How many people of each nationality on the forum

I’m sorry…

Carking the 6th wrote:

I’m sorry…

I’m Russian people say I look Scandinavian

Zaktty wrote:

Hahahahahaha... @Beaulion, you are sooooo funny!

Now prepare to die.

I'm from Macedonia.

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Zaktty wrote:

Hahahahahaha... @Beaulion, you are sooooo funny!

Now prepare to die.

These in the meme thread yet?

Carking the 6th wrote:

noblebright wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

noblebright wrote:

Also can you specify which part you think is a lie, is not mentioned in the artical and is a myth. I made multiple statements and all of them to my knowledge seem to be correct.

They Einstein invented most of the technology for the nuclear bomb. I don’t even think he invented very much technology, his main achievements were in his ingenious theories, not trinkets… His theories don’t tell you how to build a bomb that splits atoms and doesn’t mess up or blow up easily or kill you or 1000 other things. It’s like saying Newton is responsible for making planes because he invented many of the laws of physics!

Although Einstein discovered many laws of astrophysics and disprove many of Newton's, which you seem to refer to as a generic 'physics,' Einstein did also discover many of the laws of nuclear physics. He gave his discoveries away to the allies after fears that the nazies would be able to create an atomic bombs. As for your statement that his theories don't tell one how to build an atomic bomb in a way that doesnt 'mess up', I think that the calculations of the output of the splitting of the atom would be very helpful in not 'messing up.' Finally your arguement that Newton is responsible for the invention of the aircraft because he discovered many of the laws of physics is defunct because, although he did make some contribution to physics as a feild, they were not directly related to the invention of the aircraft, and his discoveries did not increase the attainability of the technology allowing flight by so large an amount as Einstein did with Atomics, making Newton far less responsible for flight than Einstein for atomics

Alright then, here we go.

This source is made up of various different sources:

http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm#:~:text=Einstein%20biographer%20Ronald%20Clark%20has,on%20Japan%20(Clark%2C%20pg.

To make it simple, the consensus was that his greatest contribution was writing a letter to FDR convincing him to build it. It also talks about British research, which only convinced the US that they COULD make a bomb and to accelerate their efforts.

Here is another source:

“Albert Einstein had a part in alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing fission.”

https://gizmodo.com/if-einstein-had-never-been-born-would-we-still-have-nu-1597200914#:~:text=Albert%20Einstein%20had%20a%20part,not%20required%20in%20discussing%20fission.

His theories were not directly required to make a fission bomb, his work was not single handedly needed to do so.

This next source seems to be calling you out…

“The way I like to put it is this: E=mc² tells you about as much about an atomic bomb as Newton’s laws do about ballistic missiles.“

https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/06/27/bomb-without-einstein/

Again, here it goes ever harder, saying that he had NO contribution at all other than his letter.

Need a few more?

A bunch of random internet dudes in Reddit don’t think he was needed. It’s… Reddit… but I mean there you go.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28yqky/was_einsteins_theory_of_relativity_necessary_for/

This source doesn’t feel the most credible looking at it… but it also argues the same thing.

https://uewhealth.com/einsteins-small-role-manhattan-project/

Ok, I really think that settles it. The consensus after research seems even more anti-Einstein making the bomb than I first thought. One of the sources even says it’s the same as saying newton made missiles… Even disregarding all of this, he was in the US at this time, so any work he did would be for the US and for its credit as well anyway? German rocket scientists after ww2 worked on US spaceships, but do we say Germany brought humanity to the moon? Only partly. In this case it’s even less. The only thing outside forces did was convince the US to build the bomb. Einstein quickly ended up standing against it, and was too much of a pacifist to be allied to work on it. American scientists like Oppenheimer, Engineers, resources and land was used to build it, therefore the US gets credit for the Bombs invention. I don’t think I’ve ever defended the US in my life more than now… you made me a patriot, you Donking fool!

which calculates, as said earlier, the yeild of atomics. Secondly, I think that citing a number of blogs and redit articals as legitimate sources is not entirely legitimate. Thirdly, most of them do seem to agree with me; the first source's opening line is "The physicist Albert Einstein did not directly participate in the invention of the atomic bomb. But as we shall see, he was instrumental in facilitating its development." The second source you cite begins with a paragraph about how it is a silly question and says you could only discuss it in a science-fiction, non-factual manner, so I dont think that is very usefull. The third source seems to have copied and pasted from the second source or vice versa, as they both contain

"On the other hand, this kind of science-fiction counterfactual can have its usefulness as a thought experiment. It isn’t history, but it can be used to illustrate some important aspects about the early history of the atomic bomb that a lot of people don’t know, and to undo a little bit of the “great man” obsession with bomb history. Albert Einstein has been associated with the bomb both through his famous mass-energy equivalence calculation (E=mc²) and because of the famous Einstein-Szilard letter to Roosevelt in 1939. On the face of it, this gives him quite a primary role, and indeed, he usually shows up pretty quickly at the beginning of most histories of the Manhattan Project. But neither E=mc² nor the Einstein-Szilard letter were as central to the Manhattan Project’s success as people realize — either scientifically or historically."

The fourth source, redit, begins with a question, an arogent answer by someone saying that with so many other discoveries at the time, Einsteins cant have had so much of a role in anything. Then several other posters, some of which are actually qualified physicians, completely disprove the arguement, you can read it if you want to. Finally I think that the fifth source, though it agrees with you, is just wrong because it says that it is a common misconception that E = mc² although, as you will know by now, special relitivity is crutial for the caluculation of the energy of particals, and therefore the energy of the bomb, in an atomic bomb.

You are right. It does settle it. The consencus proves me right.

I can tell you didn’t read the sources. I only threw in Reddit because that was from a historian page where everyone said the same thing. Not everything you read on the internet is wrong, you know. Let’s go back to E=MC^2. Read the sources again. They clearly state that this is not needed for the bomb. It only just tells you how the energy is released, absolutely nothing about the splitting itself, the bomb or anything like that. He was instrumental only because his letters convinced FDR to invent the bomb, not because he built it. Again, you ignored that.

Scrapping the second source only because it is written informally is not a justificable thing. The third and second did use the same thing there, but that does not make them wrong. Discrediting the sources doesn’t change the facts either way; every credible source I’ve seen says that Einstein was not needed.

The whole point of all these sources was that E=MC^2 DOES NOT explain how to build a bomb. All it does is give the energy release. You don’t need that to know that atom splitting leads to energy release. Other sources even say that his work had nothing to do with Fisson at all.

All of the posters on that Reddit except for a single one at the bottom state that his theories were not needed. This one poster does not seem to state their profession, and even says themselves that it’s rather only speculated that Einstein’s theory (at least enough of it to built a bomb) wouldn’t have just been found out by someone else. Even then, that’s the only person I could really find there, who may not even be a physicist that says General and Special relativity were required for the bomb.

But to be honest? Let’s assume you needed Einstein’s research to build the bomb. It does not change all the extra research done by American scientists to actually design, build and use the bomb. Sure, a scientists can find out that you need something to propel you upward when flying a plane, but does that change the fact that the engineer designed, built and used the plane? Of course not. The US still would have invented the nuke, regardless of if Einstein’s research was actually required to build the bomb. In conclusion, no, the consensus does not prove you right, and even if it did, the US still invented the bomb.

Carking the 6th wrote:

I can tell you didn’t read the sources. I only threw in Reddit because that was from a historian page where everyone said the same thing. Not everything you read on the internet is wrong, you know. Let’s go back to E=MC^2. Read the sources again. They clearly state that this is not needed for the bomb. It only just tells you how the energy is released, absolutely nothing about the splitting itself, the bomb or anything like that. He was instrumental only because his letters convinced FDR to invent the bomb, not because he built it. Again, you ignored that.

Scrapping the second source only because it is written informally is not a justificable thing. The third and second did use the same thing there, but that does not make them wrong. Discrediting the sources doesn’t change the facts either way; every credible source I’ve seen says that Einstein was not needed.

The whole point of all these sources was that E=MC^2 DOES NOT explain how to build a bomb. All it does is give the energy release. You don’t need that to know that atom splitting leads to energy release. Other sources even say that his work had nothing to do with Fisson at all.

All of the posters on that Reddit except for a single one at the bottom state that his theories were not needed. This one poster does not seem to state their profession, and even says themselves that it’s rather only speculated that Einstein’s theory (at least enough of it to built a bomb) wouldn’t have just been found out by someone else. Even then, that’s the only person I could really find there, who may not even be a physicist that says General and Special relativity were required for the bomb.

But to be honest? Let’s assume you needed Einstein’s research to build the bomb. It does not change all the extra research done by American scientists to actually design, build and use the bomb. Sure, a scientists can find out that you need something to propel you upward when flying a plane, but does that change the fact that the engineer designed, built and used the plane? Of course not. The US still would have invented the nuke, regardless of if Einstein’s research was actually required to build the bomb. In conclusion, no, the consensus does not prove you right, and even if it did, the US still invented the bomb.

As to your arguement that special relitivity does not have anything to do with partical physics and atomics; E=MC² is the equasion used to calculate the energy of objects moving at reletavistic speeds and in a nuclear reaction, all of the particals are moving at relatavistic speeds, and the energy relesed is in those particals.

I did not disregard the second and third sources, one of which had copied and pasted from the other, which you didnt know because you didnt read them, because of their informality. I disregarded these sources because as I said they were not on the topic of our debate, in contrast they discussed what would have happened if Einstein had not existed rather than who should get the credit for the invention of atomic bombs.

That all of the posts on the reddit thread disagreed with me is simply untrue. Only one reply seemed to disagree with me, the post saying that with so many other discoveries at the time, Einsteins cant have had so much of a role in anything and relitivity would be discovered anyway and that Einstein wasnt more intelligent than anyone else, which I am sure you will agree is not true. Then if you read the rest of the tread, several two qualified physicist and one other person, not a physicist, who both disprove and dissagree with the first replier. And whilst I do agree that the American scientists did need to still make some effort to be able to produce the nuclear bomb, the theory of how one were to create one, the idea of an atomic bomb and much of the science on the subject all came from Einstein.

Finally, can you actually read you own sources and my own posts before you reply to them. It is rather annoying having to repeat myself.

How did we go from nationalities to Albert Einstein

noblebright wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

I can tell you didn’t read the sources. I only threw in Reddit because that was from a historian page where everyone said the same thing. Not everything you read on the internet is wrong, you know. Let’s go back to E=MC^2. Read the sources again. They clearly state that this is not needed for the bomb. It only just tells you how the energy is released, absolutely nothing about the splitting itself, the bomb or anything like that. He was instrumental only because his letters convinced FDR to invent the bomb, not because he built it. Again, you ignored that.

Scrapping the second source only because it is written informally is not a justificable thing. The third and second did use the same thing there, but that does not make them wrong. Discrediting the sources doesn’t change the facts either way; every credible source I’ve seen says that Einstein was not needed.

The whole point of all these sources was that E=MC^2 DOES NOT explain how to build a bomb. All it does is give the energy release. You don’t need that to know that atom splitting leads to energy release. Other sources even say that his work had nothing to do with Fisson at all.

All of the posters on that Reddit except for a single one at the bottom state that his theories were not needed. This one poster does not seem to state their profession, and even says themselves that it’s rather only speculated that Einstein’s theory (at least enough of it to built a bomb) wouldn’t have just been found out by someone else. Even then, that’s the only person I could really find there, who may not even be a physicist that says General and Special relativity were required for the bomb.

But to be honest? Let’s assume you needed Einstein’s research to build the bomb. It does not change all the extra research done by American scientists to actually design, build and use the bomb. Sure, a scientists can find out that you need something to propel you upward when flying a plane, but does that change the fact that the engineer designed, built and used the plane? Of course not. The US still would have invented the nuke, regardless of if Einstein’s research was actually required to build the bomb. In conclusion, no, the consensus does not prove you right, and even if it did, the US still invented the bomb.

Firstly, I read all of your 'sources.' Secondly, I would prefer it if you put forward your own arguements, if need be ones you have copied from the internet as you seem intellectually incapable of creating your own, rather than just sending me a bunch of links to some sites.As to your arguement that special relitivity does not have anything to do with partical physics and atomics; E=MC² is the equasion used to calculate the energy of objects moving at reletavistic speeds and in a nuclear reaction, all of the particals are moving at relatavistic speeds, and the energy relesed is in those particals.

I did not disregard the second and third sources, one of which had copied and pasted from the other, which you didnt know because you didnt read them, because of their informality. I disregarded these sources because as I said they were not on the topic of our debate, in contrast they discussed what would have happened if Einstein had not existed rather than who should get the credit for the invention of atomic bombs.

That all of the posts on the reddit thread disagreed with me is simply untrue. Only one reply seemed to disagree with me, the post saying that with so many other discoveries at the time, Einsteins cant have had so much of a role in anything and relitivity would be discovered anyway and that Einstein wasnt more intelligent than anyone else, which I am sure you will agree is not true. Then if you read the rest of the tread, several two qualified physicist and one other person, not a physicist, who both disprove and dissagree with the first replier. And whilst I do agree that the American scientists did need to still make some effort to be able to produce the nuclear bomb, the theory of how one were to create one, the idea of an atomic bomb and much of the science on the subject all came from Einstein.

Finally, can you actually read you own sources and my own posts before you reply to them. It is rather annoying having to repeat myself.

noblebright wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

I can tell you didn’t read the sources. I only threw in Reddit because that was from a historian page where everyone said the same thing. Not everything you read on the internet is wrong, you know. Let’s go back to E=MC^2. Read the sources again. They clearly state that this is not needed for the bomb. It only just tells you how the energy is released, absolutely nothing about the splitting itself, the bomb or anything like that. He was instrumental only because his letters convinced FDR to invent the bomb, not because he built it. Again, you ignored that.

Scrapping the second source only because it is written informally is not a justificable thing. The third and second did use the same thing there, but that does not make them wrong. Discrediting the sources doesn’t change the facts either way; every credible source I’ve seen says that Einstein was not needed.

The whole point of all these sources was that E=MC^2 DOES NOT explain how to build a bomb. All it does is give the energy release. You don’t need that to know that atom splitting leads to energy release. Other sources even say that his work had nothing to do with Fisson at all.

All of the posters on that Reddit except for a single one at the bottom state that his theories were not needed. This one poster does not seem to state their profession, and even says themselves that it’s rather only speculated that Einstein’s theory (at least enough of it to built a bomb) wouldn’t have just been found out by someone else. Even then, that’s the only person I could really find there, who may not even be a physicist that says General and Special relativity were required for the bomb.

But to be honest? Let’s assume you needed Einstein’s research to build the bomb. It does not change all the extra research done by American scientists to actually design, build and use the bomb. Sure, a scientists can find out that you need something to propel you upward when flying a plane, but does that change the fact that the engineer designed, built and used the plane? Of course not. The US still would have invented the nuke, regardless of if Einstein’s research was actually required to build the bomb. In conclusion, no, the consensus does not prove you right, and even if it did, the US still invented the bomb.

Firstly, I read all of your 'sources.' Secondly, I would prefer it if you put forward your own arguements, if need be ones you have copied from the internet as you seem intellectually incapable of creating your own, rather than just sending me a bunch of links to some sites.As to your arguement that special relitivity does not have anything to do with partical physics and atomics; E=MC² is the equasion used to calculate the energy of objects moving at reletavistic speeds and in a nuclear reaction, all of the particals are moving at relatavistic speeds, and the energy relesed is in those particals.

I did not disregard the second and third sources, one of which had copied and pasted from the other, which you didnt know because you didnt read them, because of their informality. I disregarded these sources because as I said they were not on the topic of our debate, in contrast they discussed what would have happened if Einstein had not existed rather than who should get the credit for the invention of atomic bombs.

That all of the posts on the reddit thread disagreed with me is simply untrue. Only one reply seemed to disagree with me, the post saying that with so many other discoveries at the time, Einsteins cant have had so much of a role in anything and relitivity would be discovered anyway and that Einstein wasnt more intelligent than anyone else, which I am sure you will agree is not true. Then if you read the rest of the tread, several two qualified physicist and one other person, not a physicist, who both disprove and dissagree with the first replier. And whilst I do agree that the American scientists did need to still make some effort to be able to produce the nuclear bomb, the theory of how one were to create one, the idea of an atomic bomb and much of the science on the subject all came from Einstein.

Finally, can you actually read you own sources and my own posts before you reply to them. It is rather annoying having to repeat myself.

Just because they don’t directly answer the source does not mean the facts presented are not useful for my argument. You just said to make my own arguments, that’s what I used them for.

I implore you to read those posts again. The vast majority have practically the same conclusion that his theories were not needed to build the bomb. The one physicist you may be thinking about concluded that his theories were not needed. It still stands that Einstein’s biggest contribution was his letter convincing the US. I mean he stated himself that his role was rather minor. He may have been humble, but he wasn’t a liar and I don’t see him distancing himself from something like the bombs if he actually was heavily responsible for them (he had regrets about writing his letter, for example). Einstein’s theories simply do not not explain or really even help you build an atomic bomb, most of that science was not done by him.

I’ve done both of those things, perhaps you read what I wrote wrong, but I did. How else would I use those sources and even respond to you? Don’t detract from a debate by going after the opponent without good reason, dude.

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

How did we go from nationalities to Albert Einstein

Thanks to one of Newton's third law.

Am eepy

Kadeko wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

How did we go from nationalities to Albert Einstein

Things happened and this is what we get.

Thanks to one of Newton's third law.

Except when I show up, I defy physics

Guelph police super chill, one officer gave me a gift card to ice cream place cuz I talked with him when I was getting shawarma during my lunch break

Carking the 6th wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

How did we go from nationalities to Albert Einstein

Things happened and this is what we get.Thanks to one of Newton's third law.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?

You know like texting and answering.

That's just it actually...

Kadeko wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

How did we go from nationalities to Albert Einstein

Things happened and this is what we get.Thanks to one of Newton's third law.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?

Yah, like the argument.

You know like texting and answering.

That's just it actually...