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.