From: Robert Comer 

>Indeed. But no E=MC2 & no point in working on the bomb in the first
>place so no bomb.

I disagree -- if there wasn't E=MC2, *we* wouldn't even be here to work on
it in the first place, our very body's work on that principal. (not to
mention our environment is built with it.)

--
Bob Comer






On Sun, 06 May 2007 08:52:19 +0100, Adam
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote:

>Robert Comer wrote:
>>> It has everything to do with nukes.
>>
>> Just how does that describe anything about an atomic explosion and how
>> it happens, any more than any other way of converting mass to energy.
>>
>>> Energy equals mass times light speed squared.
>>
>> Duh.
>>
>>> That means a relatively
>>> small amount of mass can convert to a large amount of energy.
>>
>> Sorry, that knowledge was already there before the first nuclear
>> explosion, we just upped the level on how much we could convert. (it's
>> still a pitiful yield compared to E=MC2')
>>
>
>Indeed. But no E=MC2 & no point in working on the bomb in the first
>place so no bomb.
>
>People looked at the figures, knew there'd be losses, factored that in &
>then realized it would still be enough to vitrify a city so....Manhattan
>project.
>
>Adam

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