Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Definite Proof, From Robert Serber: Manhattan Project Unrelated To E=Mc2


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 12 June 2019 - 10:39 PM

I quote here the words of Robert Serber, a Manhattan's physicist, who wrote his memoirs in a small book by 1992,

currently sold by Amazon. The book, which contain several documents declassified and memories from 1943-1945,

was edited by Richard Rhodes. I strongly recommend to read the book (12 chapters), which tell about obstacles,

fears, discussions, doubts and many anecdotes for the whole Manhattan Project (2 1/2 years).

 

The Los Alamos Primer
The first lectures on how to build an Atomic Bomb

 University of California Press
1992 by Robert Serber (edited by Richard Rhodes)

 

and can be read at this link: https://www.academia...s_Alamos_Primer

 

From the American Heritage Foundation:  https://www.atomiche...e/robert-serber

 

I quote:

 

Robert Serber (1909-1997) was an American physicist. He was recruited by J. Robert Oppenheimer to work on

the Manhattan Project. Serber was tasked with explaining the basic principles and goals of the project to all

incoming scientific staff. Moving to Los Alamos in 1943, he gave lectures to members of the Manhattan Project

about the design and construction of atomic bombs known as the “Los Alamos Primer."

 

While at Los Alamos, Serber developed the first good theory of bomb disassembly hydrodynamics.

...............

After the Trinity Test in July 1945, Serber traveled to Tinian Island to assist in the construction of the bomb, as a

special consultant to Project Alberta. While there, he reassured Col. Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay, that the

bomb's blast would not harm the plane. In early September 1945, Serber was part of the first American team to enter

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, assessing the bombs' damage and collecting debris for testing on their five-week mission.


Edited by rhertz, 18 June 2019 - 07:47 PM.


#2 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3041 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 11:49 AM

Of course E=mc^2 is related to atom bombs, Einstein tried ever so hard to hide this fact by stating ''we will never be able to split an atom.''

 

He wasn't silly, he knew fine well they could, but he deeply regretted that ''his'' work was the underlying basis of the atom bomb, even though the formula had been predicted by a few people even before him... it was only a matter of time before we realized that using the right frequency of a particle, could interact with an atom as such to split it apart and release a large amount of energy.

 

The sun is also a nuclear object, it too follows the same principles. It is in principle, a giant atom bomb.



#3 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2816 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 03:16 PM

To show whether or not E=mc² has anything to do with the scenario outlined in this thread, one would obviously need to determine the total mass of the system before and after the nuclear reaction.

 

Since the above analysis does not attempt to do this, it is incapable of demonstrating whether E=mc² applies or not.

 

In fact, using real nuclear equations and real values for the binding energies of the species involved, it can easily be shown that the immediate fission generally gives about 170MeV of energy, with a further 20-30MeV from subsequent emission from the products, making about 200MeV for the whole process. (A typical scenario is given here: https://www.nuclear-...m-235-fission/)

 

These binding energies are, as I have pointed out on other threads, determined by measuring the masses of of the species and applying E=mc² to them.

 

The energy release certainly comes quite largely in the form of acceleration of the daughter nuclei, due to electrostatic repulsion. However discussion of the nature of the mechanism of energy release does not address the question of whether or not mass is lost due to the release of energy, as predicted by E=mc².  As I say, this demonstrably does occur.   



#4 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1529 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 06:26 PM

Rhertz, what you propose with the atomic bomb would be like genetic researchers in the modern era not realizing that Genetic Engineering Methods such as CRISPR not leading to the possibility of Synthetic Biological weapons. E = MCis like that for the physics without E = MCthe atomic bomb's creation would have been much more difficult having to guess the amount of Mass that is converted into energy. I guess what I am trying to say is the Atomic Bomb nor Genetic Warfare Agents were discovered blindly without things that predict its possibility and Einstein's methods for the atomic bomb were used just like Jennifer Doudna's methods are going to be used for new weaponry someday if it hasn't already, if it is not CRISPR then it will be something else history repeatedly repeats itself. The Discovery of Atomic weapons just like Genetic Weapons is inevitable each piece of the puzzle being necessary. To say Einstein's theories had no part to play in the physics of the atomic bomb would be like saying CRISPR had no part in the creation of Insect allies using a CRISPR, the atomic bomb used E=MC, thus denying its part would be no different than denying CRISPR's part in these weapons.

 

insectallies-1.jpg

mass-energy-relationship.jpg


Edited by VictorMedvil, 13 June 2019 - 06:47 PM.


#5 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3041 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 07:41 PM

To show whether or not E=mc² has anything to do with the scenario outlined in this thread, one would obviously need to determine the total mass of the system before and after the nuclear reaction.

 

Since the above analysis does not attempt to do this, it is incapable of demonstrating whether E=mc² applies or not.

 

In fact, using real nuclear equations and real values for the binding energies of the species involved, it can easily be shown that the immediate fission generally gives about 170MeV of energy, with a further 20-30MeV from subsequent emission from the products, making about 200MeV for the whole process. (A typical scenario is given here: https://www.nuclear-...m-235-fission/)

 

These binding energies are, as I have pointed out on other threads, determined by measuring the masses of of the species and applying E=mc² to them.

 

The energy release certainly comes quite largely in the form of acceleration of the daughter nuclei, due to electrostatic repulsion. However discussion of the nature of the mechanism of energy release does not address the question of whether or not mass is lost due to the release of energy, as predicted by E=mc².  As I say, this demonstrably does occur.   

 

The binding of a particle has less energy than that which put into to make an atom, this energy is converted to gluon energy, which is maybe what you are thinking about. In fact, I think wiki may be able to articulate slightly better, as I quote:
 

''The mass of an atomic nucleus is less than the sum of the individual masses of the free constituent protons and neutrons, according to Einstein's equation E=mc2. This 'missing mass' is known as the mass defect, and represents the energy that was released when the nucleus was formed.''



#6 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3041 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 09:02 PM

Look, stop reading my material then trying to re-word things, then adding a dash of insanity. You are intentionally winding people up and winding yourself up. No one says, E=mc^2 is perfect, it only applies to a rest system - the true formula isn't like this, the relativistic formula has an extension. Let's see if you understand that?

 

Secondly, while c may not be a constant in a gravitational field, it is a constant in free space. Likewise, it is not a constant moving through any medium - the catch here is that the speed of light does in fact always move at the speed of light, but because everything is relative, you can also argue it isn't. Since a photon has no frame of reference, the aether remains the frame of reference in which we defer that the speed of light is not necessarily a constant.

 

E=mc^2 is perfectly reasonable, well-tested and well-calculated concerning nuclear energy from matter into energy and energy into matter. You've confused yourself so much you can't even follow the right path. You keep contending something is wrong, without fully appreciating why it is right. This is why many of us, cannot be bothered to deal with you, because you won't help yourself in the long run... unless you take my advice, stop coming here asking for the answers, use your brain matter and get to the truth through some work. We are not here at your beckon call just to give you an education in something you disrespect with the highest impunity, while offending posters here concerning their own intelligences.

 

Time to grow up don't you think?



#7 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3041 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 11:40 PM

Look, you jump from one line to another, I am not replying to this any more. If you could keep focused on one subject and stop illogically tying things together, we might get somewhere. If you want a clue on how to logically construct a set of arguments, take a look at my UFO thread under a scientific analysis. It is pretty clear and concise, you write way too fast for even your brain to coherently put things down properly.

 

Now take my advice or forget it, I won't be entertaining this any more!



#8 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3041 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 08:09 AM

Don't post here, then. It's not mandatory for you to do so.

 

It's not mandatory for moderators to put up with you either... but they seem to do so... but I have had a word with one of the moderators, we will see where it goes from here, because contrary to you, I actually care about the standard of posts here.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 16 June 2019 - 09:21 AM.