From: Party of Citizens (citizens@vcn.bc.ca)
Date: Sun Jun 23 2002 - 17:33:13 MDT
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Party of Citizens wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > > Party of Citizens wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How about EMPIRICAL proof that E = mc2? The best argument I have heard
> > > > that it is a valid equation is the assertion that the data of the many
> > > > nuclear reactors used for power confirms it. But I have yet to see these
> > > > data. Can anybody give a reference from these power plants that would
> > > > confirm the equation?
> > >
> > > Avery time a particle accelerator runs (including the one in your
> > > microwave oven), it is proving the validity of e=mc^2.
> >
> > It doesn't prove any such thing unless it gives us empirical values for
> > the theory-equation. What are those empirical values?
>
> The empirical values are inherent in the watts/current/voltage consumed
> versus the amount of heating actually performed on your crescent roll.
Not so. Again you are back to square one and the relating of theoretical
statements/equations to EMPIRICAL DATA.
POC
> High voltage power problems using any kind of transmission and radiation
> conversion depend on e=mc^2 for accurate readings. You don't actually
> convert mass into energy, but the equivalence the equation provides is
> of paramount importance. Furthermore, it is at its heart merely a
> specialization of the classical e=mv^2, e=ma, v=at, etc.... You do
> believe in Newton, I presume? Einstein's specialization could have
> occured at any time after the Principia was published.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:59 MST