Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #608042 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-06 08:42 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-12 09:47 -0800 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 67 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-06 08:42 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 09:21 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-06 18:31 +0000
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-06 15:24 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 15:30 -0700
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-06 17:54 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 06:13 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 10:10 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 10:22 -0700
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 10:54 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:27 -0700
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 11:25 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 12:39 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-08 17:52 +0000
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 08:59 -0700
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 15:40 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 15:59 -0700
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-07 05:21 +0000
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-06 22:58 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 00:02 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-07 14:21 +0000
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 10:15 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 10:24 -0700
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 06:22 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 10:36 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 11:39 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 13:40 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-08 17:45 +0000
got i.t noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 11:04 -0800
Re: got i.t noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 15:29 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-11 21:33 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-12 00:05 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-12 11:02 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 11:10 -0700
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-12-12 15:13 -0500
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 13:22 -0700
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-12-12 17:00 -0500
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:34 -0700
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-14 22:26 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-14 22:30 -0800
The Man Wo Built The Atomic Bomb... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-14 22:53 -0800
Re: The Man Wo Built The Atomic Bomb... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-14 22:59 -0800
The Man Wo Built The Atomic Bomb... pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-12-14 23:04 -0800
Re: The Man Wo Built The Atomic Bomb... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-15 20:39 -0800
Re: The Man Wo Built The Atomic Bomb... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-16 10:50 -0800
Re: The Man Wo Built The Atomic Bomb... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-14 23:08 -0800
build it & they will bomb noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 09:50 -0800
Re: build it & they will bomb noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 13:41 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 09:36 -0700
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 13:49 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "Michael R N Dolbear" <me@privacy.net> - 2016-12-12 22:05 +0000
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 18:39 -0600
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:37 -0700
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-12-13 02:18 -0500
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-12 20:03 +0000
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 06:11 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 13:23 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-06 13:46 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "Anon Y. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> - 2016-12-07 09:33 -0500
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-07 07:25 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 11:12 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-07 11:33 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-12-09 15:45 -0500
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 20:22 -0500
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> - 2016-12-11 17:17 +0000
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-12 00:15 -0800
Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-12 09:47 -0800
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 11:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1b44a04d-c105-442f-8d7f-942cb1e87f87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #608042 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 8:42:46 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > In this blueprint for making atomic bombs Albert Einstein wrote: > http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein/#first > > > "This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, > > and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely power- > > ful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this > > type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy > > the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However, > > such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by > > air." --Albert Einstein > > > In the last sentence Albert says: > > > "However, > > such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by > > air." > > > Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? > > > If memory serves me well, wasn't the atomic bomb delivered by air transportation? > > > > What size bomb was Albert Einstein thinking of? Or what weight did Albert Einstein did he had in mind or figured out? > > > can be carried by boat but not by plane??? This guy sounds like he designs airplanes for Germans... > > > > Albert Einstein was wrong about that. That's a fact. > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge > the unchallengeable. I READ IF Einstein was playing poker he would always have 4 Aces.Hard to bet against.His thinking was "ON the Money" Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 11:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <o29o4p$473$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #608192 |
"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Glazier you need to call the Hotline (800) 723-8641 again. But do NOT spook the lady again with you getting shot in your head, like you did yesterday.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 15:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jm5m4cdjqcd7hs06jq1gp6cl012foccnql@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #608042 |
And what exactly is the point of your profound observation. I think he was only recognizing that very heavy fissile material would be involved and that the yield would be very vastly greater than conventional bombs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 20:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.32b522fac8c3638598a795@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #608414 |
In article <jm5m4cdjqcd7hs06jq1gp6cl012foccnql@ 4ax.com>, casagiannoni@optonline.net says... > > And what exactly is the point of your profound observation. > > I think he was only recognizing that very heavy fissile material would > be involved and that the yield would be very vastly greater than > conventional bombs. And in point of fact the bombs used in WWII could _not_ be carried in aircraft that were available when he was writing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <IrydnXQ5OYGmF9DFnZ2dnUU78X3NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #608465 |
J. Clarke wrote: > In article <jm5m4cdjqcd7hs06jq1gp6cl012foccnql@ > 4ax.com>, casagiannoni@optonline.net says... >> >> And what exactly is the point of your profound observation. >> >> I think he was only recognizing that very heavy fissile material >> would be involved and that the yield would be very vastly greater >> than conventional bombs. > > And in point of fact the bombs used in WWII > could _not_ be carried in aircraft that were > available when he was writing. True. And before the US had the B-29, there was serious consideration given to borrowing a few British Lancaster bombers which could carry single bombs of around 5 tonnes. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 00:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <584E5C8B.3337@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #608414 |
SteveGG wrote:
>
> And what exactly is the point of your profound observation.
>
> I think he was only recognizing that very heavy fissile material would
> be involved and that the yield would be very vastly greater than
> conventional bombs.
Albert Einstein said: "...such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by
air."
"very well prove"????
Who can argue with "very well prove"????
ver·y
'vere/
adverb
adverb: very
1.
used for emphasis.
synonyms: extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, extraordinarily, tremendously, immensely, hugely, intensely, acutely, abundantly, singularly, uncommonly, decidedly, particularly, supremely, highly, remarkably, really, truly, mightily, ever so;
The fact is, it was not too heavy for transportation by air. Albert Einstein was wrong about that...very well proven to be wrong about that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 09:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d38c07c-869a-4fc0-b0fb-8734adc2d47f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #608716 |
On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 3:15:13 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > SteveGG wrote: > > > > And what exactly is the point of your profound observation. > > > > I think he was only recognizing that very heavy fissile material would > > be involved and that the yield would be very vastly greater than > > conventional bombs. > > > Albert Einstein said: "...such bombs might very well prove to be > too heavy for transportation by > air." > > > "very well prove"???? > > > Who can argue with "very well prove"???? [] > > The fact is, it was not too heavy for transportation by air. > Albert Einstein was wrong about that >...very well proven to be wrong about that! ho hum. For some reason you think this is a big deal. I guess you are trying to prove something. Exactly what you are aiming for is unclear other than to get others to argue with you. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web