Talk:E=mc²
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFD discussion: January–March 2020
Huh? Equinox ◑ 19:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Is there anything wrong? --Daniel 00:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is a formula, made of variables and operators. Silly thing to have here. Equinox ◑ 13:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Admissible[edit]
This isn't a word or a phrase, it's a formula. It contains no words. What possible justification is there? It's well-known, but so is 1+1=2. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Not a word or a phrase in any language, in fact it contains no words. I'd rather have ee equals em cee squared, as that at least contains words, and is part of a natural language. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. This is Wikipedia stuff. Besides, there are no citations showing a usage as word. Our mission does not include equations. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- See also discussion of F=ma above. That should go, too. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments at F=ma. It is not the kind of language a dictionary does, or should, deal with. In general we suffer from "scope creep" where contributors want to include stuff that ought to be in Wikipedia, TVTropes, or whatever. Equinox ◑ 16:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck- this isn't E=mc², folks... Chuck Entz (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- What does this mean? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- "This isn't E=mc²" is a variant of "this isn't rocket science". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Never heard of it, but that would be a little ironic; E=mc² isn't terribly complicated. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe not complicated, but incomprehensible without specialized knowledge. My main point was that E=mc² is used as a symbol of the arcane/mysterious, but powerful aspects of science. The current definition is more like etymological information to go with senses of that sort than a proper definition for our purposes. As for the phrase itself, I've heard it used, but it seems to be pretty rare, and probably is dated, too: relativity seems a bit ordinary compared to the bizarre concepts that have come since E=mc² was the leading edge of science and Einstein was a huge celebrity. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- The current definition of E=mc² doesn't really help understanding "this isn't E=mc²". IMO, the sentence itself deserves an entry,
but not the formula.— Xavier, 00:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC) - Correction: Keep, per Chuck Entz, and add a second sense for the implied meaning. See google books:"is the e mc2 of" for example. — Xavier, 00:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- The current definition of E=mc² doesn't really help understanding "this isn't E=mc²". IMO, the sentence itself deserves an entry,
- Maybe not complicated, but incomprehensible without specialized knowledge. My main point was that E=mc² is used as a symbol of the arcane/mysterious, but powerful aspects of science. The current definition is more like etymological information to go with senses of that sort than a proper definition for our purposes. As for the phrase itself, I've heard it used, but it seems to be pretty rare, and probably is dated, too: relativity seems a bit ordinary compared to the bizarre concepts that have come since E=mc² was the leading edge of science and Einstein was a huge celebrity. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Never heard of it, but that would be a little ironic; E=mc² isn't terribly complicated. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- "This isn't E=mc²" is a variant of "this isn't rocket science". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- What does this mean? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- keep -- Liliana • 20:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. There is an entire chapter on the symbolic value of the formula in Martin Kemp, Christ to Coke: How Image Becomes Icon (2011), p. 307-339. Also:
- 1999, Mary Lynn Damhorst, Kimberly A. Miller-Spillman, Kimberly A. Miller, The Meanings of Dress, p. 351:
- "Beauty isn't about looking young." OK, so it's not E=mc² or even Newton's apple. But coming as it does from a top cosmetics company, it does represent an attitude readjustment that makes Saul's change of heart on the road to Damascus look like a passing fancy.
- Cheers! bd2412 T 01:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to keep this one. But I'm not really sure why. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- For one thing, if you do a Google Books search for "the E=mc2 of", you'll get hundreds of hits for various other fundamental propositions from fields as diverse as fashion, religion, advertising, biology, and politics. For example:
- 2010. Stephen Batchelor, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist, p. 154:
- If conditioned arising was the e = mc² of Gotama's vision, the eightfold path was his first move in translating that axiom from an abstract principle into a civilizing force.
- Cheers! bd2412 T 16:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- For one thing, if you do a Google Books search for "the E=mc2 of", you'll get hundreds of hits for various other fundamental propositions from fields as diverse as fashion, religion, advertising, biology, and politics. For example:
Here are some more examples that I think support a distinct sense:
- 2006, Jeff Byles, Rubble: Unearthing the History of Demolition, p. 70:
- Loizeaux's battle plan remains formidably elegant, the E = MC² of demolition.
- 2001, Neil Henry, Pearl's Secret: A Black Man's Search for His White Family, p. 282:
- What counted most through the generations, far more than any other factor, regardless of our race, was how we treated those we loved and how well we loved. That seemed the transcendent lesson or moral that my search had revealed. And it held true whether the figure was my mother or Fredda on one side of our family tree, or Rita or Anna Beaumont on the other. Simple as it was, it was my E = mc².
Cheers! bd2412 T 16:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep widespread and epic.Lucifer (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Liliana Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 04:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as cited. DAVilla 18:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Equations are not words (see Talk:F=ma). Note that the English entry (metaphorical usage) stays; I'm only RFDing the literal usage of this equation to explain a relation between energy and mass. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, delete please.__Gamren (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- It appears that the term can be attested as a noun with the more general meaning “[the] fundamental (or magic) formula [of some field of human endeavour]”: [1], [2], [3].
Keep, but with only this meaning. --Lambiam 10:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)- Isn't that our English definition: "Any formulation or realization that captures a profound thought in simple terms"? Canonicalization (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I didn’t pay enough attention and did not realize there were two entries here. Delete. (I still think the English term is a noun: “my E = mc²”, “the E = mc² of ...”. --Lambiam 22:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't that our English definition: "Any formulation or realization that captures a profound thought in simple terms"? Canonicalization (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. HeliosX (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 21:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)