Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #667950 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-12-29 09:57 +0100 |
| Last post | 2025-12-30 15:44 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 63 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-29 09:57 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-29 13:53 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-30 02:16 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-30 15:29 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-30 10:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-29 10:23 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-30 15:32 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-30 10:05 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-30 20:02 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-30 13:22 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-30 17:07 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-31 15:16 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-30 17:06 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-31 05:15 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 09:48 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-01 06:27 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-01 10:30 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-30 23:57 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-01-01 10:34 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-01-01 14:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-02 01:04 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-02 02:12 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-02 02:27 -0800
Mass--energy equivalence (was: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-02 16:55 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-02 09:35 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-01-03 08:14 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-01-03 08:30 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-03 11:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-01-03 12:54 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 16:41 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-03 20:48 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 21:59 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 22:02 +0100
Mass--energy equivalence (was: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 16:42 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-03 20:48 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 21:50 +0100
[OT] Non-ASCII characters (was: Mass--energy equivalence) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 21:57 +0100
Re: [OT] Non-ASCII characters nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-03 23:18 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-03 23:18 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-04 01:17 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-08 12:32 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-08 15:24 +0100
MacSOUP (was: Mass--energy equivalence) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-08 16:03 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-08 22:28 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-08 14:29 +0000
Re: Mass--energy equivalence athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-04 11:04 +0000
Re: Mass--energy equivalence nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-08 12:32 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-01-04 09:19 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-03 08:28 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-03 20:48 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-04 01:59 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-04 11:59 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2026-01-03 18:49 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-01-02 15:13 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-02 16:35 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-01-03 22:06 +0100
Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb (was: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 22:28 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-01-04 12:42 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-04 20:20 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-01-04 21:08 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-05 13:17 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-01-02 10:33 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-30 15:44 -0800
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-08 12:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence |
| Message-ID | <1rom6pc.yfa50l1bk0dw0N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #668018 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > >> J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > >>>>>> In my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> Your opinions count for nothing. > >>>> > >>>> [Something is wrong with either Thomas Heger's newsreader > >>>> (configuration) or yours. Above, the superscript 2 for the square was > >>>> posted as "?". This is the 21st century; please use only up-to-date > >>>> and properly configured newsreaders.] > >>> > >>> This is just part of TH's (and yours) > >>> general incompetence in math and phys. > >> > >> LOL. I have a B Sc in Computer Science, Mathematics, Astronomy, and > >> soon in Physics, too. > > > > From long ago no doubt. > > FYI, real mathematicians and physicists understand basic TeX. . > > (and TeX is fool-proof, not even you could waste it) > > Your so-called degrees cannot be serious if you don't know about TeX. > > I encourage you to search for me on the Web to test your assumptions. Web != Usenet. > >>> Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII, > >>> and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX. > >> LOL. Welcome to the 21st century! > > > > FYI, Usenet is not from the 21st century. > > That does not mean that we have to remain in the stone age in order to use > it. In fact, it had been decided by the IETF long ago that that should not > be so; therefore, by 2009, new standards for Network News had been > developed, agreed upon, and already implemented by server and user agent > developers to facilitate that. You are simply out of touch, and if the > cause of the incompatibility is your newsreader (it *is*), it is not simply > out of date and obsolete, but *non-compliant*, i.e. *broken*. These 'improvements' are fundamentally flawed, so they were not generally adopted. Even now, after all those years, you can still see the occasional mangled header. > (It is well-known in today's Usenet that MacSOUP is broken as it was never > updated after 2016, and was buggy even back then.) MacSoup was never broken. Its author could not afford the time that would be required to rewrite it for later versions of Mac OSX. > >>> Any attempt at using non-ASCII symbology is an error. > >> > >> No, it is not. Network News has been supporting non-ASCII encodings since > >> the late 1990s. See also RFC 5536. > >> > >> Unicode is the standard character set with electronic devices nowadays. > > > > Usenet is not from nowadays. > > See above. See above. > >>> Newsclients have nothing to do with this, > >> > >> Wrong. You and your newsreader are hopelessly out of date. > > > > Your use of Unicode for math on usenet > > marks you as an incompetent amateur, > > No, your ignorance and now (that you have been told) disregard of current > network standards marks *you* as one: > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5536.html#section-2.3> (released in 2009) > > And your ignoring "Followup-To: poster" indicates that you are trolling. > > Score adjusted. (arrogance noted) You have no right to force others to send you email. Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-08 15:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence |
| Message-ID | <10joen7$1hh82$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #668113 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >> J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >>>> J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >>>>>>>> In my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong. >>>>>>> Your opinions count for nothing. >>>>>> [Something is wrong with either Thomas Heger's newsreader >>>>>> (configuration) or yours. Above, the superscript 2 for the square was >>>>>> posted as "?". This is the 21st century; please use only up-to-date >>>>>> and properly configured newsreaders.] >>>>> >>>>> This is just part of TH's (and yours) >>>>> general incompetence in math and phys. >>>> >>>> LOL. I have a B Sc in Computer Science, Mathematics, Astronomy, and >>>> soon in Physics, too. >>> >>> From long ago no doubt. >>> FYI, real mathematicians and physicists understand basic TeX. . >>> (and TeX is fool-proof, not even you could waste it) >>> Your so-called degrees cannot be serious if you don't know about TeX. >> >> I encourage you to search for me on the Web to test your assumptions. > > Web != Usenet. You don't say! If you had done what I suggested, you would have found out that, among other (La)TeX-related endeavors, - I have written (La)TeX-like texts on Usenet many times before and continue to do so (when more convenient); - I have written a LaTeX 2e package for generating spacetime diagrams; - I have improved a Personal Dictionary for Gboard with which one can type LaTeX(-like) shortcuts on an Android-based device to produce corresponding Unicode character( sequence)s; - I have published several documents (scientific works) that were generated using LaTeX, not least my first BSc thesis. So your claiming that I, of all people, would not know about TeX, is probably one of the most ridiculous claims that I will read this year -- and the year has just started. But you are not even interested in the truth, are you? >>>>> Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII, >>>>> and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX. >>>> LOL. Welcome to the 21st century! >>> >>> FYI, Usenet is not from the 21st century. >> >> That does not mean that we have to remain in the stone age in order to use >> it. In fact, it had been decided by the IETF long ago that that should not >> be so; therefore, by 2009, new standards for Network News had been >> developed, agreed upon, and already implemented by server and user agent >> developers to facilitate that. You are simply out of touch, and if the >> cause of the incompatibility is your newsreader (it *is*), it is not simply >> out of date and obsolete, but *non-compliant*, i.e. *broken*. > > These 'improvements' are fundamentally flawed, > so they were not generally adopted. You have no clue what you are talking about. > Even now, after all those years, you can still see the occasional mangled header. Produced by a few people who are stuck in the past like you. People like you are not the solution, they are the problem. >> (It is well-known in today's Usenet that MacSOUP is broken as it was never >> updated after 2016, and was buggy even back then.) > > MacSoup was never broken. I encourage you to do more research to test your assumptions. >> And your ignoring "Followup-To: poster" indicates that you are trolling. >> >> Score adjusted. > > (arrogance noted) > You have no right to force others to send you email. *facepalm* -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-08 16:03 +0100 |
| Subject | MacSOUP (was: Mass--energy equivalence) |
| Message-ID | <10joh09$1hjv1$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #668113 |
[X-Post & F'up2 <news:news.software.readers>] J. J. Lodder wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >> J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >>>> J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII, and nothing >>>>> but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX. >>>> LOL. Welcome to the 21st century! >>> FYI, Usenet is not from the 21st century. >> >> That does not mean that we have to remain in the stone age in order to >> use it. In fact, it had been decided by the IETF long ago that that >> should not be so; therefore, by 2009, new standards for Network News >> had been developed, agreed upon, and already implemented by server and >> user agent developers to facilitate that. You are simply out of >> touch, and if the cause of the incompatibility is your newsreader (it >> *is*), it is not simply out of date and obsolete, but *non-compliant*, >> i.e. *broken*. > > These 'improvements' are fundamentally flawed, so they were not > generally adopted. False. > Even now, after all those years, you can still see the occasional > mangled header. By people like you who are using *broken* software. >> (It is well-known in today's Usenet that MacSOUP is broken as it was >> never updated after 2016, and was buggy even back then.) > > MacSoup was never broken. Its author could not afford the time that > would be required to rewrite it for later versions of Mac OSX. JFTR: ,-<http://www.haller-berlin.de/macsoup/> | | MacSOUP | | MacSOUP was an NNTP newsreader for Mac that I developed in the nineties. | It is obsolete and no longer available. | | Stefan Haller | Berlin, Germany | <stefan@haller-berlin.de> Linked to from <https://usenet-abc.de/wiki/Team/MacSOUP>, which also explains the flaws of MacSOUP, and the hoops that one has to to jump through for it to conform to some (not all) basic NetNews standards (found with a Google Web search for "MacSOUP broken"). -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-08 22:28 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence |
| Message-ID | <1romxpm.12ct8c31b75f46N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #668117 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: [F'To: diversion ignored. Get it through your thick head that I will discuss matters in sci.physics.relativity, and nowhere else} [falsified Subject: Header corrected] -YOU- have a problem with MacSoup. It is YOUR problem, and there is no point in bothering others with it. You should't spread YOUR problems amongst others, who have nothing to do with it. > [X-Post & F'up2 <news:news.software.readers>] > > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > >> J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > >>>> J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>> Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII, and nothing > >>>>> but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX. > >>>> LOL. Welcome to the 21st century! > >>> FYI, Usenet is not from the 21st century. > >> > >> That does not mean that we have to remain in the stone age in order to > >> use it. In fact, it had been decided by the IETF long ago that that > >> should not be so; therefore, by 2009, new standards for Network News > >> had been developed, agreed upon, and already implemented by server and > >> user agent developers to facilitate that. You are simply out of > >> touch, and if the cause of the incompatibility is your newsreader (it > >> *is*), it is not simply out of date and obsolete, but *non-compliant*, > >> i.e. *broken*. > > > > These 'improvements' are fundamentally flawed, so they were not > > generally adopted. > > False. > > > Even now, after all those years, you can still see the occasional > > mangled header. > > By people like you who are using *broken* software. Nope. Once a thread is broken it remains broken, further on in the thread, whatever newsclient is used. > >> (It is well-known in today's Usenet that MacSOUP is broken as it was > >> never updated after 2016, and was buggy even back then.) > > > > MacSoup was never broken. Its author could not afford the time that > > would be required to rewrite it for later versions of Mac OSX. > > JFTR: > > ,-<http://www.haller-berlin.de/macsoup/> > | > | MacSOUP > | > | MacSOUP was an NNTP newsreader for Mac that I developed in the nineties. > | It is obsolete and no longer available. > | > | Stefan Haller > | Berlin, Germany > | <stefan@haller-berlin.de> > > Linked to from <https://usenet-abc.de/wiki/Team/MacSOUP>, which also > explains the flaws of MacSOUP, and the hoops that one has to to jump through > for it to conform to some (not all) basic NetNews standards (found with a > Google Web search for "MacSOUP broken"). Reading never was your strongest point, eh? Stefan Haller says, correctly, that MacSoup is *obsolete*. (FYI, it is 32-bits, so it can't run under more recent OSX versions) There is nothing wrong with it when running under a compatible OSX. It is not broken. (it can no doubt be improved, but so can all software) FYI, some people keep a compatible Mac for no other reason than to be able to run MacSoup, (and some other 32-bit things) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-08 14:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence |
| Message-ID | <1767882551-12588@newsgrouper.org> |
| In reply to | #668018 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> posted: > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > >> J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > >>>>>> In my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> Your opinions count for nothing. > >>>> > >>>> [Something is wrong with either Thomas Heger's newsreader > >>>> (configuration) or yours. Above, the superscript 2 for the square was > >>>> posted as "?". This is the 21st century; please use only up-to-date > >>>> and properly configured newsreaders.] > >>> > >>> This is just part of TH's (and yours) > >>> general incompetence in math and phys. > >> > >> LOL. I have a B Sc in Computer Science, Mathematics, Astronomy, and soon in > >> Physics, too. > > > > From long ago no doubt. > > FYI, real mathematicians and physicists understand basic TeX. . > > (and TeX is fool-proof, not even you could waste it) > > Your so-called degrees cannot be serious if you don't know about TeX. > > I encourage you to search for me on the Web to test your assumptions. I just did, and I suspect that you may come to regret making that suggestion. Underwhelming puts it too weakly. > > >>> Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII, > >>> and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX. > >> LOL. Welcome to the 21st century! > > > > FYI, Usenet is not from the 21st century. > > That does not mean that we have to remain in the stone age in order to use > it. In fact, it had been decided by the IETF long ago that that should not > be so; therefore, by 2009, new standards for Network News had been > developed, agreed upon, and already implemented by server and user agent > developers to facilitate that. You are simply out of touch, and if the > cause of the incompatibility is your newsreader (it *is*), it is not simply > out of date and obsolete, but *non-compliant*, i.e. *broken*. > > (It is well-known in today's Usenet that MacSOUP is broken as it was never > updated after 2016, and was buggy even back then.) > > >>> Any attempt at using non-ASCII symbology is an error. > >> > >> No, it is not. Network News has been supporting non-ASCII encodings since > >> the late 1990s. See also RFC 5536. > >> > >> Unicode is the standard character set with electronic devices nowadays. > > > > Usenet is not from nowadays. > > See above. > > >>> Newsclients have nothing to do with this, > >> > >> Wrong. You and your newsreader are hopelessly out of date. > > > > Your use of Unicode for math on usenet > > marks you as an incompetent amateur, > > No, your ignorance and now (that you have been told) disregard of current > network standards marks *you* as one: > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5536.html#section-2.3> (released in 2009) > > And your ignoring "Followup-To: poster" indicates that you are trolling. > > Score adjusted. > -- athel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 11:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence |
| Message-ID | <1767524670-12588@newsgrouper.org> |
| In reply to | #668016 |
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) posted: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > > > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > > >>>> In my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong. > > >>> > > >>> Your opinions count for nothing. > > >> > > >> [Something is wrong with either Thomas Heger's newsreader > > >> (configuration) or yours. Above, the superscript 2 for the square was > > >> posted as "?". This is the 21st century; please use only up-to-date > > >> and properly configured newsreaders.] > > > > > > This is just part of TH's (and yours) > > > general incompetence in math and phys. > > > > LOL. I have a B Sc in Computer Science, Mathematics, Astronomy, and soon in > > Physics, too. > > From long ago no doubt. > FYI, real mathematicians and physicists understand basic TeX. . > (and TeX is fool-proof, not even you could waste it) > Your so-called degrees cannot be serious if you don't know about TeX. Besides, who cares about a BSc? No higher degree? No research expeience? > > > > Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII, > > > and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX. > > > > LOL. Welcome to the 21st century! > > FYI, Usenet is not from the 21st century. > > > > Any attempt at using non-ASCII symbology is an error. > > > > No, it is not. Network News has been supporting non-ASCII encodings since > > the late 1990s. See also RFC 5536. > > > > Unicode is the standard character set with electronic devices nowadays. > > Usenet is not from nowadays. > > > > Newsclients have nothing to do with this, > > > > Wrong. You and your newsreader are hopelessly out of date. > > Your use of Unicode for math on usenet > marks you as an incompetent amateur, > > Jan > > -- athel Living in Marseilles for 38 years; mainly in England before that
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-08 12:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence |
| Message-ID | <1rom6zp.i12yjj5zkafjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #668022 |
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote: > nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) posted: > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > > > > > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > > > >>>> In my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong. > > > >>> > > > >>> Your opinions count for nothing. > > > >> > > > >> [Something is wrong with either Thomas Heger's newsreader > > > >> (configuration) or yours. Above, the superscript 2 for the square was > > > >> posted as "?". This is the 21st century; please use only up-to-date > > > >> and properly configured newsreaders.] > > > > > > > > This is just part of TH's (and yours) > > > > general incompetence in math and phys. > > > > > > LOL. I have a B Sc in Computer Science, Mathematics, Astronomy, and > > > soon in Physics, too. > > > > From long ago no doubt. > > FYI, real mathematicians and physicists understand basic TeX. . > > (and TeX is fool-proof, not even you could waste it) > > Your so-called degrees cannot be serious if you don't know about TeX. > > Besides, who cares about a BSc? No higher degree? No research expeience? And anyway, anyone who brags about some degree is a nitwit. All those letters before or behind a name should be reserved for obituaries, (and perhaps not even then) Jan Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 09:19 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence |
| Message-ID | <mrulntFngieU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #668003 |
Am Samstag000003, 03.01.2026 um 16:42 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum, and set Followup-To when > you crosspost. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity is set. > > J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>> Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 11:12 schrieb Ross Finlayson: >>>> On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were: >>>>>>> Otto Hahn >>>>>>> Marie Curie >>>>>>> Leo Szillard >>>>>>> Edward Teller >>>>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn >>>>>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,' >>>>>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner. >>>>> >>>>> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were >>>>> *investors" of >>>>> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a >>>>> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is >>>>> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors* >>>>> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but >>>>> _investigators_; better: _researchers_. >>> >>> Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction >>> can produce. >>> >>> I meant, of course, 'inventors'. >>> >>> An inventor is the person, who first had a certain idea for something new. >>> >>> Here the foundation of nuclear energy were meant with 'invention'. >>> >>> 'Researcher' doesn't fit here, because I wanted to express, that those >>> were the very people in history, who developed the foundations of >>> nuclear energy. >>> >>> Sure, I forgot Lise Meitner and certainly several others. But that >>> 'first' was my intention. >>> [...] >>> In my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong. >> >> Your opinions count for nothing. I make a statement and write, that the equation is wrong. The reason: the increase of energy in form of radiation in nuclear decay is acompanied with decrease of mass of the radioactive probe. And because you cannot equate an increase and a decrease, the signs are wrong. Also wrong in Einstein's equation is, that these quantities E and m are meant as absolute, while the nuclear decay does not show absolute values, but 'relative' ones. 'Relative values' means, that say a milligram is missing in the nuclear material of say 1 kg. This is a change and not an absolute value. How far down a nuclear decay can go, we do not know. IOW: we cannot assume, that nuclear decay goes down to zero and makes a sample completely vanish. Instead we have only missing material in the middle of a curve and cannot simply declar that curve to be linear. This my opinion and for me it doesn't matter, whether you care or not. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 08:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vSOdnaphabY63sT0nZ2dnZfqn_hg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #667999 |
On 01/03/2026 02:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 11:12 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>> On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>>> Am Mittwoch000031, 31.12.2025 um 08:57 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>>>> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/
>>>>>>> covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Time' magazine suggested, that Einstein actually invented the atomic
>>>>>> bomb (or at least its theoretical foundations).
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
>>>>> that mass could be converted to energy as
>>>>> predicted by Einstein's E = mc?.
>>>>
>>>> A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c?" (which Einstein had
>>>> not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass
>>>> can
>>>> be converted to energy".
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from
>>>> Einstein
>>>> himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
>>>> popular-scientific TV program or film:
>>>>
>>>> <https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
>>>>
>>>> Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero
>>>> _rest_
>>>> energy: E? = m c? (notice the subscript) *even if they are not
>>>> (considered)
>>>> moving*.
>>>>
>>>> Fermilab: Why E=mc? is wrong
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>> v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
>>>>
>>>> Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc?
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>> v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
>>>>
>>>> PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc?
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>> v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>>>>
>>>> Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905
>>>> as a
>>>> consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime.
>>>> Where
>>>> the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
>>>>
>>>> [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
>>>>
>>>> where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the
>>>> other by
>>>>
>>>> [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/d? = m d[x]^a/dt dt/d? = ? m (c, v)^T
>>>> [2]
>>>>
>>>> where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
>>>>
>>>> (||P||?,?)? = ?_ab p^a p^b = E?/c? - p? = ?? m (c? - v?)
>>>> = ?? m? c? (1 - v?/c?)
>>>> = ?? m? c?/??
>>>> = m? c?
>>>>
>>>> leading to the energy--momentum relation
>>>>
>>>> E? = m?c? + p?c?,
>>>>
>>>> so that for p = 0 (!) we have
>>>>
>>>> E? := E(p = 0) = m c?.
>>>>
>>>> [1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
>>>> detailed derivation
>>>> [2] ds? = c?d?? = c?dt? ? dx? ? dy? ? dz? = c?dt?/?? ? dt/d? = ?.
>>>>
>>>>>> But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation
>>>>>> (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention).
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented
>>>>> from the equation E = mc?.
>>>>
>>>> _Atomic bomb_
>>>>
>>>> That is not true. The relation of rest energy and mass, which was
>>>> subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested
>>>> in his
>>>> paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the
>>>> magnitude of c?. Szilárds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how
>>>> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilárd's letter (now
>>>> known
>>>> as the Einstein--Szilárd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
>>>> possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
>>>> that Szilárd received from his contacts in Europe suggested that the
>>>> Nazis
>>>> were close to the completion of the development of such a bomb as they
>>>> were
>>>> collecting a lot of fissionable uranium.
>>>>
>>>> Although these reports turned out to be inaccurate, this letter
>>>> eventually
>>>> led to the Manhattan Project and the development of a nuclear fission
>>>> bomb
>>>> (which Einstein regretted later; still his idea -- maybe a bit naive
>>>> at the
>>>> time was not that an atomic bomb would be developed to be *used*, but
>>>> that
>>>> it would be developed *first* by the USA so that the Nazis would not
>>>> dare to
>>>> use the one that they would supposedly develop *later*. To date this
>>>> idea
>>>> -- that the use of nuclear weapons would be ultimately mean self-
>>>> destruction
>>>> if more than one participant had it -- has prevented nuclear war).
>>>>
>>>>> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc? when he
>>>>> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite
>>>>> is another proof of mass converted to energy.
>>>>
>>>> No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there.
>>>> These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions.
>>>>
>>>>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
>>>>>> Otto Hahn
>>>>>> Marie Curie
>>>>>> Leo Szillard
>>>>>> Edward Teller
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
>>>>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
>>>>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
>>>>
>>>> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were
>>>> *investors" of
>>>> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
>>>> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
>>>> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
>>>> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
>>>> _investigators_; better: _researchers_.
>>>>
>> Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
>> can produce.
>>
>> I meant, of course, 'inventors'.
>>
>> An inventor is the person, who first had a certain idea for something new.
>>
>> Here the foundation of nuclear energy were meant with 'invention'.
>>
>> 'Researcher' doesn't fit here, because I wanted to express, that those
>> were the very people in history, who developed the foundations of
>> nuclear energy.
>>
>> Sure, I forgot Lise Meitner and certainly several others. But that
>> 'first' was my intention.
>>
>>>
>>> There are quite various definition of mass/energy (or, mass-energy)
>>> equivalency, "E = mc^2", Einstein's first was after an expression
>>> of the kinetic energy (not momentum) as the first term in a Taylor
>>> expansion, and Einstein's final was as after the account of the
>>> centrally-symmetric ("un-linear"). Then, SR has its own derivation,
>>> these days after the "re-definition" of "SI units as SR units", i.e.
>>> another derivation. The derivation of "momentum" itself as for a story
>>> of momentum, and its definition, since the Mertonian school and latitude
>>> of forms and whether P-R or P/R power and resistance, has that since
>>> there's Hooke's law then Clausius/Arrhenius, there are lots of
>>> _approximations_ hidden in the _derivations_, and there's that
>>> _approximations_ have _error terms_.
>>
>> In my opinion the equation E= m*c? is wrong.
>
> Your opinions count for nothing.
> And FYI, this is the *definition* of mass nowadays.
>
> Definitions cannot be wrong, they are what they are,
>
> Jan
>
Oh, "axioms" can be "false".
For any inductive argument there's a counter-inductive argument.
Thus, absent a wider, fuller dialectic, what you say applies
uncritically, or, you know, the "rubber and glue" bit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 20:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1rodny8.1d3dkned7marrN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #668004 |
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/03/2026 02:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 11:12 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> >>> On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> >>>>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
> >>>>>> Am Mittwoch000031, 31.12.2025 um 08:57 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>>>>>> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/
> >>>>>>> covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 'Time' magazine suggested, that Einstein actually invented the atomic
> >>>>>> bomb (or at least its theoretical foundations).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No.
> >>>>> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
> >>>>> that mass could be converted to energy as
> >>>>> predicted by Einstein's E = mc?.
> >>>>
> >>>> A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c?" (which Einstein had
> >>>> not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass
> >>>> can
> >>>> be converted to energy".
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from
> >>>> Einstein
> >>>> himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
> >>>> popular-scientific TV program or film:
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
> >>>>
> >>>> Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero
> >>>> _rest_
> >>>> energy: E? = m c? (notice the subscript) *even if they are not
> >>>> (considered)
> >>>> moving*.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fermilab: Why E=mc? is wrong
> >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> >>>> v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
> >>>>
> >>>> Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc?
> >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> >>>> v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
> >>>>
> >>>> PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc?
> >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> >>>> v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
> >>>>
> >>>> Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905
> >>>> as a
> >>>> consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime.
> >>>> Where
> >>>> the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
> >>>>
> >>>> [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
> >>>>
> >>>> where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the
> >>>> other by
> >>>>
> >>>> [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/d? = m d[x]^a/dt dt/d? = ? m (c, v)^T
> >>>> [2]
> >>>>
> >>>> where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
> >>>>
> >>>> (||P||?,?)? = ?_ab p^a p^b = E?/c? - p? = ?? m (c? - v?)
> >>>> = ?? m? c? (1 - v?/c?)
> >>>> = ?? m? c?/??
> >>>> = m? c?
> >>>>
> >>>> leading to the energy--momentum relation
> >>>>
> >>>> E? = m?c? + p?c?,
> >>>>
> >>>> so that for p = 0 (!) we have
> >>>>
> >>>> E? := E(p = 0) = m c?.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
> >>>> detailed derivation
> >>>> [2] ds? = c?d?? = c?dt? ? dx? ? dy? ? dz? = c?dt?/?? ? dt/d? = ?.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation
> >>>>>> (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented
> >>>>> from the equation E = mc?.
> >>>>
> >>>> _Atomic bomb_
> >>>>
> >>>> That is not true. The relation of rest energy and mass, which was
> >>>> subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested
> >>>> in his
> >>>> paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the
> >>>> magnitude of c?. Szilárds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how
> >>>> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilárd's letter (now
> >>>> known
> >>>> as the Einstein--Szilárd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
> >>>> possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
> >>>> that Szilárd received from his contacts in Europe suggested that the
> >>>> Nazis
> >>>> were close to the completion of the development of such a bomb as they
> >>>> were
> >>>> collecting a lot of fissionable uranium.
> >>>>
> >>>> Although these reports turned out to be inaccurate, this letter
> >>>> eventually
> >>>> led to the Manhattan Project and the development of a nuclear fission
> >>>> bomb
> >>>> (which Einstein regretted later; still his idea -- maybe a bit naive
> >>>> at the
> >>>> time was not that an atomic bomb would be developed to be *used*, but
> >>>> that
> >>>> it would be developed *first* by the USA so that the Nazis would not
> >>>> dare to
> >>>> use the one that they would supposedly develop *later*. To date this
> >>>> idea
> >>>> -- that the use of nuclear weapons would be ultimately mean self-
> >>>> destruction
> >>>> if more than one participant had it -- has prevented nuclear war).
> >>>>
> >>>>> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc? when he
> >>>>> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite
> >>>>> is another proof of mass converted to energy.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there.
> >>>> These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
> >>>>>> Otto Hahn
> >>>>>> Marie Curie
> >>>>>> Leo Szillard
> >>>>>> Edward Teller
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
> >>>>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
> >>>>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
> >>>>
> >>>> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were
> >>>> *investors" of
> >>>> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
> >>>> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
> >>>> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
> >>>> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
> >>>> _investigators_; better: _researchers_.
> >>>>
> >> Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
> >> can produce.
> >>
> >> I meant, of course, 'inventors'.
> >>
> >> An inventor is the person, who first had a certain idea for something new.
> >>
> >> Here the foundation of nuclear energy were meant with 'invention'.
> >>
> >> 'Researcher' doesn't fit here, because I wanted to express, that those
> >> were the very people in history, who developed the foundations of
> >> nuclear energy.
> >>
> >> Sure, I forgot Lise Meitner and certainly several others. But that
> >> 'first' was my intention.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> There are quite various definition of mass/energy (or, mass-energy)
> >>> equivalency, "E = mc^2", Einstein's first was after an expression
> >>> of the kinetic energy (not momentum) as the first term in a Taylor
> >>> expansion, and Einstein's final was as after the account of the
> >>> centrally-symmetric ("un-linear"). Then, SR has its own derivation,
> >>> these days after the "re-definition" of "SI units as SR units", i.e.
> >>> another derivation. The derivation of "momentum" itself as for a story
> >>> of momentum, and its definition, since the Mertonian school and latitude
> >>> of forms and whether P-R or P/R power and resistance, has that since
> >>> there's Hooke's law then Clausius/Arrhenius, there are lots of
> >>> _approximations_ hidden in the _derivations_, and there's that
> >>> _approximations_ have _error terms_.
> >>
> >> In my opinion the equation E= m*c? is wrong.
> >
> > Your opinions count for nothing.
> > And FYI, this is the *definition* of mass nowadays.
> >
> > Definitions cannot be wrong, they are what they are,
> >
> > Jan
> >
>
> Oh, "axioms" can be "false".
>
> For any inductive argument there's a counter-inductive argument.
>
> Thus, absent a wider, fuller dialectic, what you say applies
> uncritically, or, you know, the "rubber and glue" bit.
Gobbledygook,
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 01:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vJmcnabFqs9mpMf0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #668008 |
On 01/03/2026 11:48 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/03/2026 02:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 11:12 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>>> On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch000031, 31.12.2025 um 08:57 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>>>>>> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/
>>>>>>>>> covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'Time' magazine suggested, that Einstein actually invented the atomic
>>>>>>>> bomb (or at least its theoretical foundations).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
>>>>>>> that mass could be converted to energy as
>>>>>>> predicted by Einstein's E = mc?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c?" (which Einstein had
>>>>>> not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> be converted to energy".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from
>>>>>> Einstein
>>>>>> himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
>>>>>> popular-scientific TV program or film:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero
>>>>>> _rest_
>>>>>> energy: E? = m c? (notice the subscript) *even if they are not
>>>>>> (considered)
>>>>>> moving*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fermilab: Why E=mc? is wrong
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>>>> v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc?
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>>>> v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc?
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>>>> v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905
>>>>>> as a
>>>>>> consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime.
>>>>>> Where
>>>>>> the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the
>>>>>> other by
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/d? = m d[x]^a/dt dt/d? = ? m (c, v)^T
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (||P||?,?)? = ?_ab p^a p^b = E?/c? - p? = ?? m (c? - v?)
>>>>>> = ?? m? c? (1 - v?/c?)
>>>>>> = ?? m? c?/??
>>>>>> = m? c?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> leading to the energy--momentum relation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E? = m?c? + p?c?,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so that for p = 0 (!) we have
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E? := E(p = 0) = m c?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
>>>>>> detailed derivation
>>>>>> [2] ds? = c?d?? = c?dt? ? dx? ? dy? ? dz? = c?dt?/?? ? dt/d? = ?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation
>>>>>>>> (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented
>>>>>>> from the equation E = mc?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _Atomic bomb_
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not true. The relation of rest energy and mass, which was
>>>>>> subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested
>>>>>> in his
>>>>>> paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the
>>>>>> magnitude of c?. Szilárds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how
>>>>>> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilárd's letter (now
>>>>>> known
>>>>>> as the Einstein--Szilárd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
>>>>>> possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
>>>>>> that Szilárd received from his contacts in Europe suggested that the
>>>>>> Nazis
>>>>>> were close to the completion of the development of such a bomb as they
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> collecting a lot of fissionable uranium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although these reports turned out to be inaccurate, this letter
>>>>>> eventually
>>>>>> led to the Manhattan Project and the development of a nuclear fission
>>>>>> bomb
>>>>>> (which Einstein regretted later; still his idea -- maybe a bit naive
>>>>>> at the
>>>>>> time was not that an atomic bomb would be developed to be *used*, but
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> it would be developed *first* by the USA so that the Nazis would not
>>>>>> dare to
>>>>>> use the one that they would supposedly develop *later*. To date this
>>>>>> idea
>>>>>> -- that the use of nuclear weapons would be ultimately mean self-
>>>>>> destruction
>>>>>> if more than one participant had it -- has prevented nuclear war).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc? when he
>>>>>>> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite
>>>>>>> is another proof of mass converted to energy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there.
>>>>>> These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
>>>>>>>> Otto Hahn
>>>>>>>> Marie Curie
>>>>>>>> Leo Szillard
>>>>>>>> Edward Teller
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
>>>>>>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
>>>>>>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were
>>>>>> *investors" of
>>>>>> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
>>>>>> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
>>>>>> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
>>>>>> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
>>>>>> _investigators_; better: _researchers_.
>>>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
>>>> can produce.
>>>>
>>>> I meant, of course, 'inventors'.
>>>>
>>>> An inventor is the person, who first had a certain idea for something new.
>>>>
>>>> Here the foundation of nuclear energy were meant with 'invention'.
>>>>
>>>> 'Researcher' doesn't fit here, because I wanted to express, that those
>>>> were the very people in history, who developed the foundations of
>>>> nuclear energy.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, I forgot Lise Meitner and certainly several others. But that
>>>> 'first' was my intention.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are quite various definition of mass/energy (or, mass-energy)
>>>>> equivalency, "E = mc^2", Einstein's first was after an expression
>>>>> of the kinetic energy (not momentum) as the first term in a Taylor
>>>>> expansion, and Einstein's final was as after the account of the
>>>>> centrally-symmetric ("un-linear"). Then, SR has its own derivation,
>>>>> these days after the "re-definition" of "SI units as SR units", i.e.
>>>>> another derivation. The derivation of "momentum" itself as for a story
>>>>> of momentum, and its definition, since the Mertonian school and latitude
>>>>> of forms and whether P-R or P/R power and resistance, has that since
>>>>> there's Hooke's law then Clausius/Arrhenius, there are lots of
>>>>> _approximations_ hidden in the _derivations_, and there's that
>>>>> _approximations_ have _error terms_.
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion the equation E= m*c? is wrong.
>>>
>>> Your opinions count for nothing.
>>> And FYI, this is the *definition* of mass nowadays.
>>>
>>> Definitions cannot be wrong, they are what they are,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>> Oh, "axioms" can be "false".
>>
>> For any inductive argument there's a counter-inductive argument.
>>
>> Thus, absent a wider, fuller dialectic, what you say applies
>> uncritically, or, you know, the "rubber and glue" bit.
>
> Gobbledygook,
>
> Jan
>
Well, haul out your thesaurus,
I think one can find "axiom" and "stipulation".
"Principles", "laws", ..., about things like
the principle of sufficient reason after the
principle of (non) contradiction, here instead
there's a principle of inverse instead of contradiction,
and a principle of sufficient, _and thorough_, reason.
"Gobbledygook" you say - just more of the rubber and glue bit.
It may remind of Zermelo's account of the well-ordering
principle, a usual axiom, well-ordering, choice, Zorn's
or Ono's lemmas (as they're so arrived at), then about
for example a well-dispersion the illative or univalent,
Martin's axiom. Along with well-foundedness this makes
three different sorts of rulialities/regularities, for
usual theories-of-one-relation like set theory. So, ...,
it can be arrived at the "un-intuitive" (plainly, contradictory)
results of those existing together. This then is a bit more
involved the existence of usual counter-inductive argument
to any sort of interesting inductive argument intending to
entail some completion, since these apiece constructively
make different ones.
Don't forget Goedel's incompleteness and Erdos' independence.
See, when you put them together, their "definitions",
if they disagree, then they model each other as examples
of fallacy, "false axioms".
Instead of just any random statement at all like as
after the quasi-modal non-monotonic non-entailment
"material implication" (neither material nor implication),
"ex falso quodlibet", instead it's "ex falso nihilum"
and a wider, fuller dialectic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 11:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <zpWcnY2KwIo0W8f0nZ2dnZfqnPZg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #668008 |
On 01/03/2026 11:48 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/03/2026 02:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 11:12 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>>> On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch000031, 31.12.2025 um 08:57 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>>>>>> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/
>>>>>>>>> covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'Time' magazine suggested, that Einstein actually invented the atomic
>>>>>>>> bomb (or at least its theoretical foundations).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
>>>>>>> that mass could be converted to energy as
>>>>>>> predicted by Einstein's E = mc?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c?" (which Einstein had
>>>>>> not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> be converted to energy".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from
>>>>>> Einstein
>>>>>> himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
>>>>>> popular-scientific TV program or film:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero
>>>>>> _rest_
>>>>>> energy: E? = m c? (notice the subscript) *even if they are not
>>>>>> (considered)
>>>>>> moving*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fermilab: Why E=mc? is wrong
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>>>> v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc?
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>>>> v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc?
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>>>> v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905
>>>>>> as a
>>>>>> consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime.
>>>>>> Where
>>>>>> the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the
>>>>>> other by
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/d? = m d[x]^a/dt dt/d? = ? m (c, v)^T
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (||P||?,?)? = ?_ab p^a p^b = E?/c? - p? = ?? m (c? - v?)
>>>>>> = ?? m? c? (1 - v?/c?)
>>>>>> = ?? m? c?/??
>>>>>> = m? c?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> leading to the energy--momentum relation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E? = m?c? + p?c?,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so that for p = 0 (!) we have
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E? := E(p = 0) = m c?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
>>>>>> detailed derivation
>>>>>> [2] ds? = c?d?? = c?dt? ? dx? ? dy? ? dz? = c?dt?/?? ? dt/d? = ?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation
>>>>>>>> (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented
>>>>>>> from the equation E = mc?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _Atomic bomb_
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not true. The relation of rest energy and mass, which was
>>>>>> subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested
>>>>>> in his
>>>>>> paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the
>>>>>> magnitude of c?. Szilárds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how
>>>>>> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilárd's letter (now
>>>>>> known
>>>>>> as the Einstein--Szilárd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
>>>>>> possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
>>>>>> that Szilárd received from his contacts in Europe suggested that the
>>>>>> Nazis
>>>>>> were close to the completion of the development of such a bomb as they
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> collecting a lot of fissionable uranium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although these reports turned out to be inaccurate, this letter
>>>>>> eventually
>>>>>> led to the Manhattan Project and the development of a nuclear fission
>>>>>> bomb
>>>>>> (which Einstein regretted later; still his idea -- maybe a bit naive
>>>>>> at the
>>>>>> time was not that an atomic bomb would be developed to be *used*, but
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> it would be developed *first* by the USA so that the Nazis would not
>>>>>> dare to
>>>>>> use the one that they would supposedly develop *later*. To date this
>>>>>> idea
>>>>>> -- that the use of nuclear weapons would be ultimately mean self-
>>>>>> destruction
>>>>>> if more than one participant had it -- has prevented nuclear war).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc? when he
>>>>>>> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite
>>>>>>> is another proof of mass converted to energy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there.
>>>>>> These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
>>>>>>>> Otto Hahn
>>>>>>>> Marie Curie
>>>>>>>> Leo Szillard
>>>>>>>> Edward Teller
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
>>>>>>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
>>>>>>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were
>>>>>> *investors" of
>>>>>> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
>>>>>> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
>>>>>> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
>>>>>> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
>>>>>> _investigators_; better: _researchers_.
>>>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
>>>> can produce.
>>>>
>>>> I meant, of course, 'inventors'.
>>>>
>>>> An inventor is the person, who first had a certain idea for something new.
>>>>
>>>> Here the foundation of nuclear energy were meant with 'invention'.
>>>>
>>>> 'Researcher' doesn't fit here, because I wanted to express, that those
>>>> were the very people in history, who developed the foundations of
>>>> nuclear energy.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, I forgot Lise Meitner and certainly several others. But that
>>>> 'first' was my intention.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are quite various definition of mass/energy (or, mass-energy)
>>>>> equivalency, "E = mc^2", Einstein's first was after an expression
>>>>> of the kinetic energy (not momentum) as the first term in a Taylor
>>>>> expansion, and Einstein's final was as after the account of the
>>>>> centrally-symmetric ("un-linear"). Then, SR has its own derivation,
>>>>> these days after the "re-definition" of "SI units as SR units", i.e.
>>>>> another derivation. The derivation of "momentum" itself as for a story
>>>>> of momentum, and its definition, since the Mertonian school and latitude
>>>>> of forms and whether P-R or P/R power and resistance, has that since
>>>>> there's Hooke's law then Clausius/Arrhenius, there are lots of
>>>>> _approximations_ hidden in the _derivations_, and there's that
>>>>> _approximations_ have _error terms_.
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion the equation E= m*c? is wrong.
>>>
>>> Your opinions count for nothing.
>>> And FYI, this is the *definition* of mass nowadays.
>>>
>>> Definitions cannot be wrong, they are what they are,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>> Oh, "axioms" can be "false".
>>
>> For any inductive argument there's a counter-inductive argument.
>>
>> Thus, absent a wider, fuller dialectic, what you say applies
>> uncritically, or, you know, the "rubber and glue" bit.
>
> Gobbledygook,
>
> Jan
>
Well, haul out your thesaurus,
I think one can find "axiom" and "stipulation".
"Principles", "laws", ..., about things like
the principle of sufficient reason after the
principle of (non) contradiction, here instead
there's a principle of inverse instead of contradiction,
and a principle of sufficient, _and thorough_, reason.
"Gobbledygook" you say - just more of the rubber and glue bit.
It may remind of Zermelo's account of the well-ordering
principle, a usual axiom, well-ordering, choice, Zorn's
or Ono's lemmas (as they're so arrived at), then about
for example a well-dispersion the illative or univalent,
Martin's axiom. Along with well-foundedness this makes
three different sorts of rulialities/regularities, for
usual theories-of-one-relation like set theory. So, ...,
it can be arrived at the "un-intuitive" (plainly, contradictory)
results of those existing together. This then is a bit more
involved the existence of usual counter-inductive argument
to any sort of interesting inductive argument intending to
entail some completion, since these apiece constructively
make different ones.
Don't forget Goedel's incompleteness and Erdos' independence.
See, when you put them together, their "definitions",
if they disagree, then they model each other as examples
of fallacy, "false axioms".
Instead of just any random statement at all like as
after the quasi-modal non-monotonic non-entailment
"material implication" (neither material nor implication),
"ex falso quodlibet", instead it's "ex falso nihilum"
and a wider, fuller dialectic.
After all, if you're going to talk about a theory
of mathematical physics, it needs all of mathematical logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 18:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <SKTxerYQWtDKqvQicMFStR5uOmo@jntp> |
| In reply to | #667997 |
Le 03/01/2026 à 08:07, Thomas Heger a écrit : > In my opinion the equation E= m*c² is wrong. E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) If Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) Then E=mc²/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) No problem. > TH R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-02 15:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10j8jms$eugq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667982 |
Den 02.01.2026 01:04, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Am Mittwoch000031, 31.12.2025 um 08:57 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/
>>>> covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
>>>
>>> 'Time' magazine suggested, that Einstein actually invented the atomic
>>> bomb (or at least its theoretical foundations).
>>
>> No.
>> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
>> that mass could be converted to energy as
>> predicted by Einstein's E = mc².
One possible fission process is:
1n + U-235 → Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n
The atomic weight of these are:
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 = 3.916659E-25 kg
E = mc² ≈ 2.78E-11 J ≈ 174 MeV
Are you claiming that the mass 3.916659E-25 kg
is not converted to 2.78E-11 J kinetic energy?
(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.)
The following is nitpicking.
(Or irrelevant in this context.)
>
> A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c²" (which Einstein had
> not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass can
> be converted to energy".
>
> Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from Einstein
> himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
> popular-scientific TV program or film:
>
> <https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
>
> Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero _rest_
> energy: E₀ = m c² (notice the subscript) *even if they are not (considered)
> moving*.
>
> Fermilab: Why E=mc² is wrong
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
>
> Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc²
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
>
> PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc²
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>
> Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905 as a
> consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime. Where
> the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
>
> [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
>
> where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the other by
>
> [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/dτ = m d[x]^a/dt dt/dτ = γ m (c, v)^T [2]
>
> where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
>
> (||P||₁,₃)² = η_ab p^a p^b = E²/c² - p² = γ² m (c² - v²)
> = γ² m² c² (1 - v²/c²)
> = γ² m² c²/γ²
> = m² c²
>
> leading to the energy--momentum relation
>
> E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²,
>
> so that for p = 0 (!) we have
>
> E₀ := E(p = 0) = m c².
>
> [1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
> detailed derivation
> [2] ds² = c²dτ² = c²dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² = c²dt²/γ² ⇒ dt/dτ = γ.
>
>>> But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation
>>> (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention).
>>
>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented
>> from the equation E = mc².
>
> _Atomic bomb_
>
> That is not true.
Yes, it is.
According to Google's AI:
"Nuclear fission was discovered by German chemists Otto Hahn
and Fritz Strassmann in late 1938, who observed uranium nuclei
splitting into lighter elements like barium when bombarded with
neutrons, with physicists Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch providing
the theoretical explanation and coining the term "fission"
shortly after, revealing the massive energy release. Hahn
received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1944 for the discovery,
though Meitner's crucial role in understanding the process is
now widely recognized."
Fermi was the first who, in 1934, bombarded uranium atoms with
neutrons and observed that strange things happened, but he didn't
understand that the uranium atom was split.
The point is that the fission was not discovered because
someone thought that since E = mc², it must be possible
to release energy by splitting atom.
But when the fission was discovered, Lisa Meitner realised
that the released energy could be explained by E = mc².
> The relation of rest energy and mass, which was
> subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested in his
> paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the
> magnitude of c².
So why did you say that it is a common misconception that:
"The atomic bomb proved in a very convincing way
that mass could be converted to energy as predicted by
Einstein's E = mc²?
> Szilárds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how
> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilárd's letter (now known
> as the Einstein--Szilárd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
> possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
> that Szilárd received from his contacts in Europe suggested that the Nazis
> were close to the completion of the development of such a bomb as they were
> collecting a lot of fissionable uranium.
>
> Although these reports turned out to be inaccurate, this letter eventually
> led to the Manhattan Project and the development of a nuclear fission bomb
> (which Einstein regretted later; still his idea -- maybe a bit naive at the
> time was not that an atomic bomb would be developed to be *used*, but that
> it would be developed *first* by the USA so that the Nazis would not dare to
> use the one that they would supposedly develop *later*. To date this idea
> -- that the use of nuclear weapons would be ultimately mean self-destruction
> if more than one participant had it -- has prevented nuclear war).
>
>> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc² when he
>> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite
>> is another proof of mass converted to energy.
>
> No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there.
> These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions.
Yes, of course it is.
Google's AI-summation:
"In chemical detonations, such as the explosion of dynamite
or TNT, mass is reduced due to the release of energy,
consistent with Einstein's equation E = mc².
The energy released — manifested as heat, light, and sound —
originates from the chemical potential energy stored in molecular
bonds, which is a form of bound energy equivalent to mass."
This was well known long before fission was known.
>
>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
>>> Otto Hahn
>>> Marie Curie
>>> Leo Szillard
>>> Edward Teller
>>> ...
>>
>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
>
> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were *investors" of
> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
> _investigators_; better: _researchers_.
Say, what are you talking about?
What could be one of Heger's conspiracy theories?
Of course Heger meant "inventors", not "investors".
But you have not commented anything about the most
important part of my post.
So read carefully:
Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
In 1939 she wrote:
Disintegration of Uranium by Neutrons: A New Type of Nuclear Reaction
======================================================================
https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/beginnings/nature_meitner.html
I quote:
"It seems therefore possible that the uranium nucleus has
only small stability of form, and may, after neutron capture,
divide itself into two nuclei of roughly equal size
(the precise ratio of sizes depending on finer structural
features and perhaps partly on chance). These two nuclei
will repel each other and should gain a total kinetic energy
of c. 200 MeV., as calculated from nuclear radius and charge."
Note that she calculated the energy released in the fission
by calculating the kinetic energy of the two nuclei which
repelled each other. And her calculation was quite correct.
I quote on:
"This amount of energy may actually be expected to be
available from the difference in packing fraction between
uranium and the elements in the middle of the periodic system.
The whole 'fission' process can thus be described in an
essentially classical way, without having to consider quantum-
mechanical 'tunnel effects', which would actually be extremely
small, on account of the large masses involved."
The "packing fraction" is related to mass defect. It was known
from chemistry that when molecules were divided, the mass of
the parts (molecules, atoms) could be less than the mass of the
molecule that was divided. This is what happens in detonation
of dynamite or TNT.
Meitner realised that the packing fraction also could be used
to find the mass defect in the fission.
That this mass defect would release "this amount of energy"
200 MeV could only be because she used E = mc².
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-02 16:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10j8okd$7d4a$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #667987 |
Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 02.01.2026 01:04, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation >>>> (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention). The latter claim is wrong. It was Einstein who derived the relation between rest energy and mass first, based on his previous paper, the first one on what became known as "special relativity". Previous attempts by other physicists were just ad-hoc hypotheses. >>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented from the equation E = mc². >> >> _Atomic bomb_ >> >> That is not true. > > Yes, it is. [Next time, trim your quotes.] No, it is not. > According to Google's AI: LOL. "Google" is not a source; "Google's AI" is even less than that. > "Nuclear fission was discovered by German chemists Otto Hahn > and Fritz Strassmann in late 1938, who observed uranium nuclei > splitting into lighter elements like barium when bombarded with > neutrons, with physicists Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch providing > the theoretical explanation and coining the term "fission" > shortly after, revealing the massive energy release. Hahn > received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1944 for the discovery, > though Meitner's crucial role in understanding the process is > now widely recognized." > > Fermi was the first who, in 1934, bombarded uranium atoms with > neutrons and observed that strange things happened, but he didn't > understand that the uranium atom was split. > > The point is that the fission was not discovered because > someone thought that since E = mc², it must be possible > to release energy by splitting atom. Non sequitur. We were not discussing just nuclear fission, but *the creation of an atomic bomb*: an *uncontrolled* nuclear fission reaction, possibly induced by nuclear fusion, *designed* to cause destruction. > But when the fission was discovered, Lisa Meitner realised > that the released energy could be explained by E = mc². q.e.d. >> The relation of rest energy and mass, which was >> subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested in his >> paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the >> magnitude of c². > > So why did you say that it is a common misconception that: > "The atomic bomb proved in a very convincing way > that mass could be converted to energy as predicted by > Einstein's E = mc²? I have already explained that in the part that you quoted without referring to it. *facepalm* >>> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc² when he >>> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite >>> is another proof of mass converted to energy. >> >> No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there. >> These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions. > > Yes, of course it is. To which of the two statements that I made are you referring by that? > Google's AI-summation: LOL. > "In chemical detonations, such as the explosion of dynamite > or TNT, mass is reduced due to the release of energy, > consistent with Einstein's equation E = mc². > The energy released — manifested as heat, light, and sound — > originates from the chemical potential energy stored in molecular > bonds, which is a form of bound energy equivalent to mass." > > This was well known long before fission was known. The latter statement was, but not the entirety of this generated answer, as you confirmed yourself. >>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were: >>>> Otto Hahn >>>> Marie Curie >>>> Leo Szillard >>>> Edward Teller >>>> ... >>> >>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn >>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,' >>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner. >> >> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were *investors" of >> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a >> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is >> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors* >> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but >> _investigators_; better: _researchers_. > > Say, what are you talking about? Thomas Heger's difficulty with comprehensive reading and writing (in general, but certainly of English) is one of the reasons for his conspiracy theories. > What could be one of Heger's conspiracy theories? That those people put money into the development of an atomic bomb in order to earn money from selling it. > Of course Heger meant "inventors", not "investors". Maybe. As I pointed out, there are several ways in which this claim can be understood. > But you have not commented anything about the most > important part of my post. There was no logic in doing that as it was not the target of my criticism. > Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn > before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,' > and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner. > > In 1939 she wrote: > Disintegration of Uranium by Neutrons: A New Type of Nuclear Reaction > ====================================================================== > https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/beginnings/nature_meitner.html > > I quote: > "It seems therefore possible that the uranium nucleus has > only small stability of form, and may, after neutron capture, > divide itself into two nuclei of roughly equal size > (the precise ratio of sizes depending on finer structural > features and perhaps partly on chance). These two nuclei > will repel each other and should gain a total kinetic energy > of c. 200 MeV., as calculated from nuclear radius and charge." > > Note that she calculated the energy released in the fission > by calculating the kinetic energy of the two nuclei which > repelled each other. And her calculation was quite correct. > [...] > Meitner realised that the packing fraction also could be used > to find the mass defect in the fission. > That this mass defect would release "this amount of energy" > 200 MeV could only be because she used E = mc². That is my understanding as well; see also the depiction of Meitner's discovery in David Bodanis' popular-scientific book "E = mc²", and the biographical made-for-TV movie "Einstein's Big Idea" that was based on it: <https://www.davidbodanis.com/books/e-mc-2-einstein> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 22:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10jc08f$1hm2m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667989 |
Den 02.01.2026 16:35, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 02.01.2026 01:04, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented from the equation E = mc². >>> That is not true. >> >> Yes, it is. > > No, it is not > >> According to Google's AI: > > LOL. "Google" is not a source; "Google's AI" is even less than that. > >> "Nuclear fission was discovered by German chemists Otto Hahn >> and Fritz Strassmann in late 1938, who observed uranium nuclei >> splitting into lighter elements like barium when bombarded with >> neutrons, with physicists Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch providing >> the theoretical explanation and coining the term "fission" >> shortly after, revealing the massive energy release. Hahn >> received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1944 for the discovery, >> though Meitner's crucial role in understanding the process is >> now widely recognized. >> >> Fermi was the first who, in 1934, bombarded uranium atoms with >> neutrons and observed that strange things happened, but he didn't >> understand that the uranium atom was split. These are facts you cannot laugh away. >> >> The point is that the fission was not discovered because >> someone thought that since E = mc², it must be possible >> to release energy by splitting atom. > > Non sequitur. We were not discussing just nuclear fission, but *the > creation of an atomic bomb*: an *uncontrolled* nuclear fission reaction, > possibly induced by nuclear fusion, *designed* to cause destruction. So the discovery of nuclear fission and the fact that ≈ 200 MeV kinetic energy is realised when a U-235 atom is hit by a neutron and split in two, is irrelevant to the creation of the fission atomic bomb? :-D The idea that "nuclear fission reaction, possibly [is] induced by nuclear fusion" is rather weird. Typo? You must know that in a H-bomb it is the other way around. > >> But when the fission was discovered, Lisa Meitner realised >> that the released energy could be explained by E = mc². > > q.e.d. Right. Before 1938 nobody knew that atoms could be split. I don't know why Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann bombard U-235 with neutrons in 1938, but they did not expect the atom to split. However, when they found that barium was produced, they understood that the atom was split in two roughly equally sized nuclei. But they didn't know that a lot of energy was released. It was Lise Meitner who found the theoretical explanation for the fission. The fission was not discovered because someone thought that since E = mc², it must be possible to release energy by splitting atoms. q.e.d. > >>> The relation of rest energy and mass, which was >>> subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested in his >>> paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the >>> magnitude of c². Sure. Einstein wrote: "It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test. If the theory [E = mc²] corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies." The sources of radioactive radiation at that time (pre 1905) were radium salts and uranium salts. In natural decay an alpha (He-4 nucleus), a beta (electron) or a gamma (photon) particle is spontaneously emitted from the nucleus. By 1905 this radiation was well known, but where the kinetic energy in the radiation came from was a great mystery. Einstein thought he had the answer, and he was right. The energy released in natural decay is quite modest, and nobody thought it could be used to make an atomic bomb. Which it could not. In nuclear fission of U-235 the nucleus is split in two roughly equal sized nuclei, which will repel each other very strongly and thus release a vast amount of energy. Nuclear fission of U-235 does not happen spontaneous, it is induced by the bombardment of neutrons. And since neutrons are emitted in the fission, the idea that it might be possible to make a chain reaction is not far-fetched. It was the discovery of fission that lead to the to the atomic fission bomb. Nuclear fission of uranium was not discovered because someone thought that since E = mc², it must be possible to release energy by splitting atoms. >>>> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc² when he >>>> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite >>>> is another proof of mass converted to energy. >>> >>> No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there. >>> These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions. > > LOL. Are you laughing because you have realised that the following facts confirm my statement? > >> "In chemical detonations, such as the explosion of dynamite >> or TNT, mass is reduced due to the release of energy, >> consistent with Einstein's equation E = mc². >> The energy released — manifested as heat, light, and sound — >> originates from the chemical potential energy stored in molecular >> bonds, which is a form of bound energy equivalent to mass." This statement is correct. >> >> This was well known long before fission was known. > > The latter statement was, but not the entirety of this generated answer, as > you confirmed yourself. ?? >> >> In 1939 she wrote: >> Disintegration of Uranium by Neutrons: A New Type of Nuclear Reaction >> ====================================================================== >> https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/beginnings/nature_meitner.html >> >> I quote: >> "It seems therefore possible that the uranium nucleus has >> only small stability of form, and may, after neutron capture, >> divide itself into two nuclei of roughly equal size >> (the precise ratio of sizes depending on finer structural >> features and perhaps partly on chance). These two nuclei >> will repel each other and should gain a total kinetic energy >> of c. 200 MeV., as calculated from nuclear radius and charge." >> >> Note that she calculated the energy released in the fission >> by calculating the kinetic energy of the two nuclei which >> repelled each other. And her calculation was quite correct. I quote on: "This amount of energy may actually be expected to be available from the difference in packing fraction between uranium and the elements in the middle of the periodic system. The "packing fraction" is related to mass defect. It was known from chemistry that when molecules were divided, the mass of the parts (molecules, atoms) could be less than the mass of the molecule that was divided. This is what happens in detonation of dynamite or TNT. >> Meitner realised that the packing fraction also could be used >> to find the mass defect in the fission. >> That this mass defect would release "this amount of energy" >> 200 MeV could only be because she used E = mc². > > That is my understanding as well; see also the depiction of Meitner's > discovery in David Bodanis' popular-scientific book "E = mc²", and the > biographical made-for-TV movie "Einstein's Big Idea" that was based on it: > > <https://www.davidbodanis.com/books/e-mc-2-einstein> > -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 22:28 +0100 |
| Subject | Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb (was: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God) |
| Message-ID | <10jc1mu$f5pp$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #668013 |
Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 02.01.2026 16:35, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 02.01.2026 01:04, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented from the equation E = mc². >>>> That is not true. >>> Yes, it is. >> No, it is not >> >>> According to Google's AI: >> >> LOL. "Google" is not a source; "Google's AI" is even less than that. >> >>> "Nuclear fission was discovered by German chemists Otto Hahn >>> and Fritz Strassmann in late 1938, who observed uranium nuclei >>> splitting into lighter elements like barium when bombarded with >>> neutrons, with physicists Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch providing >>> the theoretical explanation and coining the term "fission" >>> shortly after, revealing the massive energy release. Hahn >>> received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1944 for the discovery, >>> though Meitner's crucial role in understanding the process is >>> now widely recognized. >>> >>> Fermi was the first who, in 1934, bombarded uranium atoms with >>> neutrons and observed that strange things happened, but he didn't >>> understand that the uranium atom was split. > > These are facts you cannot laugh away. These _claims_, if true, are irrelevant to your claim as by then the equivalence of rest energy and mass was already known. >>> The point is that the fission was not discovered because >>> someone thought that since E = mc², it must be possible >>> to release energy by splitting atom. >> >> Non sequitur. We were not discussing just nuclear fission, but *the >> creation of an atomic bomb*: an *uncontrolled* nuclear fission reaction, >> possibly induced by nuclear fusion, *designed* to cause destruction. > > So the discovery of nuclear fission and the fact > that ≈ 200 MeV kinetic energy is realised when > a U-235 atom is hit by a neutron and split in two, is > irrelevant to the creation of the fission atomic bomb? :-D You appear to be confused about your own argument. Now you are arguing, *contrary* to what you argued before, that the known mass--energy equivalence did play a role in the creation of the atomic bomb. Make up your mind. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 12:42 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb |
| Message-ID | <10jdjim$1v8c8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #668014 |
Den 03.01.2026 22:28, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 02.01.2026 16:35, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> According to Google's AI: >>> >>> LOL. "Google" is not a source; "Google's AI" is even less than that. >>> >>>> "Nuclear fission was discovered by German chemists Otto Hahn >>>> and Fritz Strassmann in late 1938, who observed uranium nuclei >>>> splitting into lighter elements like barium when bombarded with >>>> neutrons, with physicists Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch providing >>>> the theoretical explanation and coining the term "fission" >>>> shortly after, revealing the massive energy release. Hahn >>>> received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1944 for the discovery, >>>> though Meitner's crucial role in understanding the process is >>>> now widely recognized. >>>> >>>> Fermi was the first who, in 1934, bombarded uranium atoms with >>>> neutrons and observed that strange things happened, but he didn't >>>> understand that the uranium atom was split. >> >> These are facts you cannot laugh away. > > These _claims_, if true, are irrelevant to your claim as by then the > equivalence of rest energy and mass was already known. These _historical facts_ are very relevant to our discussion. Why do you dispute something which so easily can be looked up? Strange attitude! >>>> The point is that the fission was not discovered because >>>> someone thought that since E = mc², it must be possible >>>> to release energy by splitting atom. >>> >>> Non sequitur. We were not discussing just nuclear fission, but *the >>> creation of an atomic bomb*: an *uncontrolled* nuclear fission reaction, >>> possibly induced by nuclear fusion, *designed* to cause destruction. >> >> So the discovery of nuclear fission and the fact >> that ≈ 200 MeV kinetic energy is realised when >> a U-235 atom is hit by a neutron and split in two, is >> irrelevant to the creation of the fission atomic bomb? :-D > > You appear to be confused about your own argument. Now you are arguing, > *contrary* to what you argued before, that the known mass--energy > equivalence did play a role in the creation of the atomic bomb. Make up > your mind. You don't read what I write very carefully. My claim is: There would have been no atomic bomb in 1945 if the nuclear fission of uranium had not been discovered in 1938. The fission was not discovered because someone thought that since E = mc², it must be possible to release energy by splitting atoms. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 20:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb |
| Message-ID | <1roeyv5.1wjwhec8ksa46N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #668024 |
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > Den 03.01.2026 22:28, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > > Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > >> Den 02.01.2026 16:35, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > >>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > >>> > >>>> According to Google's AI: > >>> > >>> LOL. "Google" is not a source; "Google's AI" is even less than that. > >>> > >>>> "Nuclear fission was discovered by German chemists Otto Hahn > >>>> and Fritz Strassmann in late 1938, who observed uranium nuclei > >>>> splitting into lighter elements like barium when bombarded with > >>>> neutrons, with physicists Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch providing > >>>> the theoretical explanation and coining the term "fission" > >>>> shortly after, revealing the massive energy release. Hahn > >>>> received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1944 for the discovery, > >>>> though Meitner's crucial role in understanding the process is > >>>> now widely recognized. > >>>> > >>>> Fermi was the first who, in 1934, bombarded uranium atoms with > >>>> neutrons and observed that strange things happened, but he didn't > >>>> understand that the uranium atom was split. > >> > >> These are facts you cannot laugh away. > > > > These _claims_, if true, are irrelevant to your claim as by then the > > equivalence of rest energy and mass was already known. > > These _historical facts_ are very relevant to our discussion. > > Why do you dispute something which so easily can be looked up? > > Strange attitude! > > >>>> The point is that the fission was not discovered because > >>>> someone thought that since E = mc?, it must be possible > >>>> to release energy by splitting atom. > >>> > >>> Non sequitur. We were not discussing just nuclear fission, but *the > >>> creation of an atomic bomb*: an *uncontrolled* nuclear fission reaction, > >>> possibly induced by nuclear fusion, *designed* to cause destruction. > >> > >> So the discovery of nuclear fission and the fact > >> that ≈ 200 MeV kinetic energy is realised when > >> a U-235 atom is hit by a neutron and split in two, is > >> irrelevant to the creation of the fission atomic bomb? :-D > > > > You appear to be confused about your own argument. Now you are arguing, > > *contrary* to what you argued before, that the known mass--energy > > equivalence did play a role in the creation of the atomic bomb. Make up > > your mind. > > You don't read what I write very carefully. > > My claim is: > There would have been no atomic bomb in 1945 if > the nuclear fission of uranium had not been discovered > in 1938. Or without the discovery of the U235 isotope, in 1935, by Arthur Jeffrey Dempster. > The fission was not discovered because someone thought > that since E = mc?, it must be possible to release energy > by splitting atoms. Accurate values of nuclear masses had been known from mass spectroscopy since sice the 1920s. Through this it was already known that there were vast stores of energy trapped in all atomic nuclei. (and not just radioactive ones) People started speculating about liberating nuclear energy since then. (without yet having a clue as to how this might be practically achieved) The key discovery was that it was the rare U235 isotope that was splitting under slow neutron bombardment, not the more generally occurring U238 isotope. (and that such a splitting of an Uranium nucleus would liberate more free neutrons) This insight was due to Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch, who explained fission on basis of Bohr droplet model of the nucleus. (Meitner, L.; Frisch, O. R. (1939). "Disintegration of Uranium by Neutrons: a New Type of Nuclear Reaction". Nature. 143 (3615): 239.) Meitner was of course passed over for the Nobel prize for it. She was Jewish, a woman, and a mere theoretician, so she didn't stand a chance, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 21:08 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb |
| Message-ID | <10jeh70$29ato$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #668031 |
Den 04.01.2026 20:20, skrev J. J. Lodder: > Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > >> >> My claim is: >> There would have been no atomic bomb in 1945 if >> the nuclear fission of uranium had not been discovered >> in 1938. > > Or without the discovery of the U235 isotope, > in 1935, by Arthur Jeffrey Dempster. > >> The fission was not discovered because someone thought >> that since E = mc?, it must be possible to release energy >> by splitting atoms. > > Accurate values of nuclear masses had been known > from mass spectroscopy since sice the 1920s. > Through this it was already known that there were vast stores of energy > trapped in all atomic nuclei. (and not just radioactive ones) > People started speculating about liberating nuclear energy since then. > (without yet having a clue as to how this might be practically achieved) Exactly! My point was that the equation E = mc^2 was no help to how to liberate the nuclear energy in matter. > > The key discovery was that it was the rare U235 isotope > that was splitting under slow neutron bombardment, > not the more generally occurring U238 isotope. > (and that such a splitting of an Uranium nucleus would liberate > more free neutrons) > > This insight was due to Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch, > who explained fission on basis of Bohr droplet model of the nucleus. > (Meitner, L.; Frisch, O. R. (1939). "Disintegration of Uranium by > Neutrons: a New Type of Nuclear Reaction". Nature. 143 (3615): 239.) > > Meitner was of course passed over for the Nobel prize for it. > She was Jewish, a woman, and a mere theoretician, > so she didn't stand a chance, > > Jan > > > -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web