E=mc2 has been proven incorrect

[Zekk]

Listen, you're trying to refute E=mc^2, but it has been proven time and again, our nuclear reactors work off it, our sun works off it, and in fact, the mathematical proof is remarkably simple. Time dilation has been observed... I mean... what are you trying to say? All the evidence proving it correct so far has just been a massive fluke? Come out and state your case.

No E=mc^2 is a well stated *theory* there is no fluke, As for my case well Its commplicated to say the very lest, I dont' now if I can really put it in to words you (or I) will understand but since you are so smart (Hint name) I will try.

So as I was sayin, E=mc^2 is energy=mass converted square as you know.
If energy is mass and you convert(multiply)it 2 + some urainium(or something else) and control it you get an atomic bomb, so if you take universal laws that your young(Premitive) minds Cant' comprehend, then you can (theoretically) modify the equation (only slightly) so it becomes more efficiant. did that help cause I didnt understand one word

[lethalfang]

and about the mark-9 comment, I was simply stateting that if you big wig university Geniuses actually complete the laws of physics (and E=mc2) and considering the gov does with it as they did with it originally than the result would be an explosion = to or greater than the mark-9 and since the mark-9 can create an explosion the size of Navada it would be very bad. my heads spinning

I don't know what you talking about.
There is absolutely nothing wrong and no inconsistency at all with nuclear power and E=mc2.
You are simply mistaken if you think the entire nuclear bomb is supposed to convert to energy.
Uranium is not and cannot converted into energy without the annilation of a counterpart: anti-matter, because the total quantum number is conserved. Either they both go, or they both stay. You cannot just convert matter to energy without anti-matter.
Uranium is split into lighter atoms, and some subatomic particles (and their anti-particle) are converted into energy in the fission process, and these tiny amount of subatomic particles are enough to destroy a city in 1945. There are leftover materials that are not and cannot be converted to energy, which we call "nuclear waste."
The only way to convert an entire atom into energy is matter and anti-matter annilation, which is the reason there is no "anti-matter waste."

[Three PhDs]

No E=mc^2 is a well stated *theory*

I think it's long past theory and into accepted fact.

As for my case well Its commplicated to say the very lest, I dont' now if I can really put it in to words you (or I) will understand but since you are so smart (Hint name) I will try.

Thanks for trying.

So as I was sayin, E=mc^2 is energy=mass converted square as you know.
If energy is mass and you convert(multiply)it 2 + some urainium(or something else) and control it you get an atomic bomb

See, straight off you've demonstrated that you don't understand the basic application of the theory, so why are you trying to change it?

so if you take universal laws that your young(Premitive) minds Cant' comprehend,

Only... we do fully comprehend relativity, it's a stunningly simple theory that's been proven time and again.

then you can (theoretically) modify the equation (only slightly) so it becomes more efficiant. did that help cause I didnt understand one word

No, it didn't help! Why on earth do you believe you can modify the theory, how can you make it more efficient? Seriously... you must have no grasp whatsoever on reality if you're writing things like that.

[Zekk]

Im a 16 yr old who watches to much science channel, tryin to learn basic programing so i can make a dragonball Z game that dont totally suck, I was stateing that eventually (500yrs or so) the equation could be used more efficiantly. so if I confussed everybody (Namely me)Im sorry!!!!!!REALLY SORRY!!!!!!!!

[lethalfang]

Im a 16 yr old who watches to much science channel, tryin to learn basic programing so i can make a dragonball Z game that dont totally suck, I was stateing that eventually (500yrs or so) the equation could be used more efficiantly. so if I confussed everybody (Namely me)Im sorry!!!!!!REALLY SORRY!!!!!!!!

Trying to make this equation more "efficient" for nuclear power is like trying to take into account special relativistic effect for the way I drive my car: it will be negligible and insignificant. The fact that this equation predicts the nuclear power phenomenon is a proof of such.

[iBorg]

Im a 16 yr old who watches to much science channel, tryin to learn basic programing so i can make a dragonball Z game that dont totally suck, I was stateing that eventually (500yrs or so) the equation could be used more efficiantly. so if I confussed everybody (Namely me)Im sorry!!!!!!REALLY SORRY!!!!!!!!

Well, you have to trust sci-fi less and real science more.
To me, your proposal about using the equation "more efficiently" looks like saying "let's say that 2+2=5 because it's more efficient than 2+2=4".
Just remember, science fiction is FICTION !

[Zekk]

true but remember alot of stuff has come out of such fiction(1944 the atomic bomb was a star of comicbooks)

[lethalfang]

true but remember alot of stuff has come out of such fiction(1944 the atomic bomb was a star of comicbooks)

Nuclear bomb has been a subject of intense scientific research, NOT science fiction, for at least 15 years before 1944.

[iBorg]

true but remember alot of stuff has come out of such fiction(1944 the atomic bomb was a star of comicbooks)

Bad example. The atom bomb didn't come from those comic books, but from Einstein (and others') already documented research works and theories.

[Fsudryden]

OKay,

First off I apologize for he title fo the post. My excitement got the better of me. There are flaws in there project and research.

But to say that a theory is absolute fact is as equally ignorant. After listening to you and other qualified scientists over the years I have come to a conclusion.

Over the years it seems scientists have decided to talk in absolutes, What made science great where people who had open minds and say things as theories not as absolute fact.

There where plenty of scientists in history who went against all so called facts and proved there colleagues wrong. There is probably a level of astrophysics lightyears ahead of what we have now that we cannot even fathom that may put E=mc2 to shame. But, to say this is the end all be all to astrophysics equations is like saying my Motherboard is the only MB and none other will be made. There will be no faster or better model to be made.

I do not have a PhD, but that does not make me a moron. Although I can see when people believe in something so much that anyone who thinks differently must be an uneducated idiot and needs to be ignored. Intellectual elites are a problem in science today. Thank God for the free thinkers in the world today.

Anyways E=mc2 maybe the best equation in existence and all E.T.'s may come to this planet to learn that theory. Or, this is just the very beginning of our small understanding of a universes that we have not even begun to understand.

[lethalfang]

You are mistaken. You have failed to grasp the concept behind current understanding of the universe.
E=mc2 will never be put to shame, just as Newton's equations of gravity will never be put to shame. Both of them are monumental scientific achievements, and will always be remembered as such.

But to say that a theory is absolute fact is as equally ignorant. After listening to you and other qualified scientists over the years I have come to a conclusion.

No one has said the theory is absolutely correct, just as no one is saying Newton's law of absolutely correct. However, saying "it is wrong" is just wrong. The theory is not absolute but it is good. Saying it's wrong only shows your ignorance.

Over the years it seems scientists have decided to talk in absolutes, What made science great where people who had open minds and say things as theories not as absolute fact.

You are again mistaken.
Scientists never speak in absolute terms. However, a smart scientist CAN rule out the impossibilities for violating fundamental laws of nature. To blindly put any wild and BASELSS ideas on the equal footing as a legitimate scientific theory is just ignorant.

There where plenty of scientists in history who went against all so called facts and proved there colleagues wrong.

All proposed theories are always taken seriously, even if they are not immediately accepted, unless they are proven wrong.
Most "theories" proposed by amateurs are so wrong they do not warrant a second look. The worst thing is these amateurs often claim conspiracy theory and whine about the "establishment" of scientific structure.

There is probably a level of astrophysics lightyears ahead of what we have now that we cannot even fathom that may put E=mc2 to shame. But, to say this is the end all be all to astrophysics equations is like saying my Motherboard is the only MB and none other will be made. There will be no faster or better model to be made.

Probably so, just as the theory of relativity is light years ahead of Newton's classical mechanics, however, to say Newton's classical mechanics is shame is just plain ignorant.

I do not have a PhD, but that does not make me a moron. Although I can see when people believe in something so much that anyone who thinks differently must be an uneducated idiot and needs to be ignored. Intellectual elites are a problem in science today. Thank God for the free thinkers in the world today.

Without intellectual elites, I will see a bunch of amateurs still trying to construct perpetual motion motors and hapless followers wasting their time and effort in that kind of crap.
We always build upon what we have achieved yesterday.
Issac Newton has said, "I am able to see farthur, only because I stood on the shoulders of the giants."
Without learning what has been learned previously, you start from stratch every single generation, and you will never get anywhere.

Anyways E=mc2 maybe the best equation in existence and all E.T.'s may come to this planet to learn that theory. Or, this is just the very beginning of our small understanding of a universes that we have not even begun to understand.

Scientists probably will one day find equations that explains better than E=mc2, just as we have found the theory of relativity that has explained better than Newton's laws. However, Newton's laws are still valid, and no one could ever come up with relativity if he has not learned to grasp the concept of Newtonian physics in the first place.
You think Einstein would've come up with relavitity had he not learned and understood Newtonian physics?

When you come up with some wild ideas, I want to see SOUND LOGIC.

[walterIsTheMan]

Over the years it seems scientists have decided to talk in absolutes, What made science great where people who had open minds and say things as theories not as absolute fact.

if you think scientists always talk in absolutes, then you havent read a bit of relativity or quantum theory. relativity layed waste to the idea that time was an absolute, it showed it to be relative. and theres nothing absolute in quantum theory. perhaps youve heard of the uncertainty principle

[Den Sethos]

1870 or so, Jules Verne's Robur the Conqueror displays a flying machine. In his other novels, submarines (ok, there was that Bushnell machine, but it was still considered as a gadget), flight into the moon, all of that was fiction.

Less than 100 years later, it was there... I don't think we have naquadah mines to exploit up there, but for all we know as yet, it might be possible to break the wall of light. Before WW2 aeronautics big heads thought 800 Km/hours was the maximum a plane could reach. 10 years later they were almost ready to break the wall of sound.

Einstein's formula works under normal circumstances. Every day, in many labs in the world, particles that defy our physics are created in particle accelerators.

[iBorg]

Taken from http://stardestroyer.net :

Pseudoscience Diagnosis: 13 Symptoms

The easiest way to spot pseudoscience is to track the authors' methods to see if they follow the scientific method, because they usually don't. I also have a "lucky 13" list:

Attacks on mainstream science. Look for adjectives such as "dogmatic" or "close minded" being directed toward the scientific community at large. Look for phrases such as "the establishment refuses to even consider this" or "it is curious that no one in the scientific community is willing to examine this possibility", etc. These phrases often preface a theory which is so utterly preposterous, so appallingly devoid of supporting evidence or proper method that it would be laughed out of any scientific journal, so what does the author do? Accuse scientists of being "close minded" for not taking it seriously! It is the ultimate pseudoscience mind game; write a study which is so incompetent that it would receive a failing grade as a school assignment, and when every reputable scientist dismisses it as worthless, quote the uniformity of the rejection as "proof" of the conspiracy of silence! Another common catch phrase is that "mainstream scientists have no explanation for this". When you read that, ask yourself "how do we know that's true?" What if mainstream scientists do have an answer, and this person is just too ignorant to know about it? For example, creationists love to point out that geological strata are sometimes found in a highly perturbed state (eg. inverted, cross-cut, or otherwise disrupted), sneering that "evolutionists have no explanation!" But if you were to ask any geologist, even one who's still an undergrad in university, he would be able to rattle off the explanation without missing a beat (those kinds of phenomena are explained by basic geological processes and can be easily identified as such in situ, thus eliminating the possibility of erroneous dating by a competent geologist).

Those who keep coming with pseudoscience technobabble and definitive assertions like "relativity has been proven wrong but close-minded official scientists don't want to think differently" should read the rest of the article.

[lethalfang]

1870 or so, Jules Verne's Robur the Conqueror displays a flying machine. In his other novels, submarines (ok, there was that Bushnell machine, but it was still considered as a gadget), flight into the moon, all of that was fiction.

Fundamental difference between dreaming of doing something that currently has no means of doing so, versus coming up with "new science."
Everyday, scientists dream of traveling to other star system, and that's why there are so many sci-fi shows. People dream of traveling to the unknown world, but no scientist shall consider seriously about traveling by scientifically bogus means.

Less than 100 years later, it was there... I don't think we have naquadah mines to exploit up there, but for all we know as yet, it might be possible to break the wall of light. Before WW2 aeronautics big heads thought 800 Km/hours was the maximum a plane could reach. 10 years later they were almost ready to break the wall of sound.

The sound barrier is the most misquoted thing in science. The sound barrier merely presented a engineering issue to current technology. Some thought we will never break the sound barrier in the near future, within the generation. There is no dount sound barriers can be broken, unless they have missed all the meteorite traveling more than 10 times speed of the sound and crashing onto earth daily.

Every day, in many labs in the world, particles that defy our physics are created in particle accelerators.

Really? I haven't heard any. Cite the source.
In fact, many prominant subatomic particles discovered in these atom smashers were long predicted before their experimental discovery. One interesting story is Fermi's prediction of neutrino, whose mass is so small, he said something to the effect of, "I have done something scientists shall never do, predict something that cannot be discovered."
It was indeed discovered years later.