Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

Quote from: Stash on May 10, 2020, 03:43:45 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 10, 2020, 03:23:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2020, 03:13:17 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 09, 2020, 10:31:31 PM

1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.

The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.

Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review! http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm

Sure there was peer review. Pretty much every nuclear nation in the world condemned it. Doesn't get more peer reviewed than that.

Thanks for the link. It has nothing to do with peer review. It was just glorious French Fake News to maintain the honor of the republic 1960 becoming a nuclear armed super power.

Sow it did happen; nuclear weapons do work.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 10, 2020, 08:38:07 PM

Quote from: Stash on May 10, 2020, 03:43:45 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 10, 2020, 03:23:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2020, 03:13:17 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 09, 2020, 10:31:31 PM

1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.

The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.

Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review! http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm

Sure there was peer review. Pretty much every nuclear nation in the world condemned it. Doesn't get more peer reviewed than that.

Thanks for the link. It has nothing to do with peer review. It was just glorious French Fake News to maintain the honor of the republic 1960 becoming a nuclear armed super power.

Sow it did happen; nuclear weapons do work.

No, it was just a French Fake News show back in 1960. http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm explains it all.

No, it was just a French Fake News show back in 1960.

And http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm tells many more lies about that.

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2020, 03:13:17 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 09, 2020, 10:31:31 PM

1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.

The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.

Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review!

How do you define peer review?  If one country builds an atomic bomb and then other countries build similar atomic bombs, then that sounds like peer review to me.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 10, 2020, 03:23:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2020, 03:13:17 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 09, 2020, 10:31:31 PM

1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.

The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.

Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review!

How do you define peer review?  If one country builds an atomic bomb and then other countries build similar atomic bombs, then that sounds like peer review to me.

No, it is just copy paste of a fake bomb with another fake bomb.
"Peer review is one of the gold standards of science. It’s a process where scientists (“peers”) evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work. By doing this, they aim to ensure the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and adds to what we already knew."
So no secrecy for national security reasons, please. And Nobel prize winner physics Niels Bohr could never explain what 'explosive fission' was and how to start and demonstrate it in a laboratory when he returned to Europe 1945.
We all knew what fission was - splitting of atoms under controlled conditions - but explosive fission was new. And pure Fake News!

You are confusing what is peer reviewed.

Nobody peer reviewed the 2020 Chevrolet Corvette. That doesn’t mean the internal combustion engine doesn’t work.

You are confusing what is peer reviewed.

Nobody peer reviewed the 2020 Chevrolet Corvette. That doesn’t mean the internal combustion engine doesn’t work.

If no one looks under the bonnet, there is no guarantee there is even an engine inside

Quote from: sokarul on May 11, 2020, 06:58:31 AM

You are confusing what is peer reviewed.

Nobody peer reviewed the 2020 Chevrolet Corvette. That doesn’t mean the internal combustion engine doesn’t work.

If no one looks under the bonnet, there is no guarantee there is even an engine inside

Hard to test drive a new corvette if it doesn't have an engine. No need to look under the bonnet.

Quote from: Stash on May 10, 2020, 03:43:45 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 10, 2020, 03:23:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2020, 03:13:17 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 09, 2020, 10:31:31 PM

1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.

The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.

Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review! http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm

Sure there was peer review. Pretty much every nuclear nation in the world condemned it. Doesn't get more peer reviewed than that.

Thanks for the link. It has nothing to do with peer review. It was just glorious French Fake News to maintain the honor of the republic 1960 becoming a nuclear armed super power.

There's no evidence that it was fake. There's no evidence on your site either. Just you stating, "It was fake!" That's not evidence.

Quote from: markjo on May 11, 2020, 06:21:09 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 10, 2020, 03:23:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2020, 03:13:17 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 09, 2020, 10:31:31 PM

1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.

The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.

Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review!

How do you define peer review?  If one country builds an atomic bomb and then other countries build similar atomic bombs, then that sounds like peer review to me.

No, it is just copy paste of a fake bomb with another fake bomb.

Have you ever looked for peer reviewed articles concerning atomic bombs?  I did a quick Google search for "atomic bomb peer reviewed articles" and found plenty.  Who knows, maybe all of the peer reviews are fake too.

"Peer review is one of the gold standards of science. It’s a process where scientists (“peers”) evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work. By doing this, they aim to ensure the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and adds to what we already knew."
So no secrecy for national security reasons, please.

Nuclear physics is a well established, peer reviewed science and the basic principles of supercritical chain reactions are well known. The biggest secrets are those dealing with the technical challenges of reaching and maintaining that supercritical state.

And Nobel prize winner physics Niels Bohr could never explain what 'explosive fission' was and how to start and demonstrate it in a laboratory when he returned to Europe 1945.

Probably because he knew that it was still top secret information that was best not disclosed.

We all knew what fission was - splitting of atoms under controlled conditions - but explosive fission was new. And pure Fake News!

Everything is "Fake News!", until it isn't.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 11, 2020, 06:55:22 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 11, 2020, 06:21:09 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 10, 2020, 03:23:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2020, 03:13:17 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 09, 2020, 10:31:31 PM

1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.

The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.

Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review!

How do you define peer review?  If one country builds an atomic bomb and then other countries build similar atomic bombs, then that sounds like peer review to me.

No, it is just copy paste of a fake bomb with another fake bomb.

Have you ever looked for peer reviewed articles concerning atomic bombs?  I did a quick Google search for "atomic bomb peer reviewed articles" and found plenty.  Who knows, maybe all of the peer reviews are fake too.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 11, 2020, 06:55:22 AM

"Peer review is one of the gold standards of science. It’s a process where scientists (“peers”) evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work. By doing this, they aim to ensure the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and adds to what we already knew."
So no secrecy for national security reasons, please.

Nuclear physics is a well established, peer reviewed science and the basic principles of supercritical chain reactions are well known. The biggest secrets are those dealing with the technical challenges of reaching and maintaining that supercritical state.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 11, 2020, 06:55:22 AM

And Nobel prize winner physics Niels Bohr could never explain what 'explosive fission' was and how to start and demonstrate it in a laboratory when he returned to Europe 1945.

Probably because he knew that it was still top secret information that was best not disclosed.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 11, 2020, 06:55:22 AM

We all knew what fission was - splitting of atoms under controlled conditions - but explosive fission was new. And pure Fake News!

Everything is "Fake News!", until it isn't.

I haven't found any peer reviewed scientific paper about 'explosive fission', i.e. that two sub-critical (LOL) masses of fissionable metals are suddenly brought in contact to become one critical mass, that explodes, ignited by a free neutron in between
Fission is not explosive! Niels Bohr could never explain the contrary.
What convinced me that Nuclear Bombs do not exist is of course the fact that the gangster Stalin copied the concept in no time - without peer review! Stalin is famous for pseudo-science. He just murdered any scientist not agreeing with him! I understand the professors at the Bergakademi at Freiberg i.Sa. that agreed 1945 that Saxon pechblende could be used to make an a-bomb.

I haven't found any peer reviewed scientific paper about 'explosive fission', i.e. that two sub-critical (LOL) masses of fissionable metals are suddenly brought in contact to become one critical mass, that explodes, ignited by a free neutron in between
Fission is not explosive!

Possibly because, as you say, all you'll get if you do that is runaway nuclear fission, not a detonation.

Niels Bohr could never explain the contrary.

Why would Niels Bohr reveal what were probably still nuclear secrets to a blabbermouth like you?

But now do we know a bit about it:

The Nuclear Secrecy Blog: What did Bohr do at Los Alamos?
In fact, Bohr did work on the bomb. And not just on esoteric aspects of the physics, either; one of his role was concerned with the very heart of the “Gadget.”
One of the key parts of the implosion design for the atomic bomb (the same sort of bomb detonated at Trinity and over Nagasaki) is the neutron initiator that sits at the absolute center of the device. It is a deceptively tricky little contraption. At the instance of maximum compression, it needs to send out a small burst of neutrons, to get the whole chain reaction started. It’s not even that many neutrons, objectively speaking — on the order of a hundred or so in the first bombs. But conjuring up a hundred neutrons, at the center of an imploding nuclear assembly, at just the right moment, was a tricky technical problem, apparently.

The details are still classified-enough that figuring out exactly what the nature of the problem it proves a little tough in retrospect.

What convinced me that Nuclear Bombs do not exist is of course the fact that the gangster Stalin copied the concept in no time - without peer review! Stalin is famous for pseudo-science. He just murdered any scientist not agreeing with him!

Who cares what Stalin did or didn't say?
He probably lied more than you state false information out of sheer ignorance.

What did the Manhattan project pseudo-scientists incl. Niels Bohr and some communist spies with FBI looking on do at Los Alamos 1942/5? I assume they had to create a fake a-bomb between drinking, fucking, skiing, etc, so they came up with explosive fission, critical masses and  similar nonsense.
Runaway fission? No, it takes some nano-seconds to ignite an a-bomb at the speed of light observed by a FLASH. Neutron initiator? ROTFL.
Anyway, All became classified, nuclear secrets without any peer review 1945.
Stalin? Uncle Joe! Franklin D Roosevelt loved him. But those were the days.

What did the Manhattan project pseudo-scientists incl. Niels Bohr and some communist spies with FBI looking on do at Los Alamos 1942/5? I assume they had to create a fake a-bomb between drinking, fucking, skiing, etc, so they came up with explosive fission, critical masses and  similar nonsense.
Runaway fission? No, it takes some nano-seconds to ignite an a-bomb at the speed of light observed by a FLASH. Neutron initiator? ROTFL.
Anyway, All became classified, nuclear secrets without any peer review 1945.
Stalin? Uncle Joe! Franklin D Roosevelt loved him. But those were the days.

Are you angry about something? Because here again, you spew out a bunch of vitriol, but none of it speaks to evidence. Do you have any evidence? None exists on your site.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 11, 2020, 11:22:53 PM

What did the Manhattan project pseudo-scientists incl. Niels Bohr and some communist spies with FBI looking on do at Los Alamos 1942/5? I assume they had to create a fake a-bomb between drinking, fucking, skiing, etc, so they came up with explosive fission, critical masses and  similar nonsense.
Runaway fission? No, it takes some nano-seconds to ignite an a-bomb at the speed of light observed by a FLASH. Neutron initiator? ROTFL.
Anyway, All became classified, nuclear secrets without any peer review 1945.
Stalin? Uncle Joe! Franklin D Roosevelt loved him. But those were the days.

Are you angry about something? Because here again, you spew out a bunch of vitriol, but none of it speaks to evidence. Do you have any evidence? None exists on your site.

I am not angry. No reason to be angry. I enjoy publishing my proven findings at my website and at social fora and I also pay anyone €1M when shown that I am wrong.
My principal objective today is only that nuclear bombs are officially declared a hoax created back in 1945, so we can all relax not being killed by nuclear weapons. I cannot understand why presidents like Trump, Putin and Macron cannot do it. Or this clown Kim.

What convinced me that Nuclear Bombs do not exist is of course the fact that the gangster Stalin copied the concept in no time - without peer review!

Actually, Stalin had at least 2 spies working on the Manhattan Project, so they were able to peer review and then reproduce the bomb relatively quickly.
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1942-1945/espionage.htm

Quote from: Heiwa on May 11, 2020, 06:55:03 PM

What convinced me that Nuclear Bombs do not exist is of course the fact that the gangster Stalin copied the concept in no time - without peer review!

Actually, Stalin had at least 2 spies working on the Manhattan Project, so they were able to peer review and then reproduce the bomb relatively quickly.
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1942-1945/espionage.htm

Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax. And don't forget the two Rosenberg Americans that were executed (or probably given new identities) for having helped them. What a soap opera. Thanks for the ridiculous link and the photo of the Stalin (fake) a-bomb explosion August 29, 1949. Where did the black smoke come from?

Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

How do you know what those spies told Stalin?  Were you spying on Stalin's spies?

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 08:34:06 AM

Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

How do you know what those spies told Stalin?  Were you spying on Stalin's spies?

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?

I think he wants to nuke sweden for not agreeing with his view of the M/S Estonia.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 08:34:06 AM

Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

How do you know what those spies told Stalin?  Were you spying on Stalin's spies?

Well, to make a fake a-bomb Stalin needed fake Uranium ore. Where? Erzgebirge, Saxony. Easy! Wismut AG! Aue, Annaberg, Chemnitz, etc. Produced fake Uranium 1945-1990.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 08:34:06 AM

Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?

? I wasn't born when Sweden's government asked Manne Siegbahn to make a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne said that he would do it but everything must be public and peer reviewed, etc. I explain it at my website.

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2020, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 08:34:06 AM

Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?

? I wasn't born when Sweden's government asked Manne Siegbahn to make a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne said that he would do it but everything must be public and peer reviewed, etc. I explain it at my website.

Why would a public and peer reviewed atomic bomb be a good idea?

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 12:53:42 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2020, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 08:34:06 AM

Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?

? I wasn't born when Sweden's government asked Manne Siegbahn to make a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne said that he would do it but everything must be public and peer reviewed, etc. I explain it at my website.

Why would a public and peer reviewed atomic bomb be a good idea?

To establish that it exist. But all atomic bombs are cheap propaganda and Fake News. They are not real.

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2020, 03:02:20 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 12:53:42 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2020, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 08:34:06 AM

Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?

? I wasn't born when Sweden's government asked Manne Siegbahn to make a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne said that he would do it but everything must be public and peer reviewed, etc. I explain it at my website.

Why would a public and peer reviewed atomic bomb be a good idea?

To establish that it exist.

Peer review would do no more that help establish that the theory was sound but eye-witness accounts of the actual nuclear explosions might be better evidence.

Eyewitness account of Hiroshima bombing

Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Survivor Tells Her Story

Eyewitness Account of Hiroshima
Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosophy at Tokyo's Catholic University, Hiroshima- August 6th, 1945
Up to August 6th, occasional bombs, which did no great damage, had fallen on Hiroshima. Many cities roundabout, one after the other, were destroyed, but Hiroshima itself remained protected. There were almost daily observation planes over the city but none of them dropped a bomb. The citizens wondered why they alone had remained undisturbed for so long a time. There were fantastic rumors that the enemy had something special in mind for this city, but no one dreamed that the end would come in such a fashion as on the morning of August 6th.
<< The rest at the linked site. >>

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2020, 03:02:20 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 12:53:42 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2020, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 08:34:06 AM

Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?

? I wasn't born when Sweden's government asked Manne Siegbahn to make a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne said that he would do it but everything must be public and peer reviewed, etc. I explain it at my website.

Why would a public and peer reviewed atomic bomb be a good idea?

To establish that it exist. But all atomic bombs are cheap propaganda and Fake News. They are not real.

I would think that a simple demonstration would be enough to establish that something exists.  After all, there are many things that exist that are not public or peer reviewed for any number of good reasons.  For example, keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists comes to mind.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 05:46:57 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2020, 03:02:20 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 12:53:42 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2020, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 08:34:06 AM

Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?

? I wasn't born when Sweden's government asked Manne Siegbahn to make a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne said that he would do it but everything must be public and peer reviewed, etc. I explain it at my website.

Why would a public and peer reviewed atomic bomb be a good idea?

To establish that it exist. But all atomic bombs are cheap propaganda and Fake News. They are not real.

I would think that a simple demonstration would be enough to establish that something exists.  After all, there are many things that exist that are not public or peer reviewed for any number of good reasons.  For example, keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists comes to mind.

I fully agree. Small scale tests in a laboratory is a good scientific way to demonstrate things. But what things exist and cannot be public for good reasons?
Re terrorists - it seems they can buy/steal/obtain any weapons they like on the market today. But why would they go for nukes? Only complete idiots come up with such crazy ideas.

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2020, 07:42:56 PM

I would think that a simple demonstration would be enough to establish that something exists.  After all, there are many things that exist that are not public or peer reviewed for any number of good reasons.  For example, keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists comes to mind.

I fully agree. Small scale tests in a laboratory is a good scientific way to demonstrate things.

But there are quite a number of things that cannot, at least at present, be demonstrated as "Small scale tests in a laboratory".
For example:

• The type of fusion process that generates the prodigious energy of the Sun.
  
  
• Nuclear fission and fusion explosions.
  
  
• A convincing gravitation demonstration of the Moon orbiting the Earth while the Earth orbits the Sun.

But being unable to demonstrate something on a small scale in a laboratory is no reason to doubt their existence.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 11:33:16 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2020, 07:42:56 PM

I would think that a simple demonstration would be enough to establish that something exists.  After all, there are many things that exist that are not public or peer reviewed for any number of good reasons.  For example, keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists comes to mind.

I fully agree. Small scale tests in a laboratory is a good scientific way to demonstrate things.

But there are quite a number of things that cannot, at least at present, be demonstrated as "Small scale tests in a laboratory".
For example:

• The type of fusion process that generates the prodigious energy of the Sun.
  
  
• Nuclear fission and fusion explosions.
  
  
• A convincing gravitation demonstration of the Moon orbiting the Earth while the Earth orbits the Sun.

But being unable to demonstrate something on a small scale in a laboratory is no reason to doubt their existence.

I agree.
1. Sun fusion cannot be tested on Earth. Plenty money has been spent to prove the contrary, e.g. down the road from me. I describe it at my website. They are still at it. First fusion is planned 2050!
2. Nuclear fission and fusion explosions are just Fake News to confuse people. I pay anyone €1M if proven wrong. Just visit my website.
3. Looking out of my window I can see the Moon orbiting Earth, while Earth orbits the Sun. You don't have to visit my website for it.
Thanks for your post.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 13, 2020, 12:17:02 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 11:33:16 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2020, 07:42:56 PM

I would think that a simple demonstration would be enough to establish that something exists.  After all, there are many things that exist that are not public or peer reviewed for any number of good reasons.  For example, keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists comes to mind.

I fully agree. Small scale tests in a laboratory is a good scientific way to demonstrate things.

But there are quite a number of things that cannot, at least at present, be demonstrated as "Small scale tests in a laboratory".
For example:

• The type of fusion process that generates the prodigious energy of the Sun.
  
  
• Nuclear fission and fusion explosions.
  
  
• A convincing gravitation demonstration of the Moon orbiting the Earth while the Earth orbits the Sun.

But being unable to demonstrate something on a small scale in a laboratory is no reason to doubt their existence.

I agree.
1. Sun fusion cannot be tested on Earth. Plenty money has been spent to prove the contrary, e.g. down the road from me. I describe it at my website. They are still at it. First fusion is planned 2050!

Nobody is even trying to emulate the "type of fusion process that generates the prodigious energy of the Sun."
In the core of the Sun "The temperature is 15.6 million Kelvin and the pressure is 250 billion atmospheres".
This can support the proton-proton fusion reaction but that pressure is so far not achievable on Earth so a deterium-tritium reaction is used but it has the disadvantage that most of the energy is released as neutrons.

2. Nuclear fission and fusion explosions are just Fake News to confuse people.

No, it's more like "your website is just Fake News to confuse people."

3. Looking out of my window I can see the Moon orbiting Earth, while Earth orbits the Sun. You don't have to visit my website for it.
Thanks for your post.

How does that prove that the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun?
Flat Earthers claim that both the Sun and Moon circle about 5000 km above the Earth.
How do you prove thst they don't?

Well if atomic bombs did exist and were detonated, our entire atmosphere would have fused and ignited in a nuclear hellfire killing everything on Earth

Given we are here and breathing, that is pretty solid evidence that nuclear bombs are fake news