David Thomson wrote:
Hi Harry,
If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted
to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should
create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion.
It depends on where they are on the periodic table.
Another irrational argument. I know what fusion and fission are.
Perhaps you don't realize that fission is a physics process, regardless
of what element it refers to, and the same with fusion?
I did not claim otherwise.
Can you not read your own writing? You said, "It depends on where they are
on the periodic table." Either you tried to befuddle the conversation by
changing the subject, or you didn't realize the difference between a physics
process and objects to which the physics processes occur.
SR may be intuitively displeasing, but source of the displeasure is in you
and not in the mathematics of SR.
Now you are going to try to turn away from science and turn to psychological
profiling? Why can't you stick with the science? It is very clear that
E=mc^2 is not an equation and that all theories that use this "equation"
must have no foundation.
Stephen boldly stated he wanted a rational mathematical proof that SR was
wrong. I gave him one, and he gave up on rational discussion and science
and started name-calling.
Excuse me. For the record, you accused me of having SR as my
"religion", after which I observed that "cranks" always seem to say that
in relativity discussions, which is true. Go back and check the post.
I didn't say "You are a crank". I said "cranks" (are you one?) always
seem to resort to claiming people who "believe in" relativity have it as
their "religion". That is hardly "resorting to name calling" on my
part, rather it's a defense against an ad hominem attack from you, and
any time spent checking the science newsgroups (e.g.,
sci.physics.relativity) will confirm that what I said about "cranks" is
true!
Before that, I said your arguments didn't seem to make sense (at least
to me). It's a bit harsh, but is that "name calling"? Not by normal
standards. It is, rather, an invitation for you to go over your
arguments in greater detail, step by step, and prove that they really do
make sense.
And then, rather than expand, rephrase, or defend your mathematical
arguments, YOU said _I_ was "irrational and brainwashed", and said it
was the "end of the discussion". And, indeed, that response from you
ended any "discussion" with _you_ as far as I'm concerned.
By the way, an "ad hominem" attack is against the person rather than the
arguments. That is what you did. I attacked your _arguments_, and you
attacked _me_.
So let's get this straight: YOU resorted to name calling. YOU resorted
to an ad hominem attack. YOU ended the discussion. YOU kicked over the
chessboard, which implicitly forfeits the game.
Apologize for calling me "irrational and brainwashed", and we can
continue the discussion, if you like.
I had additional comments and questions about your mathematical
statements but after reading your assertion that I'm "irrational and
brainwashed" I dumped them in drafts and sent the one-line reply I
actually posted, confirming the end of the argument.
But it's YOUR decision to end it -- YOU said "End of discussion" and
called _me_ irrational ... not the other way around.
And, unless I'm sadly mistaken, by resorting to insults directed at me
and my person, not my arguments, you are in violation of the rules of
this email group.
Now you are turning to psychological profiling.
Isn't that how it always goes when discussing Special Relativity? The
theory cannot be defended except by character assassination of the people
who question it.
Dave
