Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Who Built The Atomic Bomb?
274 views
Skip to first unread message
The Starmaker
Jul 29, 2012, 7:31:39 PM7/29/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Alan Baker
Jul 30, 2012, 12:05:25 AM7/30/12
to
In article <5015C7...@ix.netcom.com>,
The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-B
> uilt-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
Using Photoshop doesn't make ignorance into wisdom.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-B
> uilt-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
Using Photoshop doesn't make ignorance into wisdom.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Don Stockbauer
Jul 30, 2012, 12:38:47 AM7/30/12
to
On Jul 29, 11:05 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <5015C7DB.2...@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-...
> In article <5015C7DB.2...@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-...
> > uilt-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
>
> Using Photoshop doesn't make ignorance into wisdom.
>
Doesn't pay to get famous, does it????
>
> Using Photoshop doesn't make ignorance into wisdom.
>
Hunter
Jul 30, 2012, 5:21:21 AM7/30/12
to
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:31:39 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
-----
Nice phony book.
And he ddn't invent the atomic bomb, just figured out the science
behind it science you no doubt don't believe in, including the famous
equation E=MC^2 not to mention other things like the Theory of
Relativity, both General and Special which has been shown to be true
time and time again.
Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project, the program the
United States created to build the bomb. All he did was, at the urging
of fellow scientist Leo Szilard, write a letter to President Roosevelt
urging him to do research because he was scared shitless that Hitler
would get it first.
------>Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
-----
Nice phony book.
And he ddn't invent the atomic bomb, just figured out the science
behind it science you no doubt don't believe in, including the famous
equation E=MC^2 not to mention other things like the Theory of
Relativity, both General and Special which has been shown to be true
time and time again.
Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project, the program the
United States created to build the bomb. All he did was, at the urging
of fellow scientist Leo Szilard, write a letter to President Roosevelt
urging him to do research because he was scared shitless that Hitler
would get it first.
------>Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Ubiquitous
Jul 29, 2012, 7:32:00 PM7/29/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
In article <5015C7...@ix.netcom.com>, star...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Ma
And you posted this off-topic article here because?
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Ma
And you posted this off-topic article here because?
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Helmut Wabnig
Jul 30, 2012, 8:10:05 AM7/30/12
to
on Japan. The bombs had German inscriptions on them on the earliest
fotos. And so on, according to latest publications.
U234 was captured with lots of yellowcake and bomb ignitors.
Alamos had no working ignition system, at the time and the whole
project was a failure. Oppenheimer personally visited U234.
That's what they say, the conspirateurs of a brownish color,
don't blame me about this.
Conspiration theorists have a good time selling their books,
look here:
http://www.amazon.de/Top-Secret-verschwiegener-Erinnerungen-Enth%C3%BCllungen/dp/3938516682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343649500&sr=8-1
same as shortlink: http://tinyurl.com/ck7g4xm
There is awhole bunch of publications from the last years,
dunno if they found their way to English people yet?
It does not have to be true,
if it is well invented.
w.
Wayne Throop
Jul 30, 2012, 6:38:35 PM7/30/12
to
: Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter)
: Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project, the program the
: And he ddn't invent the atomic bomb, just figured out the science
E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
So it's at best misleading, and technically inaccurate, to say that
Einstein figured out the science behind the bomb. The science behind
the bomb was fission chain reactions, and those came later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction
The concept of a nuclear chain reaction was first hypothesized by
Hungarian scientist Leo Szilard on August 12, 1933. The neutron
had been discovered in 1932, shortly before.
whereas E=mc^2 was vintage 1905.
: Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project, the program the
: United States created to build the bomb. All he did was, at the
: urging of fellow scientist Leo Szilard, write a letter to President
: Roosevelt urging him to do research because he was scared shitless
: that Hitler would get it first.
That is my conclusion as well.
: urging of fellow scientist Leo Szilard, write a letter to President
: Roosevelt urging him to do research because he was scared shitless
: that Hitler would get it first.
: And he ddn't invent the atomic bomb, just figured out the science
: behind it science you no doubt don't believe in, including the famous
: equation E=MC^2
The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
: equation E=MC^2
E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
So it's at best misleading, and technically inaccurate, to say that
Einstein figured out the science behind the bomb. The science behind
the bomb was fission chain reactions, and those came later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction
The concept of a nuclear chain reaction was first hypothesized by
Hungarian scientist Leo Szilard on August 12, 1933. The neutron
had been discovered in 1932, shortly before.
whereas E=mc^2 was vintage 1905.
The Starmaker
Jul 30, 2012, 6:59:15 PM7/30/12
to
Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:31:39 -0700, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
> -----
> Nice phony book.
Phony? What's phony about it? It's an E-Book! Even an E-Author!
>
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:31:39 -0700, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
> -----
> Nice phony book.
It's already on the first page of Google at the very bottom and
I haven't even inserted any keywords or any SEO on it!
Or 'article marketing, or backlinks, no content, or anything!!!
Now I have to hurry and put something in it before it's number one on Google!!!!
Opps! it went from tenth place to 7th place in a matter of seconds while I wrote this..
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22who+built+the+atomic+bomb%3F%22&oq=%22who+built+the+atomic+bomb%3F%22&gs_l=hp.12..0l2j0i30j0i7i30l2j0i8i30l3.11185.17024.2.21204.3.3.0.0.0.0.116.332.0j3.3.0...0.0...1c.k34bbC_UJaU&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=717d9e3559249a06&biw=1024&bih=607
I haven't even had a chance to insert 'some' keywords...
albert einstein
atomic bomb
build an atomic bomb
atomic bomb developed
atomic bomb made
designed and built the first atomic bomb
designed built the first atomic bom
building an atomic bomb
built the atomic bomb
built first atomic bomb
who built the atomic bomb in world war 2
build atomic bomb
built hydrogen bomb
built pearl harbor
theory relativity atomic bomb
scientists created atomic bomb
how was the atomic bomb made
built first atomic bomb
who built the atomic bomb in world war 2
build atomic bomb
built hydrogen bomb
built pearl harbor
theory relativity atomic bomb
scientists created atomic bomb
how was the atomic bomb made
atomic bomb created
created the atomic bomb
atomic bomb
atomic bomb japan
atomic bomb facts
atomic bomb video
atomic bomb ww2
atomic bomb inventor
atomic bomb debate
atomic bomb testing
atomic bomb explosion
atomic bomb names
albert einstein quotes
quotes from albert einstein
albert einstein quote
famous albert einstein quotes
albert einstein quotes imagination
quotes by albert einstein
albert einstein quotes about life
albert einstein famous quotes
atomic bomb quotes
albert einstein love quotes
quotes albert einstein
famous quotes by albert einstein
albert einstein atomic bomb quote
funny albert einstein quotes
quotes on the atomic bomb
albert einstein quotes atomic bomb
albert einstein imagination quote
quotes of albert einstein
famous quotes albert einstein
famous quotes from albert einstein
albert einstein religion quotes
quote albert einstein
albert einstein funny quotes
best albert einstein quotes
albert einstein math quotes
albert einstein life quotes
quote by albert einstein
albert einstein quotes on religion
albert einstein vegetarian quote
albert einstein education quotes
einstein atomic bomb quote
atomic bomb quote
albert einstein quotes on love
albert einstein inspirational quotes
quotes about albert einstein
albert einstein war quotes
albert einstein atheist quotes
albert einstein quotes love
albert einsteins quotes
albert einstein relativity quote
quote from albert einstein
inspirational quotes albert einstein
albert einstein quotes stupidity
atom bomb quotes
albert einstein best quotes
famous quotes of albert einstein
atomic bomb facts
albert einstein facts
albert einstein facts for kids
facts about albert einstein
atom bomb facts
atomic bomb facts for kids
interesting facts about albert einstein
albert einstein facts about his life
facts about the atomic bomb
wwii atomic bomb facts
facts on the atomic bomb
10 facts about albert einstein
facts on albert einstein
fun facts about albert einstein
albert einstein interesting facts
albert einstein fun facts
the atomic bomb facts
facts about albert einstein for kids
atomic bomb interesting facts
albert einstein brain facts
atomic bomb dropped
dropping the atomic bomb
dropping atomic bomb
plane that dropped atomic bomb
first atomic bomb dropped
atomic bomb dropping
dropping of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb drop
decision to drop the atomic bomb
was dropping the atomic bomb justified
reasons for dropping the atomic bomb
the dropping of the atomic bomb
pros of dropping the atomic bomb
dropping of atomic bomb
plane that dropped the atomic bomb
reasons to drop the atomic bomb
decision to drop atomic bomb
alternatives to dropping the atomic bomb
arguments for dropping the atomic bomb
was dropping the atomic bomb necessary
should the atomic bomb been dropped
reason for dropping the atomic bomb
first atomic bomb test
atomic bomb testing
atom bomb test
atomic bomb tests
atomic bomb test
atomic bomb test video
atomic bomb testing in new mexico
atom bomb testing
atomic bomb testing in nevada
first atom bomb test
testing of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb test footage
1st atomic bomb test
albert einstein s life
albert einstein s inventions
albert einstein s iq
albert einstein s brain
what was albert einstein s iq
albert einstein s
albert einstein s theory of relativity
albert einstein s family tree
albert einstein s family
albert einstein s birthday
albert einstein s childhood
albert einstein s accomplishments
albert einstein s death
albert einstein s children
albert einstein s middle name
albert einstein s wife
albert einstein s education
what is albert einstein s iq
albert einstein s theories
albert einstein s full name
albert einstein s parents
albert einstein s discoveries
albert einstein s achievements
albert einstein s riddle
albert einstein s birthplace
albert einstein s quotes
albert einstein s theory
albert einstein s atomic bomb
albert einstein s iq score
albert einstein s father
albert einstein s birth certificate
albert einstein biography for kids
albert einstein biography
biography of albert einstein
biography albert einstein
albert einstein biography book
biography on albert einstein
einstein biography
albert einstein short biography
albert einstein biography summary
biography of einstein
biography of albert einstein for kids
einstein albert biography
what did albert einstein invent
invention of the atomic bomb
albert einstein invention
what albert einstein invented
atomic bomb invention
albert einstein inventions for kids
pictures of albert einstein inventions
invented atomic bomb
albert einstein inventions list
list of albert einstein inventions
did einstein invent the atomic bomb
albert einsteins inventions
inventions of albert einstein
albert einstein what did he invent
invention of atomic bomb
the invention of the atomic bomb
albert einstein invented
albert einstein inventions and discoveries
inventions by albert einstein
atomic bomb invented
albert einstein pictures of inventions
albert einstein atomic theory
albert einstein theory of relativity
albert einstein theories
theory of relativity
albert einstein theory
einstein theory
albert einstein quantum theory
albert einstein general theory of relativity
theory of relativity albert einstein
albert einstein special theory of relativity
albert einstein relativity theory
atomic bomb effects
effects of the atomic bomb
effects of atomic bomb
atomic bomb radiation effects
albert einstein photoelectric effect
effects of atom bomb
atomic bomb effects on people
atomic bomb sound effect
the effects of the atomic bomb
the atomic bomb effects
atomic bomb after effects
effects of an atomic bomb
atom bomb effects
effect of atomic bomb
after effects of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb effects on environment
atomic bomb effect
after effects of atomic bomb
long term effects of atomic bomb
atomic bomb ww2
atomic bomb in ww2
ww2 atomic bomb
atom bomb ww2
atomic bomb ww2 facts
ww2 atom bomb
the atomic bomb ww2
german atomic bomb ww2
the atomic bomb in ww2
harry truman atomic bomb
truman and the atomic bomb
truman atomic bomb
truman atomic bomb speech
harry truman and the atomic bomb
harry s truman atomic bomb
atomic bomb truman
truman atomic bomb decision
truman library atomic bomb
truman speech atomic bomb
harry truman atomic bomb speech
truman and atomic bomb
truman quotes atomic bomb
atomic bomb debate
dropping the atomic bomb debate
the atomic bomb debate
debate of the atomic bomb
debate over the atomic bomb
debate over atomic bomb
debate on dropping the atomic bomb
atomic bomb debate lesson plan
albert einstein death
atomic bomb death toll
atomic bomb deaths
deaths from atomic bomb
albert einstein death date
death of albert einstein
albert einstein birth and death
albert einstein date of death
hydrogen bomb vs atomic bomb
atom bomb vs hydrogen bomb
atomic bomb vs hydrogen bomb
hydrogen bomb vs atom bomb
hydrogen vs atomic bomb
atomic vs hydrogen bomb
atomic bomb little boy
little boy atomic bomb
atom bomb little boy
little boy atomic bomb facts
little boy atom bomb
god vs science albert einstein
did albert einstein believe in god
albert einstein god vs science
albert einstein god
albert einstein god vs science 1921
albert einstein on god
thank god for the atom bomb
albert einstein quotes god
albert einstein does god exist
albert einstein and god
god vs science albert einstein 1921
albert einstein quotes on god
god vs. science albert einstein book
god vs science by albert einstein
albert einstein god quotes
albert einstein belief in god
does god exist albert einstein
albert einstein book god vs. science
thank god for the atomic bomb
atomic bomb pics
atom bomb pics
pics of albert einstein
albert einstein pics
pic of albert einstein
atomic bomb pic
albert einstein pic
pics of atomic bomb
pics of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb explosion
atom bomb explosion
atomic bomb explosions
atomic bomb explosion pictures
pictures of atomic bomb explosion
atomic bomb explosion video
atom bomb explosion video
video of atomic bomb explosion
picture of atomic bomb explosion
first atomic bomb explosion
albert einstein timeline
atomic bomb timeline
timeline of albert einstein
albert einstein timeline for kids
albert einstein life timeline
timeline of the atomic bomb
albert einstein poster
albert einstein posters
atomic bomb poster
albert einstein poster quotes
the wisdom of albert einstein poster
atom bomb poster
atomic bomb posters
world war 2 atomic bomb
atomic bomb world war 2
world war 2 atom bomb
world war 2 the atomic bomb
atomic bomb in world war 2
world war 2 atomic bomb facts
albert einstein world war 2
world war 2 atomic bomb pictures
manhattan project atomic bomb
the manhattan project atomic bomb
atomic bomb manhattan project
albert einstein and the manhattan project
albert einstein manhattan project
albert einstein iq
albert einsteins iq
albert einstein iq score
iq of albert einstein
albert einstein iq test
atomic bomb survivor
atomic bomb survivor stories
atomic bomb survivors
survivors of the atomic bomb
japanese atomic bomb survivors
albert einstein childhood
childhood of albert einstein
albert einstein childhood facts
albert einstein childhood biography
albert einstein early childhood
first atomic bomb used in war
world war ii atomic bomb
atomic bomb cold war
cold war atomic bomb
world war two atomic bomb
robert oppenheimer atomic bomb
oppenheimer atomic bomb
j. robert oppenheimer atomic bomb
atomic bomb oppenheimer
robert oppenheimer and the atomic bomb
fat man atomic bomb
atomic bomb fat man
fat man atomic bomb facts
fat man atom bomb
atom bomb fat man
atomic bomb pros and cons
pros and cons of atomic bomb
cons of dropping the atomic bomb
cons of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb cons
albert einstein tee shirts
albert einstein t shirts
albert einstein shirt
albert einstein t shirt
albert einstein shirts
atomic bomb shirt
albert einstein contributions
albert einstein contributions to science
albert einstein contribution to math
contributions of albert einstein
albert einstein contribution to science
albert einstein costume
albert einstein costume for kids
albert einstein costumes
albert einstein halloween costume
albert einstein costume ideas
atomic bomb footage
pictures of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb definition
atomic bomb aftermath
atomic bomb images
atomic bombings
atomic bomb wwii
history of atomic bomb
atomic bomb museum
was the atomic bomb justified
pictures of atomic bomb
atomic bomb creator
atomic bomb radius
german atomic bomb
atomic bomb shadows
creator of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb casualties
atomic bomb blast radius
atomic bomb blast
albert einstein atom bomb
atom bomb video
creation of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb simulator
atomic bomb albert einstein
picture of atomic bomb
atomic bomb documentary
einstein atom bomb
the history of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb picture
first atom bomb
atomic bomb movies
history of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb development
creator of atomic bomb
atomic bomb essay
soviet union atomic bomb
atomic bomb controversy
atomic bomb videos
atomic bomb wikipedia
atom bomb history
the first atomic bomb
video of atomic bomb
development of atomic bomb
atomic bomb statistics
atomic bomb justified
atomic bomb lesson plan
father of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb cloud
big boy atomic bomb
atomic bomb new mexico
pro atomic bomb
development of the atomic bomb
ussr atomic bomb
atomic bomb victims
second atomic bomb
history of the atom bomb
was the atomic bomb necessary
atomic bomb names
wwii atomic bomb
atomic bomb plane
atomic bomb powerpoint
making of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb info
atomic bomb movie
atomic bomb alarm clock
atomic bomb model
japanese atomic bomb
the atomic bomb history
atomic bomb animation
pearl harbor atomic bomb
atomic bomb in new mexico
soviet atomic bomb
atomic bomb game
albert einstein and atomic bomb
atomic bomb photos
the atomic bomb movie
los alamos atomic bomb
atomic bomb design
enrico fermi atomic bomb
atomic bomb structure
atomic bomb tattoo
atomic bomb art
albert einstein the atomic bomb
atomic bomb primary sources
information about the atomic bomb
atomic bomb book
atomic bomb 1945
e mc2 atomic bomb
trinity atomic bomb
the atomic bomb pictures
atomic bomb mushroom cloud
father of atomic bomb
atom bomb photos
atomic bomb simulation
atomic bomb radiation
russian atomic bomb
atomic bomb games
atom bomb images
atomic bomb making
atom bomb pictures
leo szilard atomic bomb
radiation from atomic bomb
niels bohr atomic bomb
who made the atomic bomb
largest atomic bomb
atomic bomb blast video
1945 atomic bomb
1st atomic bomb
define atomic bomb
biggest atomic bomb
atomic bomb cartoon
history of atom bomb
the development of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb project
atomic bomb gif
chinese atomic bomb
first soviet atomic bomb
picture of atom bomb
atomic bomb diagram
albert einstein e mc2 atomic bomb
atomic bomb books
atom bomb wiki
atom bomb tattoo
atomic bomb scientists
atomic bomb einstein
miss atomic bomb
atomic bomb video clips
atomic bomb video download
definition of atomic bomb
atom bomb blast
decision to use the atomic bomb
henry stimson atomic bomb
atomic bomb wallpaper
atomic bomb attack
you and the atomic bomb
bomb atomic
atomic bomb youtube
atomic bomb sound
atomic bomb dates
atomic bomb countries
atomic bomb date
atomic bomb museum las vegas
youtube atomic bomb
secret history of the atom bomb
how to photograph an atomic bomb
atomic bomb shelter
making the atomic bomb
the creation of the atomic bomb
aftermath of atomic bomb
heroshima atomic bomb
atom bomb names
gar alperovitz atomic bomb
aftermath of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb creation
atomic bomb destruction
atomic bomb damage
atomic bomb justification
atomic bomb articles
books on the atomic bomb
atomic bomb symbol
atomic bomb shadows of people
cartoon atomic bomb
atom bomb creator
atomic bomb shelters
einstein and atomic bomb
atomic bomb map
pros of the atomic bomb
new mexico atomic bomb
atomic bomb cataract
most powerful atomic bomb
wikipedia atomic bomb
atomic bomb blueprints
atomic bomb clock
use of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb shadow
creation of atomic bomb
atomic bomb song
enola gay atomic bomb
history atomic bomb
reasons for the atomic bomb
eisenhower atomic bomb
atomic bomb photo
picture of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb drink
atomic bomb for kids
use of atomic bomb
atomic bomb size
atomic bomb pros
building the atomic bomb
soviet union first atomic bomb
atomic bomb image
usa atomic bomb
primary sources on the atomic bomb
atomic bomb animated gif
father of the atom bomb
arguments against the atomic bomb
name of first atomic bomb
atomic bomb candy
first atomic bomb name
children of the atomic bomb
impact of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb video footage
atomic bomb research paper
cost of atomic bomb
the father of the atomic bomb
fatman atomic bomb
video atomic bomb
atom bomb videos
radius of atomic bomb
images of atomic bomb
uranium atomic bomb
making of atomic bomb
atomic bomb clip art
atom bomb game
atomic bomb victims pictures
atomic bomb name
2nd atomic bomb
atomic bomb detonation
atomic bomb newspaper articles
arguments for the atomic bomb
video of the atomic bomb
after the atomic bomb
books about the atomic bomb
atomic bomb research
japanese reaction to atomic bomb
ancient atomic bomb
atomic bomb power
against the atomic bomb
consequences of the atomic bomb
arguments against atomic bomb
atomic bomb propaganda
third atomic bomb
atomic bomb pearl harbor
atomic bomb reaction
atomic bomb trinity
inventors of the atomic bomb
atomic bomb documents
anti atomic bomb
atomic bomb formula
atomic bomb victim
atomic bomb jokes
atomic bomb webquest
los alamos new mexico atomic bomb
atomic bomb in wwii
atomic bomb lesson plans
history channel atomic bomb
atomic bomb range
atomic bomb crater
atom bomb gif
atomic bomb games free online
atomic bomb in space
atomic bomb video clip
albert einstein brain
albert einstein autograph
books by albert einstein
about albert einstein
information on albert einstein
albert einstein wiki
albert einstein relativity
when did albert einstein die
albert einstein math
was albert einstein jewish
who is albert einstein
when was albert einstein born
albert einstein qoutes
wiki albert einstein
albert einstein book
albert einstein bibliography
where was albert einstein born
albert einstein discoveries
how did albert einstein die
who was albert einstein
albert einstein birthday
albert einstein info
the life of albert einstein
who was albert einstein book
albert einstein nobel prize
albert einstein wikipedia
albert einstein life
albert einstein photos
albert einstein for kids
history of albert einstein
albert einstein education
albert einstein books he wrote
albert einstein achievements
albert einstein videos
what did albert einstein do
was albert einstein a christian
albert einstein images
was albert einstein autistic
albert einstein bio
life of albert einstein
why is albert einstein famous
albert einstein e mc2
books written by albert einstein
info about albert einstein
albert einstein family life
albert einstein career
albert einstein family tree
hans albert einstein
albert einstein children
images of albert einstein
young albert einstein
albert einstein information
all about albert einstein
albert einstein image
albert einstein university
albert einstein pictures in color
albert einstein primary sources
albert einstein prints
albert einstein dyslexia
albert einstein vegetarian
albert einstein signature
albert einstein tongue
albert einstein autobiography
autobiography of albert einstein
albert einstein early life
albert einstein bees
albert einstein clothes
albert einstein clothing
did albert einstein have children
videos of albert einstein
albert einstein picture
information about albert einstein
albert einstein formula
photos of albert einstein
info on albert einstein
albert einstein video
books on albert einstein
albert einstein wife
albert einstein jobs
albert einstein quotations
albert einstein 1955
albert einstein history
albert einstein school
albert einstein as a child
albert einstein imagination
albert einstein birthplace
albert einstein famous
albert einstein kids
biografia albert einstein
albert einstein high school
albert einstein college of medicine
albert einstein learning disability
albert einstein awards
albert einstein disability
albert einstein riddle
albert einstein parents
albert einstein physics
albert einstein birth
www albert einstein
books about albert einstein
biografi albert einstein
albert einstein died
albert einstein movie
albert einstein for children
albert einstein academy
albert einstein art
albert einstein school of medicine
wikipedia albert einstein
albert einstein equations
albert einstein full name
albert einsteins brain
albert einstein photo
albert einstein autism
albert einstein experiments for kids
albert einstein paintings
was albert einstein dyslexic
albert einstein albert einstein
albert einstein sayings
was albert einstein an atheist
albert einstein wallpaper
albert einstein speech
albert einstein personality
albert einstein compound interest
albert einstein marilyn monroe
albert einstein birth certificate
albert einstein nobel prize 1921
albert einstein height
albert einstein adhd
albert einstein young
albert einstein books for kids
albert einstein experiments
albert einstein merchandise
albert einstein memorabilia
pictures of albert einstein in color
marilyn monroe albert einstein
einstein albert
albert einstein personal life
albert einstein date of birth
albert einstein scientist
did albert einstein go to college
albert einstein essay
accomplishments of albert einstein
albert einstein interview
collected papers of albert einstein
was albert einstein married
albert einstein memorial
albert einstein last words
did albert einstein have autism
albert einstein cartoon
albert einstein formulas
is albert einstein jewish
albert einstein on religion
photo of albert einstein
albert einstein illusion
albert einstein house
albert einstein 1905
albert einsteins birthday
albert einstein nationality
albert einstein religious beliefs
albert einstein museum
www.albert-einstein.org
albert einstein toy
albert einstein en espa�ol
albert einstein aspergers
albert einstein letter to roosevelt
albert einstein hair
albert einstein violin
albert einstein siblings
albert einstein gifts
albert einstein documentary
albert einstein background
albert einstein educational background
albert einstein princeton
albert einstein gravity
albert einstein wig
albert einstein work
albert einstein grave
albert einstein mental illness
albert einstein refrigerator
was albert einstein left handed
albert einstein descendants
albert einstein poems
albert einstein books written
albert einstein birthdate
albert einstein games
albert einstein.com
albert einsteins family
albert einstein brain size
albert einstein music
albert einstein mathematics
albert einstein famous for
albert einstein science
albert einstein left handed
albert einstein schooling
albert einstein research paper
albert einstein as a kid
albert einstein articles
albert einstein summary
albert einstein astronomy
albert einstein letters
albert einstein marriage
albert einstein powerpoint
albert einstein major accomplishments
albert einstein institution
albert einstein jokes
albert einsteins life
was albert einstein a vegetarian
dr albert einstein
albert einstein bust
albert einstein son
albert einstein research
albert einstein papers
funny albert einstein pictures
albert einstein statue
albert einstein discovery
albert einstein notes
albert einstein puzzle
albert einstein speeches
albert einstein award
albert einstein 2012
albert einstein obituary
albert einstein action figure
albert einstein autistic
a picture of albert einstein
albert einstein youtube
does evil exist albert einstein
albert einstein failures
albert einstein as a baby
albert einstein baby pictures
albert einstein painting
albert einstein funny
cartoon albert einstein
e mc2 albert einstein
albert einstein buddhism
albert einstein was born
nobel prize albert einstein
albert einstein portrait
albert einsteine
albert einstein hobbies
picture albert einstein
albert einstein quiz
imagination albert einstein
albert einstein story
albert einstein movies
albert einstein in school
albert einstein dyslexic
pictures albert einstein
albert einstein handwriting
albert einstein human stupidity
image of albert einstein
albert einstein figure
albert einstein equation
albert einstein trivia
albert einstein employment
albert einstein products
albert einstein wikiquote
albert-einstein.org
scientist albert einstein
ideas and opinions albert einstein
albert einstein quantum physics
albert einstein family members
youtube albert einstein
albert einstein doll
achievements of albert einstein
the collected papers of albert einstein
relativity albert einstein
albert einstein statue washington dc
albert einstein stupidity
albert einstein espa�ol
albert einstein thinking
einstein
einstein pictures
einstein books
einstein bio
einstein for dummies
albert einstein religion
einstein atomic bomb
albert einstein library
atomic bomb wiki
albert einstein born
albert einstein accomplishments
albert einstein jewish
pictures of albert einstein
albert einstein atomic bomb
albert einstein christian
the atom bomb
atomic bomb history
albert einstein atheist
atomic bomb pictures
albert einstein and the atomic bomb
first atomic bomb
albert einstein family
albert einstein books
the making of the atomic bomb
picture of albert einstein
atomic bomb video
the atomic bomb
albert einstein pictures
einstein and the atomic bomb
albert einstein mathematician
atomic bomb decision
maybe I should put it on Amazon!
The Starmaker
Jul 30, 2012, 7:03:25 PM7/30/12
to
William December Starr
Jul 30, 2012, 7:08:58 PM7/30/12
to
In article <13436...@sheol.org>,
nuclear explosive devices.
(Oh okay, a _kilogram_ of feathers.)
-- wds
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
> The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
> E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
> behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
> chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
Indeed, it applies as much to a pound of feathers as it does to
> The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
> E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
> behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
> chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
nuclear explosive devices.
(Oh okay, a _kilogram_ of feathers.)
-- wds
hanson
Jul 30, 2012, 9:22:08 PM7/30/12
to
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat>, from
Austria, listen:
You have posted over the years that you were a
Hitler Youth & that you knew General Milch, etc.
>
The days are passing rapidley when only US kike
controlled info sees the days light. You can make
history a little bit less foggy, by honestly posting
how the world and events did look to YOU during
those days. Have at it and don't be a frightened
fence sitter any longer. It was not your personal
fault that history went the way it did.
> ________
>
hanson wrote:
There may be more truth then what you want to
admit to, about what you lamented below, Wabie.
>
Wabie, consider:
a) the US space program was based on the Nazi
A4/V2 rocketry, under the team of Penemuende's
Wernher von Braun. (Action Paperclip)
>
b) All post-war US Jets fighters were German-design
based developments of the Me-262 and the US
Rocket X-planes were descendents of the
Messerschmitt Me-163 Komet
>
c) US Stealth planes like the B2, ditto: See the Horton
Flying Wings, "Ho 9" & "Ho 229" which brought about
many firsts - advanced swept-back jet-powered
wing design & radar absorbing stealth technology.
>
d) The current US Space Plane X37 design "to reach
every point on earth within 30 min" is based on the
A9/A10 Rocket- Nazi designs (to deliver radioactive
Si particle rains onto NYC and Washington... in 1944.
e) Even _today_ the US' Abrams M1A1/2 main battle
tank uses a German designed 120 mm Cannon.
>
So, Helmut, why do you call, below, reports about German
WWII nuclear technoly, stuff of "Conspiration theorists"?
>
The Hollywood folks made movies on the capture of
the Nazi Submarines U-boat 234 & U-571. The Kikes
who got away from Hitler in time, knew fucken-a-well
what was going on on Nazi Germany, which is why
they were so nervous and ran to Roosevelt with the
letter mentioned below... after which Einstein declared
that he was a pacifist... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA....
>
Give credit where credit is due, Wabie.
ln time also, the goyim may have learned from the
kikes of the Holocaust industry how to tell a story
that benefits himself... and given that the fruits of
those kikes' machinations are beginning to be called
into question by good Jews, at this very moment,
gives gravitas to what you posted about, Helmut:
Why?... go see at the end of this post, re:
<http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israeli-roulette-1.454532>
>
BTW,
poster "Starmaker" is nothing but a Starch-maker from
the liberal arts community, in rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.
written, misc.writing. screenplays, who are all lovely
parrots but, hard sciences are hardly their ken and
acumen. They are cogent enough though to serve
the good purpose to "stiffen" the discussion with
their Star-ch
>___________
>
The Starch maker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
>_______
>
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote
Nice phony book.
And he didn't invent the atomic bomb, nor the famous
equation E=MC^2, [which Einstein stole from Pretto &
Hasenboerl, and apologized for it publicly in 1907.]
minds of Einstein Dingleberries who worship Albert's
sphincter with a REL-igious passion. ]
did was [to SIGN] at the urging of fellow scientist Leo
Szilard, [who] wrote a letter to President Roosevelt
<http://www.amazon.de/Top-Secret-verschwiegener-Erinnerungen-Enth%C3%BCllungen/dp/3938516682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343649500&sr=8-1>
> ___________
>
hanson wrote:
Wabie, your lament: "don't blame me" [1] is a classic
from you guys who lost the war. [1] is equivalent to
"I just followed orders"... and Wabie, your [2] is the
tune and tone that all governments use to justify their
machinations:
"Ende gut, Alles gut" aka "The end justifies the means"
BUT, they always omit to tell you that
"The way to hell is paved with good intensions"...
>
Is ja alles nicht so einfach, Wabi. Nisch wahr or nisch?
>
A very poignant illustration on what has been discussed
above has been published today by Israel's largest Daily
News paper in
<http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israeli-roulette-1.454532>
wherein it says: ------ BREAKING NEWS -----
_______ Israeli Roulette __________
___ How many Israelis ask themselves why
___ they remain in a country that has become
___ the most dangerous place for Jews?
>
Sidebar:
Why did Hitler lose the war, given Germany's
superior technology and better educated work
force? ... One of the determining components
was that Hitler and his top goons were political
fanatics & ideologues who, as Nazional Socialists
fought the Marxist Socialists (communists) like
Obama & his team who are Democratic Socialists
but who have no understanding what business and
saving money and using it wisely is all about.
>
There is a hilarious liberal arts gem that makes the
e-mail circuits right now:
>
|||| If you voted for our current president in 2008
|||| to prove that you weren't a racist, please vote for
|||| someone else in 2012 to prove that you are not
|||| an idiot.
>
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahahanson
Austria, listen:
You have posted over the years that you were a
Hitler Youth & that you knew General Milch, etc.
>
The days are passing rapidley when only US kike
controlled info sees the days light. You can make
history a little bit less foggy, by honestly posting
how the world and events did look to YOU during
those days. Have at it and don't be a frightened
fence sitter any longer. It was not your personal
fault that history went the way it did.
> ________
>
hanson wrote:
There may be more truth then what you want to
admit to, about what you lamented below, Wabie.
>
Wabie, consider:
a) the US space program was based on the Nazi
A4/V2 rocketry, under the team of Penemuende's
Wernher von Braun. (Action Paperclip)
>
b) All post-war US Jets fighters were German-design
based developments of the Me-262 and the US
Rocket X-planes were descendents of the
Messerschmitt Me-163 Komet
>
c) US Stealth planes like the B2, ditto: See the Horton
Flying Wings, "Ho 9" & "Ho 229" which brought about
many firsts - advanced swept-back jet-powered
wing design & radar absorbing stealth technology.
>
d) The current US Space Plane X37 design "to reach
every point on earth within 30 min" is based on the
A9/A10 Rocket- Nazi designs (to deliver radioactive
Si particle rains onto NYC and Washington... in 1944.
e) Even _today_ the US' Abrams M1A1/2 main battle
tank uses a German designed 120 mm Cannon.
>
So, Helmut, why do you call, below, reports about German
WWII nuclear technoly, stuff of "Conspiration theorists"?
>
The Hollywood folks made movies on the capture of
the Nazi Submarines U-boat 234 & U-571. The Kikes
who got away from Hitler in time, knew fucken-a-well
what was going on on Nazi Germany, which is why
they were so nervous and ran to Roosevelt with the
letter mentioned below... after which Einstein declared
that he was a pacifist... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA....
>
Give credit where credit is due, Wabie.
ln time also, the goyim may have learned from the
kikes of the Holocaust industry how to tell a story
that benefits himself... and given that the fruits of
those kikes' machinations are beginning to be called
into question by good Jews, at this very moment,
gives gravitas to what you posted about, Helmut:
Why?... go see at the end of this post, re:
<http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israeli-roulette-1.454532>
>
BTW,
poster "Starmaker" is nothing but a Starch-maker from
the liberal arts community, in rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.
written, misc.writing. screenplays, who are all lovely
parrots but, hard sciences are hardly their ken and
acumen. They are cogent enough though to serve
the good purpose to "stiffen" the discussion with
their Star-ch
>___________
>
The Starch maker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
>_______
>
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote
Nice phony book.
And he didn't invent the atomic bomb, nor the famous
equation E=MC^2, [which Einstein stole from Pretto &
Hasenboerl, and apologized for it publicly in 1907.]
Relativity, both General and Special which has been
shown to be true time and time again, [ but only to the
minds of Einstein Dingleberries who worship Albert's
sphincter with a REL-igious passion. ]
>>
Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project,
the program the US created to build the bomb. All he
Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project,
did was [to SIGN] at the urging of fellow scientist Leo
Szilard, [who] wrote a letter to President Roosevelt
urging him to do research because he was scared
shitless that Hitler would get it first.
> _________
shitless that Hitler would get it first.
>
Wabnig wrote:
Three bombs were seized from the Germans, and
two of them dropped on Japan. The bombs had
German inscriptions on them on the earliest fotos.
And so on, according to latest publications.
U-Boat 234 was captured with lots of yellowcake and
Wabnig wrote:
Three bombs were seized from the Germans, and
two of them dropped on Japan. The bombs had
German inscriptions on them on the earliest fotos.
And so on, according to latest publications.
bomb ignitors. Alamos had no working ignition system,
at the time and the whole project was a failure.
Oppenheimer personally visited the Submarine U234.
at the time and the whole project was a failure.
>
That's what they say, the conspirateurs of a brownish color,
don't blame me about this. [1]
That's what they say, the conspirateurs of a brownish color,
>
Conspiration theorists have a good time selling their books,
look here: ___ < http://tinyurl.com/ck7g4xm> ____ aka
Conspiration theorists have a good time selling their books,
<http://www.amazon.de/Top-Secret-verschwiegener-Erinnerungen-Enth%C3%BCllungen/dp/3938516682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343649500&sr=8-1>
There is awhole bunch of publications from the last years,
dunno if they found their way to English people yet?
It does not have to be true, if it is well invented. [2]
dunno if they found their way to English people yet?
> ___________
>
hanson wrote:
Wabie, your lament: "don't blame me" [1] is a classic
from you guys who lost the war. [1] is equivalent to
"I just followed orders"... and Wabie, your [2] is the
tune and tone that all governments use to justify their
machinations:
"Ende gut, Alles gut" aka "The end justifies the means"
BUT, they always omit to tell you that
"The way to hell is paved with good intensions"...
>
Is ja alles nicht so einfach, Wabi. Nisch wahr or nisch?
>
A very poignant illustration on what has been discussed
above has been published today by Israel's largest Daily
News paper in
<http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israeli-roulette-1.454532>
wherein it says: ------ BREAKING NEWS -----
_______ Israeli Roulette __________
___ How many Israelis ask themselves why
___ they remain in a country that has become
___ the most dangerous place for Jews?
>
Sidebar:
Why did Hitler lose the war, given Germany's
superior technology and better educated work
force? ... One of the determining components
was that Hitler and his top goons were political
fanatics & ideologues who, as Nazional Socialists
fought the Marxist Socialists (communists) like
Obama & his team who are Democratic Socialists
but who have no understanding what business and
saving money and using it wisely is all about.
>
There is a hilarious liberal arts gem that makes the
e-mail circuits right now:
>
|||| If you voted for our current president in 2008
|||| to prove that you weren't a racist, please vote for
|||| someone else in 2012 to prove that you are not
|||| an idiot.
>
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahahanson
kensi
Jul 30, 2012, 10:19:50 PM7/30/12
to
On 30/07/2012 6:38 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
> E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
> behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
> chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
That much is true. It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear
> The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
> E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
> behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
> chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
reactions should be capable of liberating large amounts of energy, from
knowing how much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the
unstable nuclei that had decayed. If a way could be found to, say,
accelerate the decay of all the radium in a fist-sized sample at once,
the calculations showed that a pretty large bang ought to result, much
larger than any conventional explosive of comparable size could produce.
Later, after the chain reaction had been discovered, Einstein penned his
famous letter. That helped to eventually cement the public association
between E=mc^2 and the bomb.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
Howard Brazee
Jul 30, 2012, 10:32:40 PM7/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:19:50 -0400, kensi
<kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>That much is true. It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear
>reactions should be capable of liberating large amounts of energy, from
>knowing how much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the
>unstable nuclei that had decayed.
Not to mention matter-antimatter bombs...
<kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>That much is true. It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear
>reactions should be capable of liberating large amounts of energy, from
>knowing how much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the
>unstable nuclei that had decayed.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Wayne Throop
Jul 31, 2012, 2:12:22 AM7/31/12
to
:: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
:: It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear reactions should
could liberate far more energy than chemical processes predated E=mc^2 by
decades, and there was never any particular limit pre-E=mc^2 on how much
energy could be liberated from physical processes. If anything, E=mc^2
was a limit that wasn't there before.
E=mc^2 was not useful in the design of fission weapons, nor did it
indicate any novel possibilities. Basically, it has nothing much to do
with fission or fusion weapons at all. Not in design. Not in indicating
the possibility.
:: from knowing how much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had
by any *given* nuclear reaction. Bit that nuclear reactions could
liberate much more energy than chemical reactions was known decades before.
That the quantity was orders of magnitude larger than chemical reactions,
and that controlling how fast "breakdown products" were created was the
key, didn't depend on E=mc^2, not even a little.
: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
: Not to mention matter-antimatter bombs...
Matter-antimatter is the most that can be liberated by physical processes
in material widgets. Before E=mc^2, there was no such limit.
:: Later, after the chain reaction had been discovered, Einstein penned
Quite a bit after the letter, the Italian navigator landed in the new world
by actually demonstrating one.
:: It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear reactions should
:: be capable of liberating large amounts of energy,
Nope. Not even a little bit. The first hints that nuclear processes
could liberate far more energy than chemical processes predated E=mc^2 by
decades, and there was never any particular limit pre-E=mc^2 on how much
energy could be liberated from physical processes. If anything, E=mc^2
was a limit that wasn't there before.
E=mc^2 was not useful in the design of fission weapons, nor did it
indicate any novel possibilities. Basically, it has nothing much to do
with fission or fusion weapons at all. Not in design. Not in indicating
the possibility.
:: from knowing how much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had
:: than the unstable nuclei that had decayed.
It would allow calculation of the exact quantity of energy liberated
by any *given* nuclear reaction. Bit that nuclear reactions could
liberate much more energy than chemical reactions was known decades before.
That the quantity was orders of magnitude larger than chemical reactions,
and that controlling how fast "breakdown products" were created was the
key, didn't depend on E=mc^2, not even a little.
: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
: Not to mention matter-antimatter bombs...
Matter-antimatter is the most that can be liberated by physical processes
in material widgets. Before E=mc^2, there was no such limit.
:: Later, after the chain reaction had been discovered, Einstein penned
:: his famous letter. That helped to eventually cement the public
:: association between E=mc^2 and the bomb.
Well... after the chain reaction had been *hypothesized*, the letter.
:: association between E=mc^2 and the bomb.
Quite a bit after the letter, the Italian navigator landed in the new world
by actually demonstrating one.
kensi
Jul 31, 2012, 2:44:36 AM7/31/12
to
On 31/07/2012 2:12 AM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> :: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
> :: It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear reactions should
> :: be capable of liberating large amounts of energy,
>
> Nope. Not even a little bit. The first hints that nuclear processes
> could liberate far more energy than chemical processes predated E=mc^2 by
> decades,
Measurements of radioactive decay energy? Those suggested that the
> :: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
> :: It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear reactions should
> :: be capable of liberating large amounts of energy,
>
> Nope. Not even a little bit. The first hints that nuclear processes
> could liberate far more energy than chemical processes predated E=mc^2 by
> decades,
amount could be large, but E=mc^2 allowed calculating precisely what you
could get if a specific atom decayed into specific lighter atoms and
other particles.
> and there was never any particular limit pre-E=mc^2 on how much
> energy could be liberated from physical processes.
level released by chemical processes and the level released by ordinary
radioactivity in naturally-occurring radionuclides. Neither observed
maximum was especially high.
> E=mc^2 was not useful in the design of fission weapons,
> :: from knowing how much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had
> :: than the unstable nuclei that had decayed.
>
> It would allow calculation of the exact quantity of energy liberated
> by any *given* nuclear reaction. Bit that nuclear reactions could
> liberate much more energy than chemical reactions was known decades before.
> Matter-antimatter is the most that can be liberated by physical processes
> in material widgets. Before E=mc^2, there was no such limit.
expect either way.
> :: Later, after the chain reaction had been discovered, Einstein penned
> :: his famous letter. That helped to eventually cement the public
> :: association between E=mc^2 and the bomb.
>
> Well... after the chain reaction had been *hypothesized*, the letter.
sometimes -- more than one per fission on average. It was also known
that U235 fission could be induced by a neutron. The chain reaction was
there, in the math; it was only a matter of building a reactor (or a
bomb) that would bring it about, by that point.
For a hypothesis, it was nearly (though not quite) as certain, even when
yet unobserved, as the hypothesis that if I drop a quarter off my desk
right now it will hit the floor in 0.2 second at a velocity of 9.8m/s. :)
Fred Hall
Jul 31, 2012, 3:21:35 AM7/31/12
to
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 02:44:36 -0400, kensi Derbyshire <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote in
<jv7usk$40b$1...@speranza.aioe.org>:
>On 31/07/2012 2:12 AM, Wayne Throop wrote:
>> :: kensi Derbyshire <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
>> decades,
>
>Measurements of radioactive derbyshire decay energy? Those suggested that the
>level released by derbyshire chemical processes and the level released by ordinary
Kensi Derbyshire, you uneducated cunt!
Stop plagiarizing Wikipedia. Only clueless goatfucking n00bs like you
do that.
SPNAK!
derbyshire
SPNAK!
<snicker>
derbyshire
--
"Paul Derbyshire is the reason God made killfiles and suitcase nukes." -- Camille Klein in rec.games.mecha
"Real lifing of ordinary kooks is forbidden. Real lifing of outerfilthers,
to teach them a lesson, is permitted up to a point"--Nadegda Derbyshire
Message-ID: <jv1svh$4do$6...@dont-email.me>
alt.paul-derbyshire.fix.it.now
alt.paul-derbyshire.fix.it
alt.paul-derbyshire
<jv7usk$40b$1...@speranza.aioe.org>:
>On 31/07/2012 2:12 AM, Wayne Throop wrote:
>> :: It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear reactions should
>> :: be capable of liberating large amounts of energy,
>>
>> Nope. Not even a little bit. The first hints that nuclear processes
>> could liberate far more derbyshire energy than chemical processes predated E=mc^2 by
>> :: be capable of liberating large amounts of energy,
>>
>> Nope. Not even a little bit. The first hints that nuclear processes
>> decades,
>
>Measurements of radioactive derbyshire decay energy? Those suggested that the
>amount could be large, but E=mc^2 allowed calculating precisely what you
>could get if a specific atom decayed into specific lighter atoms and
>other particles.
>
>> and there was never any particular limit pre-E=mc^2 on how much
>> energy could be liberated from physical processes.
>
>No *theoretical* derbyshire maximum, but there were *observed* maximuma -- the
>could get if a specific atom decayed into specific lighter atoms and
>other particles.
>
>> and there was never any particular limit pre-E=mc^2 on how much
>> energy could be liberated from physical processes.
>
>level released by derbyshire chemical processes and the level released by ordinary
Stop plagiarizing Wikipedia. Only clueless goatfucking n00bs like you
do that.
SPNAK!
derbyshire
SPNAK!
<snicker>
derbyshire
--
"Paul Derbyshire is the reason God made killfiles and suitcase nukes." -- Camille Klein in rec.games.mecha
"Real lifing of ordinary kooks is forbidden. Real lifing of outerfilthers,
to teach them a lesson, is permitted up to a point"--Nadegda Derbyshire
Message-ID: <jv1svh$4do$6...@dont-email.me>
alt.paul-derbyshire.fix.it.now
alt.paul-derbyshire.fix.it
alt.paul-derbyshire
Wayne Throop
Jul 31, 2012, 3:45:53 AM7/31/12
to
: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
: Measurements of radioactive decay energy? Those suggested that the
liberating energy from controlled nuclear reactions. You can get
fairly good energy esrtimates from looking at the electrostatic
repulsion of the fission fragments, because that is a way of looking
at the avalable binding energy. That the binding energy manifests
as mass is not something that motivated the research.
:: and there was never any particular limit pre-E=mc^2 on how much
Nor after E=mc^2 for that matter, since none of the observed
maximums were even close to the maximum E-mc^2 introduced.
: But not *how* much more.
Which is not necessary to motivate research,
nor was mass difference the only way to predict how much more.
: No theoretical limit, no. No theoretical guide, either, for how much
: to expect either way.
But both practical -- and non-E=mc^2 theoretical -- guides did exist.
E=mc^2 simply wasn't necessary (nor sufficient) to motivate research.
: Hypothesized? By then it was known that U235 fission emitted neutrons
There was after all, a difference in the neutron energies that worked
best for inducing fission and those produced by fission. And whether it
could be realized in practical ways was unknown; that's why the letter
Einstein signed only said there was a *possibility* that it could be
done practically. That's pretty much what "hypothetical" means.
: Measurements of radioactive decay energy? Those suggested that the
: amount could be large, but E=mc^2 allowed calculating precisely what
: you could get if a specific atom decayed into specific lighter atoms
: and other particles.
My point is that E-mc^2 wasn't needed to motivate research into
: you could get if a specific atom decayed into specific lighter atoms
: and other particles.
liberating energy from controlled nuclear reactions. You can get
fairly good energy esrtimates from looking at the electrostatic
repulsion of the fission fragments, because that is a way of looking
at the avalable binding energy. That the binding energy manifests
as mass is not something that motivated the research.
:: and there was never any particular limit pre-E=mc^2 on how much
:: energy could be liberated from physical processes.
: No *theoretical* maximum, but there were *observed* maximuma
No observed maximum pre-E-mc^2 represented a theoretical maximum.
: No *theoretical* maximum, but there were *observed* maximuma
Nor after E=mc^2 for that matter, since none of the observed
maximums were even close to the maximum E-mc^2 introduced.
: But not *how* much more.
Which is not necessary to motivate research,
nor was mass difference the only way to predict how much more.
: No theoretical limit, no. No theoretical guide, either, for how much
: to expect either way.
But both practical -- and non-E=mc^2 theoretical -- guides did exist.
E=mc^2 simply wasn't necessary (nor sufficient) to motivate research.
: Hypothesized? By then it was known that U235 fission emitted neutrons
: sometimes -- more than one per fission on average. It was also known
: that U235 fission could be induced by a neutron.
However, the term "discovered" you used implies a physical chain reaction.
: that U235 fission could be induced by a neutron.
There was after all, a difference in the neutron energies that worked
best for inducing fission and those produced by fission. And whether it
could be realized in practical ways was unknown; that's why the letter
Einstein signed only said there was a *possibility* that it could be
done practically. That's pretty much what "hypothetical" means.
kensi
Jul 31, 2012, 4:27:06 AM7/31/12
to
On 31/07/2012 3:45 AM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> My point is that E-mc^2 wasn't needed to motivate research into
> liberating energy from controlled nuclear reactions. You can get
> fairly good energy esrtimates from looking at the electrostatic
> repulsion of the fission fragments, because that is a way of looking
> at the avalable binding energy. That the binding energy manifests
> as mass is not something that motivated the research.
Not directly; but it allowed much more precise calculations of the
> My point is that E-mc^2 wasn't needed to motivate research into
> liberating energy from controlled nuclear reactions. You can get
> fairly good energy esrtimates from looking at the electrostatic
> repulsion of the fission fragments, because that is a way of looking
> at the avalable binding energy. That the binding energy manifests
> as mass is not something that motivated the research.
energy than just "fairly good estimates".
> : No *theoretical* maximum, but there were *observed* maximuma
>
> No observed maximum pre-E-mc^2 represented a theoretical maximum.
> Nor after E=mc^2 for that matter, since none of the observed
> maximums were even close to the maximum E-mc^2 introduced.
> : But not *how* much more.
>
> Which is not necessary to motivate research,
fuel is, though -- although with oil running low *now*, *now* a merely
comparable energy density in a new type of source would be fairly
interesting.
> nor was mass difference the only way to predict how much more.
> E=mc^2 simply wasn't necessary (nor sufficient) to motivate research.
> : Hypothesized? By then it was known that U235 fission emitted neutrons
> : sometimes -- more than one per fission on average. It was also known
> : that U235 fission could be induced by a neutron.
>
> However, the term "discovered" you used implies a physical chain reaction.
"discovering" a new prime number imply a physical pile of stones, or
anything else, in that quantity being exhibited by the mathematician?
There are various levels of "discovered".
> There was after all, a difference in the neutron energies that worked
> best for inducing fission and those produced by fission.
neutron-slowing material into the mix. If the fission neutrons had been
too *low* energy to trigger more fissions it would have been another
matter, though. Accelerating neutrons isn't easy even now. You'd
probably need some way to accelerate a neutron *source* of some sort. (I
can see a neutron-reflective ball around a rapidly-spinning ring of
fissioning ions, or something, *maybe* self-sustaining in that case if a
neutron emitted from one fission bounced eventually into a nucleus on
the far side of the ring and hit it nearly head-on, and neutrons mostly
didn't get absorbed *unless* that happened. But the universe turned out
not to work that way.)
> And whether it could be realized in practical ways was unknown; that's
> why the letter Einstein signed only said there was a *possibility* that
> it could be done practically. That's pretty much what "hypothetical"
> means.
engineering. Similarly, at this point, better-than-break-even fusion
reactors are real physics but theoretical engineering. Vs. say
faster-than-light travel being theoretical *physics*, suggested to be
possible by GR's equations (which allow it given a negative energy
density region) and dark energy (an observed negative energy density
phenomenon) but not proven physically possible (quantum gravity might
obviate it; dark energy might be theoretically impossible to harness in
the needed manner; etc.) let alone practical. (And that's the entrance
cue for the UFO nuts to join this thread.)
Michael Stemper
Jul 31, 2012, 8:49:25 AM7/31/12
to
In article <50164e6d...@news.optonline.net>, Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) writes:
>On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:31:39 -0700, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
>-----
>Nice phony book.
Last week, in sci.math, one of the local whack-jobs put a book that he
>On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:31:39 -0700, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
>-----
>Nice phony book.
had published (the book is real), along with three others, on a shelf.
He then photographed the layout, and pasted the word "Bestsellers" and
the URL of the publisher over it. He then pu this on a web site as proof
of his knowledge of math.
It's amazing what one can do with Photoshop, although lack of a clue
certainly helps.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
Hunter
Jul 31, 2012, 11:38:55 AM7/31/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:38:35 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:
>: Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter)
>: Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project, the program the
>: United States created to build the bomb. All he did was, at the
>: urging of fellow scientist Leo Szilard, write a letter to President
>: Roosevelt urging him to do research because he was scared shitless
>: that Hitler would get it first.
>
>That is my conclusion as well.
----
Oh yes, Einstien who was a confirm pascifist and who never returned to
Germany after the Gestapo raided his apartment in Germany looking for
of all things, weapons, was very scared.
Yes I stand corrected on the relevancy of E-mc^2. And reading up
further on what prompted Szilard to ask Einstein to write the letter
it was indeed the was the demonstration nuclear chain reaction in 1938
proving the theory he postulated in '33, so Einstein had even less to
do with the bomb as I thought.
wrote:
>: Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter)
>: Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project, the program the
>: United States created to build the bomb. All he did was, at the
>: urging of fellow scientist Leo Szilard, write a letter to President
>: Roosevelt urging him to do research because he was scared shitless
>: that Hitler would get it first.
>
>That is my conclusion as well.
Oh yes, Einstien who was a confirm pascifist and who never returned to
Germany after the Gestapo raided his apartment in Germany looking for
of all things, weapons, was very scared.
>
>: And he ddn't invent the atomic bomb, just figured out the science
>: behind it science you no doubt don't believe in, including the famous
>: equation E=MC^2
>
>The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
>E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
>behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
>chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
>
>So it's at best misleading, and technically inaccurate, to say that
>Einstein figured out the science behind the bomb. The science behind
>the bomb was fission chain reactions, and those came later.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction
> The concept of a nuclear chain reaction was first hypothesized by
> Hungarian scientist Leo Szilard on August 12, 1933. The neutron
> had been discovered in 1932, shortly before.
>
>whereas E=mc^2 was vintage 1905.
----
>: And he ddn't invent the atomic bomb, just figured out the science
>: behind it science you no doubt don't believe in, including the famous
>: equation E=MC^2
>
>The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
>E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
>behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
>chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
>
>So it's at best misleading, and technically inaccurate, to say that
>Einstein figured out the science behind the bomb. The science behind
>the bomb was fission chain reactions, and those came later.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction
> The concept of a nuclear chain reaction was first hypothesized by
> Hungarian scientist Leo Szilard on August 12, 1933. The neutron
> had been discovered in 1932, shortly before.
>
>whereas E=mc^2 was vintage 1905.
Yes I stand corrected on the relevancy of E-mc^2. And reading up
further on what prompted Szilard to ask Einstein to write the letter
it was indeed the was the demonstration nuclear chain reaction in 1938
proving the theory he postulated in '33, so Einstein had even less to
do with the bomb as I thought.
Wayne Throop
Jul 31, 2012, 11:25:33 AM7/31/12
to
:: [.. E=mc^2 ..] is not necessary to motivate research,
: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
: Knowing that it's an enormously larger energy density than any
: chemical fuel is, though
And indeed, this was known, independently of E=mc^2, without knowing
precise quantities. And even applying E=mc^2 you don't get
extreme precision, since there is experimental error in measuring
atomic masses, and more importantly, it's unclear just what the
fission byproducts are going to be before you actually try it.
The accuracy without E=mc^2 was moore than enough to motivate research.
E=mc^2 was neither necessary nor sufficient to motivate research
leading to fission weapons. It wasn't necessary because there were
both experimental and non-E=mc^2 theoretical indications that orders
of magnitude more energy was available than with any chemical process,
and it wasn't sufficient since it doesn't actually provide any way
to get transmutation at a controlled rate.
Knowledge of fission chain reactions was necessary, and coupled with
knowledge of radioactivity and modeling a fission with electrostatic
repulsion was sufficient.
:: nor was mass difference the only way to predict how much more.
: But it was one way, and it was a quite precise way.
It was one way among several, and so was not, itself, necessary.
The motive was there without it.
Perhaps I overreact, but the association in most folks minds of the
relationship between E=mc^2 and fission weapons is *far* stronger than
reality can justify. So I tend to jump up and down on the greasy spot
on the floor that used to be this particular dead horse.
: Similarly, at this point, better-than-break-even fusion reactors are
The two are very different kinds of impractical, and a fission chain
reaction at that time was far more akin to the former.
: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
: Knowing that it's an enormously larger energy density than any
: chemical fuel is, though
And indeed, this was known, independently of E=mc^2, without knowing
precise quantities. And even applying E=mc^2 you don't get
extreme precision, since there is experimental error in measuring
atomic masses, and more importantly, it's unclear just what the
fission byproducts are going to be before you actually try it.
The accuracy without E=mc^2 was moore than enough to motivate research.
E=mc^2 was neither necessary nor sufficient to motivate research
leading to fission weapons. It wasn't necessary because there were
both experimental and non-E=mc^2 theoretical indications that orders
of magnitude more energy was available than with any chemical process,
and it wasn't sufficient since it doesn't actually provide any way
to get transmutation at a controlled rate.
Knowledge of fission chain reactions was necessary, and coupled with
knowledge of radioactivity and modeling a fission with electrostatic
repulsion was sufficient.
:: nor was mass difference the only way to predict how much more.
: But it was one way, and it was a quite precise way.
The motive was there without it.
Perhaps I overreact, but the association in most folks minds of the
relationship between E=mc^2 and fission weapons is *far* stronger than
reality can justify. So I tend to jump up and down on the greasy spot
on the floor that used to be this particular dead horse.
: Similarly, at this point, better-than-break-even fusion reactors are
: real physics but theoretical engineering. Vs. say faster-than-light
: travel being theoretical *physics*, suggested to be possible by GR's
: equations (which allow it given a negative energy density region) and
: dark energy (an observed negative energy density phenomenon) but not
: proven physically possible (quantum gravity might obviate it; dark
: energy might be theoretically impossible to harness in the needed
: manner; etc.) let alone practical. (And that's the entrance cue for
: the UFO nuts to join this thread.)
Heh. Well, I might pick nits, but that's a pretty good way to put it.
: travel being theoretical *physics*, suggested to be possible by GR's
: equations (which allow it given a negative energy density region) and
: dark energy (an observed negative energy density phenomenon) but not
: proven physically possible (quantum gravity might obviate it; dark
: energy might be theoretically impossible to harness in the needed
: manner; etc.) let alone practical. (And that's the entrance cue for
: the UFO nuts to join this thread.)
The two are very different kinds of impractical, and a fission chain
reaction at that time was far more akin to the former.
The Starmaker
Jul 31, 2012, 12:49:24 PM7/31/12
to
Einstein said to Leo Szliard, "I'm going to build an atomic bomb, but I'm going to give you all the credit."
Leo asked, "Why?"
Einstein replied, "I don't want to ruin my 'pacifist" image."
--
Albert Einstein: How To Build an Atomic Bomb
1)First set up a nuclear chain reaction
http://www.whatisnuclear.com/img/nrc-pwr-opt.gif
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/AtomReactorCutawayLarge-aaa.jpg
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
...that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction
in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quant-
ities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears
almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.
This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs,
and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely power-
ful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. 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.
2) You'll need some uranium, (I'll tell you where you can get some mr. presidente)
-2-
The United States has only very poor ores of uranium in moderate
quantities. There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia.
while the most important source of uranium is Belgian Congo.
3) I got some guys working on it already...I'll lend them too you.
In view of the situation you may think it desirable to have more
permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group
of physicists working on chain reactions in America.
The Starmaker
(excerpts from the up coming e-book)
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first
Everybody here has to stay after class and write one hundred times on the blackboard:
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
teacher I'm tired....
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
i'm going to blow up that teacher!
i'm going to put a thumb tac on her chair..
Wayne Throop
Jul 31, 2012, 12:54:39 PM7/31/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Szilard, was Einstien's messenger boy...
Exactly backwards, since Szilard wrote the letter and Einstein signed it.
: Einstein said to Leo Szliard, "I'm going to build an atomic bomb
So you like to make up dialogue.
Obviously, Einstein never said any such thing.
: Everybody here has to stay after class and write one hundred times on
Repeating it won't make it true.
: Szilard, was Einstien's messenger boy...
Exactly backwards, since Szilard wrote the letter and Einstein signed it.
: Einstein said to Leo Szliard, "I'm going to build an atomic bomb
So you like to make up dialogue.
Obviously, Einstein never said any such thing.
: Everybody here has to stay after class and write one hundred times on
: the blackboard:
:
: Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Why do you want people to write repeated lies on a blackboard?
:
: Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
Repeating it won't make it true.
Hunter
Jul 31, 2012, 1:57:54 PM7/31/12
to
The Starmaker
Jul 31, 2012, 1:12:43 PM7/31/12
to
Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Szilard, was Einstien's messenger boy...
>
> Exactly backwards, since Szilard wrote the letter and Einstein signed it.
>
> : Einstein said to Leo Szliard, "I'm going to build an atomic bomb
>
> So you like to make up dialogue.
It's how people write screenplays on TV.
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Szilard, was Einstien's messenger boy...
>
> Exactly backwards, since Szilard wrote the letter and Einstein signed it.
>
> : Einstein said to Leo Szliard, "I'm going to build an atomic bomb
>
> So you like to make up dialogue.
It's taking facts and giving it some enterainment value...
you watch tv in bed with your wife, don't you?
> Obviously, Einstein never said any such thing.
>
> : Everybody here has to stay after class and write one hundred times on
> : the blackboard:
> :
> : Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
>
> Why do you want people to write repeated lies on a blackboard?
> Repeating it won't make it true.
"This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable
- though much less certain - that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed.
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
whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well
Where did Einstien get the idea that the atomb bomb was soooooo heavy? How many pounds did he think it weigh?
"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." Albert Einstein
Reminds me of that joke.. Adam tell Eve, "Stand back, I don't know how big this thing is going to get!"
The Starmaker
Jul 31, 2012, 2:02:22 PM7/31/12
to
Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Szilard, was Einstien's messenger boy...
>
> Exactly backwards, since Szilard wrote the letter and Einstein signed it.
"Sachs..adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, urged that Einstein should write directly to the President.
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Szilard, was Einstien's messenger boy...
>
> Exactly backwards, since Szilard wrote the letter and Einstein signed it.
If Einstein wrote such a letter, Sachs promised to deliver it to the President personally.
"Einstein dictated a short draft in German which Szilard took down."
"Over the next few days, Szilard translated Einstein's dictation, going through draft after draft.
In the end, he prepared both a short and a long version.
On August 2, he mailed them to Einstein. Einstein returned both versions signed, but he
expressed a preference for the longer version. This was the version, dated August 2, that
Szilard gave to Sachs for delivery to the President."
http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html
Koobee Wublee
Jul 31, 2012, 2:10:06 PM7/31/12
to
On Jul 31, 10:12 am, The Starmaker wrote:
> "This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of
> bombs, and it is conceivable - though much less certain – that
> "This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of
> extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed.
> 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
>
> Where did Einstien get the idea that the atomb bomb was soooooo
> heavy? How many pounds did he think it weigh?
These guys back in the 30’s were thinking about atomic weaponry with
> 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
>
> Where did Einstien get the idea that the atomb bomb was soooooo
> heavy? How many pounds did he think it weigh?
the mundane Uranium since they did not know how to enrich this element
separating the desired isotope from the rest. Since the isotope you
want is less than 1% of the mundane Uranium, the weight expected would
be at least 100 times heavier.
How did the Manhattan Project team actually attempt to enrich U235?
Declassified material mentioned three methods:
** Centrifuge – This was abandoned very early on due to technical
difficulties. The idea did not occur to these clowns that chemical
compounds of Uranium can be made gaseous or power to allow for
feasible centrifuge.
** Gas permeation – This method was seriously looked at but abandoned
in favor of the next method.
** Electromagnetic – This was the method of choice towards to end.
It depleted all silver supplies to make wires since copper was a
material of wartime necessity. The scientists and engineers were
using silver bricks as door stops and paper weight at Los Alamos.
Since U235 and U238 have the same electromagnetic properties, it is
rather silly to consider using electromagnetism to separate these two
isotopes. What they did was to accelerate one ionized Uranium atom at
a time. U235 being lighter will be deflected less. With gravity
assistance, they were expecting to collect samples of U235. Of
course, these clowns did not get anywhere.
In the meantime across the Atlantic Ocean, the NAZIs under Harteck
were using centrifuge technology to enrich U235. With enriched
Uranium, it would be just a matter of time before an atomic bomb can
be built and detonated. If the war would drag on for a couple more
months, several allied cities around Germany would be toasted.
The only way to enrich Uranium in modern times is also centrifuge. It
is amazing that logic, mathematics, and science can be the forensic
tools to straighten out history cooked with half truth and lies.
Wayne Throop
Jul 31, 2012, 2:32:29 PM7/31/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Where did Einstien get the idea that the atomb bomb was soooooo heavy?
Szilard, who was much more familiar with the relevant science, namely,
fission chain reactions. Similar things apply to knowing how much
territory it might destroy.
: Where did Einstien get the idea that the atomb bomb was soooooo heavy?
: How many pounds did he think it weigh?
Einstein didn't write the letter. So that information came mostly from
Szilard, who was much more familiar with the relevant science, namely,
fission chain reactions. Similar things apply to knowing how much
territory it might destroy.
Wayne Throop
Jul 31, 2012, 3:05:18 PM7/31/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: It's taking facts and giving it some enterainment value... you watch
The fact is, Einstein never worked on bomb design, nor even on any
substantial underlying science. And by "the fact", I mean, that's
what actually is the case, no particular imagination involved.
: It's taking facts and giving it some enterainment value... you watch
: tv in bed with your wife, don't you?
Only if by "facts" you mean "made up entirely in your own imagination".
The fact is, Einstein never worked on bomb design, nor even on any
substantial underlying science. And by "the fact", I mean, that's
what actually is the case, no particular imagination involved.
Hunter
Jul 31, 2012, 4:45:20 PM7/31/12
to
I don't know what that has to do with the above but yes if he made it
into too much like a text book it would lose popularity.
Greg Goss
Jul 31, 2012, 4:24:17 PM7/31/12
to
kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>On 30/07/2012 6:38 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
>> The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
>> E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
>> behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
>> chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
>
>That much is true. It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear
>reactions should be capable of liberating large amounts of energy, from
>knowing how much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the
>unstable nuclei that had decayed.
It worked the other way around. Science knew that unreasonable
>On 30/07/2012 6:38 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
>> The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
>> E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
>> behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
>> chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
>
>That much is true. It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear
>reactions should be capable of liberating large amounts of energy, from
>knowing how much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the
>unstable nuclei that had decayed.
amounts of energy were showing up in radium breakdown, and the source
of that energy was unknown till later.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
Cryptoengineer
Jul 31, 2012, 4:34:21 PM7/31/12
to
On Jul 31, 3:05 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
I don't understand why you persist in giving this troll any attention.
Just ignore him, like the koran guy.
pt
> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
Just ignore him, like the koran guy.
pt
Wayne Throop
Jul 31, 2012, 4:48:02 PM7/31/12
to
: Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com>
: I don't understand why you persist in giving this troll any attention.
I thought I'd mentioned that a while back.
I'm obsessive/compulsive on certain topics.
"Call it a weakness."
"Eating *children*!"
"Call it a weakness..."
--- Bugs Bunny and Witch Hazel
: I don't understand why you persist in giving this troll any attention.
I thought I'd mentioned that a while back.
I'm obsessive/compulsive on certain topics.
"Call it a weakness."
"Eating *children*!"
"Call it a weakness..."
--- Bugs Bunny and Witch Hazel
Wayne Throop
Jul 31, 2012, 4:47:27 PM7/31/12
to
:: It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear reactions should
: It worked the other way around. Science knew that unreasonable
the binding energy of the nucleus, which is the key part.
The fact that binding energy manifests as mass differences
is pretty much an afterthought.
:: be capable of liberating large amounts of energy, from knowing how
:: much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the unstable
:: nuclei that had decayed.
: Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
:: much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the unstable
:: nuclei that had decayed.
: It worked the other way around. Science knew that unreasonable
: amounts of energy were showing up in radium breakdown, and the source
: of that energy was unknown till later.
Agreed. But it was pretty well known that the energy came from
: of that energy was unknown till later.
the binding energy of the nucleus, which is the key part.
The fact that binding energy manifests as mass differences
is pretty much an afterthought.
Joseph Nebus
Jul 31, 2012, 8:53:06 PM7/31/12
to
In <13437...@sheol.org> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>: Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com>
>: I don't understand why you persist in giving this troll any attention.
>I thought I'd mentioned that a while back.
>I'm obsessive/compulsive on certain topics.
>"Call it a weakness."
I confess that as a spectator there is something bracing in
>: Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com>
>: I don't understand why you persist in giving this troll any attention.
>I thought I'd mentioned that a while back.
>I'm obsessive/compulsive on certain topics.
>"Call it a weakness."
the determination Starmaker puts into his ignorance, and Mr Throop
gently highlights that.
But, yeah, properly speaking, it is feeding the troll, too.
--
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Current Entry: Reading the Comics, July 28, 2012 http://wp.me/p1RYhY-hO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kensi
Jul 31, 2012, 11:22:30 PM7/31/12
to
On 31/07/2012 4:24 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>
>> On 30/07/2012 6:38 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>> The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
>>> E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
>>> behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
>>> chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
>>
>> That much is true. It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear
>> reactions should be capable of liberating large amounts of energy, from
>> knowing how much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the
>> unstable nuclei that had decayed.
>
> It worked the other way around. Science knew that unreasonable
> amounts of energy were showing up in radium breakdown, and the source
> of that energy was unknown till later.
You're also confused, I see. The source of that energy was nuclear
> kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>
>> On 30/07/2012 6:38 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>> The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
>>> E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
>>> behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
>>> chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
>>
>> That much is true. It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear
>> reactions should be capable of liberating large amounts of energy, from
>> knowing how much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the
>> unstable nuclei that had decayed.
>
> It worked the other way around. Science knew that unreasonable
> amounts of energy were showing up in radium breakdown, and the source
> of that energy was unknown till later.
binding energy. E=mc^2 could be used to measure it by examining atomic
weights relative to the neutron and proton masses, of course.
kensi
Jul 31, 2012, 11:28:36 PM7/31/12
to
On 31/07/2012 11:25 AM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> :: nor was mass difference the only way to predict how much more.
>
> : But it was one way, and it was a quite precise way.
>
> It was one way among several, and so was not, itself, necessary.
But it did help.
> :: nor was mass difference the only way to predict how much more.
>
> : But it was one way, and it was a quite precise way.
>
> It was one way among several, and so was not, itself, necessary.
> Perhaps I overreact, but the association in most folks minds of the
> relationship between E=mc^2 and fission weapons is *far* stronger than
> reality can justify.
> : Similarly, at this point, better-than-break-even fusion reactors are
> : real physics but theoretical engineering. Vs. say faster-than-light
> : travel being theoretical *physics*, suggested to be possible by GR's
> : equations (which allow it given a negative energy density region) and
> : dark energy (an observed negative energy density phenomenon) but not
> : proven physically possible (quantum gravity might obviate it; dark
> : energy might be theoretically impossible to harness in the needed
> : manner; etc.) let alone practical. (And that's the entrance cue for
> : the UFO nuts to join this thread.)
>
> Heh. Well, I might pick nits, but that's a pretty good way to put it.
> The two are very different kinds of impractical, and a fission chain
> reaction at that time was far more akin to the former.
sustained, positive-output chain reaction:
* For fission, the Oklo natural reactor that burned itself out a few
billion years ago. (Possibly unknown back in the days before WWII.)
* For fusion, the Sun and other stars demonstrate that, at the *very*
least, a gravitational-confinement fusion reactor is possible, though
impractically large to build. :)
Greg Goss
Jul 31, 2012, 11:55:29 PM7/31/12
to
kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>On 31/07/2012 4:24 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
>> kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/07/2012 6:38 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>> The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
>>>> E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
>>>> behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
>>>> chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
>>>
>>> That much is true. It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear
>>> reactions should be capable of liberating large amounts of energy, from
>>> knowing how much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the
>>> unstable nuclei that had decayed.
>>
>> It worked the other way around. Science knew that unreasonable
>> amounts of energy were showing up in radium breakdown, and the source
>> of that energy was unknown till later.
>
>You're also confused, I see. The source of that energy was nuclear
>binding energy. E=mc^2 could be used to measure it by examining atomic
>weights relative to the neutron and proton masses, of course.
Or it could be measured directly. The change in mass when you break
>On 31/07/2012 4:24 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
>> kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/07/2012 6:38 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>> The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
>>>> E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
>>>> behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
>>>> chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
>>>
>>> That much is true. It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear
>>> reactions should be capable of liberating large amounts of energy, from
>>> knowing how much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the
>>> unstable nuclei that had decayed.
>>
>> It worked the other way around. Science knew that unreasonable
>> amounts of energy were showing up in radium breakdown, and the source
>> of that energy was unknown till later.
>
>You're also confused, I see. The source of that energy was nuclear
>binding energy. E=mc^2 could be used to measure it by examining atomic
>weights relative to the neutron and proton masses, of course.
the binding energy is fairly small, and I bet it was irrelevant to the
bomb design process.
kensi
Aug 1, 2012, 12:10:38 AM8/1/12
to
On 31/07/2012 11:55 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>> You're also confused, I see. The source of that energy was nuclear
>> binding energy. E=mc^2 could be used to measure it by examining atomic
>> weights relative to the neutron and proton masses, of course.
>
> Or it could be measured directly. The change in mass when you break
> the binding energy is fairly small, and I bet it was irrelevant to the
> bomb design process.
If you don't have a sample in hand, you can calculate it from E=mc^2 and
> kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>> You're also confused, I see. The source of that energy was nuclear
>> binding energy. E=mc^2 could be used to measure it by examining atomic
>> weights relative to the neutron and proton masses, of course.
>
> Or it could be measured directly. The change in mass when you break
> the binding energy is fairly small, and I bet it was irrelevant to the
> bomb design process.
the information in the Periodic Table, plus the published Standard Model
masses of proton and neutron.
With a sample in hand and a good enough calorimeter you can directly
measure the energy liberated by fissions and/or decays, as well.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Aug 1, 2012, 1:00:05 AM8/1/12
to
On 2012-07-31 23:28:36 -0400, kensi said:
> Don't forget we also have natural proofs-of-concept for both kinds of
> sustained, positive-output chain reaction:
>
> * For fission, the Oklo natural reactor that burned itself out a few
> billion years ago. (Possibly unknown back in the days before WWII.)
Definitely unknown back then. I remember reading the news of its
> Don't forget we also have natural proofs-of-concept for both kinds of
> sustained, positive-output chain reaction:
>
> * For fission, the Oklo natural reactor that burned itself out a few
> billion years ago. (Possibly unknown back in the days before WWII.)
discovery; I think it was in the 1970s.
> * For fusion, the Sun and other stars demonstrate that, at the *very*
> least, a gravitational-confinement fusion reactor is possible, though
> impractically large to build. :)
--
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
Greg Goss
Aug 1, 2012, 1:12:28 AM8/1/12
to
kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>If you don't have a sample in hand, you can calculate it from E=mc^2 and
>the information in the Periodic Table, plus the published Standard Model
>masses of proton and neutron.
I'm not sure that the infomation in the Periodic table was really all
>If you don't have a sample in hand, you can calculate it from E=mc^2 and
>the information in the Periodic Table, plus the published Standard Model
>masses of proton and neutron.
that accurate in the twenties and thirties. And the "Standard Model"
had some refining to go through.
Greg Goss
Aug 1, 2012, 1:15:22 AM8/1/12
to
eighties, I thought that the magnetic deflection method was something
new when the South Africans used it instead of centrifuges.
Greg Goss
Aug 1, 2012, 1:16:35 AM8/1/12
to
'nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>In <13437...@sheol.org> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>>: Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com>
>>: I don't understand why you persist in giving this troll any attention.
>
>>I thought I'd mentioned that a while back.
>>I'm obsessive/compulsive on certain topics.
>>"Call it a weakness."
>
> I confess that as a spectator there is something bracing in
>the determination Starmaker puts into his ignorance, and Mr Throop
>gently highlights that.
>
> But, yeah, properly speaking, it is feeding the troll, too.
It's in a well demarcated thread, and newsreader software makes it
>In <13437...@sheol.org> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>>: Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com>
>>: I don't understand why you persist in giving this troll any attention.
>
>>I thought I'd mentioned that a while back.
>>I'm obsessive/compulsive on certain topics.
>>"Call it a weakness."
>
> I confess that as a spectator there is something bracing in
>the determination Starmaker puts into his ignorance, and Mr Throop
>gently highlights that.
>
> But, yeah, properly speaking, it is feeding the troll, too.
easy to ignore particular threads.
kensi
Aug 1, 2012, 1:31:50 AM8/1/12
to
On 01/08/2012 1:12 AM, Greg Goss wrote:
> kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>
>> If you don't have a sample in hand, you can calculate it from E=mc^2 and
>> the information in the Periodic Table, plus the published Standard Model
>> masses of proton and neutron.
>
> I'm not sure that the infomation in the Periodic table was really all
> that accurate in the twenties and thirties. And the "Standard Model"
> had some refining to go through.
The neutron and proton masses and atomic weights were close enough to
> kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>
>> If you don't have a sample in hand, you can calculate it from E=mc^2 and
>> the information in the Periodic Table, plus the published Standard Model
>> masses of proton and neutron.
>
> I'm not sure that the infomation in the Periodic table was really all
> that accurate in the twenties and thirties. And the "Standard Model"
> had some refining to go through.
get some halfway decent estimates.
Hunter
Aug 1, 2012, 3:03:03 AM8/1/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:59:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:31:39 -0700, The Starmaker
>> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
>> -----
>> Nice phony book.
>
>Phony? What's phony about it? It's an E-Book! Even an E-Author!
>
>It's already on the first page of Google at the very bottom and
>I haven't even inserted any keywords or any SEO on it!
>Or 'article marketing, or backlinks, no content, or anything!!!
>
>Now I have to hurry and put something in it before it's number one on Google!!!!
>
>Opps! it went from tenth place to 7th place in a matter of seconds while I wrote this..
>
>https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22who+built+the+atomic+bomb%3F%22&oq=%22who+built+the+atomic+bomb%3F%22&gs_l=hp.12..0l2j0i30j0i7i30l2j0i8i30l3.11185.17024.2.21204.3.3.0.0.0.0.116.332.0j3.3.0...0.0...1c.k34bbC_UJaU&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=717d9e3559249a06&biw=1024&bih=607
-----
The link above is a google web serch page not an E-Book! The closest
thing to an E-Book is the Atomic Heritage Foundation Wiki and it
doesn't even mention Einstien as one of the creators of the A-Bomb.:
http://tinyurl.com/brb7hbt
And most of the other links are Ask.com which credit Robert
Oppenheimer and his team of scientist at the Manhattan Project.
>
>I haven't even had a chance to insert 'some' keywords...
>
>
>albert einstein
-------
(snip)
>
>maybe I should put it on Amazon!
-----
What is this fetish with Einstien? It was proven in this thread that
he had even less to do with the creation of the A-Bomb that I thought
much less you.
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:31:39 -0700, The Starmaker
>> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
>> -----
>> Nice phony book.
>
>Phony? What's phony about it? It's an E-Book! Even an E-Author!
>
>It's already on the first page of Google at the very bottom and
>I haven't even inserted any keywords or any SEO on it!
>Or 'article marketing, or backlinks, no content, or anything!!!
>
>Now I have to hurry and put something in it before it's number one on Google!!!!
>
>Opps! it went from tenth place to 7th place in a matter of seconds while I wrote this..
>
>https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22who+built+the+atomic+bomb%3F%22&oq=%22who+built+the+atomic+bomb%3F%22&gs_l=hp.12..0l2j0i30j0i7i30l2j0i8i30l3.11185.17024.2.21204.3.3.0.0.0.0.116.332.0j3.3.0...0.0...1c.k34bbC_UJaU&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=717d9e3559249a06&biw=1024&bih=607
-----
The link above is a google web serch page not an E-Book! The closest
thing to an E-Book is the Atomic Heritage Foundation Wiki and it
doesn't even mention Einstien as one of the creators of the A-Bomb.:
http://tinyurl.com/brb7hbt
And most of the other links are Ask.com which credit Robert
Oppenheimer and his team of scientist at the Manhattan Project.
>
>I haven't even had a chance to insert 'some' keywords...
>
>
>albert einstein
-------
(snip)
>
>maybe I should put it on Amazon!
-----
What is this fetish with Einstien? It was proven in this thread that
he had even less to do with the creation of the A-Bomb that I thought
much less you.
David DeLaney
Aug 1, 2012, 2:43:33 AM8/1/12
to
worked on for some years after that. Atomic nucleus: discovered 1911
(experiments from 1909).
Einstein's Miracle Year: 1905...
They -figured out- that the nucleus had a binding energy, once they realized
it wasn't a solid mass, or liquid drop; that wasn't until around 1933. Can't
really have a binding energy if you don't have pieces parts to bind together,
in the darkness...
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Wayne Throop
Aug 1, 2012, 4:04:49 AM8/1/12
to
:: But it was pretty well known that the energy came from the binding
: Er, I have to take this one away from you; radioactivity: discovered
was even partially grokked. I was talking about the late 1930s,
when fission chain reactions were proposed; the neutron had been
discovered somewhat before that. E=mc^2, however, wasn't really
relevant to that, nor to "predicting" how much energy was going
to be released. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
Otto Robert Frisch
The charge of a uranium nucleus, we found, was indeed large enough
to overcome the effect of the surface tension almost completely; so
the uranium nucleus might indeed resemble a very wobbly unstable
drop, ready to divide itself at the slightest provocation, such as
the impact of a single neutron. But there was another problem.
After separation, the two drops would be driven apart by their
mutual electric repulsion and would acquire high speed and hence a
very large energy, about 200 MeV in all;
So. Calculation of large amounts of energy, just from considerations
of electrostatic repulsion over the width of the uranium nucleus.
And *then* (as I would term an afterthought)
where could that energy come from? ...Lise Meitner... worked out
that the two nuclei formed by the division of a uranium nucleus
together would be lighter than the original uranium nucleus by about
one-fifth the mass of a proton. Now whenever mass disappears energy
is created, according to Einstein's formula E=mc2, and one-fifth of
a proton mass was just equivalent to 200MeV. So here was the source
for that energy; it all fitted!
Energy first. Mass later. That is, "we're getting lots of energy
out, so mass must be disappearing somewhere", and NOT "there's
mass disappearing here, so we will get lots of energy out".
Basically, even if Lise Meitner hadn't "worked out" that there was
a mass deficit, they would have known how much energy was involved.
Because, in fact, they *did* know *before* they went looking for
a mass deficit.
:: energy of the nucleus, which is the key part. The fact that binding
:: energy manifests as mass differences is pretty much an afterthought.
: d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
:: energy manifests as mass differences is pretty much an afterthought.
: Er, I have to take this one away from you; radioactivity: discovered
: 1896, worked on for some years after that. Atomic nucleus: discovered
: 1911 (experiments from 1909).
:
: Einstein's Miracle Year: 1905...
It is true that E=mc^2 was on the shelf long before the nucleus
: 1911 (experiments from 1909).
:
: Einstein's Miracle Year: 1905...
was even partially grokked. I was talking about the late 1930s,
when fission chain reactions were proposed; the neutron had been
discovered somewhat before that. E=mc^2, however, wasn't really
relevant to that, nor to "predicting" how much energy was going
to be released. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
Otto Robert Frisch
The charge of a uranium nucleus, we found, was indeed large enough
to overcome the effect of the surface tension almost completely; so
the uranium nucleus might indeed resemble a very wobbly unstable
drop, ready to divide itself at the slightest provocation, such as
the impact of a single neutron. But there was another problem.
After separation, the two drops would be driven apart by their
mutual electric repulsion and would acquire high speed and hence a
very large energy, about 200 MeV in all;
So. Calculation of large amounts of energy, just from considerations
of electrostatic repulsion over the width of the uranium nucleus.
And *then* (as I would term an afterthought)
where could that energy come from? ...Lise Meitner... worked out
that the two nuclei formed by the division of a uranium nucleus
together would be lighter than the original uranium nucleus by about
one-fifth the mass of a proton. Now whenever mass disappears energy
is created, according to Einstein's formula E=mc2, and one-fifth of
a proton mass was just equivalent to 200MeV. So here was the source
for that energy; it all fitted!
Energy first. Mass later. That is, "we're getting lots of energy
out, so mass must be disappearing somewhere", and NOT "there's
mass disappearing here, so we will get lots of energy out".
Basically, even if Lise Meitner hadn't "worked out" that there was
a mass deficit, they would have known how much energy was involved.
Because, in fact, they *did* know *before* they went looking for
a mass deficit.
Wayne Throop
Aug 1, 2012, 4:36:28 AM8/1/12
to
: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
: Don't forget we also have natural proofs-of-concept for both kinds of
u235 was noticed in enrichment operations, much later.
: * For fusion, the Sun and other stars demonstrate that, at the *very*
after fission chain reactions where proposed. Bethe's paper "Energy
Production in Stars" was (according to wikipedia) published in 1939.
(Though granted, thermonuclear processes had been considered since the
1920s, with Gamow in the late 20's proposing pretty specific mechanisms.)
: Don't forget we also have natural proofs-of-concept for both kinds of
: sustained, positive-output chain reaction:
: * For fission, the Oklo natural reactor that burned itself out a few
: billion years ago. (Possibly unknown back in the days before WWII.)
Yes, definitely unknown then. Wasn't discovered until some missing
: * For fission, the Oklo natural reactor that burned itself out a few
: billion years ago. (Possibly unknown back in the days before WWII.)
u235 was noticed in enrichment operations, much later.
: * For fusion, the Sun and other stars demonstrate that, at the *very*
: least, a gravitational-confinement fusion reactor is possible, though
: impractically large to build. :)
Fusion reactions in the sun were not really known in detail until a bit
: impractically large to build. :)
after fission chain reactions where proposed. Bethe's paper "Energy
Production in Stars" was (according to wikipedia) published in 1939.
(Though granted, thermonuclear processes had been considered since the
1920s, with Gamow in the late 20's proposing pretty specific mechanisms.)
G=EMC^2
Aug 1, 2012, 8:10:28 AM8/1/12
to
Michael Stemper
Aug 1, 2012, 12:41:58 PM8/1/12
to
In article <13437...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>: Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
>:: It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear reactions should
>:: be capable of liberating large amounts of energy, from knowing how
>:: much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the unstable
>:: nuclei that had decayed.
like a neutron or an electron?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
>: Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
>:: It is, though, E=mc^2 that first hinted that nuclear reactions should
>:: be capable of liberating large amounts of energy, from knowing how
>:: much less mass the breakdown products of nuclei had than the unstable
>:: nuclei that had decayed.
>: It worked the other way around. Science knew that unreasonable
>: amounts of energy were showing up in radium breakdown, and the source
>: of that energy was unknown till later.
>
>Agreed. But it was pretty well known that the energy came from
>the binding energy of the nucleus, which is the key part.
>The fact that binding energy manifests as mass differences
>is pretty much an afterthought.
Have we ever destroyed (converted into energy) a particle -- something
>: amounts of energy were showing up in radium breakdown, and the source
>: of that energy was unknown till later.
>
>Agreed. But it was pretty well known that the energy came from
>the binding energy of the nucleus, which is the key part.
>The fact that binding energy manifests as mass differences
>is pretty much an afterthought.
like a neutron or an electron?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
Anthony Nance
Aug 1, 2012, 1:02:16 PM8/1/12
to
electron-positron annihilations (which create energy in the form of
photons). I think they've also gone the other direction, converting
pairs of gamma-ray photons into electron-positron pairs.
Tony
The Starmaker
Aug 1, 2012, 1:11:12 PM8/1/12
to
The Starmaker wrote:
> 1)First set up a nuclear chain reaction
> http://www.whatisnuclear.com/img/nrc-pwr-opt.gif
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/AtomReactorCutawayLarge-aaa.jpg
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
Only for those who don't understand...
Part number 28
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
Part number 28 is in fact, The Nuclear Reactor.
Nuclear fission creates heat inside (part #28) the nuclear reactor.
Of course it is an obsolescent type of nuclear power reactor which,
when operated would produce the 'stuff' for nuclear bombs.
It originated in Britian where Albert Einstein got his patent for his atomic bomb machine.
Just so you know...
The Starmaker
an excerpt from the new upcoming e-book
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
If you want to know what a "Manhattan Project" looks like, his picture is on the cover of my book.
> 1)First set up a nuclear chain reaction
> http://www.whatisnuclear.com/img/nrc-pwr-opt.gif
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/AtomReactorCutawayLarge-aaa.jpg
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
Only for those who don't understand...
Part number 28
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
Part number 28 is in fact, The Nuclear Reactor.
Nuclear fission creates heat inside (part #28) the nuclear reactor.
Of course it is an obsolescent type of nuclear power reactor which,
when operated would produce the 'stuff' for nuclear bombs.
It originated in Britian where Albert Einstein got his patent for his atomic bomb machine.
Just so you know...
The Starmaker
an excerpt from the new upcoming e-book
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
If you want to know what a "Manhattan Project" looks like, his picture is on the cover of my book.
Sjouke Burry
Aug 1, 2012, 1:22:04 PM8/1/12
to
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in news:jvad4l$r0b$1@dont-
email.me:
> On 2012-07-31 23:28:36 -0400, kensi said:
>
>> Don't forget we also have natural proofs-of-concept for both kinds of
>> sustained, positive-output chain reaction:
>>
>> * For fission, the Oklo natural reactor that burned itself out a few
>> billion years ago. (Possibly unknown back in the days before WWII.)
>
> Definitely unknown back then. I remember reading the news of its
> discovery; I think it was in the 1970s.
>
>> * For fusion, the Sun and other stars demonstrate that, at the *very*
>> least, a gravitational-confinement fusion reactor is possible,
though
>> impractically large to build. :)
>
>
Jabut... See how easy it is to tap one.
I did that just this afternoon for recreational purposes.
A very nice IR and UV health bath.
email.me:
> On 2012-07-31 23:28:36 -0400, kensi said:
>
>> Don't forget we also have natural proofs-of-concept for both kinds of
>> sustained, positive-output chain reaction:
>>
>> * For fission, the Oklo natural reactor that burned itself out a few
>> billion years ago. (Possibly unknown back in the days before WWII.)
>
> Definitely unknown back then. I remember reading the news of its
> discovery; I think it was in the 1970s.
>
>> * For fusion, the Sun and other stars demonstrate that, at the *very*
>> least, a gravitational-confinement fusion reactor is possible,
though
>> impractically large to build. :)
>
>
I did that just this afternoon for recreational purposes.
A very nice IR and UV health bath.
Michael Stemper
Aug 1, 2012, 1:27:20 PM8/1/12
to
In article <jvbneo$qvb$1...@dont-email.me>, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) writes:
>In rec.arts.sf.written Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
>> In article <13437...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>>>Agreed. But it was pretty well known that the energy came from
>>>the binding energy of the nucleus, which is the key part.
>>>The fact that binding energy manifests as mass differences
>>>is pretty much an afterthought.
>>
>> Have we ever destroyed (converted into energy) a particle -- something
>> like a neutron or an electron?
>
>Perhaps not what you're looking for, but scientists have created
>electron-positron annihilations
Sounds like destroying an electron to me.
>In rec.arts.sf.written Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
>> In article <13437...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>>>Agreed. But it was pretty well known that the energy came from
>>>the binding energy of the nucleus, which is the key part.
>>>The fact that binding energy manifests as mass differences
>>>is pretty much an afterthought.
>>
>> Have we ever destroyed (converted into energy) a particle -- something
>> like a neutron or an electron?
>
>Perhaps not what you're looking for, but scientists have created
>electron-positron annihilations
> I think they've also gone the other direction, converting
>pairs of gamma-ray photons into electron-positron pairs.
short-lived electron-positron pairs?
An alt-hist story, "E = mc^2", by Pierre Boulle, has initial research
into that equation go in the direction of matter from energy. When a
certain well-known physicist is asked if matter could be turned into
energy, he lies and denies the possibility. Oh, the humanity!
The first large-scale demonstration of the equation happens in a
prosperous Japanese city.
Wayne Throop
Aug 1, 2012, 1:39:20 PM8/1/12
to
: mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
: Have we ever destroyed (converted into energy) a particle -- something
(Because otherwise various conservation "laws" prevent it.)
: Have we ever destroyed (converted into energy) a particle -- something
: like a neutron or an electron?
By pairing it with its antimatter counterpart, yes.
(Because otherwise various conservation "laws" prevent it.)
Wayne Throop
Aug 1, 2012, 1:41:26 PM8/1/12
to
: mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
: We've actually made matter from energy? Cool! Or were those extremely
: short-lived electron-positron pairs?
They can be fairly long-lived. Positrons created in this way
have been stored for macroscopic periods of time, iirc.
: An alt-hist story, "E = mc^2", by Pierre Boulle, has initial research
The physical world would be much different if it weren't so.
One of the Tom Swift Jr. books had Tom whipping up matter from energy.
At least they got right that it required *vast* amounts of energy; square
kilometers of solar cells in space, running for a long time, to make a
few tens of grams of matter. And even that underestimated the difficulty
of it. Mass concentrates a LOT of energy. Powerful cosmic energy....
tiny little particles.
: We've actually made matter from energy? Cool! Or were those extremely
: short-lived electron-positron pairs?
They can be fairly long-lived. Positrons created in this way
have been stored for macroscopic periods of time, iirc.
: An alt-hist story, "E = mc^2", by Pierre Boulle, has initial research
: into that equation go in the direction of matter from energy. When a
: certain well-known physicist is asked if matter could be turned into
: energy, he lies and denies the possibility. Oh, the humanity!
Oh the stupidity. Most anything that can run one way can run the other.
: certain well-known physicist is asked if matter could be turned into
: energy, he lies and denies the possibility. Oh, the humanity!
The physical world would be much different if it weren't so.
One of the Tom Swift Jr. books had Tom whipping up matter from energy.
At least they got right that it required *vast* amounts of energy; square
kilometers of solar cells in space, running for a long time, to make a
few tens of grams of matter. And even that underestimated the difficulty
of it. Mass concentrates a LOT of energy. Powerful cosmic energy....
tiny little particles.
Michael Stemper
Aug 1, 2012, 1:59:48 PM8/1/12
to
In article <13438...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>: mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
>: An alt-hist story, "E = mc^2", by Pierre Boulle, has initial research
>: into that equation go in the direction of matter from energy. When a
>: certain well-known physicist is asked if matter could be turned into
>: energy, he lies and denies the possibility. Oh, the humanity!
>
>Oh the stupidity. Most anything that can run one way can run the other.
>The physical world would be much different if it weren't so.
The guy from the Pentagon (the guy on the receiving end of the lie)
wasn't a physicist. He was just this guy who thought that maybe the
process could be reversed and that they could get *lots* of energy
out. Herr Doktor Einstein denied the possibility, much to the relief
of people like Fermi.
>One of the Tom Swift Jr. books had Tom whipping up matter from energy.
>At least they got right that it required *vast* amounts of energy; square
>kilometers of solar cells in space, running for a long time, to make a
>few tens of grams of matter. And even that underestimated the difficulty
>of it. Mass concentrates a LOT of energy.
Boulle definitely hand-waved this. In fact, the story had a chain
reaction start after the first bits of matter were created. That's
where I had problems with the physics.
>: mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
>: An alt-hist story, "E = mc^2", by Pierre Boulle, has initial research
>: into that equation go in the direction of matter from energy. When a
>: certain well-known physicist is asked if matter could be turned into
>: energy, he lies and denies the possibility. Oh, the humanity!
>
>Oh the stupidity. Most anything that can run one way can run the other.
>The physical world would be much different if it weren't so.
wasn't a physicist. He was just this guy who thought that maybe the
process could be reversed and that they could get *lots* of energy
out. Herr Doktor Einstein denied the possibility, much to the relief
of people like Fermi.
>One of the Tom Swift Jr. books had Tom whipping up matter from energy.
>At least they got right that it required *vast* amounts of energy; square
>kilometers of solar cells in space, running for a long time, to make a
>few tens of grams of matter. And even that underestimated the difficulty
>of it. Mass concentrates a LOT of energy.
reaction start after the first bits of matter were created. That's
where I had problems with the physics.
David DeLaney
Aug 1, 2012, 3:11:43 PM8/1/12
to
Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
>na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) writes:
particles which decay entirely into gamma rays, like the pi_0 meson.
>> I think they've also gone the other direction, converting
>>pairs of gamma-ray photons into electron-positron pairs.
>
>We've actually made matter from energy? Cool! Or were those extremely
>short-lived electron-positron pairs?
Well, if they're in a magnetic field, they spiral in opposite directions, so
move away from each other ... but yeah, the positron is generally short-lived,
as it finds SOME electron to annihilate with, if not necessarily the one it
was created with.
Also, there's virtual pairs of particles popping up and re-annihilating ALL
OVER THE PLACE in the regular vacuum, though here they're coming from,
literally, nothing, and return there - there's not a real photon that comes
out of the annihilation, because there wasn't a real one that dissociated
into the pair.
>na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) writes:
>>Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
>>> Have we ever destroyed (converted into energy) a particle -- something
>>> like a neutron or an electron?
>>
>>Perhaps not what you're looking for, but scientists have created
>>electron-positron annihilations
>
>Sounds like destroying an electron to me.
And a positron. We've also done the same for antiprotons, and there are some
>>> Have we ever destroyed (converted into energy) a particle -- something
>>> like a neutron or an electron?
>>
>>Perhaps not what you're looking for, but scientists have created
>>electron-positron annihilations
>
>Sounds like destroying an electron to me.
particles which decay entirely into gamma rays, like the pi_0 meson.
>> I think they've also gone the other direction, converting
>>pairs of gamma-ray photons into electron-positron pairs.
>
>We've actually made matter from energy? Cool! Or were those extremely
>short-lived electron-positron pairs?
move away from each other ... but yeah, the positron is generally short-lived,
as it finds SOME electron to annihilate with, if not necessarily the one it
was created with.
Also, there's virtual pairs of particles popping up and re-annihilating ALL
OVER THE PLACE in the regular vacuum, though here they're coming from,
literally, nothing, and return there - there's not a real photon that comes
out of the annihilation, because there wasn't a real one that dissociated
into the pair.
David Dyer-Bennet
Aug 1, 2012, 2:53:14 PM8/1/12
to
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
> One of the Tom Swift Jr. books had Tom whipping up matter from energy.
> At least they got right that it required *vast* amounts of energy; square
> kilometers of solar cells in space, running for a long time, to make a
> few tens of grams of matter. And even that underestimated the difficulty
> of it. Mass concentrates a LOT of energy. Powerful cosmic energy....
> tiny little particles.
One of the few I read. It as _Tom Swift and [his, or the] Space
> One of the Tom Swift Jr. books had Tom whipping up matter from energy.
> At least they got right that it required *vast* amounts of energy; square
> kilometers of solar cells in space, running for a long time, to make a
> few tens of grams of matter. And even that underestimated the difficulty
> of it. Mass concentrates a LOT of energy. Powerful cosmic energy....
> tiny little particles.
Solartron_. They make themselves lemon jello or something to survive
when the bad guys strand them.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Greg Goss
Aug 1, 2012, 2:55:55 PM8/1/12
to
kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
>Don't forget we also have natural proofs-of-concept [a]
recall it, was that a French enrichment factory was trying to chase
down why some batches of output had much less U235 in them than they
should have, eventually discovered that one of their feedstock mines
had been feeding them uranium with almost no U235 for a decade or so.
Exploring WHY there was no U235 in it revealed the ancient natural
reactor.
The world was much younger then, and thus the faster-decaying U235 was
naturally enriched (or at least not yet degraded) at the time.
>Don't forget we also have natural proofs-of-concept [a]
>sustained, positive-output chain reaction:
>
>* For fission, the Oklo natural reactor that burned itself out a few
> billion years ago. (Possibly unknown back in the days before WWII.)
Unknown, I think, well into the seventies. The story, as I vaguely
>
>* For fission, the Oklo natural reactor that burned itself out a few
> billion years ago. (Possibly unknown back in the days before WWII.)
recall it, was that a French enrichment factory was trying to chase
down why some batches of output had much less U235 in them than they
should have, eventually discovered that one of their feedstock mines
had been feeding them uranium with almost no U235 for a decade or so.
Exploring WHY there was no U235 in it revealed the ancient natural
reactor.
The world was much younger then, and thus the faster-decaying U235 was
naturally enriched (or at least not yet degraded) at the time.
Greg Goss
Aug 1, 2012, 2:57:41 PM8/1/12
to
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>In article <jvbneo$qvb$1...@dont-email.me>, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) writes:
>> I think they've also gone the other direction, converting
>>pairs of gamma-ray photons into electron-positron pairs.
>
>We've actually made matter from energy? Cool! Or were those extremely
>short-lived electron-positron pairs?
I read the Tom Swift book as an early teen.
>In article <jvbneo$qvb$1...@dont-email.me>, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) writes:
>> I think they've also gone the other direction, converting
>>pairs of gamma-ray photons into electron-positron pairs.
>
>We've actually made matter from energy? Cool! Or were those extremely
>short-lived electron-positron pairs?
The Starmaker
Aug 1, 2012, 7:18:40 PM8/1/12
to
Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Where did Einstien get the idea that the atomb bomb was soooooo heavy?
> : How many pounds did he think it weigh?
>
> Einstein didn't write the letter.
What does that mean "Einstein didn't write the letter."?
That's a very dumb remark.
"Einstein dictated a short draft in German which Szilard took down."
Do you mean Einstein didn't write it in English? That the English version is not what Einstein wrote? Einstein wrote
the German version, not the English version? The letter is the Enlish version that somebody translated from German?
What does that mean "Einstein didn't write the letter."?
That's a very dumb remark.
The Starmaker
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Where did Einstien get the idea that the atomb bomb was soooooo heavy?
> : How many pounds did he think it weigh?
>
> Einstein didn't write the letter.
What does that mean "Einstein didn't write the letter."?
That's a very dumb remark.
"Einstein dictated a short draft in German which Szilard took down."
Do you mean Einstein didn't write it in English? That the English version is not what Einstein wrote? Einstein wrote
the German version, not the English version? The letter is the Enlish version that somebody translated from German?
What does that mean "Einstein didn't write the letter."?
That's a very dumb remark.
The Starmaker
Howard Brazee
Aug 1, 2012, 8:49:50 PM8/1/12
to
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 12:57:41 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>>We've actually made matter from energy? Cool! Or were those extremely
>>short-lived electron-positron pairs?
>
>I read the Tom Swift book as an early teen.
I read Tom Swift Jr. books in grade school. I never read a Tom Swift
>>
>>We've actually made matter from energy? Cool! Or were those extremely
>>short-lived electron-positron pairs?
>
>I read the Tom Swift book as an early teen.
book until this year, downloading a free digital version. It was an
education. I probably should re-read a Tom Swift Jr. book 5 decades
after and see how I've changed.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
The Starmaker
Aug 1, 2012, 8:57:01 PM8/1/12
to
Big Dog wrote:
> I mean, really. Einstein wanted to kill people with bombs and so do all
> scientists? Really???
I can list "Really???" forever!
Einstein got all the other guys together to do the same thing..
it's called The Manhattan Project! All the (cough) 'finest' minds
in the world together with one goal, kill all the German people.
You guys get together, you want to kill us all.
Stephen Hawking is quoted as saying; .."a nuclear war could wipe us all out,"
It's 'you guys' that make the nuclear bombs! It's you guys that want to wipe us out...
You guys believe if we are alone in the universe, it's because the aliens destroyed themselves
with their nuclear bombs.
You people are simply a danger to the rest of the world.
People are afraid of using their computers because of you guys...
What is a technological accident? It can destroy the world! Only you guys can
have technological accidenst that can destroy the word, not someone from the rain forest.
Truth is, you people are a mistake, an accident..a freak of nature.
You think you own the world.
The Starmaker
You do Bark like a Big Dog.
,._
,--. | `-.
,-' \ : `-.
/__,. \ ; `--.___)
,' \ \/ / ,-"`.
__,-' - / '\ ' ,'
,-' `-._ ,---^.
\ , `-| |
\,(o ; |
_,-' `-' | |
,-' | |
Y8PYF ; ;
`"" ` , ,-- / :
\ . ___/| ,'\ ,' ,' ;
`. ;-' ___| ,' |\ ,' /
`---' __\ / ,' | `-' ,'
,- \ ,' ,' `--.__,'
,' ,-' ,' /
,' , `----' -Big Dog-
,'
(
`
curb your big dog..
Woof! Woof! Woof! Woof! Woof!
> I mean, really. Einstein wanted to kill people with bombs and so do all
> scientists? Really???
I can list "Really???" forever!
Einstein got all the other guys together to do the same thing..
it's called The Manhattan Project! All the (cough) 'finest' minds
in the world together with one goal, kill all the German people.
You guys get together, you want to kill us all.
Stephen Hawking is quoted as saying; .."a nuclear war could wipe us all out,"
It's 'you guys' that make the nuclear bombs! It's you guys that want to wipe us out...
You guys believe if we are alone in the universe, it's because the aliens destroyed themselves
with their nuclear bombs.
You people are simply a danger to the rest of the world.
People are afraid of using their computers because of you guys...
What is a technological accident? It can destroy the world! Only you guys can
have technological accidenst that can destroy the word, not someone from the rain forest.
Truth is, you people are a mistake, an accident..a freak of nature.
You think you own the world.
The Starmaker
You do Bark like a Big Dog.
,._
,--. | `-.
,-' \ : `-.
/__,. \ ; `--.___)
,' \ \/ / ,-"`.
__,-' - / '\ ' ,'
,-' `-._ ,---^.
\ , `-| |
\,(o ; |
_,-' `-' | |
,-' | |
Y8PYF ; ;
`"" ` , ,-- / :
\ . ___/| ,'\ ,' ,' ;
`. ;-' ___| ,' |\ ,' /
`---' __\ / ,' | `-' ,'
,- \ ,' ,' `--.__,'
,' ,-' ,' /
,' , `----' -Big Dog-
,'
(
`
curb your big dog..
Woof! Woof! Woof! Woof! Woof!
The Starmaker
Aug 1, 2012, 9:09:36 PM8/1/12
to
http://www.ocregister.com/news/school-366639-professor-emails.html
A UC Irvine associate professor charged with setting five fires has described in
chilling emails a plan to obtain machine guns and shoot at least 200 University High School students before
killing himself, according to court documents.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/school-366639-professor-emails.html
"I will find this vice-principal and find out where he lives, then I will wait for him and kill him,"
http://www.ocregister.com/news/school-366639-professor-emails.html
You people are dangerous...
Really! All of yous..
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Aug 1, 2012, 11:14:51 PM8/1/12
to
Okay, you got me. I built it. I need the bombs to conquer mankind and
crush it under my iron... tentacles. So I travelled back in time and
told Einstein to write the letter, then guided the Manhattan project to
fruition (that darn Feynman and his incessant QUESTIONS...), and then
laughed as the bombs were dropped and knew that all was going according
to plan.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
crush it under my iron... tentacles. So I travelled back in time and
told Einstein to write the letter, then guided the Manhattan project to
fruition (that darn Feynman and his incessant QUESTIONS...), and then
laughed as the bombs were dropped and knew that all was going according
to plan.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
The Starmaker
Aug 2, 2012, 12:35:58 AM8/2/12
to
The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > 1)First set up a nuclear chain reaction
> > http://www.whatisnuclear.com/img/nrc-pwr-opt.gif
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/AtomReactorCutawayLarge-aaa.jpg
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
>
> Only for those who don't understand...
> Part number 28
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
>
> Part number 28 is in fact, The Nuclear Reactor.
>
> Nuclear fission creates heat inside (part #28) the nuclear reactor.
>
> Of course it is an obsolescent type of nuclear power reactor which,
> when operated would produce the 'stuff' for nuclear bombs.
>
> It originated in Britian where Albert Einstein got his patent for his atomic bomb machine.
>
> Just so you know...
do you follow?
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > 1)First set up a nuclear chain reaction
> > http://www.whatisnuclear.com/img/nrc-pwr-opt.gif
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/AtomReactorCutawayLarge-aaa.jpg
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
>
> Only for those who don't understand...
> Part number 28
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
>
> Part number 28 is in fact, The Nuclear Reactor.
>
> Nuclear fission creates heat inside (part #28) the nuclear reactor.
>
> Of course it is an obsolescent type of nuclear power reactor which,
> when operated would produce the 'stuff' for nuclear bombs.
>
> It originated in Britian where Albert Einstein got his patent for his atomic bomb machine.
>
> Just so you know...
Part number 6 is in fact, The Condenser.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
Here is The Condenser...animated
http://www.whatisnuclear.com/img/nrc-pwr-opt.gif
The Starmaker
Aug 2, 2012, 12:41:21 AM8/2/12
to
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
Here is The Steam Generator...animated
http://www.whatisnuclear.com/img/nrc-pwr-opt.gif
The Starmaker
Aug 2, 2012, 1:08:26 AM8/2/12
to
Turbine...animated
http://www.whatisnuclear.com/img/nrc-pwr-opt.gif
Turbine
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/AtomReactorCutawayLarge-aaa.jpg
Part number 33 is in fact, The Turbine
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
It wasn't made to light up cities, it was made to blow them up.
This is a bomb making machine...
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
And this is the man who designed the bomb machine:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
The Starmaker
Hunter
Aug 2, 2012, 3:37:42 AM8/2/12
to
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:12:43 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>>
>> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
>> : Szilard, was Einstien's messenger boy...
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>>
>> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
>>
>> Exactly backwards, since Szilard wrote the letter and Einstein signed it.
>>
>> : Einstein said to Leo Szliard, "I'm going to build an atomic bomb
>>
>> So you like to make up dialogue.
>
>It's how people write screenplays on TV.
>
>It's taking facts and giving it some enterainment value...
>you watch tv in bed with your wife, don't you?
-----
What facts? You aren't merely putting a docudrama like take on things,
being faithful to the facts in general but taking dramatic license,
you're making things up totally.
>
>> Obviously, Einstein never said any such thing.
>>
>> : Everybody here has to stay after class and write one hundred times on
>> : the blackboard:
>> :
>> : Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
>>
>> Why do you want people to write repeated lies on a blackboard?
>> Repeating it won't make it true.
>
>
>"This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable
>- though much less certain - that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed.
>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
>
>Where did Einstien get the idea that the atomb bomb was soooooo heavy? How many pounds did he think it weigh?
------
>Where did Einstien get the idea that the atomb bomb was soooooo heavy? How many pounds did he think it weigh?
Because he understood the physics behind it and what likely materials
could be used given what he knew at the tiem. And indeed the very
first atomic bomb that was exploded at Trinity was way too big and
heavy to be able to be carried on a plane. It was through praactcal
engneering that they were able to shrink tthe bomb downto tthe size
and weight that a plane could carry and even then only by the largest
at the time the Boeing B-29 which didn't exist in the Summer of 1939
so the only logical way a A-Bomb could be delivered at the time given
what was known at the time by Einstien from both theorecttical and
what materials and delivery systems were availible the time.
>
>"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." Albert Einstein
>
>Reminds me of that joke.. Adam tell Eve, "Stand back, I don't know how big this thing is going to get!"
-------
As described above, it was all theorectical at that point so he didn't
know exactly how big a yield it would be, but he knew it was perfectly
possible.
kensi
Aug 1, 2012, 10:40:54 PM8/1/12
to
On 01/08/2012 12:41 PM, Michael Stemper wrote:
> Have we ever destroyed (converted into energy) a particle -- something
> like a neutron or an electron?
Electrons annihilating positrons at the LEP collider, for one.
> Have we ever destroyed (converted into energy) a particle -- something
> like a neutron or an electron?
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
kensi
Aug 1, 2012, 10:39:36 PM8/1/12
to
On 01/08/2012 2:55 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> The world was much younger then, and thus the faster-decaying U235 was
> naturally enriched (or at least not yet degraded) at the time.
Yes. Calculations show that naturally-occurring uranium may have been
> The world was much younger then, and thus the faster-decaying U235 was
> naturally enriched (or at least not yet degraded) at the time.
*weapons* grade (let alone reactor grade) over four billion years ago
when the Earth was brand spanking new. One has to wonder if volcanoes
and impact events sometimes caused nuclear explosions in that era; but
the uranium may not have been concentrated enough.
Greg Goss
Aug 2, 2012, 3:07:39 AM8/2/12
to
The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>You guys get together, you want to kill us all.
>
>Stephen Hawking is quoted as saying; .."a nuclear war could wipe us all out,"
Yeah, that's after they got up to H bombs and three-layer bombs. The
>You guys get together, you want to kill us all.
>
>Stephen Hawking is quoted as saying; .."a nuclear war could wipe us all out,"
Manhattan project bombs were small enough that humanity would have no
problem surviving.
>It's 'you guys' that make the nuclear bombs! It's you guys that want to wipe us out...
>
>You guys believe if we are alone in the universe, it's because the aliens destroyed themselves
>with their nuclear bombs.
>What is a technological accident? It can destroy the world! Only you guys can
>have technological accidenst that can destroy the word, not someone from the rain forest.
Ebola.
Hunter
Aug 2, 2012, 5:32:35 AM8/2/12
to
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:02:22 -0700, The Starmaker
>If Einstein wrote such a letter, Sachs promised to deliver it to the President personally.
> In the end, he prepared both a short and a long version.
>On August 2, he mailed them to Einstein. Einstein returned both versions signed, but he
>expressed a preference for the longer version. This was the version, dated August 2, that
>Szilard gave to Sachs for delivery to the President."
>
>
>http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html
-----
This you got right you are correct in this case, but your whole notion
that Einstein created the A-Bomb is still incorrect. At best you can
say he used his prestige to get it built, but it was designed and
built by others. Einstein just understood the science and so was able
to describe what a bomb would do and its general physical dimensions
but that was in theory. Actually designing and building such a thing
was left to Robert Oppenheimer and his staff and it wasn't easy since
there were failures along the way. Still going from theoretical
description of Einstein's letter in August 2, 1939-today is the 73rd
aniversary of the letter-to detonating one in July 1945 and dropping
one on Hiroshima six years after the letter is pretty damn fast. Even
more remoarkable if you count from 1942 when the Manhattan Project
actually started.
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>>
>> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
>> : Szilard, was Einstien's messenger boy...
>>
>> Exactly backwards, since Szilard wrote the letter and Einstein signed it.
>
>"Sachs..adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, urged that Einstein should write directly to the President.
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>>
>> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
>> : Szilard, was Einstien's messenger boy...
>>
>> Exactly backwards, since Szilard wrote the letter and Einstein signed it.
>
>If Einstein wrote such a letter, Sachs promised to deliver it to the President personally.
>
>
>"Einstein dictated a short draft in German which Szilard took down."
>
>"Over the next few days, Szilard translated Einstein's dictation, going through draft after draft.
>
>"Einstein dictated a short draft in German which Szilard took down."
>
> In the end, he prepared both a short and a long version.
>On August 2, he mailed them to Einstein. Einstein returned both versions signed, but he
>expressed a preference for the longer version. This was the version, dated August 2, that
>Szilard gave to Sachs for delivery to the President."
>
>
>http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html
-----
This you got right you are correct in this case, but your whole notion
that Einstein created the A-Bomb is still incorrect. At best you can
say he used his prestige to get it built, but it was designed and
built by others. Einstein just understood the science and so was able
to describe what a bomb would do and its general physical dimensions
but that was in theory. Actually designing and building such a thing
was left to Robert Oppenheimer and his staff and it wasn't easy since
there were failures along the way. Still going from theoretical
description of Einstein's letter in August 2, 1939-today is the 73rd
aniversary of the letter-to detonating one in July 1945 and dropping
one on Hiroshima six years after the letter is pretty damn fast. Even
more remoarkable if you count from 1942 when the Manhattan Project
actually started.
Hunter
Aug 2, 2012, 7:46:50 AM8/2/12
to
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:49:24 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:38:35 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >: Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter)
>> >: Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project, the program the
>> >: United States created to build the bomb. All he did was, at the
>> >: urging of fellow scientist Leo Szilard, write a letter to President
>> >: Roosevelt urging him to do research because he was scared shitless
>> >: that Hitler would get it first.
>> >
>> >That is my conclusion as well.
>> ----
>> Oh yes, Einstien who was a confirm pascifist and who never returned to
>> Germany after the Gestapo raided his apartment in Germany looking for
>> of all things, weapons, was very scared.
>> >
>> >: And he ddn't invent the atomic bomb, just figured out the science
>> >: behind it science you no doubt don't believe in, including the famous
>> >: equation E=MC^2
>> >
>> >The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
>> >E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
>> >behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
>> >chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
>> >
>> >So it's at best misleading, and technically inaccurate, to say that
>> >Einstein figured out the science behind the bomb. The science behind
>> >the bomb was fission chain reactions, and those came later.
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction
>> > The concept of a nuclear chain reaction was first hypothesized by
>> > Hungarian scientist Leo Szilard on August 12, 1933. The neutron
>> > had been discovered in 1932, shortly before.
>> >
>> >whereas E=mc^2 was vintage 1905.
>> ----
>> Yes I stand corrected on the relevancy of E-mc^2. And reading up
>> further on what prompted Szilard to ask Einstein to write the letter
>> it was indeed the was the demonstration nuclear chain reaction in 1938
>> proving the theory he postulated in '33, so Einstein had even less to
>> do with the bomb as I thought.
>
>Leo asked, "Why?"
>
>Einstein replied, "I don't want to ruin my 'pacifist" image."
-----
So you made up dialog.
And why do you don't think he was a pacifist? The guy dodged the draft
when he became draft age and years later circulated a petition
opposing World War I pissing off the government and his colleges,
including one that weaponized poison gas.
The Nazis didn't believe he was a pacifist either which is why they
raided his apartment but the closest thing they found to a weapon
there was a bread knife.
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:38:35 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >: Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter)
>> >: Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project, the program the
>> >: United States created to build the bomb. All he did was, at the
>> >: urging of fellow scientist Leo Szilard, write a letter to President
>> >: Roosevelt urging him to do research because he was scared shitless
>> >: that Hitler would get it first.
>> >
>> >That is my conclusion as well.
>> ----
>> Oh yes, Einstien who was a confirm pascifist and who never returned to
>> Germany after the Gestapo raided his apartment in Germany looking for
>> of all things, weapons, was very scared.
>> >
>> >: And he ddn't invent the atomic bomb, just figured out the science
>> >: behind it science you no doubt don't believe in, including the famous
>> >: equation E=MC^2
>> >
>> >The problem with this is, despite the popular misconception,
>> >E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the design of, or even basic science
>> >behind, fission or fusion weapons. E=mc^2 applies just as much to
>> >chemical explosives as it does to nuclear explosive devices.
>> >
>> >So it's at best misleading, and technically inaccurate, to say that
>> >Einstein figured out the science behind the bomb. The science behind
>> >the bomb was fission chain reactions, and those came later.
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction
>> > The concept of a nuclear chain reaction was first hypothesized by
>> > Hungarian scientist Leo Szilard on August 12, 1933. The neutron
>> > had been discovered in 1932, shortly before.
>> >
>> >whereas E=mc^2 was vintage 1905.
>> ----
>> Yes I stand corrected on the relevancy of E-mc^2. And reading up
>> further on what prompted Szilard to ask Einstein to write the letter
>> it was indeed the was the demonstration nuclear chain reaction in 1938
>> proving the theory he postulated in '33, so Einstein had even less to
>> do with the bomb as I thought.
>>
>> ------>Hunter
>>
>> "No man in the wrong can stand up against
>> a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>>
>> -----William J. McDonald
>> Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
>
>> ------>Hunter
>>
>> "No man in the wrong can stand up against
>> a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>>
>> -----William J. McDonald
>> Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
>
>Szilard, was Einstien's messenger boy...
>
>Einstein said to Leo Szliard, "I'm going to build an atomic bomb, but I'm going to give you all the credit."
>
>
>Leo asked, "Why?"
>
>Einstein replied, "I don't want to ruin my 'pacifist" image."
-----
So you made up dialog.
And why do you don't think he was a pacifist? The guy dodged the draft
when he became draft age and years later circulated a petition
opposing World War I pissing off the government and his colleges,
including one that weaponized poison gas.
The Nazis didn't believe he was a pacifist either which is why they
raided his apartment but the closest thing they found to a weapon
there was a bread knife.
Michael Stemper
Aug 2, 2012, 8:13:57 AM8/2/12
to
In article <slrnk1iub...@gatekeeper.vic.com>, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:
>Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
>>na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) writes:
>>>Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
>>> I think they've also gone the other direction, converting
>>>pairs of gamma-ray photons into electron-positron pairs.
>>
>>We've actually made matter from energy? Cool! Or were those extremely
>>short-lived electron-positron pairs?
>
>Well, if they're in a magnetic field, they spiral in opposite directions, so
>move away from each other ... but yeah, the positron is generally short-lived,
>as it finds SOME electron to annihilate with, if not necessarily the one it
>was created with.
>
>Also, there's virtual pairs of particles popping up and re-annihilating ALL
>OVER THE PLACE in the regular vacuum, though here they're coming from,
>literally, nothing, and return there -
That was what was behind my query about "extremely short-lived".
>Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
>>na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) writes:
>>>Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
>>> I think they've also gone the other direction, converting
>>>pairs of gamma-ray photons into electron-positron pairs.
>>
>>We've actually made matter from energy? Cool! Or were those extremely
>>short-lived electron-positron pairs?
>
>Well, if they're in a magnetic field, they spiral in opposite directions, so
>move away from each other ... but yeah, the positron is generally short-lived,
>as it finds SOME electron to annihilate with, if not necessarily the one it
>was created with.
>
>Also, there's virtual pairs of particles popping up and re-annihilating ALL
>OVER THE PLACE in the regular vacuum, though here they're coming from,
>literally, nothing, and return there -
Hunter
Aug 2, 2012, 12:31:34 PM8/2/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:10:05 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---
-.dotat> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:21:21 GMT, Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com>
>(Hunter) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:31:39 -0700, The Starmaker
>><star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
>>-----
>>Nice phony book.
>>Relativity, both General and Special which has been shown to be true
>>time and time again.
>on Japan. The bombs had German inscriptions on them on the earliest
>fotos. And so on, according to latest publications.
>U234 was captured with lots of yellowcake and bomb ignitors.
>Alamos had no working ignition system, at the time and the whole
>project was a failure. Oppenheimer personally visited U234.
>
>That's what they say, the conspirateurs of a brownish color,
>don't blame me about this.
>
>Conspiration theorists have a good time selling their books,
>look here:
>http://www.amazon.de/Top-Secret-verschwiegener-Erinnerungen-Enth%C3%BCllungen/dp/3938516682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343649500&sr=8-1
>
>same as shortlink: http://tinyurl.com/ck7g4xm
>
>There is awhole bunch of publications from the last years,
>dunno if they found their way to English people yet?
>
>It does not have to be true,
>if it is well invented.
>
-----
Total utter nonsense. The Nazis didn't have a chance to build one
A-Bomb let alone three before the war ended. That and the common sense
fact that if Hitler had the bomb he would've at least used it against
the Russians if against anyone says what you assert is false..
-.dotat> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:21:21 GMT, Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com>
>(Hunter) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:31:39 -0700, The Starmaker
>><star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
>>-----
>>Nice phony book.
>>
>>And he ddn't invent the atomic bomb, just figured out the science
>>behind it science you no doubt don't believe in, including the famous
>>equation E=MC^2 not to mention other things like the Theory of
>>And he ddn't invent the atomic bomb, just figured out the science
>>behind it science you no doubt don't believe in, including the famous
>>Relativity, both General and Special which has been shown to be true
>>time and time again.
>>
>>Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project, the program the
>>United States created to build the bomb. All he did was, at the urging
>>of fellow scientist Leo Szilard, write a letter to President Roosevelt
>>urging him to do research because he was scared shitless that Hitler
>>would get it first.
>>
>>Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project, the program the
>>United States created to build the bomb. All he did was, at the urging
>>of fellow scientist Leo Szilard, write a letter to President Roosevelt
>>urging him to do research because he was scared shitless that Hitler
>>would get it first.
>>
>>------>Hunter
>>
>>"No man in the wrong can stand up against
>> a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>>
>> -----William J. McDonald
>> Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
>
>
>Three bombs were seized from the Germans, and two of them dropped
>>
>>"No man in the wrong can stand up against
>> a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>>
>> -----William J. McDonald
>> Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
>
>
>on Japan. The bombs had German inscriptions on them on the earliest
>fotos. And so on, according to latest publications.
>U234 was captured with lots of yellowcake and bomb ignitors.
>Alamos had no working ignition system, at the time and the whole
>project was a failure. Oppenheimer personally visited U234.
>
>That's what they say, the conspirateurs of a brownish color,
>don't blame me about this.
>
>Conspiration theorists have a good time selling their books,
>look here:
>http://www.amazon.de/Top-Secret-verschwiegener-Erinnerungen-Enth%C3%BCllungen/dp/3938516682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343649500&sr=8-1
>
>same as shortlink: http://tinyurl.com/ck7g4xm
>
>There is awhole bunch of publications from the last years,
>dunno if they found their way to English people yet?
>
>It does not have to be true,
>if it is well invented.
>
-----
Total utter nonsense. The Nazis didn't have a chance to build one
A-Bomb let alone three before the war ended. That and the common sense
fact that if Hitler had the bomb he would've at least used it against
the Russians if against anyone says what you assert is false..
The Starmaker
Aug 2, 2012, 12:07:33 PM8/2/12
to
Before Einstein's letter in August 2, 1939...and Robert Oppenheimer and his staff..
On July 4, 1934 Einstein-Szilard filed a patent application for the atomic bomb.
http://intergate.cccoe.k12.ca.us/abomb/popups/patent.htm
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/data/13030/64/ft5s200764/figures/ft5s200764_00034.gif
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/espacenetImage.jpg?KC=A&CC=GB&FT=D&NR=630726A&date=19360330&locale=en_EP&flavour=firstPageClipping
The Starmaker
Happy Anniversary Japan, ...sorry, not everybody hates Germans.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5050/5223123699_b3c4b66215_o.jpg
The Starmaker
Aug 2, 2012, 12:10:23 PM8/2/12
to
The Starmaker
Aug 2, 2012, 12:17:15 PM8/2/12
to
Greg Goss wrote:
>
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >You guys get together, you want to kill us all.
> >
> >Stephen Hawking is quoted as saying; .."a nuclear war could wipe us all out,"
>
> Yeah, that's after they got up to H bombs and three-layer bombs. The
> Manhattan project bombs were small enough that humanity would have no
> problem surviving.
>
> >It's 'you guys' that make the nuclear bombs! It's you guys that want to wipe us out...
> >
> >You guys believe if we are alone in the universe, it's because the aliens destroyed themselves
> >with their nuclear bombs.
>
> It's one solution to "the Fermi Paradox".
>
> >What is a technological accident? It can destroy the world! Only you guys can
> >have technological accidenst that can destroy the word, not someone from the rain forest.
>
> Sure a "TECHNO" accident. But the rainforest has given us AIDS and
> Ebola.
You have to keep scientist out of the rainforest
>
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >You guys get together, you want to kill us all.
> >
> >Stephen Hawking is quoted as saying; .."a nuclear war could wipe us all out,"
>
> Yeah, that's after they got up to H bombs and three-layer bombs. The
> Manhattan project bombs were small enough that humanity would have no
> problem surviving.
>
> >It's 'you guys' that make the nuclear bombs! It's you guys that want to wipe us out...
> >
> >You guys believe if we are alone in the universe, it's because the aliens destroyed themselves
> >with their nuclear bombs.
>
> It's one solution to "the Fermi Paradox".
>
> >What is a technological accident? It can destroy the world! Only you guys can
> >have technological accidenst that can destroy the word, not someone from the rain forest.
>
> Sure a "TECHNO" accident. But the rainforest has given us AIDS and
> Ebola.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv7SUaece6E&feature=player_detailpage#t=5212s
The Starmaker
Aug 2, 2012, 12:34:15 PM8/2/12
to
Big Dog wrote:
>
> He's a nutcase and a propagandist willing to say any kind of lie he
> wants, day after day after day. Pointless to respond to nutcases.
Well, what was the goal of The Manhattan Project, to kill Germans or to "protect civilization"?
I say, it was as Einstien said it was for...to take his atomic bomb, carry it by boat and explode it in a port, and destroy
the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory called Germany.
What say you?
The Starmaker
Beware of Big Dog.
That would make a much better sign than "Beware Of Dog" that i see everywhere. I think I'll put a patent on it...
>
> On 8/1/2012 7:57 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Big Dog wrote:
> >
> >> I mean, really. Einstein wanted to kill people with bombs and so do all
> >> scientists? Really???
> >
> > I can list "Really???" forever!
> >
> > Einstein got all the other guys together to do the same thing..
> > it's called The Manhattan Project! All the (cough) 'finest' minds
> > in the world together with one goal, kill all the German people.
> >
> > You guys get together, you want to kill us all.
> >
> > Stephen Hawking is quoted as saying; .."a nuclear war could wipe us all out,"
> >
> > It's 'you guys' that make the nuclear bombs! It's you guys that want to wipe us out...
> >
> > You guys believe if we are alone in the universe, it's because the aliens destroyed themselves
> > with their nuclear bombs.
> >
> > You people are simply a danger to the rest of the world.
> >
> > People are afraid of using their computers because of you guys...
> >
> > What is a technological accident? It can destroy the world! Only you guys can
> > have technological accidenst that can destroy the word, not someone from the rain forest.
> >
> > Truth is, you people are a mistake, an accident..a freak of nature.
> >
> >
> > You think you own the world.
> >
> >
>
> See, kensi? This is what I'm talking about.
> On 8/1/2012 7:57 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Big Dog wrote:
> >
> >> I mean, really. Einstein wanted to kill people with bombs and so do all
> >> scientists? Really???
> >
> > I can list "Really???" forever!
> >
> > Einstein got all the other guys together to do the same thing..
> > it's called The Manhattan Project! All the (cough) 'finest' minds
> > in the world together with one goal, kill all the German people.
> >
> > You guys get together, you want to kill us all.
> >
> > Stephen Hawking is quoted as saying; .."a nuclear war could wipe us all out,"
> >
> > It's 'you guys' that make the nuclear bombs! It's you guys that want to wipe us out...
> >
> > You guys believe if we are alone in the universe, it's because the aliens destroyed themselves
> > with their nuclear bombs.
> >
> > You people are simply a danger to the rest of the world.
> >
> > People are afraid of using their computers because of you guys...
> >
> > What is a technological accident? It can destroy the world! Only you guys can
> > have technological accidenst that can destroy the word, not someone from the rain forest.
> >
> > Truth is, you people are a mistake, an accident..a freak of nature.
> >
> >
> > You think you own the world.
> >
> >
>
>
> He's a nutcase and a propagandist willing to say any kind of lie he
> wants, day after day after day. Pointless to respond to nutcases.
Well, what was the goal of The Manhattan Project, to kill Germans or to "protect civilization"?
I say, it was as Einstien said it was for...to take his atomic bomb, carry it by boat and explode it in a port, and destroy
the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory called Germany.
What say you?
The Starmaker
Beware of Big Dog.
That would make a much better sign than "Beware Of Dog" that i see everywhere. I think I'll put a patent on it...
Helmut Wabnig
Aug 2, 2012, 1:22:39 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:07:33 -0700, The Starmaker
Why do you think Einstein had to do with Szilard's patent?
w.
w.
Helmut Wabnig
Aug 2, 2012, 1:25:31 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:31:34 GMT, Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com>
It may be false but your reasoning is that of a churchy type woman.
Why do you raise your voice when you only know what "they" told you.
Your beliefes are worth an asswipe.
w.
Why do you raise your voice when you only know what "they" told you.
Your beliefes are worth an asswipe.
w.
Will in New Haven
Aug 2, 2012, 1:35:55 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 1:25 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:31:34 GMT, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com>
>
> >>>>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-...
> >>http://www.amazon.de/Top-Secret-verschwiegener-Erinnerungen-Enth%C3%B...
entry into the "biggest imbecile on usenet" competition is certainly a
strong one but you are simply too late.
--
Will in New Haven
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:31:34 GMT, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> (Hunter) wrote:
> >On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:10:05 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---
> >-.dotat> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:21:21 GMT, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com>
>
>
>
>
> (Hunter) wrote:
> >On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:10:05 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---
> >-.dotat> wrote:
>
> >>(Hunter) wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:31:39 -0700, The Starmaker
> >>><starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:31:39 -0700, The Starmaker
>
> >>>>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-...
>
> >>same as shortlink:http://tinyurl.com/ck7g4xm
>
> >>There is awhole bunch of publications from the last years,
> >>dunno if they found their way to English people yet?
>
> >>It does not have to be true,
> >>if it is well invented.
>
> >-----
> >Total utter nonsense. The Nazis didn't have a chance to build one
> >A-Bomb let alone three before the war ended. That and the common sense
> >fact that if Hitler had the bomb he would've at least used it against
> >the Russians if against anyone says what you assert is false..
>
> >------>Hunter
>
> It may be false but your reasoning is that of a churchy type woman.
> Why do you raise your voice when you only know what "they" told you.
> Your beliefes are worth an asswipe.
I'm sorry but you have given Starmaker too big a head start. Your
> >>same as shortlink:http://tinyurl.com/ck7g4xm
>
> >>There is awhole bunch of publications from the last years,
> >>dunno if they found their way to English people yet?
>
> >>It does not have to be true,
> >>if it is well invented.
>
> >-----
> >Total utter nonsense. The Nazis didn't have a chance to build one
> >A-Bomb let alone three before the war ended. That and the common sense
> >fact that if Hitler had the bomb he would've at least used it against
> >the Russians if against anyone says what you assert is false..
>
> >------>Hunter
>
> It may be false but your reasoning is that of a churchy type woman.
> Why do you raise your voice when you only know what "they" told you.
> Your beliefes are worth an asswipe.
entry into the "biggest imbecile on usenet" competition is certainly a
strong one but you are simply too late.
--
Will in New Haven
Hunter
Aug 3, 2012, 1:14:15 AM8/3/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:25:31 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---
----
"They" who? And you haven't answered the common sense question of if
the Germans had the Bomb why didn't they use it against the Russians
at least?
"They" who? And you haven't answered the common sense question of if
the Germans had the Bomb why didn't they use it against the Russians
at least?
Helmut Wabnig
Aug 3, 2012, 12:53:39 AM8/3/12
to
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 05:14:15 GMT, Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com>
You have not asked that question before,
so why did you expect an answer?
If you own enough common sense, you will find the answer on your own.
w.
so why did you expect an answer?
If you own enough common sense, you will find the answer on your own.
w.
Hunter
Aug 3, 2012, 1:12:33 PM8/3/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:07:33 -0700, The Starmaker
----
Are you really counting on people not reading carefully? That is Leo
Szilard's patent. From your own link above:
Conception and Patent for the Atomic Bomb
On September 12, 1932, within seven months of the discovery of the
neutron, and more than six years before the splitting of the atom, Leo
Szilard conceived of the possibility of a release of atomic energy via
a neutron-based chain reaction, and also realized that a bomb could be
built.
On July 4, 1934 Leo Szilard filed a patent application for the atomic
bomb. In his application, Szilard described not only the basic concept
of using neutron induced chain reactions to create explosions, but
also the concept of the critical mass. The patent was awarded to him -
making Leo Szilard the legally recognized inventor of the atomic bomb.
Szilard attempted to keep the patent secret (so as not to tip off
Germany) by gifting it to the British War Office. They initially
rejected, then later accepted a few months later in February 1936.
Genius in the Shadows: A Biography of Leo Szilard, the Man Behind the
Bomb
http://intergate.cccoe.k12.ca.us/abomb/popups/patent.htm
Where is Einstein mentioned? Why do you insist on lying?
For the record that picture depicts Vice Admiral William H.P. Blandy
and his wife cutting a cake celebrating Operation Crossroads the
atomic bomb test in the Pacific that tested what would happen to
warshps if they were in the viciinity of an atomic explosion at sea.
Rear Admiral Frank J. Lowry is looking on. The picture was taken on
November 7, 1946. It has NOTHING to do with Hiroshima and/or
Nagasaki..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads
Are you really counting on people not reading carefully? That is Leo
Szilard's patent. From your own link above:
Conception and Patent for the Atomic Bomb
On September 12, 1932, within seven months of the discovery of the
neutron, and more than six years before the splitting of the atom, Leo
Szilard conceived of the possibility of a release of atomic energy via
a neutron-based chain reaction, and also realized that a bomb could be
built.
On July 4, 1934 Leo Szilard filed a patent application for the atomic
bomb. In his application, Szilard described not only the basic concept
of using neutron induced chain reactions to create explosions, but
also the concept of the critical mass. The patent was awarded to him -
making Leo Szilard the legally recognized inventor of the atomic bomb.
Szilard attempted to keep the patent secret (so as not to tip off
Germany) by gifting it to the British War Office. They initially
rejected, then later accepted a few months later in February 1936.
Genius in the Shadows: A Biography of Leo Szilard, the Man Behind the
Bomb
http://intergate.cccoe.k12.ca.us/abomb/popups/patent.htm
Where is Einstein mentioned? Why do you insist on lying?
>
>The Starmaker
>
>Happy Anniversary Japan, ...sorry, not everybody hates Germans.
>
>http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5050/5223123699_b3c4b66215_o.jpg
------
>The Starmaker
>
>Happy Anniversary Japan, ...sorry, not everybody hates Germans.
>
>http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5050/5223123699_b3c4b66215_o.jpg
For the record that picture depicts Vice Admiral William H.P. Blandy
and his wife cutting a cake celebrating Operation Crossroads the
atomic bomb test in the Pacific that tested what would happen to
warshps if they were in the viciinity of an atomic explosion at sea.
Rear Admiral Frank J. Lowry is looking on. The picture was taken on
November 7, 1946. It has NOTHING to do with Hiroshima and/or
Nagasaki..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads
The Starmaker
Aug 3, 2012, 12:47:41 PM8/3/12
to
from now on..
all Szilard patents without Einstein's signature on it will be known as
Einstein-Szilard patents.
It's in the book...maybe you didn't read it.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
Everyone knows Szilard couldn't tie his own shoes without Einstein showing him how.
Here is a picture of Szilard saying..."Shhhh, don't tell anyone Einstein is building a bomb."
http://photos.aip.org/history/Thumbnails/szilard_leo_c3.jpg
The Starmaker
Aug 3, 2012, 4:48:09 PM8/3/12
to
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
Part 28, that long elongnated rectangle...is a concrete shield container
for the nuclear reactor..
This is what it is...
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Nuclear.jpg
This thing of Einstein is in fact, a machine for making bombs!
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
http://www.whatisnuclear.com/img/nrc-pwr-opt.gif
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/AtomReactorCutawayLarge-aaa.jpg
The jury will now decide.
The Starmaker
In this photo Szilard is saying "shhhhh, don't say nuclear reactor, say refrigerator!"
http://photos.aip.org/history/Thumbnails/szilard_leo_c3.jpg
By now, you all know Szilard (real last name is Spitz), he'd patent his mother's panties if
he knew he could get money from it...
(a guys gotta make-a-livin)
if he can convince einstein to write a letter to the president to build atomic bombs, ...he'd be on...easy street.
I guess you can call that letter to the president...The Art of Grant Writing.
How To Get A Two Billion Grant?
Get a patent on the atomic bomb..then
tell the president the Germans are going to kill you.
Isn't that ...extortion?
hanson
Aug 3, 2012, 4:49:23 PM8/3/12
to
4x Austrian "Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
-- 3 x Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
["buff" is Austrian for "Whore-house" ... ahahaha...
[ergo "buffhunter" = whore-house client??.. AHAHAHA...]
>
<snip bantering>
> ________
>
Whorehouse client Hunter wrote:
The Nazis didn't have a chance to build one A-Bomb
let alone three before the war ended. That and the
common sense fact that if Hitler had the bomb he
would've at least used it against the Russians if against
anyone says what you assert is false..
> _______
Whorehouse client Hunter wrote:
The Nazis didn't have a chance to build one A-Bomb
let alone three before the war ended. That and the
common sense fact that if Hitler had the bomb he
would've at least used it against the Russians if against
anyone says what you assert is false..
>
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
It may be false but your reasoning is that of a churchy
type woman. Why do you raise your voice when you
only know what "they" told you.
Your beliefes are worth an asswipe.
> _______
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
It may be false but your reasoning is that of a churchy
type woman. Why do you raise your voice when you
only know what "they" told you.
Your beliefes are worth an asswipe.
>
Hunter wrote:
And you haven't answered the common sense question
of if the Germans had the Bomb why didn't they use it
against the Russians at least?
> ________
Hunter wrote:
And you haven't answered the common sense question
of if the Germans had the Bomb why didn't they use it
against the Russians at least?
>
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
If you own enough common sense, you will find the
answer on your own.
> ________
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
If you own enough common sense, you will find the
answer on your own.
>
hanson wrote:
Wabie listen, you have posted over the years that
you were a Hitler Youth & that you knew Nazi
General Milch, etc.
>
The days are passing rapidly when only US kike
controlled info sees the days light.
>
___ Wabie, you can make history a little bit less
___ foggy, by honestly posting how the world &
___ events looked to YOU during the days days
___ of WWII & the Cold War. Don't be a frightened
___ fence sitter any longer. Post your memories
___ and stories whenever you think of a poignant
___ one &/or post it as a response to one in s.p.
___ It was not your personal fault that history went
___ the way it did.
> ________
>
hanson wrote:
There may be more truth then what you want to
admit to, in what you lamented about below, Wabie.
>
Wabie, consider:
a) the US space program was based on the Nazi
A4/V2 rocketry, under the team of Penemuende's
Wernher von Braun. (Action Paperclip)
>
b) All post-war US Jets fighters were German-design
based developments of the Me-262 and the US
Rocket X-planes were descendents of the
Messerschmitt Me-163 Komet
>
c) US Stealth planes like the B2, ditto: See the Horton
Flying Wings, "Ho 9" & "Ho 229" which brought about
many firsts - advanced swept-back jet-powered
wing design & radar absorbing stealth technology.
>
d) The current US Space Plane X37 design "to reach
every point on earth within 30 min" is based on the
A9/A10 Rocket- Nazi designs (to deliver radioactive
Si particle rains onto NYC and Washington... in 1944.
e) Even _today_ the US' Abrams M1A1/2 main battle
tank uses a German designed 120 mm Cannon.
>
So, Helmut, why do you call, below, reports about German
WWII nuclear technoly, stuff of "Conspiration theorists"?
>
The Hollywood folks made movies on the capture of
the Nazi Submarines U-boat 234 & U-571. The Kikes
who got away from Hitler in time, knew fucken-a-well
what was going on on Nazi Germany, which is why
they were so nervous and ran to Roosevelt with the
letter mentioned below... after which Einstein declared
that he was a pacifist... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA....
>
Give credit where credit is due, Wabie.
ln time also, the goyim may have learned from the
kikes of the Holocaust industry how to tell a story
that benefits himself... and given that the fruits of
those kikes' machinations are beginning to be called
into question by good Jews, at this very moment,
gives gravitas to what you posted about, Helmut:
Why?... go see at the end of this post, re:
<http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israeli-roulette-1.454532>
>
BTW,
poster "Starmaker" is nothing but a Starch-maker from
the liberal arts community, in rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.
written, misc.writing. screenplays, who are all lovely
parrots but, hard sciences are hardly their ken and
acumen. They are cogent enough though to serve
the good purpose to "stiffen" the discussion with
their Star-ch
>___________
>
The Starch maker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
>_______
>
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote
Nice phony book.
And he didn't invent the atomic bomb, nor the famous
equation E=MC^2, [which Einstein stole from Pretto &
Hasenboerl, and apologized for it publicly in 1907.]
Relativity, both General and Special which has been
shown to be true time and time again, [ but only to the
minds of Einstein Dingleberries who worship Albert's
sphincter with a REL-igious passion. ]
>>
Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project,
the program the US created to build the bomb. All he
Albert Einstein had no hand in the Manhattan Project,
did was [to SIGN] at the urging of fellow scientist Leo
Szilard, [who] wrote a letter to President Roosevelt
urging him to do research because he was scared
shitless that Hitler would get it first.
> _________
shitless that Hitler would get it first.
>
Wabnig wrote:
Three bombs were seized from the Germans, and
two of them dropped on Japan. The bombs had
German inscriptions on them on the earliest fotos.
And so on, according to latest publications.
U-Boat 234 was captured with lots of yellowcake and
Wabnig wrote:
Three bombs were seized from the Germans, and
two of them dropped on Japan. The bombs had
German inscriptions on them on the earliest fotos.
And so on, according to latest publications.
bomb ignitors. Alamos had no working ignition system,
at the time and the whole project was a failure.
Oppenheimer personally visited the Submarine U234.
at the time and the whole project was a failure.
>
That's what they say, the conspirateurs of a brownish color,
don't blame me about this. [1]
That's what they say, the conspirateurs of a brownish color,
>
Conspiration theorists have a good time selling their books,
look here: ___ < http://tinyurl.com/ck7g4xm> ____ aka
Conspiration theorists have a good time selling their books,
<http://www.amazon.de/Top-Secret-verschwiegener-Erinnerungen-Enth%C3%BCllungen/dp/3938516682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343649500&sr=8-1>
There is awhole bunch of publications from the last years,
dunno if they found their way to English people yet?
It does not have to be true, if it is well invented. [2]
dunno if they found their way to English people yet?
> ___________
>
hanson wrote:
Wabie, your lament: "don't blame me" [1] is a classic
from you guys who lost the war. [1] is equivalent to
"I just followed orders"... and Wabie, your [2] is the
tune and tone that all governments use to justify their
machinations:
"Ende gut, Alles gut" aka "The end justifies the means"
BUT, they always omit to tell you that
"The way to hell is paved with good intensions"...
>
Is ja alles nicht so einfach, Wabi. Nisch wahr or nisch?
>
A very poignant illustration on what has been discussed
above has been published today by Israel's largest Daily
News paper in
<http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israeli-roulette-1.454532>
wherein it says: ------ BREAKING NEWS -----
_______ Israeli Roulette __________
___ How many Israelis ask themselves why
___ they remain in a country that has become
___ the most dangerous place for Jews?
>
Sidebar:
Why did Hitler lose the war, given Germany's
superior technology and better educated work
force? ... One of the determining components
was that Hitler and his top goons were political
fanatics & ideologues who, as Nazional Socialists
fought the Marxist Socialists (communists) like
Obama & his team who are Democratic Socialists
but who have no understanding what business and
saving money and using it wisely is all about.
>
There is a hilarious liberal arts gem that makes the
e-mail circuits right now:
>
|||| If you voted for our current president in 2008
|||| to prove that you weren't a racist, please vote for
|||| someone else in 2012 to prove that you are not
|||| an idiot.
>
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahahanson
Helmut Wabnig
Aug 4, 2012, 2:36:31 AM8/4/12
to
When somebody tells me.
How do I know that something is true?
When a governement publishes a report, it is propaganda, firsthand.
All the WW2 atomic bomb official propaganda is designed to hide the
truth or whatever name one wants to give to the historical facts.
I do not want to strut in borrowed plumes, let the conspiracy authors
live and foster their book sales. One can live a quiet and
satisfactory life relying on lies, but it makes fun to poke the wasp
nest.
Statement: The Germans could never ever have invested and constructed
the gigantic efforts which were necessary to run a project similar to
the Manhattan thing.
Answer 1: They did. As David Irving stated, Wernher von Braun made
Hitler lose the war by consuming up almost all the resources available
and crippling G�ring's Luftwaffe. Braun employed more than 100000
people. The technocrats promised their Ultimate Leader to provide
him super weapons which were unrivalled at the time. Poor Adolf
waited for them until his last days. They came too late and too
little.
Many of Adolf's decisions can only be understood with that super
weapon promising tales in mind. Without that knowledge, the decisions
look crazy and irrational, and precisely that is being taught in the
history books.
Answer2: Why would you need such a gigantic enterprise when your egg
heads can do the same thing in a small confined factory space using a
much more clever approach. Look what Iran is doing just now.
There is no proof available that Germany actually did what Iran and
Pakistan are doing, because everything is locked behind safe doors.
The Th�ringen underground factories are still unaccessible and
forbidden. But there is one interesting statement by Benjamin
Netanjahu from 2008, cited by Peter Br�chmann in his book:
http://www.amazon.de/Top-Secret-verschwiegener-Erinnerungen-Enth%C3%BCllungen/dp/3938516682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344062011&sr=8-1
http://tinyurl.com/cl7gg63
"It is 1938 - and Iran is Germany"
w.
Androcles
Aug 4, 2012, 4:08:35 AM8/4/12
to
"Helmut Wabnig" wrote in message
news:emep18l3knetv323s...@4ax.com...
The Th�ringen underground factories are still unaccessible and
forbidden. But there is one interesting statement by Benjamin
Netanjahu from 2008, cited by Peter Br�chmann in his book:
http://www.amazon.de/Top-Secret-verschwiegener-Erinnerungen-Enth%C3%BCllungen/dp/3938516682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344062011&sr=8-1
http://tinyurl.com/cl7gg63
"It is 1938 - and Iran is Germany"
w.
Rats are smart. They leave sinking ships but if you back them into a
corner they'll do the only thing left to do - fight. NK is backed into
corner, cut off from world trade, and now you are doing the same
to Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my ally.
Sir Isaac Newton built the liquid-fuel controlled-thrust rocket when
he wrote "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction",
Goddard and van Braun had nothing to do with it.
Only Israel is screaming about Iran, NK went ahead and developed
its bomb and its delivery system right behind the Chinese shield and
Israel didn't give a hoot because Israel doesn't see NK as a threat,
NK's delivery system doesn't reach Israel. Look out for NK's Polaris
fishing trawlers and remember Al Qaeda's delivery system (and
bombs) were America's civilian planes.
Hunter
Aug 4, 2012, 10:14:54 AM8/4/12
to
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 06:53:39 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---
------
Yes that you are lying through you teeth. And you can't even answer
the question. But I will officially asks it: If Nazi Germany had
three atomic bombs as you claim they did, why didn't they use it
against their enemies, especially the Soviet Union?
Oh, and I did ask you before who do you mean by "they"?
Yes that you are lying through you teeth. And you can't even answer
the question. But I will officially asks it: If Nazi Germany had
three atomic bombs as you claim they did, why didn't they use it
against their enemies, especially the Soviet Union?
Oh, and I did ask you before who do you mean by "they"?
Kip Williams
Aug 4, 2012, 9:22:36 AM8/4/12
to
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> I do not want to strut in borrowed plumes, let the conspiracy authors
> live and foster their book sales. One can live a quiet and
> satisfactory life relying on lies, but it makes fun to poke the wasp
> nest.
This is just to say
> I do not want to strut in borrowed plumes, let the conspiracy authors
> live and foster their book sales. One can live a quiet and
> satisfactory life relying on lies, but it makes fun to poke the wasp
> nest.
I have borrowed the plumes
That you were probably saving
...
Kip W
rasfw
Helmut Wabnig
Aug 4, 2012, 1:39:53 PM8/4/12
to
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 14:14:54 GMT, Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com>
(Hunter) wrote:
>............
Ignorant bastard.
The answer is in the first line, and the more often you ask,
the dumber you are.
w.
(Hunter) wrote:
>............
>>If you own enough common sense, you will find the answer on your own.
>------
>Yes that you are lying through you teeth. And you can't even answer
>the question. But I will officially asks it: If Nazi Germany had
>three atomic bombs as you claim they did, why didn't they use it
>against their enemies, especially the Soviet Union?
>
>Oh, and I did ask you before who do you mean by "they"?
>
>------>Hunter
>
>"No man in the wrong can stand up against
> a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>
> -----William J. McDonald
> Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
You SIG is fucked, don't you know how to append a sig?
>------
>Yes that you are lying through you teeth. And you can't even answer
>the question. But I will officially asks it: If Nazi Germany had
>three atomic bombs as you claim they did, why didn't they use it
>against their enemies, especially the Soviet Union?
>
>Oh, and I did ask you before who do you mean by "they"?
>
>------>Hunter
>
>"No man in the wrong can stand up against
> a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>
> -----William J. McDonald
> Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Ignorant bastard.
The answer is in the first line, and the more often you ask,
the dumber you are.
w.
Helmut Wabnig
Aug 4, 2012, 1:51:05 PM8/4/12
to
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 14:14:54 GMT, Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com>
(Hunter) wrote:
>............
http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html
If you don't understand what "they" say in that article,
feel free to ask. You are a master in asking dumb questions.
This will help you further:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deia/7942538/
The answer to the other questions is in the first line,
(Hunter) wrote:
>............
>>If you own enough common sense, you will find the answer on your own.
>------
>Yes that you are lying through you teeth. And you can't even answer
>the question. But I will officially asks it: If Nazi Germany had
>three atomic bombs as you claim they did, why didn't they use it
>against their enemies, especially the Soviet Union?
>
>Oh, and I did ask you before who do you mean by "they"?
>
>------>Hunter
>
>"No man in the wrong can stand up against
> a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>
> -----William J. McDonald
> Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
>------
>Yes that you are lying through you teeth. And you can't even answer
>the question. But I will officially asks it: If Nazi Germany had
>three atomic bombs as you claim they did, why didn't they use it
>against their enemies, especially the Soviet Union?
>
>Oh, and I did ask you before who do you mean by "they"?
>
>------>Hunter
>
>"No man in the wrong can stand up against
> a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>
> -----William J. McDonald
> Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
You SIG is fucked, don't you know how to append a sig?
You have to read:
http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html
If you don't understand what "they" say in that article,
feel free to ask. You are a master in asking dumb questions.
This will help you further:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deia/7942538/
The answer to the other questions is in the first line,
David DeLaney
Aug 4, 2012, 3:55:14 PM8/4/12
to
after breakfast
Forgive me
they were beautiful
so mach
and so schnell
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kip Williams
Aug 4, 2012, 4:01:18 PM8/4/12
to
David DeLaney wrote:
> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>>> I do not want to strut in borrowed plumes, let the conspiracy authors
>>> live and foster their book sales. One can live a quiet and
>>> satisfactory life relying on lies, but it makes fun to poke the wasp
>>> nest.
>>
>> This is just to say
>> I have borrowed the plumes
>> That you were probably saving
>
> for a victory parade
> after breakfast
>
> Forgive me
> they were beautiful
> so mach
> and so schnell
Perfect!
> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>>> I do not want to strut in borrowed plumes, let the conspiracy authors
>>> live and foster their book sales. One can live a quiet and
>>> satisfactory life relying on lies, but it makes fun to poke the wasp
>>> nest.
>>
>> This is just to say
>> I have borrowed the plumes
>> That you were probably saving
>
> for a victory parade
> after breakfast
>
> Forgive me
> they were beautiful
> so mach
> and so schnell
To shift gears somewhat:
Beneath the spreading pumpkin tree,
The mustache of the grass
Grows green, and there I sometimes see
Rapscallions as they pass.
Their plum-plumed tops, their buttons bold,
Their brightly burnished brass
Run rattling through the screaming gold
Of trumpets in the grass.
�Walt Kelly
Kip W
rasfw
hanson
Aug 4, 2012, 4:43:22 PM8/4/12
to
Austrian "Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
<snipped dilletante laments by art-NG posters>
> _________
>
hanson wrote:
<http://tinyurl.com/Wabnig-WW2-Mems-30Jul2012>
<the entire tripe is in the aove url. The following
is edited for brevity & subject matter adeherance>
Wabnig wrote:
Three bombs were seized from the Germans, and
two of them dropped on Japan. The bombs had
German inscriptions on them on the earliest fotos.
And so on, according to latest publications.
U-Boat 234 was captured with lots of yellowcake and
bomb ignitors. Alamos had no working ignition system,
at the time and the whole project was a failure.
Oppenheimer personally visited the Submarine U234.
>
That's what they say, the conspirateurs of a brownish color,
don't blame me about this. [1]
>
Conspiration theorists have a good time selling their books,
look here: ___ < http://tinyurl.com/ck7g4xm> ____ aka
<http://www.amazon.de/Top-Secret-verschwiegener-Erinnerungen-Enth%C3%BCllungen/dp/3938516682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343649500&sr=8-1>
There is awhole bunch of publications from the last years,
dunno if they found their way to English people yet?
It does not have to be true, if it is well invented. [2]
> ___________
>
hanson wrote:
Wabie, all governments justify their machinations with:
Three bombs were seized from the Germans, and
two of them dropped on Japan. The bombs had
German inscriptions on them on the earliest fotos.
And so on, according to latest publications.
U-Boat 234 was captured with lots of yellowcake and
bomb ignitors. Alamos had no working ignition system,
at the time and the whole project was a failure.
Oppenheimer personally visited the Submarine U234.
>
That's what they say, the conspirateurs of a brownish color,
don't blame me about this. [1]
>
Conspiration theorists have a good time selling their books,
look here: ___ < http://tinyurl.com/ck7g4xm> ____ aka
<http://www.amazon.de/Top-Secret-verschwiegener-Erinnerungen-Enth%C3%BCllungen/dp/3938516682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343649500&sr=8-1>
There is awhole bunch of publications from the last years,
dunno if they found their way to English people yet?
It does not have to be true, if it is well invented. [2]
> ___________
>
hanson wrote:
"Ende gut, Alles gut" aka "The end justifies the means"
BUT, they always omit to tell you that
"The way to hell is paved with good intensions"...
>
Is ja alles nicht so einfach, Wabi. Nisch wahr or nisch?
>
A very poignant illustration on what has been discussed
above has been published today by Israel's largest Daily
News paper in
<http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israeli-roulette-1.454532>
wherein it says: ------ BREAKING NEWS -----
_______ Israeli Roulette __________
___ How many Israelis ask themselves why
___ they remain in a country that has become
___ the most dangerous place for Jews?
>
Sidebar:
Why did Hitler lose the war, given Germany's
superior technology and better educated work
force? ... One of the determining components
was that Hitler and his top goons were political
fanatics & ideologues who, as Nazional Socialists
fought the Marxist Socialists (communists) like
Obama & his team who are Democratic Socialists
but who have no understanding what business and
saving money and using it wisely is all about.
> _________
BUT, they always omit to tell you that
"The way to hell is paved with good intensions"...
>
Is ja alles nicht so einfach, Wabi. Nisch wahr or nisch?
>
A very poignant illustration on what has been discussed
above has been published today by Israel's largest Daily
News paper in
<http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israeli-roulette-1.454532>
wherein it says: ------ BREAKING NEWS -----
_______ Israeli Roulette __________
___ How many Israelis ask themselves why
___ they remain in a country that has become
___ the most dangerous place for Jews?
>
Sidebar:
Why did Hitler lose the war, given Germany's
superior technology and better educated work
force? ... One of the determining components
was that Hitler and his top goons were political
fanatics & ideologues who, as Nazional Socialists
fought the Marxist Socialists (communists) like
Obama & his team who are Democratic Socialists
but who have no understanding what business and
saving money and using it wisely is all about.
>
Wabie wrote:
When a governement publishes a report, it is
propaganda, firsthand. All the WW2 atomic bomb
official propaganda is designed to hide the truth or
whatever name one wants to give to the historical facts.
>
The "Government's" Statement is upto now is:
Wabie wrote:
When a governement publishes a report, it is
propaganda, firsthand. All the WW2 atomic bomb
official propaganda is designed to hide the truth or
whatever name one wants to give to the historical facts.
>
The Germans could never ever have invested and
constructed the gigantic efforts which were necessary
to run a project similar to the Manhattan thing.
Answer 1:
constructed the gigantic efforts which were necessary
to run a project similar to the Manhattan thing.
Answer 1:
Wernher von Braun made Hitler lose the war by
consuming up almost all the resources available and
crippling G�ring's Luftwaffe. Braun employed more than
consuming up almost all the resources available and
100'000 people... to provide Hitler with super weapons
which were unrivalled at the time. Poor Adolf waited for
them until his last days. They came too late & too little.
Without that asset at hand, Hitlers decisions look crazy
and irrational, and precisely that is being taught in the
history books.
Answer2:
Why would you need such a gigantic enterprise
when ones own engineers can do the same thing in a
history books.
Answer2:
Why would you need such a gigantic enterprise
small confined factory space using a much more clever
approach by employing Hartecks UF6 Gas centrifuges.
<http://tinyurl.com/Kw-German-U235-centrifuges>
& more details in link: <http://tinyurl.com/n3u3st>
>
... which is exactly what Iran is doing just now...
There is __no proof available now, from/in AT & DE__
that Germany actually did in the 1940's what Iran and
Pakistan are doing, because everything is still locked
behind safe doors.
>
The Th�ringen underground factories are still unaccessible
& forbidden. Google --[[ Th�ringen Haigerloch Reaktor ]]--
>
But there is one interesting statement by Israel's Benjamin
Netanjahu from 2008, cited by Peter Br�chmann in his book:
<http://www.amazon.de/Top-Secret-verschwiegener-Erinnerungen-Enth%C3%BCllungen/dp/3938516682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344062011&sr=8-1
http://tinyurl.com/cl7gg63> : "It is 1938 - and Iran is Germany"
> _________
http://tinyurl.com/cl7gg63> : "It is 1938 - and Iran is Germany"
>
hanson wrote:
Excellent, Wabie. Keep stuff like that coming.
Ask the Old timers in Klagenfurt before they die.
>
I did similar inquiries with the Old Folks when
I was stationed in Europe & behind the Iron
curtains. I posted on some such events.
>
One such tid-bit emerged from Swiss folks,
that a Nazi Me 262 Jet had landed/defected from
Germany in 1944/1945. The Germans offered
12 Me-109s for a return. It was refused.
>
Little mention is also made of, that the US did
bomb "neutral" Switzerland in April 1944, cuz
the Nazis used Swiss Railroad transits to Italy
& even used Swiss factories to produce weapons
for them in exchange for food (of which the Swiss
did not have enough)
>
Another yielded a 1st hand account about the:
<http://tinyurl.com/Andromeda-Geraet-Nazi-Waffen>
>
Still another one I picked up in one of Klagenfurt's
senior hang outs was that in Apr/May 1945 the
Amis opened the gates of a local KZ and let the
Jewish inmates out while imprisoning 2 companies
of Waffen SS Austrians that had surrendered.
The kikes went on a looting, pilfering and raping
spree in the village, so bad, that the Amis ordered
the SS troopers out to "restore order". They did
so in 2 hrs, and had all the kikes back in the klink.
>
Another such "research" I did during my many
stints in Europe was asking the neighbors about
Einstein's behavior when he lived in CH. See link:
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Vordergasse-pt-1>
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Vordergasse-pt-2>
>
So, thanks and keep'em coming, Wabie. Do it
now, you aint getting any younger... ahahaha...
... ahahahahanson
William December Starr
Aug 5, 2012, 5:31:34 PM8/5/12
to
In article <13437...@sheol.org>,
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
>> Everybody here has to stay after class and write one hundred
>> times on the blackboard:
>>
>> Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
>
> Why do you want people to write repeated lies on a blackboard?
> Repeating it won't make it true.
Because every single time he repeats the lie, *you* answer him.
You're a nice guy Wayne, and I like you, but for fucksake get some
HELP with this compulsive behavior of yours.
-- wds
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
>> Everybody here has to stay after class and write one hundred
>> times on the blackboard:
>>
>> Albert Einstein Built The Atomic Bomb
>
> Why do you want people to write repeated lies on a blackboard?
> Repeating it won't make it true.
Because every single time he repeats the lie, *you* answer him.
You're a nice guy Wayne, and I like you, but for fucksake get some
HELP with this compulsive behavior of yours.
-- wds
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages