Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457978
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. |
| Date | 2018-05-15 19:05 +0200 |
| Organization | news.eternal-september.org |
| Message-ID | <pdf401$cu$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <dcbb54ad-94fa-4083-8df6-2d8b9136200f@googlegroups.com> <bcda5d12-c2b2-4bae-b184-43c0122609c0@googlegroups.com> <b19a6bbc-80b9-47d3-9016-bc5b8445f5d6@googlegroups.com> |
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. 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. 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 ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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