Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #576869

Re: Einstein Lied Again

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Yet, On January 23, 1950, Einstein wrote in a letter..   I have never taken
part in work of a military-technical nature...


Einstein Lied Again!



Einstein knew that all his information would be
classfied and confidental...


so why not lie?



You cannot even talk about it if it is CLASSIFIED!


Albert Einstein fuckin LIED!


He lied to everybody!


Then he sticks his tongue out at you....


(because he thinks you are all a bunch of lizards...)


https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/einsteintongue.jpg


 







 


The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> So, ...Albert Einstein continued on with developing
> New and More effective High Explosives for the
> Navy, AND the Army, AND the Air Force...that were used
> in the war against Germany and Japan, the
> Korean war and the Vietnam war.
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Here is what Lt. Stephen Brunauer had to say...
> >
> > "Einstein's security clearance was ob-
> > tained very quickly, and the contract was
> > signed on May 31. Soon after that, I made
> > my second trip to Einstein, taking to him
> > for consideration one of the toughest
> > problems that puzzled us at that time. The
> > problem was whether the detonation of a
> > torpedo should be initiated in the front or
> > in the rear. The three most important
> > characteristics of the shock wave pro-
> > duced in a detonation are the peak pres-
> > sure, the impulse or momentum of the
> > shock wave, which includes the duration
> > of the shock, and the energy released in
> > the explosion. If in a torpedo the detona-
> > tion of the high explosive is initiated at
> > the forward end, one obtains the highest
> > peak pressure. If the detonation is ini-
> > tiated in the rear end, one obtains the
> > highest momentum. The energy de-
> > veloped is the same, regardless where the
> > explosion is initiated. So the ques-
> > tion was which of the three main char-
> > acteristics causes the most damage. If it
> > is the peak pressure, the explosion should
> > be initiated at the front end of the tor-
> > pedo; if it is momentum, it should be
> > initiated at the rear end, and if it is the
> > energy, the location of the initiation does
> > not make any difference.
> > Einstein was thinking about the prob-
> > lem for about ten minutes, and finally
> > chose momentum and gave the reasons.
> > But a few days later I received a letter
> > from him telling me that he gave much
> > further thought to the matter, and changed
> > his conclusion. He decided that the
> > energy developed in the explosion was
> > the most important factor, and gave his
> > reasons. Very expensive experiments
> > performed much later showed that he was
> > right. Of course this subject was highly
> > confidential during the war, but I hope
> > that now--thirty-five years later-it
> > is declassified."  --Lt. Stephen Brunauer, head of the High Explosives Division
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is a photo of Albert Einstein working with Lt. Stephen Brunauer who was in charge
> > > of the "High Explosives Division".
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1491839255168966666/photo/1
> > >
> > > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLQTpWXUYAMP8cm?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
> > >
> > > Albert Einstein never had any problem getting 'security clearances' ...
> > >
> > > But, if they ask me to kill Japs and Krauts, I would ask for more than $25.00 a day.
> > >
> > > "it seems to be desirable to have a device which automatically brings
> > > to explosion a torpedo passing below a ship at the right moment.
> > > I have an idea for an electro-magnetic device for this purpose." --Albert Einstein in a letter to Lt. Stephen Brunauer
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, i forgot to mention that Albert Einstein
> > > > got paid $25.00 a day to help the military
> > > > with their denotation missile explosion problem..
> > > >
> > > > He worked for the "High Explosive Division" at
> > > > the military...
> > > > Why do you suppose the military thought Albert
> > > > Einstein could help them in that department?
> > > >
> > > > Does Albert Einstein have and experience in the past
> > > > having to do with missile explosions or ant
> > > > High Explosives...some sort of bomb maybe?
> > > >
> > > > But, BIG! HIGH!! EXPLOSIVE!!!
> > > >
> > > > wat comes to mind?
> > > >
> > > > "extremely powerful bombs of a new type"????
> > > >
> > > > "This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs,
> > > >
> > > > and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely
> > > > powerful
> > > >  bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this
> > > >
> > > > type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy
> > > >
> > > > the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory.
> > > > However,
> > > >
> > > > such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by
> > > >
> > > > air." --Albert Einstein
> > > >
> > > > https://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein/#first
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 11:52:28 -0800, The Starmaker
> > > > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 23:39:19 -0800, The Starmaker
> > > > ><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>On January 23, 1950, Einstein wrote in a letter..   I have never taken
> > > > >>part in work of a military-technical nature and have never done ...
> > > > >>
>         https://books.google.com/books?id=MxokDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT755&dq=%22einstein+on+peace%22+%2B%22military-technical%22+january+23&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22einstein%20on%20peace%22%20%2B%22military-technical%22%20
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>But here he is writing of military-technical nature bombs ideas
> > > > >>in the 1940's
> > > > >>
> > > > >>https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1432129448841674752/photo/1
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1432121477193613312/photo/1
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Einstein Lied Again
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I understand he doesn't want anybody to know...but it seems
> > > > >>everybody doesn't want everybody to know.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>So Albert Einstein was busy in the 1940's designing bomb ideas to
> > > > >>detonate and destroy ships for the military...
> > > > >>
> > > > >>But, but, where did the military get the idea all of a sudden that
> > > > >>Albert Einstein was a Detonation Bomb Expert????
> > > > >
> > > > >Well, for years the Military had a hard time blowing up a Japanese
> > > > >ship! Their missiles simply didn't work.
> > > > >
> > > > >For a couple of years they couldn't even hit a Japanese ship!
> > > > >
> > > > >They needed help. Where could they find a bomb expert????
> > > > >
> > > > >Now, ...shoot back a few years in history then and the
> > > > >other Military had a problem...
> > > > >
> > > > >"2.17. Of course, the proof that a chain reaction is possible does not
> > > > >itself insure that nuclear energy can be effective in a bomb. To have
> > > > >an effective explosion it is necessary that the chain reaction build
> > > > >up extremely rapidly; otherwise only a small amount of the nuclear
> > > > >energy will be utilized before the bomb flies apart and the reaction
> > > > >stops. It is also necessary that no premature explosion occur. This
> > > > >entire "detonation" problem was and still remains one of the most
> > > > >difficult problems in designing a high-efficiency atomic bomb."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Albert Einstein wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"According to these discussions and a remark you made yourself when
> > > > >you were visiting me
> > > > >it seems to be desirable to have a device which automatically brings
> > > > >to explosion
> > > > >a torpedo passing below a ship at the right moment.
> > > > >I have an idea for an electro-magnetic device for this purpose which I
> > > > >would like to submit to you for your judgement.
> > > > >S is an electro-magnet producing an alternating magnetic field with
> > > > >vertical axis. s and s' are two coils with vertical axis connected in
> > > > >serie with opposite magnetic axis, which are located symmetrically to
> > > > >S.
> > > > >The current created by induction in those two coils may be multiplied
> > > > >by tubes (current i). The device is set in function only at a moment
> > > > >when
> > > > >the torpedo is far enough from the emitting ship to avoid the magnetic
> > > > >influence of the latter. As long as the torpedo is on the way i will
> > > > >vanish for reasons of symmetry. The torpedo is supposed to travel deep
> > > > >enough so that it will not hit the target directly but pass below it.
> > > > >When the torpedo approaches the target there will be created through
> > > > >the
> > > > >nearby parts of the ship's hull an additional (induced) alternative
> > > > >magnetic field which at first will be stronger in s than in s'. There
> > > > >is
> > > > >now created a current i the intensity of which will change according
> > > > >to
> > > > >the following diagrams L ' U PV... M corresponds to the moment when
> > > > >the torpedo passes under the middle of the ship. At this moment i will
> > > > >again vanish for reasons of symmetry. This is the moment to put the
> > > > >explosion into action. It will be easy to construct an electrical
> > > > >contact device which functions if a current is first initiated and
> > > > >goes
> > > > >again to zero afterwards. " -Albert Einstein
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"This entire "detonation" problem was and still remains one of the
> > > > >most difficult problems in designing a high-efficiency atomic bomb."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >I guess word of mouth got around that Albert Einstein can
> > > > >solve their ..."detonation" problem.
> > > > --
> > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > >  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > >  the unchallengeable.
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > >  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> > >  the unchallengeable.
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> >  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> >  the unchallengeable.
> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
>  the unchallengeable.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-01-17 23:39 -0800
  Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-01-21 14:30 -0800
    Re: Einstein Lied Again "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-01-21 17:06 -0800
    Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-16 23:50 -0700
      Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-17 12:50 -0700
        Re: Einstein Lied Again BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov> - 2022-03-17 16:34 -0400
          Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-17 15:32 -0700
            Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-17 17:12 -0700
            Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-19 12:52 -0700
              Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-22 13:40 -0700
  Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-01 11:52 -0800
    Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-09 22:30 -0800
      Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-10 10:45 -0800
        Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-10 21:22 -0800
          Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-11 13:42 -0800
            Re: Einstein Lied Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-11 15:07 -0800
              Re: Einstein Lied Again Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 00:30 -0800
                Cretinous kapo Richard Hertz comes to grips with his imbecility "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 06:57 -0800

csiph-web