From: Robert Comer 

>What other mass to energy conversion vector is there besides ke=1/2mv^2
>(from which e=mc^2 is derived)? Are you therefore saying that "normal"
>explosions have nothing to do with *that* formula? I would have even
>*more* of a problem with that.

Exactly the opposite of that, it's all governed by that formula, nuclear no
more than any other type of conversion.

--
Bob Comer


On Mon, 7 May 2007 08:34:29 -0400, Bill Lucy  wrote:

>In article , bobcomer-
>removeme-{at}mindspring.com says...
>>
>> Let me restate that just a tad, it's true E=MC2 describes the
>> conversion of mass to energy, it doesn't describe a nuclear explosion
>> any more than any other mass to energy conversion vector, and in
>> that's what I mean be it doesn't have anything to do with Nukes.
>
>What other mass to energy conversion vector is there besides ke=1/2mv^2
>(from which e=mc^2 is derived)? Are you therefore saying that "normal"
>explosions have nothing to do with *that* formula? I would have even
>*more* of a problem with that.
>
>
>

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