Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457987

Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified.

Show all headers | View raw

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 1:05:07 AM UTC+8, Libor Striz wrote:
> chanrasjid@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+8, Steve BH wrote:
> >> The first direct test of E = mc2 was done after Cockcroft and Walton split Li-7 with accelerated protons in 1933 to make He-4. The mass difference is measured by mass spectrometry, and the kinetic energies are measured also, and they agree.
> >> 
> >> A modern version binds neurons to Si and S atoms and carefully measure the capture gamma energy. It is equal to the mass difference in particles before and after binding.
> >> 
> >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maynard_Dewey/publication/7399131_World_Year_of_Physics_A_direct_test_of_Emc2/links/0fcfd512427eda05d6000000/World-Year-of-Physics-A-direct-test-of-Emc2.pdf
> >> 
> >> Your author needs to do his homework.
> > 
> > From your link:
> > "Our direct test is based on the prediction that when a nucleus captures a neutron and emits a γ-ray, the mass difference del-m between the initial (including unbound neutron) and final nuclear states, multiplied by c2) should equal the energy of the  emitted  γ-ray(s),  as  determined  from Planck’s  relation  E=hv."
> > 
> > The neutron mass of James Chadwick has E=mc2 written into it and anything with neutron mass is not acceptable to verify E=mc2.  It is easy to dismiss the author  Ling Jun Wang  through :
> > "Your author needs to do his homework" and providing a link which shows e=mc2 has been "thoroughly" verified. You provide a link. Please tell me why I should accept what you linked to and why I should accept your dismissal of  Ling Jun Wang.
> > 
> > Finally this BBS type forum is generally not a decent forum for serious debate in physics. There actually is no proper forum to do any true debate in physics. Is there a proper manner of argument not base on "Your author needs to do his homework". I am bored by such statements as a serious statement of scientific discussion.
> > 
> > Chan Rasjid.  
> > 
> I would be even more strict.
> 
> You need to do proper research of what is known, before posting
>  contraversial  article  with suspicious  statements.
> 
> You are very uncritical with acceptance of the mentioned article.
> There is bunch of nonsenses.
>
"nonsense" is rather relative.
 
> There are several serious physical forums, not based on Usenet.
> The age of serious Usenet  has gone.
> 
> See 
> physics.stackexchanhe.com
> www.physicsforums.com 
> 
> But they have high standards to accept posting or discussion.
>
"high standards" again is rather relative.
 
> OTOH,  Usenet has no forced standards, except for few moderated
>  forums like sci.physicics.research,
> and allows posting of articles of any  quality. 
> 
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> Miloš Forman
>
"stupidity" is again rather relative!
 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Chan Rasjid

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 01:16 -0700
  Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 08:44 -0700
    Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 09:28 -0700
      Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:05 +0200
        Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:08 +0200
        Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 11:01 -0700
          Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-15 20:30 +0200
            Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 19:14 +0000
      Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 22:15 -0700
        Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 07:31 -0700
          Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 12:57 -0700
          Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:09 -0700
            Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 16:45 -0700
              Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 21:21 -0700
                Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 01:15 -0700
                Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 12:33 -0700
                Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 01:28 -0700
                Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 02:28 -0700
  Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:02 -0400
    Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 22:24 -0700
      Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 10:11 -0400
        Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 07:37 -0700
          Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:23 +0000
            Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-16 21:12 -0700
              Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 12:22 +0000
                Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 00:17 -0700
          Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-16 13:58 -0700
            Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 14:20 -0700
              Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 18:45 +0000
                Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 21:15 -0700
  Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 06:11 -0700
    Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 16:01 +0000
  Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:31 -0700

csiph-web