Einstein's Mistakes

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

"In "Lo!", Fort commented that Einstein 'has shown with his palsies the
insecurities of that in science which has been worshipfully regarded as
the Most High.'..."Nevertheless, the lay press lauded Einstein. After
the horrors of the Great War, his theories had, in a wonderful phrase
from Ohanian, 'a whiff of esoteric mysteries and gave the reading public
some pleasant frisson without demanding any real mental effort.'
Einstein's lecture tours and the 'propaganda and advertising campaigns'
by publishers created a celebrity that still casts a shadow over others'
work.... By the end of Ohanian's compelling book, we're familiar with
Einstein's intellectual products, flaws and all. But we don't know how
Einstein attained his theoretical insights and why he seemed so blind to
his errors. Einstein had, Ohanian claims, 'an inclination to mysticism'.
He formulated his ground-breaking theories by the 'habit of grubeln, or
protracted, agonized brooding.'" - Mark Greener "Agonized Brooding" Book
review of Ohanian's Einstein's Mistakes.

[Bertietaylor]

The big idea was to debunk aether as that involved Hindu metaphysics.
Nonsense physics was invented for that purpose.
Radioactivity causing nukes justified the huge E in MCC.
But in early 2000 Arindam's equation kinetically linking mass and energy
explained nukes far better with no mysterious hocus-pocus.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

E= mc^2 has never been the formula to calculate the energy released in
atomic explosions.

[rhertz]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
E= mc^2 has never been the formula to calculate the energy released in
atomic explosions.

Serber and Oppenheimer taught (1943) several waves of scientists that
joined the Manhattan Project with lectures prior joining any team, and
Serber wrote the booklet "Los Alamos Primer", where they taught that
energy liberated in the fission of the atom was of electrostatic nature,
due to the repulsion of the byproducts of the fission, plus radiation.

The numbers given in the booklet are almost a match with E=mc^2
calculations of that epoch, but have NOTHING TO DO with relativity, as
Serber wrote in his 1992 book, once some data of the project was cleared
for publishing.

But relativists, since 1945 (Time Magazine cover) hyper-hyped the figure
of Einstein and relativism, and the cult succeeded in re-writing
history.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: "Heisenberg (1959, cited from the 1981 issue, pp 95-96)
designates the mass-energy relationship as secure findings, though he
describes the usual interpretation, a transformation of
mass into energy, as a misunderstanding: 'It is occasionally maintained
that the enormous amounts of energy released during the explosion of an
atomic bomb come directly from the conversion of mass into energy and
that one could only predict this gigantic amount of energy on the basis
of the theory of relativity. However, this attitude arises from a
misunderstanding. That great amounts of energy are stored in the atomic
nuclei has been known since the experiments of Becquerel, Curie and
Rutherford on radioactive decay. [...] The energy associated with the
splitting of the uranium nucleus has the same origins as in the case of
the [alpha-]decay of a radium nucleus, i.e. mainly from the
electrostatic repulsion of the two parts into which the atomic nucleus
is split. The energy released by an atomic explosion thus comes directly
from this source and does not derive from a conversion of mass into
energy.'" - "Catalogue of Errors for Both Theories of Relativity"

[rhertz]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: "Heisenberg (1959, cited from the 1981 issue, pp 95-96)
designates the mass-energy relationship as secure findings, though he
describes the usual interpretation, a transformation of
mass into energy, as a misunderstanding: 'It is occasionally maintained
that the enormous amounts of energy released during the explosion of an
atomic bomb come directly from the conversion of mass into energy and
that one could only predict this gigantic amount of energy on the basis
of the theory of relativity. However, this attitude arises from a
misunderstanding. That great amounts of energy are stored in the atomic
nuclei has been known since the experiments of Becquerel, Curie and
Rutherford on radioactive decay. [...] The energy associated with the
splitting of the uranium nucleus has the same origins as in the case of
the [alpha-]decay of a radium nucleus, i.e. mainly from the
electrostatic repulsion of the two parts into which the atomic nucleus
is split. The energy released by an atomic explosion thus comes directly
from this source and does not derive from a conversion of mass into
energy.'" - "Catalogue of Errors for Both Theories of Relativity"

Dr. Serber, 2nd. in command after Oppenheimer, CLEARLY AFFIRMED (in his
1992 book, published once he got a security clearance) that the atomic
bomb WAS COMPLETELY UNRELATED WITH RELATIVITY AND E=mc^2.

He WROTE "Los Alamos Primer" in 1943, to teach recruited scientists
about the power behind atom fission, and MADE CALCULATIONS that were
present in the booklet, giving results close to 170 MeV of KE plus some
radiation. And the calculations were done by using COULOMB'S FORCES in
electrostatic repulsion, once two (or more) new heavy elements were
produced in the atom fission.

The efficiency of the first atomic bombs was very low, and barely
yielded 10 Kilotons out of available MEGATONS.

Such inefficiency was solved by one of the most diabolic non-human
member of the team (Edward Teller) by using the first detonation to
produce fusion of hydrogen that was stored in the H bomb.

Teller, who lived up to Reagan's time and conceived then X-ray lasers
for the scifi project of Reagan, was a declared enemy of Oppenheimer,
who opposed fiercely to the idea of the H bomb. Teller accused
Oppenheimer of stopping the H bomb development for years, which led to
the trial of Oppenheimer and cost its security clearance and his career
by 1952.

Even the H bomb (also inefficient) was able to be explained by using
Coulomb force (in the inverse sense than A bomb).

USSR augmented the efficiency with the 50 Megatons Tzar H bomb. After
this terrifying experiment, both US and USSR went back to the 1 or 2
Megaton range.

With the evolution of technology, MIRV and tactical nukes, the yield has
scaled back to under 1 Megaton (many agreements between superpowers led
to this result, which is the last line of attack in the case of WWIII).
Different powers now have resorted to the deployment of tactical nukes,
similar to those from 1945 in terms of power.

But, due to the super hyped figure of "the most intelligent man that
ever existed, AKA Einstein) for decades, now we have THE FAKE RELATIVISM
that spread more efficiently than the deadly virus.

The exposure to relativity crap for some time has caused that bright
minds were lost FOR NOTHING, becoming PARASITES OF SCIENCE.

This is not the case of Paul Anderson, even when heavily poisoned. What
didn't work was his intellectual power, unable to produce A SINGLE
ORIGINAL THOUGHT. He's more a parasite living from parasites.

What a paradox!

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: It is hard to obtain any effective defense of relativity from
relativists. One has to steel-man it oneself. They defend it like an
ideology because that is what it is. It is irrational.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
Dr. Serber, 2nd. in command after Oppenheimer, CLEARLY AFFIRMED (in his
1992 book, published once he got a security clearance) that the atomic
bomb WAS COMPLETELY UNRELATED WITH RELATIVITY AND E=mc^2.
He WROTE "Los Alamos Primer" in 1943, to teach recruited scientists
about the power behind atom fission, and MADE CALCULATIONS that were
present in the booklet, giving results close to 170 MeV of KE plus some
radiation. And the calculations were done by using COULOMB'S FORCES in
electrostatic repulsion, once two (or more) new heavy elements were
produced in the atom fission.

Of course there are Coulomb forces that accelerate the parts of
the atom in a fission.

And you know that this _confirms_ E = mc² because:

One possible fission process is:

1n + U-235 → Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n

The atomic weight of these are well known

Left side:
1n 1.008664 u
U-235 235.0439299 u
-------------------
236.0525939 u

Right side:
Ba-141 140.914412 u
Kr-92 91.926156 u
3n 3.025992 u
---------------------
235.866560 u

Lost mass: 0.1860339 u

Generally:
In a fission the mass of the constituents is less than
the mass of the fissioned atom.
------------------

All physicists knew that in 1939, obviously.

https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/beginnings/nature_meitner.html
Quote:
"It seems therefore possible that the uranium nucleus has only small
stability of form, and may, after neutron capture, divide itself
into two nuclei of roughly equal size (the precise ratio of sizes
depending on finer structural features and perhaps partly on chance).
These two nuclei will repel each other and should gain a total kinetic
energy of c. 200 Mev., as calculated from nuclear radius and charge."

Meitner calculated from the electrostatic repulsion that
the kinetic energy of the constituents would be ca 200 Mev.

Quote:
"This amount of energy may actually be expected to be available
from the difference in packing fraction between uranium and the
elements in the middle of the periodic system."


'Packing Fraction' is defined as:
((atomic mass - atomic number)/(atomic number))1e4

So when you know the 'packing fraction' of an element,
you can find the 'mass defect' (atomic mass - atomic number).
When an element A is split into two elements B and C,
and you know the packing fractions of all of them,
the difference in packing fraction between A vs B and C
makes is possible to calculate the change in mass:
(mass of A) - ((mass of B)+(mass of C))

When Meitner found that this mass difference was equivalent to
ca.200 Mev it could only be through E = mc².

You know this, because I told you 5 years ago.

So why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists
(and chemists) at the time took E = mc² for granted?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul Anderson: You seem to be assuming what you wish to conclude because
Heisenberg says this fission process is not a conversion of matter into
energy:

"'The energy associated with the

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
splitting of the uranium nucleus has the same origins as in the case of
the [alpha-]decay of a radium nucleus, i.e. mainly from the
electrostatic repulsion of the two parts into which the atomic nucleus
is split. The energy released by an atomic explosion thus comes directly
from this source and does not derive from a conversion of mass into
energy.'- Heisenberg" - "Catalogue of Errors for Both Theories of
Relativity"

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul Anderson: You seem to be assuming what you wish to conclude because
Heisenberg says this fission process is not a conversion of matter into
"'The energy associated with the

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
splitting of the uranium nucleus has the same origins as in the case of
the [alpha-]decay of a radium nucleus, i.e. mainly from the
electrostatic repulsion of the two parts into which the atomic nucleus
is split. The energy released by an atomic explosion thus comes directly
from this source and does not derive from a conversion of mass into
energy.'- Heisenberg" - "Catalogue of Errors for Both Theories of
Relativity"

Heisenberg's statement shows that he knew E = mc².

An atom isn't spitted because some mass decides to convert
itself into energy. It is not the _cause_.

When an atom is spitted, the kinetic energy comes from
the repulsion of the protons, obviously.

But as a _consequence_, the mass of the constituents will
be less than the mass of of the atom before it was spitted
according to E = mc².
--------------
If you heat a body with a bunsen burner, the body
will be hotter, it will contain more heat energy.
No energy is _converted_ into something else, the heat
energy is still energy (excited electrons).

As a _consequence_ the mass of the hot body will increase
according to m = E/c². Some of the mass _is_ energy.

E = mc² will always me fulfilled.
It is a fundamental law of nature.

And of course all the physicists at Los Alamos knew that.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul Anderson: You seem to be assuming what you wish to conclude because
Heisenberg says this fission process is not a conversion of matter into
"'The energy associated with the

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
splitting of the uranium nucleus has the same origins as in the case of
the [alpha-]decay of a radium nucleus, i.e. mainly from the
electrostatic repulsion of the two parts into which the atomic nucleus
is split. The energy released by an atomic explosion thus comes directly
from this source and does not derive from a conversion of mass into
energy.'- Heisenberg" - "Catalogue of Errors for Both Theories of
Relativity"

Heisenberg's statement shows that he knew E = mc².
An atom isn't spitted because some mass decides to convert
itself into energy. It is not the _cause_.
When an atom is spitted, the kinetic energy comes from
the repulsion of the protons, obviously.
But as a _consequence_, the mass of the constituents will
be less than the mass of of the atom before it was spitted
according to E = mc².
--------------
If you heat a body with a bunsen burner, the body
will be hotter, it will contain more heat energy.
No energy is _converted_ into something else, the heat
energy is still energy (excited electrons).
As a _consequence_ the mass of the hot body will increase
according to m = E/c². Some of the mass _is_ energy.
E = mc² will always me fulfilled.
It is a fundamental law of nature.
And of course all the physicists at Los Alamos knew that.

Do they measure their own masses on an input-output basis?
Do they explain any mass differences found in the e=MCC formula?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: So you know better than Heisenberg?

[rhertz]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
Dr. Serber, 2nd. in command after Oppenheimer, CLEARLY AFFIRMED (in his
1992 book, published once he got a security clearance) that the atomic
bomb WAS COMPLETELY UNRELATED WITH RELATIVITY AND E=mc^2.
He WROTE "Los Alamos Primer" in 1943, to teach recruited scientists
about the power behind atom fission, and MADE CALCULATIONS that were
present in the booklet, giving results close to 170 MeV of KE plus some
radiation. And the calculations were done by using COULOMB'S FORCES in
electrostatic repulsion, once two (or more) new heavy elements were
produced in the atom fission.

Of course there are Coulomb forces that accelerate the parts of
the atom in a fission.
1n + U-235 → Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n
The atomic weight of these are well known
1n 1.008664 u
U-235 235.0439299 u
-------------------
236.0525939 u
Ba-141 140.914412 u
Kr-92 91.926156 u
3n 3.025992 u
---------------------
235.866560 u
Lost mass: 0.1860339 u
In a fission the mass of the constituents is less than
the mass of the fissioned atom.
------------------
All physicists knew that in 1939, obviously.
https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/beginnings/nature_meitner.html
"It seems therefore possible that the uranium nucleus has only small
stability of form, and may, after neutron capture, divide itself
into two nuclei of roughly equal size (the precise ratio of sizes
depending on finer structural features and perhaps partly on chance).
These two nuclei will repel each other and should gain a total kinetic
energy of c. 200 Mev., as calculated from nuclear radius and charge."
Meitner calculated from the electrostatic repulsion that
the kinetic energy of the constituents would be ca 200 Mev.
"This amount of energy may actually be expected to be available
from the difference in packing fraction between uranium and the
elements in the middle of the periodic system."
((atomic mass - atomic number)/(atomic number))1e4
So when you know the 'packing fraction' of an element,
you can find the 'mass defect' (atomic mass - atomic number).
When an element A is split into two elements B and C,
and you know the packing fractions of all of them,
the difference in packing fraction between A vs B and C
(mass of A) - ((mass of B)+(mass of C))
When Meitner found that this mass difference was equivalent to
ca.200 Mev it could only be through E = mc².
You know this, because I told you 5 years ago.
So why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists
(and chemists) at the time took E = mc² for granted?

These are excerpts from Serber's 1992, "Los Alamos Primer":




...................................................
To start with a simpler particle than an atom, let’s look at two
electrons pushed together. If you released them, they would fly apart
with an amount of energy equal to the work that went into pushing them
together. That energy E is given by the formula

E = e²/R (1)

where e is the electron charge, e² is e multiplied by itself, and R is
the distance between the particles. The electrostatic energy thus ends
up as kinetic energy, the energy of motion.

The uranium nucleus contains 92 protons, each of which has the same
charge as an electron, though of opposite sign.

When a uranium nucleus fissions, much of this energy is released as
kinetic energy in the two fission fragments that fly apart.
Suppose that the uranium nucleus broke in half. Each fragment would have
half the charge. The numerator of equation (1) would be a quarter as
big—a half times a half. Since the volume is proportional to the cube of
the radius, the radius would be smaller by a factor of

2^-3/2 = 1/1.26 = 0.793650794

So each fragment would have an electrostatic energy of about a third of
the total and the two fragments about two-thirds. That leaves a third
left over for the reaction energy of about 170 MeV.

E(U235 atom) = (92)² (1.6E-12)²/10E-13 g.cm^2.s^-2 = = 2,167E-07 erg



......................................
When a uranium nucleus fissions, much of this energy is released as
kinetic energy in the two fission fragments that fly apart.
Suppose that the uranium nucleus broke in half. Each fragment would have
half the charge.
.......................................


Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein’s theory of
relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc², plays some
essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in
alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an
atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing
fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a nonrelativistic
theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the
dynamics of the fission process significantly.
Section 2 of the Primer gives a more exact calculation of the ratio of
the
energy released by the fission of a gram of uranium to the energy
released by the explosion of a gram of TNT.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Of course there are Coulomb forces that accelerate the parts of
the atom in a fission.

This is not disputed!

So why do you act as it is?

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
In a fission the mass of the constituents is less than
the mass of the fissioned atom.
------------------
All physicists knew that in 1939, obviously.
https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/beginnings/nature_meitner.html
"It seems therefore possible that the uranium nucleus has only small
stability of form, and may, after neutron capture, divide itself
into two nuclei of roughly equal size (the precise ratio of sizes
depending on finer structural features and perhaps partly on chance).
These two nuclei will repel each other and should gain a total kinetic
energy of c. 200 Mev., as calculated from nuclear radius and charge."
Meitner calculated from the electrostatic repulsion that
the kinetic energy of the constituents would be ca 200 Mev.

Because this was the simplest way to estimate the released energy.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"This amount of energy may actually be expected to be available
from the difference in packing fraction between uranium and the
elements in the middle of the periodic system."
When Meitner found that this mass difference was equivalent to
ca.200 Mev it could only be through E = mc².

So Meitner, like all physicists, took E = mc² for granted.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
You know this, because I told you 5 years ago.
So why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists
(and chemists) at the time took E = mc² for granted?

Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein’s theory of
relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc², plays some
essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in
alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an
atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing
fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a nonrelativistic
theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the
dynamics of the fission process significantly.
Section 2 of the Primer gives a more exact calculation of the ratio of
the
energy released by the fission of a gram of uranium to the energy
released by the explosion of a gram of TNT.

Even if the atom bomb could have been made without E = mc²,
the statement above shows that Serber, as all physicists,
knew E = mc², they all took it for granted.

Serber doesn't say that E = mc² is not a valid theory,
he says that E = mc² wasn't much help in making the atom bomb.

So I ask you again:
Why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists
(and chemists) at the time took E = mc² for granted?


E = mc² is now thoroughly experimentally verified, and the atom bomb
is part of the experimental evidence.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Of course there are Coulomb forces that accelerate the parts of
the atom in a fission.

This is not disputed!
So why do you act as it is?

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
In a fission the mass of the constituents is less than
the mass of the fissioned atom.
------------------
All physicists knew that in 1939, obviously.
https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/beginnings/nature_meitner

.html

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"It seems therefore possible that the uranium nucleus has only small
stability of form, and may, after neutron capture, divide itself
into two nuclei of roughly equal size (the precise ratio of sizes
depending on finer structural features and perhaps partly on chance).
These two nuclei will repel each other and should gain a total kinetic
energy of c. 200 Mev., as calculated from nuclear radius and charge."
Meitner calculated from the electrostatic repulsion that
the kinetic energy of the constituents would be ca 200 Mev.

Because this was the simplest way to estimate the released energy.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"This amount of energy may actually be expected to be available
from the difference in packing fraction between uranium and the
elements in the middle of the periodic system."
When Meitner found that this mass difference was equivalent to
ca.200 Mev it could only be through E = mc?.

So Meitner, like all physicists, took E = mc? for granted.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
You know this, because I told you 5 years ago.
So why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists
(and chemists) at the time took E = mc? for granted?

Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein's theory of
relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc?, plays some
essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in
alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an
atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing
fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a nonrelativistic
theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the
dynamics of the fission process significantly.
Section 2 of the Primer gives a more exact calculation of the ratio of
the
energy released by the fission of a gram of uranium to the energy
released by the explosion of a gram of TNT.

Even if the atom bomb could have been made without E = mc?,
the statement above shows that Serber, as all physicists,
knew E = mc?, they all took it for granted.
Serber doesn't say that E = mc? is not a valid theory,
he says that E = mc? wasn't much help in making the atom bomb.
Why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists
(and chemists) at the time took E = mc? for granted?

It's hopeless. RH is completely clueless when it comes to real physics.
(and he is unwilling to learn)

Post by Paul B. Andersen
E = mc? is now thoroughly experimentally verified, and the atom bomb
is part of the experimental evidence.

Of course, but not really needed.
Mass spectroscopy was invented by J. J. Thomson in 1913,
and refined by his student, F. W. Aston. (discovering lots of isotopes)
In 1932, Kenneth Bainbridge pushed the accuracy of it to about 10^-4,
which was good enough to verify E = mc^2 directly, for atomic nuclei.
So the mass excess of the Uranium nucleus of about 200 MeV
was well known to 'everybody', well before WWII got started,

Jan

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Of course there are Coulomb forces that accelerate the parts of
the atom in a fission.

This is not disputed!
So why do you act as it is?

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
In a fission the mass of the constituents is less than
the mass of the fissioned atom.
------------------
All physicists knew that in 1939, obviously.
https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/beginnings/nature_meitner

..html

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"It seems therefore possible that the uranium nucleus has only small
stability of form, and may, after neutron capture, divide itself
into two nuclei of roughly equal size (the precise ratio of sizes
depending on finer structural features and perhaps partly on chance).
These two nuclei will repel each other and should gain a total kinetic
energy of c. 200 Mev., as calculated from nuclear radius and charge."
Meitner calculated from the electrostatic repulsion that
the kinetic energy of the constituents would be ca 200 Mev.

Because this was the simplest way to estimate the released energy.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"This amount of energy may actually be expected to be available
from the difference in packing fraction between uranium and the
elements in the middle of the periodic system."
When Meitner found that this mass difference was equivalent to
ca.200 Mev it could only be through E = mc?.

So Meitner, like all physicists, took E = mc? for granted.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
You know this, because I told you 5 years ago.
So why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists
(and chemists) at the time took E = mc? for granted?

Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein's theory of
relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc?, plays some
essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in
alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an
atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing
fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a nonrelativistic
theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the
dynamics of the fission process significantly.
Section 2 of the Primer gives a more exact calculation of the ratio of
the
energy released by the fission of a gram of uranium to the energy
released by the explosion of a gram of TNT.

Even if the atom bomb could have been made without E = mc?,
the statement above shows that Serber, as all physicists,
knew E = mc?, they all took it for granted.
Serber doesn't say that E = mc? is not a valid theory,
he says that E = mc? wasn't much help in making the atom bomb.
Why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists
(and chemists) at the time took E = mc? for granted?

It's hopeless. RH is completely clueless when it comes to real physics.
(and he is unwilling to learn)

Are physicists willing to learn that the MMI actually shows that light
speed varies with the speed of the emitter if the Earth is moving in
space?

Woof-woof

What fools these apes be!

Bertietaylor

Post by Paul B. Andersen
E = mc? is now thoroughly experimentally verified, and the atom bomb
is part of the experimental evidence.

Of course, but not really needed.
Mass spectroscopy was invented by J. J. Thomson in 1913,
and refined by his student, F. W. Aston. (discovering lots of isotopes)
In 1932, Kenneth Bainbridge pushed the accuracy of it to about 10^-4,
which was good enough to verify E = mc^2 directly, for atomic nuclei.
So the mass excess of the Uranium nucleus of about 200 MeV
was well known to 'everybody', well before WWII got started,
Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Of course there are Coulomb forces that accelerate the parts of
the atom in a fission.

This is not disputed!
So why do you act as it is?

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
In a fission the mass of the constituents is less than
the mass of the fissioned atom.
------------------
All physicists knew that in 1939, obviously.
https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/beginnings/nature_meitner

.html

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"It seems therefore possible that the uranium nucleus has only small
stability of form, and may, after neutron capture, divide itself
into two nuclei of roughly equal size (the precise ratio of sizes
depending on finer structural features and perhaps partly on chance).
These two nuclei will repel each other and should gain a total kinetic
energy of c. 200 Mev., as calculated from nuclear radius and charge."
Meitner calculated from the electrostatic repulsion that
the kinetic energy of the constituents would be ca 200 Mev.

Because this was the simplest way to estimate the released energy.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"This amount of energy may actually be expected to be available
from the difference in packing fraction between uranium and the
elements in the middle of the periodic system."
When Meitner found that this mass difference was equivalent to
ca.200 Mev it could only be through E = mc?.

So Meitner, like all physicists, took E = mc? for granted.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
You know this, because I told you 5 years ago.
So why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists
(and chemists) at the time took E = mc? for granted?

Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein's theory of
relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc?, plays some
essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in
alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an
atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing
fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a nonrelativistic
theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the
dynamics of the fission process significantly.
Section 2 of the Primer gives a more exact calculation of the ratio of
the
energy released by the fission of a gram of uranium to the energy
released by the explosion of a gram of TNT.

Even if the atom bomb could have been made without E = mc?,
the statement above shows that Serber, as all physicists,
knew E = mc?, they all took it for granted.
Serber doesn't say that E = mc? is not a valid theory,
he says that E = mc? wasn't much help in making the atom bomb.
Why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists
(and chemists) at the time took E = mc? for granted?

It's hopeless. RH is completely clueless when it comes to real physics.
(and he is unwilling to learn)

The problem with using just initials that two crackpots can have the
same ones. At first reading I thought you meant "Dr" Hachel, who is
indeed completely clueless about many things, but I was puzzled as I
didn't think he had contributed to this thread.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul B. Andersen
E = mc? is now thoroughly experimentally verified, and the atom bomb
is part of the experimental evidence.

Of course, but not really needed.
Mass spectroscopy was invented by J. J. Thomson in 1913,
and refined by his student, F. W. Aston. (discovering lots of isotopes)
In 1932, Kenneth Bainbridge pushed the accuracy of it to about 10^-4,
which was good enough to verify E = mc^2 directly, for atomic nuclei.
So the mass excess of the Uranium nucleus of about 200 MeV
was well known to 'everybody', well before WWII got started,
Jan

[Bertietaylor]

About using initials - had it been Athel Bowden-Cornish he would have
been irretrievably linked to the ABC murders.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Of course there are Coulomb forces that accelerate the parts of
the atom in a fission.

This is not disputed!
So why do you act as it is?

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
In a fission the mass of the constituents is less than
the mass of the fissioned atom.
------------------
All physicists knew that in 1939, obviously.
https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/beginnings/nature_meitn

er

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
.html

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"It seems therefore possible that the uranium nucleus has only small
stability of form, and may, after neutron capture, divide itself
into two nuclei of roughly equal size (the precise ratio of sizes
depending on finer structural features and perhaps partly on chance).
These two nuclei will repel each other and should gain a total kinetic
energy of c. 200 Mev., as calculated from nuclear radius and charge."
Meitner calculated from the electrostatic repulsion that
the kinetic energy of the constituents would be ca 200 Mev.

Because this was the simplest way to estimate the released energy.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"This amount of energy may actually be expected to be available
from the difference in packing fraction between uranium and the
elements in the middle of the periodic system."
When Meitner found that this mass difference was equivalent to
ca.200 Mev it could only be through E = mc?.

So Meitner, like all physicists, took E = mc? for granted.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
You know this, because I told you 5 years ago.
So why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists
(and chemists) at the time took E = mc? for granted?

Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein's theory of
relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc?, plays some
essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in
alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an
atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing
fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a nonrelativistic
theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the
dynamics of the fission process significantly.
Section 2 of the Primer gives a more exact calculation of the ratio of
the
energy released by the fission of a gram of uranium to the energy
released by the explosion of a gram of TNT.

Even if the atom bomb could have been made without E = mc?,
the statement above shows that Serber, as all physicists,
knew E = mc?, they all took it for granted.
Serber doesn't say that E = mc? is not a valid theory,
he says that E = mc? wasn't much help in making the atom bomb.
Why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists
(and chemists) at the time took E = mc? for granted?

It's hopeless. RH is completely clueless when it comes to real physics.
(and he is unwilling to learn)

The problem with using just initials that two crackpots can have the
same ones. At first reading I thought you meant "Dr" Hachel, who is
indeed completely clueless about many things, but I was puzzled as I
didn't think he had contributed to this thread.

Sorry, I didn't pay attention. I try to focus on content, if any.
To the point: do you have grounds for supposing one RH to be more
clueless about the general state of physics than the other one is?

Jan

[Richard Hachel]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
The problem with using just initials that two crackpots can have the
same ones. At first reading I thought you meant "Dr" Hachel, who is
indeed completely clueless about many things, but I was puzzled as I
didn't think he had contributed to this thread.

Sorry, I didn't pay attention. I try to focus on content, if any.
To the point: do you have grounds for supposing one RH to be more
clueless about the general state of physics than the other one is?
Jan

If someone tells you: "The Beatles didn't know how to compose", or "Victor
Hugo didn't know how to write", or "Eddy Merckx didn't know how to ride a
bike", be wary of his mental capacities.

If someone tells you "Doctor Hachel is perfectly ignorant in physics",
weigh his words on a scale, before swallowing them.

It's more rational than throwing words into the air, without knowing,
without understanding what is said, and simply to show off.

R.H.

[Python]

...
If someone tells you "Doctor Hachel is perfectly ignorant in physics", weigh his
words on a scale, before swallowing them.

It is quite difficult to find anything more true that this statement.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

...
If someone tells you "Doctor Hachel is perfectly ignorant in physics", weigh his
words on a scale, before swallowing them.

It is quite difficult to find anything more true that this statement.

By the way, you asked me to place the hyperplanes of simultaneity of
Terrence and Stella on a drawing.

I posted the two drawings for you.

This is unprecedented in the history of humanity, because no one draws
relationships as precise, as clear, and as beautiful as me, with
horizontal hyperplanes, as logic would require.

I then explained to you that for Stella, it was necessary to take into
account the change of inertial frame of reference, and to adapt it to her
own point-of-reference, that is to say her rocket, always at the origin of
her frame of reference (it is space that accelerates and deforms around
her, but her own rocket does not vary for her).

It is therefore necessary to take into account the space-zoom predicted by
Poincaré on the x-axis. Let D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

I then explained to you that in this example, there was a hint of
reasoning (like in chess the winning move that only Kasparov will find,
here it is the good doctor Hachel), and that to find the date on which
Stella will receive her answer (she sends her message at six years old and
receives her answer at 14 years old, on the way back), you have to use the
diagram as follows.

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

However, despite the beauty, clarity and logic of my relativistic
thinking, it would seem that you still haven't understood anything, like a
few other morons here, who don't understand anything about the theory of
relativity, but spit on Hachel.

All this is horribly stupid, tinged with jealousy and imbecilic
narcissism.

We're just spitting for the sake of spitting.



R.H. (suivi sci.physics.relativity)

[Python]

Post by Python

...
If someone tells you "Doctor Hachel is perfectly ignorant in physics", weigh his
words on a scale, before swallowing them.

It is quite difficult to find anything more true that this statement.

By the way, you asked me to place the hyperplanes of simultaneity of Terrence
and Stella on a drawing.
I posted the two drawings for you.
This is unprecedented in the history of humanity, because no one draws
relationships as precise, as clear, and as beautiful as me, with horizontal
hyperplanes, as logic would require.
I then explained to you that for Stella, it was necessary to take into account
the change of inertial frame of reference, and to adapt it to her own
point-of-reference, that is to say her rocket, always at the origin of her frame
of reference (it is space that accelerates and deforms around her, but her own
rocket does not vary for her).
It is therefore necessary to take into account the space-zoom predicted by
Poincaré on the x-axis. Let D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Poincaré never predicted such a stupidity. You are a liar.

I then explained to you that in this example, there was a hint of reasoning
(like in chess the winning move that only Kasparov will find, here it is the good
doctor Hachel), and that to find the date on which Stella will receive her answer
(she sends her message at six years old and receives her answer at 14 years old,
on the way back), you have to use the diagram as follows.
However, despite the beauty, clarity and logic of my relativistic thinking, it
would seem that you still haven't understood anything, like a few other morons
here, who don't understand anything about the theory of relativity, but spit on
Hachel.
All this is horribly stupid, tinged with jealousy and imbecilic narcissism.
We're just spitting for the sake of spitting.
R.H. (suivi sci.physics.relativity)

Both of your drawing are wrong. This one is the worse : it shows the light
pulse to be in several places at the same time.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
...
If someone tells you "Doctor Hachel is perfectly ignorant in
physics", weigh his words on a scale, before swallowing them.

It is quite difficult to find anything more true that this statement.

By the way, you asked me to place the hyperplanes of simultaneity of
Terrence and Stella on a drawing.
I posted the two drawings for you.
This is unprecedented in the history of humanity, because no one draws
relationships as precise, as clear, and as beautiful as me, with
horizontal hyperplanes, as logic would require.
I then explained to you that for Stella, it was necessary to take into
account the change of inertial frame of reference, and to adapt it to
her own point-of-reference, that is to say her rocket, always at the
origin of her frame of reference (it is space that accelerates and
deforms around her, but her own rocket does not vary for her).
It is therefore necessary to take into account the space-zoom
predicted by Poincaré on the x-axis. Let D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/
(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Poincaré never predicted such a stupidity. You are a liar.

Anyway, he had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Wozniak: We're waiting for the relativists to prove that parallel lines
meet.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel
By the way, you asked me to place the hyperplanes of simultaneity of
Terrence and Stella on a drawing.
I posted the two drawings for you.
This is unprecedented in the history of humanity, because no one draws
relationships as precise, as clear, and as beautiful as me, with
horizontal hyperplanes, as logic would require.

Can you please explain the difference between a horizontal hyperplane
and a vertical hyperplane?
Is a horizontal hyperplane parallel to the ocean?
In that case, at what latitude?

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Can you please explain the difference between a horizontal hyperplane
and a vertical hyperplane?
Is a horizontal hyperplane parallel to the ocean?
In that case, at what latitude?

Je ne suis pas sûr que votre intervention soit si humoristique.

Je vous signale, avec délicatesse; que vos pdf recèlent des erreurs de
concepts,
comme par exemple des intégrations de Leibniz mêlant des carottes et des
navets.

Vous n'avez pas rectifié.

Ne me reprochez pas de ne pas vous l'avoir dit, et encore moins de trouver
vos réponses humoristiques et hors-sujet.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Can you please explain the difference between a horizontal hyperplane
and a vertical hyperplane?
Is a horizontal hyperplane parallel to the ocean?
In that case, at what latitude?

Je ne suis pas sûr que votre intervention soit si humoristique.
Je vous signale, avec délicatesse; que vos pdf recèlent des erreurs de
concepts,
comme par exemple des intégrations de Leibniz mêlant des carottes et des
navets.
Vous n'avez pas rectifié.
Ne me reprochez pas de ne pas vous l'avoir dit, et encore moins de trouver vos
réponses humoristiques et hors-sujet.
R.H.

Paul's answer may sound humoristic, it is quite a serious question. That
you fail to address.

[The Starmaker]

of course einstein makes mistakes..

but einstein had autism...

and people with

autism don't want
to show their mistakes
because it
freaks them out.

Now, if einstein
believes nobody
will see
his mistakes..
he will say

"OH, I JUST MADE A BIG FUCKING MISTAKE, CAN YOU JUST IGNORE THAT?"


"IGNORE EVERYTHING I JUST SAID. IT'S ALL WRONG."

"okay, i think i got now. this should be okay."

"FUCKING MATH, FUCKING SCIENCE, JUST TRY IT OUT TO SEE IF IT WORKS GODDAMNIT!"

"FUCK!"


Then
when he's in public...
he'll say..

"I said IN A vacumn...!"

"I never said I was A OBSOLUTE pacifist, I said I was a pacifists!!!"


"I didn't say I didn't dictate the letter to Rooselvelt word by word, I just
said I shouldn't have signed the letter!"


"I said IN A vacumn...!"
"I said IN A vacumn...!"
"I said IN A vacumn...!"
"I said IN A vacumn...!"

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Starmaker: This reminds me of when Einstein said relative motion per se
causes time dilation and immediately waffled to absolute motion by
making one person on Earth and the other in Space.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Can you please explain the difference between a horizontal hyperplane
and a vertical hyperplane?
Is a horizontal hyperplane parallel to the ocean?
In that case, at what latitude?

Je ne suis pas sûr que votre intervention soit si humoristique.
Je vous signale, avec délicatesse; que vos pdf recèlent des erreurs de
concepts,
comme par exemple des intégrations de Leibniz mêlant des carottes et des
navets.
Vous n'avez pas rectifié.
Ne me reprochez pas de ne pas vous l'avoir dit, et encore moins de
trouver vos réponses humoristiques et hors-sujet.
R.H.

The point is obviously:
What is the meaning of the word "horizontal" in the context:
"with horizontal hyperplanes, as logic would require."

Why do logic require that hyperplanes must be "horizontal" as opposed
to "vertical"?

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"with horizontal hyperplanes, as logic would require."
Why do logic require that hyperplanes must be "horizontal" as opposed
to "vertical"?
Paul

Paul! Paul! Please!!!

It is perfectly normal, perfectly legitimate and completely scientific to
propose, for a given individual, a representation of the space-time that
is his.

This has four dimensions. Three of space, and one of time.

Paul! Paul! Once again, I beg you to believe me, it is as simple as that.

To do this, we need x,y,z,t.

However, if we want to represent this on paper or a 2D screen, we cannot
do it. Eventually, a good graphic designer, by trompe l'oeil, can
represent 3D.

But in any case, we can position ourselves in the direction of movement
(we then neglect y=0 and z=0).

We then set a perfectly orthonormal frame (kindergarten level in France
(3-6 years old).

The spaces are defined on the abscissa, the proper times on the ordinates.

It's as simple as that.

A very good example of a relativistic frame as physicists should represent
them, with x on the abscissa and tau on the ordinate, is the one I put on
usenet.

We see Stella, aged six, sending a message to Terrence who remained on
earth, and waiting for the answer.

We see that the answer cannot reach her before she has turned around, and
that she will receive this answer on the way back. She is then aged 14.

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?ZFdynN8gr2EccwS6-***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Now you tell me: why the times in vertical and the distances in
horizontal?

I don't want to answer this kind of stupid questions.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"with horizontal hyperplanes, as logic would require."
Why do logic require that hyperplanes must be "horizontal" as opposed
to "vertical"?
Paul

Paul! Paul! Please!!!
It is perfectly normal, perfectly legitimate and completely scientific
to propose, for a given individual, a representation of the space-time
that is his.
This has four dimensions. Three of space, and one of time.

No, this is wrong!

Coorect is:

to any given axis of time there exist an orthogonal hyperplane of the
present, which has three dimensions.

But spacetime itself has complex values!

It would make sense to take 'spacelike' as real and 'timelike' as imaginary.

Now this picture can be rotated and after rotation another axis of time
would exist, which also has a perpendicular hyperplane of the present
(with three diemensions!).

A mathematical construct, which would somehow fit, are so called
'complex-four-vectors' (aka 'bi-quaternions').

These numbers have eight components, what makes them a little odd.

But four (as number of dimensions) is imho wrong, because this would
restrict the picture to the local environment, which has, of course,
only one axis of time (and three axes in the hypersheet of the present).

I case you are interested in this topic, you could read my 'book':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing


TH




...

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"with horizontal hyperplanes, as logic would require."
Why do logic require that hyperplanes must be "horizontal" as opposed
to "vertical"?
Paul

Paul! Paul! Please!!!

It is perfectly normal, perfectly legitimate and completely scientific to
propose, for a given individual, a representation of the space-time that
is his.

This has four dimensions. Three of space, and one of time.

Paul! Paul! Once again, I beg you to believe me, it is as simple as that.

To do this, we need x,y,z,t.

However, if we want to represent this on paper or a 2D screen, we cannot
do it. Eventually, a good graphic designer, by trompe l'oeil, can
represent 3D.

But in any case, we can position ourselves in the direction of movement
(we then neglect y=0 and z=0).

We then set a perfectly orthonormal frame (kindergarten level in France
(3-6 years old).

The spaces are defined on the abscissa, the proper times on the ordinates.

It's as simple as that.

A very good example of a relativistic frame as physicists should represent
them, with x on the abscissa and tau on the ordinate, is the one I put on
usenet.

We see Stella, aged six, sending a message to Terrence who remained on
earth, and waiting for the answer.

We see that the answer cannot reach her before she has turned around, and
that she will receive this answer on the way back. She is then aged 14.

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Now you tell me: why the times in vertical and the distances in
horizontal?

I don't want to answer this kind of stupid questions.

R.H.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by rhertz

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
E= mc^2 has never been the formula to calculate the energy released in
atomic explosions.

Good to know. The divinity of Einstein comes from the power of this
equation to explain atom bombs, to simple minds.

That only the electrostatic forces underlying radioactivity and
Arindam's formula relating mass and energy kinetically explain far
better, had been suppressed for decades.

Post by rhertz
Serber and Oppenheimer taught (1943) several waves of scientists that
joined the Manhattan Project with lectures prior joining any team, and
Serber wrote the booklet "Los Alamos Primer", where they taught that
energy liberated in the fission of the atom was of electrostatic nature,
due to the repulsion of the byproducts of the fission, plus radiation.

Good.
However text books on nuclear physics explain nuclear power using e=MCC
as gospel truth.
Eg, Kaplan.

Post by rhertz
The numbers given in the booklet are almost a match with E=mc^2
calculations of that epoch, but have NOTHING TO DO with relativity, as
Serber wrote in his 1992 book, once some data of the project was cleared
for publishing.

Public should know that. Text books must be rewritten.

Post by rhertz
But relativists, since 1945 (Time Magazine cover) hyper-hyped the figure
of Einstein and relativism, and the cult succeeded in re-writing
history.

The damage must be undone, asap.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
E= mc^2 has never been the formula to calculate the energy released in
atomic explosions.

Serber and Oppenheimer taught (1943) several waves of scientists that
joined the Manhattan Project with lectures prior joining any team, and
Serber wrote the booklet "Los Alamos Primer", where they taught that
energy liberated in the fission of the atom was of electrostatic nature,
due to the repulsion of the byproducts of the fission, plus radiation.
The numbers given in the booklet are almost a match with E=mc^2
calculations of that epoch, but have NOTHING TO DO with relativity, as
Serber wrote in his 1992 book, once some data of the project was cleared
for publishing.
But relativists, since 1945 (Time Magazine cover) hyper-hyped the figure
of Einstein and relativism, and the cult succeeded in re-writing
history.

Your lack of basic understanding of physics is showing again.
Conservation laws are about the overall result.
Equations of motion are about what forms
the (conserved!) energy appears in, in the reaction products.

Serber and Oppenheimer of course talked to people who would understand,
(so not to you)

Jan

[Bertietaylor]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
E= mc^2 has never been the formula to calculate the energy released in
atomic explosions.

Serber and Oppenheimer taught (1943) several waves of scientists that
joined the Manhattan Project with lectures prior joining any team, and
Serber wrote the booklet "Los Alamos Primer", where they taught that
energy liberated in the fission of the atom was of electrostatic nature,
due to the repulsion of the byproducts of the fission, plus radiation.
The numbers given in the booklet are almost a match with E=mc^2
calculations of that epoch, but have NOTHING TO DO with relativity, as
Serber wrote in his 1992 book, once some data of the project was cleared
for publishing.
But relativists, since 1945 (Time Magazine cover) hyper-hyped the figure
of Einstein and relativism, and the cult succeeded in re-writing
history.

Your lack of basic understanding of physics is showing again.
Conservation laws are about the overall result.

Yes lots of energy was created which destroyed a lot. Not by e=MCC but
from Arindam's equation
E=0.5mvv(N-k)N
which explains all mass energy formations including all explosions.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Equations of motion are about what forms
the (conserved!) energy appears in, in the reaction products.

Energy is continually created and destroyed via distance loss to
background galactic noise in our infinite universe.

Conservation laws apply to charges and thus mass.

Woof-woof

Bertietaylor

Post by J. J. Lodder
Serber and Oppenheimer of course talked to people who would understand,
(so not to you)
Jan

[The Starmaker]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
E= mc^2 has never been the formula to calculate the energy released in
atomic explosions.

"If I had foreseen Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would have torn up my
formula in 1905." - Albert Einstein

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Starmaker: The mass-energy relation was already well known long before
Einstein imagined he thought it up all by himself.

[The Starmaker]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: The mass-energy relation was already well known long before
Einstein imagined he thought it up all by himself.

It's not important who comes up with an idea first, it is the one who
first
brings the idea to the marketplace.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Starmaker: It was already in the marketplace for a long time.

[The Starmaker]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: It was already in the marketplace for a long time.

sorry, i only know of only one Manhattan Project..

[Thomas Heger]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: It was already in the marketplace for a long time.

sorry, i only know of only one Manhattan Project..

Sure, but what were they doing there in Los Alamos?

To me it looked like a concentration camp for physicists.


TH

[The Starmaker]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: It was already in the marketplace for a long time.

sorry, i only know of only one Manhattan Project..

Sure, but what were they doing there in Los Alamos?
To me it looked like a concentration camp for physicists.
TH

Physicists there were held against their own will. They did not
volunteer for it, they were...drafted.


besides, their people were used to it.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: It was already in the marketplace for a long time.

sorry, i only know of only one Manhattan Project..

Sure, but what were they doing there in Los Alamos?
To me it looked like a concentration camp for physicists.
TH

Physicists there were held against their own will. They did not
volunteer for it, they were...drafted.

Sure: Los Alamos looked like barracks, which were placed remotely in the
desert.

But my assumption was, that the atomic bomb was much older than the
Manhattan project, which had the purpose, to 'gag' the physicists and
sort out those, which were not willing to comply
(e.g. proponents of 'free energy', abiogenic oil theory, homeopathy and
similar heresies).

The Soviets did something quite similar and regarded e.g. Andre Sacharov
('father' of the Soviet bomb) as 'enemy of the people' (for what reason
I don't know).

The atomic bomb itself was most likely already known befor WWII.

A reason to think so:

Einstein and Szillard patented their 'Einstein fridge' in 1930 in Berlin.

The only known use of that device is as part of a fast breeding reactor
(those reactors that produce plutonium).

But for which purpose would you like to breed plutonium, if you had no
atomic bomb?

The Einstein fridge doesn't coll (this was at least found out by a bunch
of students, who rebuilt the device).

It is kind of 'three substances absorption cooler' (with ammonia, water
and butan in liquid form).

(To me this 'fridge' does not look like a device, which could eventually
cool. Therefore I would support the claim of those students.)

A theory of my taste goes like this:

the bomb was already known in 1930 and Szillard and Einstein played a
role in its development (undertanken long befor 1930 and certainly not
at Los Alamos).

To reward Einstein and Szillard secretly, that patent was used, even if
the device does not cool.


...


TH

[The Starmaker]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: It was already in the marketplace for a long time.

sorry, i only know of only one Manhattan Project..

Sure, but what were they doing there in Los Alamos?
To me it looked like a concentration camp for physicists.
TH

Physicists there were held against their own will. They did not
volunteer for it, they were...drafted.

Sure: Los Alamos looked like barracks, which were placed remotely in the
desert.
But my assumption was, that the atomic bomb was much older than the
Manhattan project, which had the purpose, to 'gag' the physicists and
sort out those, which were not willing to comply
(e.g. proponents of 'free energy', abiogenic oil theory, homeopathy and
similar heresies).

Yes, it was much older. Albert Einstein invented the atomic bomb in 1905...that is when it first came to him in his mind.

From then on it became his passion and quest to make it happen.

Einstein gave How To Build an Atomic Bomb classes in the 1920's...Enrico Fermi was a student. (Leo Zilgard also his main student)

Enrico Fermi was intensively involved with Einstein's theory of relativity and traced the hidden power of atomic nuclei.
In 1923, he wrote that it would probably not be possible to release this energy in the near future, "because
the first effect would be an explosion so terrible that it would tear the physicist who tried it to pieces".
He himself was to unleash this energy two decades later.

Post by Thomas Heger
The Soviets did something quite similar and regarded e.g. Andre Sacharov
('father' of the Soviet bomb) as 'enemy of the people' (for what reason
I don't know).

Albert Einsten went to Russia and showed them How To Build an Atomic Bomb. (and delivered all the designs)

Post by Thomas Heger
The atomic bomb itself was most likely already known befor WWII.
Einstein and Szillard patented their 'Einstein fridge' in 1930 in Berlin.
The only known use of that device is as part of a fast breeding reactor
(those reactors that produce plutonium).
But for which purpose would you like to breed plutonium, if you had no
atomic bomb?

atomick reactors can really hot. (china simdrome)


Our Sun is very hot. Why do you thing space is very cold? REFRIDGERATION.

Post by Thomas Heger
The Einstein fridge doesn't coll (this was at least found out by a bunch
of students, who rebuilt the device).
It is kind of 'three substances absorption cooler' (with ammonia, water
and butan in liquid form).
(To me this 'fridge' does not look like a device, which could eventually
cool. Therefore I would support the claim of those students.)
the bomb was already known in 1930 and Szillard and Einstein played a
role in its development (undertanken long befor 1930 and certainly not
at Los Alamos).
To reward Einstein and Szillard secretly, that patent was used, even if
the device does not cool.
...
TH

Albert Einstein before the Manhattan Project 'already' had in mind what the atomic bomb
looked like, design like, weight of the bomb, all the internal components/ingredients, etc:


"A single bomb of this

type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy

the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However,

such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by

air." --Albert Einstein

https://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein/#first

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Starmaker: I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!!!

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: It was already in the marketplace for a long time.

sorry, i only know of only one Manhattan Project..

Sure, but what were they doing there in Los Alamos?
To me it looked like a concentration camp for physicists.
TH

Physicists there were held against their own will. They did not
volunteer for it, they were...drafted.

Sure: Los Alamos looked like barracks, which were placed remotely in the
desert.
But my assumption was, that the atomic bomb was much older than the
Manhattan project, which had the purpose, to 'gag' the physicists and
sort out those, which were not willing to comply
(e.g. proponents of 'free energy', abiogenic oil theory, homeopathy and
similar heresies).

Yes, it was much older. Albert Einstein invented the atomic bomb in
1905...that is when it first came to him in his mind.
From then on it became his passion and quest to make it happen.
Einstein gave How To Build an Atomic Bomb classes in the 1920's...Enrico
Fermi was a student. (Leo Zilgard also his main student)

Really absolutely incredibly clever of him,
considering that the Uranium 235 isotope wasn't discovered until 1936.

Jan

[The Starmaker]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: It was already in the marketplace for a long time.

sorry, i only know of only one Manhattan Project..

Sure, but what were they doing there in Los Alamos?
To me it looked like a concentration camp for physicists.
TH

Physicists there were held against their own will. They did not
volunteer for it, they were...drafted.

Sure: Los Alamos looked like barracks, which were placed remotely in the
desert.
But my assumption was, that the atomic bomb was much older than the
Manhattan project, which had the purpose, to 'gag' the physicists and
sort out those, which were not willing to comply
(e.g. proponents of 'free energy', abiogenic oil theory, homeopathy and
similar heresies).

Yes, it was much older. Albert Einstein invented the atomic bomb in
1905...that is when it first came to him in his mind.
From then on it became his passion and quest to make it happen.
Einstein gave How To Build an Atomic Bomb classes in the 1920's...Enrico
Fermi was a student. (Leo Zilgard also his main student)

Really absolutely incredibly clever of him,
considering that the Uranium 235 isotope wasn't discovered until 1936.
Jan

"Enrico Fermi was intensively involved with Einstein's theory of relativity and traced the hidden power of atomic nuclei.
In 1923, he wrote that it would probably not be possible to release this energy in the near future, "because
the first effect would be an explosion so terrible that it would tear the physicist who tried it to pieces".
He himself was to unleash this energy two decades later."

"...the first effect would be an explosion so terrible that it would tear the physicist who tried it to pieces".--Enrico Fermi 1923



Enrico Fermi discovered Uranium 235 isotope ...BEFORE 1936!


Enrico Fermi was inspired by A;bert Einstein's class on How To Build an Atomic bomb.

Einstein was secretly building an army of scientists to help him with ...The Uranium Bomb.

"Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium). -- Albert Einstein (1905)

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/188

"... it will prove possible to test this theory"



Here is a quote from a student at Albert Einstein's classroom...




In the 1920's when Albert Einstein was teaching his students
How To Build an Atomic Bomb...and what was needed was to
release this energy...

A student asked him..
"What do you need to make this happen?"

Einstein responded, "You start with Radium."

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: It was already in the marketplace for a long time.

sorry, i only know of only one Manhattan Project..

Sure, but what were they doing there in Los Alamos?
To me it looked like a concentration camp for physicists.
TH

Physicists there were held against their own will. They did not
volunteer for it, they were...drafted.

You really should read Feynman on it,

Jan

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Starmaker: Did he really say that? Was he pretending to have contributed
to that great accomplishment?

[The Starmaker]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: Did he really say that? Was he pretending to have contributed
to that great accomplishment?

"If I had foreseen Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would have torn up my
formula in 1905." - Albert Einstein

p. 112 - Einstein and the Poet (1983)




https://libquotes.com/albert-einstein/quote/lbr9f3o



"If I had foreseen Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would have torn up my
formula in 1905." - Albert Einstein

p. 112 - Einstein and the Poet (1983)

If I had foreseen Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would have torn up my
formula in 1905.
Albert Einstein, in a conversation of 1948, as quoted in Einstein and
the Poet : In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983) by William Hermanns, p.
112

[Thomas Heger]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: Did he really say that? Was he pretending to have contributed
to that great accomplishment?

"If I had foreseen Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would have torn up my
formula in 1905." - Albert Einstein
p. 112 - Einstein the Poet (1983)
https://libquotes.com/albert-einstein/quote/lbr9f3o

"Reading after a certain age diverts the mind too much from its creative
pursuits. "

How much is 'too much'???

[Richard Hachel]

Post by The Starmaker
https://libquotes.com/albert-einstein/quote/lbr9f3o

Fake citation.

Non seulement la formule n'est pas d'Einstein, mais de Poincaré, mais
encore, ce n'est pas le fait de l'avoir popularisée qui a fait mettre au
point les bombes atomiques.

On savait bien avant Einstein que la matière pouvait dégager des
quantités considérable d'énergie, et les physiciens de Los Alamos se
moquaient pas mal du niveau d'Albert Einstein en physique nucléaire.

Le reste est du pipeau médiatique visant à attribuer à Einstein :
- la relativité restreinte de Poincaré
- la relativité générale de Grosmann et Hilbert
- Les recherches d'Oppenheimer et de ses collaborateurs.

Je ne comprendrais jamais ce battage médiatique incroyable fait sur un
obscur copiste du bureau des brevets de Berne.

Aujourd'hui encore on retrouve des tas de citations signées Albert
Einstein, citations qu'il n'a jamais écrite, mais qu'on lui attribue.

Tout ceci tourne à l'hystérie collective.

R.H.

[The Starmaker]

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZQsFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA238&dq=%22If+I+had+foreseen+Hiroshima+and+Nagasaki,+I+would+have+torn+up+my+formula+in+1905

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by The Starmaker
https://libquotes.com/albert-einstein/quote/lbr9f3o

Fake citation.
Non seulement la formule n'est pas d'Einstein, mais de Poincaré, mais
encore, ce n'est pas le fait de l'avoir popularisée qui a fait mettre au
point les bombes atomiques.
On savait bien avant Einstein que la matière pouvait dégager des
quantités considérable d'énergie, et les physiciens de Los Alamos se
moquaient pas mal du niveau d'Albert Einstein en physique nucléaire.
- la relativité restreinte de Poincaré
- la relativité générale de Grosmann et Hilbert
- Les recherches d'Oppenheimer et de ses collaborateurs.
Je ne comprendrais jamais ce battage médiatique incroyable fait sur un
obscur copiste du bureau des brevets de Berne.
Aujourd'hui encore on retrouve des tas de citations signées Albert
Einstein, citations qu'il n'a jamais écrite, mais qu'on lui attribue.
Tout ceci tourne à l'hystérie collective.
R.H.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZQsFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA238&dq=%22If+I+had+foreseen+Hiroshima+and+Nagasaki,+I+would+have+torn+up+my+formula+in+1905




do you people still read books in France?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Starmaker: So he was taking credit for it.

[The Starmaker]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: So he was taking credit for it.

Credit for what?

It's just a book of Einstein's quotes like so many.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZQsFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA238&dq=%22If+I+had+foreseen+Hiroshima+and+Nagasaki,+I+would+have+torn+up+my+formula+in+1905

It's just that...
some people
see what they consider
a negative quote
it is automatically a fraud..
thats the rule these people have.

'these people'.


It should be obvious to everyone...Richard Hachel is Jewish!

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Starmaker: Einstein thought his formula contributed to the atomic bomb
when it did not.

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Starmaker: So he was taking credit for it.

Credit for what?
It's just a book of Einstein's quotes like so many.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZQsFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA238&dq=%22If+I+had+foreseen+Hiroshima+and+Nagasaki,+I+would+have+torn+up+my+formula+in+1905

Now, for those unbiased want to go further...
the quote originaly came from a friend of Einstein in a interview:


Professor Hermanns interviewed Einstein in Germany before World War II,
Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man

https://books.google.com/books?id=0isgAQAAIAAJ&newbks=0&hl=en



https://books.google.com/books?newbks=0&id=0isgAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22If+I+had+foreseen+Hiroshima+and+Nagasaki%2C+I+would+have+torn+up+my++formula+in+1905.%22