Science Quiz #2: Is E=mc² right or wrong?

a reply to: iosolomon

You honestly believe that plate tectonics should have been accepted without any compelling evidence?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: iosolomon

You honestly believe that plate tectonics should have been accepted without any compelling evidence?

Now you are putting words into my mouth. You shouldn't do that. Plate tectonics should not have been rejected how it was rejected. The point of this thread was regarding whether or not e=mc^2 is right or wrong. Please keep it on topic. I say that e=mc^2 is wrong because science has consistently been proven wrong...century after century after century. It is about time that we open our eyes and realize there is a problem. That's all I'm saying. Hey, if you want to cling to your dogma, that's on you, but take a look at the world around you, something is off. Something is seriously off.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: iosolomon

I'm sitting here typing a message on a machine based on principles of quantum mechanics. This message will be instantly viewed by people all over the planet.

Did transistors come as a direct result of quantum theory and quantum tunnelling theory? Or is this a theory that is used to explain how transistors work?

I am asking, I don't really know. It seems like the former, but I don't see any proof of that, such as here:

en.wikipedia.org...

If they set out to prove quantum tunneling and ended up with the transistor, that is very significant. However if they stumbled into the transistor, and upon reflection decided that this phenomenon was due to an existing theory, that is not supporting the science as well -- actually supports the OP's argument better.

Maybe the question above is too difficult to answer. But I would like to know.

originally posted by: iosolomon

Now you are putting words into my mouth. You shouldn't do that.

Really? These are your words:

"In regards to the plate tectonics, many lives could have been saved if science would have been more open-minded instead of closed-minded, stubborn, and biased --how it has been for the past 500 years."

Plate tectonics should not have been rejected how it was rejected.

Plate tectonics was not accepted at first because there wasn't enough compelling evidence to support the hypothesis and develop it into a useful theory. So what is it are you saying then: that they hypothesis should have been accepted without going through the rigors of the scientific method? How is that "closed-minded"? It's the cornerstone of the scientific method.

a reply to: GetHyped

Plate tectonics was not accepted at first because there wasn't enough compelling evidence to support the hypothesis and develop it into a useful theory. So what is it are you saying then: that they hypothesis should have been accepted without going through the rigors of the scientific method? How is that "closed-minded"? It's the cornerstone of the scientific method.

I think you should tell the history different, more like how it was and not only what happened, what the results are.
Plate tectonics was not accepted at first because it was against existing, false theory.

It took years to convince people it is true, even with all the evidences around.
Stubborn scientists didn't wanted to believe it so it took a long time till all the old authorities died out and some new words could eventually be spoken.

a reply to: KrzYma

Seems like you're fabricating a narrative here. The history of plate tectonics is well documented. Read up on it, Google is your friend.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: KrzYma

Seems like you're fabricating a narrative here. The history of plate tectonics is well documented. Read up on it, Google is your friend.

Reaction to Wegener's theory was almost uniformly hostile, and often exceptionally harsh and scathing; Dr. Rollin T. Chamberlin of the University of Chicago said, "Wegener's hypothesis in general is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty with our globe, and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward, ugly facts than most of its rival theories." Part of the problem was that Wegener had no convincing mechanism for how the continents might move. Wegener thought that the continents were moving through the earth's crust, like icebreakers plowing through ice sheets, and that centrifugal and tidal forces were responsible for moving the continents. Opponents of continental drift noted that plowing through oceanic crust would distort continents beyond recognition, and that centrifugal and tidal forces were far too weak to move continents -- one scientist calculated that a tidal force strong enough to move continents would cause the Earth to stop rotating in less than one year. Another problem was that flaws in Wegener's original data caused him to make some incorrect and outlandish predictions: he suggested that North America and Europe were moving apart at over 250 cm per year (about ten times the fastest rates seen today, and about a hundred times faster than the measured rate for North America and Europe). There were scientists who supported Wegener: the South African geologist Alexander Du Toit supported it as an explanation for the close similarity of strata and fossils between Africa and South America, and the Swiss geologist Émile Argand saw continental collisions as the best explanation for the folded and buckled strata that he observed in the Swiss Alps. Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents and land bridges.

btw... even if we have the right knowledge of this now, his theory was not quite right and needed to be corrected

By the late 1960s, plate tectonics was well supported and accepted by almost all geologists. We now know that Wegener's theory was wrong in one major point: continents do not plow through the ocean floor. Instead, both continents and ocean floor form solid plates, which "float" on the asthenosphere, the underlying rock that is under such tremendous heat and pressure that it behaves as an extremely viscous liquid. (Incidentally, this is why the older term "continental drift" is not quite accurate -- both continents and oceanic crust move.)

a reply to: KrzYma

Sounds like usual scientific discourse at the frontiers of understanding. Competing hypotheses, hot debate but once the evidence comes in, the winning theory is adopted. Business as usual. Not sure how all of this fits into your conspiracy narrative, if anything it's another example of how academia is willing to accept ideas that actually have strong evidence.

originally posted by: KrzYma
btw... even if we have the right knowledge of this now, his theory was not quite right and needed to be corrected

All the more reason it makes science look rational to seek more evidence before accepting what turned out to be a somewhat wrong theory...when the additional evidence of undersea ridges was found, that let to a more correct theory which science accepted, though there's still one scientist who believes in expanding Earth but I don't think he has much if any company.

Scientists are still debating some of the details, but the needed evidence paved the way to relatively quick acceptance of the idea in the 60s.

By the way, those criticisms about why the idea wouldn't work are still valid today, like "Opponents of continental drift noted that plowing through oceanic crust would distort continents beyond recognition, and that centrifugal and tidal forces were far too weak to move continents" since those forces were too weak to move continents and the continents don't plow through oceanic crust. So, the ideas needed further development, in addition to needing more evidence.

a reply to: Axial Leader

Maybe the question above is too difficult to answer. But I would like to know.

Not at all difficult to answer. In the 1930s quantum mechanics enabled Wigner and Seitz to understand how electrons act in semiconductors. There was a steady progression, based on that early work, which finally lead to the development of transistors.

Which came first? Quantum mechanics did.

a reply to: mbkennel

Physics, in practice, is about what you can measure, not what you can observe. To observe an object falling under gravity is to know that things fall. To measure the rate of the fall, and to compare it to other measured things is to begin to understand the answer to the question, "Why does it fall." Physics is about the questions, 'why' and 'how.'

Mental illness is a common scapegoat for politics, business, military, and media to discredit and at that time, shame would be opponents to their ends. Also bribery and coercion under threat of violence to one's self or one's family, who may or may not live abroad.

a reply to: Mon1k3r
I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. I can "observe" an object fall. If I choose to make measurements of that observation, it's a more detailed observation.

I don't follow your statement that "Physics, in practice, is about what you can measure, not what you can observe."

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You probably don't have the correct context, because what I wrote above was a reply to Mr. mbkennel.

You can watch a bag of diamonds fall to the ground. Great, you saw that. What does it tell you? Nothing until you also observe a bag of baby ducks fall to the ground at the same rate of acceleration. THIS observation, this COMPARISON between two things, noticing the difference, measuring it, and asking the questions 'why' and 'how' is physics IN PRACTICE.

pick one: either the big bang theory is rubbish, or e=mc² is incorrect.
a qick google search will let you stumble across: "E=mc² is logically incorrect, because it is based on a circular argument that already takes the proof to be given as a prerequisite."

Maybe Teslas wasnt all that wrong when he claimed "There is no energy in matter, other than that received from the environment.".

originally posted by: Dolour
pick one: either the big bang theory is rubbish, or e=mc² is incorrect.
a qick google search will let you stumble across: "E=mc² is logically incorrect, because it is based on a circular argument that already takes the proof to be given as a prerequisite."

Citation?

you want a quote?

"Anything EVER written in ANY science book is WRONG!"
Michiu Kaku

p.s.: oh, and hit google yourself btw. not a single time did any of the so called "debunkers" actually read something thats been linked, but instantly fall back to what they memorized, not taking ANYTHING into account that doesent fit their POV. i honestly know better ways of wasting my time.

originally posted by: Dolour
"Anything EVER written in ANY science book is WRONG!"
Michiu Kaku

Source and context for quote?

p.s.: oh, and hit google yourself btw. not a single time did any of the so called "debunkers" actually read something thats been linked, but instantly fall back to what they memorized, not taking ANYTHING into account that doesent fit their POV. i honestly know better ways of wasting my time.

I did google. Nothing turned up other than a random mishmash of website. Can you just not link to a scientific source that supports your assertion?

originally posted by: GetHyped
Source and context for quote?

around 39:50

I did google. Nothing turned up other than a random mishmash of website. Can you just not link to a scientific source that supports your assertion?

thnx for making laugh that hard buddy!
id say your either a big fat liar, a disinformant, or one twat of a troll.
proove is found here.
/edit: in case your not familiar with german, i hope your not overstrained to type in "heisenberg E=mc²" yourself. AGAIN!

just saying, if your incapable of utilizing google(wich every kiddo can do with ease), chances arent that great for you beeing the one to ask if it comes to in-depht physics...

unlike promised i did waste my time(a whole 30 seconds omgz!), but thats been really to show the ATS community how serious one can treat your statements, like the "I did google. blah blah". quoted above.

And now shoo, back under the bridge with you, troll!

originally posted by: Dolour

originally posted by: GetHyped
Source and context for quote?

around 39:50

You not only took the quote out of context but also distorted it beyond meaning. The full quote is (and I'm paraphrasing) "Every physics textbook says that the universe is mainly made out of atoms. This is wrong because in the last 10 years, we have come to the realization that most of the universe is dark matter".

Yet you said: "Anything EVER written in ANY science book is WRONG!"

You see the glaring disparity between what the source said and what you said?

thnx for making laugh that hard buddy!
id say your either a big fat liar, a disinformant, or one twat of a troll.
proove is found here.
/edit: in case your not familiar with german, i hope your not overstrained to type in "heisenberg E=mc²" yourself. AGAIN!

just saying, if your incapable of utilizing google(wich every kiddo can do with ease), chances arent that great for you beeing the one to ask if it comes to in-depht physics...

unlike promised i did waste my time(a whole 30 seconds omgz!), but thats been really to show the ATS community how serious one can treat your statements, like the "I did google. blah blah". quoted above.

And now shoo, back under the bridge with you, troll!

Ok, so now I'm looking at a bunch of search results, of which this thread is the second one. Care to bother narrowing it down to the search results that state "either the big bang theory is rubbish, or e=mc² is incorrect"? You made the statement, you back up the statement. Don't give me some vague search terms and expect me to do the legwork for you.

You not only took the quote out of context but also distorted it beyond meaning. The full quote is (and I'm paraphrasing) "Every physics textbook says that the universe is mainly made out of atoms. This is wrong because in the last 10 years, we have come to the realization that most of the universe is dark matter".

Yet you said: "Anything EVER written in ANY science book is WRONG!"

You see the glaring disparity between what the source said and what you said?

First of all he DOES say "Realize that every single physics textbook is wrong!"
wich isnt that far from my original wording.
He then proceeds with the statement regarding dark matter quoted by you.

and dark matter is? proven by what?
dark matter is a constant we had to add, in order to enable gravity to keep stellar formations togeather(bc the mass of the visible matter is nowhere high enough.).
If you actually read into the concepts of dark matter and dark energie(wich im pretty sure you wont, sicne a single mouseclick is allready too much), youll soon find out that it HAS to be wrong!

dark energy constantly increasing for example? isnt that like a VERY bad violation of the concept of "energy can not be created or destroyed"?
Allso, how does dark matter account for the disc shaped formations we observe, if its just a source of gravity? *duh*
Even the "Schwarschild Proton Theorem"(despite it having, yet, more holes than swiss-cheese) delivers a better explanation of whats observed, in regards of celestial movement.

Dark matter and energy were "invented"(not discovered) to keep the standard model working, by force!

Ok, so now I'm looking at a bunch of search results, of which this thread is the second one. Care to bother narrowing it down to the search results that state "either the big bang theory is rubbish, or e=mc² is incorrect"? You made the statement, you back up the statement. Don't give me some vague search terms and expect me to do the legwork for you.

Again did you not bother to waste a single second, otherwise youd figured its the first result...
And sayd statement can be explained in pretty simple terms: singularity and any factor containing distance related operators dont go well togeather.