The Theory of Evolution

[Sunni Man]

E=MC2

The atomic bomb's invention didn't depend on this formula to be built.

 

[edthecynic]

E=MC2 is a theory, but it's facts made the atom bomb possible..

Actually, it's a mathematical formula that describing an observed fact regarding how much energy one gets when matter is converted into energy.

Actually, it STILL is a theory. Specifically, Einstein's SPECIAL Theory of Relativity, which is distinguished from Einstein's GENERAL Theory of Relativity, AKA The Principle of Equivalence.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

E=MC2 is a theory, but it's facts made the atom bomb possible..

Actually, it's a mathematical formula that describing an observed fact regarding how much energy one gets when matter is converted into energy.

Actually, it STILL is a theory. Specifically, Einstein's SPECIAL Theory of Relativity, which is distinguished from Einstein's GENERAL Theory of Relativity, AKA The Principle of Equivalence.

For a generally accessible and less technical introduction to the topic, see Introduction to special relativity.
USSR postage stamp dedicated to Albert Einstein

Special relativity (SR) (also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after the considerable and independent contributions of Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré and others) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[1] It generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity–that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames)–from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be.[2] Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.[3]

This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified,[4] including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, contradicting the classical notion that the duration of the time interval between two events is equal for all obser]vers. (On the other hand, it introduces the space-time interval, which is invariant.) [BCombined with other laws of physics, the two postulates of special relativity predict the equivalence of matter and energy, as expressed in the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2[/B], where c is the speed of light in a vacuum.[5][6] The predictions of special relativity agree well with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically in experiments in which all velocities are small compared to the speed of light. Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon—namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime. One of the consequences of the theory is that it is impossible for any particle that has rest mass to be accelerated to the speed of light.

E=MC^2 is a mathematical formula expressing the relationship between matter and energy. To say that special relativity is just the formula E=MC^2 is nowhere near accurate. The formula describes observed facts; the theory is an attempt to explain observed facts, as are all theories. The formula is not the theory and the theory is not the formula.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, it's a mathematical formula that describing an observed fact regarding how much energy one gets when matter is converted into energy.

Actually, it STILL is a theory. Specifically, Einstein's SPECIAL Theory of Relativity, which is distinguished from Einstein's GENERAL Theory of Relativity, AKA The Principle of Equivalence.

For a generally accessible and less technical introduction to the topic, see Introduction to special relativity.
USSR postage stamp dedicated to Albert Einstein

Special relativity (SR) (also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after the considerable and independent contributions of Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré and others) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[1] It generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity–that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames)–from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be.[2] Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.[3]

This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified,[4] including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, contradicting the classical notion that the duration of the time interval between two events is equal for all obser]vers. (On the other hand, it introduces the space-time interval, which is invariant.) [BCombined with other laws of physics, the two postulates of special relativity predict the equivalence of matter and energy, as expressed in the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2[/B], where c is the speed of light in a vacuum.[5][6] The predictions of special relativity agree well with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically in experiments in which all velocities are small compared to the speed of light. Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon—namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime. One of the consequences of the theory is that it is impossible for any particle that has rest mass to be accelerated to the speed of light.

E=MC^2 is a mathematical formula expressing the relationship between matter and energy. To say that special relativity is just the formula E=MC^2 is nowhere near accurate. The formula describes observed facts; the theory is an attempt to explain observed facts, as are all theories. The formula is not the theory and the theory is not the formula.

I never said STR was "JUST" E=mc^2, I said E=mc^2 was still a theory non the less. Especially when you consider that there was no way to confirm E=mc^2 at the time Einstein made it in 1905.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

, I said E=mc^2 was still a theory

And proven wrong, as it was never a theory and is actually a mathematical formula. The Special Theory of Relativity is a they. E=MC^2 is a mathematical formula.

I never said STR was "JUST" E=mc^2

Yes, you did. You said (E=MC^2) = STT. You were shown to be wrong. Own up to it.

 

[edthecynic]

, I said E=mc^2 was still a theory

And proven wrong, as it was never a theory and is actually a mathematical formula. The Special Theory of Relativity is a they. E=MC^2 is a mathematical formula.

It's a mathematical formula that in 1905 expressed the theoretical relationship between mass and energy. Just because it was a mathematical formula did not make it any less theoretical in 1905.

I never said STR was "JUST" E=mc^2

Yes, you did. You said (E=MC^2) = STT. You were shown to be wrong. Own up to it.

Here's exactly what I posted. Show me the word "just" or the equal sign.

Clearly from my capitalizations, I was separating E=mc^2 from the GENERAL theory and connecting it to the SPECIAL theory but in no way limiting the STR.

Originally Posted by edthecynic
Actually, it STILL is a theory. Specifically, Einstein's SPECIAL Theory of Relativity, which is distinguished from Einstein's GENERAL Theory of Relativity, AKA The Principle of Equivalence.

 

[MajikMyst]

So let me see if I understand this??

E=MC2 is commonly called 'The theory of relativity' and they say it is fact??

Evolution as it is described is simply a theory!!

Well there is the problem!! We need to be saying 'Theory of evolution' and they will believe it to be fact..

Man are we stupid or what?? Why didn't you morons simple tell us that?? We could have saved 16 pages of bickering!!

 

[froggy]

Among those who negate the validity of Darwin and the science communities' theories on the evolution of man and our fellow critters, where is the point of contention? Is it heredity that seems unrealistic? Is it the natural selection (survival of the fittest) mechanism that seems like hogwash? Maybe the time over which it is claimed to take effect? I'm new to this board, but like the responsiveness of this community, and would appreciate some help understanding where the theory has gone wrong.

Take a look at Darwin at age 51:

See anything wrong with him???? He's BALD!

I'm not going to trust a bald man and neither should you!

Looks apeish, maybe looking at himself in the mirror is where he got his theory of ape to man

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Here's exactly what I posted. Show me the word "just" or the equal sign.

Originally Posted by edthecynic
Actually, it STILL is a theory. Specifically, Einstein's SPECIAL Theory of Relativity, which is distinguished from Einstein's GENERAL Theory of Relativity, AKA The Principle of Equivalence.

'X is 12' and 'X=12' are equivalent statements

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So let me see if I understand this??

E=MC2 is commonly called 'The theory of relativity'

No. Einsteinian relativity is a theory that seeks to explain WHY E=MC^2 (that E-MC^2 is an observed fact. It was predicted by Einsteinian relativity and confirmation of it is supporting evidence for the theory. E=MC^2 is a mathematical formula which describes, mathematically, a certain fact about the universe)

 

[rdean]

Until someone can come up with another "theory" that can stand the "scrutiny", "evolution" is the "only game in town".

PS

Magic is NOT a "theory".

 

[edthecynic]

So let me see if I understand this??

E=MC2 is commonly called 'The theory of relativity'

No. Einsteinian relativity is a theory that seeks to explain WHY E=MC^2 (that E-MC^2 is an observed fact. It was predicted by Einsteinian relativity and confirmation of it is supporting evidence for the theory. E=MC^2 is a mathematical formula which describes, mathematically, a certain fact about the universe)

It was confirmed 25 years after Einstein proposed it THEORETICALLY.
It was a theoretical proposal that was LATER verified. The equation is the theory in mathematical terms.

 

[edthecynic]

Here's exactly what I posted. Show me the word "just" or the equal sign.

Originally Posted by edthecynic
Actually, it STILL is a theory. Specifically, Einstein's SPECIAL Theory of Relativity, which is distinguished from Einstein's GENERAL Theory of Relativity, AKA The Principle of Equivalence.

'X is 12' and 'X=12' are equivalent statements

But 'X is 12' is not equivalent to '12 is "JUST" X'. 12 can also = a+b+c.
You failed to show where I LIMITED the STR to "JUST" E=mc^2. It's obvious from ALL the words I used and which words "I" emphasized that I was merely distinguishing E=mc^2 from General Relativity.

When it was proposed there was no way to verify it so it was a purely theoretical equation for the relationship between mass and energy. 25 years later the theoretical equation was confirmed and therefore the theory was verified.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So let me see if I understand this??

E=MC2 is commonly called 'The theory of relativity'

No. Einsteinian relativity is a theory that seeks to explain WHY E=MC^2 (that E-MC^2 is an observed fact. It was predicted by Einsteinian relativity and confirmation of it is supporting evidence for the theory. E=MC^2 is a mathematical formula which describes, mathematically, a certain fact about the universe)

It was confirmed 25 years after Einstein proposed it THEORETICALLY.
It was a theoretical proposal that was LATER verified. The equation is the theory in mathematical terms.

Wrong. The formula describes the relationship between matter and energy as predicted by the theory (and verified repeatedly). Every time you repeat that ST is just E=MC^2 and E=MC^2 is the whole of ST, the dumber you show yourself to be.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Here's exactly what I posted. Show me the word "just" or the equal sign.

'X is 12' and 'X=12' are equivalent statements

But 'X is 12' is not equivalent to '12 is "JUST" X'.

One post above this, you say that ST can be totally summed up in E=MC^2, that E=MC^2 IS ST written in a single equation. Do try to make up your mind.

You failed to show where I LIMITED the STR to "JUST" E=mc^2

See your last post

It's obvious from ALL the words I used and which words "I" emphasized that I was merely distinguishing E=mc^2 from General Relativity.

You said that E=MC^2 was the whole of ST, written in 5 characters (when written using actual superscript)

When it was proposed there was no way to verify it

Yes, there was. Else it would have been unverifiable/untestable and thus not a valid theory. It just hadn't been done yet. It was clear how it could be tested; someone just had to design and carry out an experiment meeting the requisite criteria.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

25 years later the theoretical equation was confirmed and therefore the theory was verified.

No single experiment ever verified Special Theory. It never has been verified. You reveal once again how scientifically illiterate you are.

 

[edthecynic]

No. Einsteinian relativity is a theory that seeks to explain WHY E=MC^2 (that E-MC^2 is an observed fact. It was predicted by Einsteinian relativity and confirmation of it is supporting evidence for the theory. E=MC^2 is a mathematical formula which describes, mathematically, a certain fact about the universe)

It was confirmed 25 years after Einstein proposed it THEORETICALLY.
It was a theoretical proposal that was LATER verified. The equation is the theory in mathematical terms.

Wrong. The formula describes the relationship between matter and energy as predicted by the theory (and verified repeatedly). Every time you repeat that ST is just E=MC^2 and E=MC^2 is the whole of ST, the dumber you show yourself to be.

Those are YOUR words, you have been challenged to show where I used the word "JUST" and you have failed to produce. No matter how many times you repeat your words they never become mine.

And the THEORETICAL formula was verified for the FIRST time 25 years after it was proposed.

 

[edthecynic]

'X is 12' and 'X=12' are equivalent statements

But 'X is 12' is not equivalent to '12 is "JUST" X'.

One post above this, you say that ST can be totally summed up in E=MC^2, that E=MC^2 IS ST written in a single equation. Do try to make up your mind.

Those are YOUR words not mine, you don't speak for me!
See your last post

It's obvious from ALL the words I used and which words "I" emphasized that I was merely distinguishing E=mc^2 from General Relativity.

You said that E=MC^2 was the whole of ST, written in 5 characters (when written using actual superscript)

Your words yet again, not mine.

When it was proposed there was no way to verify it

Yes, there was. Else it would have been unverifiable/untestable and thus not a valid theory. It just hadn't been done yet. It was clear how it could be tested; someone just had to design and carry out an experiment meeting the requisite criteria.

.

Einstein's formula was not simply an academic exercise, because he believed that it might explain the curious fact discovered by Marie Curie, that just an ounce of radium emitted 4,000 calories of heat per hour indefinitely, seemingly violating the first law of thermodynamics (which states that the total amount of energy is always constant or conserved). He concluded that there should be a slight decrease in its mass as radium radiated away energy (an amount too small to be measured using the equipment of 1905). "The idea is amusing and enticing; but whether the Almighty is laughing at it and is leading me up the garden path—that I cannot know," he wrote. He concluded that a direct verification of his conjecture "for the time being probably lies beyond the realm of possible experience."

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It was confirmed 25 years after Einstein proposed it THEORETICALLY.
It was a theoretical proposal that was LATER verified. The equation is the theory in mathematical terms.

Wrong. The formula describes the relationship between matter and energy as predicted by the theory (and verified repeatedly). Every time you repeat that ST is just E=MC^2 and E=MC^2 is the whole of ST, the dumber you show yourself to be.

Those are YOUR words, you have been challenged to show where I used the word "JUST" and you have failed to produce. No matter how many times you repeat your words they never become mine.

And the THEORETICAL formula was verified for the FIRST time 25 years after it was proposed.

The formula itself cannot be theoretical and I have repeatedly shown where you said E-MC^2 is all the whole of ST written in a single equation. Your dishonesty (or is just stupidity?) is astounding.

 

[edthecynic]

But 'X is 12' is not equivalent to '12 is "JUST" X'.

One post above this, you say that ST can be totally summed up in E=MC^2, that E=MC^2 IS ST written in a single equation. Do try to make up your mind.

Those are YOUR words not mine, you don't speak for me!
See your last post



You said that E=MC^2 was the whole of ST, written in 5 characters (when written using actual superscript)

Your words yet again, not mine.


Yes, there was. Else it would have been unverifiable/untestable and thus not a valid theory. It just hadn't been done yet. It was clear how it could be tested; someone just had to design and carry out an experiment meeting the requisite criteria.

.

Einstein's formula was not simply an academic exercise, because he believed that it might explain the curious fact discovered by Marie Curie, that just an ounce of radium emitted 4,000 calories of heat per hour indefinitely, seemingly violating the first law of thermodynamics (which states that the total amount of energy is always constant or conserved). He concluded that there should be a slight decrease in its mass as radium radiated away energy (an amount too small to be measured using the equipment of 1905). "The idea is amusing and enticing; but whether the Almighty is laughing at it and is leading me up the garden path—that I cannot know," he wrote. He concluded that a direct verification of his conjecture "for the time being probably lies beyond the realm of possible experience."

Wrong. The formula describes the relationship between matter and energy as predicted by the theory (and verified repeatedly). Every time you repeat that ST is just E=MC^2 and E=MC^2 is the whole of ST, the dumber you show yourself to be.

Those are YOUR words, you have been challenged to show where I used the word "JUST" and you have failed to produce. No matter how many times you repeat your words they never become mine.

And the THEORETICAL formula was verified for the FIRST time 25 years after it was proposed.

The formula itself cannot be theoretical and I have repeatedly shown where you said E-MC^2 is all the whole of ST written in a single equation. Your dishonesty (or is just stupidity?) is astounding.

You have shown no such thing as those are YOUR words and YOUR words alone. And Einstein himself considered the formula a conjecture, so he must be stupid or dishonest too. I'm in good company.