On the Interpretation of the Equation E = mc 2: Response to Krajewski

International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20 (2):217-218 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This Article does not have an abstract

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,667

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On the Interpretation of the Equation E = mc 2: Reply to Flores.Władysław Krajewski - 2006 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20 (2):215-216.
Władysław Krajewski, 1919–2006.Tomasz Bigaj - 2007 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (1):91 – 93.
Second response to Paul Needham.Eric R. Scerri - 2000 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14 (3):307 – 315.
Interpretations of Einstein’s Equation E = mc 2.Francisco Flores - 2005 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 (3):245-260.
Rethinking science and values.Hans Radder - 2010 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (1):107 – 114.
Philosophy of Science for Theologians: An Introduction.Pawel Kapusta - 2010 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (4):443-446.
Editorial.James Robert Brown - 2001 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15 (2):125 – 126.
Objectivity.Chiara Ambrosio - 2010 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (1):125 – 128.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
53 (#412,169)

6 months
4 (#1,263,115)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Interpretations of Einstein’s Equation E = mc 2.Francisco Flores - 2005 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 (3):245-260.
On the Interpretation of the Equation E = mc 2: Reply to Flores.Władysław Krajewski - 2006 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20 (2):215-216.

Add more references