Me reminding you of the site rules and that management has advised everyone that baiting and bringing personal baggage into a discussion is not on, and all of a sudden you make it about me?
Only because you are the banned user Reality Check.
That's a new twist: you offend against the rules; I remind you of the rules; and according to you it's me who has the problem? That's the king of 'logic' you bring to the threads? Not objective; not good.
Anything you say, RealityCheck.
About the 'bond' energy. Doesn't matter who.
To you, no, since you wouldn't know MotorDaddy's approach to mechanics if it hit you with a feeler gauge.
And I didn't say it entered into the mass-energy equivalence.
Which makes it moot, doesn't it.
I only pointed out that you asserted that 'bond energy' is energy.
I clarified that it's usually treated as energy per mole. Not an assertion, a definition.
I pointed out that it is the energy 'lacking' that makes the bond come about; and that the energy to 'break' that bond is the energy, not the bond itself. You now admit that you were in error to assert that. Thanks for admitting to your error.
Nope, that's you just wishing that was what I said. Nice try. And way to stomp the dead horse.
And to break a bond, a certain amount of energy input per unit time is required (ie, certain frequency and or density). Isn't that a Power factor involved in the transference of energy from environment (radiation) to particle system whose 'bond' must be broken by that energy input of the correct minimum power of energy transference?
Who said anything about radiation? This is about chemistry. Defend Motor Daddy all you want. Go explain to him how many "watts per mole" are associated with the reaction of 1 mol of Cl[sup]-[/sup] with 1 mol of Na[sup]+[/sup] to form salt, and be sure to make that fits his equation E = P × t. Then go re-read my response to him, and see if you can figure out what you're railing about here or -- more important -- why.
So Motor Daddy is not so far off when he talks of 'power' in this context as well, since the greater excitation energy of the particle system comes from the power transfer of the added input energy over time during the interaction 'event' at the event centre of energy-space volume?
Way to tag team, Reality Check. Crankdom². Now, put aside the gibberish, go solve a spontaneous reaction problem--in Watts--and get back with me, and be sure to explain how MotorDaddy's prediction, that power is linear over the life of the reaction, compares with the real deal.
And you did not address my pointing out that collision is not necessary to produce matter, since the Big Bang energy differentiated into matter particles by dent of 'cooling' as the initial energy 'ex nihilo' spread out over the energy-space volumes over time. Also the creation of a particle pair (electron or other) matter from gamma radiation does not involve collision, but self-differentiation once the energy-density in the volume of energy-space is sufficient to allow such a process (which is reversible, again, without actual collision, but mutual field interactions). Your own assertions left much to be desired. So now you know.
Rather than confront your rant, Reality Check, we note that it's all moot since the question of creation of matter in a collider already killed Motor Daddy's claim that energy cannot create matter. But way to flog the dead horse.
Take care to obey the rules if you don't want to be thought a troll. That goes for everyone, as the management has already made quite clear. Thanks for your future cooperation in obeying the site rules and objective discussion without personal baitings or baggage, thanks.
Reality Check, just because you have been perma-banned all over again doesn't mean you should take your liberties here too far. At some point I presume they will catch up with you.
