Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!

tfleming1_at_hotkey.net.au
Date: 08/13/04 

Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:38:05 +1000

"Harry Conover" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce4e226.0408111034.3f2ac06f@posting.google.com...
> "Duane C. Johnson" <redrok@redrok.com> wrote in message
news:<41198A54.2770C676@redrok.com>...
>
> > > What we are talking about here are chemical processes, which are much
> > > much less energetic than nuclear processes. No mystery here. Bees
> > > tend to powered by sugars (the nectar that they imbibe at the flowers
> > > they visit), which tend to be a large source of chemical energy. Same
> > > is true of hummingbirds. In fact, I've heard it said that
> > > hummingbirds must injest a certain high level of sugars each day just
> > > to keep their wings beating that rapidly. Interesting stuff, but no
> > > mass to energy conversion is necessary.
> >
> > Energy mass conversion still happens even at this small scale.
> >
> > Duane
>
> It has never been observed to happen. In any chemical or biochemical
> reaction, the mass of the reactants alway precisely equals the mass of
> the reaction products.
>
> I'm just guessing, but unless you have some very subtle point in mind
> that violates this relationship, you are confusing events assoiated
> with an energy liberating nuclear reaction with a chemical reaction.
>
> Harry C.

Harry

define your concept of a 'chemical' and a 'nuclear' reaction concpet

Relevant Pages
Loading