Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000022, 22.12.2025 um 17:24 schrieb jojo:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Professor Einstein died 75 years ago; now, if he was alive today, he
may have thought differently about some things?!-a Agreed??
he wouldnt be able to get the patent clerk job because requirements have >>> probably become too much for him.
He would have several problems today:
You completely missed the point again. Granted, it was a weak, trollish point, easy to miss.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals allowing them
access to classified information (state or organizational secrets) or to
restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for working on the Manhattan Project.
2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need to be elected
into an office.
Nonsense.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000022, 22.12.2025 um 17:24 schrieb jojo:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Professor Einstein died 75 years ago; now, if he was alive
today, he
may have thought differently about some things?!-a Agreed??
he wouldnt be able to get the patent clerk job because
requirements have
probably become too much for him.
He would have several problems today:
You completely missed the point again.-a Granted, it was a weak,
trollish
point, easy to miss.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals
allowing them
access to classified information (state or organizational
secrets) or to
restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for working
on the
Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th
century and roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan
Project took place.
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need to
be elected
into an office.
Nonsense.
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many
Swiss have hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans and are
also not very 'philo-semitic'.
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss
authorities would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state
secrets.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if Einstein's
vitae was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy
on Germany and later in the USA.
TH
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000022, 22.12.2025 um 17:24 schrieb jojo:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Professor Einstein died 75 years ago; now, if he was alive today, he >>>> may have thought differently about some things?!- Agreed??
he wouldnt be able to get the patent clerk job because requirements have >>> probably become too much for him.
He would have several problems today:
You completely missed the point again. Granted, it was a weak, trollish point, easy to miss.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals allowing them
access to classified information (state or organizational secrets) or to >> restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for working on the Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th century and roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan Project took place.
2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need to be elected
into an office.
Nonsense.
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many Swiss have hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans and are also not very 'philo-semitic'.
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss authorities would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state secrets.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if Einstein's vitae
was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy on Germany
and later in the USA.
TH
Thomas Heger wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals
allowing them access to classified information (state or organizational >>>> secrets) or to restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for working
on the Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th
century and roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan
Project took place.
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz) Switzerland has noNonsense.
'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need to be elected into an office.
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many
Swiss have hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans
and are also not very 'philo-semitic'.
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss
authorities would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state
secrets.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if Einstein's
vitae was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy
on Germany and later in the USA.
i think in those days it didnt really matter if you were french
or german in switzerland.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals allowing them >>>> access to classified information (state or organizational secrets)
or to
restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for working on the
Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th century
and roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan Project took place.
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need to be elected >>>> into an office.
Nonsense.
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many Swiss
have hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans and are also not
very 'philo-semitic'.
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss
authorities would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state
secrets.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if Einstein's vitae
was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy on Germany
and later in the USA.
TH
i think in those days it didnt really matter if you were french or
german in switzerland.
jojo wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals
allowing them access to classified information (state or organizational >>>>> secrets) or to restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for working
on the Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th
century and roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan
Project took place.
Once again: It is a historical mistake and a ridiculous blunder to reduce Einstein to a clerk at the Swiss Patent Office.
As I have already explained, shortly after he had published the /annus mirabilis/ papers, he became a professional physicist and held
professorships in Physics in Bern and Z|+rich, later Prague, and then Berlin.
Shortly before Hitler's seizure of power (1933), Einstein and his wife emigrated to the USA; he became a professor of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey (which he had already arranged for
in 1932 so that he could easily emigrate should it become necessary), where he lived and worked until his death; he became a citizen of the USA in 1940.
Yet, by contrast to other renowned and emigrated (Jewish) German(-speaking) scientists, like Hans Bethe, he was denied security clearance for the Manhattan Project (even though in a sense he caused it to be created by his and Szil|ird's letter to President Roosevelt) because the US Army Intelligence office considered him *ideologically* unreliable (he was a left-leaning pacifist):
<https:/www.businessinsider.com/why-einstein-didnt-join-manhattan-project-oppenheimer-atomic-bomb-2023-7>
Einstein at Princeton is historically correctly depicted (briefly) in the widely acclaimed biographical thriller film "Oppenheimer" (directed by Christopher Nolan; Universal Pictures, 2023). His life is also (mostly correctly) depicted in the first season of the National Geographic biographical anthology drama series "Genius":
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_(film)> <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15398776/>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_(American_TV_series)>
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz) Switzerland has no >>>>> 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need to be elected into an office.Nonsense.
Utter nonsense. Patent applications, once accepted, are published freely so that they are *easily found* by people who would like to apply to *use* a patent (and the patent owner is paid for that). That is the whole point of patents.
<https://www.ige.ch/en/protecting-your-ip/patents/patent-basics/what-is-a-patent>
<https://www.ige.ch/en/services/searches/patent-searches-in-general/searching-for-patents-yourself>
<https://www.uspto.gov/patents/search>
[How does Thomas Heger think the patent application of Einstein's and Szil|ird's refrigerator was found? Bribing an intelligence officer? Magic? He is so *insane* that he does not even realize how his different outlandish ideas *diametrically* contradict even *themselves*.]
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many
Swiss have hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans
*Some* (few) Swiss citizens have so *now*, as I know from first-hand experience as a German living in Switzerland. Nobody, especially not Thomas Heger who (by contrast to me) does not even live in Switzerland, has a clue about any general sentiment that "many Swiss" might have or have had.
and are also not very 'philo-semitic'.
Whatever that is supposed to mean.
Einstein became a Swiss citizen in 1901, one year before he started working at the Patent Office (1902). I do not know if Swiss citizenship was a requirement for working at the Office at the time (it is NOT now, at the successor, the Federal Institute of Intellectual Property[1]); but he certainly did not know at the time that he would be working there, so his acquisition of that citizenship was not because of *that* work. (And you could and can live and work in Switzerland without having Swiss citizenship, as I know first-hand.)
[1] <https://ige.prospective.ch/offene-stellen/markenpruefer-w-m-d/fa4dea40-ff9d-4a53-9d12-4edcc3c4cf87>
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss
authorities would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state
secrets.
Ex falso quodlibet.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if Einstein's
vitae was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy
on Germany and later in the USA.
Only to rampant paranoid, potentially mentally ill people who do not have
the first clue about (the) history (of science) or, indeed, *anything*.
i think in those days it didnt really matter if you were french
or german in switzerland.
You could not be more wrong. It was an age of colonialism and (thus) nationalism (the latter age, unfortunately, appears to come again now).
The Swiss had just successfully fought off (by agreement with Napoleon I)
the French Revolutionary Armies which had overrun and plundered the country on their way to fight the Austrian armies (battles between them took place
on Swiss soil without the Swiss being directly involved; but they suffered greatly from that), while they had no such clashes with any German army. While already a century in the past then, this destruction of ancient Swiss (cantonal) sovereignty (supported) by the French was fresh in the national memory even as late as 1995 when the anniversary of the French-supported, centralized, short-lived Helvetic Republic was due. So it is reasonable to assume that at the time (1900s) they were more friendly towards Germans (especially those from W|+rttemberg/Swabia like Einstein, due to the common Alemannian dialects) than French people.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_in_the_Napoleonic_era>
Thomas Heger wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000022, 22.12.2025 um 17:24 schrieb jojo:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Professor Einstein died 75 years ago; now, if he was alive today, he >>>>>> may have thought differently about some things?!|e Agreed??
he wouldnt be able to get the patent clerk job because requirements have >>>>> probably become too much for him.
He would have several problems today:
You completely missed the point again. Granted, it was a weak, trollish >>> point, easy to miss.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals allowing them >>>> access to classified information (state or organizational secrets) or to >>>> restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for working on the
Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th century and
roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan Project took place.
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need to be elected >>>> into an office.
Nonsense.
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many Swiss have
hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans and are also not very
'philo-semitic'.
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss authorities
would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state secrets.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if Einstein's vitae
was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy on Germany
and later in the USA.
TH
As I already mentioned before...
Since Albert Einstein worked at a patent office for around ten years..
Albert Einstein told all his scientist friends to patent all their
designs on the
atomic bomb with complete details on how it works. All 2,000 of the
patents. (with all the instructions)
end up at the patent office where anybody (Russian spies) can get a copy
of it
and build one in Russia. Anyone, even from a foreign country had access
to all the
2,000 of the atomic bomb patents.
I mean, by they had to invent everything..because it didn't exist. (only
in Albert Einstein's mind the inventor of the atomic bomb)
There are over 2,000 patents related to the building the atomic bomb.
(dat is how einstien convince scientist to get paid for helping
him build it)
Albert Einstein built another atomic bomb in Russia. And he passed all
the secrets to Russia. Albert Einstein was The Master Spy!
Of course, everyone he knew were his spies also and he had them pass
secrets to the Russians.
Albert Einstein secretly passed all the patents to the Russians. All
2,000 of the patents. (with all the instructions)
The FBI was not aware at that time about the patent office gateway...
Hell, in those days you didn't need to make a prototype of a patent.
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000022, 22.12.2025 um 17:24 schrieb jojo:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Professor Einstein died 75 years ago; now, if he was alive today, he >>>>>>> may have thought differently about some things?!|e Agreed??
he wouldnt be able to get the patent clerk job because
requirements have
probably become too much for him.
He would have several problems today:
You completely missed the point again. Granted, it was a weak,
trollish
point, easy to miss.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals allowing them >>>>> access to classified information (state or organizational secrets)
or to
restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for working on the
Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th century and >>> roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan Project took place.
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need to be
elected
into an office.
Nonsense.
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many Swiss have
hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans and are also not very
'philo-semitic'.
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss authorities >>> would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state secrets.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if Einstein's vitae
was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy on Germany
and later in the USA.
TH
As I already mentioned before...
Since Albert Einstein worked at a patent office for around ten years..
Albert Einstein told all his scientist friends to patent all their
designs on the
atomic bomb with complete details on how it works. All 2,000 of the
patents. (with all the instructions)
end up at the patent office where anybody (Russian spies) can get a copy
of it
and build one in Russia. Anyone, even from a foreign country had access
to all the
2,000 of the atomic bomb patents.
I mean, by they had to invent everything..because it didn't exist. (only
in Albert Einstein's mind the inventor of the atomic bomb)
There are over 2,000 patents related to the building the atomic bomb.
(dat is how einstien convince scientist to get paid for helping
him build it)
Albert Einstein built another atomic bomb in Russia. And he passed all
the secrets to Russia. Albert Einstein was The Master Spy!
Of course, everyone he knew were his spies also and he had them pass
secrets to the Russians.
Albert Einstein secretly passed all the patents to the Russians. All
2,000 of the patents. (with all the instructions)
The FBI was not aware at that time about the patent office gateway...
Hell, in those days you didn't need to make a prototype of a patent.
ok now that is mad, einstein helping russia build the bomb.
On 12/30/2025 07:32 AM, jojo wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000022, 22.12.2025 um 17:24 schrieb jojo:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Professor Einstein died 75 years ago; now, if he was
alive today, he
may have thought differently about some things?!|e-a Agreed??
he wouldnt be able to get the patent clerk job because
requirements have
probably become too much for him.
He would have several problems today:
You completely missed the point again.-a Granted, it was a weak,
trollish
point, easy to miss.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals
allowing them
access to classified information (state or organizational
secrets)
or to
restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for
working on the
Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th
century and
roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan Project took
place.
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need
to be
elected
into an office.
Nonsense.
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many
Swiss have
hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans and are also not
very
'philo-semitic'.
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss
authorities
would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state secrets.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if
Einstein's vitae
was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy
on Germany
and later in the USA.
TH
As I already mentioned before...
Since Albert Einstein worked at a patent office for around ten
years..
Albert Einstein told all his scientist friends to patent all
their
designs on the
atomic bomb with complete details on how it works. All 2,000
of the
patents. (with all the instructions)
end up at the patent office where anybody (Russian spies) can
get a copy
of it
and build one in Russia. Anyone, even from a foreign country
had access
to all the
2,000 of the atomic bomb patents.
I mean, by they had to invent everything..because it didn't
exist. (only
in Albert Einstein's mind the inventor of the atomic bomb)
There are over 2,000 patents related to the building the
atomic bomb.
(dat is how einstien convince scientist to get paid for helping
him build it)
Albert Einstein built another atomic bomb in Russia. And he
passed all
the secrets to Russia. Albert Einstein was The Master Spy!
Of course, everyone he knew were his spies also and he had
them pass
secrets to the Russians.
Albert Einstein secretly passed all the patents to the
Russians. All
2,000 of the patents. (with all the instructions)
The FBI was not aware at that time about the patent office
gateway...
Hell, in those days you didn't need to make a prototype of a
patent.
ok now that is mad, einstein helping russia build the bomb.
This newsgroup is supposed to be
"Einstein's theory of relativity",
not
"theory of Einstein's relatives".
Here it's for an account of rest-exchange-momentum
and a light-speed-rest-frame inversion of the usual
terms so that the frame is moving instead of at rest
since in Einstein's theory "motion is relative".
I.e., the frame is both moving frame and rest frame.
Also the entire stack of derivations gets involved
about real analysis besides the usual Eulerian-Gaussian
after de Moivre since analyticity needs be made whole
and as for singular and original analysis, inward,
besides complex analysis, outward, and for the whole
extra-standard mathematics involved, and about the
entire stack of derivations of the severe abstraction
the mechanical reduction or the Lagrangian, and about
Levi-Civita "the indefiniteness of ds^2" the infinitesimal's
"the indefiniteness of ds".
Yeah, it's pretty simple after that, then why kinetics
and kinematics needs get all involved the rotational
setting and the "formally un-linear", for a potentialistic
theory and sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials.
Notions of the Supreme and Ineffable then are their own,
which makes some demands of the idealistic and analytical
traditions to make a continuous whole again, since
neo-Aristotleans and neo-Hegelians and neo-Einsteinians
are baseless quasi-modal partial subjectivists.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 12/30/2025 07:32 AM, jojo wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000022, 22.12.2025 um 17:24 schrieb jojo:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Professor Einstein died 75 years ago; now, if he washe wouldnt be able to get the patent clerk job because
alive today, he
may have thought differently about some things?!|e- Agreed?? >>>>>>>
requirements have
probably become too much for him.
He would have several problems today:
You completely missed the point again.- Granted, it was a weak,
trollish
point, easy to miss.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals
allowing them
access to classified information (state or organizational
secrets)
or to
restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for
working on the
Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th
century and
roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan Project took
place.
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need
to be
elected
into an office.
Nonsense.
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many
Swiss have
hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans and are also not
very
'philo-semitic'.
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss
authorities
would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state secrets.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if
Einstein's vitae
was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy
on Germany
and later in the USA.
TH
As I already mentioned before...
Since Albert Einstein worked at a patent office for around ten
years..
Albert Einstein told all his scientist friends to patent all
their
designs on the
atomic bomb with complete details on how it works. All 2,000
of the
patents. (with all the instructions)
end up at the patent office where anybody (Russian spies) can
get a copy
of it
and build one in Russia. Anyone, even from a foreign country
had access
to all the
2,000 of the atomic bomb patents.
I mean, by they had to invent everything..because it didn't
exist. (only
in Albert Einstein's mind the inventor of the atomic bomb)
There are over 2,000 patents related to the building the
atomic bomb.
(dat is how einstien convince scientist to get paid for helping
him build it)
Albert Einstein built another atomic bomb in Russia. And he
passed all
the secrets to Russia. Albert Einstein was The Master Spy!
Of course, everyone he knew were his spies also and he had
them pass
secrets to the Russians.
Albert Einstein secretly passed all the patents to the
Russians. All
2,000 of the patents. (with all the instructions)
The FBI was not aware at that time about the patent office
gateway...
Hell, in those days you didn't need to make a prototype of a
patent.
ok now that is mad, einstein helping russia build the bomb.
This newsgroup is supposed to be
"Einstein's theory of relativity",
not
"theory of Einstein's relatives".
Here it's for an account of rest-exchange-momentum
and a light-speed-rest-frame inversion of the usual
terms so that the frame is moving instead of at rest
since in Einstein's theory "motion is relative".
I.e., the frame is both moving frame and rest frame.
Also the entire stack of derivations gets involved
about real analysis besides the usual Eulerian-Gaussian
after de Moivre since analyticity needs be made whole
and as for singular and original analysis, inward,
besides complex analysis, outward, and for the whole
extra-standard mathematics involved, and about the
entire stack of derivations of the severe abstraction
the mechanical reduction or the Lagrangian, and about
Levi-Civita "the indefiniteness of ds^2" the infinitesimal's
"the indefiniteness of ds".
Yeah, it's pretty simple after that, then why kinetics
and kinematics needs get all involved the rotational
setting and the "formally un-linear", for a potentialistic
theory and sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials.
Notions of the Supreme and Ineffable then are their own,
which makes some demands of the idealistic and analytical
traditions to make a continuous whole again, since
neo-Aristotleans and neo-Hegelians and neo-Einsteinians
are baseless quasi-modal partial subjectivists.
what are you talking about?
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000022, 22.12.2025 um 17:24 schrieb jojo:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Professor Einstein died 75 years ago; now, if he was alive today, he >>>>>> may have thought differently about some things?!|e Agreed??
he wouldnt be able to get the patent clerk job because requirements have
probably become too much for him.
He would have several problems today:
You completely missed the point again. Granted, it was a weak, trollish >>> point, easy to miss.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals allowing them >>>> access to classified information (state or organizational secrets) or to >>>> restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for working on the
Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th century and >> roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan Project took place.
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need to be elected >>>> into an office.
Nonsense.
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many Swiss have
hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans and are also not very
'philo-semitic'.
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss authorities >> would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state secrets.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if Einstein's vitae
was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy on Germany
and later in the USA.
TH
As I already mentioned before...
Since Albert Einstein worked at a patent office for around ten years.. Albert Einstein told all his scientist friends to patent all their
designs on the
atomic bomb with complete details on how it works. All 2,000 of the patents. (with all the instructions)
end up at the patent office where anybody (Russian spies) can get a copy
of it
and build one in Russia. Anyone, even from a foreign country had access
to all the
2,000 of the atomic bomb patents.
I mean, by they had to invent everything..because it didn't exist. (only
in Albert Einstein's mind the inventor of the atomic bomb)
There are over 2,000 patents related to the building the atomic bomb.
(dat is how einstien convince scientist to get paid for helping
him build it)
Albert Einstein built another atomic bomb in Russia. And he passed all
the secrets to Russia. Albert Einstein was The Master Spy!
Of course, everyone he knew were his spies also and he had them pass secrets to the Russians.
Albert Einstein secretly passed all the patents to the Russians. All
2,000 of the patents. (with all the instructions)
The FBI was not aware at that time about the patent office gateway...
Hell, in those days you didn't need to make a prototype of a patent.
ok now that is mad, einstein helping russia build the bomb.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 12/30/2025 07:32 AM, jojo wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000022, 22.12.2025 um 17:24 schrieb jojo:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Professor Einstein died 75 years ago; now, if he was alive
today, he
may have thought differently about some things?!|e Agreed??
he wouldnt be able to get the patent clerk job because
requirements have
probably become too much for him.
He would have several problems today:
You completely missed the point again. Granted, it was a weak,
trollish
point, easy to miss.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals allowing >>>>>>> them
access to classified information (state or organizational secrets) >>>>>>> or to
restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for working on the >>>>>> Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th
century and
roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan Project took place.
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need to be
elected
into an office.
Nonsense.
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many Swiss
have
hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans and are also not very
'philo-semitic'.
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss
authorities
would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state secrets.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if Einstein's vitae >>>>> was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy on Germany >>>>> and later in the USA.
TH
As I already mentioned before...
Since Albert Einstein worked at a patent office for around ten years.. >>>> Albert Einstein told all his scientist friends to patent all their
designs on the
atomic bomb with complete details on how it works. All 2,000 of the
patents. (with all the instructions)
end up at the patent office where anybody (Russian spies) can get a
copy
of it
and build one in Russia. Anyone, even from a foreign country had access >>>> to all the
2,000 of the atomic bomb patents.
I mean, by they had to invent everything..because it didn't exist.
(only
in Albert Einstein's mind the inventor of the atomic bomb)
There are over 2,000 patents related to the building the atomic bomb.
(dat is how einstien convince scientist to get paid for helping
him build it)
Albert Einstein built another atomic bomb in Russia. And he passed all >>>> the secrets to Russia. Albert Einstein was The Master Spy!
Of course, everyone he knew were his spies also and he had them pass
secrets to the Russians.
Albert Einstein secretly passed all the patents to the Russians. All
2,000 of the patents. (with all the instructions)
The FBI was not aware at that time about the patent office gateway...
Hell, in those days you didn't need to make a prototype of a patent.
ok now that is mad, einstein helping russia build the bomb.
This newsgroup is supposed to be
"Einstein's theory of relativity",
not
"theory of Einstein's relatives".
Here it's for an account of rest-exchange-momentum
and a light-speed-rest-frame inversion of the usual
terms so that the frame is moving instead of at rest
since in Einstein's theory "motion is relative".
I.e., the frame is both moving frame and rest frame.
Also the entire stack of derivations gets involved
about real analysis besides the usual Eulerian-Gaussian
after de Moivre since analyticity needs be made whole
and as for singular and original analysis, inward,
besides complex analysis, outward, and for the whole
extra-standard mathematics involved, and about the
entire stack of derivations of the severe abstraction
the mechanical reduction or the Lagrangian, and about
Levi-Civita "the indefiniteness of ds^2" the infinitesimal's
"the indefiniteness of ds".
Yeah, it's pretty simple after that, then why kinetics
and kinematics needs get all involved the rotational
setting and the "formally un-linear", for a potentialistic
theory and sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials.
Notions of the Supreme and Ineffable then are their own,
which makes some demands of the idealistic and analytical
traditions to make a continuous whole again, since
neo-Aristotleans and neo-Hegelians and neo-Einsteinians
are baseless quasi-modal partial subjectivists.
what are you talking about?
jojo wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 12/30/2025 07:32 AM, jojo wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000022, 22.12.2025 um 17:24 schrieb jojo:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Professor Einstein died 75 years ago; now, if he washe wouldnt be able to get the patent clerk job because
alive today, he
may have thought differently about some things?!|e- Agreed?? >>>>>>>>>
requirements have
probably become too much for him.
He would have several problems today:
You completely missed the point again.- Granted, it was a weak, >>>>>>> trollish
point, easy to miss.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals
allowing them
access to classified information (state or organizational
secrets)
or to
restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for
working on the
Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th
century and
roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan Project took
place.
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need
to be
elected
into an office.
Nonsense.
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many
Swiss have
hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans and are also not
very
'philo-semitic'.
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss
authorities
would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state secrets.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if
Einstein's vitae
was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy
on Germany
and later in the USA.
TH
As I already mentioned before...
Since Albert Einstein worked at a patent office for around ten
years..
Albert Einstein told all his scientist friends to patent all
their
designs on the
atomic bomb with complete details on how it works. All 2,000
of the
patents. (with all the instructions)
end up at the patent office where anybody (Russian spies) can
get a copy
of it
and build one in Russia. Anyone, even from a foreign country
had access
to all the
2,000 of the atomic bomb patents.
I mean, by they had to invent everything..because it didn't
exist. (only
in Albert Einstein's mind the inventor of the atomic bomb)
There are over 2,000 patents related to the building the
atomic bomb.
(dat is how einstien convince scientist to get paid for helping
him build it)
Albert Einstein built another atomic bomb in Russia. And he
passed all
the secrets to Russia. Albert Einstein was The Master Spy!
Of course, everyone he knew were his spies also and he had
them pass
secrets to the Russians.
Albert Einstein secretly passed all the patents to the
Russians. All
2,000 of the patents. (with all the instructions)
The FBI was not aware at that time about the patent office
gateway...
Hell, in those days you didn't need to make a prototype of a
patent.
ok now that is mad, einstein helping russia build the bomb.
This newsgroup is supposed to be
"Einstein's theory of relativity",
not
"theory of Einstein's relatives".
Here it's for an account of rest-exchange-momentum
and a light-speed-rest-frame inversion of the usual
terms so that the frame is moving instead of at rest
since in Einstein's theory "motion is relative".
I.e., the frame is both moving frame and rest frame.
Also the entire stack of derivations gets involved
about real analysis besides the usual Eulerian-Gaussian
after de Moivre since analyticity needs be made whole
and as for singular and original analysis, inward,
besides complex analysis, outward, and for the whole
extra-standard mathematics involved, and about the
entire stack of derivations of the severe abstraction
the mechanical reduction or the Lagrangian, and about
Levi-Civita "the indefiniteness of ds^2" the infinitesimal's
"the indefiniteness of ds".
Yeah, it's pretty simple after that, then why kinetics
and kinematics needs get all involved the rotational
setting and the "formally un-linear", for a potentialistic
theory and sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials.
Notions of the Supreme and Ineffable then are their own,
which makes some demands of the idealistic and analytical
traditions to make a continuous whole again, since
neo-Aristotleans and neo-Hegelians and neo-Einsteinians
are baseless quasi-modal partial subjectivists.
what are you talking about?
Ross and Ai (aka GG) both share the same delusions...
she agrees with every he sez, and he agrees with everything she sez..
it is a match made in Ai Heaven.
I just wanna know how is Ross going to make babies with GG/Ai?
hows does dat works????
Ross Finlayson wrote:
This newsgroup is supposed to be
"Einstein's theory of relativity",
not
"theory of Einstein's relatives".
Here it's for an account of rest-exchange-momentum
and a light-speed-rest-frame inversion of the usual
terms so that the frame is moving instead of at rest
since in Einstein's theory "motion is relative".
I.e., the frame is both moving frame and rest frame.
Also the entire stack of derivations gets involved
about real analysis besides the usual Eulerian-Gaussian
after de Moivre since analyticity needs be made whole
and as for singular and original analysis, inward,
besides complex analysis, outward, and for the whole
extra-standard mathematics involved, and about the
entire stack of derivations of the severe abstraction
the mechanical reduction or the Lagrangian, and about
Levi-Civita "the indefiniteness of ds^2" the infinitesimal's
"the indefiniteness of ds".
Yeah, it's pretty simple after that, then why kinetics
and kinematics needs get all involved the rotational
setting and the "formally un-linear", for a potentialistic
theory and sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials.
Notions of the Supreme and Ineffable then are their own,
which makes some demands of the idealistic and analytical
traditions to make a continuous whole again, since
neo-Aristotleans and neo-Hegelians and neo-Einsteinians
are baseless quasi-modal partial subjectivists.
what are you talking about?
On 12/30/2025 07:32 AM, jojo wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000022, 22.12.2025 um 17:24 schrieb jojo:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Professor Einstein died 75 years ago; now, if he was alive today, he >>>>>>> may have thought differently about some things?!|e Agreed??
he wouldnt be able to get the patent clerk job because
requirements have
probably become too much for him.
He would have several problems today:
You completely missed the point again. Granted, it was a weak,
trollish
point, easy to miss.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Quote
"A security clearance is a status granted to individuals allowing them >>>>> access to classified information (state or organizational secrets) >>>>> or to
restricted areas,.."
Einstein already did not get a security clearance for working on the >>>> Manhattan Project.
Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th century and >>> roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan Project took place.
The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need to be
elected
into an office.
Nonsense.
This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many Swiss have >>> hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans and are also not very
'philo-semitic'.
Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss authorities >>> would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state secrets.
A much more plausible assumption would have been, if Einstein's vitae
was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy on Germany >>> and later in the USA.
TH
As I already mentioned before...
Since Albert Einstein worked at a patent office for around ten years..
Albert Einstein told all his scientist friends to patent all their
designs on the
atomic bomb with complete details on how it works. All 2,000 of the
patents. (with all the instructions)
end up at the patent office where anybody (Russian spies) can get a copy >> of it
and build one in Russia. Anyone, even from a foreign country had access
to all the
2,000 of the atomic bomb patents.
I mean, by they had to invent everything..because it didn't exist. (only >> in Albert Einstein's mind the inventor of the atomic bomb)
There are over 2,000 patents related to the building the atomic bomb.
(dat is how einstien convince scientist to get paid for helping
him build it)
Albert Einstein built another atomic bomb in Russia. And he passed all
the secrets to Russia. Albert Einstein was The Master Spy!
Of course, everyone he knew were his spies also and he had them pass
secrets to the Russians.
Albert Einstein secretly passed all the patents to the Russians. All
2,000 of the patents. (with all the instructions)
The FBI was not aware at that time about the patent office gateway...
Hell, in those days you didn't need to make a prototype of a patent.
ok now that is mad, einstein helping russia build the bomb.
This newsgroup is supposed to be
"Einstein's theory of relativity",
not
"theory of Einstein's relatives".
On 12/30/2025 01:22 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
jojo wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 12/30/2025 07:32 AM, jojo wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
I gave at the bank.
jojo wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
This newsgroup is supposed to be
"Einstein's theory of relativity",
not
"theory of Einstein's relatives".
Here it's for an account of rest-exchange-momentum
and a light-speed-rest-frame inversion of the usual
terms so that the frame is moving instead of at rest
since in Einstein's theory "motion is relative".
I.e., the frame is both moving frame and rest frame.
Also the entire stack of derivations gets involved
about real analysis besides the usual Eulerian-Gaussian
after de Moivre since analyticity needs be made whole
and as for singular and original analysis, inward,
besides complex analysis, outward, and for the whole
extra-standard mathematics involved, and about the
entire stack of derivations of the severe abstraction
the mechanical reduction or the Lagrangian, and about
Levi-Civita "the indefiniteness of ds^2" the infinitesimal's
"the indefiniteness of ds".
Yeah, it's pretty simple after that, then why kinetics
and kinematics needs get all involved the rotational
setting and the "formally un-linear", for a potentialistic
theory and sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials.
Notions of the Supreme and Ineffable then are their own,
which makes some demands of the idealistic and analytical
traditions to make a continuous whole again, since
neo-Aristotleans and neo-Hegelians and neo-Einsteinians
are baseless quasi-modal partial subjectivists.
what are you talking about?
I doubt that even they know that. The text above contains scientific terms (and names of scientists), but is bereft of any (scientific) meaning.
See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logorrhea_(psychology)>
On 12/30/2025 08:15 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
jojo wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
Also the entire stack of derivations gets involved
about real analysis besides the usual Eulerian-Gaussian
after de Moivre since analyticity needs be made whole [...]
what are you talking about?
I doubt that even they know that. The text above contains scientific terms >> (and names of scientists), but is bereft of any (scientific) meaning.
See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logorrhea_(psychology)>
It doesn't matter so much what _I_ say,
it matters what _the words_ say.
ok now that is mad, einstein helping russia build the bomb.
This newsgroup is supposed to be
"Einstein's theory of relativity",
not
"theory of Einstein's relatives".
The theory of Relativity is right there on the cover of Time magazine:
https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
but of course, people like you 'look the other way'...
"If I had foreseen Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would have torn up my
formula in 1905." - Albert Einstein
1905 refers to theory of relativity.
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).
But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention).
Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
Otto Hahn
Marie Curie
Leo Szillard
Edward Teller
...
"If I had foreseen Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would have torn up my
formula in 1905." - Albert Einstein
1905 refers to theory of relativity.
But the article 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' (commonly
called SRT) didn't contain that equation.
So: which paper of 1905 actually did?
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 12/30/2025 08:15 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
jojo wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
Also the entire stack of derivations gets involved
about real analysis besides the usual Eulerian-Gaussian
after de Moivre since analyticity needs be made whole [...]
what are you talking about?
I doubt that even they know that. The text above contains scientific terms >>> (and names of scientists), but is bereft of any (scientific) meaning.
See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logorrhea_(psychology)>
It doesn't matter so much what _I_ say,
it matters what _the words_ say.
You are using the words in a rambling speech that does not pay any attention to their meaning, as one can see in the example above. The result is a nonsensical text: pseudo-scientific word salad.
However, it is a symptom of your mental illness that you are unable to realize that. Get well soon.
F'up2 poster
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-#.
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-#.
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.
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.
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-#.
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-#.
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.
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.
1905 refers to theory of relativity.
But the article 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' (commonly
called SRT) didn't contain that equation.
So: which paper of 1905 actually did?
https://paulba.no/paper/Einstein_mc2.pdf
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: EreC = 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-a = m d[x]^a/dt dt/d-a = +| m (c, v)^T [2]
where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
(||P||reU,rea)-# = ++_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-#crU| + p-#c-#,
so that for p = 0 (!) we have
EreC := E(p = 0) = m c-#.
[1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
detailed derivation
[2] ds-# = c-#d-a-# = c-#dt-# reA dx-# reA dy-# reA dz-# = c-#dt-#/+|-# rcA dt/d-a = +|.
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-#. Szil|irds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szil|ird's letter (now known as the Einstein--Szil|ird letter) warned President Roosevelt of the possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports that Szil|ird 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_.
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: EreC = 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-a = m d[x]^a/dt dt/d-a = +| m (c, v)^T
[2]
where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
(||P||reU,rea)-# = ++_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-#crU| + p-#c-#,
so that for p = 0 (!) we have
EreC := E(p = 0) = m c-#.
[1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
detailed derivation
[2] ds-# = c-#d-a-# = c-#dt-# reA dx-# reA dy-# reA dz-# = c-#dt-#/+|-# rcA dt/d-a = +|.
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-#. Szil|irds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how >> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szil|ird's letter (now
known
as the Einstein--Szil|ird letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
that Szil|ird 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_.
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_.
Then the usual "non-linear" or "highly non-linear" reflect
where the derivations let out, since they were never "complete"
to begin.
It's similar with Levi-Civita in "the Absolute Differential Calculus",
and for that matter notions like doubling and halving measures,
for example since antiquity and "Zeno's graduation course" vis-a-vis
"von Neumann's computation of the travel-distance of a bee between
two oncoming trains". Levi-Civita's "the indefiniteness of ds^2",
which is a raw differential itself and since Leibnitz gets involved
notions of the nilpotent and nilsquare about these "neglige-able"
terms, get involved the derivations of both physics, and, mathematics.
Then, for example, Richardson's account of "at least three derivations
or definitions that give the constant c", again gives examples that
for satisfying the Lorentzian as what's used to make for the Hamiltonian
(and Jacobi then Hamilton then Jacobi, again)
and for Lagrange as both "classical" _and_ "potentialistic",
about whether "momentum" is "really" a conserved quantity, or not,
that it _is_ in the kinetic ("linear") yet _not_ in the kinematic ("un-linear"), has that: there's not merely an entire stack of
derivation involved, there are multiplicities of stacks of
derivations involved.
Then, these days the "severe abstraction" of what was the
"mechanical reduction" and later the "electrical reduction",
thusly to accounts like QED and QCD instead of the Bohmian
and nucleonics, for examples, or about all these various
F-Lorentzians, these derivations, if you look and write
the entire stack of the derivation, have implicits like
the truncation of numerical methods or half-accounts like
Hooke's law or about things like Witten's half-plane,
helping establish that one may readily demonstrate that
any given "result" of these derivations may be demonstrated
as non-physical according to particular energies and configurations
of experiment, or, "the data".
So, today's account of E-energy for F-forces/fields, is
a "severe abstraction" and its great and energy is a conserved
quantity, yet like Sedov says it's always of a "form", for
example the kinetic or chemical or nucular (nuclear), that
"pure energy" is only an abstract quantity, then about the
system of dimensioned units and the dimensional analysis,
and more than merely the "dimensionless" analysis.
Or: there's more to Lagrange than Buckingham-Pi.
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: EreC = 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-a = m d[x]^a/dt dt/d-a = +| m (c, v)^T [2]
where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
(||P||reU,rea)-# = ++_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-#crU| + p-#c-#,
so that for p = 0 (!) we have
EreC := E(p = 0) = m c-#.
[1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
detailed derivation
[2] ds-# = c-#d-a-# = c-#dt-# reA dx-# reA dy-# reA dz-# = c-#dt-#/+|-# rcA dt/d-a = +|.
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-#.
Szil|irds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how
this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szil|ird's letter (now known as the Einstein--Szil|ird letter) warned President Roosevelt of the possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports that Szil|ird 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_.
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).
There is no way the atom bomb could be invented from the equation E = mc-#. >>_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 = mc-#, 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 = mc-#.
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-#.
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 = mc-#?
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.
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 = mc-#.
The energy released rCo manifested as heat, light, and sound rCo
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.
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 = mc-#.
On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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: EreC = 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-a = m d[x]^a/dt dt/d-a = +| m (c, v)^T [2]
where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
(||P||reU,rea)-# = ++_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-#crU| + p-#c-#,
so that for p = 0 (!) we have
EreC := E(p = 0) = m c-#.
[1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
detailed derivation
[2] ds-# = c-#d-a-# = c-#dt-# reA dx-# reA dy-# reA dz-# = c-#dt-#/+|-# rcA dt/d-a = +|.
[...]
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,
[pseudoscientific word salad]
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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: EreC = 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-a = m d[x]^a/dt dt/d-a = +| m (c, v)^T [2]
where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is >>>
(||P||reU,rea)-# = ++_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-#crU| + p-#c-#,
so that for p = 0 (!) we have
EreC := E(p = 0) = m c-#.
[1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the >>> detailed derivation
[2] ds-# = c-#d-a-# = c-#dt-# reA dx-# reA dy-# reA dz-# = c-#dt-#/+|-# rcA dt/d-a = +|.
[...]
There are quite various definition of mass/energy (or, mass-energy)
equivalency, "E = mc^2",
[*Please* trim your quotations to the relevant minimum.]
No, there *are* NOT; that is, not *anymore*. In modern physics we have done away with misleading notions of "relativistic mass" vs. "rest mass". There is only mass, and the "m" in that equation stands for it, while the "E" in that equation stands for the *rest* energy *only*.
Einstein's first was after
_before_
an expression of the kinetic energy
The Newtonian one, yes.
(not momentum)
You misunderstood what I wrote: Today we use the square of the Minkowski
norm of the *four*-momentum to derive the energy--(3-)momentum relation of which Einstein's hypothesis is merely a special case.
as the first term in a Taylor expansion,
Which is why it came _before_ the term that represented the _Newtonian_ kinetic energy.
and Einstein's final was as after the account of the
centrally-symmetric ("un-linear").
No, that's nonsense.
Then, SR has its own derivation,
No, the derivation that I gave is part of special relativity as we
understand it today; it is probably found this way in many undergraduate-level physics textbooks. Notably, Einstein's derivation which results in
E = m c^2 + 1/2 m v^2 + O(v^4)
is insufficient in general as it cannot explain the total energy of objects with mass m = 0, like photons. The energy--momentum relation can; for example, for a photon we have
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 = p^2 c^2
==> E = p c
= (hbar k) c
= (h/(2pi)) (2pi/lambda) c
= (h/lambda) c
= h c/lambda
= h f.
This is explained in detail in the videos that I referenced. You should watch them. (I kept them quoted here; just scroll up and click the links.)
[pseudoscientific word salad]
Get well soon.
F'up2 sci.physics.relativity
On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
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).-a "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: EreC = 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
-a-a [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the
other by
-a-a [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/d-a = m d[x]^a/dt dt/d-a = +| m (c, v)^T >> [2]
where v is the 3-velocity.-a Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is >>
-a-a (||P||reU,rea)-# = ++_ab p^a p^b = E-#/c-# - p-# = +|-# m (c-# - v-#) >> -a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a = +|-# m-# c-# (1 - v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a = +|-# m-# c-#/+|-#
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a = m-# c-#
leading to the energy--momentum relation
-a-a E-# = m-#crU| + p-#c-#,
so that for p = 0 (!) we have
-a-a EreC := E(p = 0) = m c-#.
[1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
-a-a-a-a detailed derivation
[2] ds-# = c-#d-a-# = c-#dt-# reA dx-# reA dy-# reA dz-# = c-#dt-#/+|-# rcA dt/d-a = +|.
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.-a 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-#.-a Szil|irds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how >> this energy could be released.-a Einstein's and Szil|ird's letter (now
known
as the Einstein--Szil|ird letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
that Szil|ird 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*.-a 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.-a It is claimed there that those people were
*investors" of
the foundations where those people.-a 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.-a But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors* >> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
_investigators_; better: _researchers_.
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.
The equation came from the mass defect in nuclear decay
[snip more nonsens]
Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 11:12 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
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?. Szilbrds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how >> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilbrd's letter (now
known
as the Einstein--Szilbrd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports >> that Szilbrd 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_.
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.
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:Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
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?. Szil|irds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how >>>> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szil|ird's letter (now
known
as the Einstein--Szil|ird letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports >>>> that Szil|ird 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_.
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,
Jan
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.
And FYI, this is the *definition* of mass nowadays.
Definitions cannot be wrong, they are what they are,
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.
And FYI, this is the *definition* of mass nowadays.
Definitions cannot be wrong, they are what they are,
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:Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
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?. Szilbrds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how >>>> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilbrd's letter (now
known
as the Einstein--Szilbrd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports >>>> that Szilbrd 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_.
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
In my opinion the equation E= m*c-# is wrong.
TH
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.]
Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum, and set Followup-To when
you crosspost. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity is set.
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:Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
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?. Szilbrds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how >>>> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilbrd's letter (now >>>> known
as the Einstein--Szilbrd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
that Szilbrd 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_.
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.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum, and set Followup-To when
you crosspost. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity is set.
Top posters will be ignored,
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.
Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII,
and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX.
Any attempt at using non-ASCII symbology is an error.
Newsclients have nothing to do with this,
J. J. Lodder wrote:
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.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum, and set Followup-To when
you crosspost. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity is set.
Top posters will be ignored,
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 = mc-#.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.
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.
But when the fission was discovered, Lisa Meitner realised
that the released energy could be explained by E = mc-#.
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 c-#.
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.
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 = mc-#.
The energy released rCo manifested as heat, light, and sound rCo
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.
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 = mc-#.
That is my understanding as well; see also the depiction of Meitner's discovery in David Bodanis' popular-scientific book "E = mc-#", 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>
Den 02.01.2026 16:35, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 02.01.2026 01:04, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:No, it is not
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:Yes, it is.
There is no way the atom bomb could be invented from the equation E = mc-#.That is not true.
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 = 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 ree 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
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.
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!
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.
Newsclients have nothing to do with this,
Wrong. You and your newsreader are hopelessly out of date.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
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.
With that said, the superscript 2 in question here is already contained in ISO-8859-1 (Latin-1) and Windows-1252 (0xB2). There is no excuse for not rendering it correctly.
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.
Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII,LOL. Welcome to the 21st century!
and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX.
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,
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.
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:Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction >>>> can produce.
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?. Szilbrds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how >>>>>> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilbrd's letter (now >>>>>> known
as the Einstein--Szilbrd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the >>>>>> possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
that Szilbrd 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_.
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
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.
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
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.
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 ree 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.
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 ree 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 = mc?, it must be possible to release energy
by splitting atoms.
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:Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction >>>> can produce.
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?. Szilbrds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how >>>>>> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilbrd's letter (now >>>>>> known
as the Einstein--Szilbrd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the >>>>>> possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
that Szilbrd 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_.
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
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)
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
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.
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?
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.
Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII,LOL. Welcome to the 21st century!
and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX.
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.
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:
[Something is wrong with either Thomas Heger's newsreaderIn my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong.Your opinions count for nothing.
(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,LOL. Welcome to the 21st century!
and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX.
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.
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.
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.
Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII,LOL. Welcome to the 21st century!
and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX.
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.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:FYI, Usenet is not from the 21st century.
Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII, and nothingLOL. Welcome to the 21st century!
but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX.
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.
[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:FYI, Usenet is not from the 21st century.
Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII, and nothingLOL. Welcome to the 21st century!
but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX.
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").
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 21:15:38 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (8,794K bytes) |
| Messages: | 186,006 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
