Who "invented" the twin paradox?
josX
>Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:<3D7C35A4...@nospam.xs4all.nl>...
>>Wolfram Schmied wrote:
>>>I have obtained a copy of the 1911 article "L'Evolution de l'espace et
>>>du temps" allegedly containing the derivation, and will put it online
>>>in a few days. Unfortunately, I don't speak fin-de-siecle physics
>>>French, and if someone with solid French-to-English or
>>>French-to-German competence could help me out on that one, I would be
>>>most grateful.
>>
>>Should be no problem. YBM offered also to help out,
>>maybe we can split the workload.
>
>That's great news. :) I'm proofreading ATM, so the text ought to be
>online Friday at latest. Thx to you and YBM for volunteering.
>
>> maybe this will help you see it :
>> 1. Consider an absolute reference, the stars.
>> 2. have the earth moving at 0.5c wrt the stars
>> 3. launch a rocket from earth, make its speed wrt the
>> stars equals zero. now time on earth moves slower than
>> on the rocket.
Ah, SR misunderstanding: time on earth moves slower then on the
rocket as computed from the rocket, *and* time on the rocket moves
slower then on the Earth as computed from the Earth.
Be precise, then you have instant disqualification of SR in your hands
immediately. Just say accurately what it says, no more needed.
>> 4.the rocket returns to earth, but now it has to move at
>> much more than 0.5 c to catch up, and its time will be
>> much more slowed down. Put in the numbers and see that
>> it gives exactly the same result as the the original
>> twin experiment. The one in the rocket is younger than
>> the one on earth.
You don't understand relativity. Do you want to keep it that way so you
can remain ignorant and believing, or do you want to lighten up and
understand. Just be more precise then what you do above, it's sloppy,
it is violating SR (chosing a prefferred frame of reference), you are
defending a theory of your own making, not SR.
You don't believe me?
Fine.
>Um, thx, but I have no problem with STR, and know how to get the right
>numbers. ;-) I'm just interested in the history of the "real" twin
>paradox here.
Einstein is such a friggin strange dude:
"The great attraction of the theory is its
logical consistency."
"If any deduction from it
should prove untenable, it must begiven up. A
modification of it seems impossible without de-
struction of the whole."
I was reading up on things at the beginning of this century, and
i think i know why SR was adopted: the people against it didn't
play the game as it should be played. They insulted too much, they
didn't ask for /evidence/ of c'=c but the tried to break the theory
down using it's paradoxes but aparently they allowed Einstein to
sneak through loopholes unnoticed. This might not suprise since
relativity is not a proper theory but more a collection of various
paradoxes to begin with. Had the played the game more civil like "oh
interesting Einstein, care to give us your physical data supporting
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum ?", and
they would probably have been in the clear. It were bad times then,
aparently swastickas being sold while lectures were being held. The
defenders of true physics couldn't argue Einstein out of his socks,
but they fell short of the absolute target by easing out with "contrary
to sound human intuition" (which is true, but not relevant or good
enough) etc.
Nice quote i found (and i see i'm not the first to accuse phycisists of
their corruption): Weyland in the 'Deutche Physikalische Gesellschaft':
"high time that fresh air enter this rat's nest of scientific
corruption."
"unter der Leitung Lenards die Vergewaltigung der Physik durch
mathematische Dogmen abgelehnt wird, wa:hrend auf der anderen Seite die
Einsteinophilen auf ihrem Standpunkt beharren und hurtig den Parnass
ihres Formelkrames zu erklimmen versuchen... es wohl die ho:chste
Zeit wird, dass in dieses Rattennest wissenchaftlicher Korruption
einmal frishe Luft kommt"
...and that is almost a century ago...
For some reason, the smart political siding of Einstein (who didn't have
a choice btw because of being Jew) and the anger of the anti-relativists
and aparently sometimes getting anti-semitic, work ofcourse for the
victory of Einstein, and the destruction that it brings to physics. Einstein
was gravely personally attacked, but aparently he realised that by mere
silence he could achieve a lot socially.
OTOH, one can't blame the angry anti-relativists, because Einstein is
a blizzard of Errors.
--
jos
Helmut Wabnig
>Nice quote i found (and i see i'm not the first to accuse phycisists of
>their corruption): Weyland in the 'Deutche Physikalische Gesellschaft':
>"high time that fresh air enter this rat's nest of scientific
>corruption."
>"unter der Leitung Lenards die Vergewaltigung der Physik durch
>mathematische Dogmen abgelehnt wird, wa:hrend auf der anderen Seite die
>Einsteinophilen auf ihrem Standpunkt beharren und hurtig den Parnass
>ihres Formelkrames zu erklimmen versuchen... es wohl die ho:chste
>Zeit wird, dass in dieses Rattennest wissenchaftlicher Korruption
>einmal frishe Luft kommt"
>
>...and that is almost a century ago...
You forgot, that those were the same people who killed
6 million Jews for religious reasons.
w.
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ali8fb$brd$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
>
> Nice quote i found (and i see i'm not the first to accuse phycisists of
> their corruption): Weyland in the 'Deutche Physikalische Gesellschaft':
> "high time that fresh air enter this rat's nest of scientific
> corruption."
> "unter der Leitung Lenards die Vergewaltigung der Physik durch
> mathematische Dogmen abgelehnt wird, wa:hrend auf der anderen Seite die
> Einsteinophilen auf ihrem Standpunkt beharren und hurtig den Parnass
> ihres Formelkrames zu erklimmen versuchen... es wohl die ho:chste
> Zeit wird, dass in dieses Rattennest wissenchaftlicher Korruption
> einmal frishe Luft kommt"
>
> ...and that is almost a century ago...
Very nice quote. It can be found in:
http://www.gnt-verlag.de/programm/15/p199-232_kleinert.shtml
"Paul Weyland, der Berliner Einstein-Töter"
Töter = killer
Antisemitic "science".
[Thanks Helmut Wabnig in message
1vqpnuooe02ju5fhc...@4ax.com ]
Dirk Vdm
josX
You forget that a German scientist brought us rocket technology. Not all
Germans are automatically wrong because they lived during Hitlers reign.
You also forget that only SS people would know about the mass-killings
of Jews, even Jews themselves believed they were going to relocation or
labour camps. The germans should perhaps have known, but it's hardly
a fact that german phycisists opposing relativity were all involved in
killing Jews.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:aliu3r$m1h$8...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Well, here you go:
file:///D:/WebPage/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#JosNazi
Title: "Nice quote. OOPS, it's NAZI-propaganda. Ah, what the hell!"
Next time, check your sources.
Dirk Vdm
josX
Einstein only has helped the hatred against Jews, since he *was*
a lying and scamming Jew (as there are also lying and scamming
whites/blacks and orientals). If it wasn't for him, perhaps there
would have been more force against Hitler from the physics and science
at that time. The anger with Einstein would have easily flipped over
into anti-semitism since the object of anger is the same. If Einstein
was a brillaint Jew as he is portrayed today, giving germany great
inventions, who knows, maybe the Germans would not have been so
sensitive to Hitlers propaganda.
It is very unfortunate that of all people it is a jew who is the center
of this gigantic scam.
--
jos
RM Mentock
> Einstein only has helped the hatred against Jews, since he *was*
> a lying and scamming Jew (as there are also lying and scamming
> whites/blacks and orientals). If it wasn't for him, perhaps there
> would have been more force against Hitler from the physics and science
> at that time. The anger with Einstein would have easily flipped over
> into anti-semitism since the object of anger is the same. If Einstein
> was a brillaint Jew as he is portrayed today, giving germany great
> inventions, who knows, maybe the Germans would not have been so
> sensitive to Hitlers propaganda.
Except, you know, he was portrayed as brilliant back then, so
your point is in error
--
RM Mentock
C. K. Monet, c'est moi
josX
But many disagreed, and i read he almost the ripped the physics community
into two "warring factions". Ofcourse the Nazi's were against Einstein,
and being right there, Einstein may have had an adverse effect on an
already bad situation. One might even think of a double-take scheme where
the media first goes nuts about a fake Jew theory to later crash 'n burn
it in Nazi-propaganda.
--
jos
RM Mentock
> One might even think of a double-take scheme where
> the media first goes nuts about a fake Jew theory to later crash 'n burn
> it in Nazi-propaganda.
One wonders what you are thinking about when you should be paying
attention to physics.
josX
>josX wrote:
>> One might even think of a double-take scheme where
>> the media first goes nuts about a fake Jew theory to later crash 'n burn
>> it in Nazi-propaganda.
>
>One wonders what you are thinking about when you should be paying
>attention to physics.
Reality.
--
jos
RM Mentock
>
> RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >One wonders what you are thinking about when you should be paying
> >attention to physics.
>
> Reality.
the same thing as money?
josX
>josX wrote:
>>RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>One wonders what you are thinking about when you should be paying
>>>attention to physics.
>>
>>Reality.
>
>the same thing as money?
Dig this: "SRians mistake reality for money".
lol
telling no?
Bennett Standeven
> Einstein only has helped the hatred against Jews, since he *was*
> a lying and scamming Jew (as there are also lying and scamming
> whites/blacks and orientals). If it wasn't for him, perhaps there
> would have been more force against Hitler from the physics and science
> at that time.
Yeah; instead wasting our time with that silly "atomic bomb", we could
try developing a _real_ device, like one that uses Friction to
immobilize German soldiers.
josX
Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. I don't buy it that E=mc^2
has anything to do with this bomb at all. I think it is far more likely that
there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity theories
had anything to do with the bomb. In any case: c' = c and a = g (the two
great insanities of A.E. sucked from his thumb) have little or nothing
to do with splitting atoms and obtaining fast moving particles from them.
I'd say that the bomb has more to do with chemistry, then with wrong
philosophical theories.
Question: E=Amc^2 is just the kinetic energy of light for A = .5. what
is so presumed special about this formula, where E=1/2mv^2 is simple
kinetic energy. Another fuckup? Another little piece of crap floating
around endlessly from A.E. because of an hysterical press and phycisists
taking advantage ?
Well ?
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:almt5v$e23$6...@news1.xs4all.nl...
"The Boersema Challenge"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#BoerChall
Anyone who takes the challenge should see a psychiatrist.
Anyone who, after this, still tries to talk sense into
this toothless terrorist, should have his head examined.
[Separate thread started]
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
>Anyone who takes the challenge should see a psychiatrist.
>Anyone who, after this, still tries to talk sense into
>this toothless terrorist, should have his head examined.
>
clocks malfuntion,
anyone that tries to teach such a FACT to Dirk,
should give up.
Dirk is forever lost in "spacetime"
<LOL>
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Michael J
> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. I don't buy it that
E=mc^2
> has anything to do with this bomb at all. I think it is far more likely
that
> there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity theories
> had anything to do with the bomb.
Because they really got the bomb from the Zetans. It operates on F=ma and
avoids any axioms.
M
P.S. All who haven't killfiled him, give my regards and a heartly <LOL> to
Space Cowboy!
Jan Bielawski
> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. I don't buy it that E=mc^2
> has anything to do with this bomb at all. I think it is far more likely that
> there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity theories
> had anything to do with the bomb.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No doubt the Soviets did the same, eh?
> In any case: c' = c and a = g (the two
> great insanities of A.E. sucked from his thumb) have little or nothing
> to do with splitting atoms and obtaining fast moving particles from them.
Yes, sure. Like you would have a clue.
> I'd say that the bomb has more to do with chemistry, then with wrong
> philosophical theories.
Sure, sure. Chemistry. BWahahahahahaha!
> Question: E=Amc^2 is just the kinetic energy of light for A = .5.
HAHAHAHAHA! This is too much!
> what
> is so presumed special about this formula, where E=1/2mv^2 is simple
> kinetic energy. Another fuckup? Another little piece of crap floating
> around endlessly from A.E. because of an hysterical press and phycisists
> taking advantage ?
> Well ?
Well, the answer is obvious. You don't understand this stuff.
Jan Bielawski
josX
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<almt5v$e23$6...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. I don't buy it that E=mc^2
>> has anything to do with this bomb at all. I think it is far more likely that
>> there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity theories
>> had anything to do with the bomb.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No doubt the Soviets did the same, eh?
That would be a smart move.
>> In any case: c' = c and a = g (the two
>> great insanities of A.E. sucked from his thumb) have little or nothing
>> to do with splitting atoms and obtaining fast moving particles from them.
>
>Yes, sure. Like you would have a clue.
Which observation distinguishes between c'=c and c'=c+v Bielawsky ?
None ?
Ah indeed, none.
>> I'd say that the bomb has more to do with chemistry, then with wrong
>> philosophical theories.
>
>Sure, sure. Chemistry. BWahahahahahaha!
>
>> Question: E=Amc^2 is just the kinetic energy of light for A = .5.
>
>HAHAHAHAHA! This is too much!
>
>> what
>> is so presumed special about this formula, where E=1/2mv^2 is simple
>> kinetic energy. Another fuckup? Another little piece of crap floating
>> around endlessly from A.E. because of an hysterical press and phycisists
>> taking advantage ?
>> Well ?
>
>Well, the answer is obvious. You don't understand this stuff.
Cheap.
I was just asking legitimate questions.
--
jos
Pmb
> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb.
This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
> I don't buy it that E=mc^2 has anything to do with this bomb at all.
On what are you basing this assumption? Dio you know how a nuke works
in principle?
> I think it is far more likely that
> there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity theories
> had anything to do with the bomb.
You have been severely misled.
> I'd say that the bomb has more to do with chemistry, then with wrong
> philosophical theories.
Why do you think that?
>
> Question: E=Amc^2 is just the kinetic energy of light for A = .5.
That is incorrect. Have you even tried to learn what it is. From the
rest of your comments it appears that you've done nothing to learn it.
As a matter of fact it appears that you're simply a kid (let me guess
- 16 years old right?) in high school who thinks he knows everything
and has yet to even learn the theories which he's claiming to be
wrong.
No need to respond. We already know the answer.
Pmb
josX
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote
>
>> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb.
>
>This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
>entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
I was informed by an SRist of this, i thought he worked on it but it
turns out he didn't.
>> I don't buy it that E=mc^2 has anything to do with this bomb at all.
>
>On what are you basing this assumption? Dio you know how a nuke works
>in principle?
- a bomb is something real, it has nothing to do with empty philosophies
- SR is about light, not about splitting atoms
- splitting atoms seems more like chemistry then philosophy to me
- SR is wrong
>> I think it is far more likely that
>> there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity theories
>> had anything to do with the bomb.
>
>You have been severely misled.
Perhaps you.
>> I'd say that the bomb has more to do with chemistry, then with wrong
>> philosophical theories.
>
>Why do you think that?
Because the bomb is something real.
>> Question: E=Amc^2 is just the kinetic energy of light for A = .5.
>
>That is incorrect. Have you even tried to learn what it is. From the
>rest of your comments it appears that you've done nothing to learn it.
Why should i bother to go farther into SR nonsense theoritory still while
i already can proof it wrong beyond any doubt many times over.
>As a matter of fact it appears that you're simply a kid (let me guess
>- 16 years old right?) in high school who thinks he knows everything
>and has yet to even learn the theories which he's claiming to be
>wrong.
>
>No need to respond. We already know the answer.
I am 28
--
jos
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> I am 28
And you haven't learned a damned things for 27 years. Shame.
Bob Kolker
Randy Poe
>
> pm...@hotmail.com (Pmb) wrote:
> >jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote
> >
> >> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb.
> >
> >This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
> >entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
>
> I was informed by an SRist of this, i thought he worked on it but it
> turns out he didn't.
Statement 1: "Einstein did not work on the atomic bomb."
Statement 2: "Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb."
Statement 1 is true. Statement 2 is false. Statements
1 and 2 are not equivalent. Is that really so difficult?
- Randy
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> I am 28
>
>And you haven't learned a damned things for 27 years. Shame.
Must i always lose, whatever i say?
Always *something* wrong isn't there.
--
jos
josX
How does "uranium splitting produces one hefty blast" follow from
V'=V for light exactly ? or from acceleration = gravity <swallows back
vomit> ?
Mind you, i am merely interested in this, you can give a normal
answer if you have one.
--
jos
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >>pm...@hotmail.com (Pmb) wrote:
> >>>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote
> >>>
> >>>> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb.
> >>>
> >>>This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
> >>>entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
> >>
> >>I was informed by an SRist of this, i thought he worked on it but it
> >>turns out he didn't.
> >
> >Statement 1: "Einstein did not work on the atomic bomb."
> >Statement 2: "Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb."
> >
> >Statement 1 is true. Statement 2 is false. Statements
> >1 and 2 are not equivalent. Is that really so difficult?
>
> How does "uranium splitting produces one hefty blast" follow from
> V'=V for light exactly ?
You've changed the topic, and I doubt you want the answer to
this any more than you want the answer to any other question
you ask about derivations within SR.
The question is, "did Einstein have anything to do with the
atomic bomb?" And the answer is: yes. He wrote a letter to
the President of the US hypothesizing that the energy released
by fission, a prediction of SR, might be harnessed to make
a bomb.
But he did not work on the project.
- Randy
josX
That's the point Randy.
Now we only need asking about E=mc^2. Which, even though it is
even more famous then F=m*a perhaps, it completely bogus if it
is derived from SR or GR.
Funny how the truth works out.
E=mc^2, *if* this is part of SR or GR, *then* it is not even science.
--
jos
Wolfram Schmied
> josX wrote:
> >
> > I am 28
>
> And you haven't learned a damned things for 27 years. Shame.
No, you misunderstood josX. His age is 28 in base-minus-10 notation.
In standard decimal notation, that works out to 2*(-10)^1+8*(-10)^0 =
-12, which neatly explains his standard of education. ^_^
Robert Kolker
Is that the same base in which -4 x -4 = -16?
Bob Kolker
MasterCougar
news:8ac61757.02091...@posting.google.com:
>> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb.
>
> This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
> entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
>
Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
design or construction of the bomb.
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
MasterCougar
news:3D824916...@atl.lmco.com:
> The question is, "did Einstein have anything to do with the
> atomic bomb?" And the answer is: yes. He wrote a letter to
> the President of the US hypothesizing that the energy released
> by fission, a prediction of SR, might be harnessed to make
> a bomb.
>
>
Hardly counts as having had anything to do with the bomb.
Robert Kolker
MasterCougar wrote:
> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
> design or construction of the bomb.
>
Indirectly, he did.
1. E = m*c^2 is the basis of the physics of the bomb along with a lot of
particle physics.
2. His letter to Pres. Roosevelt in 1939 (at Leo Szillard's behest) was
intended to warn the U.S. of possible nuclear weapon development in Nazi
Germany. You don't warn someone unless you intend or hope that they take
appropriate action. In the case of the U.S., it would be to get a
nuclear weapon before the Germans.
If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?
Bob Kolker
Wolfram Schmied
> Wolfram Schmied wrote:
> > Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3D82319C...@attbi.com>...
> >
> > In standard decimal notation, that works out to 2*(-10)^1+8*(-10)^0 =
> > -12, which neatly explains his standard of education. ^_^
>
> Is that the same base in which -4 x -4 = -16?
Nope, that would be base-minus-22 notation:
(-4*(-22)^0)^2 = 16 = -(1*(-22)^1+6*(-22)^0)
^_^
Rob Bowmaker
The same equation in decimal is -4 x -4 = 16.
-- Robert
Spaceman
>Is that the same base in which -4 x -4 = -16?
Keep it up Bobby,
When you say that is wrong.
It shows you have no clue about "direction in 3D space"
I hate to tell you idiot.
q=-x
and you lose big time!
Let -x = q
Try it!
You can't huh?
chicken!
Spaceman
>Nope, in negadecimal, -4 x -4 = 196.
>
>The same equation in decimal is -4 x -4 = 16.
So
4*4=-4*-4
and in other words
you are saying
x*x = -x*-x
<LOL>
boy are you wrong and brainwashed badly!
<LOL>
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020914082714...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> >From: Robert Kolker bobk...@attbi.com
>
> >Is that the same base in which -4 x -4 = -16?
>
> Keep it up Bobby,
> When you say that is wrong.
> It shows you have no clue about "direction in 3D space"
>
> I hate to tell you idiot.
> q=-x
> and you lose big time!
>
> Let -x = q
> Try it!
Are you going to reply to the questions I asked you
about this?
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>How does "uranium splitting produces one hefty blast" follow from
>V'=V for light exactly ?
Simple. When you drive the `V' into the uranium nucleus, the
letters `BOOM' pop out a lot of times. The reason uranium is so
heavy is that that a file with zillions of reptitions of `BOOM'
was compressed using gzip -9, and than stuffed into a really tiny
hollow ball. Why else?
> or from acceleration = gravity <swallows back vomit> ?
Try standing on your head, then it will run out your nose rather
than back down your esophagus.
>Mind you, i am merely interested in this, you can give a normal
>answer if you have one.
You're too much of an idiot to be interested in anything but spamming
usenet.
Spaceman
>Are you going to reply to the questions I asked you
>about this?
Sub q for - x you freeling dingbat troll!
You can't!
I can!
you lose!
josX
>josX, COBOL enthusiast and alien parrot, mindlessly repeated:
Where are you getting this. I have a COBOL book and i don't hate it
but i have barely done anything in COBOL.
>>How does "uranium splitting produces one hefty blast" follow from
>>V'=V for light exactly ?
>
>Simple. When you drive the `V' into the uranium nucleus, the
>letters `BOOM' pop out a lot of times. The reason uranium is so
>heavy is that that a file with zillions of reptitions of `BOOM'
>was compressed using gzip -9, and than stuffed into a really tiny
>hollow ball. Why else?
Ah thanks, i see it now.
What was the angle on the `V' used, how many repetitions of BOOM were
exactly used for the bomb on Nagasaki. Did Einstein write Bohr about
this method?
Inquiring minds want to know.
>> or from acceleration = gravity <swallows back vomit> ?
>
>Try standing on your head, then it will run out your nose rather
>than back down your esophagus.
Gee, you *are* smart...
>>Mind you, i am merely interested in this, you can give a normal
>>answer if you have one.
>
>You're too much of an idiot to be interested in anything but spamming
>usenet.
--
jos
josX
>>From: "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
>>Are you going to reply to the questions I asked you
>>about this?
>
>Sub q for - x you freeling dingbat troll!
>You can't!
>I can!
>you lose!
James, why (in the hell) do you think -4 * -4 = -16 !
Not that i can prove it should be otherwise, but do you have a positive
reason or are you just teasing the SRians?!
--
jos
Spaceman
>James, why (in the hell) do you think -4 * -4 = -16 !
Because -x is merely a direction,
and directions do not reverse "with simple multiplication"
If you can not get the same answer by using q
instead of the -x than the math is not completely correct.
>Not that i can prove it should be otherwise, but do you have a positive
>reason or are you just teasing the SRians?!
They really do need to fix it.
If you take a left and multiply that left.
you best go further left.
or the math is real broken.
:)
the - sign is merely a direction on a line.
If they have no reals.
(such as an actual negative direction change"
you must use "all positives"
so simply
q can equal -x
and prove them wrong with a simple sub of variable.
and yet.
my way, (even with the variable swap) keeps the same answer.
Pmb
> > This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
> > entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
> >
>
> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
> design or construction of the bomb.
That's not entirely correct. However youre taking my comment out of
context. I was refferging to josX's comment that it has *nothing* to
do with Einstein's E=mc^2. The theory of A-Bomb operation ** does **
have to do with E=mc^2 (i.e. mass to energy conversion). So while
Einstein did have something to do with the A-Bomb he didn't have
everything to do with it (i.e. the design, contruction and testing of
the device).
However Einstein did have a role in the invention of the A-Bomb in
that he wrote a letter to President Roosevelt urging that the bomb be
built.
For details see - http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/nuclear1.htm
Pmb
Pmb
> >No need to respond. We already know the answer.
>
> I am 28
I find that hard to believe ... then again ....
Pmb
josX
>>From: jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)
>
>>James, why (in the hell) do you think -4 * -4 = -16 !
>
>Because -x is merely a direction,
>and directions do not reverse "with simple multiplication"
>
>If you can not get the same answer by using q
>instead of the -x than the math is not completely correct.
q * 4 = 4q
-x * 4 = -4x
south = +
north = -
south-4 * south-4 = south-16
north-4 * north-4 = .....-4
I think you have a point!!!
:-)
This is really funny!
>>Not that i can prove it should be otherwise, but do you have a positive
>>reason or are you just teasing the SRians?!
>
>They really do need to fix it.
>If you take a left and multiply that left.
>you best go further left.
>or the math is real broken.
>:)
>
>the - sign is merely a direction on a line.
>If they have no reals.
>(such as an actual negative direction change"
>you must use "all positives"
>
>so simply
>q can equal -x
>and prove them wrong with a simple sub of variable.
>and yet.
>my way, (even with the variable swap) keeps the same answer.
I never thought you would have a point with his :).
But you did. Cool...
-4 * -4 = -16
+4 * +4 = +16
For +/- are directions. Hmm.
--
jos
MasterCougar
posted news:3D82EF42...@attbi.com:
> If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
> nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?
>
>
Maybe, maybe not. But E=MCC came about because of work that
proceeded Einstein's GR and SR. Can't recall the source now.
MasterCougar
news:8ac61757.02091...@posting.google.com:
>> > This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in
>> > my entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
>> >
>>
>> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the
>> invention,
>> design or construction of the bomb.
>
> That's not entirely correct.
Yes it is, you were saying that he wsa 200% wrong(a very stupid
claim by the way) for saying that Einstein had nothing to do with the
bomb, you are wrong.
Spaceman
>q * 4 = 4q
>-x * 4 = -4x
>
>south = +
>north = -
>south-4 * south-4 = south-16
>north-4 * north-4 = .....-4
>
>I think you have a point!!!
>:-)
>
>This is really funny!
:)
and if I wear a hat, nobody would notice..
:)
I am proud of my points though!
:)
TB
> >From: "Rob Bowmaker" robert....@dse.gen.nz
>
> >Nope, in negadecimal, -4 x -4 = 196.
> >
> >The same equation in decimal is -4 x -4 = 16.
>
> So
> 4*4=-4*-4
> and in other words
> you are saying
> x*x = -x*-x
> <LOL>
> boy are you wrong and brainwashed badly!
> <LOL>
So, James, you are saying that if
x*x = -x*-x
then it must be the case that the things on either side of the
multiplication must equal each other, or:
x = -x
and
x = -x
Since this is blatantly false the original equality must be false. That is
your reasoning, is it not?
So...
2*6 = 3*4
by your logic that must mean that
2 = 3
and
6 = 4
Hmmm... So I guess it cannot be the case that 2*6 = 3*4!
(I should really know better that to repeat this one :-)
>
>
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
> http://www.realspaceman.com
>
-- TB
Xaonon
<agents...@aol.combination> teithant i thiw hin:
> > From: "Rob Bowmaker" robert....@dse.gen.nz
> >
> > Nope, in negadecimal, -4 x -4 = 196.
> >
> > The same equation in decimal is -4 x -4 = 16.
>
> So
> 4*4=-4*-4
> and in other words
> you are saying
> x*x = -x*-x
><LOL>
> boy are you wrong and brainwashed badly!
><LOL>
Interesting how someone who clearly failed grade-school algebra thinks he
can comment intelligently on relativity and other highly mathematical
theories. Now where's that paper about incompetence that Uncle Al is always
referencing...?
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
"This is the most disturbing surprise Barry Bostwick has pulled on us since
that robot dragonfly came out of his nose on `Lexx'." -- James "Kibo" Parry
Spaceman
>So, James, you are saying that if
>
> x*x = -x*-x
>
>then it must be the case that the things on either side of the
>multiplication must equal each other, or:
>
> x = -x
>and
> x = -x
>
>Since this is blatantly false the original equality must be false. That is
>your reasoning, is it not?
No you are doing your old twist dance again.
sad..
really sad.
>So...
>
> 2*6 = 3*4
>
>by your logic that must mean that
>
> 2 = 3
>and
> 6 = 4
I am not saying such at all.
you really are a sad ass troll huh?
..
sad..
Spaceman
>Interesting how someone who clearly failed grade-school algebra thinks he
>can comment intelligently on relativity and other highly mathematical
>theories. Now where's that paper about incompetence that Uncle Al is always
>referencing...?
So,
Xaonon also admits he has no clue about direction either.
poor lost in spacetime fool!
<LOL>
Hey "Nobody named Xaonon"
The clock malfunctioned,
and
-x=q
you lose bigtime!
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:alvf2p$q0u$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
> I never thought you would have a point with his :).
> But you did. Cool...
> -4 * -4 = -16
> +4 * +4 = +16
> For +/- are directions. Hmm.
Going down with nothing to lose:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#SpaceRight
"Wow, Spaceman is right: -4 * -4 = -16!"
Dirk Vdm
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>
>MasterCougar wrote:
>> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
>> design or construction of the bomb.
>>
>
>1. E = m*c^2 is the basis of the physics of the bomb along with a lot of
>particle physics.
>
that it is the basis of the physics of gunpowder. The "popular"
description of "mass is converted to energy thus lots of energy is
released" is false. The reduced mass of the residual components is
the consequence, not cause of the process.
>2. His letter to Pres. Roosevelt in 1939 (at Leo Szillard's behest) was
>intended to warn the U.S. of possible nuclear weapon development in Nazi
>Germany. You don't warn someone unless you intend or hope that they take
>appropriate action. In the case of the U.S., it would be to get a
>nuclear weapon before the Germans.
Yes, that much is true. But this has less to do with the physics than
with the public recognition that Einstein's name commanded.
>
>If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
>nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?
Sure, why not. That the amount of energy stored in nuclei vastly
exceeds chemical energies, this was already known from the work with
radium at the turn of the century. And once neutron induced fission
was observed, measuring the energies of the fission products was quite
straightforward.
Gunpowder technology was developed without any knowledge of chemistry.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Xaonon
<agents...@aol.combination> teithant i thiw hin:
> > > So
> > > 4*4=-4*-4
> > > and in other words
> > > you are saying
> > > x*x = -x*-x
> > > <LOL>
> > > boy are you wrong and brainwashed badly!
> > > <LOL>
>
> > Interesting how someone who clearly failed grade-school algebra thinks he
> > can comment intelligently on relativity and other highly mathematical
> > theories. Now where's that paper about incompetence that Uncle Al is always
> > referencing...?
>
> So,
> Xaonon also admits he has no clue about direction either.
> poor lost in spacetime fool!
> <LOL>
I'm not the one who doesn't know how to multiply. (Big hint, moron: two
negatives make a positive!)
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
"Uploading isn't a >H goal because it's one step closer to some mythical and
unknowable perfection, but because it'll be jolly practical." -- Rich Artym
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>MasterCougar <master...@snotmail.com> wrote
>
>> > This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
>> > entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
>> >
>>
>> design or construction of the bomb.
>
>context. I was refferging to josX's comment that it has *nothing* to
>do with Einstein's E=mc^2. The theory of A-Bomb operation ** does **
>have to do with E=mc^2 (i.e. mass to energy conversion).
No more so than the theory of gunpowder operation does.
Spaceman
>I'm not the one who doesn't know how to multiply. (Big hint, moron: two
>negatives make a positive!)
Hey Dipwad,
you are wrong.
multiplying a direction does not reverse direction.
DINGBAT!
You will never become a pilot of anything more
than an SUV!
<LOL>
Spaceman
>Going down with nothing to lose:
>
>http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#SpaceRight
>"Wow, Spaceman is right: -4 * -4 = -16!"
You have no clue "what made you type" immortal huh?
<LOL>
you are the mortal that still does not get the clues of the
"immortal compared to you"
<LOL>
Dirky poo.
the clock malfunctioned.
and
direction does not multipy to the reverse direction.
you lose.
BIG "TIME"
josX
I did not say that.
--
jos
josX
>In article <3D82EF42...@attbi.com>, Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> writes:
>>MasterCougar wrote:
>>> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
>>> design or construction of the bomb.
>>>
>>Indirectly, he did.
>>
>>1. E = m*c^2 is the basis of the physics of the bomb along with a lot of
>>particle physics.
>>
>Nope. E = mc^2 is no more the basis of the physics of the the bomb
>that it is the basis of the physics of gunpowder. The "popular"
>description of "mass is converted to energy thus lots of energy is
>released" is false. The reduced mass of the residual components is
>the consequence, not cause of the process.
>
>>2. His letter to Pres. Roosevelt in 1939 (at Leo Szillard's behest) was
>>intended to warn the U.S. of possible nuclear weapon development in Nazi
>>Germany. You don't warn someone unless you intend or hope that they take
>>appropriate action. In the case of the U.S., it would be to get a
>>nuclear weapon before the Germans.
>
>Yes, that much is true. But this has less to do with the physics than
>with the public recognition that Einstein's name commanded.
>
>>If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
>>nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?
>
>Sure, why not. That the amount of energy stored in nuclei vastly
>exceeds chemical energies, this was already known from the work with
>radium at the turn of the century. And once neutron induced fission
>was observed, measuring the energies of the fission products was quite
>straightforward.
>
>Gunpowder technology was developed without any knowledge of chemistry.
told you so
:-)
Now then, who called me a crank for thinking this ?
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:alvte9$2ee$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
That is the title I chose. Consider it to be my semantic
contribution to the entry. If you have a problem with it,
try the art of negotiating.
Dirk Vdm
Xaonon
<agents...@aol.combination> teithant i thiw hin:
> From: Xaonon xao...@hotpop.com
> >
> > I'm not the one who doesn't know how to multiply. (Big hint, moron: two
> > negatives make a positive!)
>
> Hey Dipwad,
> you are wrong.
> multiplying a direction does not reverse direction.
> DINGBAT!
http://www.google.com/
multiplication 1,030,000 hits
Maybe one of those pages contains a clue you can borrow.
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
"Is the surface of a planet the right place for an expanding industrial
civilisation?" -- Gerard K. O'Neill
Spaceman
>http://www.google.com/
>multiplication 1,030,000 hits
>
<LOL>
great "physics of directions"
Dirk Van de moortel
"Xaonon" <xao...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:slrnao6vsj...@linux.local...
> Ned i bach <20020914135300...@mb-mq.aol.com>, Spaceman
> <agents...@aol.combination> teithant i thiw hin:
>
> > From: Xaonon xao...@hotpop.com
> > >
> > > I'm not the one who doesn't know how to multiply. (Big hint, moron: two
> > > negatives make a positive!)
> >
> > Hey Dipwad,
> > you are wrong.
> > multiplying a direction does not reverse direction.
> > DINGBAT!
>
> http://www.google.com/
> multiplication 1,030,000 hits
>
> Maybe one of those pages contains a clue you can borrow.
He borrows most of his clues from the following pages:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Aspaceman+roflol+OR+lol
2400 hits (threads - a lot of them very deep).
I estimate his total number of LOLs and ROFLOLs at 50000.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Aspaceman+dipwad
111 hits
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Aspaceman+dingbat
48 hits
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Aspaceman+fuch
31 hits
Frightening, but mostly harmless.
Dirk Vdm
Marco Nelissen
Just when I thought Jos couldn't sink any lower...
Pmb
> > That's not entirely correct.
Nope.
> Yes it is, you were saying that he wsa 200% wrong(a very stupid
> claim by the way) for saying that Einstein had nothing to do with the
> bomb, you are wrong.
Not at all. As I said you took what I said out of context. I was
commenting on the whole paragraph which followed. I simply didn't want
to quote the whole thing. i.e. josX stated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. I don't buy it that
E=mc^2
has anything to do with this bomb at all. I think it is far more
likely that
there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity
theories
had anything to do with the bomb. In any case: c' = c and a = g (the
two
great insanities of A.E. sucked from his thumb) have little or nothing
to do with splitting atoms and obtaining fast moving particles from
them.
I'd say that the bomb has more to do with chemistry, then with wrong
philosophical theories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yes. 200% wrong. Einstein's theory was what told them that such a
powerful device was possible. josX was claiming that E=mc^2 had
nothing to do with it. i.e.
this comment "Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. I don't
buy it that E=mc^2 has anything to do with this bomb at all. [and the
rest]"
is 200% wrong. Okay. Litterally it can't be more than 100% wrong but I
was exagerating.
Then regarging the creation of the A-Bomb it was Einstien's letter to
the prisident which got the whole ball of wax going.
The claim that he had *nothing* i.e. zero to do with the actual
contruction of the device is quite litterally wrong. Design? No.
Suggest to the President that it be built? Yes.
And once again I remined you that I was not talking about the
contruction but was responding litteral to the comment made by josX
regarding the E=mc^2 part.
Pmb
"I don't buy it that E=mc^2 has anything to do with this bomb at all."
I was hoping that my telling you that you were quoting me out of
context would force you to go back and reread what josX wrote that I
was refering to and commenting on. However since there may still be
some confusion on your part what I was refering to I rephrase:
MasterCougar
>> Yes it is, you were saying that he wsa 200% wrong(a very
>> stupid
>> claim by the way) for saying that Einstein had nothing to do with the
>> bomb, you are wrong.
>
> Not at all. As I said you took what I said out of context. I was
>
IN what context can anyone be 200% wrong?
MasterCougar
news:slrnao6rii...@linux.local:
>> 4*4=-4*-4
>> and in other words
>> you are saying
>> x*x = -x*-x
>><LOL>
>> boy are you wrong and brainwashed badly!
>><LOL>
>
> Interesting how someone who clearly failed grade-school algebra thinks
> he can comment intelligently on relativity and other highly
> mathematical theories. Now where's that paper about incompetence that
> Uncle Al is always referencing...?
>
Too bad the moron can't just go back to high school and LEARN
mathematics.
MasterCougar
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> posted
news:uoKg9.117110$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be:
>> I never thought you would have a point with his :).
>> But you did. Cool...
>> -4 * -4 = -16
>> +4 * +4 = +16
>> For +/- are directions. Hmm.
>
> Going down with nothing to lose:
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
> #SpaceRight
> "Wow, Spaceman is right: -4 * -4 = -16!"
>
>
To quote from the website
>
> q * 4 = 4q
> -x * 4 = -4x
>
> south = +
> north = -
> south-4 * south-4 = south-16
> north-4 * north-4 = .....-4
The problem is the stupid idea of multiplying by -4 to get the idea
that you are continuing in the same direction. When you have a distance
of -4 and you muliply it by by 4 you have -16, you went further North,
but if you multiply by -4 you change direction.
Spacemoron thinks that -4 * -4 = -4 + -4 + -4 +-4= -16 Stupid
Spacemoron can't fanthom that that's actually - 4 * 4. Poor stupid
Spacemoron.
MasterCougar
news:slrnao6vsj...@linux.local:
>> Hey Dipwad,
>> you are wrong.
>> multiplying a direction does not reverse direction.
>> DINGBAT!
>
> http://www.google.com/
>
Just tell him that he's a moron. That should work.
MasterCougar
posted news:am03fr$gc0$1...@news1.xs4all.nl:
I knew he could, you just have to make any sensible statement about
science and the moron will attack it, claim you are stupid and then
promptly show off his ignorance.
Rob Bowmaker
"MasterCougar" <master...@snotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9289B54E8F...@130.133.1.4...
> On the dark and dreary 13 Sep 2002 Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> posted
> news:3D824916...@atl.lmco.com:
>
> > The question is, "did Einstein have anything to do with the
> > atomic bomb?" And the answer is: yes. He wrote a letter to
> > the President of the US hypothesizing that the energy released
> > by fission, a prediction of SR, might be harnessed to make
> > a bomb.
> >
> >
>
> Hardly counts as having had anything to do with the bomb.
If Einstein didn't exist, the idea of an atomic bomb would not have happened
until later.
There is a definite but fine line between a) having anything to do with the
bomb and b) working on the bomb.
He certainly had something to do with it, but he didn't work on it.
Rob Bowmaker
talking about the simple laws of mathematics...
-- Robert
Spaceman
> The problem is the stupid idea of multiplying by -4 to get the idea
>that you are continuing in the same direction. When you have a distance
>of -4 and you muliply it by by 4 you have -16, you went further North,
>but if you multiply by -4 you change direction.
You don't change direction dipwad!
you are only multiplying distances,
not directions.
"all distances are positives"
you are a moron that would simply get lost in the
woods without "GPS my way"
<LOL>
> Spacemoron thinks that -4 * -4 = -4 + -4 + -4 +-4= -16
<LOL>
It does!
HA HA!
sad you can not see such.
>Stupid
>Spacemoron can't fanthom that that's actually - 4 * 4. Poor stupid
>Spacemoron.
Dude, Marc O, Polo!
Relax,
It's not Spacemoron,
you must be so angry you just can not read "or do math correctly anymore"
<LOL>
Poor Marc,
Worshipping the clock,
so he will not allow my "breakage of it's Godlyness"
MasterCougar
<robert....@dse.gen.nz> posted
news:BxNg9.6358$Y3.13...@news.xtra.co.nz:
> If Einstein didn't exist, the idea of an atomic bomb would not have
> happened until later.
>
>
What support do you have for this assertion?
Steve Harris
>>If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
>>nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?
>
>Sure, why not. That the amount of energy stored in nuclei vastly
>exceeds chemical energies, this was already known from the work with
>radium at the turn of the century. And once neutron induced fission
>was observed, measuring the energies of the fission products was quite
>straightforward.
Comment: it was. But historically it was done only after it was already
guessed, after some chemical support, that the radioactive products of
neutron bombardment of heavy atoms were sizable fission-product atoms, and
not just alphas or betas.
Historically it was known that neutron bombardment of heavy atoms produced
radioactive products, but the nature of these wasn't known, except that they
couldn't be chemically separated from medium sized atoms. When Meitner and
Hahn mulled over this puzzle, the great helper they had in their minds when
they came up with the "fission" explanation, was that (as Meitner said) "we
had the packing fractions in our heads." In other words, they knew the
fission process was energetically favorable once they considered it at all,
and knew it on the basis of E=mc^2 and some careful chemical weighing work
on lots of isotopes across the periodic table. IOW, they knew what we know
today as the curve of differential binding energy, which makes both fission
and fusion energetically favorable, because isotopes near Z=26 have least
energy/mass per nucleon, and fission to isotopes with Z in the 50's and 40's
should also be very energetic-- in fact 40 times more energetic than alpha
decay, when they looked at it. On this basis, they proposed the mechanism
*before* it had been perfectly proven by following individual fission
fragments and their energies. How long it would have taken physicists to do
the fragment-product foil experiments without the Meitner Hahn explanation
is a good historical "what if," but probably not long. It is, after all, the
old technique Rutherford and Soddy had used decades before to verify that
alphas are helium nuclei, so somebody, Einstein or no Einstein, was bound to
eventually use it to clear up the chemical mystery. Historically it's
amusing that J. Robert Oppenheimer gave lots of reasons why fission couldn't
be taking place, until he saw the fat 100 mev tracks from fission products
on an oscilloscope and realized they couldn't be anything else.The next day
he had a crude design for a bomb up on his blackboard. Oppenheimer wasn't so
much a creative genius, as a genius in his exquisite taste for the quality
of new ideas, combined with his huge knowledge base and the fact that he was
a very, very fast thinker.
As an importance of how necessary the "packing fraction" or E=mc^2 data for
nuclei were, in our understanding how to get power out of the atom, remember
that Szilard, who really was a creative genius, was thinking about neutron
driven chain reactions for getting energy out of atomic nuclei as early as
the early 1930's, just after the neutron was discovered. His problem
however, is that he wasted a lot of time trying to make this happen by
splitting neutron-rich light isotopes, because he DIDN'T have a deep
awareness of the packing fractions (probably it would have been too boring
for him to memorize stuff like that). Obviously he wasn't thinking E=mc^2,
though of course he knew the formula. If he had been giving this the central
attention it needed, we probably would have had a nuclear reactor 5 years
before we had one historically, and how to make one would have been common
knowledge by the end of the 30's. As for the bomb itself, I suspect it still
would have taken WW II and the Manhattan project to make it. The interesting
thing to me, though, is that a nuke reactor in the mid or late 1930's would
surely have meant that the Germans would have gone into WW II with working
graphite piles of the Hanford type, which means that it would have been a
real race to see who got to the plutonium bomb first. A MUCH closer race
than it was historically (where the Germans lost out because they didn't
have Szilard's brilliant guess as to the boron contamination of ordinary
graphite, combined with the fact that the allies kept blowing up their D2O
sources in Norway, so they only halfway made it to the CANDU style reactor).
This question come up periodically on sci.physics. We should stick in the
FAQ somewhere the advice that people read Rhoades' The Making of the Atomic
Bomb if they're interested in any of this. It's a book all high school
students should read, so far as I'm concerned. It's not only a great
exposition of nuclear physics for the non-mathematical, but also a good
historical and ethical discussion of atomic issues that shaped the end of
WWII, the cold war, and basically the entire last part of the 20th century.
SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message ...
>Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> writes:
>
>>>If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
>>>nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?
>>
>>Sure, why not. That the amount of energy stored in nuclei vastly
>>exceeds chemical energies, this was already known from the work with
>>radium at the turn of the century. And once neutron induced fission
>>was observed, measuring the energies of the fission products was quite
>>straightforward.
>
>guessed, after some chemical support, that the radioactive products of
>neutron bombardment of heavy atoms were sizable fission-product atoms, and
>not just alphas or betas.
Sure. Only, this didn't rely on relativity either.
Mind you, would the Germans consider the D20 plant in Norway essential
to their war effort, they could've fixed it fast after the first time it
was hit (they kept fixing the oil refineries in Ploesti, following
much heavier damage), and could've protect it well enough to make it
invulnerable afterwards. Only, they never really considered it
important.
>This question come up periodically on sci.physics. We should stick in the
>FAQ somewhere the advice that people read Rhoades' The Making of the Atomic
>Bomb if they're interested in any of this. It's a book all high school
>students should read, so far as I'm concerned. It's not only a great
>exposition of nuclear physics for the non-mathematical, but also a good
>historical and ethical discussion of atomic issues that shaped the end of
>WWII, the cold war, and basically the entire last part of the 20th century.
>
Yes, I'll second the recommendation.
Maleki
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in
<di7h9.1159$E53.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
that:
>Oppenheimer wasn't so
>much a creative genius, as a genius in his exquisite taste for the quality
>of new ideas, combined with his huge knowledge base and the fact that he was
>a very, very fast thinker.
This is not a description of his abilities. This is
usual red tape. "Genius", what a sorry word.
To get a good glimpse at Oppenheimer's abilities one
should notice that he felt scientifically miserable and
depressed when working with snobbish British top
scientists. And yet at a whim of thought, when he saw
his peers had this weekly meetings where they discussed
philosophy issues in Italian language, he spent just 10
days to learn Italian from scratch to a level enough
for him to participate in those meetings and
discussions.
So to describe him, I'd say he was talented. A very
talented and sensitive man. This is the real
Oppenheimer.
Courtney Mewton
> In article <3D82EF42...@attbi.com>, Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >MasterCougar wrote:
> >> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
> >> design or construction of the bomb.
> >>
> >Indirectly, he did.
> >
> >1. E = m*c^2 is the basis of the physics of the bomb along with a lot of
> >particle physics.
> >
> Nope. E = mc^2 is no more the basis of the physics of the the bomb
> that it is the basis of the physics of gunpowder.
True. It's just better demonstrated by the former. ;)
> The "popular"
> description of "mass is converted to energy thus lots of energy is
> released" is false.
Not true. The terms mass and energy may be freely interchanged, as
specified by E=mc^2. It can be said of both atom bombs and gunpowder that
mass is converted to energy. It is just more appreciable in atomic bombs.
I like the way Einstein says it:
"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy
are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat
unfamilar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is
equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by
the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of
mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa.
The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula
mentioned before. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932,
experimentally."
You can hear him say it too:
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/voice1.htm
> The reduced mass of the residual components is
> the consequence, not cause of the process.
True. The energy-mass relation is useful for relating energy and mass in
a system -- but it isn't the cause of the fission. The neutrons are.
I was quite disappointed when one of my physics books had the neutron
absorption curve for silver. Silver?! That's a useless element! How
about the absorption curve for U-235. How can anyone design an atomic
bomb without the the right absorption curve! Students always complain
that what they learn has no application. Get them to design a bomb, I
say. :)
Note that the above is a joke, and I am glad the book had the curve for
silver instead of uranium. I found it amusing that they didn't use an
"exciting" element. :)
>
> >2. His letter to Pres. Roosevelt in 1939 (at Leo Szillard's behest) was
> >intended to warn the U.S. of possible nuclear weapon development in Nazi
> >Germany. You don't warn someone unless you intend or hope that they take
> >appropriate action. In the case of the U.S., it would be to get a
> >nuclear weapon before the Germans.
>
> Yes, that much is true. But this has less to do with the physics than
> with the public recognition that Einstein's name commanded.
Lucky he wrote that letter!
> >
> >If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
> >nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?
>
> Sure, why not. That the amount of energy stored in nuclei vastly
> exceeds chemical energies, this was already known from the work with
> radium at the turn of the century. And once neutron induced fission
> was observed, measuring the energies of the fission products was quite
> straightforward.
True. I think though that E=mc^2 would have been have been important in
understanding the process of fission in the theoretical sense, since the
nuclear forces weren't completely understood at the time. For example,
E=mc^2 will tell you that not to expect energy from fissioning helium. :)
However, I agree with you that it isn't necessary to know E=mc^2 to make
an atomic bomb. There are all sorts of other parameters that need to be
measured, like the neutron capture probability, and there wasn't any real
theory around back then to predict those values. The energy released
could easily be measured in the process.
Regards,
CJM
Mike Varney
"Courtney Mewton" <uqcm...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.30.020916...@dingo.cc.uq.edu.au...
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> > In article <3D82EF42...@attbi.com>, Robert Kolker
<bobk...@attbi.com> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >MasterCougar wrote:
> > >> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
> > >> design or construction of the bomb.
> > >>
> > >Indirectly, he did.
> > >
> > >1. E = m*c^2 is the basis of the physics of the bomb along with a lot
of
> > >particle physics.
> > >
> > Nope. E = mc^2 is no more the basis of the physics of the the bomb
> > that it is the basis of the physics of gunpowder.
>
> True. It's just better demonstrated by the former. ;)
>
> > The "popular"
> > description of "mass is converted to energy thus lots of energy is
> > released" is false.
>
> Not true.
You are arguing with Mati on this subject?
LOL!
Courtney Mewton
I agree with everything Mati said, with the exception of the '"mass is
converted to energy thus lots of energy is released" is false' statement.
Regards,
CJM
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <3D82EF42...@attbi.com>, Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >MasterCougar wrote:
>> >> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
>> >> design or construction of the bomb.
>> >>
>> >Indirectly, he did.
>> >
>> >1. E = m*c^2 is the basis of the physics of the bomb along with a lot of
>> >particle physics.
>> >
>> Nope. E = mc^2 is no more the basis of the physics of the the bomb
>> that it is the basis of the physics of gunpowder.
>
>True. It's just better demonstrated by the former. ;)
Sure. A fractional change in the 0.01-0.001 range, instead of 10^(-9_
and below range.
>
>> The "popular"
>> description of "mass is converted to energy thus lots of energy is
>> released" is false.
>
>Not true. The terms mass and energy may be freely interchanged, as
>specified by E=mc^2. It can be said of both atom bombs and gunpowder that
>mass is converted to energy.
You miss the point. Nothing is "converted". The mass following the
reaction is *exactly* the same as it was before. It has to be since
(we've been over it before) we've m^2 = E^2 - p^2 and both energy and
momentum are conserved (I'll remind you again the electron-positron
annihilation case, the mass of the resulting two-photon system is the
same as of the electron-positron system).
So, what is being converted? Well, the components of the system are
rearranged and binding energy is converted to kinetic energy. Now,
kinetic energy differs from other forms in the sense that it is easily
transferable (kinda like the difference between static and liquid
assets). So, it is transferred, to the surrounding matter, and that's
the explosion. And *after* it is transferred, the mass of the stuff
remaining behind is indeed smaller. But this decrease in mass is the
outcome, not the cause of the energy transfer.
...
>
>> The reduced mass of the residual components is
>> the consequence, not cause of the process.
>
>True. The energy-mass relation is useful for relating energy and mass in
>a system -- but it isn't the cause of the fission. The neutrons are.
>
>I was quite disappointed when one of my physics books had the neutron
>absorption curve for silver. Silver?! That's a useless element! How
>about the absorption curve for U-235. How can anyone design an atomic
>bomb without the the right absorption curve! Students always complain
>that what they learn has no application. Get them to design a bomb, I
>say. :)
:-)))
>
>Note that the above is a joke, and I am glad the book had the curve for
>silver instead of uranium. I found it amusing that they didn't use an
>"exciting" element. :)
>
They could at least use cadmium.
>>
>> >2. His letter to Pres. Roosevelt in 1939 (at Leo Szillard's behest) was
>> >intended to warn the U.S. of possible nuclear weapon development in Nazi
>> >Germany. You don't warn someone unless you intend or hope that they take
>> >appropriate action. In the case of the U.S., it would be to get a
>> >nuclear weapon before the Germans.
>>
>> Yes, that much is true. But this has less to do with the physics than
>> with the public recognition that Einstein's name commanded.
>
>Lucky he wrote that letter!
>
Yes.
>> >
>> >If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
>> >nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?
>>
>> Sure, why not. That the amount of energy stored in nuclei vastly
>> exceeds chemical energies, this was already known from the work with
>> radium at the turn of the century. And once neutron induced fission
>> was observed, measuring the energies of the fission products was quite
>> straightforward.
>
>True. I think though that E=mc^2 would have been have been important in
>understanding the process of fission in the theoretical sense, since the
>nuclear forces weren't completely understood at the time.
That's quite an understatement:-)
> For example, E=mc^2 will tell you that not to expect energy from
>fissioning helium. :)
Yes, certainly. There is no doubt that having E = mc^2 helps.
>However, I agree with you that it isn't necessary to know E=mc^2 to make
>an atomic bomb. There are all sorts of other parameters that need to be
>measured, like the neutron capture probability, and there wasn't any real
>theory around back then to predict those values. The energy released
>could easily be measured in the process.
>
Exactly
Mike Varney
And you are arguing with Mati on this subject?
LOL!
Rob Bowmaker
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:20020914193821...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> >From: MasterCougar master...@snotmail.com
>
> > The problem is the stupid idea of multiplying by -4 to get the idea
> >that you are continuing in the same direction. When you have a distance
> >of -4 and you muliply it by by 4 you have -16, you went further North,
> >but if you multiply by -4 you change direction.
>
> You don't change direction dipwad!
> you are only multiplying distances,
> not directions.
> "all distances are positives"
> you are a moron that would simply get lost in the
> woods without "GPS my way"
> <LOL>
Well, if all distance are positives, why are you calling -4 a distance, when
it is a negative, then?
-- Robert
Spaceman
>Well, if all distance are positives, why are you calling -4 a distance, when
>it is a negative, then?
The minus is a direction.
and nothing more than such.
you can replace it with West or with q or even a w.
MasterCougar
<robert....@dse.gen.nz> posted
news:UCfh9.6768$Y3.13...@news.xtra.co.nz:
> Well, if all distance are positives, why are you calling -4 a
> distance, when it is a negative, then?
>
>
Because Spacefuck is too stupid, or ignorant of math to put it as a
vector. When the twit says -4 he means magnitude four, direction North.
Then he thinks you can multiply that by -4 to get four times the
distance.
Spaceman
>vector. When the twit says -4 he means magnitude four, direction North.
>Then he thinks you can multiply that by -4 to get four times the
>distance.
>
still have no clue about "directions" huh?
<LOL>
your insults are strong, but have no force in physics.
You lose,
as usual.
Pmb
> IN what context can anyone be 200% wrong?
Didn't you read what I said? I explicitly stated in my last post
"Okay. Litterally it can't be more than 100% wrong but I was
exagerating."
And someone is 100% wrong when they say Einstein had nothing to due
the the atomic bomb since it was his theory which proved the
possibility. And to show that Einstein had an important hand in the
constuction of the first A-Bomb consider what he wrote later regarding
it
-----------------------------------------------------------------
When Einstein heard of the massive death and destruction, he put his
head in his hands. “I could burn my fingers that I wrote that
first letter to President Roosevelt,” he said. Einstein was
burdened by the misuse of that which he loved the most, a mathematical
expression of nature. To his friend Linus Pauling, another famous
scientist, Einstein said: “I made one mistake in my life when I
signed that letter to President Roosevelt advocating that the atomic
bomb should be built. But perhaps I can be forgiven because we all
felt that there was a high probability that the Germans were working
on this problem and would use the atomic bomb to become the master
race.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty strong words from Einstein if he didn't think he had anything
to do with it. So it seems obvious to me that at least Einstein
thought he had something to do with the construction of the A-Bomb.
Pmb
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>MasterCougar <master...@snotmail.com> wrote
>> IN what context can anyone be 200% wrong?
>
>
>exagerating."
>
>the the atomic bomb since it was his theory which proved the
>possibility.
What proved the possiblility was:
1) Knowledge that there are enormous energies stored in nuclei (known
starting with calorimetric measurements on radium, beginning of 20th
century).
2) Knowledge that neutrons can fission heavy nuclei. Hahn's
experiments (which, fortunately, he misinterpreted).
E = mc^2 allowed to obtain a bette estimate of (1) than would've been
possible in advance otherwise, but it wasn't necessary.
....
>
>Pretty strong words from Einstein if he didn't think he had anything
>to do with it. So it seems obvious to me that at least Einstein
>thought he had something to do with the construction of the A-Bomb.
>
Certainly. His letter was instrumental in getting things moving. But
that's not a scientific contribution.
Steve Harris
>>Not true. The terms mass and energy may be freely interchanged, as
>>specified by E=mc^2. It can be said of both atom bombs and gunpowder that
>>mass is converted to energy.
>
>You miss the point. Nothing is "converted". The mass following the
>reaction is *exactly* the same as it was before. It has to be since
>(we've been over it before) we've m^2 = E^2 - p^2 and both energy and
>momentum are conserved (I'll remind you again the electron-positron
>annihilation case, the mass of the resulting two-photon system is the
>same as of the electron-positron system).
>
>So, what is being converted? Well, the components of the system are
>rearranged and binding energy is converted to kinetic energy. Now,
>kinetic energy differs from other forms in the sense that it is easily
>transferable (kinda like the difference between static and liquid
>assets). So, it is transferred, to the surrounding matter, and that's
>the explosion. And *after* it is transferred, the mass of the stuff
>remaining behind is indeed smaller. But this decrease in mass is the
>outcome, not the cause of the energy transfer.
Yep. Plain old heat has mass and weight, and the bomb components don't have
less mass until you cool them down and extract the heat (and its mass and
weight). This is obvious from the physics, but not obvious to the average
person or even physics student. It ought to be part of the FAQ. It's kind of
neat. As we remarked here some months ago, the idea that a big H-bomb
releases *pounds* of heat and light, is quite astounding.
MasterCougar
news:8ac61757.02091...@posting.google.com:
> And someone is 100% wrong when they say Einstein had nothing to due
> the the atomic bomb since it was his theory which proved the
> possibility. And to show that Einstein had an important hand in the
>
Which theory of Einstein PROVED the possibility of the atomic bomb?
MasterCougar
news:icph9.651$a5.1...@news.uchicago.edu:
>>Pretty strong words from Einstein if he didn't think he had anything
>>to do with it. So it seems obvious to me that at least Einstein
>>thought he had something to do with the construction of the A-Bomb.
>>
> Certainly. His letter was instrumental in getting things moving. But
> that's not a scientific contribution.
>
>
But his letter does NOT prove in any way that HE thought he had
something to do with the bomb.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message ...
>
>>>specified by E=mc^2. It can be said of both atom bombs and gunpowder that
>>>mass is converted to energy.
>>
>>You miss the point. Nothing is "converted". The mass following the
>>reaction is *exactly* the same as it was before. It has to be since
>>(we've been over it before) we've m^2 = E^2 - p^2 and both energy and
>>momentum are conserved (I'll remind you again the electron-positron
>>annihilation case, the mass of the resulting two-photon system is the
>>same as of the electron-positron system).
>>
>>So, what is being converted? Well, the components of the system are
>>rearranged and binding energy is converted to kinetic energy. Now,
>>kinetic energy differs from other forms in the sense that it is easily
>>transferable (kinda like the difference between static and liquid
>>assets). So, it is transferred, to the surrounding matter, and that's
>>the explosion. And *after* it is transferred, the mass of the stuff
>>remaining behind is indeed smaller. But this decrease in mass is the
>>outcome, not the cause of the energy transfer.
>
>
>less mass until you cool them down and extract the heat (and its mass and
>weight). This is obvious from the physics, but not obvious to the average
>person or even physics student.
Indeed. I gather that the phrase "converting mass to energy" sounds
so sexy that it is just automatically repeated without giving it some
thought.
> It ought to be part of the FAQ.
Yep.
> It's kind of >neat. As we remarked here some months ago, the idea that
> a big H-bomb releases *pounds* of heat and light, is quite astounding.
It is worthwhile, for those who don't quite realize what this means, to
establish some sense of scale, here. So, the *annual* energy output of
a 1 GW power plant is equivalent to about 1/3 of a kg or some 12 oz.
A big H-bomb releases more than this in microseconds.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On the dark and dreary 16 Sep 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu posted
>news:icph9.651$a5.1...@news.uchicago.edu:
>
>>>to do with it. So it seems obvious to me that at least Einstein
>>>thought he had something to do with the construction of the A-Bomb.
>>>
>> Certainly. His letter was instrumental in getting things moving. But
>> that's not a scientific contribution.
>>
>
>something to do with the bomb.
>
I think that he believed himself to carry some of the responsibility
for setting the *political* decision making process in motion. And,
indeed, Einstein's signature carried greater weight then Szillard's or
Fermi's might've. But that's the extent of it.
Courtney Mewton
OK, now that you put it that way, I agree with you. To me, "converted"
means "binding energy converted to electromagnetic energy and kinetic
energy". What I meant by mass-energy conversion is that I could modify
the sentence "binding energy is converted to electromagnetic energy" by
replacing "binding energy" with "mass", thereby exploiting mass-energy
equivalence, and say "mass is converted to electromagnetic energy."
You're right in that both mass and energy are conserved in such an
explosion, so there is no "conversion" in the sense that the layman may
percieve it, such as an overal decrease in the mass of all products of the
system.
>
> So, what is being converted? Well, the components of the system are
> rearranged and binding energy is converted to kinetic energy. Now,
> kinetic energy differs from other forms in the sense that it is easily
> transferable (kinda like the difference between static and liquid
> assets). So, it is transferred, to the surrounding matter, and that's
> the explosion. And *after* it is transferred, the mass of the stuff
> remaining behind is indeed smaller. But this decrease in mass is the
> outcome, not the cause of the energy transfer.
I agree here -- but mass is equivalent to energy, so rather than saying
outcome, I would say that those two statements are equivalent. I agree
with you that the mass deficit of the fission products is not the cause of
the energy transfer.
I remember back when I was studying electromagnetic theory, our lecturer
emphasised that the description of an EM wave as "a changing electric
field generating a changing magnetic field" was a misinterpretation --
that electric and magnetic fields don't cause each other, and that
Maxwell's equations give mathematical correlations instead.
>
> ...
> >
> >> The reduced mass of the residual components is
> >> the consequence, not cause of the process.
> >
> >True. The energy-mass relation is useful for relating energy and mass in
> >a system -- but it isn't the cause of the fission. The neutrons are.
> >
> >I was quite disappointed when one of my physics books had the neutron
> >absorption curve for silver. Silver?! That's a useless element! How
> >about the absorption curve for U-235. How can anyone design an atomic
> >bomb without the the right absorption curve! Students always complain
> >that what they learn has no application. Get them to design a bomb, I
> >say. :)
>
> :-)))
> >
> >Note that the above is a joke, and I am glad the book had the curve for
> >silver instead of uranium. I found it amusing that they didn't use an
> >"exciting" element. :)
> >
> They could at least use cadmium.
Ah, there's a good element.
>
> >>
> >> >2. His letter to Pres. Roosevelt in 1939 (at Leo Szillard's behest) was
> >> >intended to warn the U.S. of possible nuclear weapon development in Nazi
> >> >Germany. You don't warn someone unless you intend or hope that they take
> >> >appropriate action. In the case of the U.S., it would be to get a
> >> >nuclear weapon before the Germans.
> >>
> >> Yes, that much is true. But this has less to do with the physics than
> >> with the public recognition that Einstein's name commanded.
> >
> >Lucky he wrote that letter!
> >
> Yes.
> >> >
> >> >If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
> >> >nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?
> >>
> >> Sure, why not. That the amount of energy stored in nuclei vastly
> >> exceeds chemical energies, this was already known from the work with
> >> radium at the turn of the century. And once neutron induced fission
> >> was observed, measuring the energies of the fission products was quite
> >> straightforward.
> >
> >True. I think though that E=mc^2 would have been have been important in
> >understanding the process of fission in the theoretical sense, since the
> >nuclear forces weren't completely understood at the time.
>
> That's quite an understatement:-)
Yeah, wasn't the neutron, like, discovered in 1932 by Chadwick? ;)
I have to say that the atomic bomb development always amazes me.
Considering that pretty much all of our experiences with energy transfer
arose from chemical reactions, it didn't take long to understand the atom
enough to build a bomb.
>
> > For example, E=mc^2 will tell you that not to expect energy from
> >fissioning helium. :)
>
> Yes, certainly. There is no doubt that having E = mc^2 helps.
>
> >However, I agree with you that it isn't necessary to know E=mc^2 to make
> >an atomic bomb. There are all sorts of other parameters that need to be
> >measured, like the neutron capture probability, and there wasn't any real
> >theory around back then to predict those values. The energy released
> >could easily be measured in the process.
> >
> Exactly
Well, it's good that we seem to agree after all.
Regards,
CJM
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.OSF.4.30.020916...@dingo.cc.uq.edu.au>, Courtney Mewton <uqcm...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> The "popular"
>> >> description of "mass is converted to energy thus lots of energy is
>> >> released" is false.
>> >
>> >Not true. The terms mass and energy may be freely interchanged, as
>> >specified by E=mc^2. It can be said of both atom bombs and gunpowder that
>> >mass is converted to energy.
>>
>> You miss the point. Nothing is "converted". The mass following the
>> reaction is *exactly* the same as it was before. It has to be since
>> (we've been over it before) we've m^2 = E^2 - p^2 and both energy and
>> momentum are conserved (I'll remind you again the electron-positron
>> annihilation case, the mass of the resulting two-photon system is the
>> same as of the electron-positron system).
>
>OK, now that you put it that way, I agree with you. To me, "converted"
>means "binding energy converted to electromagnetic energy and kinetic
>energy". What I meant by mass-energy conversion is that I could modify
>the sentence "binding energy is converted to electromagnetic energy" by
>replacing "binding energy" with "mass", thereby exploiting mass-energy
>equivalence, and say "mass is converted to electromagnetic energy."
>You're right in that both mass and energy are conserved in such an
>explosion, so there is no "conversion" in the sense that the layman may
>percieve it, such as an overal decrease in the mass of all products of the
>system.
>
Yes, that's the point I was trying to stress.
>>
>> So, what is being converted? Well, the components of the system are
>> rearranged and binding energy is converted to kinetic energy. Now,
>> kinetic energy differs from other forms in the sense that it is easily
>> transferable (kinda like the difference between static and liquid
>> assets). So, it is transferred, to the surrounding matter, and that's
>> the explosion. And *after* it is transferred, the mass of the stuff
>> remaining behind is indeed smaller. But this decrease in mass is the
>> outcome, not the cause of the energy transfer.
>
>I agree here -- but mass is equivalent to energy, so rather than saying
>outcome, I would say that those two statements are equivalent.
Sure, you transfer energy, you transfer mass as well. Only, note that
while mass is equivalent to energy, not all energy is the same. As I
mentioned above, kinetic energy is "liquid asset", binding energy
isn't. Transferring to a system a pound worth of atoms doesn't have
same effect as transferring a pound worth of heat (to borrow Steve's
favorite expression).
> I agree with you that the mass deficit of the fission products is not
>the cause of the energy transfer.
And that's where the confusion occurs, in texts for laymen (and, at
times, in poorer textbooks), where the picture conveyed is:
1) The explosion occurs as a result of conversion of mass into
energy.
2) This is unique to nuclear processes, qualitatively different from
chemical processes.
Both of these aren't true.
>
>I remember back when I was studying electromagnetic theory, our lecturer
>emphasised that the description of an EM wave as "a changing electric
>field generating a changing magnetic field" was a misinterpretation --
>that electric and magnetic fields don't cause each other, and that
>Maxwell's equations give mathematical correlations instead.
>
Which is a better picture, indeed.
>>
>> ...
>> >
>> >> The reduced mass of the residual components is
>> >> the consequence, not cause of the process.
>> >
>> >True. The energy-mass relation is useful for relating energy and mass in
>> >a system -- but it isn't the cause of the fission. The neutrons are.
>> >
>> >I was quite disappointed when one of my physics books had the neutron
>> >absorption curve for silver. Silver?! That's a useless element! How
>> >about the absorption curve for U-235. How can anyone design an atomic
>> >bomb without the the right absorption curve! Students always complain
>> >that what they learn has no application. Get them to design a bomb, I
>> >say. :)
>>
>> :-)))
>> >
>> >Note that the above is a joke, and I am glad the book had the curve for
>> >silver instead of uranium. I found it amusing that they didn't use an
>> >"exciting" element. :)
>> >
>> They could at least use cadmium.
>
>Ah, there's a good element.
Yeah, once you provide its absorption curve, you can give students fun
problems designing neutron shielding, for a reactor.
>
...
>> >
>> >True. I think though that E=mc^2 would have been have been important in
>> >understanding the process of fission in the theoretical sense, since the
>> >nuclear forces weren't completely understood at the time.
>>
>> That's quite an understatement:-)
>Yeah, wasn't the neutron, like, discovered in 1932 by Chadwick? ;)
Somewhere around that time. And the understanding of the forces
wasn't much better than phenomenological, for long after the bomb was
built.
>
>I have to say that the atomic bomb development always amazes me.
>Considering that pretty much all of our experiences with energy transfer
>arose from chemical reactions, it didn't take long to understand the atom
>enough to build a bomb.
>
It is amazing, perhaps beyond amazing. They started with very skimpy
knowledge and got there within an incredibly short time. Going from
basic research, through R&D, prototyping, to building a whole
industry, all within just few years. Mindboggling.
...
>>
>> >However, I agree with you that it isn't necessary to know E=mc^2 to make
>> >an atomic bomb. There are all sorts of other parameters that need to be
>> >measured, like the neutron capture probability, and there wasn't any real
>> >theory around back then to predict those values. The energy released
>> >could easily be measured in the process.
>> >
>> Exactly
>
>Well, it's good that we seem to agree after all.
>
A rare occurence, here:-)
Pmb
> Which theory of Einstein PROVED the possibility of the atomic bomb?
Who said that Einstein prove that an A-Bomb was possible??? Certainly
not I. What I said was that it was Einstein's theory (the special
theory of relativity, in particluar E=mc^2) which made it possible -
in theory. However that doesn't mean that in practice it was possible.
That was a substantial engineering problem!
Are you telling me that you didn't know that an A-Bomb works on
Einstein's E=mc^2 principle from special relativity??
Pmb
Pmb
> You miss the point. Nothing is "converted".
Sure there is. The energy of the total (i.e. 'sum of') rest mass is
changed to other forms of energy such as the kinetic energy of
daughter nuclei in the case of fission.
> The mass following the
> reaction is *exactly* the same as it was before.
Depends on what one calls "mass". Typical definitions, such as those
found in texts which describe nuclear physics, will define this mass
as above, the sum of rest masses.
> It has to be since
> (we've been over it before) we've m^2 = E^2 - p^2 and both energy and
> momentum are conserved
You're thinking of the invariant mass. However this is not what is
meant when it's said that mass is converted into energy.
Pmb
Spaceman
>Are you telling me that you didn't know that an A-Bomb works on
>Einstein's E=mc^2 principle from special relativity??
>
WRONG!
It works on "Earth" and it works "with atoms" and peoples use of them.
the theory "nor equation" does not "make it work"
Why don't you get this?
The objects "make it work"
they don't work "on the math"
they work,
ON the real.
get of the math "virtual real" and step into the "real real"
:)
Newton!
:)
Pmb
> > I agree with everything Mati said, with the exception of the '"mass is
> > converted to energy thus lots of energy is released" is false' statement.
>
> And you are arguing with Mati on this subject?
> LOL!
What's so funny? The very meaning of Mass-Energy Equivalence has been
debated in the physics literature (texts, journals etc) ever since
Einstein first proposed it.
In fact in Max Jammer's book "Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics
and Philosophy" there is an entire chapter devoted to this subject and
the aforementioned debate.
I blieve what Mati meant by mass is the same before and after
annihilation is that mass is measured in the zero momentum frame. The
mass is defined, in that frame, as the energy/c^2. So since the energy
is conserved then so must the mass. However this is a rather special
notion of mass. Highly used by particle physicsts (or in Mati's case
Senior Research Associate/Beamline Scientist).
This term is literally the 'invariant mass'. Particle physicists
prefer this term since it's a scalar quantity (i.e. invariant i.e.
tensor of rank zero). Note, however, for a multiparticle system when
the particles are interacting this is NOT an invariant quantity.
Prior to a nuclear explosion the mass is simply sitting in a box
minding its own buisness with the energy tied up in the rest energy of
the nuclei. When the chain reaction gets underway and the particles
undergo fission then they have a different form of energy, kinetic
energy. The initial total rest mass (sum of rest masses) is, in the
case of fission, greater than the the sum of rest masses after
fission. The difference going into kinetic energy
So the energy is
E = Rest mass energy + kinetic energy
The conversion of energy goes like
Rest mass energy <======> kinetic energy
This is the mass-energy conversion.
However as I said this is a subject that has undergone a lot of debate
and interpretation. Jammer's book is very complete on this point.
Pmb