Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vff77l$31lns$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Einstein's Mistakes Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:36:04 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 113 Message-ID: <vff77l$31lns$1@dont-email.me> References: <e3e193c97e0d6ada80d10cd3c32a33f1@www.novabbs.com> <374914495b8f592bcb19b2cfb0dce968@www.novabbs.com> <61b46394e14345f28a4a1615ddddd374@www.novabbs.com> <vf86c7$1fueh$1@dont-email.me> <x_xSO.2461785$VK2e.487693@fx01.ams4> <671abf29$0$525$426a34cc@news.free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:36:06 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dd4b2c4dd802b7e038bbd3896a7a9bc6"; logging-data="3200764"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+XzVj/oaBX52jQdaeeCMXpceUqUs68su4=" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ko7VW+N+/KFpV7eLzqFzr6M21eg= Bytes: 5667 On 2024-10-24 21:42:00 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > >> Den 23.10.2024 18:38, skrev rhertz: >>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:41:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> Of course there are Coulomb forces that accelerate the parts of >>>> the atom in a fission. >> >> This is not disputed! >> >> So why do you act as it is? >> >>>> >>>> And you know that this _confirms_ E = mc? because: >> >> we know: >> >>>> Generally: >>>> In a fission the mass of the constituents is less than >>>> the mass of the fissioned atom. >>>> ------------------ >>>> >>>> All physicists knew that in 1939, obviously. >>>> >>>> https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/beginnings/nature_meitner > .html >>>> 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." >>>> >>>> Meitner calculated from the electrostatic repulsion that >>>> the kinetic energy of the constituents would be ca 200 Mev. >> >> Because this was the simplest way to estimate the released energy. >> >>>> >>>> Quote: >>>> "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." >>>> >>>> When Meitner found that this mass difference was equivalent to >>>> ca.200 Mev it could only be through E = mc?. >> >> So Meitner, like all physicists, took E = mc? for granted. >> >>>> >>>> You know this, because I told you 5 years ago. >>>> >>>> So why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists >>>> (and chemists) at the time took E = mc? for granted? >> >>> >>> >>> These are excerpts from Serber's 1992, "Los Alamos Primer": >>> >>> >>> Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein's theory of >>> relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc?, plays some >>> essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in >>> alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an >>> atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing >>> fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a nonrelativistic >>> theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the >>> dynamics of the fission process significantly. >>> Section 2 of the Primer gives a more exact calculation of the ratio of >>> the >>> energy released by the fission of a gram of uranium to the energy >>> released by the explosion of a gram of TNT. >> >> Even if the atom bomb could have been made without E = mc?, >> the statement above shows that Serber, as all physicists, >> knew E = mc?, they all took it for granted. >> >> Serber doesn't say that E = mc? is not a valid theory, >> he says that E = mc? wasn't much help in making the atom bomb. >> >> So I ask you again: >> Why do you pretend to be ignorant of the fact that all physicists >> (and chemists) at the time took E = mc? for granted? > > It's hopeless. RH is completely clueless when it comes to real physics. > (and he is unwilling to learn) The problem with using just initials that two crackpots can have the same ones. At first reading I thought you meant "Dr" Hachel, who is indeed completely clueless about many things, but I was puzzled as I didn't think he had contributed to this thread. > >> E = mc? is now thoroughly experimentally verified, and the atom bomb >> is part of the experimental evidence. > > Of course, but not really needed. > Mass spectroscopy was invented by J. J. Thomson in 1913, > and refined by his student, F. W. Aston. (discovering lots of isotopes) > In 1932, Kenneth Bainbridge pushed the accuracy of it to about 10^-4, > which was good enough to verify E = mc^2 directly, for atomic nuclei. > So the mass excess of the Uranium nucleus of about 200 MeV > was well known to 'everybody', well before WWII got started, > > Jan -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly in England until 1987.