David Thomson wrote: > 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.
Selectively quoting me to make me look stupid is not fair. >> 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. Is y = xa^2 not an equation? Yes, it is the equation of a straight line with slope a^2. > 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. Relax. The basis of my psycho-analytic critique rests with me, not you. Harry
