Talk:Law of conservation of matter

I realy believe that it should be a dinstict article from them conservation of mass --Lucinos 08:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I wrote some of what I had in mind but of course somenone have to clean it up. --Lucinos 20:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Reworked
Changed subtitles, removed first person viewpoint and informal notations, rewrote introduction. Still needs expasion. Jerr 01:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Since the las of conservation of matter is ALMOST the law of conservation of mass, they should be merged. Jerr 16:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Since they are two different laws they shouldn't be merged. Also it will be easier to find because they are on two different pages rather than both put into one.

please, before you think that it should be merged (I personally disagree with the merge) se the history, for example this version. --Lucinos 09:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

what I am saying is that the matter-antimater conservation and the conservation of atoms are not good to be as conservation of mass. are not the same. --Lucinos 09:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This article needs serious work, but better yet, it should be merged/submerged into the Conservation of mass article. (Actually, very little of this article needs to be merged into the Conservation of mass article because it already convers the subject reasonably well).  The vast majority of readers are interested in the commonly-understood Conservation-of-mass subject as applied to non-nuclear processes.  A brief internal link to a portion of an article on nuclear fission or fusion will suffice to remind the reader that these processes require a different way of thinking about the conservation of mass.  Thermbal 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and merge. I think its news even to many chemists that the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of matter are different things. With my vote, I count three in favour of merging and one opposed. Kla'quot