Carking the 6th wrote:
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.
I used them to support the arguments I already made? Now you gave me confused, how the Donk do I look “intellectually incapable” of making an argument because I used sources? I read them, I know they wrote the same thing, so? It could also just be that they used the same research for all I know. You assuming things that I did is not productive in anyway. Back to E=MC^2, no. It only allows you to explain the energy used from the bomb itself. It is not useful in actually making a nuclear weapon, noblebright.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.
First, as I have said, at in previous posts, quoting the articles, some of them directly contradicting your point, some of them with merely bad arguements and the reddit one with several posts, all but one of which saying that Einstein was neccessary. As I have already gone over all of these articles, and their flaws, I shall not do so again. As for E=MC
2 and its use in the bomb, calculating the speed at which it will blow, how large the enitial, non-nuclear explosion has to be for the bomb to go of, and all of the other variables are crutial to the use of the bomb.
When I say make your own arguements, I dont mean send me a bunch of sites all vaugly related to atomics and Einstein. I meant write out your own arguements, possibly quoting the sites. The fact that you wish me to read all of the sources, of which their are eight, again is an example of this. You instead could have quoted the parts you meant instead of leaving it to my interpretation. It would make your own arguement a bit stronger.
Einstein's statement that he hadnt intended for the creation of the bomb was based on the fact the reasearch wasnt specifically meant for a bomb, and that this was not what he intended from it.
