Who "invented" the twin paradox?

4 views
Skip to first unread message

josX

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 9:42:03 AM9/9/02
to
w...@wolfram-schmied.de (Wolfram Schmied) wrote:
>Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:<3D7C35A4...@nospam.xs4all.nl>...
>>Wolfram Schmied wrote:
>>>I have obtained a copy of the 1911 article "L'Evolution de l'espace et
>>>du temps" allegedly containing the derivation, and will put it online
>>>in a few days. Unfortunately, I don't speak fin-de-siecle physics
>>>French, and if someone with solid French-to-English or
>>>French-to-German competence could help me out on that one, I would be
>>>most grateful.
>>
>>Should be no problem. YBM offered also to help out,
>>maybe we can split the workload.
>
>That's great news. :) I'm proofreading ATM, so the text ought to be
>online Friday at latest. Thx to you and YBM for volunteering.
>
>> maybe this will help you see it :
>> 1. Consider an absolute reference, the stars.
>> 2. have the earth moving at 0.5c wrt the stars
>> 3. launch a rocket from earth, make its speed wrt the
>> stars equals zero. now time on earth moves slower than
>> on the rocket.

Ah, SR misunderstanding: time on earth moves slower then on the
rocket as computed from the rocket, *and* time on the rocket moves
slower then on the Earth as computed from the Earth.

Be precise, then you have instant disqualification of SR in your hands
immediately. Just say accurately what it says, no more needed.

>> 4.the rocket returns to earth, but now it has to move at
>> much more than 0.5 c to catch up, and its time will be
>> much more slowed down. Put in the numbers and see that
>> it gives exactly the same result as the the original
>> twin experiment. The one in the rocket is younger than
>> the one on earth.

You don't understand relativity. Do you want to keep it that way so you
can remain ignorant and believing, or do you want to lighten up and
understand. Just be more precise then what you do above, it's sloppy,
it is violating SR (chosing a prefferred frame of reference), you are
defending a theory of your own making, not SR.

You don't believe me?

Fine.

>Um, thx, but I have no problem with STR, and know how to get the right
>numbers. ;-) I'm just interested in the history of the "real" twin
>paradox here.

Einstein is such a friggin strange dude:
"The great attraction of the theory is its
logical consistency."
"If any deduction from it
should prove untenable, it must begiven up. A
modification of it seems impossible without de-
struction of the whole."

I was reading up on things at the beginning of this century, and
i think i know why SR was adopted: the people against it didn't
play the game as it should be played. They insulted too much, they
didn't ask for /evidence/ of c'=c but the tried to break the theory
down using it's paradoxes but aparently they allowed Einstein to
sneak through loopholes unnoticed. This might not suprise since
relativity is not a proper theory but more a collection of various
paradoxes to begin with. Had the played the game more civil like "oh
interesting Einstein, care to give us your physical data supporting
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum ?", and
they would probably have been in the clear. It were bad times then,
aparently swastickas being sold while lectures were being held. The
defenders of true physics couldn't argue Einstein out of his socks,
but they fell short of the absolute target by easing out with "contrary
to sound human intuition" (which is true, but not relevant or good
enough) etc.

Nice quote i found (and i see i'm not the first to accuse phycisists of
their corruption): Weyland in the 'Deutche Physikalische Gesellschaft':
"high time that fresh air enter this rat's nest of scientific
corruption."
"unter der Leitung Lenards die Vergewaltigung der Physik durch
mathematische Dogmen abgelehnt wird, wa:hrend auf der anderen Seite die
Einsteinophilen auf ihrem Standpunkt beharren und hurtig den Parnass
ihres Formelkrames zu erklimmen versuchen... es wohl die ho:chste
Zeit wird, dass in dieses Rattennest wissenchaftlicher Korruption
einmal frishe Luft kommt"

...and that is almost a century ago...

For some reason, the smart political siding of Einstein (who didn't have
a choice btw because of being Jew) and the anger of the anti-relativists
and aparently sometimes getting anti-semitic, work ofcourse for the
victory of Einstein, and the destruction that it brings to physics. Einstein
was gravely personally attacked, but aparently he realised that by mere
silence he could achieve a lot socially.

OTOH, one can't blame the angry anti-relativists, because Einstein is
a blizzard of Errors.
--
jos

Helmut Wabnig

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 2:22:39 PM9/9/02
to
On 9 Sep 2002 13:42:03 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:


>Nice quote i found (and i see i'm not the first to accuse phycisists of
>their corruption): Weyland in the 'Deutche Physikalische Gesellschaft':
>"high time that fresh air enter this rat's nest of scientific
>corruption."
>"unter der Leitung Lenards die Vergewaltigung der Physik durch
>mathematische Dogmen abgelehnt wird, wa:hrend auf der anderen Seite die
>Einsteinophilen auf ihrem Standpunkt beharren und hurtig den Parnass
>ihres Formelkrames zu erklimmen versuchen... es wohl die ho:chste
>Zeit wird, dass in dieses Rattennest wissenchaftlicher Korruption
>einmal frishe Luft kommt"
>
>...and that is almost a century ago...

You forgot, that those were the same people who killed
6 million Jews for religious reasons.

w.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 3:15:07 PM9/9/02
to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ali8fb$brd$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...

[snip]

>
> Nice quote i found (and i see i'm not the first to accuse phycisists of
> their corruption): Weyland in the 'Deutche Physikalische Gesellschaft':
> "high time that fresh air enter this rat's nest of scientific
> corruption."
> "unter der Leitung Lenards die Vergewaltigung der Physik durch
> mathematische Dogmen abgelehnt wird, wa:hrend auf der anderen Seite die
> Einsteinophilen auf ihrem Standpunkt beharren und hurtig den Parnass
> ihres Formelkrames zu erklimmen versuchen... es wohl die ho:chste
> Zeit wird, dass in dieses Rattennest wissenchaftlicher Korruption
> einmal frishe Luft kommt"
>
> ...and that is almost a century ago...

Very nice quote. It can be found in:
http://www.gnt-verlag.de/programm/15/p199-232_kleinert.shtml
"Paul Weyland, der Berliner Einstein-Töter"
Töter = killer
Antisemitic "science".
[Thanks Helmut Wabnig in message
1vqpnuooe02ju5fhc...@4ax.com ]

Dirk Vdm

josX

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 3:51:23 PM9/9/02
to

You forget that a German scientist brought us rocket technology. Not all
Germans are automatically wrong because they lived during Hitlers reign.

You also forget that only SS people would know about the mass-killings
of Jews, even Jews themselves believed they were going to relocation or
labour camps. The germans should perhaps have known, but it's hardly
a fact that german phycisists opposing relativity were all involved in
killing Jews.
--
jos

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 5:06:40 PM9/9/02
to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:aliu3r$m1h$8...@news1.xs4all.nl...

Well, here you go:
file:///D:/WebPage/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#JosNazi
Title: "Nice quote. OOPS, it's NAZI-propaganda. Ah, what the hell!"
Next time, check your sources.

Dirk Vdm

josX

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 3:09:27 AM9/10/02
to

Einstein only has helped the hatred against Jews, since he *was*
a lying and scamming Jew (as there are also lying and scamming
whites/blacks and orientals). If it wasn't for him, perhaps there
would have been more force against Hitler from the physics and science
at that time. The anger with Einstein would have easily flipped over
into anti-semitism since the object of anger is the same. If Einstein
was a brillaint Jew as he is portrayed today, giving germany great
inventions, who knows, maybe the Germans would not have been so
sensitive to Hitlers propaganda.

It is very unfortunate that of all people it is a jew who is the center
of this gigantic scam.
--
jos

RM Mentock

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 8:19:09 AM9/10/02
to
josX wrote:

> Einstein only has helped the hatred against Jews, since he *was*
> a lying and scamming Jew (as there are also lying and scamming
> whites/blacks and orientals). If it wasn't for him, perhaps there
> would have been more force against Hitler from the physics and science
> at that time. The anger with Einstein would have easily flipped over
> into anti-semitism since the object of anger is the same. If Einstein
> was a brillaint Jew as he is portrayed today, giving germany great
> inventions, who knows, maybe the Germans would not have been so
> sensitive to Hitlers propaganda.

Except, you know, he was portrayed as brilliant back then, so
your point is in error

--
RM Mentock

C. K. Monet, c'est moi

josX

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 9:22:49 AM9/10/02
to

But many disagreed, and i read he almost the ripped the physics community
into two "warring factions". Ofcourse the Nazi's were against Einstein,
and being right there, Einstein may have had an adverse effect on an
already bad situation. One might even think of a double-take scheme where
the media first goes nuts about a fake Jew theory to later crash 'n burn
it in Nazi-propaganda.
--
jos

RM Mentock

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 9:35:14 AM9/10/02
to
josX wrote:

> One might even think of a double-take scheme where
> the media first goes nuts about a fake Jew theory to later crash 'n burn
> it in Nazi-propaganda.

One wonders what you are thinking about when you should be paying
attention to physics.

josX

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 9:42:46 AM9/10/02
to
RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>josX wrote:
>> One might even think of a double-take scheme where
>> the media first goes nuts about a fake Jew theory to later crash 'n burn
>> it in Nazi-propaganda.
>
>One wonders what you are thinking about when you should be paying
>attention to physics.

Reality.
--
jos

RM Mentock

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 9:54:32 AM9/10/02
to
josX wrote:
>
> RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> >One wonders what you are thinking about when you should be paying
> >attention to physics.
>
> Reality.

the same thing as money?

josX

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 10:59:57 AM9/10/02
to
RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>josX wrote:
>>RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>One wonders what you are thinking about when you should be paying
>>>attention to physics.
>>
>>Reality.
>
>the same thing as money?

Dig this: "SRians mistake reality for money".

lol

telling no?

Bennett Standeven

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 5:37:56 PM9/10/02
to
jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<alk5r7$ok7$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>...

> Einstein only has helped the hatred against Jews, since he *was*
> a lying and scamming Jew (as there are also lying and scamming
> whites/blacks and orientals). If it wasn't for him, perhaps there
> would have been more force against Hitler from the physics and science
> at that time.


Yeah; instead wasting our time with that silly "atomic bomb", we could
try developing a _real_ device, like one that uses Friction to
immobilize German soldiers.

josX

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 3:59:59 AM9/11/02
to

Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. I don't buy it that E=mc^2
has anything to do with this bomb at all. I think it is far more likely that
there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity theories
had anything to do with the bomb. In any case: c' = c and a = g (the two
great insanities of A.E. sucked from his thumb) have little or nothing
to do with splitting atoms and obtaining fast moving particles from them.
I'd say that the bomb has more to do with chemistry, then with wrong
philosophical theories.

Question: E=Amc^2 is just the kinetic energy of light for A = .5. what
is so presumed special about this formula, where E=1/2mv^2 is simple
kinetic energy. Another fuckup? Another little piece of crap floating
around endlessly from A.E. because of an hysterical press and phycisists
taking advantage ?
Well ?
--
jos

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 7:58:05 AM9/11/02
to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:almt5v$e23$6...@news1.xs4all.nl...

"The Boersema Challenge"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#BoerChall

Anyone who takes the challenge should see a psychiatrist.
Anyone who, after this, still tries to talk sense into
this toothless terrorist, should have his head examined.

[Separate thread started]

Dirk Vdm


Spaceman

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 9:29:31 AM9/11/02
to
>From: "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com

>Anyone who takes the challenge should see a psychiatrist.
>Anyone who, after this, still tries to talk sense into
>this toothless terrorist, should have his head examined.
>

clocks malfuntion,
anyone that tries to teach such a FACT to Dirk,
should give up.
Dirk is forever lost in "spacetime"
<LOL>

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com

Michael J

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 9:51:42 AM9/11/02
to
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> :

> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. I don't buy it that
E=mc^2
> has anything to do with this bomb at all. I think it is far more likely
that
> there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity theories
> had anything to do with the bomb.

Because they really got the bomb from the Zetans. It operates on F=ma and
avoids any axioms.

M

P.S. All who haven't killfiled him, give my regards and a heartly <LOL> to
Space Cowboy!


Jan Bielawski

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 9:54:07 PM9/11/02
to
jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<almt5v$e23$6...@news1.xs4all.nl>...

> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. I don't buy it that E=mc^2
> has anything to do with this bomb at all. I think it is far more likely that
> there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity theories
> had anything to do with the bomb.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No doubt the Soviets did the same, eh?

> In any case: c' = c and a = g (the two
> great insanities of A.E. sucked from his thumb) have little or nothing
> to do with splitting atoms and obtaining fast moving particles from them.

Yes, sure. Like you would have a clue.

> I'd say that the bomb has more to do with chemistry, then with wrong
> philosophical theories.

Sure, sure. Chemistry. BWahahahahahaha!

> Question: E=Amc^2 is just the kinetic energy of light for A = .5.

HAHAHAHAHA! This is too much!

> what
> is so presumed special about this formula, where E=1/2mv^2 is simple
> kinetic energy. Another fuckup? Another little piece of crap floating
> around endlessly from A.E. because of an hysterical press and phycisists
> taking advantage ?
> Well ?

Well, the answer is obvious. You don't understand this stuff.

Jan Bielawski

josX

unread,
Sep 12, 2002, 6:02:09 AM9/12/02
to
j...@nostalghia.com (Jan Bielawski) wrote:
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<almt5v$e23$6...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. I don't buy it that E=mc^2
>> has anything to do with this bomb at all. I think it is far more likely that
>> there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity theories
>> had anything to do with the bomb.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No doubt the Soviets did the same, eh?

That would be a smart move.

>> In any case: c' = c and a = g (the two
>> great insanities of A.E. sucked from his thumb) have little or nothing
>> to do with splitting atoms and obtaining fast moving particles from them.
>
>Yes, sure. Like you would have a clue.

Which observation distinguishes between c'=c and c'=c+v Bielawsky ?
None ?
Ah indeed, none.

>> I'd say that the bomb has more to do with chemistry, then with wrong
>> philosophical theories.
>
>Sure, sure. Chemistry. BWahahahahahaha!
>
>> Question: E=Amc^2 is just the kinetic energy of light for A = .5.
>
>HAHAHAHAHA! This is too much!
>
>> what
>> is so presumed special about this formula, where E=1/2mv^2 is simple
>> kinetic energy. Another fuckup? Another little piece of crap floating
>> around endlessly from A.E. because of an hysterical press and phycisists
>> taking advantage ?
>> Well ?
>
>Well, the answer is obvious. You don't understand this stuff.

Cheap.
I was just asking legitimate questions.
--
jos

Pmb

unread,
Sep 13, 2002, 12:01:57 PM9/13/02
to
jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote

> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb.

This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!

> I don't buy it that E=mc^2 has anything to do with this bomb at all.

On what are you basing this assumption? Dio you know how a nuke works
in principle?

> I think it is far more likely that
> there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity theories
> had anything to do with the bomb.

You have been severely misled.

> I'd say that the bomb has more to do with chemistry, then with wrong
> philosophical theories.

Why do you think that?


>
> Question: E=Amc^2 is just the kinetic energy of light for A = .5.

That is incorrect. Have you even tried to learn what it is. From the
rest of your comments it appears that you've done nothing to learn it.

As a matter of fact it appears that you're simply a kid (let me guess
- 16 years old right?) in high school who thinks he knows everything
and has yet to even learn the theories which he's claiming to be
wrong.

No need to respond. We already know the answer.

Pmb

josX

unread,
Sep 13, 2002, 1:59:54 PM9/13/02
to
pm...@hotmail.com (Pmb) wrote:
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote
>
>> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb.
>
>This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
>entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!

I was informed by an SRist of this, i thought he worked on it but it
turns out he didn't.

>> I don't buy it that E=mc^2 has anything to do with this bomb at all.
>
>On what are you basing this assumption? Dio you know how a nuke works
>in principle?

- a bomb is something real, it has nothing to do with empty philosophies
- SR is about light, not about splitting atoms
- splitting atoms seems more like chemistry then philosophy to me
- SR is wrong

>> I think it is far more likely that
>> there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity theories
>> had anything to do with the bomb.
>
>You have been severely misled.

Perhaps you.

>> I'd say that the bomb has more to do with chemistry, then with wrong
>> philosophical theories.
>
>Why do you think that?

Because the bomb is something real.

>> Question: E=Amc^2 is just the kinetic energy of light for A = .5.
>
>That is incorrect. Have you even tried to learn what it is. From the
>rest of your comments it appears that you've done nothing to learn it.

Why should i bother to go farther into SR nonsense theoritory still while
i already can proof it wrong beyond any doubt many times over.

>As a matter of fact it appears that you're simply a kid (let me guess
>- 16 years old right?) in high school who thinks he knows everything
>and has yet to even learn the theories which he's claiming to be
>wrong.
>
>No need to respond. We already know the answer.

I am 28
--
jos

Robert Kolker

unread,
Sep 13, 2002, 2:41:59 PM9/13/02
to

josX wrote:
>
> I am 28

And you haven't learned a damned things for 27 years. Shame.

Bob Kolker

Randy Poe

unread,
Sep 13, 2002, 2:22:53 PM9/13/02
to
josX wrote:
>
> pm...@hotmail.com (Pmb) wrote:
> >jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote
> >
> >> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb.
> >
> >This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
> >entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
>
> I was informed by an SRist of this, i thought he worked on it but it
> turns out he didn't.

Statement 1: "Einstein did not work on the atomic bomb."
Statement 2: "Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb."

Statement 1 is true. Statement 2 is false. Statements
1 and 2 are not equivalent. Is that really so difficult?

- Randy

josX

unread,
Sep 13, 2002, 3:54:26 PM9/13/02
to
Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>josX wrote:
>>
>> I am 28
>
>And you haven't learned a damned things for 27 years. Shame.

Must i always lose, whatever i say?
Always *something* wrong isn't there.
--
jos

josX

unread,
Sep 13, 2002, 3:54:35 PM9/13/02
to

How does "uranium splitting produces one hefty blast" follow from
V'=V for light exactly ? or from acceleration = gravity <swallows back
vomit> ?
Mind you, i am merely interested in this, you can give a normal
answer if you have one.
--
jos

Randy Poe

unread,
Sep 13, 2002, 4:22:46 PM9/13/02
to
josX wrote:
>
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >>pm...@hotmail.com (Pmb) wrote:
> >>>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote
> >>>
> >>>> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb.
> >>>
> >>>This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
> >>>entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
> >>
> >>I was informed by an SRist of this, i thought he worked on it but it
> >>turns out he didn't.
> >
> >Statement 1: "Einstein did not work on the atomic bomb."
> >Statement 2: "Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb."
> >
> >Statement 1 is true. Statement 2 is false. Statements
> >1 and 2 are not equivalent. Is that really so difficult?
>
> How does "uranium splitting produces one hefty blast" follow from
> V'=V for light exactly ?

You've changed the topic, and I doubt you want the answer to
this any more than you want the answer to any other question
you ask about derivations within SR.

The question is, "did Einstein have anything to do with the
atomic bomb?" And the answer is: yes. He wrote a letter to
the President of the US hypothesizing that the energy released
by fission, a prediction of SR, might be harnessed to make
a bomb.

But he did not work on the project.

- Randy

josX

unread,
Sep 13, 2002, 5:05:29 PM9/13/02
to

That's the point Randy.
Now we only need asking about E=mc^2. Which, even though it is
even more famous then F=m*a perhaps, it completely bogus if it
is derived from SR or GR.

Funny how the truth works out.
E=mc^2, *if* this is part of SR or GR, *then* it is not even science.
--
jos

Wolfram Schmied

unread,
Sep 13, 2002, 8:28:51 PM9/13/02
to
Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3D82319C...@attbi.com>...

> josX wrote:
> >
> > I am 28
>
> And you haven't learned a damned things for 27 years. Shame.

No, you misunderstood josX. His age is 28 in base-minus-10 notation.
In standard decimal notation, that works out to 2*(-10)^1+8*(-10)^0 =
-12, which neatly explains his standard of education. ^_^

Robert Kolker

unread,
Sep 13, 2002, 9:22:32 PM9/13/02
to

Is that the same base in which -4 x -4 = -16?

Bob Kolker

MasterCougar

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:04:17 AM9/14/02
to
On the dark and dreary 13 Sep 2002 pm...@hotmail.com (Pmb) posted
news:8ac61757.02091...@posting.google.com:

>> Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb.
>
> This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
> entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
>

Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
design or construction of the bomb.

--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.

MasterCougar

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:07:01 AM9/14/02
to
On the dark and dreary 13 Sep 2002 Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> posted
news:3D824916...@atl.lmco.com:

> The question is, "did Einstein have anything to do with the
> atomic bomb?" And the answer is: yes. He wrote a letter to
> the President of the US hypothesizing that the energy released
> by fission, a prediction of SR, might be harnessed to make
> a bomb.
>
>

Hardly counts as having had anything to do with the bomb.

Robert Kolker

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 4:11:08 AM9/14/02
to

MasterCougar wrote:
> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
> design or construction of the bomb.
>

Indirectly, he did.

1. E = m*c^2 is the basis of the physics of the bomb along with a lot of
particle physics.

2. His letter to Pres. Roosevelt in 1939 (at Leo Szillard's behest) was
intended to warn the U.S. of possible nuclear weapon development in Nazi
Germany. You don't warn someone unless you intend or hope that they take
appropriate action. In the case of the U.S., it would be to get a
nuclear weapon before the Germans.

If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?

Bob Kolker

Wolfram Schmied

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 4:50:06 AM9/14/02
to
Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3D828F7...@attbi.com>...

> Wolfram Schmied wrote:
> > Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3D82319C...@attbi.com>...
> >
> > No, you misunderstood josX. His age is 28 in base-minus-10 notation.
> > In standard decimal notation, that works out to 2*(-10)^1+8*(-10)^0 =
> > -12, which neatly explains his standard of education. ^_^
>
> Is that the same base in which -4 x -4 = -16?

Nope, that would be base-minus-22 notation:
(-4*(-22)^0)^2 = 16 = -(1*(-22)^1+6*(-22)^0)

^_^

Rob Bowmaker

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 5:07:12 AM9/14/02
to

"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D828F7...@attbi.com...
Nope, in negadecimal, -4 x -4 = 196.

The same equation in decimal is -4 x -4 = 16.

-- Robert


Spaceman

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 8:27:14 AM9/14/02
to
>From: Robert Kolker bobk...@attbi.com

>Is that the same base in which -4 x -4 = -16?

Keep it up Bobby,
When you say that is wrong.
It shows you have no clue about "direction in 3D space"

I hate to tell you idiot.
q=-x
and you lose big time!

Let -x = q
Try it!
You can't huh?
chicken!

Spaceman

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 8:28:54 AM9/14/02
to
>From: "Rob Bowmaker" robert....@dse.gen.nz

>Nope, in negadecimal, -4 x -4 = 196.
>
>The same equation in decimal is -4 x -4 = 16.

So
4*4=-4*-4
and in other words
you are saying
x*x = -x*-x
<LOL>
boy are you wrong and brainwashed badly!
<LOL>

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 8:35:10 AM9/14/02
to

"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020914082714...@mb-fi.aol.com...

> >From: Robert Kolker bobk...@attbi.com
>
> >Is that the same base in which -4 x -4 = -16?
>
> Keep it up Bobby,
> When you say that is wrong.
> It shows you have no clue about "direction in 3D space"
>
> I hate to tell you idiot.
> q=-x
> and you lose big time!
>
> Let -x = q
> Try it!

Are you going to reply to the questions I asked you
about this?

Dirk Vdm

Bilge

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 8:27:22 AM9/14/02
to
josX, COBOL enthusiast and alien parrot, mindlessly repeated:

>How does "uranium splitting produces one hefty blast" follow from
>V'=V for light exactly ?

Simple. When you drive the `V' into the uranium nucleus, the
letters `BOOM' pop out a lot of times. The reason uranium is so
heavy is that that a file with zillions of reptitions of `BOOM'
was compressed using gzip -9, and than stuffed into a really tiny
hollow ball. Why else?


> or from acceleration = gravity <swallows back vomit> ?

Try standing on your head, then it will run out your nose rather
than back down your esophagus.

>Mind you, i am merely interested in this, you can give a normal
>answer if you have one.

You're too much of an idiot to be interested in anything but spamming
usenet.


Spaceman

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 9:07:51 AM9/14/02
to
>From: "Dirk Van de moortel"

>Are you going to reply to the questions I asked you
>about this?

Sub q for - x you freeling dingbat troll!
You can't!
I can!
you lose!

josX

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 9:27:39 AM9/14/02
to
ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>josX, COBOL enthusiast and alien parrot, mindlessly repeated:

Where are you getting this. I have a COBOL book and i don't hate it
but i have barely done anything in COBOL.

>>How does "uranium splitting produces one hefty blast" follow from
>>V'=V for light exactly ?
>
>Simple. When you drive the `V' into the uranium nucleus, the
>letters `BOOM' pop out a lot of times. The reason uranium is so
>heavy is that that a file with zillions of reptitions of `BOOM'
>was compressed using gzip -9, and than stuffed into a really tiny
>hollow ball. Why else?

Ah thanks, i see it now.

What was the angle on the `V' used, how many repetitions of BOOM were
exactly used for the bomb on Nagasaki. Did Einstein write Bohr about
this method?

Inquiring minds want to know.

>> or from acceleration = gravity <swallows back vomit> ?
>
>Try standing on your head, then it will run out your nose rather
>than back down your esophagus.

Gee, you *are* smart...

>>Mind you, i am merely interested in this, you can give a normal
>>answer if you have one.
>
>You're too much of an idiot to be interested in anything but spamming
>usenet.

--
jos

josX

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 9:28:37 AM9/14/02
to
agents...@aol.combination (Spaceman) wrote:
>>From: "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
>>Are you going to reply to the questions I asked you
>>about this?
>
>Sub q for - x you freeling dingbat troll!
>You can't!
>I can!
>you lose!

James, why (in the hell) do you think -4 * -4 = -16 !
Not that i can prove it should be otherwise, but do you have a positive
reason or are you just teasing the SRians?!
--
jos

Spaceman

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 9:48:25 AM9/14/02
to
>From: jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)

>James, why (in the hell) do you think -4 * -4 = -16 !

Because -x is merely a direction,
and directions do not reverse "with simple multiplication"

If you can not get the same answer by using q
instead of the -x than the math is not completely correct.


>Not that i can prove it should be otherwise, but do you have a positive
>reason or are you just teasing the SRians?!

They really do need to fix it.
If you take a left and multiply that left.
you best go further left.
or the math is real broken.
:)

the - sign is merely a direction on a line.
If they have no reals.
(such as an actual negative direction change"
you must use "all positives"

so simply
q can equal -x
and prove them wrong with a simple sub of variable.
and yet.
my way, (even with the variable swap) keeps the same answer.

Pmb

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 9:52:08 AM9/14/02
to
MasterCougar <master...@snotmail.com> wrote


> > This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
> > entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
> >
>
> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
> design or construction of the bomb.

That's not entirely correct. However youre taking my comment out of
context. I was refferging to josX's comment that it has *nothing* to
do with Einstein's E=mc^2. The theory of A-Bomb operation ** does **
have to do with E=mc^2 (i.e. mass to energy conversion). So while
Einstein did have something to do with the A-Bomb he didn't have
everything to do with it (i.e. the design, contruction and testing of
the device).

However Einstein did have a role in the invention of the A-Bomb in
that he wrote a letter to President Roosevelt urging that the bomb be
built.

For details see - http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/nuclear1.htm

Pmb

Pmb

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 9:54:29 AM9/14/02
to
jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote

> >No need to respond. We already know the answer.
>
> I am 28

I find that hard to believe ... then again ....

Pmb

josX

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 9:54:33 AM9/14/02
to
agents...@aol.combination (Spaceman) wrote:
>>From: jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)
>
>>James, why (in the hell) do you think -4 * -4 = -16 !
>
>Because -x is merely a direction,
>and directions do not reverse "with simple multiplication"
>
>If you can not get the same answer by using q
>instead of the -x than the math is not completely correct.

q * 4 = 4q
-x * 4 = -4x

south = +
north = -
south-4 * south-4 = south-16
north-4 * north-4 = .....-4

I think you have a point!!!
:-)

This is really funny!

>>Not that i can prove it should be otherwise, but do you have a positive
>>reason or are you just teasing the SRians?!
>
>They really do need to fix it.
>If you take a left and multiply that left.
>you best go further left.
>or the math is real broken.
>:)
>
>the - sign is merely a direction on a line.
>If they have no reals.
>(such as an actual negative direction change"
>you must use "all positives"
>
>so simply
>q can equal -x
>and prove them wrong with a simple sub of variable.
>and yet.
>my way, (even with the variable swap) keeps the same answer.

I never thought you would have a point with his :).
But you did. Cool...


-4 * -4 = -16

+4 * +4 = +16
For +/- are directions. Hmm.
--
jos

MasterCougar

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 10:17:08 AM9/14/02
to
On the dark and dreary 14 Sep 2002 Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com>
posted news:3D82EF42...@attbi.com:

> If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
> nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?
>
>

Maybe, maybe not. But E=MCC came about because of work that
proceeded Einstein's GR and SR. Can't recall the source now.

MasterCougar

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 10:19:05 AM9/14/02
to
On the dark and dreary 14 Sep 2002 pm...@hotmail.com (Pmb) posted
news:8ac61757.02091...@posting.google.com:

>> > This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in


>> > my entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
>> >
>>
>> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the
>> invention,
>> design or construction of the bomb.
>
> That's not entirely correct.

Yes it is, you were saying that he wsa 200% wrong(a very stupid
claim by the way) for saying that Einstein had nothing to do with the
bomb, you are wrong.

Spaceman

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 10:50:03 AM9/14/02
to
>From: jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)

>q * 4 = 4q
>-x * 4 = -4x
>
>south = +
>north = -
>south-4 * south-4 = south-16
>north-4 * north-4 = .....-4
>
>I think you have a point!!!
>:-)
>
>This is really funny!

:)
and if I wear a hat, nobody would notice..
:)
I am proud of my points though!
:)

TB

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:08:43 PM9/14/02
to
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:20020914082854...@mb-fi.aol.com...

> >From: "Rob Bowmaker" robert....@dse.gen.nz
>
> >Nope, in negadecimal, -4 x -4 = 196.
> >
> >The same equation in decimal is -4 x -4 = 16.
>
> So
> 4*4=-4*-4
> and in other words
> you are saying
> x*x = -x*-x
> <LOL>
> boy are you wrong and brainwashed badly!
> <LOL>

So, James, you are saying that if

x*x = -x*-x

then it must be the case that the things on either side of the
multiplication must equal each other, or:

x = -x
and
x = -x

Since this is blatantly false the original equality must be false. That is
your reasoning, is it not?

So...

2*6 = 3*4

by your logic that must mean that

2 = 3
and
6 = 4

Hmmm... So I guess it cannot be the case that 2*6 = 3*4!

(I should really know better that to repeat this one :-)

>
>
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
> http://www.realspaceman.com
>

-- TB

Xaonon

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:13:57 PM9/14/02
to
Ned i bach <20020914082854...@mb-fi.aol.com>, Spaceman
<agents...@aol.combination> teithant i thiw hin:

> > From: "Rob Bowmaker" robert....@dse.gen.nz
> >
> > Nope, in negadecimal, -4 x -4 = 196.
> >
> > The same equation in decimal is -4 x -4 = 16.
>
> So
> 4*4=-4*-4
> and in other words
> you are saying
> x*x = -x*-x
><LOL>
> boy are you wrong and brainwashed badly!
><LOL>

Interesting how someone who clearly failed grade-school algebra thinks he
can comment intelligently on relativity and other highly mathematical
theories. Now where's that paper about incompetence that Uncle Al is always
referencing...?

--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
"This is the most disturbing surprise Barry Bostwick has pulled on us since
that robot dragonfly came out of his nose on `Lexx'." -- James "Kibo" Parry

Spaceman

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:17:30 PM9/14/02
to
>From: "TB" tbrow...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com

>So, James, you are saying that if
>
> x*x = -x*-x
>
>then it must be the case that the things on either side of the
>multiplication must equal each other, or:
>
> x = -x
>and
> x = -x
>
>Since this is blatantly false the original equality must be false. That is
>your reasoning, is it not?

No you are doing your old twist dance again.
sad..
really sad.


>So...
>
> 2*6 = 3*4
>
>by your logic that must mean that
>
> 2 = 3
>and
> 6 = 4

I am not saying such at all.
you really are a sad ass troll huh?
..
sad..

Spaceman

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:28:13 PM9/14/02
to
>From: Xaonon xao...@hotpop.com

>Interesting how someone who clearly failed grade-school algebra thinks he
>can comment intelligently on relativity and other highly mathematical
>theories. Now where's that paper about incompetence that Uncle Al is always
>referencing...?

So,
Xaonon also admits he has no clue about direction either.
poor lost in spacetime fool!
<LOL>
Hey "Nobody named Xaonon"

The clock malfunctioned,
and
-x=q
you lose bigtime!

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:32:10 PM9/14/02
to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:alvf2p$q0u$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...

[snip]

> I never thought you would have a point with his :).
> But you did. Cool...
> -4 * -4 = -16
> +4 * +4 = +16
> For +/- are directions. Hmm.

Going down with nothing to lose:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#SpaceRight
"Wow, Spaceman is right: -4 * -4 = -16!"

Dirk Vdm

me...@cars3.uchicago.edu

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:32:59 PM9/14/02
to
In article <3D82EF42...@attbi.com>, Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> writes:

>
>
>MasterCougar wrote:
>> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
>> design or construction of the bomb.
>>
>Indirectly, he did.
>
>1. E = m*c^2 is the basis of the physics of the bomb along with a lot of
>particle physics.
>
Nope. E = mc^2 is no more the basis of the physics of the the bomb
that it is the basis of the physics of gunpowder. The "popular"
description of "mass is converted to energy thus lots of energy is
released" is false. The reduced mass of the residual components is
the consequence, not cause of the process.

>2. His letter to Pres. Roosevelt in 1939 (at Leo Szillard's behest) was
>intended to warn the U.S. of possible nuclear weapon development in Nazi
>Germany. You don't warn someone unless you intend or hope that they take
>appropriate action. In the case of the U.S., it would be to get a
>nuclear weapon before the Germans.

Yes, that much is true. But this has less to do with the physics than
with the public recognition that Einstein's name commanded.


>
>If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
>nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?

Sure, why not. That the amount of energy stored in nuclei vastly
exceeds chemical energies, this was already known from the work with
radium at the turn of the century. And once neutron induced fission
was observed, measuring the energies of the fission products was quite
straightforward.

Gunpowder technology was developed without any knowledge of chemistry.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Xaonon

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:33:08 PM9/14/02
to
Ned i bach <20020914132813...@mb-mq.aol.com>, Spaceman

<agents...@aol.combination> teithant i thiw hin:

> > > So


> > > 4*4=-4*-4
> > > and in other words
> > > you are saying
> > > x*x = -x*-x
> > > <LOL>
> > > boy are you wrong and brainwashed badly!
> > > <LOL>
>

> > Interesting how someone who clearly failed grade-school algebra thinks he
> > can comment intelligently on relativity and other highly mathematical
> > theories. Now where's that paper about incompetence that Uncle Al is always
> > referencing...?
>
> So,
> Xaonon also admits he has no clue about direction either.
> poor lost in spacetime fool!
> <LOL>

I'm not the one who doesn't know how to multiply. (Big hint, moron: two
negatives make a positive!)

--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/

"Uploading isn't a >H goal because it's one step closer to some mythical and
unknowable perfection, but because it'll be jolly practical." -- Rich Artym

me...@cars3.uchicago.edu

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:50:12 PM9/14/02
to
In article <8ac61757.02091...@posting.google.com>, pm...@hotmail.com (Pmb) writes:
>MasterCougar <master...@snotmail.com> wrote
>
>
>> > This is probably the most uninformed statement that I've heard in my
>> > entire life! This is 200% absolutely WRONG!
>> >
>>
>> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
>> design or construction of the bomb.
>
>That's not entirely correct. However youre taking my comment out of
>context. I was refferging to josX's comment that it has *nothing* to
>do with Einstein's E=mc^2. The theory of A-Bomb operation ** does **
>have to do with E=mc^2 (i.e. mass to energy conversion).

No more so than the theory of gunpowder operation does.

Spaceman

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:53:00 PM9/14/02
to
>From: Xaonon xao...@hotpop.com

>I'm not the one who doesn't know how to multiply. (Big hint, moron: two
>negatives make a positive!)

Hey Dipwad,
you are wrong.
multiplying a direction does not reverse direction.
DINGBAT!

You will never become a pilot of anything more
than an SUV!
<LOL>

Spaceman

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:57:53 PM9/14/02
to
>From: "Dirk Van de moortel"

>Going down with nothing to lose:

You have no clue "what made you type" immortal huh?
<LOL>
you are the mortal that still does not get the clues of the
"immortal compared to you"
<LOL>

Dirky poo.
the clock malfunctioned.
and
direction does not multipy to the reverse direction.
you lose.
BIG "TIME"

josX

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 1:59:37 PM9/14/02
to

I did not say that.
--
jos

josX

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 2:00:36 PM9/14/02
to
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <3D82EF42...@attbi.com>, Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> writes:
>>MasterCougar wrote:
>>> Nope, not at all, Einstein had nothing to do with the invention,
>>> design or construction of the bomb.
>>>
>>Indirectly, he did.
>>
>>1. E = m*c^2 is the basis of the physics of the bomb along with a lot of
>>particle physics.
>>
>Nope. E = mc^2 is no more the basis of the physics of the the bomb
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>that it is the basis of the physics of gunpowder. The "popular"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>description of "mass is converted to energy thus lots of energy is
>released" is false. The reduced mass of the residual components is
>the consequence, not cause of the process.
>
>>2. His letter to Pres. Roosevelt in 1939 (at Leo Szillard's behest) was
>>intended to warn the U.S. of possible nuclear weapon development in Nazi
>>Germany. You don't warn someone unless you intend or hope that they take
>>appropriate action. In the case of the U.S., it would be to get a
>>nuclear weapon before the Germans.
>
>Yes, that much is true. But this has less to do with the physics than
>with the public recognition that Einstein's name commanded.
>
>>If relativity theory had not been developed do you suppose that a
>>nuclear fission weapon would even be thought of?
>
>Sure, why not. That the amount of energy stored in nuclei vastly
>exceeds chemical energies, this was already known from the work with
>radium at the turn of the century. And once neutron induced fission
>was observed, measuring the energies of the fission products was quite
>straightforward.
>
>Gunpowder technology was developed without any knowledge of chemistry.

told you so
:-)

Now then, who called me a crank for thinking this ?
--
jos

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 2:15:39 PM9/14/02
to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:alvte9$2ee$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...

That is the title I chose. Consider it to be my semantic
contribution to the entry. If you have a problem with it,
try the art of negotiating.

Dirk Vdm

Xaonon

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 2:27:34 PM9/14/02
to
Ned i bach <20020914135300...@mb-mq.aol.com>, Spaceman

<agents...@aol.combination> teithant i thiw hin:

> From: Xaonon xao...@hotpop.com

> >
> > I'm not the one who doesn't know how to multiply. (Big hint, moron: two
> > negatives make a positive!)
>
> Hey Dipwad,
> you are wrong.
> multiplying a direction does not reverse direction.
> DINGBAT!

http://www.google.com/
multiplication 1,030,000 hits

Maybe one of those pages contains a clue you can borrow.

--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/

"Is the surface of a planet the right place for an expanding industrial
civilisation?" -- Gerard K. O'Neill

Spaceman

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 2:30:37 PM9/14/02
to
>From: Xaonon xao...@hotpop.com

>http://www.google.com/
>multiplication 1,030,000 hits
>

<LOL>
great "physics of directions"

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 2:43:39 PM9/14/02
to

"Xaonon" <xao...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:slrnao6vsj...@linux.local...

> Ned i bach <20020914135300...@mb-mq.aol.com>, Spaceman
> <agents...@aol.combination> teithant i thiw hin:
>
> > From: Xaonon xao...@hotpop.com
> > >
> > > I'm not the one who doesn't know how to multiply. (Big hint, moron: two
> > > negatives make a positive!)
> >
> > Hey Dipwad,
> > you are wrong.
> > multiplying a direction does not reverse direction.
> > DINGBAT!
>
> http://www.google.com/
> multiplication 1,030,000 hits
>
> Maybe one of those pages contains a clue you can borrow.

He borrows most of his clues from the following pages:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Aspaceman+roflol+OR+lol
2400 hits (threads - a lot of them very deep).
I estimate his total number of LOLs and ROFLOLs at 50000.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Aspaceman+dipwad
111 hits

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Aspaceman+dingbat
48 hits

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Aspaceman+fuch
31 hits

Frightening, but mostly harmless.

Dirk Vdm


Marco Nelissen

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 3:42:51 PM9/14/02
to
josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> -4 * -4 = -16
> +4 * +4 = +16
> For +/- are directions. Hmm.

Just when I thought Jos couldn't sink any lower...

Pmb

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 3:47:15 PM9/14/02
to
MasterCougar <master...@snotmail.com> wrote

> > That's not entirely correct.

Nope.



> Yes it is, you were saying that he wsa 200% wrong(a very stupid
> claim by the way) for saying that Einstein had nothing to do with the
> bomb, you are wrong.

Not at all. As I said you took what I said out of context. I was
commenting on the whole paragraph which followed. I simply didn't want
to quote the whole thing. i.e. josX stated

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. I don't buy it that
E=mc^2
has anything to do with this bomb at all. I think it is far more
likely that
there was some misinformation spread by America that relativity
theories
had anything to do with the bomb. In any case: c' = c and a = g (the
two
great insanities of A.E. sucked from his thumb) have little or nothing
to do with splitting atoms and obtaining fast moving particles from
them.
I'd say that the bomb has more to do with chemistry, then with wrong
philosophical theories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yes. 200% wrong. Einstein's theory was what told them that such a
powerful device was possible. josX was claiming that E=mc^2 had
nothing to do with it. i.e.

this comment "Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. I don't
buy it that E=mc^2 has anything to do with this bomb at all. [and the
rest]"

is 200% wrong. Okay. Litterally it can't be more than 100% wrong but I
was exagerating.

Then regarging the creation of the A-Bomb it was Einstien's letter to
the prisident which got the whole ball of wax going.

The claim that he had *nothing* i.e. zero to do with the actual
contruction of the device is quite litterally wrong. Design? No.
Suggest to the President that it be built? Yes.

And once again I remined you that I was not talking about the
contruction but was responding litteral to the comment made by josX
regarding the E=mc^2 part.

Pmb

"I don't buy it that E=mc^2 has anything to do with this bomb at all."

I was hoping that my telling you that you were quoting me out of
context would force you to go back and reread what josX wrote that I
was refering to and commenting on. However since there may still be
some confusion on your part what I was refering to I rephrase: