From: Robert Comer 

>But now you say the above. Why make me guess what's on your mind?

You implied Relativity and Special Relativity is fact, not theory and
that's just wrong, simple as that, nothing more..

>Humble suggestion: Either give an explanation to support your pov, or if
>you don't want to take the time, don't reply at all.

The evidence enough is that the scientific community still call it a
theory.  There are some problems too that just don't reconcile with the
theory...

>Earlier, you mentioned chain reactions. That's the mechanism for causing a
>nuclear explosion, but no amount of critical mass or chain reactions could
>give a nuclear explosion if it were not possible to convert mass into
>energy, with the amount of energy being released being a very large
>multiple of the amount of mass lost.

I have no problem with that statement, but that isn't the only way to
convert mass to energy, that's what I've been saying all along, E=MC**2 is
not just expressed in a nuclear explosion, it works for all mass
conversions to energy.

--
Bob Comer


On Sun, 13 May 2007 15:02:45 +1000, John Beckett
 wrote:

>Robert Comer  wrote in message
>news::
>>> I guess you're saying that the first nuclear explosion didn't actually
>>> prove the precise details of the E=mc2 equation, but it sure did prove
>>> the general point, and it showed that the special theory of relativity
>>> was more than "just a theory".
>>
>> That's where we disagree.  (and it's still just a theory.)
>
>We agree that the first nuclear explosion did not give evidence for the
>exact details of the equation E=mc2.
>
>But now you say the above. Why make me guess what's on your mind?
>
>Humble suggestion: Either give an explanation to support your pov, or if
>you don't want to take the time, don't reply at all.
>
>Earlier, you mentioned chain reactions. That's the mechanism for causing a
>nuclear explosion, but no amount of critical mass or chain reactions could
>give a nuclear explosion if it were not possible to convert mass into
>energy, with the amount of energy being released being a very large
>multiple of the amount of mass lost.
>
>Einstein sat in a room and wrote down "E=mc2". Years later, scientists
>managed to convert appreciable amounts of mass to energy in the first
>nuclear explosion. And you seem to think that "it's still just a
theory"
>is somehow a profound  remark.
>
>John

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5