88
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: +
no edit summary
I’d like to concur with Swifty in saying this article needs major revision. Like Swifty mentions, the first sentence needs to be revised. The idea of atomic particles being destroyed violates basic physics. I’m inclined not to do anything here unless I have written permission to make changes. After reading the E=MC2 article, it would be foolish to even think of doing so. Sort of blows my mind that someone ''knows'' a basic formula of relativity theory is liberal claptrap.--[[User:GinnyS|GinnyS]] ([[User talk:GinnyS|talk]]) 12:29, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
I’d like to concur with Swifty in saying this article needs major revision. Like Swifty mentions, the first sentence needs to be revised. The idea of atomic particles being destroyed violates basic physics. I’m inclined not to do anything here unless I have written permission to make changes. After reading the E=MC2 article, it would be foolish to even think of doing so. Sort of blows my mind that someone ''knows'' a basic formula of relativity theory is liberal claptrap.--[[User:GinnyS|GinnyS]] ([[User talk:GinnyS|talk]]) 12:29, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
:I revised the first sentence of the article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:I revised the first sentence of the article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:: How about this, it seems more to the point and has a reference? 'Nuclear energy is the energy released by atomic nuclei, as in nuclear fission or fusion.' [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/nuclear-energy]