Why E=MC^2 is a THEORY.

[8v10un30sun]

MIT said and I quote,

Despite the results of the current test of E=mc2, Pritchard said, "This doesn't mean it has been proven to be completely correct.

SOURCE: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html

Please stop calling me out indicating that E=MC^2 is completely and rigorously proven.  It is not and here you have it from MIT.  That's what I said at the beginning of this debate and it still holds true.  You are just trying to bait and switch.  It doesn't work with me.  Just give it up.

[b_rod]

MIT said and I quote,

MIT on E=mc^2:

No, it is clear how stupid you are:

FROM YOUR  SOURCE ABOVE....YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ IT!!!

"The team found that the formula predicting that energy and mass are equivalent is correct to an incredible accuracy of better than one part in a million. That's 55 times more precise than the best previous test."

Cited: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html

Anyone else see the FRAUD that is 8v10un30sun?

MIT on EVOLUTION:

The campus events this week celebrating the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin are much more than a matter of cake and ice cream to researchers like Jonathan King. The MIT professor of molecular biology sees the occasion as a chance to examine Darwin's theories on natural selection across an array of disciplines, with an eye toward better understanding how the Earth of tomorrow is being shaped by the organisms of today.

Featuring some of the nation's most prominent researchers in a variety of disciplines, the Jan. 22-24 conference will highlight recent discoveries on how evolution works and how it continues to alter our lives. Ranging from sessions on evolution of the Earth, air and sea to the famed British naturalist's impact on culture and society, the symposium will honor a scientist whose name in recent years has been a touchstone of controversy. The conference underscores how evolutionary processes affect everything from our eyesight and immune system and to the air we breathe and the water we drink.Â

CITED: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/darwin-0116.html

So lets here you disagree with MIT on EVOLUTION now. Notice NO MENTION of your God of the Gaps?

 

MIT agrees with E=mc^2. Let me know when they say, E=/=mc^2. Notice how they didn't make that claim you moron?

 

[8v10un30sun]

1) E=MC^2 not COMPLETELY PROVEN.  That's the KEY here.  E=MC^2 as a theory has been known for 60 years.  Nothing new there.
2) Evolutionary THEORY does not disprove GOD.

[b_rod]

1) E=MC^2 not COMPLETELY PROVEN.  That's the KEY here.  E=MC^2 as a theory has been known for 60 years.  Nothing new there.
2) Evolutionary THEORY does not disprove GOD.

 

So you agree with the THEORY OF EVOLUTION? And MIT....because they agree with E=mc^2

Let hear you say it! It disproves a YOUR GOD OF THE BIBLE.

 

[8v10un30sun]

ET does not say god does not exists QED.

So you agree with the THEORY OF EVOLUTION? And MIT....because they agree with E=mc^2

Let hear you say it! It disproves a YOUR GOD OF THE BIBLE.

 

[b_rod]

ET does not say god does not exists QED.

HOW SCIENCE DISPROVES YOUR GOD:

AGE of the Earth....
AGE of the Universe....
Life before your Jesus.....
Life before your God....
Life before your Bible.....


Seriously, are you that STUPID?

 

[8v10un30sun]

Science is about observation.  Science never observed God and so many other things.  Science never observed any object or point moving C^2 too.  Your point is?  There isn't one.  If you are going to disprove something you should learn how a proof is setup.

Here is a link from your school you attended on how to write a real proof.

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.html

HOW SCIENCE DISPROVES YOUR GOD:

AGE of the Earth....
AGE of the Universe....
Life before your Jesus.....
Life before your God....
Life before your Bible.....


Seriously, are you that STUPID?

 

[wadupgee]

Here goes another brain talking about this theory vs law issue.

"Put succinctly, a theory is a Law that hasn't been around long enough or doesn't yet have enough data to become a Law."

Dr. Michael E. Maguire
Department of Pharmacology
School of Medicine
Case Western Reserve University

Gravity exist because the law of gravity is something that we all should agreed on that there is such a thing as gravity.

However, the theory of gravity described the law of gravity and we have seen that theories have been debunked from time to time, in due time thus why scientists are smart enough to make it a theory so that others in the distance future can find something better with such theory to either debunk it or make it better. 

[HmonGuy]

if E = MC^2 is not proven yet.....how did we get atomic energy?  
how did they split the atom?  

did you people realized that we have lots of nuclear bombs and power plants yet?

looks like some of you need to go back to more schoolings  

[8v10un30sun]

Theory to Theorem requires a rigorous proof.

To rigorously prove that A=B, one must prove that A=B IFF A->B ^ B->A.  You can prove and demonstrate E=MC^2 but for rigor you must prove and demonstrate M=E/C^2 as well of your proof to be complete.  So far we have taken energy from mass to make nuclear fusion and fission.  However, we have never taken energy to make mass, which is the requirement to rigorously proof mass-energy equivalence of E=MC^2.

Fun fact...Did you know that one Teaspoon (5ml) of water will power up this whole country if we converted it to PURE energy?

if E = MC^2 is not proven yet.....how did we get atomic energy?  
how did they split the atom?  

did you people realized that we have lots of nuclear bombs and power plants yet?

looks like some of you need to go back to more schoolings  

[sprite]

I'm not sure the intent of scientific work is to disprove or prove the existence of God. Although many scientists have given their perspective on the subject of god and religion, I doubt their work is to intentionally support or denounce in a religious debate.

[b_rod]

Theory to Theorem requires a rigorous proof.

We keep hearing this BULLSH.IT, but where is the PROOF? Where is the LINK? Where it is stated by a SCIENTIST? Where does it say that a THEORY can become a THEOREM in science? We are talking science, you have it confused with MATH.

 

Post a source already!

Watch me destroy your logic:

"Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law"

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.


CITED: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

Do the same, POST A SCIENTIFIC SOURCE!

OR

[b_rod]

"Put succinctly, a theory is a Law that hasn't been around long enough or doesn't yet have enough data to become a Law."

Dr. Michael E. Maguire
Department of Pharmacology
School of Medicine
Case Western Reserve University

Did you actually read the whole article? Do you even know what was being said? What you posted shows your misunderstandi ng of what was written.

Here let me help shed some light.

A law is, to my mind, simply a very, very broad and very very important theory for which we have very very good data and which applies to many, many aspects of our world.
A theory can be either a very limited or a very broad explanation of a particular set of facts, an explanation that describes the relationship between previously unexplained or noncohesive facts and ideas.

- Dr. Michael E. Maguire, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine (Why did you not get a quote from Theoretical Physicists, they are actually WAY more qualified    )

Still confused? Here is more, put in simple terms for the simpleton (wadupgee)!

scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works.

CITED: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

 

[8v10un30sun]

Everyday I post the source.  Everyday you don't read it.   

[b_rod]

Everyday I post the source.  Everyday you don't read it. 

 

You are pathetic dude. Where is a SCIENTIFIC source that says God is REAL? Where is a SCIENTIFIC SOURCE that says EVOLUTION did NOT happen?

BTW, I can see that you really thought that science does NOT disprove your God of Baloney.

Evolution disproves your God. Dinosaurs disprove your God. SCIENCE disproves your God. The age of the EARTH. Genes.