From: Robert Comer 

>Thanks for engaging the argument. Is it really a thousand times?

No, it just seems like it -- it hasn't been a good week for me all the way
around, and that figured into my argument more than it should. (computer
problems up the wazoo.)

>It's certainly true that for people like us, the exact formula relating to
>energy-mass conversion is irrelevant. So I suppose you say that E=mc2 is
>not related to a nuclear explosion because there would be lots of other
>equations that, if true, would result in a spectacular bang.

Lots is an understatement!  (equations and good old
engineering/construction knowhow.)

>I don't think that pov does justice to Einstein's work. I have always
>regretted not studying physics hard enough to get more than a glimmer of
>insight into special relativity, but as I understand it, Einstein sat in a
>room and wondered about what explanation could account for what was known
>in science around 1900.

I'm not a physicist either, but I may have gone that way. Einstein is an
absolute hero to me.  I don't think it belittles his work at all.

Also remember that he did do some of the work on the Manhattan project as well...

>Einstein was cheeky enough to suggest that the speed of light would appear
>to be the same to any observer. From that ONE axiom (plus the hope that
>the laws of physics would apply everywhere), he came up with E=mc^2. That
>conclusion is an elegant consequence of what is probably the
>second-greatest intellectual achievement in human history.

Just curious, what do you think is the first?

>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.)

--
Bob Comer


On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:21:42 +1000, John Beckett
 wrote:

>Robert Comer  wrote in message
>news::
>> For the thousandth time it seems, E=MC2 is *just* and equation that
>> either describes how much energy results if you convert X amount of
>> mass, or it describes how much mass can result from a given energy
>> input if you could convert it.  Both of these being perfect
>> conversions...
>>
>> It describes nothing else about a nuclear explosion and a nuclear
>> explosion is no proof of E=MC2 because it's *****NOT***** a perfect
>> conversion.
>
>Thanks for engaging the argument. Is it really a thousand times?
>
>It's certainly true that for people like us, the exact formula relating to
>energy-mass conversion is irrelevant. So I suppose you say that E=mc2 is
>not related to a nuclear explosion because there would be lots of other
>equations that, if true, would result in a spectacular bang.
>
>I don't think that pov does justice to Einstein's work. I have always
>regretted not studying physics hard enough to get more than a glimmer of
>insight into special relativity, but as I understand it, Einstein sat in a
>room and wondered about what explanation could account for what was known
>in science around 1900.
>
>Einstein was cheeky enough to suggest that the speed of light would appear
>to be the same to any observer. From that ONE axiom (plus the hope that
>the laws of physics would apply everywhere), he came up with E=mc^2. That
>conclusion is an elegant consequence of what is probably the
>second-greatest intellectual achievement in human history.
>
>A lot of the consequences of special relativity were untestable for many
>years. In particular, there was no generally understandable proof of E=mc2
>until the first nuclear explosion that managed to convert a minuscule
>amount of matter into an enormous amount of energy.
>
>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".
>
>John

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