Hello again, Dave, >> Nuclear fission, regardless of what isotope is involved, >> results in the unbinding of nuclei and hence should absorb >> energy and convert it to matter. This is not the case.
> It is not the case because nuclei heavier than iron tend to > be inherently unstable. But I am no expert in nuclear physics. These two comments expressed by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Veeder appear to reveal a major bone of contention, an issue I gather that has been thrashed about for some time now. Let me approach the on-going controversy from a different perspective: Why is it always being argued that fusing atomic particles MUST always release energy no matter where we are on the atomic number scale, at least according to Einstein's E=MC^2 equation? Likewise, why is it always being argued that splitting atomic particles MUST my default always absorb energy no matter where we are on the atomic number scale, according to E=MC^2. Why? Why is it always being argued that, according to Einstein's E=MC^2, these two conditions MUST occur in ONLY this way? I don't get why this seems to be such an absolute constant in your argument. We all agree on the fact that energy is observed being released when fusing atomic nuclei, when dealing with elements under the atomic number of Fe, iron. Likewise we all agree on the fact that energy is also observed being released when atomic nuclei are split apart, when dealing with elements greater than the atomic number of Fe. In both cases, regardless of whether we are approaching Fe from above or below this magic atomic number, "mass" is reduced as measured by the remaining subatomic particles within the nuclei. Perhaps I should ask this vexing question from a different POV: How does the Aether theory explain the apparent loss of "mass" in fission interactions? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
