johnny rocket

As usual, my ridiculously simple question has elicited wildly different responses from so-called science experts. Sadly, I found more consistency from New Ager’s (those not requiring linguistic gymnastics). However...Well Done Swansont, you are the only one who got the correct answer of “True”. E may not equal mc2. At best, it might be only provisionally true. There is no evidence to suggest that it is permanently true. (I hope you don’t lose tenure over this rational position.) The concept of Annihilation is a purely abstract philosophical construct in a universe that might be infinitely divisible in all directions. As such, it has no place in science. If removing this “pillar” causes other unsafe equations, theories and sacred cows to fall, I say let the shoddy edifice come crashing down. Philosophers never issued them building permits on our land in the first place. Frankly, John Cuthber (Chemistry Expert) you have wandered too far off the reservation into pseudo-omniscience. “It is impossible to transmit speech electrically. The 'telephone' is as mythical as the unicorn.” — Professor Johann Christian Poggendorrf, Germany physicist and chemist “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British scientist One would hope by the 21st century that all scientists would be more reflective on pragmatism; that they would be less inclined to cite words like “impossible”, “no new microscope”, etc. when describing the absolute realm. Perhaps the chemistry experts from the 784TH century might dare to differ with you, upon locating some “missing” spent fuel, sextillions of times smaller than a quark. Presently, there is no evidence to rule out this possibility. As such, my advice to you is to stick to your knitting within the practical realm, where chemistry has made a fine contribution to humanity. Be well

This is exactly why I call it a sacred cow, because I cannot get a "true" or "false" answer to my simple question. One last time: One day we might develop a more advanced microscope, which will locate some of these so-called “missing” pieces of spent fuel. T or F?

Was that a "true" or a "false"? I can't make this question any simpler. Ps By and large, scientists have made a fine contribution to humanity—however, only when they stick to their knitting, meaning the practical or empirical realm. Unfortunately, too many have wandered off the reservation by delving into more philosophical matters pertaining to the absolute realm.

The issue is the annihilation of matter. True or False? One day we might develop a more advanced microscope, which will locate some of these so-called “missing” pieces of spent fuel. If you answer true, then E may not equal mc2. If all the “missing” mass is found one day, then m = 0 If you answer false, then you are implying it is impossible for any microscope, even if we continue to enhance them ad infinitum. Many scientists once stated that it was impossible to land on the moon, impossible to break the sound barrier, etc. As a pragmatist, why should I assume they are correct about annihilation, instead of being merely shortsighted once again?

For the detailed "down-to-earth" explaination, visit http://markplain.com/special_relativity.aspx