Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!
From: AA Institute (abdul.ahad_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: 08/11/04
- Next message: G. R. L. Cowan: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: The electron shell model is in challenge"
- In reply to: John Larkin: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Next in thread: G. R. L. Cowan: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Reply: G. R. L. Cowan: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Reply: Harry Conover: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Reply: Fritz Schlunder: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Reply: John Larkin: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Aug 2004 04:10:50 -0700
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in message news:<juohh0plrgp8gdtnmidpkm2ei9j40ksctn@4ax.com>...
> On 10 Aug 2004 05:24:42 -0700, abdul.ahad@ntlworld.com (AA Institute)
> wrote:
>
> >I don't know much about this topic so I'm not going to pretend...
> >Generally, during detonation of an atom bomb, mass is converted into
> >energy in accordance with the famous equation of E=MC^2 and I believe
> >the highest efficiency of conversion of mass into energy in such a
> >reaction has been observed to be less than 10% (is it 8%?). I have 2
> >questions in relation to this:-
> >
>
> Nukes don't turn *real* mass (ie, whole particles) into energy, they
> just shuffle nuclear binding energy around, so efficiency of apparent
> mass to energy conversion a tiny fraction of a percent. To truly turn
> mass to energy you should destroy some genuine mass in a
> matter-antimatter reaction, which is 100% efficient at the
> emm-cee-squared thing.
>
Since anti-matter is to all intents and purposes a purely fictitious
concept...with all due respects to the late Einstein... does E=MC^2
have any *real* meanings? Is it perceived more as a notional thing
than a more useful, directly quantifiable equation like, say the
gravity equation F=G(m1*m2)/r^2, given by the late Sir Isaac Newton?!
- Next message: G. R. L. Cowan: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: The electron shell model is in challenge"
- In reply to: John Larkin: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Next in thread: G. R. L. Cowan: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Reply: G. R. L. Cowan: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Reply: Harry Conover: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Reply: Fritz Schlunder: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Reply: John Larkin: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|