Misconceptions of E=MC^2

So when a scientist says that E=mc2 has been proven, all he means is that the accuracy of the equation is supported by a great deal of empirical evidence.

em·pir·i·cal (m-pr-kl)
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws

It depends on what you mean by "proven". A brazillion experiments have been performed on this, and it has been verified in all of these. In science, that counts as "proven".

I grant this semantic issue, but I think creationists tend to think of "proven" in a more absolute sense and believe it implies that no other conclusion is possible, the way we think of mathematical and logical derivations.Presenting the issue of tentativity alongside use of the word "proof" is also difficult, often seeming to be a contradiction. Plus creationists think the existence of the Christian God is 100% certain, proven beyond any doubt by the literal truth of the Bible in terms of history and prophecy.

Well, I'll go a bit further and say that many creationists (and many non-creationists) are still in a Classical mindset where they believe that definite knowledge about the real world can be obtained through the pure application of logic, and, in fact, feel that pure logic is the best way to acquire knowledge.

I may be wrong since I haven't paid much attention to the threads on which he has been active, but I'm suspecting that Heinrick is going to make some point about things not being "100% proven", something that hasn't been considered a problem in intellectual thought for about 200 years or so.

Were they tested in Brazil?

That one was French, unfortunately. Though interestingly Eddington's solar eclipse test of relativity was done in Brazil.

In plain English:
Yes, E = mc2 has been directly verified.

Then why don't you just get to the bloody point? E = mc2 has been verified, and Modulus has even cited an experiment that verified it to a high level of accuracy.
It would help the discussion if you'd just spell out what your point is -- then we can write our posts so that they are more relevant, and we wouldn't have to waste our time beating around the bush.

Re: plain english please
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I included plain English as well, I thought if you were comfortable with maths I'd throw in some background maths.
In as plain as English as I can muster given the question:Newton described work and forces and their relationship with acceleration, velocity and mass etc etc etc. Einstein incorporated a mathematical idea developed by a fella called Lorentz into his theory and used those ideas to modify the descriptions of Newton. These modifications left us with the rather beautiful equation, E = MC2This is important because it helps illuminate that E=mc2 is essentially the result of modifying the Newtonian laws in accordance with theory. It isn't purely derived from theory, as some people might believe, and I hope that that possible misconception is now cleared up. E=mc2 is not a theory, it is an equation that results from modifying the classical laws of physics to agree with theory.Thus, it is not off topic, it is at the heart of at least one possible misconception.

A brazillion experiments have been performed on this, and it has been verified in all of these.

When you said "could you tell me about one of these brazillion experiemnst?"

What do you mean it cannot be done?Energy is proportional to the square of the speed of light just like the intensity of a signal is propotional to the square of the amplitude.Just because you cannot concieve of the speed of light being squared or the amplitude of a signal being square doesn't mean that other properties cannot be proportional to them.

Now-a-days, in the internet world, the word brazillion has become to mean just "a lot".

How much effort have you actually put into looking up the experiments that verify that E=mc2?

If you mean, has the equation been experimentally confirmed, as in, does the equation correlate with reality as tested? Yes. I have given you an example of an experiment that does this directly.

Take your arms and point them outward at 90o angles to the direction you are facing. These represent the direction of momentum that you can have. At rest, you can go left, right, or straight ahead. As your velocity theoetically increases in the direction you are facing, we can represent this by slowly bringing your arms together in front of you to the direction you are facing. As you speed up, and as the angle of your arms gets less and less, your momentum in the left and right directions is less and less. At the point when both your arms are pointing in the direction you are facing, you have become light and your momentum can go nowhere but forward. You mass has tranformed into energy. The energy available from this trasformation is proportional to the amount of mass that was available (obviosly) and is also exponentially proportions to the veocity. This exponent is 2. Its proportional to the speed squared.