Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb

[The Starmaker]

It is simply impossible to build an atomic bomb
without having tons of uranium first to work with.

That is why Einstein wrote this letter..
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first


his friends told him, if you want this bomb to happen you're going to
need tons of radium.


Here are the key words of the letter:

"Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been com-

municated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uran-

ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-

mediate future."


"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."


**"giving particular attention to the problem of securing a supply of uran-

ium ore for the United States;"**





Here is an...illustration....artist rendering.

Only for those who can 'connect the dots' and 'see patterns'.


On the left is einstein's patent, and the right a nuclear reactor.

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG


The Starmaker
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[wpih...@gmail.com]

>
> The Starmaker
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html


Who is the publisher of the book?

-William Hughes

[John F. Eldredge]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 11:54:23 -0800, The Starmaker wrote:

> It is simply impossible to build an atomic bomb without having tons of
> uranium first to work with.
>
> That is why Einstein wrote this letter..
> http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first
>
>
> his friends told him, if you want this bomb to happen you're going to
> need tons of radium.

Note that uranium and radium are not the same element.

[Mike Dworetsky]

The Starmaker wrote:
> It is simply impossible to build an atomic bomb
> without having tons of uranium first to work with.
>
> That is why Einstein wrote this letter..
> http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first
>
>
> his friends told him, if you want this bomb to happen you're going to
> need tons of radium.

Very unlikely! The mineral pitchblende is an ore of uranium which contains
very small amounts of radium, but you would have enough uranium to extract
the U-235 isotope for a bomb if you had enough pitchblende to get a few
(micro-?)grams of radium.

The choice for readers is, either Einstein's friends were not very bright,
or you are not very bright. Which is it?

>
>
> Here are the key words of the letter:
>
> "Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been com-
>
> municated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element
> uran-
>
> ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-
>
> mediate future."
>
>
> "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."
>
>
> **"giving particular attention to the problem of securing a supply of
> uran-
>
> ium ore for the United States;"**
>
>
>
>
>
> Here is an...illustration....artist rendering.
>
> Only for those who can 'connect the dots' and 'see patterns'.
>
>
> On the left is einstein's patent, and the right a nuclear reactor.
>
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG
>
>
> The Starmaker
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[The Starmaker]

In 1939 when Einstein wrote the letter, he was worried there wasn't
enough uranium around for ...his experminet, on building the atomic
bomb.
Didn't you read the letter? Didn't you understand his...concern??


URANIUM
6.9. Obviously there would be
no point in undertaking this
whole project if it were not possible
to find enough uranium for producing the bombs.
Early indications were favorable,
and a careful survey made in November 1942 showed that
immediate delivery could be made of adequate tonnages of
uranium ores.
https://www.orau.org/ptp/pdf/smythreport.pdf



didn't you see the author of the book?
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html


http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG


any questions?

[benj]

On 01/24/2015 05:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> It is simply impossible to build an atomic bomb
>>> without having tons of uranium first to work with.
>>>
>>> That is why Einstein wrote this letter..
>>> http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first
>>>
>>>
>>> his friends told him, if you want this bomb to happen you're going to
>>> need tons of radium.
>>
>> Very unlikely! The mineral pitchblende is an ore of uranium which contains
>> very small amounts of radium, but you would have enough uranium to extract
>> the U-235 isotope for a bomb if you had enough pitchblende to get a few
>> (micro-?)grams of radium.
>>
>> The choice for readers is, either Einstein's friends were not very bright,
>> or you are not very bright. Which is it?

That would be "Starmaker" is not very bright. How "not bright"? Allow me
to reprint the definitive post:

With apologies to Uncle Al:

"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Starmaker is. I mean
rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
different sensorium of stupid. Starmaker is trans-stupid stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
Starmaker emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
be this stupid. Starmaker is an oozingly putrescent primordial
fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Starmaker
is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
a grand unified theory of stupid.

"Starmaker is the epiphany of stupid. Starmaker is stooopid."


Mark L. Fergerson

--

___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

[Cryptoengineer]

benj <no...@gmail.com> wrote in news:voWww.1341557$_k.6...@fx16.iad:

You win an Internet Flame award with double bars.

pt

[The Starmaker]

They should have called The Manhattan Project the Refridgerator Project!
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US2719924-10.png


ice cubes anybody?



"What are you guys making at The Manhattan Project"?
"REFRIDERATORS!!!"

[hanson]

"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote
to a dubious character, a poster who tries to rewrite history,
to benefit himself and his own ilk.
>
hanson wrote:
Suspect "The Starmaker", which is a handle/nym that
sounds on 1st glance like a common, stereotypical
Yiddisher self-aggrandizement from a name like
"Stern" (Star) or "Sternman" (Starman), or... drum roll...
**** "Sternmacher", The Starmaker *** which anagrams
back to a variety of unsavory sources like "Meet Rat-Shark"
or "Mr. Steak Hater" who proudly says "Me Rather Skat"
which he obviously did, as is seen when one does....

>
"Meet Rat-Shark" aka "Mr Steak Hater" who wrote:
>> It is simply impossible to build an atomic bomb
>> without having tons of uranium first to work with.

>> That is why Einstein wrote this letter in 1939, as

>> he was worried there wasn't enough uranium around
>> for ...his experminet, on building the atomicbomb

>> http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first
>> His friends told him, if you want this bomb to happen

>> you're going to need tons of radium.
>

"Mike Dworetsky"wrote:

> Very unlikely! The mineral pitchblende is an ore of uranium

> which contains very small amounts of Radium, but you would

> have enough uranium to extract the U-235 isotope for a bomb

> if you had enough pitchblende to get a few (micro-?)gr of Ra.

>
> The choice for readers is, either Einstein's friends were not
> very bright, or you are not very bright. Which is it?
>

hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... You are right Mike, and "Mr. Steak Hater"
doesn't even read & much less understand what he wrote in
his vanity-published "book", wherein he upped the ante
and raised the steak, when...
>
"Mr. Steak Hater" wrote:
Mike, didn't you see the author of the book?
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
>
hanson wrote:
Looking at "Mr. Steak Hater"'s link and then consult:
http://lookupbyisbn.com/
for "author of ISBN 97-852-82-68" or
for "author of ISBN 97-852-82-88"
the link returns,..... Guess what? ... ROTFLMAO
Then....
>
"Mr Steak Hater" wrote:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG

On the left is einstein's patent, and the right a nuclear reactor.
>

hanson wrote:
Hey Sternman, you silly kike, Einstein's patent is for a
Refrigerator that he dreamt up together with Szilard.
It didn't sell, and neither did Albert's other patent for a
Blouse: <http://www.google.com/patents/USD101756>
>
Furthermore & to the point, the 2 drawings you harp about
in your link are classical heat exchangers which are used
for/by any thermal source and they are NOT reactors,
nuclear of other wise, and much less part of an A-Bomb.
>
And going on with exposing your con job, Sternman, one sees
that you carefully omitted to mention that Einstein declared
loudly that he was a committed Pacifist, right after he signed
that letter in which he urged that a weapon of mass destruction
must be built and fast... which...
>
... ironically gives unintended but gauche credence to the
title of your white-wash book. LOL!
>
Consequently, "Mr. Steak Hater", it becomes even more
obvious that your real intent was/is to rewrite history by you
manufacturing lies for the sole purpose of presenting Jews
as chief inventors and innovators without whom the world
would have been a much less developed place, culturally &
technologically ... when in fact and aux contraire...
>
... YOU yourself, very well know that Jews are a quarrel-
some & war-mongering lot, who have stirred up & instigated
wars, throughout their history, came into conflict with all their
neighbors, and in the lands they migrated to, whereat they
expect that the indigenous locals kiss their ass, an MO that
is brilliantly detailed & explained by the eminent Jewish
scholar Harold Wallace Rosenthal in his epic
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
>
... and along this very same vein you try to whitewash & justify
the sorry fact of Jewish, malfeasant self aggrandizement with
you re-writing history to benefit yourself and your own ilk,
other such examples can be seen in the link
>.
______ < http://WHYCRAP.org > _______
>
which is short for "World Historic Yiddisher Controlled
Revisionary Action Processing Organisation" wherein it
is exampled that:
>
... " Yiddisher Klezmer music is the sole originating source
that inspirited and gave rise to the success of the US
Negroes' Jazz music"... .
>
... "Jews have discovered and populated North America
long before the Vikings and Columbus did (who, they claim,
was Jewish also), when they crossed the Atlantic in Ships
they stole from the Phoenicians/Canaanites, ~2000 BC"...
>
... "the only carnal resurrection that ever happened was done
by a Jew, who appeared (winged, by name of Moronic), who
talked at length to a Joseph Smith Jr. on 21 Sept. in 1823, who
then became the founder of the religious cult of the Morons.
>
... "etc., etc., and of course etc., .....
>
So, Mr. "Mr Steak Hater", you are in august company
with your book endeavor. You will get away with your
fabrications and become a part of WHYCRAP.... LOL
>
The reason why so, is that the US has hordes of full
idiotic Evangelical Zio-Sphincter Lickers, EZSL, who
do all the needed war-mongering in their delusion to
hasten the 2nd coming of their messiah, their Jesus.
>
The rub in their (un)godly yearning though is, that the
Islamist Rag-heads, whom the EZSL have helped to
stir up for the past 40 years, have a parallel agenda,
in that the Moslems do all they can to hasten the return
of THEIR messiah, the Mahdi...
>
The race is on! .... News @ 11... ...n'est pas.
>
All in all, "Mr. Sternman" with your crock in print now,
you have made your contribution, which keeps the
need going on, that you and your grandmother will get
frisked and felt up before you board a plane, and that
you shake in you boots and fear that the terrorists will
come, grab you and be the Starmakers when they beat
you on your fucked-up head until you see Stars... Pity!
>
Thanks for the laughs, though.... ahahahahahanson



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[The Starmaker]

The heat exchanger and nuclear reactor are both contained in one place:

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/fig1.gif
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG


Is this a refridegerator too?
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US2719924-10.png

for making Italian Ices???

[hanson]

Kike Sternmacher <star...@ix.netcom.com> who is
a new member of WHYCRAP.org is so fucking stupid
that even those kacksacking WHYCRAPers may throw him
out after reading Sternmacher's idiotic tripe in his message
news:54C75D...@ix.netcom.com.
>
hanson wrote:
<snipped your ididot laments to save you embarassment>
Now, "Mr. Sternman" go worry and fear that due to your
fanatical idiocy, terrorists will come, grab you and be
"The Starmakers" who will beat you on your fucked-up
head until YOU see Stars... Pity! ...
... but shut up & stop digging your whole even deeper.

>
Thanks for the laughs, though.... ahahahahahanson
>

====== reposted for your benefit =========

[The Starmaker]

I tried to make it simple for yous guys but I see
some of yous in the 'scientific community' have no concept of 'seeing patterns' and 'connecting the dots'.
(hows did they ever lets yous in sciences classes?)

It is simply impossible to build an atomic bomb
without having tons of uranium first to work with.

That is why Einstein wrote this letter..
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first


his friends told him, if you want this bomb to happen you're going to
need tons of radium.

Here are the key words of the letter:

"Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been com-

municated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uran-

ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-

mediate future."


"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."


**"giving particular attention to the problem of securing a supply of uran-

ium ore for the United States;"**





Here is an...illustration....artist rendering.

Only for those who can 'connect the dots' and 'see patterns'.

On the left is einstein's patent, and the right a nuclear reactor.

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG


The Starmaker
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

Now....
the first step to connecting the dots and seeing patterns, lets start with *the rectangle* in this illustration:


http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG


Do you see a rectangle? (both drawings start with a ...simple rectangle)
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG


Do you know what a rectangle is?
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG




+----------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
+----------------------------+



Inside Einstein rectange (n0.28) contains rods, etc...
this is what it looks like inside Einstein's rectangle:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/fig1.gif


Do I need to explain the WHOLE DRAWING!!!!



The Starmaker
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

[medital]

On 1/24/2015 6:02 PM, benj wro>

> With apologies to Uncle Al:
>
> "I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Starmaker is. I mean
> rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
> of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
> acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
> so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
> different sensorium of stupid. Starmaker is trans-stupid stupid.
> Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
> own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
> and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
> Starmaker emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
> emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
> be this stupid. Starmaker is an oozingly putrescent primordial
> fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
> stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
> physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
> n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Starmaker
> is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
> a grand unified theory of stupid.
>
> "Starmaker is the epiphany of stupid. Starmaker is stooopid."
>

thanks for reposting that, UA had a unique way with words,

"...maximally extrapolated hypergeometric n-dimensional backgroundless
stupid..."

[The Starmaker]

I find it strange...
that the 'hanson's' in this world
don't know the difference between
the word, Refrigeration and re搭rig搪r戢暗or?




re搭rig搪r戢暗or
an appliance
https://www.google.com/#q=define+refrigerator

Refrigeration is a process in which work is done to move heat from one location to another.
https://www.google.com/#q=define+refrigeration


I mean, really..it is there on top, on A. Einstein's patent, in big words in Capitol letters: REFRIGERATION

http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png
http://www.google.com/patents/US1781541



Do they see only what they want to see, or what others want them to see?


The Starmaker


Or do you people in the 'scientific community' prefer the *fraud* on this page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator#mediaviewer/File:Einstein_Refrigerator.png

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-01-27 21:13:17 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>> hanson wrote:
>> Hey Sternman, you silly kike, Einstein's patent is for a
>> Refrigerator that he dreamt up together with Szilard.
>> It didn't sell, and neither did Albert's other patent for a
>> Blouse: <http://www.google.com/patents/USD101756>
>
>
>
> I find it strange...
> that the 'hanson's' in this world
> don't know the difference between
> the word, Refrigeration and re搭rig搪r戢暗or?
>
>
>
>
> re搭rig搪r戢暗or
> an appliance
> https://www.google.com/#q=define+refrigerator
>
> Refrigeration is a process in which work is done to move heat from one
> location to another.
> https://www.google.com/#q=define+refrigeration
>
>
> I mean, really..it is there on top, on A. Einstein's patent, in big
> words in Capitol letters: REFRIGERATION
>
> http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png
> http://www.google.com/patents/US1781541

Indeed that's what it says.

What your image says about you is: "LIAR".

You took a portion of an image of Einstein's invention and added text
that wasn't in the patent, such as "reactor".

>
>
>
> Do they see only what they want to see, or what others want them to see?

You certainly only wanted people to see a lie you'd constructed.

[The Starmaker]

I took a portion of a image of Einstein's invention and "added text" that wasn't in the patent to
ILLUSTRATE what Einstein patent really is in comparison to the illustration of the "reactor"!

I specfically wrote: "Here is an...illustration....artist rendering."

"Here is an...illustration....artist rendering.

Only for those who can 'connect the dots' and 'see patterns'.

On the left is einstein's patent, and the right a nuclear reactor.

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG"



I purposely wrote twice "illustraction" and "artist rendering" both meaning the same thing because I knew
stupid people like you cannot read.

I'm the artist! It is my rendering!
My illustration.

Now you force me to have to explain stupid people like you what the word "illustration" means....


il損us暗ra暗ion

an example serving to clarify or prove something.

https://www.google.com/#q=define+illustration



This is my illustration. It is on my web page.


I hope you're not in the 'scientific community', cause God help us!



The Starmaker



https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics/dftIbKDzvpE/ujlYZnV82UgJ

[Alan Baker]

How does any of that change that you removed part of a drawing to make
it resemble something else and added text that was not consistent with
the original patent?

How does that change that you lied?

[The Starmaker]

Is English your third language?



an example : a visual aid
serving
to clarify : To make clear or easier to understand;
or
prove something.

il損us暗ra暗ion
an example serving to clarify or prove something.

Now, I'll begin again...

Do you know what a rectangle is?


Do you see a rectangle? (both drawings start with a ...simple rectangle)
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG


Do you know what a rectangle is?
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG




+----------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
+----------------------------+

The first pattern is the rectangle.

All reactors designs start with the rectangle.



The rectangle in Einstein's patent is a reactor..
the heat exchange is contained in the rectangle part of the drawing (in einstein's days)
http://specialneedsparenting.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/reactor-core.jpg


seems you people have a differculty recongizing patterns...you cannot even get pass the ...rectangle, to see the rest of the process.


How about the 'turbine generator'? How about the steam out and the cool water back in to the reactor?

You gonna tell me it's just a 'coincidence' that einstien's patent resembles a common nuclear reactor design?


http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg


The Starmaker
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html




(i like to make a note that in those days...'code words' were used instead of saying "atomic bomb"!!!)


What do you think "dry ice" means?
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US2719924-10.png




Get wit the program.
Be real.

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-01-27 23:20:52 +0000, The Starmaker said:

> Now, I'll begin again...
>
> Do you know what a rectangle is?
>
>
> Do you see a rectangle? (both drawings start with a ...simple rectangle)
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG
>
>
> Do you know what a rectangle is?
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG
>
>
>
>
> +----------------------------+
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> +----------------------------+
>
>
> The first pattern is the rectangle.
>
> All reactors designs start with the rectangle.
>
>
>
> The rectangle in Einstein's patent is a reactor..

No. It is not. There is no part in Einstein's actual patent that is a reactor.

That's simply you lying... ...again.

> the heat exchange is contained in the rectangle part of the drawing (in
> einstein's days)
> http://specialneedsparenting.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/reactor-core.jpg
>
>
> seems you people have a differculty recongizing patterns...you cannot
> even get pass the ...rectangle, to see the rest of the process.
>
>
> How about the 'turbine generator'? How about the steam out and the cool
> water back in to the reactor?
>
> You gonna tell me it's just a 'coincidence' that einstien's patent
> resembles a common nuclear reactor design?

I'm going to tell you it is no conincidence that a partial reproduction
of Einstein's patent drawing resembles a drawing that you made up.

You're a liar and you're lying.

No surprise there.

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-01-27 23:20:52 +0000, The Starmaker said:

> How about the 'turbine generator'? How about the steam out and the cool
> water back in to the reactor?

Oh, that "turbine generator" isn't a turbine generator on Einstein's
patent either.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:40:11 -0800, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

>"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote
>to a dubious character, a poster who tries to rewrite history,
>to benefit himself and his own ilk.
>>
>hanson wrote:
>Suspect "The Starmaker", which is a handle/nym that
>sounds on 1st glance like a common, stereotypical
>Yiddisher self-aggrandizement from a name like
>"Stern" (Star) or "Sternman" (Starman), or... drum roll...
>**** "Sternmacher", The Starmaker *** which anagrams
>back to a variety of unsavory sources like "Meet Rat-Shark"
> or "Mr. Steak Hater" who proudly says "Me Rather Skat"
>which he obviously did, as is seen when one does....
>>
>"Meet Rat-Shark" aka "Mr Steak Hater" who wrote:
>>> It is simply impossible to build an atomic bomb
>>> without having tons of uranium first to work with.
>>> That is why Einstein wrote this letter in 1939, as
>>> he was worried there wasn't enough uranium around
>>> for ...his experminet, on building the atomicbomb
>>> http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first
>>> His friends told him, if you want this bomb to happen
>>> you're going to need tons of radium.

einstein did not work on the atomic bomb, did no experiments involved
with the atomic bomb, never visited the site where it was being built,
fact is he did not have clearance for any of that.

[hanson]

news:54C7E5...@ix.netcom.com... from kike

Sternmacher <star...@ix.netcom.com> who is a

simpleton, was edited for clarity & brevity, for he said:
> I tried to make it simple for yous guys but I see yous

> in the 'scientific community' have no concept of

> 'seeing patterns' & 'connecting the dots'.

> (hows did they ever lets yous in sciences classes?)

> It is simply impossible to communicate by me in
> manuscript, to expect that giving particular attention
> to the problem of an...illustration....artist rendering.
> a ...simple rectangle.
>
hanson wrote:
Sternmacher, with your "artist rendering" you made
a Freudian slip by which you admitted that you tried
to rewrite history for your own nefarious purposes,
but all you did, is to work very, very hard at turning .
. ***Hitler's Last Curse***
into becoming a self-filling prophesy, which Hitler
did broadcast just before his demise in 45, in which
>
Hitler said:
*** "in a 100 years from now the world will be grateful
*** for what I have started". ---... 70 down, 30 to go...
>
And your efforts, kike Sternmacher, is one such event
that causes the Goyim to "connect the dots" and makes
the Jews to have to endure & suffer from his collective,
periodic and epic ass kicking and barbequing, which
has happened to the Jews some 35-36 times so far:
<http://tinyurl.com/36-Jewish-holocausts-36-priors> or
. --------- < http://tinyurl.com/kvt867> ----------
>
Kike Sternmacher, you are a cruel idiot, one who is
characterized by the eminent Jewish scholar Harold
Wallace Rosenthal who cites in his epic
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
that
Israel's ex=PM Ariel Sharon said:
||AS|| It's the US Yids that are all twisted. In order to
||AS|| straighten them out you have to first bend them
||AS|| sharply the other way. I do the dirty work for Israel,
||AS|| to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the
||AS|| [the US Ashkenazis], so that they will be forced
||AS|| to run [home] to us crying. Even if it means blowing
||AS|| up one two synagogues here and there,
>
So, kike Sternmacher, does Ariel Sharon, who points
his finger at you "make you see stars" or do you need
the Islamist terrorists to do that, as is detailed below?:
>
==== ==== ===== ========

[The Starmaker]

You're just repeating the same 'mantra' you're told to repeat, to give the impression and to
disassociate Einstein from the bomb...it's not going to work. I'm here to make sure it doesn't work.

You obviously didn't read the book:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

otherwise you would know all your statements are untrue.

The facts are contained here, also your source for ("einstein did not work on the atomic bomb") the mantra.
http://vault.fbi.gov/Albert%20Einstein/Albert%20Einstein%20Part%201%20of%2014/view


Einstein never received "clearance", not because he was denied clearance, but because...
HE NEVER REQUESTED CLEARANCE!!!!!

Be real...you don't expect Albert Einstein to put on his hat and show up for work everyday, do you?

People come to his house
and ...he consults them.

He tells them How To Build An Atomic Bomb:


He winks his eye and says..."You see this refridgerator?"
http://www.authentichistory.com/1939-1945/1-war/4-Pacific/4-abombdecision/3-against/Einstein_and_Szilard.jpg

And another guy ask, "Where do you put the Tomatoes?"
http://www.authentichistory.com/1939-1945/1-war/4-Pacific/4-abombdecision/3-against/Einstein_and_Szilard.jpg



Are you guys for real?


The Starmaker


---
Soon my ebook will go into..distribution
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
(including all revelant facts)

I need to come up with a ...distribution method.

Maybe, upload it to a torrent site under the keyword/heading "TTC"

[Alan Baker]

Quote and page references, please.

[hanson]

kike "Sternmacher" <star...@ix.netcom.com> is
as idiotic and fanatical as is his senile brother in ilk,
the Hate Monger & Jewish Jail bird G=EMC^2 TreBert
<herbert...@gmail.com> but even more prolix.
as is seen when he wrote to:
<bil...@m.nu> who wisely posted that Stenrmacher
was a lying sack o'shit in Sternmacher's attempt to
rewrite history, for saying:
>
"Bil, your try to disassociate Einstein from the bomb is

not going to work. I'm here to make sure it doesn't work.
>

Einstein never received "clearance", because

HE NEVER REQUESTED CLEARANCE!!!!!
Be real...you don't expect Albert Einstein to put on his
hat and show up for work everyday, do you? People

come to his house and ...he consults them.... He tells
them How To Build his refridgerator.

>
Soon my ebook will go into..distribution

I need to come up with a ...distribution method. Maybe,

I upload it to a torrent site under the keyword/heading
"TTC" which is short for *** "Terrible, Total CRAP" ****
>
hanson wrote:
Sternmacher, your "TTC" is so bad that it was even rejected
by < http://WHYCRAP.org> which is the main "World Historic
Yiddisher Controlled Revisionary Action Processing Org",
that is the kikes' chief instrument to rewrite history for their
own benefit & self-aggrandizement, by concocting lies & making
the world believe that "Jewish shit don't stink". .... Capsce!
>
And with you now openly admitting that you are a "Lone Wolf"
with your own way to rewrite history for your own nefarious
purposes, all you did, is to work very, very hard at turning .

. ***Hitler's Last Curse***
into becoming a self-filling prophesy, which Hitler
did broadcast just before his demise in 45, in which
>
Hitler said:
*** "in a 100 years from now the world will be grateful
*** for what I have started". ---... 70 down, 30 to go...
>

And your TTC, kike Sternmacher, is one such case

that causes the Goyim to "connect the dots" and makes
the Jews to have to endure & suffer from his collective,
periodic and epic ass kicking and barbequing, which
has happened to the Jews some 35-36 times so far:
<http://tinyurl.com/36-Jewish-holocausts-36-priors> or
. --------- < http://tinyurl.com/kvt867> ----------
>

Kike Sternmacher, you are a very cruel idiot, one who
is characterized by the eminent Jewish scholar Harold

Wallace Rosenthal in his epic
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>

in which he cites Israel's ex=PM Ariel Sharon who said:
>
||AS|| It's the US Yids that are all twisted. In order to
||AS|| straighten them out you have to first bend them
||AS|| sharply the other way. I do the dirty work for Israel,
||AS|| to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the
||AS|| [the US Ashkenazis], so that they will be forced
||AS|| to run [home] to us crying. Even if it means blowing
||AS|| up one two synagogues here and there,
>
So, kike Sternmacher, does Ariel Sharon, who points
his finger at you "make you see stars" or do you need

the Islamist terrorists to come looking for you and be
the Starmakers that beat you on your head until you
do see stars, do you?

[The Starmaker]

Don't you know how to enter keywords like "clearance" in the search bar?
http://vault.fbi.gov/Albert%20Einstein/Albert%20Einstein%20Part%201%20of%2014/view


I would like to add..

that Albert Einstein is a 'bomb expert'.

Meaning, that he LOVES building bombs, especially new type of bombs.

In his first letter to Roosevelt he writes:


"extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed."
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first


I don't know if you read
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

the book contains bombs, new type of bombs hand designed by Albert Einstein.

[Alan Baker]

Still no quote...

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 6:07:12 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2015-01-29 09:23:30 +0000, The Starmaker said:

> >>> You obviously didn't read the book:
> >>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

Why would he look at a non-existent tertiary reference?

-William Hughes

[bil...@m.nu]

obviously you did not either..... However I would recommend a book for
you
it is called Einstien by walter isaacson. it is the best biography
about him. There are even two versions by the same author one has
pretty pictures. You may want to read that one so that you can
understand it better

>
>otherwise you would know all your statements are untrue.
>
>The facts are contained here, also your source for ("einstein did not work on the atomic bomb") the mantra.
>http://vault.fbi.gov/Albert%20Einstein/Albert%20Einstein%20Part%201%20of%2014/view
>
>
>Einstein never received "clearance", not because he was denied clearance, but because...
>HE NEVER REQUESTED CLEARANCE!!!!!
>
>Be real...you don't expect Albert Einstein to put on his hat and show up for work everyday, do you?

actually he did at Princeton University

>
>People come to his house
>and ...he consults them.
>
>He tells them How To Build An Atomic Bomb:

and I am sure alot of men go to you front door and use your gloryhole
you have there. You tell everyone it is just a round mail slot but we
know the truth

[The Starmaker]

He lived *in* Princeton!

He walk to it in his flopping sandles...

[The Starmaker]

Go here:

http://vault.fbi.gov/Albert%20Einstein/Albert%20Einstein%20Part%201%20of%2014/view

click the Pages button

click page 88

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, still not a quote...

[The Starmaker]

Are you blind? Are you using a braile keyboard??

Page 88 only has one newspaper article

Here is the newspaper quote:

Rankin went on. "He had no more to do with the development of the atom
bomb than if their hadn&#39;t been such a thing Rankin.
American scientists developed the atomic bomb and old faker Einstein had
nothing to do with it."

[The Starmaker]

http://vault.fbi.gov/@@dvpdffiles/e/d/edd87995ab8686fa251d5731a4e562f9/normal/dump_88.gif

[Alan Baker]

And what point do you think that proves?

[Alan Baker]

Your claims: you provide the actual quote--write it out...

...and then explain what you're claiming it supports.

[The Starmaker]

and the other guy in Princeton...



In 1905 Albert Einstein did clearly state that mass and energy were equivalent and sug-gested that proof of this
equivalence might be found by the study of radioactive substances. He concluded that the amount of energy, E, equivalent to a mass, m, was given by the equation

E = mc2

where c is the velocity of light. If this is stated in actual numbers, its startling character is apparent.
It shows that one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of matter, if converted entirely into energy, would give 25 billion kilowatt hours of energy.


Or to put it in Einstein's words..

"extremely powerful bombs of a new type"

[bil...@m.nu]

OMFG YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"einstein had nothing to do" with the atomic bomb

Thank you for making my point for me

[bil...@m.nu]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:45:32 -0800, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> > click the Pages button
>> >
>> > click page 88
>>
>> Sorry, still not a quote...
>
>Are you blind? Are you using a braile keyboard??
>
>Page 88 only has one newspaper article
>
>Here is the newspaper quote:
>
>Rankin went on. "He had no more to do with the development of the atom
>bomb than if their hadn&#39;t been such a thing Rankin.
>American scientists developed the atomic bomb and old faker Einstein had
>nothing to do with it."

again exactly what I said.. EINSTEIN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT????

[bil...@m.nu]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:20:46 -0800, The Starmaker

Dude are you an idiot? Are you just trying to get attention? I think
both

[The Starmaker]

The keywords is "the study of radioactive substances."


In 1905 Albert Einstein was already thinking of How To Build an Atomic Bomb..

"proof of this equivalence might be found by the study of radioactive substances."

In Einstein's 1939 letter to FDR...
the whole letter is about
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first

"proof of this equivalence might be found by the study of radioactive substances."

"element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-

mediate 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."




In other words, E = mc2 equals....
"extremely power-ful bombs of a new type"

That powerful bomb of a new type is known as...THE ATOMIC BOMB.


It seems to me Albert Eienstien was obsessed all his life with...'proof of his equivalence {E = mc2} might be found by the study of radioactive substances {uranium}
to lead to the construction of an atomic bomb'.


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

When someone tells me something..
and I ask them
"Where did you hear about it?"
and they respond...
"I read it in a newspaper article!"


You have to step back a little.. and feel sorry for the poor ol' chap...


Turn to the movie section of your newspaper, look at all those good
reviews!

[The Starmaker]

E = mc2
This equation is the key to the power of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors.
http://atomicarchive.com/Physics/Physics4.shtml

[hanson]

Kike "The Sternmacher" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
the <<http://tinyurl.com/Starmakers-Wrong-History>>
about which

>
> bil...@m.nu wrote:
>> > Dude are you an idiot? Are you just trying to get attention?

>> > I think both. The keywords is "the study of
<<http://tinyurl.com/Starmakers-Wrong-History>>
>>
kike Sternmacher wrote:
<<http://tinyurl.com/Starmakers-Wrong-History>>
is the key to
<<http://tinyurl.com/Starmakers-Wrong-History>>


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[hanson]

Kike "The Sternmacher" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
the <<http://tinyurl.com/Starmakers-Wrong-History>>
about which
>
> bil...@m.nu wrote:

>> >Are you blind? Are you using a braile keyboard??
>> >Page 88 only has one newspaper article
>> >

Kike Sternmacher wrote:
> You have to step back a little.. and look at all those good
> reviews! <<http://tinyurl.com/Starmakers-Wrong-History>>
>

[hanson]

Kike "Sternmacher" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
the <<http://tinyurl.com/Starmakers-Wrong-History>>
about which
>
> bil...@m.nu wrote:

>> Dude are you an idiot?
>> Are you just trying to get attention? I think
>> both
>

Sternmacher wrote:
> In 1905 Albert Einstein was already thinking of

> How To Build an Atomic Bomb.... according to
<<http://tinyurl.com/Starmakers-Wrong-History>>

>
> This new phenomenon would also lead to

<<http://tinyurl.com/Starmakers-Wrong-History>>>
>
> It seems that Kike Sternmacher is obsessed all
his life with
<<http://tinyurl.com/Starmakers-Wrong-History>>>

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:48:28 -0800, The Starmaker

<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:45:32 -0800, The Starmaker
>> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > click the Pages button
>> >> >
>> >> > click page 88
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, still not a quote...
>> >
>> >Are you blind? Are you using a braile keyboard??
>> >
>> >Page 88 only has one newspaper article
>> >
>> >Here is the newspaper quote:
>> >
>> >Rankin went on. "He had no more to do with the development of the atom
>> >bomb than if their hadn&#39;t been such a thing Rankin.
>> >American scientists developed the atomic bomb and old faker Einstein had
>> >nothing to do with it."
>>
>> again exactly what I said.. EINSTEIN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT????
>
>
>When someone tells me something..
>and I ask them
>"Where did you hear about it?"
>and they respond...
>"I read it in a newspaper article!"
>
>
>You have to step back a little.. and feel sorry for the poor ol' chap...
>
>
>Turn to the movie section of your newspaper, look at all those good
>reviews!
>

You are just batshit crazy

[The Starmaker]

Quadibloc wrote:
>
> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 2:20:20 AM UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> > Quadibloc wrote:
> > > As far as I know, Olaf Stapledon is Aryan.
>
> > William Olaf Stapledon was English. Why his parents gave him the middle
> > name Olaf I do not know.
>
> Oh, well; Englishmen are Aryan too, not just Swedes, even if they're a bit less
> Nordic. This was in response to "hanson"'s drivel trying to identify the
> anti-Semitic Starmaker as a Jew.
>
> Although "self-aggrandizement" is not far wrong; but I suppose Starmaker merely
> considers himself the Voice of God rather than God.
>
> John Savard


Yes, I am the voice of God...

How else can you hear what the universe has to say?

[The Starmaker]

I am not rewrting History, I'm correcting History.


For example...
*most* people believe
that the bomb was
created to beat the Germans.

Not true. Wrong History lesson.

The Atomic Bomb was not created to beat the Germans...

The Atomic Bomb was created for one purpose only...

one purpose only..

One,
purpose
only!


It was just...an experiment! A scientific experiment. Just to prove, E-equals-Mc2.



"b) to speed up the experimental work,which is at present being car-
ried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories"
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first

[The Starmaker]

note: Keep in mind that Einstein changed to the letter E in E=Mc2, it used to be the letter L. It read L=Mc2


http://sqapo.com/einstein.jpg



L stands for....URANIUM!

[hanson]

[hanson]

<<http://tinyurl.com/Starmakers-Wrong-History>>

[hanson]

<<http://tinyurl.com/Starmakers-Wrong-History>>

[Alan Baker]

Wow. Someone has combined two images into one...

That's convincing.

<yawn>

>
>
>
> L stands for....URANIUM!

Really? According to what?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2015-01-31 08:12:47 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>> note: Keep in mind that Einstein changed to the letter E in E=Mc2, it
>> used to be the letter L.

It was the letter “L” for energy, but not in “L=Mc2”; the fact aside that
the equation is written in a wrong way here, neither “L = Mc²” nor “E = Mc²”
occur in the original papers. Instead, the relevant paper reads [1]:

| Gibt ein Körper die Energie L in Form von Strahlung ab, so verkleinert
| sich seine Masse um L/V². […]

which translates to

“If a body releases energy L in the form of radiation, its [the body’s;
the ed.] mass is reduced by L/V².”

>> It read L=Mc2

No, it did not.

>> http://sqapo.com/einstein.jpg
>
> Wow. Someone has combined two images into one...
>
> That's convincing.
>
> <yawn>

Still, as a matter of historical fact, the symbol for energy in what later
became part of the Special Theory of Relativity was “L” indeed. [1] And the
symbol for the speed of light was not “c”, but “V”. [2]

__________
[1] Albert Einstein: “Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem
Energieinhalt abhängig?” (“Does the inertia of a body depend on its
energy content?”). In: “Annalen der Physik” (“Annals of Physics”).
18, 1905, pp. 639–641. doi:10.1002/andp.200590007
<http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1905_18_639-641.pdf>
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fandp.200590007>

[2] Albert Einstein: “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper” (“About the
electrodynamics of moving bodies”). In: “Annalen der Physik”. 17,
1905, pp. 891–921. doi:10.1002/andp.200590006.
<http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/1905_17_891-921.pdf>
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fandp.200590006>
<http://wikilivres.ca/wiki/Zur_Elektrodynamik_bewegter_K%C3%B6rper>

>> L stands for....URANIUM!
>
> Really? According to what?

Wishful thinking, at best. At worst, and given the “From” and “Newsgroups”
header field value: YHBT, HTH, HAND. (Removed alt.* and rec.*, F'up2
sci.physics.)

>> ---
>> […]

It is bad enough that this spam is inserted into their Usenet postings,
there is no need to quote it.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Michael Moroney]

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>L stands for....URANIUM!

Uranium is U, not L, fool. But even if the formula did have uranium in
it, it would be on the right hand side since the formula equates energy
(left side) to a function of matter, and uranium is matter.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Utter nonsense. Not that uranium is a chemical element of course, and
therefore can be considered matter; but the very idea that uranium could
occur in that equation, and that Einstein could have been stupid enough to
have written such a nonsense.

It is an equation that relates physical *quantities* – energy, mass and
speed of light (in its original form, using modern symbols: ∆m = ∆E/c²;
_not_ E = mc²) –; not a reaction formula where you would allow for symbols
of chemical elements, like “U” for uranium, to appear.

And will you *please* not feed the troll? At least, set Followup-To when
you crosspost. F'up2 sci.physics set.

[The Starmaker]

I wrote L stands for...URANIUM!


Now, I'm from New York City, brought up in Brooklyn..

The phrase "stands for" might have a different meaning then what your definition of "stand for"..

So, I'll make myself more...clearer.


As the other poster pointed out:

"a body releases energy L in the form of radiation"

Now Question, "What "energy" was Einstein thinking about?"

"What type of 'energy' was Albert Einstein thinking about?


"leads me to expect that the element uran-

ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy"

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first


It's all about URANIUM!!

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first


"proof of this equivalence might be found by the study of radioactive substances."

E = mc2
This equation is the key to the power of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors.
http://atomicarchive.com/Physics/Physics4.shtml

Now, I repeat the Question..."What type of 'energy' was Albert Einstein thinking about?


More concise, "a body releases energy L in the form of radiation"

If L is radiation, what radioactive element was Albert Einstein thinking of?


In other words, L stands for URANIUM!



Of course he had to cross it out (the letter L) and replace it with a generic word like (E)...Energy.



It's called a ...cover-up.


cov·er-up


1.
an attempt to prevent people's discovering the truth

synonyms: whitewash, concealment, false front, facade, camouflage, disguise, mask, veneer,...



Be Real.


The Starmaker
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

[wpih...@gmail.com]

Actually the person who was most responsible for the
atomic bomb was Freddy White (not his real name, no
one knows his real name).

Einstein was just one of many fronts.
Freddy used to complain that Einstein
would make mistakes (like using L instead
of E).

People from Los Alamos would go putatively to get
info help Einstein, but actually would meet with
Freddy in the basement.

Freddy did nothing in his own name. Einstein was
one of his ghosts (most of the theory of relativity
was worked out by Freddy, with a bit of help from
Pointcarre).

The cover up for Freddy White was very good. To this
day, few people know about him, and there is no
documentation.

-(name withheld)

[Michael Moroney]

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>> >L stands for....URANIUM!
>>
>> Uranium is U, not L, fool. But even if the formula did have uranium in
>> it, it would be on the right hand side since the formula equates energy
>> (left side) to a function of matter, and uranium is matter.


>I wrote L stands for...URANIUM!

...

>So, I'll make myself more...clearer.

...

>Now, I repeat the Question..."What type of 'energy' was Albert
>Einstein thinking about?


>More concise, "a body releases energy L in the form of radiation"

>If L is radiation, what radioactive element was Albert Einstein thinking of?


>In other words, L stands for URANIUM!

OK. So the whole "L stands for URANIUM" bit is just something you made up,
and Einstein never thought anything like that.

Why would anyone care that you, and only you, think "L stands for URANIUM"?

[The Starmaker]

I find it strange that You and, everyone else here has not said what "L" DOES stand for.


A lot of what it doesn't stand for, but none of what ie Does stand for.


L stands for....URANIUM!


If it doesn't, then what does the L stand for in L=Mc2???
http://sqapo.com/einstein.jpg

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-02-01 03:18:31 +0000, The Starmaker said:

>> OK. So the whole "L stands for URANIUM" bit is just something you made up,
>> and Einstein never thought anything like that.
>>
>> Why would anyone care that you, and only you, think "L stands for URANIUM"?
>
>
> I find it strange that You and, everyone else here has not said what
> "L" DOES stand for.
>
>
> A lot of what it doesn't stand for, but none of what ie Does stand for.
>
>
> L stands for....URANIUM!
>
>
> If it doesn't, then what does the L stand for in L=Mc2???
> http://sqapo.com/einstein.jpg

What does it stand for in a made up confluence of an image of Einstein
with another image of a formula from an unknown source, you mean?

[The Starmaker]

I like the fact you don't allow an illustration to sway your
judgement...there is hope for you.


So you need a

picture of Albert Einstein seperate from

a picture of his handwriting of his equation L=Mc2.


Let me see what i can do....

[The Starmaker]

Does this help?
http://www.manhattanrarebooks-science.com/einstein_wrappers.htm

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-02-01 21:23:00 +0000, The Starmaker said:

> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-02-01 03:18:31 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>>
>>>> OK. So the whole "L stands for URANIUM" bit is just something you made up,
>>>> and Einstein never thought anything like that.
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone care that you, and only you, think "L stands for URANIUM"?
>>>
>>>
>>> I find it strange that You and, everyone else here has not said what
>>> "L" DOES stand for.
>>>
>>>
>>> A lot of what it doesn't stand for, but none of what ie Does stand for.
>>>
>>>
>>> L stands for....URANIUM!
>>>
>>>
>>> If it doesn't, then what does the L stand for in L=Mc2???
>>> http://sqapo.com/einstein.jpg
>>
>> What does it stand for in a made up confluence of an image of Einstein
>> with another image of a formula from an unknown source, you mean?
>
> I like the fact you don't allow an illustration to sway your
> judgement...there is hope for you.
>
>
> So you need a
>
> picture of Albert Einstein seperate from
>
> a picture of his handwriting of his equation L=Mc2.

1. I need something that tells me that that his his handwriting.

2. That isn't the equation that's written there.

2b. That isn't an "L"; what looks like an "L" has been crossed out.

3. You'll need to provide your proof that "L" stands for uranium.

[Alan Baker]

What are contending it shows?

It mentions neither the same equation, nor uranium.

[The Starmaker]

Now in the same year:

In 1905 Albert Einstein did clearly state that mass and energy were equivalent and sug-gested that proof of this
equivalence might be found by the study of radioactive substances. --The Smythe Report



Now, what radioactive substances was Einstein refering to?

[Alan Baker]

Actually, by your own source: radium.

"It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable
to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be
successfully put to the test."

But that is irrelevant to your argument that Einstein built the atomic bomb.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The Starmaker wrote:

> Michael Moroney wrote:
>> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> > L stands for....URANIUM!
>>
>> Uranium is U, not L, fool. But even if the formula did have uranium in
>> it, it would be on the right hand side since the formula equates energy
>> (left side) to a function of matter, and uranium is matter.
>
> I wrote L stands for...URANIUM!

Which is wrong, and it does not become correct by either of repetition,
all-caps form, or exclamation mark, to name a few.

> […]
> As the other poster

That would be me…

> pointed out:
>
> "a body releases energy L in the form of radiation"

Misquoting Einstein as translated by me does not help your case. I have
pointed out that the equation you talked about does not occur as such in the
Einstein papers of 1905, and that the equation that can be formulated from
the prose of one paper *abstractly* relates physical quantities; it is _not_
a chemical formula of any sort (otherwise there would be an arrow there, not
an equals sign).

> Now Question, "What "energy" was Einstein thinking about?"

The energy that is a well-defined physical quantity; in classical terms, the
quantity that physical bodies have that allows them to do work. I think
that this is taught in highschool physics classes already.

See also: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy>

> "What type of 'energy' was Albert Einstein thinking about?

Any form of *electromagnetic* radiation, of course, as he used “V” as the
symbol for the speed of *light*.

> "leads me to expect that the element uran-
> ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy"
> http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first

This letter was written 25 years after the cited paper. Post hoc non est
propter hoc.

> It's all about URANIUM!!

But it *was* not. It was about emitting light, electromagnetic radiation in
general; at most, about emitting photons at this point in history.
(Einstein wrote a paper on the photoelectric effect – the base theory of the
solar cells that we use today – just months before this one; *that* –
combined with his other seminal work to that date – won him the Nobel Prize
in 1921.)

> http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first
>
>
> "proof of this equivalence might be found by the study of radioactive
> substances."

What you cite does not corroborate your thesis.

> E = mc2
> This equation is the key to the power of nuclear weapons and nuclear
> reactors. http://atomicarchive.com/Physics/Physics4.shtml

That is correct in a way (the proper form still is “E = mc²”, or "E = mc^2"
for ASCII-affine users, to begin with), but it does _not_ mean that Einstein
thought of uranium or nuclear power in general in 1905. He *could not* have
known.

You are committing the <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian's_fallacy>.

> Now, I repeat the Question..."What type of 'energy' was Albert Einstein
> thinking about?

Argumentum ad nauseam.

> More concise, "a body releases energy L in the form of radiation"
>
> If L is radiation,

*Iff*. But “L” was _not_ radiation; “L” was *energy* (more precisely,
*change* of energy). For the cited paper continues:

| Hierbei ist offenbar unwesentlich, daß die dem Körper entzogene Energie
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| gerade in Energie der Strahlung übergeht, so daß wir zu der allgemeineren
| Folgerung geführt werden:
| Die Masse eines Körpers ist ein Maß für dessen Energieinhalt; ändert
| sich die Energie um L, so ändert sich die Masse in demselben Sinne um
| L/9.10²⁰, wenn die Energie in Erg und die Masse in Grammen gemessen wird.

Which translates to:

“Apparently it is immaterial here that the energy is released from the body
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in the form of radiation, which leads us to the more general conclusion:
The mass of a body is a measure for its energy content; if its energy
changes by L, its mass is changing at the same time by L/9.10²⁰, assuming
the energy is measured in erg¹ and the mass in grams.”

________
¹ a non-SI, cgs system unit of energy and mechanical work: 1 erg = 10⁻⁷ J
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erg>

> what radioactive element was Albert Einstein thinking of?

Provably, none at all; he was thinking about radium salts (which are
radioactive *compounds*, not chemical elements). For the paper continues:

| Es ist nicht ausgeschlossen, daß bei Körpern, deren Energieinhalt in hohem
| Maße veränderlich ist (z. B. bei den Radiumsalzen), eine Prüfung der
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Theorie gelingen wird.

Which (roughly) translates to:

“The possibility cannot be excluded that the theory can be confirmed on
bodies whose energy content is variable to a large degree (e.g. the radium
^^^^^^^^^^
salts).”
^^^^^

> In other words, L stands for URANIUM!

No, it did not and does not.

> Of course he had to cross it out (the letter L) and replace it with a
> generic word like (E)...Energy.

Fallacy. He did not have to cross it out. However, it would be interesting
why he used “L” in 1905 CE (there is no ”L” in „Energie“, the German word
for “energy”), and why now “E” is used in German physics instead; I suspect
it has to do with the establishment of the SI system of units later in the
20th century.

> It's called a ...cover-up.

Nonsense. The theoretical foundations for harnessing nuclear power, and
building nuclear bombs, were not laid before 1932 when James Chadwick
discovered the neutron.

> Be Real.

Be my guest. You can start with a real name.

And *please* stop crossposting, especially stop crossposting *without*
Followup-To. This has nothing to do with either of math, writing science-
fiction, or astronomy. And if you post to sci.physics, it makes no sense to
post to sci.physics.relativity as well, because then you already have posted
to the general newsgroup of the hierarchy. F'up2 sci.physics set again.

[The Starmaker]

1) Where do you think "radium" comes from?

[The Starmaker]

2) What caused the atomic bomb? If you imagine the atomic bomb to be some sort of a 'big bang', you
gotta ask, 'what caused the big bang'?

You gotta go back to the...inception.

Either way, Albert Einstein is the inception of the big bang *and* the atomic bomb.

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

The Starmaker


Where stars are born...overnight!

[The Starmaker]

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Smyth/Smyth1.html

THE EQUIVALENCE OF MASS AND ENERGY

1.4. One conclusion that appeared rather early in the develop-ment of
the theory of relativity was that the inertial mass of a moving body
increased as its speed increased. This implied an equivalence between an
increase in energy of motion of a body, that is, its kinetic energy, and
an increase in its mass. To most practical physicists and engineers this
appeared a mathematical fiction of no practical importance. Even
Einstein could hardly have foreseen the present applications, but as
early as 1905 he did clearly state that mass and energy were equivalent

and sug-gested that proof of this equivalence might be found by the

study of radioactive substances. He concluded that the amount of energy,
E, equivalent to a mass, m, was given by the equation

E = mc2

where c is the velocity of light. If this is stated in actual numbers,
its startling character is apparent. It shows that one kilogram (2.2
pounds) of matter, if converted entirely into energy, would give 25
billion kilowatt hours of energy. This is equal to the energy that would
be generated by the total electric power industry in the United States
(as of 1939) running for approxi-mately two months. Compare this
fantastic figure with the 8.5 kilowatt hours of heat energy which may be
produced by burning an equal amount of coal.

1.5. The extreme size of this conversion figure was interesting in
several respects. In the first place, it explained why the equiva-lence
of mass and energy was never observed in ordinary chemical combustion.
We now believe that the heat given off in such a combustion has mass
associated with it, but this mass is so small that it cannot he detected
bv the most sensitive balances avail-able. (It is of the order of a few
billionths of a gram per mole.) In the second place, it was made clear
that no appreciable quantities of matter were being converted into
energy in any familiar terrestrial processes, since no such large
sources of energy were known. Further, the possibility of initiating or
controlling such a conversion in any practical way seemed very remote.
Finally, the very size of the conversion factor opened a magnifi-cent
field of speculation to philosophers, physicists, engineers, and
comic-strip artists. For twenty-five years such speculation was
unsupported by direct experimental evidence, but beginning about 1930
such evidence began to appear in rapidly increasing quantity. Before
discussing such evidence and the practical partial conversion of matter
into energy that is our main theme, we shall review the foundations of
atomic and nuclear physics. General familiarity with the atomic nature
of matter and with the exist-ence of electrons is assumed. Our treatment
will be little more than an outline which may be elaborated by reference
to books such as Pollard and Davidson's Applied Nuclear Physics and
Strana-than's "The Particles of Modern Physics".

[The Starmaker]

"in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quant-

ities of new radium-like elements would be generated.---Albert Einstein
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first

[The Starmaker]

"A noticeable decrease of mass should occur in the case of radium." Albert Einstein


"energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2 ." --Albert Einstein

http://www.manhattanrarebooks-science.com/einstein_wrappers.htm



L = radiation.."in the case of radium"...radium comes from URANIUM


It's all about URANIUM
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first

to complete the building of the atomic bomb:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html



connect the dots...
The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Einstein continued to work late into the summer on this "amusing and seductive" problem before
proving the mass-energy relationship that would become known throughout the world as ...The Atomic Bomb!
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg

[Alan Baker]

How is that relevant to your argument?

[The Starmaker]

In other words, what the 'other people' will never tell you is that...

The Big Bang and The Atomic Bomb (the other big bang) both come from,
and originate, and are caused by Albert Einstein's *Relativity*.

[bil...@m.nu]

I am pretty sure it comes from supernovas.. and I am pretty sure marie
currie discoverd it

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:33:48 -0800, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >

>> > The Starmaker wrote:


I know I will regret saying this... but I feel someone needs to tell
you that replying to yourself could be a sign of dimentia.. especially
if you replied to a reply in which was a reply to yourself

[J. Clarke]

In article <qcmucal6l0s1kvsmg...@4ax.com>, bil...@m.nu
says...

Starmaker? Dementia? Ya THINK!?!?!

[The Starmaker]

I'm not using email to reply...my news reader doesn't have a Reply
Button.



My post are not up for discussion. They are in fact, a broadcast.

I am transmitting information from one place to another.


Like a radio.


A Broadcast.


The operative word in Broadcast is ..."broad".


Why else would I have more than one newsgroup listed under the heading
of: Newsgroups?

[The Starmaker]

In order for Albert Einstein to build an atomic bomb, he first needs a mass supply of ...Radium.


Radium comes from Uranium.


The very first sentence I wrote at the start of my thread is:

"It is simply impossible to build an atomic bomb
without having tons of uranium first to work with."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics.relativity/dftIbKDzvpE/K-QdEz_hb3UJ



The only purpose of Einstein's first letter to FDR was to get some radium to finish his work on building the atomic bomb.
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first



http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
The Starmaker

[Alan Baker]

Incorrect.

>
>
> Radium comes from Uranium.

Correct.

>
>
> The very first sentence I wrote at the start of my thread is:
>
> "It is simply impossible to build an atomic bomb
> without having tons of uranium first to work with."
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics.relativity/dftIbKDzvpE/K-QdEz_hb3UJ
>
>
>
>
> The only purpose of Einstein's first letter to FDR was to get some
> radium to finish his work on building the atomic bomb.
> http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first

Incorrect.

[The Starmaker]

I understand perfectly well
the reluctance
and the effort
some people make to
dissociate Albert Einstein
from the atomic bomb...

I mean, who wants to be associated with...Mass Murder?


I wonder sometimes... why would Nature create an Albert Einstein?


To this day, the bomb has evolved into a nightmare, and causes people to ...tremble.


All in the name of...Science.



The Starmaker

[kefischer]

Moron, there are several reasons he
was not involved (other than writing
the letter to the president suggesting
a weapon could be made), he was
a Pacifist, he was an immigrant from
the country that had invaded and
occupied all of Europe, and he
was very busy constructing ballistic
tables for the big guns for the navy,
because computers did not exist,
and he was one a mathematician.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> I understand perfectly well
> the reluctance
> and the effort
> some people make to
> dissociate Albert Einstein
> from the atomic bomb...
>
> I mean, who wants to be associated with...Mass Murder?
>
> I wonder sometimes... why would Nature create an Albert Einstein?
>
> To this day, the bomb has evolved into a nightmare, and causes people to ...tremble.
>
> All in the name of...Science.
>
> The Starmaker

I understand...
the game is,

dissociate Albert Einstein from the atomic bomb.

It's just a game.

But, looking back..

How about this "clearance" issue?

One of the games people try to use to dissociate Albert Einstein from
the atomic bomb.


(for those who are capable of recognizing patterns and connecting the
dots)
If you look at this atomic reactor:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png

you will notice a another person's name under Einstein..

[The Starmaker]

leo szilard


Now, question...

Did leo szilard worked on the atomic bomb? Did leo szilard worked at the manhattan project? Did leo szilard have...clearance?

Which is the correct answer?

a) No, leo szilard did not have clearance, and he did not work on the manhattan project.

b) Yes, he worked on the manhattan project, but leo szilard had no clearance.

[The Starmaker]

I forgot to mention...

What kind of nuclear reactor this is:

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png


It was designed and filed in 1927...so you can understand
that nuclear reactors have changed a little over time but...the principles are still the same.




The part that looks like a shower is the condenser...it's water for the reactor.



http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG


The principles are the same...

Is it possible that *all* nuclear reactors are based on this design?
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png



Oh, I forgot...it's called a fast breeder reactor.



To view similar...do a google search for :fast+breeder+reactor+diagram


https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+breeder+reactor+diagram&biw=1280&bih=891&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=EyLRVM3-IZOxogS4kYGICA&ved=0CB0QsAQ



And it is a fact that Albert Einsteins patents were used in fast breeder nuclear reactor...


not stupid household refriderators as 'others' want You to believe.



The Starmaker


https://www.google.com/search?q=albert+einstein+the+man+who+built+the+atomic+bomb&biw=1280&bih=891&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=iyPRVLmEI4XcoATYr4HoBg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ

[Alan Baker]

Except that is not an image of a patent drawing of an atomic reactor...

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-02-03 19:39:32 +0000, The Starmaker said:

> I forgot to mention...
>
> What kind of nuclear reactor this is:
>
> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png
>
>
> It was designed and filed in 1927...so you can understand
> that nuclear reactors have changed a little over time but...the
> principles are still the same.
>
>
>
>
> The part that looks like a shower is the condenser...it's water for the
> reactor.
>
>
>
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG

Wow. You can take a drawing, remove a bunch of it and write random
words on what remains...

>
>
> The principles are the same...
>
> Is it possible that *all* nuclear reactors are based on this design?
> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png

Nope. Not possible. Because that is not the design for a reactor.

>
>
>
> Oh, I forgot...it's called a fast breeder reactor.
>
>
>
> To view similar...do a google search for :fast+breeder+reactor+diagram
>
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+breeder+reactor+diagram&biw=1280&bih=891&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=EyLRVM3-IZOxogS4kYGICA&ved=0CB0QsAQ
>

Point to one you claim is actually similar...

>
>
>
> And it is a fact that Albert Einsteins patents were used in fast
> breeder nuclear reactor...
>
>
> not stupid household refriderators as 'others' want You to believe.

You saying something doesn't make it a fact.

[The Starmaker]

I forgot option c)

a) No, leo szilard did not have clearance, and he did not work on the manhattan project.

b) Yes, he worked on the manhattan project, but leo szilard had no clearance.

c) Yes, he had clearance, and he worked on the manhattan project.

Which is the correct answer? a, b or c?



Where is leo szilard clearance badge?
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/misc/faces-of-project-y/

[The Starmaker]

everybody else seems to be there...
http://www.lanl.gov/about/history-innovation/badges.php


except for leo szilard and........albert einstein?


Is there a pattern here?


Can you connect the ...dots?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The Starmaker wrote:

> http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Smyth/Smyth1.html
>
> THE EQUIVALENCE OF MASS AND ENERGY
>
> 1.4. One conclusion that appeared rather early in the develop-ment of
> the theory of relativity was that the inertial mass of a moving body
> increased as its speed increased. This implied an equivalence between an
> increase in energy of motion of a body, that is, its kinetic energy, and
> an increase in its mass. To most practical physicists and engineers this
> appeared a mathematical fiction of no practical importance. Even
> Einstein could hardly have foreseen the present applications, but as
> early as 1905 he did clearly state that mass and energy were equivalent
> and sug-gested that proof of this equivalence might be found by the
> study of radioactive substances. He concluded that the amount of energy,
> E, equivalent to a mass, m, was given by the equation
>
> E = mc2

Evidentially, that statement is false. Einstein did not write that
equation. And certainly he did not write it in the wrong way that you did.

> where c is the velocity of light.

The _speed_ of light. Velocity is a *vector* (v⃗), it has a direction and a
length; the speed is its length or norm (||v⃗||).

I would not trust any source with regard to physics that gets this wrong.

I would trust less anyone who cites this source to back up their spurious
claims, especially when they are amok-crossposting using a ridiculous
nickname.

> [tl;dr]

> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com

Don’t.

[The Starmaker]

Okay, by now you figured out leo szilard and albert einstein had no clearance.

A pattern is beginning to form...

Now, do you know Why leo szilard and albert einstein had no clearance?


What if I told you it had something to do with this?:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png


Can you connect the dots?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The Starmaker wrote:

> The Big Bang and The Atomic Bomb (the other big bang) both come from,
> and originate, and are caused by Albert Einstein's *Relativity*.

Refutation 1: Einstein was born in 1872 CE. The Big Bang happened about
13.8 × 10⁹ years ago. Einstein cannot not have caused it.

Refutation 2: The term “Big Bang” was introduced by Fred Hoyle in the 1960s
in an attempt to discredit the theory of the expanding universe in favor of
his “steady state” cosmology. The theory of the expanding universe
originated from Georges Lemaître in 1927, merely based on the field
equations of General Relativity (like many other theories). Einstein was at
first opposed to the idea of an expanding universe, therefore inserted the
cosmological constant.

Refutation 3: Einstein did not have the idea of an atomic bomb, was not
aware of the possibility before, and did not help creating it. He did not
participate in the Manhattan Project that created the atomic bomb because he
was a pacifist. He later regretted having signed the letter to FDR based on
Szílard’s and Wigner’s (mis)information on German military research:

<http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/einstein/node25.html> pp.

Your claims have been refuted. Stop making them.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The Starmaker wrote:

> Okay, by now you figured out leo szilard and albert einstein had no
> clearance.
>
> A pattern is beginning to form...
>
> Now, do you know Why leo szilard and albert einstein had no clearance?

I do not know why Szílard had no clearance.

Einstein was regarded a “friend of communists”, therefore “politically
unreliable”.

> What if I told you it had something to do with this?:
> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png

I would say you need either new glasses or professional psychological
attention. This image shows plans for a refrigeration unit. Surely you
would not suggest that Szílard and Einstein had no clearance to the
Manhattan Project because they invented a fridge before, would you?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The Starmaker wrote:

> Okay, by now you figured out leo szilard and albert einstein had no
> clearance.
>
> A pattern is beginning to form...
>
> Now, do you know Why leo szilard and albert einstein had no clearance?

I do not know why Szilárd had no clearance.

Einstein was regarded a “friend of communists”, therefore “politically
unreliable”.

> What if I told you it had something to do with this?:
> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png

I would say you need either new glasses or professional psychological
attention. This image shows plans for a refrigeration unit. Surely you

would not suggest that Szilárd and Einstein had no clearance to the

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[F'up2 sci.physics]

The Starmaker wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2015-02-02 03:01:30 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>> > Alan Baker wrote:
>> >> On 2015-02-01 21:36:59 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>> >>> In 1905 Albert Einstein did clearly state that mass and energy were
>> >>> equivalent and sug-gested that proof of this
>> >>> equivalence might be found by the study of radioactive substances.
>> >>> --The Smythe Report
>> >>>
>> >>> Now, what radioactive substances was Einstein refering to?
>> >> Actually, by your own source: radium.
>> >>
>> >> "It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is
>> >> variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be
>> >> successfully put to the test."
>> >>
>> >> But that is irrelevant to your argument that Einstein built the atomic
>> >> bomb.
>> > 1) Where do you think "radium" comes from?
>> How is that relevant to your argument?
>
> In order for Albert Einstein to build an atomic bomb, he first needs a
> mass supply of ...Radium.

So you also have no idea what you are talking about when you quote someone
saying “radioactive”.

It is much more likely that radium nuclei decay than that they build up to
uranium nuclei. Therefore, radium is called a *radioactive* element: its
nuclei tend to decay while emitting *radiation*.

If Einstein had had “a mass supply of ...Radium”, say ²²³Ra, after about
11.43 days half of it would have decayed to radon (at standard conditions, a
gas that itself is radioactive), and so on. And if he would not have been
very careful, he would have fallen ill, and perhaps died, of radiation
poisoning (like Marie Curie in 1934 who unfortunately carried insufficiently
shielded test tubes of radium in her pockets during her research).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_radium>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay>

And that is why Einstein referred to “radium salts” as suitable objects to
test his theory: they release energy, some isotopes a lot more than others
per unit time, in the form of radiation due to natural radioactive decay.

Therefore, if his theory would be correct (we now are virtually certain that
it is, hence the ubiquitous “E = mc²” reference in regard to him – which
really should be E₀ = mc²), one should be able to observe that the mass of
objects known to be initially composed out of radium salts decreases with
time, and decreases more rapidly the more radiation per unit time is
measured to be emitted by them.

> Radium comes from Uranium.

Only indirectly. Uranium nuclei do not decay to radium nuclei, but to
thorium ones most of the time. Thorium, for example, decays to radium.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_thorium>

> The very first sentence I wrote at the start of my thread is:
>
> "It is simply impossible to build an atomic bomb
> without having tons of uranium first to work with."

It is apparent now that you are lacking the basic knowledge about nuclear
physics, so you should be very slow to make any statements as to what is
required to build an atomic bomb.

And since you are still amok-crossposting despite being notified:

Score adjusted.

[The Starmaker]

I'll repeat, because I know some of yous have differculty with 'connecting the dots' and 'pattern recongnition'...

By now you figured out leo szilard and albert einstein had no clearance.

A 'pattern' is beginning to form...

Now, do you know Why leo szilard *and* albert einstein had no clearance?

What if I told you it had something to do with this?:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png

Keep in mind that I am the world's foremost authority on:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

[bil...@m.nu]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 11:26:47 -0800, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The Starmaker wrote:
>>

>> Now, do you know Why leo szilard and albert einstein had no clearance?
>>
>> What if I told you it had something to do with this?:
>> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png

The refrigerator?