Who thinks that "THE FACTS" of Einsteins "Theory" of Special Relativity didn't give us the Atom Bomb?

Favorite Answer

I don't know a whole lot about atomic weapons, nor do I know the exact mechanics of special relativity, but I know a little about both and I'm trying to figure out where these two subject areas intersect. Perhaps I'm just overlooking something. But anyway, theories are only defined how an individual wants to define them. A creationist would define the "theory" of evolution as a "guess." A scientist would define it as the most probable series of events based on the evidence....Show more

I hate to break it to you, but that is not a "FACT" at all. Atomic weapons work by releasing energy stored in nuclear bonds, just like conventional weapons work by releasing energy in molecular bonds.

Nobody needed E=mc^2 to construct the first fission bomb. Lise Meitner used the formula to explain what her former collaborator, Otto Hahn, was observing in his laboratory. The energies he was seeing was consistent with the "mass defect", the difference between total initial and final masses of the nuclei involved.

In other words, E=mc^2 proved that the energy came from nuclear binding energy and that it was truly fission taking place. However, the energy was already there and would have been observable to anyone bombarding uranium with neutrons even if relativity hadn't been formulated. It simply no more follows that "Special Relativity (gave) us the Atom Bomb" than that it gave us gunpowder.

Of course relativity is a fact and a theory...it is verified every day. It just gets my goat when people think that relativity leads to nuclear weapons....Show more

Please explain how Einstein's theory of Special Relativity gave us the Atom bomb...

I am curious about the bottom-line purpose of your question (in the religion section)... It sounds like your ultimate purpose is to try to validate the theory of evolution...

--

If that is the case, the following info is relevant. If not, please ignore the rest of this post...

There is no evidence that proves Atheistic MacroEvolution (without Intelligent Design)...

I used to believe in Evolution. However, over a period of time I have grown skeptical of the claims of Macro*Evolution... this is largely due to the weakness of the evidence for Macro*Evolution, and the fact that the evidence, rationally interpreted does not support the overarching claims made by Macro*Evolutionists...

For scientific and intellectual critiques of evolution, see http://www.godsci.org/gsi/apol/evo/00.html .

Cordially,
John...Show more

Yes those are facts. what I was trying to say before was belief does not yet have solid proof. Or people disagree with the facts. Like Jesus, he was real but people disagree about the "interpretation" of his messages. Like I believe when he said you can only get to heaven through me he meant you can only find god within yourself. And he said that he was the son of god, but if you think about it I am the daughter of god and you are the son of god, because he created us all. Jesus was special because he had a special job. As did the messengers before and after him. This does not mean I am right and you are wrong It just means I see it differently. I am a student of metaphysics (the study of how spirituality intertwines with science)....Show more

Well if a nuclear detonation isn't caused by atomic forces due to relativity, it must be the righteous power of God smiting the forces of evil. So we don't really have to fear nuclear weapons, because God loves America, and he will protect us from all those heathen Muslims....Show more