Hi Harry, >>>> If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted >>>> to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should >>>> create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion. > >>> It depends on where they are on the periodic table.
>> Another irrational argument. I know what fusion and fission are. >> Perhaps you don't realize that fission is a physics process, regardless >> of what element it refers to, and the same with fusion? > I did not claim otherwise. Can you not read your own writing? You said, "It depends on where they are on the periodic table." Either you tried to befuddle the conversation by changing the subject, or you didn't realize the difference between a physics process and objects to which the physics processes occur. > SR may be intuitively displeasing, but source of the displeasure is in you and not in the mathematics of SR. Now you are going to try to turn away from science and turn to psychological profiling? Why can't you stick with the science? It is very clear that E=mc^2 is not an equation and that all theories that use this "equation" must have no foundation. Stephen boldly stated he wanted a rational mathematical proof that SR was wrong. I gave him one, and he gave up on rational discussion and science and started name-calling. Now you are turning to psychological profiling. Isn't that how it always goes when discussing Special Relativity? The theory cannot be defended except by character assassination of the people who question it. Dave
