or do you have a source where he attacked theory for any other reason than being not beautiful?

Without any source, the statement in the article is meaningless - it's more a reflection of the opinion of the main author of the piece and is as convincing as a sentence like ''Sir Isaac Newton wouldn't have liked the theory neither.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:12, 10 May 2012 (EDT)

== Let's not dilute the truth here, OK? ==

Well, the truth is that more than 99% of all today's physics think that this formula is a marvel to behold. That this formula is ''liberal claptrap'' is only your personal opinion, Aschlafly. You haven't given any contemporary source to back this up. Are we expected to take your personal insights for the truth? I'm willing to do so only if you are able to present these insights in a comprehensible way, simply making a statement - and then repeating it over and over again - is not enough. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:59, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

Agreed, let's not dilute the truth. E=MC2 is experimentally proven every time you look at the sun or any stars, it's proven every time an atom splits in a reactor to generate heat that in turn makes steam to spin a turbine and make electricity. I'm guessing the Sun being the center of the solar system is also "liberal claptrap" too. The part that I think is so funny is that everyone here is debating the topic so much when there probably isn't a single person on earth that would turn to Conservapedia for an explanation of anything even remotely scientific. [[User:Ntyson|Ntyson]] 17:45, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

== A little clarification? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I'm trying to understand your assertion that the "energy" of an object is a function of "electrostatics." I wonder if you can explain a little more about this.

For example, how is energy derived from electrostatic charge? Can you show the equation for doing this?

Are you basing this on the common practice of expressing energy in electron-volts?

Do neutral particles such as neutrons or uncharged atoms have energy, even though they have no charge?
[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 21:54, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.

:Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

::Unfortunately this doesn't really answer any of my questions. Yes, an electric field can apply a force. But the "strength" of an electric field is actually the same as a gravitational field: both decrease inversely as the square of the radius. The difference is that the strength of an electric field increases much more rapidly in proportion to charge than gravity does in proportion to mass.

::Also, electric fields exert a force only on charged particles, which why I asked how we can calculate the energy of uncharged particles such as neutrons. Do they even have energy in the sense that you mean it?

::And finally, I would still like to see the equations used to calculate the energy of a particle based on electrostatic charge. How much energy does an electron have? Is it the same as the energy of a proton (the charge is equal but opposite, but the mass is greater)?[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 15:05, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

:: Why is it preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared, but not preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their '''''kinetic''''' energy has thereby increased in proportion to their speed squared? [[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:53, 21 August 2012 (EDT)