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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #598831 > unrolled thread

Charles Manson and Albert Einstein

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-01 17:45 -0800
    Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 18:52 -0800
      Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 21:24 -0800
        Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2023-01-02 15:27 +0000
          Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 19:35 -0800
        Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2023-01-02 15:29 +0000
      Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-01 21:40 -0800
        Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-02 22:51 -0800
          Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-02 22:55 -0800
            Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-02 23:03 -0800
              Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-03 15:08 -0800
                Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-03 15:11 -0800
                  Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-03 15:16 -0800
                    Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-03 15:20 -0800
                      Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-03 15:28 -0800
                        Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-03 15:32 -0800
                          Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-04 10:19 -0800
                            Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-05 00:55 -0800
                            Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-05 12:59 -0800
                              Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 17:36 -0800
                                Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-05 17:52 -0800
                                  Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 19:11 -0800
                                    Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-06 11:32 -0800
          Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein D. Ray <d@ray> - 2023-01-03 07:46 +0000
      Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-02 03:33 -0500
        Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 01:05 -0800
      Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-01-02 12:22 +0100
        Re: Charles Manson and Albert Einstein Aether Regaind <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> - 2023-01-02 16:04 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#599146

Paul Alsing wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:59:37 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Blowing up the moon would also be a very difficult task. The moon is about one-quarter the size of Earth...
> 
> Your ignorance is just mind-blowing...
> 
> https://www.universetoday.com/20489/moon-compared-to-earth/
> 
> "The volume of the Moon is 21.9 billion cubic km. Again, that sounds like a huge number, but the volume of the Earth is more like 1 trillion cubic kilometers. So the volume of the Moon is only 2% compared to the volume of the Earth."
> 
> 2%!

I don't know here you got the word "volume" from but
The moon is STILL about one-quarter the size of Earth...

How big is the Moon?

This one's another easy approximation to remember: The Moon is about one-fourth (or a quarter) the size of Earth in width. Put another way, Earth is about four times wider than the Moon.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/1946/five-things-to-know-about-the-moon/



(but everyone knows here you have a pattern and reputation of being wrong...all the time.)

keep up the good work of being ...consistent.


i bet you never heard of ChatGPT either.


boy, are you dumb! you're soooo yesterday.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599152

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:52:01 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > 
> > On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:59:37 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > 
> > > Blowing up the moon would also be a very difficult task. The moon is about one-quarter the size of Earth... 
> > 
> > Your ignorance is just mind-blowing... 
> > 
> > https://www.universetoday.com/20489/moon-compared-to-earth/ 
> > 
> > "The volume of the Moon is 21.9 billion cubic km. Again, that sounds like a huge number, but the volume of the Earth is more like 1 trillion cubic kilometers. So the volume of the Moon is only 2% compared to the volume of the Earth." 
> > 
> > 2%!
> I don't know here you got the word "volume" from but 
> The moon is STILL about one-quarter the size of Earth... 
> 
> How big is the Moon? 
> 
> This one's another easy approximation to remember: The Moon is about one-fourth (or a quarter) the size of Earth in width. Put another way, Earth is about four times wider than the Moon. 

How is this relevant to the "blowing up the moon" crap you are spouting?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599180

Paul Alsing wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:52:01 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:59:37 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Blowing up the moon would also be a very difficult task. The moon is about one-quarter the size of Earth...
> > >
> > > Your ignorance is just mind-blowing...
> > >
> > > https://www.universetoday.com/20489/moon-compared-to-earth/
> > >
> > > "The volume of the Moon is 21.9 billion cubic km. Again, that sounds like a huge number, but the volume of the Earth is more like 1 trillion cubic kilometers. So the volume of the Moon is only 2% compared to the volume of the Earth."
> > >
> > > 2%!
> > I don't know here you got the word "volume" from but
> > The moon is STILL about one-quarter the size of Earth...
> >
> > How big is the Moon?
> >
> > This one's another easy approximation to remember: The Moon is about one-fourth (or a quarter) the size of Earth in width. Put another way, Earth is about four times wider than the Moon.
> 
> How is this relevant to the "blowing up the moon" crap you are spouting?

Exactly, you are...irrelevant. 



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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598937

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 9:40:05 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 10:45:38 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 
>>>>> In the letter to his son in 1945, Einstein wrote that his work and
>>>>> the bomb were "only very indirectly connected."
>>>> 
>>>> The cretin's work is completely unrelated to the A-bomb. Fermi said
>>>> it, Oppenheimer said it and Serber wrote a book about it.
>>> 
>>> Are you naive?, it was a top-secret operation which means you were not
>>> suppose to talk about it
>>> to others outside the project. Who would admit to talking to Einstein
>>> about all the work being done?
>>> 
>>> Oppenheimer was eventually fired for releasing top-secret info...others
>>> got the electric chair.
>>> Einstein wrote that his work and the bomb were "only very indirectly
>>> connected.
>>> That means he used...liaisons.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> a buffer. he used buffers.
>>> --
>>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
>>> and challenge
>>> the unchallengeable.
>> 
>> You have a wicked way of representing that man.
>> After WW2 Einstein wanted no association to the bomb.
>> He knew if Hitler developed it that would be the most danger
>> to the world. He never liked the government decision
>> to use it over the Japanese.
>> 
>> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> 
> "If I had foreseen Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would have torn up my
> formula in 1905." - Albert Einstein 
> 
> 
> I guess in his heart he always wanted to kill Germans.
> 
> 
> Even after the ww2 ended...he STILL wanted all those German
> people...dead.
> 
> 
> I don't know why he hated German people sooo much.
> 
> I don't live in Germany so I don't know what the problem is...

Jews always hated Germans, and other Europeans, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598862

On 1/1/2023 9:52 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 10:45:38 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> In the letter to his son in 1945, Einstein wrote that his work and the bomb were "only very indirectly connected."
> 
> The cretin's work is completely unrelated to the A-bomb. Fermi said it, Oppenheimer said it and Serber wrote a book about it.
> 
> ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION OF UNSTABLE URANIUM NUCLEI, AFTER LOSING COHESION BY A SLOW NEUTRON.
> 
> LIQUID DROP-LIKE NUCLEI THAT RELEASE BETWEEN 140 AND 230 MeV per fission of nuclei.
> 
And the resulting daughter nuclei (+neutrons) will be between 140 and 
230 MeV/c^2 less massive than the original uranium atom+neutron.

Einstein proven correct yet again!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598865

On Monday, 2 January 2023 at 09:33:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/1/2023 9:52 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 10:45:38 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > 
> > <snip> 
> > 
> >> In the letter to his son in 1945, Einstein wrote that his work and the bomb were "only very indirectly connected." 
> > 
> > The cretin's work is completely unrelated to the A-bomb. Fermi said it, Oppenheimer said it and Serber wrote a book about it. 
> > 
> > ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION OF UNSTABLE URANIUM NUCLEI, AFTER LOSING COHESION BY A SLOW NEUTRON. 
> > 
> > LIQUID DROP-LIKE NUCLEI THAT RELEASE BETWEEN 140 AND 230 MeV per fission of nuclei. 
> >
> And the resulting daughter nuclei (+neutrons) will be between 140 and 
> 230 MeV/c^2 less massive than the original uranium atom+neutron. 
> 
> Einstein proven correct yet again!!!

And in the meantime in the real world,  forbidden 
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598866

Den 02.01.2023 03:52, skrev Richard Hertz:
> 
> 
> ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION OF UNSTABLE URANIUM NUCLEI, AFTER LOSING COHESION BY A SLOW NEUTRON.

Right.

And the mass loss in the resulting nuclei will be equal
to the potential energy which is transferred to kinetic energy.

> 
> LIQUID DROP-LIKE NUCLEI THAT RELEASE BETWEEN 140 AND 230 MeV per fission of nuclei.

Quite.

One possible fission process is:

1n + U-235 → Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n

The atomic weight of these are well known

Left side:
1n      1.008664  u
U-235 235.0439299 u
-------------------
       236.0525939 u

Right side:
Ba-141   140.914412 u
Kr-92     91.926156 u
3n         3.025992 u
---------------------
          235.866560 u

Lost mass: m = 0.1860339 u

E = mc² ≈ 2.78E-11 J ≈ 174 MeV

But Kryptom-92 and Barium-141 are unstable isotopes,
so this is not the end of the decay chain, and there are
other possible fission processes, so the total released
energy from the fission of an U-235 atom is ≈ 200 MeV.

But you know this, don't you?

Thinking that the following will make the facts go away
is irrational behaviour.

> 
> Fuck E=mc2 and Einstein cult. Fuck zio Times Magazine. Fuck Princeton.
> 

Maybe it will help if you write it in all capitals?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598875

Paul B. Andersen:> Den 02.01.2023 03:52, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>
>>
>> ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION OF UNSTABLE URANIUM NUCLEI, AFTER LOSING
>> COHESION BY A SLOW NEUTRON.
>
> Right.
>
> And the mass loss in the resulting nuclei will be equal
> to the potential energy which is transferred to kinetic energy.
>
>>
>> LIQUID DROP-LIKE NUCLEI THAT RELEASE BETWEEN 140 AND 230 MeV per
>> fission of nuclei.
>
> Quite.
>
> One possible fission process is:
>
> 1n + U-235 → Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n

Ah! But, you are forgetting that this is particle physics. In particle
physics if the facts don't fit your beloved theory, you can always
invent new particles as Pauli showed with neutrinos. The Pauli approach
would be:

1⋅n + U-235 → Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3⋅n + x⋅ℎ⁰

where ℎ⁰ are hertzinos of unspecified number having a collective mass of
0.185 u, and a neutral/0 charge. Problem solved! You just have to search
harder to detect these uncharged hertzinos. A 10,000+ team, a TeV+
accelerator, an ambitious guy like Carlo Rubbia to head the team and a
tight deadline will get the job done.

> The atomic weight of these are well known
>
> Left side:
> 1n      1.008664  u
> U-235 235.0439299 u
> -------------------
>       236.0525939 u
>
> Right side:
> Ba-141   140.914412 u
> Kr-92     91.926156 u
> 3n         3.025992 u
> ---------------------
>          235.866560 u
>
> Lost mass: m = 0.1860339 u
>
> E = mc² ≈ 2.78E-11 J ≈ 174 MeV
>
> But Kryptom-92 and Barium-141 are unstable isotopes,
> so this is not the end of the decay chain, and there are
> other possible fission processes, so the total released
> energy from the fission of an U-235 atom is ≈ 200 MeV.
>
> But you know this, don't you?
>
> Thinking that the following will make the facts go away
> is irrational behaviour.
>
>>
>> Fuck E=mc2 and Einstein cult. Fuck zio Times Magazine. Fuck Princeton.
>>
>
> Maybe it will help if you write it in all capitals?
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web