Einstein proven right

[pauldun170]

http://in.news.yahoo.com/48/20081121/1247/twl-e-mc2-103-years-later-einstein-prove_1.html

[fnfalman]

It should be that Einstein hasn't been proven wrong.

[Corey]

I honestly thought this would be an article about some guy melting his skin off trying to fry a frozen turkey, thus adding more proof to Einstein's quote "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

[pauldun170]

It should be that Einstein hasn't been proven wrong.
:dthumb:

[Particle Man]

It should be that Einstein hasn't been proven wrong.

agreed.

between this and day-to-day work in quantum mechanics the face of science is always changing...

[Captain Morgan]

So, it took a "brainpower consortium" to prove a lone man's theory?

Also note the article wasn't edited very well. They post it as e=mc2, which isn't technically correct. They either need to use a superscript for the 2, use the carrot symbol to denote the 2 means squared, or they need to break the equation down to make it correct in print if they can't do either of the aforementioned. These are two ways to correctly display the equation if it isn't possible to use a superscript for the 2: e=mc^2 or e=m(c*c). These are both vastly different than e=mc2.

[pauldun170]

So, it took a "brainpower consortium" to prove a lone man's theory?

Also note the article wasn't edited very well. They post it as e=mc2, which isn't technically correct. They either need to use a superscript for the 2, use the carrot symbol to denote the 2 means squared, or they need to break the equation down to make it correct in print if they can't do either of the aforementioned. These are two ways to correctly display the equation if it isn't possible to use a superscript for the 2: e=mc^2 or e=m(c*c). These are both vastly different than e=mc2.
Out of uncertainty I post this

[Captain Morgan]

Out of uncertainty I post this

:wtf:

[fasternyou929]

So, it took a "brainpower consortium" to prove a lone man's theory?

Also note the article wasn't edited very well. They post it as e=mc2, which isn't technically correct. They either need to use a superscript for the 2, use the carrot symbol to denote the 2 means squared, or they need to break the equation down to make it correct in print if they can't do either of the aforementioned. These are two ways to correctly display the equation if it isn't possible to use a superscript for the 2: e=mc^2 or e=m(c*c). These are both vastly different than e=mc2.

e=mc2 is much better than one line where it was written "e-mc2".

[Particle Man]

"e-mc2".

boy would THAT fuck up the world of physics :lmao:

[Captain Morgan]

e=mc2 is much better than one line where it was written "e-mc2".


True. I did catch that and meant to mention it, hence my comment at the beginning about the article being poorly edited. :lol:

[Carolina]

:wtf:


:panic::panic::panic:

[Dragonpaco]

boy would THAT fuck up the world of physics :lmao:

you wanna see some fucked up physics; take a look at AMJ's theroy that E=MC Hammer. put that in your quantum box and smoke it

[Smittie61984]

boy would THAT fuck up the world of physics :lmao:

Kind of like succesfully dividing by zero...
http://motivationalimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/divided_by_zero.jpg

In the article's defense it was Yahoo INDIA. Plus I think Einsteins theory is famous enough that people will understand E=MC2 is E=MC^2 or Squared. Infact I think in one of my Scientific American articles it writes it as E=mc2. But other less famous formulas in more scientist targeted journals might show it correctly since scientists might use the formula for their own experiments.

But yet Einstien is proved again to Fucking Rule in the world of Awesomeness.