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

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


Learn about science

No, no, no, buddy, learn about human nature.

then discuss what's possible or not based in what we do know, which obviously isn't everything. Scientists have actually searched for faster than light particles, but haven't found any:

This is my point. You fools sound just like the Inquisition. What was once heresy and science fiction and unfathomable is now "knowledge," so why should scientists --or anyone for that matter-- continue to dissuade someone from (again) revolutionizing the realm of science.

So learn human nature, then re-read my posts, and then, you can either contribute something or realize that what you have contributed added nothing to the point I was bringing up.

originally posted by: iosolomon
This is my point. You fools sound just like the Inquisition. What was once heresy and science fiction and unfathomable is now "knowledge," so why should scientists --or anyone for that matter-- continue to dissuade someone from (again) revolutionizing the realm of science.

I don't hear anyone telling Sonny White at NASA to not make a warp drive, since a lot of people think that would be cool. It's more like "You've talked about it, now go ahead and make it if you can".

I have studied human nature a lot, it's why people keep trying to build perpetual motion machines, over and over and over again. Nobody has tried to stop them, but the experimenters have done a pretty good job of proving the scientists right. This gravity machine I find particularly entertaining:

www.rarenergia.com.br...


The Wright brothers weren't discouraged by anybody telling them human powered flight was impossible, and these rarenergia folks aren't discouraged by anybody telling them their gravity machine is impossible. The way you prove what's possible is to go ahead and build it and prove it works.

Nobody doubts thinks flight is impossible anymore with thousands of planes flying. Rarenergia built their contraption but they haven't proven it works. Sonny White has yet to build a warp engine. Nobody is stopping them.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was referring to those who cling to their dogma. Instead of saying, "The evidence doesn't support this," or what-not, physicists should be asking, "What if there was something faster than the speed of light?" or "What if e=mc^2 is wrong or doesn't capture the entire picture?" It is time that people in the 20th-century evolved from their backwards thinking. Oh, what's that? We are in the 21-st century now, and people are still backwards-thinking...wonderful!

What would George Santayana say? Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. People in the 21st-century are doomed to repeat the antithesis that has always stood in the way of science and progress --their own bias, and their own egos.

a reply to: iosolomon

People in the 21st-century are doomed to repeat the antithesis that has always stood in the way of science and progress --their own bias, and their own egos.

Yups.
Science has gotten us nowhere in the past 100 years. Yessir. Not a thing. Oh wait, 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.

I have instant access to an enormous amount of information on demand.

Stupid science.

a reply to: Phage

Your sarcasm was highly naive. e=mc^2 did not bring us the computer...

a reply to: iosolomon

Correct.
Quantum mechanics did.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: iosolomon

Correct.
Quantum mechanics did.

That's news to me. Strange, I always thought it was electro-mechanics that brought us the computer. But, hey, you are the "scientist," so keep clinging to that dogma of yours!

a reply to: iosolomon
Perhaps you should brush up on the development of transistors.
www.pbs.org...

Or maybe your notebook/desktop/smart phone uses vacuum tubes? Mine doesn't.


BTW, electro-mechanics isn't science?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: iosolomon
Perhaps you should brush up on the development of transistors.
www.pbs.org...

Or maybe your notebook/desktop/smart phone uses vacuum tubes? Mine doesn't.

Everything overlaps. Biology is physics, chemistry is electrical engineering, etc. The point is, your sarcasm had no relevance to what I was saying and was naive. You seem to mistake engineers for the ones who come up with the theories and research.

e=mc^2 is wrong. Although it might hold up today, it really would be foolish for someone to obstinately cling to said dogma, especially considering how every century, there were people who obstinately clung to their dogma that was later proven wrong.

Science needs to keep an open mind. Your sarcasm was uncalled for and was out-of-place.

a reply to: iosolomon

Everything overlaps. Biology is physics, chemistry is electrical engineering, etc. The point is, your sarcasm had no relevance to what I was saying and was naive. You seem to mistake engineers for the ones who come up with the theories and research.

Really? Here is what you said:

It is time that people in the 20th-century evolved from their backwards thinking. Oh, what's that? We are in the 21-st century now, and people are still backwards-thinking...wonderful!

Without that "backward thinking" we would not be able to have this conversation right now, along with most of what is necessary to our way of life.

You don't seem to understand that without the tools provided by science (like quantum mechanics), engineers would still be using gears and levers.

Science needs to keep an open mind. Your sarcasm was uncalled for and was out-of-place

Science "needs" to follow the path it has always followed; observation - hypothesis - observation - experiment - theory. Repeat as required.

My sarcasm was well placed in light of your ironic disdain for that for which you can thank our ability to have this conversation.

originally posted by: Phage
Without that "backward thinking" we would not be able to have this conversation right now, along with most of what is necessary to our way of life.

Child, you are really naive. Without that "backwards thinking," we would be YEARS ahead than what we already have. How is that so hard for you to comprehend? No, really, why can't you understand the point I am trying to make? Stubbornness has ALWAYS been the antithesis to science, and it still exists even today.

Science "needs" to follow the path it has always followed; hypothesis - observation - theory - experiment. Repeat as required.

Maybe not. That is a very, very flawed path. If we follow that path, why, we would pollute the world so much that it would be too late before we had the "evidence" to actually make a change. Oh, what is that? Thanks to your "science," we already have that.

But, global warming aside, if we follow that method, hundreds of thousands of people would have suffered from lead poisoning because some greedy businessman (at the time, it was men) would put lead in our fuel, and it would be years before anyone would have the "evidence" to prove this was the case. Oh, what was that? This already happened.

Buddy, it is time you open your eyes to the truth. People in the year 2014 are backwards-thinking, and that includes your so-called "educated." There is no debate over this; this is fact.

My sarcasm was well placed in light of your ironic disdain for that for which you can thank our ability to have this conversation.

No. Your sarcasm only highlights your naivety. I really do hope that you stop wasting my time.

a reply to: iosolomon

Child, you are really naive. Without that "backwards thinking," we would be YEARS ahead than what we already have. How is that so hard for you to comprehend? No, really, why can't you understand the point I am trying to make? Stubbornness has ALWAYS been the antithesis to science, and it still exists even today.

I not a child, haven't been for a very long time. But how do you know where we would be? You have access to alternate realities? Did we destroy ourselves in any of them?

I'm not sure antithesis is the word you want, I think the antithesis to science would be superstition.

Maybe not. That is a very, very flawed path. If we follow that path, why, we would pollute the world so much that it would be too late before we had the "evidence" to actually make a change. Oh, what is that? Thanks to your "science," we already have that.

Yes, science can be a slow process. That's because it's a careful process. True, not everything that science has discovered has been put to good use. Are you blaming science for that? Are you saying that there is any form of knowledge that has only a good use?

People in the year 2014 are backwards-thinking, and that includes your so-called "educated." There is no debate over this; this is fact.

Of course there are backward thinking people. That is not at all a new phenomenon. But progress in a wide variety of fields continues to be made, at an accelerating rate, because there are far more forward looking people.

Purposely incomplete.

The incomplete relativity theories are designed to be an acceptable standard for describing what things LOOK like they're doing, not what they're ACTUALLY doing. Relativity, and it's incompleteness could be described as backwards, upside-down, a negative image, or a shadow.

There is another reason besides economic warfare that Tesla spent all of his years after the discovery of the relativity equation sitting on a park bench feeding pigeons.

a reply to: Phage

Thank you for a more engaging reply; I do hope I didn't come off as arrogant before.

I'm not sure antithesis is the word you want, I think the antithesis to science would be superstition.

You are most definitely right. My mistake. I took antithesis as meaning "impediment."

But progress in a wide variety of fields continues to be made, at an accelerating rate, because there are far more forward looking people.

And science would be made much faster if we would embrace the solid piece of wisdom that Socrates gave us, "We know nothing."

To pull us back on-topic, which this thread was regarding is e=mc^2 right or wrong, if people in today's society (not just the scientists) would embrace the idea that e=mc^2 is wrong, and one day, there will be the evidence to prove it is so, just how it has happened century after century, then we could allocate resources to actually start collecting the evidence needed to revolutionize this. However, there is a vested interest by the aristocrats to prevent this knowledge from being collected, since it would shake their system of control. And what layperson is going to say that Einstein was wrong if there is a backwards-thinking scientist (perhaps, one that is being paid off by a corporation that wants him or her to say, and trust me, these scientists who "distort" the facts if money is involved are out there ready for sale at a dime-a-dozen), then the layperson isn't going to demand that the government allocate resources to further advance society...

And that is the point I am trying to make. We need to stop clinging to dogma. History has shown us that when we do, it is only a matter of time before truth prevails (although, thankfully, no one is being burnt to the stake, but research is SOOOOO expensive that it still comes at a great cost). So, I'm merely saying that e=mc^2 is wrong, and we shouldn't argue that the evidence doesn't show this, instead, we should be investing in research that will get us new evidence.

a reply to: Mon1k3r

There is another reason besides economic warfare that Tesla spent all of his years after the discovery of the relativity equation sitting on a park bench feeding pigeons.

yeah sure there is, control
- imagine people with free and almost unlimited energy supply... terrorists !

BEW:

here some news on the liquid, electric Sun

originally posted by: iosolomon
So, I'm merely saying that e=mc^2 is wrong, and we shouldn't argue that the evidence doesn't show this, instead, we should be investing in research that will get us new evidence.

What's your basis for saying it's wrong?

People are doing more research every day. That formula can be derived from relativity and we are constantly testing relativity. These relativity experiments from 2010 are interesting:

Optical Clocks and Relativity

This link gives you the most recent papers in general relativity and quantum cosmology on arXiv:
arxiv.org...

Here's the problem with being too open-minded. There may be 100 different ideas on how to replace some existing science, some of which contradict each other. Let's say science wants to be open-minded and consider all of them possible. Where exactly does this get us? Until we know which of those hundred alternate ideas are right and which 99 are wrong, we could spend a whole lot of time spinning our wheels with the 99 wrong ideas and not getting anywhere.

The example I like to use is plate tectonics. Mainstream science rejected it at first even though now we think it's the correct model. So was science wrong to reject this correct idea? Science is supposed to be based on evidence and when first presented, the evidence wasn't sufficient to support the model. Once additional evidence was found to support the model (the mid Atlantic ridge was a key), science accepted the new model. It seems to me like this is how science is supposed to work and isn't broken, specifically, ideas with sufficient evidence tend to get accepted and ideas with insufficient evidence tend to get rejected. I'm not troubled by the fact that science rejects what may be a correct model due to lack of evidence, as happened with plate tectonics. I do however keep in mind that this can change when new evidence is presented, and this is the way science is supposed to work.

If you want a more recent example, look at the search for the Higgs boson, which some people didn't think existed, until its discovery. Now that we have evidence for it, it's harder for those people to dismiss it.

So far I haven't seen any research that says E=mc² is wrong except as I noted in the opening post that it is incomplete. Do you have some?

originally posted by: Mon1k3r
Purposely incomplete.

The incomplete relativity theories are designed to be an acceptable standard for describing what things LOOK like they're doing, not what they're ACTUALLY doing. Relativity, and it's incompleteness could be described as backwards, upside-down, a negative image, or a shadow.

Physics is always about what things LOOK like they're doing. Whether it is ACTUALLY doing anything is a unanswerable and sterile philosophical backwater without any additional assumptions and definitions which add nothing to the practice of physics.

There is another reason besides economic warfare that Tesla spent all of his years after the discovery of the relativity equation sitting on a park bench feeding pigeons.

Mental illness.

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Mon1k3r

There is another reason besides economic warfare that Tesla spent all of his years after the discovery of the relativity equation sitting on a park bench feeding pigeons.

yeah sure there is, control
- imagine people with free and almost unlimited energy supply... terrorists !

concentrated energy combined with low entropy is always weaponizable, starting from the first rock head tied to a club, the one that made Big Ogg king.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

Could it be that when Particle and anti particle collide to create radiation and 'so called annihilation', there are still matter particles involved, they are just difficult to detect? Like because the particles have different spins and stuff, the interaction releases greater amount of radiation then when particles of same signs interact, so physicists think that the particles themselves must have dissipated, but is it possible they turned into different matter particles, like those which make up dark energy field, or dark matter, or something else.

It's possible. However, we'd know because the resulting fragments which were observable didn't 'add up' in certain conserved quantities like energy, momentum, spin, or various other properties and there'd be a noticable gap of missing something for some reactions. If somebody can identify reactions which do this consistently it would be a big step.

That's exactly what happened in certain nuclear reactions in the 1930's, and thus the neutrino was born. It seemed to be a "verrrry conveneeenient" excuse from Wolfgang Pauli, but it turned out to be right.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So far I haven't seen any research that says E=mc² is wrong except as I noted in the opening post that it is incomplete. Do you have some?

Being incomplete is being wrong...

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. I can find countless examples (I've already used two very strong examples) of science's closed-mindedness wrecking devastation (not to mention that we are years behind than where we could be. It reminds me of the Family Guy episode where Stewie and Brian travel to another dimension where Christianity never existed, and people in the 20th-century were now in what would be our 30th-century.)

Science is flawed, and you can continue to cling to this flawed dogma of yours; before you know it, you'll be telling 2+2=5. Welcome to 1984. Wake up, already. All of you. Wake the f up.