bomb kills nuclear scientist

[The Starmaker]

Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/


Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..

How about those guys that make computer viruses? Kill them all!!!
Save money on virus cleaners...

Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.

I'm safe, are you?


The Starmaker

[PD]

On 1/11/2012 11:29 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

>
> Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.
>
> I'm safe, are you?

Well, I say kill everyone with an IQ under 100. For obvious reasons.
Now you're not safe.

What next?

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..

If you went back in time and killed Einstein before he signed off
on the letter to Rosevelt, the Manhattan project would proceed just
the same, and get the same results. Even if you killed him before
he published "does the inertia of a body depend upon its
energy content" , or even before "on the electrodynamics of
moving bodies", it would *still* not affect the development
of nuclear weapons.

That's because nothing Einstein did contributed in any substantial
way to the development of nu clear weapons, whether engineering or theory.

So, if the "japaneese guy" wanted to delay or avoid the development of
nuclear weapons, he couldn't rationally justify killing Einstein
on those grounds.

: Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.
:
: I'm safe,

Oddly enough, this does not shock me.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <13263...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>

>: Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.
>:
>: I'm safe,
>
>Oddly enough, this does not shock me.

If I pointed out that Starfaker was unable to count to ten, and thus
posted in binary, would that change things?

I didn't think so.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jan 11, 10:29 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>
> Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..

And if he is smart he will say no (Einstein's actual influence on the
bomb being an entirely different issue)

Without the bomb what happens? No Hiroshima, no Nagasaki and no
surrender. Instead we get Olympic and Coronet- the invasion of the
Home Islands. Women, children, and old men armed with bamboo spears
against veterabn US Marines armed with rifles, machine guns, mortars,
artillery air support and naval gunfire. 5 million Japanese dead, 10
million wounded, and the country entirely devastated. Oh, and those
15 million Japanese casualties are BEFORE the famine and ensuing
disease kick in...

Japan would STILL be recovering from that...

[Ed Stasiak]

> The Starmaker
>
> "White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said the U.S. "had
> absolutely nothing to do" with Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan's death"

That's because the Israelis did it.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Shawn Wilson

>
> Oh, and those 15 million Japanese casualties are BEFORE
> the famine and ensuing disease kick in...

Don't forget another 1 million American dead and the
Soviets in control of Hokkaido (probably half of Honshu
also).

[Ed Stasiak]

> Shawn Wilson

>
> Oh, and those 15 million Japanese casualties are BEFORE
> the famine and ensuing disease kick in...

[Lynn McGuire]

My thought exactly. Sounds like a Mossad hit.

Lynn

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jan 11, 12:47 pm, Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net> wrote:

> > Oh, and those 15 million Japanese casualties are BEFORE
> > the famine and ensuing disease kick in...
>
> Don't forget another 1 million American dead

Not dead. The military estimated /up to/ 1 million US *casualties*,
of which only about 200,000 would be dead. Reporters then as now are
dumbasses.

> and the
> Soviets in control of Hokkaido (probably half of Honshu
> also).

No, this would never happen. For one the US would not allow Soviet
combat operations in our AO, and on top of that, the Soviets have no
amphibious capability. Troops cannot walk from Siberia to Japan.

[Greg Goss]

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

>Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>
>
>Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..

By the time that the Japanese were involved anything Einstein did was
long in the past. He provided his famous name to a letter written by
others to launch a project that others ran.

As someone on this side of the Pacific, I'm kinda glad that they did
the project.

>How about those guys that make computer viruses? Kill them all!!!
>Save money on virus cleaners...

That's a matter of civil or criminal law. I'm reluctant to make it a
capital offense, but I'm a famous lefty softie. How about the virus
writers who destroyed half of Iran's nuclear bomb-building program?
Are they included?

>Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.

Ah yes. The Cambodian solution. Cambodia in the eighties was such a
paradise.

>I'm safe, are you?

The way IQ is defined depends on the population. Kill everyone above
a certain point, and the definition of IQ re-normalizes to put 100 at
the middle of what's left. You gradually kill everyone but your
dumbest citizen. Or eventually run out of people who can handle the
mathematics of renormalizing the distribution. Or eventually the
people in charge of the next renormalization lie to you and don't
renormalize it properly.
--
"Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)

[Dirk Van de moortel]

PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
jekhh0$m8d$1...@speranza.aioe.org

> On 1/11/2012 11:29 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> >
> > Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.
> >
> > I'm safe, are you?
>

(*)

> Well, I say kill everyone with an IQ under 100. For obvious reasons.
> Now you're not safe.
>
> What next?

Then redefine and recalibrate IQ and goto (*)

Dirk Vdm

[RichA]

He knew the risks. Tough luck.

[Helmut_Meukel]

Shawn Wilson wrote:

> On Jan 11, 12:47ï¿œpm, Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> and the
>> Soviets in control of Hokkaido (probably half of Honshu
>> also).
>
> No, this would never happen. For one the US would not allow Soviet
> combat operations in our AO, and on top of that, the Soviets have no
> amphibious capability. Troops cannot walk from Siberia to Japan.

Don't you know that Japan lost in 1945 the southern Part of Sachalin
to the Soviets and all of the Kuril Islands?
How do /you/ think the Soviets did this? Walked over water?

Helmut.

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..
>
> If you went back in time and killed Einstein before he signed off
> on the letter to Rosevelt, the Manhattan project would proceed just
> the same, and get the same results. Even if you killed him before
> he published "does the inertia of a body depend upon its
> energy content" , or even before "on the electrodynamics of
> moving bodies", it would *still* not affect the development
> of nuclear weapons.
>
> That's because nothing Einstein did contributed in any substantial
> way to the development of nu clear weapons, whether engineering or theory.

He *initiated* it..

in�i�ti�ate

verb /i?niSHe-?a-t/
initiated:

Cause (a process or action) to begin

My questions was:

Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?

Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein?

Isn't Al Einstein a nuclear scientist?



Nuclear means *relating* to weapons that explode by using the energy released (e=mc2).

But what do you know about...relate? You don't know how to put 2 and 2 together....


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

The question is not who did it, the question is...is it alright?

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>

The Starmaker

Is it okay?

Web definitions

all right: without doubt

[PD]

On 1/11/2012 4:06 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

> Wayne Throop wrote:

>>
>> That's because nothing Einstein did contributed in any substantial
>> way to the development of nu clear weapons, whether engineering or theory.
>
> He *initiated* it..
>

> in搏暗i戢te

>
> verb /i?niSHe-?a-t/
> initiated:
>
> Cause (a process or action) to begin

So he didn't initiate it.
It was Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner, and Fritz Strassman who discovered
fission. They were the ones who initiated it. Strassman and Hahn were
Germans, by the way, who rebelled against the Nazis, and Meitner was an
Austrian Jew.

So you should be advocating the killing of Hahn, Meitner, and Strassman,
not Einstein.

But wait, fission was a process that was stumbled on only after many
efforts to achieve the transmutation of elements by Rutherford (a New
Zealander) and Walton (an Irishman) and Cockroft (a Brit). So THOSE
folks really initiated it and they should be killed.

But wait, they wouldn't have been able to read each other's results if
it hadn't been that bastard Gutenberg who invented the printing press
just to disseminate Bibles. So HE'S the one that initiated it and should
have been killed. It would be so much better if all Bibles today were
still hand-copied by monks and people in the villages didn't know how to
read.

>
> My questions was:
>
> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
> Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein?
>
> Isn't Al Einstein a nuclear scientist?
>
>
>
> Nuclear means *relating* to weapons that explode by using the energy released (e=mc2).

Really? So the fact that 79% of France's electrical power comes from
nuclear power plants means that their energy grid is dependent on the
explosion of weapons?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jan 11, 2:42 pm, Helmut_Meukel <Helmut_Meu...@bn-hof.invalid>
wrote:

> > No, this would never happen.  For one the US would not allow Soviet
> > combat operations in our AO, and on top of that, the Soviets have no
> > amphibious capability.  Troops cannot walk from Siberia to Japan.
>
> Don't you know that Japan lost in 1945 the southern Part of Sachalin
> to the Soviets and all of the Kuril Islands?

The first was merely overland from the northern part of the island,
the second was essentially small scale and involved nothing more than
troops going over the side from small boats, no real amphibius
capability. It was utterly incapable of launching major military
operations over water.

> How do /you/ think the Soviets did this? Walked over water?

Over the side from small boats. Can't do tanks or artillery that way,
nor significant logistics support.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <4F0E07...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>

>> : Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..
>>
>> If you went back in time and killed Einstein before he signed off
>> on the letter to Rosevelt, the Manhattan project would proceed just
>> the same, and get the same results. Even if you killed him before
>> he published "does the inertia of a body depend upon its
>> energy content" , or even before "on the electrodynamics of
>> moving bodies", it would *still* not affect the development
>> of nuclear weapons.
>>
>> That's because nothing Einstein did contributed in any substantial
>> way to the development of nu clear weapons, whether engineering or theory.
>
>He *initiated* it..
>
>in�i�ti�ate
>
>verb /i?niSHe-?a-t/
>initiated:
>
> Cause (a process or action) to begin
>
>My questions was:
>
>Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein?
>
>Isn't Al Einstein a nuclear scientist?

He isn't anything except dead. He was a relativistic physicist. He
looked at some micro-scale stuff, but didn't like what he saw (quantum
mechanics).

>Nuclear means *relating* to weapons that explode by using the energy released (e=mc2).

No, its meaning is a little narrower than that. After all, the bombs
used in the American Civil War exploded by using the energy released,
as well. And, yes, E = mc^2 is just as true for chemical release of
energy as it is for all other kinds of energy.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him talk like Mr. Ed
by rubbing peanut butter on his gums.

[The Starmaker]

Quadibloc wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 10:29 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>

> > Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.
>

> But administering all those IQ tests is so much trouble! Why not just
> kill everyone who wears eyeglasses? That's what the Khmer Rouge did in
> Cambodia.
>
> John Savard

Don't you get it?
It's the samething!
You still have to
adminstrate all those..
eye test.

It's a numbers game.

It's about people
prejudice against
other people
because of the 'numbers'
are different
than theirs.

20-20 vision...you live
20-40 vision...you die

99 IQ...you live
150 IQ...you are shot on site!

If your house is on the hill..
and your neighbor is 10 feet below...
you look down on them.

If...

You all play the numbers game..

If a girl has a 36 c...

I could go on and on and on and..

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:31:40 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

| The way IQ is defined depends on the population. Kill everyone above
| a certain point, and the definition of IQ re-normalizes to put 100 at
| the middle of what's left. You gradually kill everyone but your
| dumbest citizen. Or eventually run out of people who can handle the
| mathematics of renormalizing the distribution. Or eventually the
| people in charge of the next renormalization lie to you and don't
| renormalize it properly.

The old "mean, median or mode" dilemma. If you kill everyone over a
certain score, the remaining population will not result in a proper
bell curve after a re-test (allowing for a little variation due to
uncertainty in the tests). You will get a peak, with a tail towards the
low scores, and a cliff at the cut-off high score.

IQ=100 should be the score at the peak (i.e. the modal score).


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Isn't Al Einstein a nuclear scientist?

In fact, he was not.

: Nuclear means *relating* to weapons that explode by using the energy
: released (e=mc2).

No it doesn't. It means related to release of energy from
the nuclear binding force. *All* releases of energy obey e=mc^2,
whether nuclear or not, so e=mc^2 doesn't imply anything
nuclear is going on.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 11, 9:29 am, The Starmaker wrote:

> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>
> Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein?

You don’t have to kill any scientist to stop the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki Holocausts. Just understand the technology required, and
whoever can get hold of enriched Uranium can easily produce the atomic
weapon such as the one caused the Holocaust in Hiroshima.

The Manhattan Project had abandoned centrifuge technology to enrich
Uranium early on. Guess what the method of enrichment today is?
Instead, these clowns at the Manhattan Project were busy playing jokes
on each other. Has anyone read Feynman’s book? Anyhow, instead of
the centrifuge technology, these clowns were betting on gas permeation
and electromagnetism. Gas permeation was soon proven to be a dead
end. These clowns, then, exhausted all the supplies of silver to make
wires for electricity. Silver bricks could be found all over the
place at Los Alamos. Why did they not use copper? Because copper was
a war-necessity item.

As we know, any isotope of an element has the same charge. So, the
only way of using electromagnetism to separate out that 1% of
desirable Uranium is to ionize each atom and accelerate them with
electromagnetism. Since the isotopes have different mass, these
clowns were hoping to separate them with isotopes of less than 2%
difference in mass. You do the calculation. One atom at a time. How
long would these clowns to even obtain 1 g of that stuff?

These clowns could not have enriched Uranium. In the meantime, across
the Pacific, Professor Harteck was using centrifuge technology to
enrich Uranium. In March or April of 1945, Harteck’s facility was
overrun by the Americans. All of a sudden, the Manhattan Project
clowns were able to get that technology, enrich Uranium, and produce
the weapons of mass destruction. Not to mention several tons of
already enriched Uranium were seized as well.

So, all you have to do is to delay Harteck’s facility from being
overrun by the Americans for a few weeks. After that, both London and
Paris would be toast. With the Amerika Bomber, Moscow and Lennigrad
would be next. After that, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and
Washington. Not a pleasant thought is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber

All that heavy water bullshit and Heisenberg’s miscalculation were
blowing smoke. Since the Yalta Conference required all the Allies to
share any Axis technologies equally, the enrichment technology would
have to be disclosed to both the Soviets and the Chinese. That would
be really bad. So, the Americans would do anything to parade their
clowns fvcing around under the Manhattan Project as geniuses.

<shrug>

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:29:59 -0800, The Starmaker wrote:

> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>
>
> Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..

Other than signing a letter (some say he didn't even write it) to FDR
saying build the atomic bomb (odd thing for a "pacifist" to do - call for
the building of a WMD) Al didn't do a damned thing.

> How about those guys that make computer viruses? Kill them all!!! Save
> money on virus cleaners...
>
> Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.

That's in the works.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:06:20 -0800, The Starmaker wrote:

> Isn't Al Einstein a nuclear scientist?

No.

[Jonathan]

"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4F0DC7...@ix.netcom.com...

> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>
>
> Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein?

He didn't build The Bomb, neither did the guy
that made the steel for the bomb casing, or the
guy that made the B-29 that dropped it, or the
guy that came up with the Lorentz transformation
which E = M Cv2 is based, whatshisname.
Oh yeah, Lorentz. And so on.

> Ask any japaneese guy..

Japanese?

>
> How about those guys that make computer viruses?
> Kill them all!!!
> Save money on virus cleaners...

I'm teetering on that one~

>
> Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.

If that 'scientist' is helping a rogue state build The Bomb?
A state which has as it's official motto .."Death to America"
for the last thirty five years? A state which is the largest
supporter and exporter of Islamic terrorism in the world?
A state whose current president publicly declares his most
fervent belief is that complete destruction and chaos
produces the path to paradise?

Yes, it's OK. I T 'S V E R Y O K !

>
> I'm safe, are you?

We're all a bit safer!


>
>
> The Starmaker

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:31:58 -0500, Jonathan wrote:


>> How about those guys that make computer viruses? Kill them all!!!
>> Save money on virus cleaners...
>
> I'm teetering on that one~

I suspect that if one wacks all the virus authors, one would find that
one also wacked many employees of the companies that sell anti-virus
software.

[Marvin the Martian]

Kewl posts. I figured the Germans developed the bomb what with the
otherwise unnecessary rush to invade Germany, I just thought it was a
propaganda gambit to claim the Americans developed it. I'm going to check
out this Yalta conference thing.

> <shrug>

[Marvin the Martian]

... with the help of our terrorist.

[Greg Goss]

Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The Manhattan Project had abandoned centrifuge technology to enrich
>Uranium early on. Guess what the method of enrichment today is?
>Instead, these clowns at the Manhattan Project were busy playing jokes
>on each other. Has anyone read Feynman’s book? Anyhow, instead of
>the centrifuge technology, these clowns were betting on gas permeation
>and electromagnetism. Gas permeation was soon proven to be a dead
>end.

>As we know, any isotope of an element has the same charge. So, the
>only way of using electromagnetism to separate out that 1% of
>desirable Uranium is to ionize each atom and accelerate them with
>electromagnetism. Since the isotopes have different mass, these
>clowns were hoping to separate them with isotopes of less than 2%
>difference in mass. You do the calculation. One atom at a time. How
>long would these clowns to even obtain 1 g of that stuff?

I was told that the South Africans used tuned-laser activation to
separate the isotopes. But I've never heard anything further about
this idea since their country held a revolution and renounced nuclear
weaponry. Was their tech a dead end? Didn't they make six bombs with
it?

[The Starmaker]

Okay, maybe I'm not making myself clear..

The question is:

Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

In otherwords, is it okay, to kill a nuclear scientist?

Was he breaking any laws that I'm not aware of by being a nuclear scientist?
Maybe there is some international law I don't know about.

Here is a photo of a graduationg nuclear scientist students:

http://stevemooradian.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/nuke_grads.jpg


https://engineering.purdue.edu/NE/Academics/Graduate/NE%20Students%20Spring%202011.jpg

I'm guessing they will work anywhere in the world that pays them...


of course, I wouldn't suggest these
graduationg nuclear scientist students
to wear those oufits...

http://nsspi.tamu.edu/media/886544/main.jpg

this guy has the right idea..
http://stevemooradian.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/nuke_grads.jpg


It looks to me that there are just some people out there that are against...progress.

Now for a political question...
Do you believe we should have nuclear weapons in the middle east? Yes or No?




The Starmaker

[Chris]

On Jan 11, 12:29 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>

> Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..

>
> How about those guys that make computer viruses? Kill them all!!!
> Save money on virus cleaners...
>

> Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.
>

> I'm safe, are you?
>

> The Starmaker

You don't know anything about the history of atomic weapons. Why don't
you try to look smart and keep your mouth (and keyboard) quiet?

Chris

[Chris]

On Jan 12, 12:03 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Ed Stasiak wrote:
>
> > > The Starmaker
>
> > > "White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said the U.S. "had
> > > absolutely nothing to do" with Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan's death"
>
> > That's because the Israelis did it.
>
> Okay, maybe I'm not making myself clear..
>
> The question is:
>
> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>
> In otherwords, is it okay, to kill a nuclear scientist?

Maybe, if the scientist is working for a nation-state dedicated to
destroying your nation-state.

>
> Was he breaking any laws that I'm not aware of by being a nuclear scientist?
> Maybe there is some international law I don't know about.

Obviously so. Iran has been in violation of UN regulations about
nuclear proliferation for years.

Chris

>
> Here is a photo of a graduationg nuclear scientist students:
>
> http://stevemooradian.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/nuke_grads.jpg
>

> https://engineering.purdue.edu/NE/Academics/Graduate/NE%20Students%20...

>
> I'm guessing they will work anywhere in the world that pays them...
>
> of course, I wouldn't suggest these
> graduationg nuclear scientist students
> to wear those oufits...
>
> http://nsspi.tamu.edu/media/886544/main.jpg
>

> this guy has the right idea..http://stevemooradian.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/nuke_grads.jpg

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/11/2012 11:45 PM, Greg Goss wrote:

> I was told that the South Africans used tuned-laser activation to
> separate the isotopes. But I've never heard anything further about
> this idea since their country held a revolution and renounced nuclear
> weaponry. Was their tech a dead end? Didn't they make six bombs with
> it?

EVERYONE who can, uses light activation to separate isotopes. It was the
process invented by the Nazis and used on the first atomic bombs as we
grabbed the German enriched isotopes they tried to ship to Japan (cut a
deal to let Nazis go in exchange for goodies to end war. Of course now
the process has been much improved with lasers. And of course you've
heard nothing about it. Are you a raving idiot? Atomic methods are
SECRET you moron! Most of HISTORY is secret. Where have you been living
your whole life?

Oh wait. Excuse me. There is no such thing as light isotope separation.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Anyone saying this is
anything but a technological dead end is a wackjob and needs to adjust
his tinfoil helmet or go read a freshman textbook! Got it?

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/12/2012 12:03 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

> Ed Stasiak wrote:

>> That's because the Israelis did it.
>
> Okay, maybe I'm not making myself clear..
>
> The question is:
>
> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>

> In other words, is it okay, to kill a nuclear scientist?

Of course it's OK. It's OK to kill ANYBODY who might get in your way!
Scientists know that evolution is FACT. And that means humans evolved
from lower animals. That is relevant in that carried to it's ultimate
logic it creates Social Darwinism which is what scientists (and
virtually ALL world leaders) believe in. It means in a nutshell that
religion is a fairy tale. It's garbage stories for children. The only
thing that counts is pure animal behavior in the present! If someone has
something you want, and you have the strength to take it, you TAKE IT!
If they get in your way, you KILL THEM! It's just natural selection.
Survival of the fittest! The progress of our species obviously DEPENDS
upon these actions. There is NO "punishment" for killing scientists or
anyone else. When you die your brain stops and there is NOTHING. No
"heaven", no hell, no rewards, no punishment, no afterlife. NOTHING!
GOT IT? Slate is wiped clean. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! All world leaders
believe this. Morality equals weakness and extinction if not of the
species at least of your little corner kingdom in it.

It's just as simple as that. If you can get away with it, then there is
no crime. And more importantly if the Israelis did it, then it is
certainly OK. They have killed lots of scientists (remember the guy
building the super gun for Saddam?) Zionists are the ULTIMATE social
Darwinists. So whatever they do is OK. Got it?

Of course you COULD play by the same rules too, but that is why you've
been educated to believe in "fairy tales".

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:29:59 -0800, The Starmaker

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

>Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>
>

>Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..
>
>How about those guys that make computer viruses? Kill them all!!!
>Save money on virus cleaners...
>
>Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.
>
>I'm safe, are you?
>
>
>The Starmaker

Ask Pol Pot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
They killed everyone who would wear eye-glasses.
Those damned intellectuals, you know.
Kill 'em.

w.

[Marvin the Martian]

Yes. Anyone with an education, glasses, or who spoke a foreign language
(non Cambodian).

I have a buddy who's been there and done that. He figured out what was
going on, ditched the glasses, and dummied up on the French. He lived,
but it wasn't pretty.

I think you (and many other numb-nuts) missed Starmaker's point, however.
He's saying it is BAD thing to murder scientist. He's just exercising a
reduction to absurdity argument. He isn't really advocating the killing
of anyone with an above average intelligence, he's arguing against it.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:03:56 -0800, The Starmaker wrote:


> Here is a photo of a graduationg nuclear scientist students:
>

> https://engineering.purdue.edu/NE/Academics/Graduate/NE%20Students%
20Spring%202011.jpg

Send the men to my Martian salt mines. Send the women to my harem. Yee-Ya-
Ha-HAW!! Yes, they will pleasure me well!!

[Marvin the Martian]

A little cynical, but not as harsh as reality; you left out the Satanist
thing and Ba'al and all that. It also helps to have a religion that says
you're the master race, chosen by god himself to rule the world and to
use the goyim (cattle) for whatever you want.

[Marvin the Martian]

Actually, laser isotope separation is now one of those "top secret"
secrets which are common knowledge. I had a nuke prof who made fun of
what the government tried to make secret. Some were so simple, he
assigned them as homework problems.

[greysky]

"PD" wrote in message news:jel1ri$tvj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

On 1/11/2012 4:06 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote:

>>
>> That's because nothing Einstein did contributed in any substantial
>> way to the development of nu clear weapons, whether engineering or
>> theory.
>
> He *initiated* it..
>
> in搏暗i戢te
>
> verb /i?niSHe-?a-t/
> initiated:
>
> Cause (a process or action) to begin

So he didn't initiate it.
It was Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner, and Fritz Strassman who discovered
fission. They were the ones who initiated it. Strassman and Hahn were
Germans, by the way, who rebelled against the Nazis, and Meitner was an
Austrian Jew.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Well, you could kill them as well.
Better yet, Just go through one of those old Solvay conference pictures
featuring all those bearded old guys in victorian garb, and kill them off
one by one.

G-

_______________________________________________________________________________________

[Jon Schild]

On 1/11/2012 10:29 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> How about those guys that make computer viruses? Kill them all!!!
> Save money on virus cleaners...

The appropriate punishment for virus writers would be to force them to
whatch as every scrap of computer equipment they own is destroyed. This
would include all installation disks, backup copies, etc. They need to
see just how funny it is to erase or destroy someone's property.
(This is in addition to any fines or prison time that a judge might impose.)

[The Starmaker]

well he wasn't killed because he was coming up with a better light
bulb...

[The Starmaker]

Well, I don't know what you're getting at...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.Tw8cTYFikro

My point of view is..
I'm an american citizen.
Somebody from another country
comes here and
starts killing our
nuclear scientists
by attaching a
magnetic bomb
to their cars..
to me that
is the same thing
if they
attach a
magnetic bomb
to the president's car
of the united states..

'it's an act of war'.

I expect
this country
to
put that
country
back to
the stone age.

It's unacceptable.

I will not have it.

Do I make myself clear?


The Starmaker

[Ed Stasiak]

> The Starmaker
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > That's because the Israelis did it.
>

> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?

It is from the Israeli's point of view.

Iran has been their admitted enemy for years now
and if / when they develop nukes, they become
inviolate.

Personally, I believe that if Israel can have nukes
then Iran can have them also and as the nuclear
cat was let out of the bag in 1945, there isn't much
that can be done about it.

[Bill Steele]

On 1/12/12 12:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> > >> That's because nothing Einstein did contributed in any substantial
>> > >> way to the development of nu clear weapons, whether engineering or
>> > >> theory.
>> >
>> > He*initiated* it..
>> >

Einstein demonstrated the equivalence of matter and energy. Others
figured out how to convert one into the other. Science is always a team
sport.

Einstein is also significant because his prestige enabled him to
convince the U.S, government that the idea should be pursued.

[Wayne Throop]

: Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu>
: Einstein demonstrated the equivalence of matter and energy. Others

: figured out how to convert one into the other.

For example, Argh the caveman figured out how to turn some of the
mass of wood into energy by lighting it on fire, a few thousand
years before Einstein.

: Einstein is also significant because his prestige enabled him to

: convince the U.S, government that the idea should be pursued.

But if he hadn't been available, some other stereotypical Schmott Guy
would have been asked to endorse the project.

[The Starmaker]

Ed Stasiak wrote:
>
> > The Starmaker
> > > Ed Stasiak
> > >
> > > That's because the Israelis did it.
> >
> > Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>
> It is from the Israeli's point of view.
>
> Iran has been their admitted enemy for years now
> and if / when they develop nukes, they become
> inviolate.

If that is the case..
Any country that Israel feels
is an enemy of theirs..they feel they
have a right to kill that country's nuclear scientist..

What country *isn't* an enemy of Israel?

>
> Personally, I believe that if Israel can have nukes
> then Iran can have them also and as the nuclear
> cat was let out of the bag in 1945, there isn't much
> that can be done about it.

Einstein felt
that only one country
should have the bomb..the u.s., ..
and if any other country
try to develope the bomb, he felt
they should be...exterminated.

The Starmaker

[Joseph Nebus]

In <13263...@sheol.org> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:

>: Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu>

>: Einstein is also significant because his prestige enabled him to
>: convince the U.S, government that the idea should be pursued.

>But if he hadn't been available, some other stereotypical Schmott Guy
>would have been asked to endorse the project.

Hm. I wonder who would have been a suitable Scientific Celebrity
to endorse the project were Einstein not available.

--
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Current Entry: From Drew Carey To An Imaginary Baseball Player
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[tphile2]

On Jan 12, 2:24 pm, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
> In <1326396...@sheol.org> thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
> >: Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu>

> >: Einstein is also significant because his prestige enabled him to
> >: convince the U.S, government that the idea should be pursued.
> >But if he hadn't been available, some other stereotypical Schmott Guy
> >would have been asked to endorse the project.
>
>         Hm.  I wonder who would have been a suitable Scientific Celebrity
> to endorse the project were Einstein not available.
>

> --http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/                            Joseph Nebus

> Current Entry: From Drew Carey To An Imaginary Baseball Player

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---

Doc Savage
Richard Seaton
Tom Swift
Doctor Who
just to name a few

[Ed Stasiak]

> The Starmaker
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Iran has been their admitted enemy for years now
> > and if / when they develop nukes, they become
> > inviolate.
>

> Any country that Israel feels is an enemy of theirs

> they feel they have a right to kill that country's nuclear
> scientist.

Yeah, pretty much.

> What country *isn't* an enemy of Israel?

Andorra?

> Einstein felt that only one country should have the

> bomb. the u.s.

Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, N.Korea
and Israel (and possibly soon, Iran and maybe Syria)
disagree.

> if any other country try to develope the bomb, he felt
> they should be...exterminated.

Which is exactly why other nations want their own nukes.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:48:02 -0800, The Starmaker wrote:

> Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>
>> > The Starmaker
>> > > Ed Stasiak
>> > >
>> > > That's because the Israelis did it.
>> >
>> > Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>>
>> It is from the Israeli's point of view.
>>
>> Iran has been their admitted enemy for years now and if / when they
>> develop nukes, they become inviolate.
>
> If that is the case..
> Any country that Israel feels
> is an enemy of theirs..they feel they have a right to kill that
> country's nuclear scientist..
>
> What country *isn't* an enemy of Israel?

That old terrorist Begin said Israel had no allies.

That attitude was one reason they had no problem murdering Americans in
their attack on the USS Liberty. We're just dirty pigs to be exploited.

Which oddly enough, is also an attitude that the Muslims hold.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:48:02 -0800, The Starmaker wrote:

Really? Got a cite for that? It wouldn't surprise me that he had such a
horrific view; Einstein was very hypocritical for being a pacifist. He
ran behind US lines and then pissed on the American soldiers who were
fighting and dying to protect his cowardly ass.

[Alfonso]

On 11/01/12 22:06, The Starmaker wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote:
>>

>> : The Starmaker<star...@ix.netcom.com>
>> : Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..
>>
>> If you went back in time and killed Einstein before he signed off
>> on the letter to Rosevelt, the Manhattan project would proceed just
>> the same, and get the same results. Even if you killed him before
>> he published "does the inertia of a body depend upon its
>> energy content" , or even before "on the electrodynamics of
>> moving bodies", it would *still* not affect the development
>> of nuclear weapons.

>>
>> That's because nothing Einstein did contributed in any substantial
>> way to the development of nu clear weapons, whether engineering or theory.
>

> He *initiated* it..
>
> in搏暗i戢te
>
> verb /i?niSHe-?a-t/
> initiated:
>
> Cause (a process or action) to begin
>

> My questions was:

>
> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?

> Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein?
>
> Isn't Al Einstein a nuclear scientist?
>
>
>
> Nuclear means *relating* to weapons that explode by using the energy released (e=mc2).

My understanding is that the energy released by an atomic bomb has
nothing to do with converting mass into energy (e=mc^2). It comes from
binding energy. Basically if you have two protons they are both
positively charged so repel each other. If you could squeeze two protons
close enough together they link together. If you disrupt them they fly
apart releasing the energy it required to squeeze them together.
Obviously in the nucleus of a radio-active material there are more than
2 protons but this basically is what is released in an atomic bomb.

[Alfonso]

On 11/01/12 17:29, The Starmaker wrote:
> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

>
>
> Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..
>

> How about those guys that make computer viruses? Kill them all!!!
> Save money on virus cleaners...
>

> Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.

The human brain is highly complex and IQ only measures one aspect of it.
Far too much emphasis is placed upon it. Apart from human brains which
are damaged in some way the average brain size is the same independent
of IQ. It would seem logical to assume that someone gifted in one area
is deficient in another. I am seriously deficient in so many areas my
theory suggests that there must be something I'm brilliant at. I wonder
what!

[Mike Dworetsky]

Well, that's what converting mass into energy is about. But what you are
confused about is the binding energy of light elements which is exploited in
fusion weapons--the nucleus of helium contains less energy in the form of
mass (due to binding energy, which can be thought of as negative, like
potential energy in a gravitational field) than four individual hydrogen
nuclei (that isn't the reaction used, but same principle). So combining H
into He releases that energy.

The fission proces exploits the opposite property of heavy nuclei; heavy
nuclei (heavier than iron)contain less negative binding energy per nucleon
than somewhat lighter nuclei, hence if a uranium nucleus spontaneously
splits into two smaller pieces or can be induced to split by making it
unstable, the sum of masses of the fission products is smaller than the mass
of the original heavy nucleus, with the remaining energy released in the
form of kinetic energy and radiation.

> positively charged so repel each other. If you could squeeze two
> protons close enough together they link together. If you disrupt them
> they fly apart releasing the energy it required to squeeze them
> together. Obviously in the nucleus of a radio-active material there
> are more than 2 protons but this basically is what is released in an
> atomic bomb.
>
>>
>> But what do you know about...relate? You don't know how to put 2 and
>> 2 together.... The Starmaker

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:18:58 +0000, Alfonso wrote:

> On 11/01/12 17:29, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>>
>>
>> Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..
>>
>> How about those guys that make computer viruses? Kill them all!!! Save
>> money on virus cleaners...
>>
>> Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.
>
> The human brain is highly complex and IQ only measures one aspect of it.

Your statement is tautological and irrelevant.

> Far too much emphasis is placed upon it.

Intelligence is essential to humanity.

> Apart from human brains which
> are damaged in some way the average brain size is the same independent
> of IQ.

That is a red herring. The difference in intelligence is important, to
say that it is not important because brain sizes are similar is stupid.

U-288 and U-285 are ALMOST the same weight, but they are vastly different
in one important way. To say they are almost the same so their fissile
properties are the same is a stupidity.

> It would seem logical to assume that someone gifted in one area
> is deficient in another. I am seriously deficient in so many areas my
> theory suggests that there must be something I'm brilliant at. I wonder
> what!

We all wonder what that may be.

[David DeLaney]

Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:18:58 +0000, Alfonso wrote:
>> The human brain is highly complex and IQ only measures one aspect of it.
>
>Your statement is tautological and irrelevant.
>
>> Far too much emphasis is placed upon it.
>
>Intelligence is essential to humanity.

Sadly, wisdom seems not to be. Or charisma.

>U-288 and U-285 are ALMOST the same weight, but they are vastly different
>in one important way. To say they are almost the same so their fissile
>properties are the same is a stupidity.

... ... You are Isaac Asimov, and I claim an extended melding session.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Bill Snyder]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:48:30 -0600, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:18:58 +0000, Alfonso wrote:
>
>> On 11/01/12 17:29, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>>>
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..
>>>
>>> How about those guys that make computer viruses? Kill them all!!! Save
>>> money on virus cleaners...
>>>
>>> Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.
>>
>> The human brain is highly complex and IQ only measures one aspect of it.
>
>Your statement is tautological and irrelevant.
>
>> Far too much emphasis is placed upon it.
>
>Intelligence is essential to humanity.

Unless you are a visiting alien, your existence proves the
contrary.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Greg Goss]

mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:

>In article <4F0E07...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>>Isn't Al Einstein a nuclear scientist?

...

>
>>Nuclear means *relating* to weapons that explode by using the energy released (e=mc2).
>

>No, its meaning is a little narrower than that. After all, the bombs
>used in the American Civil War exploded by using the energy released,
>as well. And, yes, E = mc^2 is just as true for chemical release of
>energy as it is for all other kinds of energy.

Weren't the Civil War bombs based on electron shell energy. It's not
"nuclear" unless you involve the nucleus.
--
"Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)

[Greg Goss]

"BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:


>It means in a nutshell that
>religion is a fairy tale. It's garbage stories for children. The only
>thing that counts is pure animal behavior in the present! If someone has
>something you want, and you have the strength to take it, you TAKE IT!
>If they get in your way, you KILL THEM! It's just natural selection.
>Survival of the fittest! The progress of our species obviously DEPENDS
>upon these actions.

Survival of the fittest could also be expressed as survival of the
best at fitting in. How many grandkids did any of the top Nazis have?

[Greg Goss]

Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

>> Here is a photo of a graduationg nuclear scientist students:
>>
>> https://engineering.purdue.edu/NE/Academics/Graduate/NE%20Students%
>20Spring%202011.jpg
>
>Send the men to my Martian salt mines. Send the women to my harem. Yee-Ya-
>Ha-HAW!! Yes, they will pleasure me well!!

"Wouldn't it be nice ... if they gave PhDs
for stroking me with hypotheses?"

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>

> : Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..

>
> If you went back in time and killed Einstein before he signed off
> on the letter to Rosevelt, the Manhattan project would proceed just
> the same, and get the same results. Even if you killed him before
> he published "does the inertia of a body depend upon its
> energy content" , or even before "on the electrodynamics of
> moving bodies", it would *still* not affect the development
> of nuclear weapons.
>
> That's because nothing Einstein did contributed in any substantial
> way to the development of nu clear weapons, whether engineering or theory.

The atomic bomb is 'Einstein's Theory'!

Wayne fails to understand who Einstein was...


The Theory of Relativity is Einstein's theory. Am I correct?

It doesn't belong to anybody else, no matter 'who tests it'..no matter who 'proves it'..it's
still Einstein's theory, not anyone else. No matter who takes a clock or a train...it still
Einstein's theory...it belongs to him. Einstein didn't need to take a train or put clocks on
the moon...Einstein is in fact, a Theoretical Physics.

That means he doesn't have to test his theories...he just thinks about it.

The source of the theory of relativity is Einstein's mind.

Now, ...

the atomic bomb, the source, the original source comes from the same place the
theory of relativity comes from, where the atomic bomb came from.

It is a fact, the atomic bomb is 'Einstein's Theory'. He thought it up all by himself. *He even said he did.*
He doesn't have to bomb Japanessee people to prove it's his...others do it for him..but he gets the same
credit as he gets for his theory of relativity.

Like the girl says in the movie The Midnight Cowboy..."He's the only one". "He's the only one" "He's the only one".


The Starmaker

[Michael Stemper]

Which isn't what starfaker said.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
There is three erors in this sentence.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: The atomic bomb is 'Einstein's Theory'!

He never so much as mentioned the bomb in any published scientific papers.
Nor did he contribute to any of the engineering involved.
So, no, "the atomic bomb" was not "Einstein's theory".
In fact, it wasn't a theory at all, nor did Einstein have
anything substantive to do with designing it.

: Wayne fails to understand who Einstein was...

Einstein was a theoretical physicist, who never worked on bomb design.

: the atomic bomb, the source, the original source comes from the same

: place the theory of relativity comes from

No it doesn't. And repeating it over and over won't make it true.
The original source of the idea for the atomic bomb was from
the demonstration of fission, with the amount of energy known to
result from radioactive decay as an additional hint.
Einstein had nothing to do with either of these.

: It is a fact, the atomic bomb is 'Einstein's Theory'.

No, it's a common misconception that Einstein had something to do with
the design of nuclear weapons. But he didn't. Here's what Einstein
said about where the concept for the bomb came from:

In the course of the last four months it has been made probable
through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in
America that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain
reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power
and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.

Namely, fission plus radioactivity. Relativity had nothing to do with it,
and in fact neither relativity nor mass-energy equivalence is even
mentioned in the letter to Roseveldt. If Einstein had never come up
with relativity, and E=mc^2 was completely unknown, nuclear weapons
would still have been inspired by the demonstration of fission.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:07:50 -0700, Greg Goss wrote:

> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>>> Here is a photo of a graduationg nuclear scientist students:
>>>
>>> https://engineering.purdue.edu/NE/Academics/Graduate/NE%20Students%
>>20Spring%202011.jpg
>>
>>Send the men to my Martian salt mines. Send the women to my harem.
>>Yee-Ya- Ha-HAW!! Yes, they will pleasure me well!!
>
> "Wouldn't it be nice ... if they gave PhDs for stroking me with
> hypotheses?"

I had a female professor in grad school who tried to make that a reality.
Sexual harassment was rampant back then, but it was "liberated" enough
that it was going both ways.

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : The atomic bomb is 'Einstein's Theory'!
>
> He never so much as mentioned the bomb in any published scientific papers.
> Nor did he contribute to any of the engineering involved.
> So, no, "the atomic bomb" was not "Einstein's theory".
> In fact, it wasn't a theory at all, nor did Einstein have
> anything substantive to do with designing it.
>
> : Wayne fails to understand who Einstein was...
>
> Einstein was a theoretical physicist, who never worked on bomb design.
>
> : the atomic bomb, the source, the original source comes from the same
> : place the theory of relativity comes from
>
> No it doesn't. And repeating it over and over won't make it true.
> The original source of the idea for the atomic bomb was from
> the demonstration of fission, with the amount of energy known to
> result from radioactive decay as an additional hint.
> Einstein had nothing to do with either of these.
>
> : It is a fact, the atomic bomb is 'Einstein's Theory'.

Here is what Einstein said, in his own words regarding the atomic bomb..

"I believed only that it is...theoretically possible."

Now for those of yous who don't understand what "theoretically" means...

in a theoretical manner; "he worked the problem out theoretically"

He's a Theoretical Physics goddamnit!!!

"Albert Einstein showed that space is curved, time is relative, and time travel is theoretically possible."


Since Albert Einstein said in his own words that a atomic bomb "it is theoretically possible", ...thats his
game, that's his racket...

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his services to Theoretical Physics".

The Atom bomb is his baby!



The Starmaker



Now Wayne, you could go home and sit in a bath tub and slash your wrist..

[G=EMC^2]

On Jan 13, 6:47 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote:
>

> > : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>

Einstein got the Nobel for the "photoelectric effect" TreBert

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:19:56 -0800, G=EMC^2 wrote:


> Einstein got the Nobel for the "photoelectric effect" TreBert

... and other unstated contributions to physics.

They didn't give it to him for Lorentz-Fitzgerald relativity, or
Hilbert's Geometrodynamics. Darn.

[Butch Malahide]

On Jan 13, 10:48 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> U-288 and U-285 are ALMOST the same weight, but they are vastly different
> in one important way. To say they are almost the same so their fissile
> properties are the same is a stupidity.

Do such heavy isotopes of uranium even exist?

[hanson]

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...
>
Nazi-"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
-- "BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >
>
Ben Jacoby wrote:
Religion is a fairy tale. It's stories for children. The

only thing that counts is pure animal behavior in the
present! If someone has something you want, and
you have the strength to take it, you TAKE IT!
If they get in your way, you KILL THEM!
It's just natural selection. Survival of the fittest!
The progress of our species obviously DEPENDS

upon these actions. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!
All world leaders believe this.
If you can get away with it [like killing scientists], then
there is no crime. ... if the Israelis did it, then it is OK.
They have killed lots of scientists (remember the guy
building the super gun for Saddam?) Zionists are the
ULTIMATE social Darwinists.
So whatever they do is OK. Got it?
[See what the eminent Jewish scholar Harold Wallace
Rosenthal says about that in his
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT> ]

>
Nazi-"Greg Goss" yearned & wrote:
How many grandkids did any of the top Nazis have?
>

hanson wrote:
There may be a least one direct son from the Nazi
top line (tl). Said Nazi-son apparently dropped the
letters "tl" from his birth-name "Hitler" & then called
himself rabbi "Hier", ... the Fuehrer of the holocaust
museum... Now, Gross-Goss, check out for yourself
how many "grandkids of the top Nazis" there are.
Thanks for the laughs you Dreidel..... ahahahanson


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[David DeLaney]

Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:19:56 -0800, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>> Einstein got the Nobel for the "photoelectric effect" TreBert
>
>... and other unstated contributions to physics.

Wasn't explaining Brownian motion also in there somewhere? ... Oh, okay,
_especially_ for photoelectric effect, plus other stuff. (And he invented the
basis for lasers along the way as well.)

>They didn't give it to him for Lorentz-Fitzgerald relativity, or
>Hilbert's Geometrodynamics. Darn.

Dave "there's no Nobel Prize in math :P " DeLaney

[David DeLaney]

As I already alluded to, it depends on what universe you're in.

Dave "their half-lives are probably comparable" DeLaney

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:13:42 -0500, David DeLaney wrote:

> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:19:56 -0800, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>> Einstein got the Nobel for the "photoelectric effect" TreBert
>>
>>... and other unstated contributions to physics.
>
> Wasn't explaining Brownian motion also in there somewhere?

"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his
discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/

[Marvin the Martian]

Nope. Typo. Brain fart. Whatever.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Here is what Einstein said, in his own words regarding the atomic

: bomb..
:
: "I believed only that it is...theoretically possible."

The interesting part being, he didn't say he did any design work, nor
did he say it was possible because of relativity. Largely because he
didn't do any design work, and the theoretical basis had nothing to do
with rerlativity, nor with e=mc^2.

: The Atom bomb is his baby!

A fairly neglectful parent, then, since he didn't work on its design,
and the work he did do had nothing to do with it.

[The Starmaker]

but you said:

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> In fact, it wasn't a theory at all,

and Einstein said:

"I believed only that it is theoretically possible."

[Tom Potter]

>"G=EMC^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c0463873-9e8b-4e21...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

Einstein got his Nobel because Jews had acquired
a dominate position in Mass Media in the late 1800's
and were aggressively promoting the fiction
that Jews were intelligent, "virtuous victims"

in order to rationalize why Jews had come into conflict
with all of their neighbors throughout history
and why the Jewish culture was vastly inferior
to the cultures of Egypt, Persia, India, China, Greece, Rome, etc.,

They made Einstein their Poster Boy as a keystone in this campaign,
and even declared him "Man of the Century"
even though his "photoelectric effect" stole and DISTORTED
Max Planck's quantum (Action) and promoted the fiction
that energy, rather than action
was transferred between a cause and an effect.

It is interesting to see that although Einstein's
aggressively hyped General Relativity uses
rubber clocks and rulers to waste time, money and minds
on such things as time travel, warping through space,
gravity waves, dragging space around aging twins, etc.

and does not compare to the Watson/Crick DNA model that
is used millions of times every day to improve crops and health,
fight crime, reconstruct history, etc.

nor to CCD invention of George Smith and Willard Boyle
that revolutionized computer memory and cameras,

that the Mass Media has managed to brainwash the masses
to believe that Einstein was "The man of the century".

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://www.prioritize.biz/
http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtml
http://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com

[Alfonso]

On 13/01/12 16:48, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:18:58 +0000, Alfonso wrote:
>
>> On 11/01/12 17:29, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Is it alright to kill a nuclear scientist?
>>>
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it alright to have killed Albert Einstein? Ask any japaneese guy..
>>>
>>> How about those guys that make computer viruses? Kill them all!!! Save
>>> money on virus cleaners...
>>>
>>> Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.
>>
>> The human brain is highly complex and IQ only measures one aspect of it.
>
> Your statement is tautological and irrelevant.

An IQ test does not test visual memory, visual processing, musicality,
audio discrimination, and a host of other brain functions. I recall a
paper on one chap to whom you could play 3 tones of different
frequencies - not related in the musical sense who could reproduce those
frequencies an hour later with amazing precision. It had nothing to do
with IQ and it is difficult to see what evolutionary benefit such a
skill might have. If you look at a top snooker player, the appreciation
of angles, the effect of spin, the exact amount of force required
require an exceptional brain but not necessarily a particularly high IQ.
There are people with a remarkable photographic memory. I have the
opposite - exceedingly poor visual memory and what I have is in black
and white. There are people who can look at a 9 letter anagram and solve
it in 2 seconds - I could look at it all day without a result OTOH I am
good at maths. Top Quizzers are capable of committing to memory lists of
dates and other facts. It is a talent which they have which others do
not have. None of these things are measured in an IQ test. Different
brains are wired differently, have different capabilities and just
because someone has a high IQ doesn't mean he is not totally useless at
many things. No one is good at everything.

OTOH an IQ test for presidents of the US might not be a bad idea.

[Dano]

"Tom Potter" wrote in message news:wCbQq.2$DS...@newsfe23.iad...

==================================

Yours would seem to be the proof.

[Androcles]

"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jes6jc$auu$1...@dont-email.me...

You do realise that was a compliment?

[Dano]

"Androcles" wrote in message news:fFhQq.28$t_2...@newsfe22.ams2...

===============================

You think so do you?

Unbridled bigotry is always a sure sign of ignorance.

[hanson]

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
>
"Dano", the fool, <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
The Starchmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>

Jewish Jailbird "G=EMC^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Einstein got the Nobel for the "photoelectric effect" TreBert
>

"Dano", the fool, <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Potter, Yours would seem to be the proof.
>
hanson wrote:
--- [ Potter 1 : Dano 0, zilch, nada ]---
>
Dano, you poor sod, you appear to be one of
those damaged goods & wasted minds that got
brainwashed by the kikes and became their
goyim (= cattle) who were made to believe that
=== Jewish shit don't stink ===... ahaAHAHA...
>
Not only is Potter correct, but on top of that
Einstein's own writing shows, that Einstein
STOLE E=mc^2 from Pretto and Hasenohrl
and AE apologized for it publicly in 1907.
>
Einstein, got arrested twice for wife-beating
in 1906, and after he divorced his Christian
wife Mileva Maric, who was the inventor and
intellectual property owner of the 1905 SR-
paper, Einstein was forced by the court to
fork over all of his Nobel-cash to her as...
== HUSH money== .. to keep the Einstein
lies going on...
>
Like Potter said, the Zios took care of him,
and kept him in the lime light, for he was a
useful tool for their own agenda. Einstein
paid them back by going on a world-tour in
1921 to promote Zionism, whose goal it was
to bring the world's Diaspora Jews back to
Palestine... ... ... ... News at 11... ahahaha...
>
Here, Dano, read & see yourself profiled by the

eminent Jewish scholar Harold Wallace Rosenthal

who said about you, **and fools like you**, in his
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
>
Thanks for the laughs, Dano, you Dreidel
ahahahaha... ahahahanson

[Dano]

"hanson" the raging, unbalanced, and bigoted cunt spat these words:

Dano, you poor sod, you appear to be one of
those damaged goods & wasted minds that got

brainwashed by the kikes...

<snip>

==================================

Thanks for well illustrating the point you ignorant twat.

Oh yes...and <plonk>

[Androcles]

"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:jesban$6fi$1...@dont-email.me...

[hanson]

ahahahaha... too much!... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
>
"Dano", with his brain full of Drano, <janea...@yahoo.com>
cranked himself grievously when he wrote:
"hanson, you cunt and twat... Oh yes...and <plonk>"
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaHAHAHA... Hey, Drano, I didn't mean to crank
you, & cause you to perform a very discombobulated
Yiddisher street-corner act... You shouldn't get angry
at me because the eminent Jewish scholar Harold
Wallace Rosenthal characterized you accurately in his
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
>
Here, you poor sod, is the tripe again that made you
realize that you are... unfortunately... damaged goods:
>
<snip old stuff>

Potter, yours would seem to be the proof.

>
hanson wrote:
--- [ Potter 1 : Dano 0, zilch, nada ]---
>

Dano, you poor sod, you appear to be one of
those damaged goods & wasted minds that got

[Greg Goss]

"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote
>| in order to rationalize why ...

>| Jewish culture was vastly inferior

>Unbridled bigotry is always a sure sign of ignorance.

OK, I'll endorse that latter statement.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:20:24 -0700, Greg Goss wrote:

> "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>| in order to rationalize why ...
>>| Jewish culture was vastly inferior
>
>>Unbridled bigotry is always a sure sign of ignorance.
>
> OK, I'll endorse that latter statement.

why? Because it feels good? Because other people will affirm you and say
nice things if you agree?

Bigotry is the result of human intelligence working to either preserve
it's culture or as a result of experience.

Like slaughtering a pig, it's not pretty, but Bacon and pork chops are
GOOD. I dig on swine.

[hanson]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:SZidnY5wAMkLb4zS...@giganews.com...

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:20:24 -0700, Greg Goss wrote:
>> "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Potter wrote"
>>>| in order to rationalize why Jewish culture ...
>>>| was vastly inferior... can be seen by studying
>>>| history, when Jews are unable to piggyback
>>>| on other cultures, they quickly revert to
>>>| goat herding and primitive dirt farming. ...

>>
>> "Drano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Unbridled bigotry is always a sure sign of ignorance.
>>

Greg Goss wrote:
>> OK, I'll endorse that latter statement.
>

Marvin wrote:
> why? Because it feels good? Because other people
> will affirm you and say nice things if you agree?
> Bigotry is the result of human intelligence working to
> either preserve it's culture or as a result of experience.
> Like slaughtering a pig, it's not pretty, but Bacon and
> pork chops are
> GOOD. I dig on swine.
>

hanson wrote:
Good, Marvin!... ahahahaha.. Now, you can invite &
incite some kikes for/over a fine swine dinner, since
the rabbinical council of JerUSAlem has updated
the Talmudic edicts, in 1995 or so, that Jews ought
to catch up now with modern times, go ahead and
eat pork... ahahaha...
I'm not making this up... "Go figure"... ehhh "google".
>
If you go international & add some Vietnamese to
your dinner party you may even wok some splendid
"Schweinehund", stir fried....
>
... and lastly... re your remark of "slaughtering a pig"
which echoes the epic remark by Winston Churchill
in ~ Summer of 1945 when he had a moment of
enlightenment and exclaimed: 'We have slaughtered
the wrong pig"... and saw eye to eye with US General
George S. Patton who urged SHAPE to rearm the
Germans and march back East into Russia again
to get Stalin & his Commies...
>
Thanks for the laughs, .... ahahaha... ahahahanson

[Wayne Throop]

:: In fact, it wasn't a theory at all,

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

: Einstein said:
: "I believed only that it is theoretically possible."

Gee, you say that almost as if you think it contradicts what I sid.

Just because I believe bicycles are theoretically possible doesn't make
a bicycle a theory. The standard model is a theory. Nucler weapons
are not, and were not even before they were built. And stating that
the standard model shows nuclear weapons are possible (which is to say,
"theoretically possible") doesn't make them a theory.

Nor does a person saying bicycles are theoretically possible mean that
that person worked on bicycle design, or had anything to do with
bicycle design.

In fact, Einstein didn't work on the design of nuclear weapons, and
the things he did work on werent useful for designing nuclear weapons.
Those are just the facts of the matter, simple and straightforward,
no matter how you may try to obfuscate or distort them.

Specifically, mass-energy equivalence is not useful for designing nuclear
weapons. It wasn't what made people think nuclear weapons were possible
in theory, nor was it useful in coming up any practical methods by which
nuclear weapons could be built. Nuclear weapons would have been just
as easy to conceive of and design if mass-energy equivalence had never
been proposed, and if fission hadn't been experimentally discovered,
mass-energy equivalence could not have led to any alternative.

Despite popular misconceptions, relativity and mass-energy equivalence
had nothing to do with the conception and design of nuclear weapons.
Nothing at all.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Tom Potter" <tdp...@yahoo.com>
: It is interesting to see that although Einstein's aggressively hyped

: General Relativity uses rubber clocks and rulers

Another popular misconception. In relativity, clock ticks and rulers
are invariant (ie, span an invariant proper interval). It's
the ether theory that had clocks and rulers being distorted.

[bozo]

>
> Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.
>

> I'm safe, are you?
>
> The Starmaker

False modesty and one or two standard deviations aside, Starmaker,
you're still quite at risk with that colossal IQ of yours hovering so
formidably between 99 and 101, but as a career cross posting troll and
attention whore, you are as transparent a Jew hater and desperate
wannabe artist as I've ever seen, who I betcha has rarely if ever
contributed a whit of content or substance worthwhile, good luck with
that you high achieving argumentative little bozo (and your little
dregs and fanbois here TOO).

-bdn-

[David DeLaney]

bozo <Bozo_D...@37.com> wrote:
>> Make it easy, kill everyone with an IQ over 100.
>> I'm safe, are you?
>> The Starmaker
>
>False modesty and one or two standard deviations aside, Starmaker,
>you're still quite at risk with that colossal IQ of yours hovering so
>formidably between 99 and 101,

You give him great credit.

Dave

[Marvin the Martian]

Oh, that's wrong. A "proper time" interval is invariant, but time and
length are NOT. Gamma, length contraction and time dilation and all that.

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> :: In fact, it wasn't a theory at all,
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Einstein said:
> : "I believed only that it is theoretically possible."
>
> Gee, you say that almost as if you think it contradicts what I sid.

it does...you should be in the bathtub slashing your wrist.

>
> Just because I believe bicycles are theoretically possible doesn't make
> a bicycle a theory. The standard model is a theory. Nucler weapons
> are not, and were not even before they were built. And stating that
> the standard model shows nuclear weapons are possible (which is to say,
> "theoretically possible") doesn't make them a theory.

Nothing can be 'theoretically possible' *without* 'a theory' in part.

>
> Nor does a person saying bicycles are theoretically possible mean that
> that person worked on bicycle design, or had anything to do with
> bicycle design.
>
> In fact, Einstein didn't work on the design of nuclear weapons, and
> the things he did work on werent useful for designing nuclear weapons.
> Those are just the facts of the matter, simple and straightforward,
> no matter how you may try to obfuscate or distort them.
>
> Specifically, mass-energy equivalence is not useful for designing nuclear
> weapons. It wasn't what made people think nuclear weapons were possible
> in theory, nor was it useful in coming up any practical methods by which
> nuclear weapons could be built. Nuclear weapons would have been just
> as easy to conceive of and design if mass-energy equivalence had never
> been proposed, and if fission hadn't been experimentally discovered,
> mass-energy equivalence could not have led to any alternative.
>
> Despite popular misconceptions, relativity and mass-energy equivalence
> had nothing to do with the conception and design of nuclear weapons.
> Nothing at all.

Maybe you have 30 40 vision or 20 30 hearing...

I didn't say 'nuclear weapons'..I said he was refering to 'atomic bombs'..

> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Here is what Einstein said, in his own words regarding the atomic
> : bomb..
> :

> : "I believed only that it is theoretically possible."

Nothing can be 'theoretically possible' *without* a theory in part.


Try drinking Clorox...

It's over for you..

You no longer make any sense.

The Starmaker

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Jan 14, 8:08 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> > :: In fact, it wasn't a theory at all,
>

> > : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>

> > : Einstein said:
> > : "I believed only that it is theoretically possible."
>
> > Gee, you say that almost as if you think it contradicts what I sid.
>
> it does...you should be in the bathtub slashing your wrist.

You wrote:

> Einstein said:
> "I believed only that it is theoretically possible."

He didn't say "According to my theory..." because it wasn't his
theory behind nuclear weapons.

Period.

> Nothing can be 'theoretically possible' *without* 'a theory' in part.

Correct. But Einstein NEVER published ANY theories concerning
nuclear weapons.

Period.

> > Nor does a person saying bicycles are theoretically possible mean that
> > that person worked on bicycle design, or had anything to do with
> > bicycle design.
>
> > In fact, Einstein didn't work on the design of nuclear weapons, and
> > the things he did work on werent useful for designing nuclear weapons.
> > Those are just the facts of the matter, simple and straightforward,
> > no matter how you may try to obfuscate or distort them.
>
> > Specifically, mass-energy equivalence is not useful for designing nuclear
> > weapons.  It wasn't what made people think nuclear weapons were possible
> > in theory, nor was it useful in coming up any practical methods by which
> > nuclear weapons could be built.  Nuclear weapons would have been just
> > as easy to conceive of and design if mass-energy equivalence had never
> > been proposed, and if fission hadn't been experimentally discovered,
> > mass-energy equivalence could not have led to any alternative.
>
> > Despite popular misconceptions, relativity and mass-energy equivalence
> > had nothing to do with the conception and design of nuclear weapons.
> > Nothing at all.
>
> Maybe you have 30 40 vision or 20 30 hearing...
>
> I didn't say 'nuclear weapons'..I said he was refering to 'atomic bombs'..

Atomic bombs like "Little Boy" (a uranium bomb) and "Fat Man" (which
used Plutonium), the bombs that were dropped over Hiroshima and
Nagasaki? That kind of "atomic bombs"?

You blathering idiot, "atomic bombs" ARE "nuclear weapons".

What made you believe they are different things?

> > : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>

> > : Here is what Einstein said, in his own words regarding the atomic
> > : bomb..
> > :
> > : "I believed only that it is theoretically possible."
>
> Nothing can be 'theoretically possible' *without* a theory in part.

None of Einstein's are involved in atomic bombs/nuclear weapons.

Period.

> Try drinking Clorox...
>
> It's over for you..
>
> You no longer make any sense.

That you can't make sense of what people say does not demonstrate
they're not talking sense.

It demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Wayne Throop]

::: It is interesting to see that although Einstein's aggressively hyped

::: : General Relativity uses rubber clocks and rulers

:: Another popular misconception. In relativity, clock ticks and rulers
:: are invariant (ie, span an invariant proper interval). It's the
:: ether theory that had clocks and rulers being distorted.

: Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
: Oh, that's wrong. A "proper time" interval is invariant, but time and

: length are NOT. Gamma, length contraction and time dilation and all
: that.

You say that almost as if you think it conflicts with what I said.
The fact remains that the events at the beginning and end of a clock tick
are an invariant interval apart, and similarly for measuring rods.
The fact that some people disagree on whether those ticks occur at the
same place, or the ends of the rod are considered at the same time, and
thus apply factors of gamma here and there, is irrelevant.

In analytic geometry, delta(x) and delta(y) between two points varies
depending on which coordinate system you use. But that doesn't mean
that compasses and straightedges distort, because delta(x)^2+delta(y)^2 is
invariant. That's the pythagorean theorem and/or cartesian coordinates
in a nutshell.

In relativity, delta(x) and delta(t) between two events varies depending
on which coordinate system you use, but that doesn't mean clocks or rods
distort, because delta(x)^2-delta(t)^2 is invariant. That's relativity
and/or lorentz invariant coordinates in a nutshell. And that's why,
fundamentally, relativity is not really much more difficult than
high-school level analytic geometry.

Relativity is all about what *doesn't* change relative to different
coordinate systems, not about what *does*.

[Tom Potter]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13265...@sheol.org...

After Madam Curie discovered that energy was emitted spontaneously
from WITHIN certain elements about 1898,
H. G. Wells first conceived of nuclear weapons in 1914.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Set_Free

"The World Set Free is a novel published in 1914 by H. G. Wells. The book is
considered to foretell nuclear weapons. It had appeared first in serialized
form with a different ending as A Prophetic Trilogy, consisting of three
books: A Trap to Catch the Sun, The Last War in the World and The World Set
Free.[4]

Wells wrote:
"Never before in the history of warfare had there been a continuing
explosive; indeed, up to the middle of the twentieth century the only
explosives known were combustibles whose explosiveness was due entirely to
their instantaneousness; and these atomic bombs which science burst upon the
world that night were strange even to the men who used them."

[Tom Potter]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message

news:13266...@sheol.org...

Reality is about changes that occur relative to a
sentient person's particular coordinate systems,
and about the most useful and cost-effective way to monitor
and react to the changes.

For example,
if an intelligent person put an oscillator into orbit,
and wanted to know what the frequency of the
oscillator would be, they would first use
the effect that Galileo discovered centuries ago on
how oscillators are affected by acceleration,
and then they would monitor and verify the
frequency of the oscillator after the bird was in orbit.

If the person wanted the device to output particular frequencies,
he would use frequency synthesizers and
dividers to get the particular frequencies he wanted.

[David DeLaney]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 07:44:23 GMT, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>In analytic geometry, delta(x) and delta(y) between two points varies
>depending on which coordinate system you use. But that doesn't mean
>that compasses and straightedges distort, because delta(x)^2+delta(y)^2 is
>invariant. That's the pythagorean theorem and/or cartesian coordinates
>in a nutshell.
>
>In relativity, delta(x) and delta(t) between two events varies depending
>on which coordinate system you use, but that doesn't mean clocks or rods
>distort, because delta(x)^2-delta(t)^2 is invariant. That's relativity
>and/or lorentz invariant coordinates in a nutshell. And that's why,
>fundamentally, relativity is not really much more difficult than
>high-school level analytic geometry.
>
>Relativity is all about what *doesn't* change relative to different
>coordinate systems, not about what *does*.

And this is also why descriptions of it using hyperbolic rotations are
useful in the same way that regular rotations are useful in describing
parts of analytic geometry. (And the matrix forms of the rotations, for
relativity, lead straight to the Lorentz tensors and the metric...)