Einstein's Law of Special Relativity sounds fucking retarded

[parthenokinesis]

According to this article

According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons.
The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent?
The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions of quarks and gluons.
In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.
The e=mc2 formula shows that mass can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into mass.
By showing how much energy would be released if a certain amount of mass were to be converted into energy, the equation has been used many times, most famously as the inspirational basis for building atomic weapons.
But resolving e=mc2 at the scale of sub-atomic particles – in equations called quantum chromodynamics – has been fiendishly difficult.
“Until now, this has been a hypothesis,” France’s National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) said proudly in a press release.
“It has now been corroborated for the first time.”

Just fucking great. First, I have to remember that Pluto’s not a planet anymore, now these French fuck-sticks have “advanced” science so that I have to remember not to call it a theory anymore. Have they no decency? It worked fine as a theory, we still made bombs and shit, we didn’t need to go proving the damn theories. Now I have to change a piece of information in my own brain. Christ, don’t I have enough to do.

Hey! Science doing people! Stay away from Darwin’s Evolution thingy. And string thingamabob. and grand unifying whooziwhatsis. Remember the cost of your “proof”, lab coat wearer. You just think about it.

[Kimstu]

It’s okay, you can still call Special Relativity a “theory”. Remember, “theory” can refer to a scientific model with or without conclusive experimental corroboration. Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, for example, can still be called a “theory” even though it’s solidly confirmed as fact (outside the quantum scale, that is).
(For the benefit of other readers, I think what the OP’s on about is the (mistaken) idea that Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity can no longer be called a “theory” but must now be termed a “law” because of the recent experimental confirmation of its predictions by CNRS researchers. Yeah, I was confused too, especially since the OP’s linked article makes no mention of having to make any changes in terminology. Also, I thought the OP was complaining that it was something in the content of Special Relativity that “sounds fucking retarded”, and came in here to see what objection anyone could possibly have to E=mc^2. Not the most effective Pitting ever, perhaps, but I think a lot of it may be tongue-in-cheek anyway.)

[The_Second_Stone]

@Kimstu

It’s okay, you can still call Special Relativity a “theory”. Remember, “theory” can refer to a scientific model with or without conclusive experimental corroboration. Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, for example, can still be called a “theory” even though it’s solidly confirmed as fact (outside the quantum scale, that is).
)

I thought that the General Theory of relativity was a more inclusive theory of gravitation than Newton’s, which worked well for human scale situations, but not for really massive things, for which the space time curvature was a better model? Technically Newton’s is not the best theory for such instances. Was I misinformed? Neither works on the quantum level, from what I recall.

[Malacandra]

You’re right, Mercury’s perihelion precesses in a manner that Newton’s Theory of Gravity doesn’t account for. (Other planets too, but Mercury is the fastest and exhibits the phenomenon most markedly.) It was a big mystery until relativity came along; astronomers were looking for another planet even nearer the Sun to account for it.

[Kimstu]

Yup, you’re right, Second Stone: I should have specified that classical or Newtonian mechanics doesn’t apply on the quantum scale and isn’t as accurate as General Relativity on the macro scale either.

Up to the limits of its accuracy, though, Newtonian gravitation is as solidly confirmed by evidence as any scientific model can be, and yet we still call it a “theory”.