The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: RW on November 20, 2012, 02:16:51 PM
-
How many people buy into this and what are your reasons for buying into it?
There appears to be 3 types of people on here. Flat Earth believers, spinning Round Earth believers and people like myself which go with a stationary round Earth, so what exactly do you think keeps the Sun burning.
I have my own theory, which could be absolute nonesense but equally it could be closer to the truth, yet I'll wait until I see what others think that the Sun does and how it keeps burning and what fuel is making it burn.
But back to the OP theme - is the sun a nuclear reactor ?
Well, if you lived in Japan and Germany, the principle would be powering your computer.
Nuclear reactors are a copy of how the sun works. A lot of the heat at the earths core is caused by the same principle. Keep studying at school.
-
How many people buy into this and what are your reasons for buying into it?
There appears to be 3 types of people on here. Flat Earth believers, spinning Round Earth believers and people like myself which go with a stationary round Earth, so what exactly do you think keeps the Sun burning.
I have my own theory, which could be absolute nonesense but equally it could be closer to the truth, yet I'll wait until I see what others think that the Sun does and how it keeps burning and what fuel is making it burn.
But back to the OP theme - is the sun a nuclear reactor ?
Well, if you lived in Japan and Germany, the principle would be powering your computer.
Nuclear reactors are a copy of how the sun works. A lot of the heat at the earths core is caused by the same principle. Keep studying at school.
You might want to look up the difference between nuclear fission and fusion.
Current nuclear reactors use controlled fission, the suns fusion is essentially the product of immense gravitational forces creating an environment high pressured enough to fuse atoms together. I think they're trying to build a prototype fusion reactor in France though.
-
its not strange and nobody will be surprised
-
How many people buy into this and what are your reasons for buying into it?
There appears to be 3 types of people on here. Flat Earth believers, spinning Round Earth believers and people like myself which go with a stationary round Earth, so what exactly do you think keeps the Sun burning.
I have my own theory, which could be absolute nonesense but equally it could be closer to the truth, yet I'll wait until I see what others think that the Sun does and how it keeps burning and what fuel is making it burn.
But back to the OP theme - is the sun a nuclear reactor ?
Well, if you lived in Japan and Germany, the principle would be powering your computer.
Nuclear reactors are a copy of how the sun works. A lot of the heat at the earths core is caused by the same principle. Keep studying at school.
Like Manarq said, look up Fission and Fusion. All of the worlds commercial nuclear reactors are today Fission powered. There is an experimental (and hopefully one day commercial) Fusion reactor being built in France called ITER. It'll be the first of it's kind in size and power output.
-
Nuclear fission and fusion rely on magic as well in my opinion.
You're starting... no you've taken your magic idea too far. Tell that to the surviving members of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that lived through it.
You see....Nuclear reactions rely on splitting atoms, which cannot be seen, yet they can be split. How in the hell did they manage that in the 1940's.
So because we can't see it... it doesn't exist. Stop breathing, you can't see that air!
How does a few lumps of metal smashed together manage to blow up a city?
Mass to energy conversion through Fission.
Apparently you can mine Uranium, melt it into shaped and machine it and it's harmless...it can be played with without protective gloves or clothes or masks.
What gave you that idea? It's very dangerous to handle radioactive materials without protection. Why do you think they put a lead vest over your balls when you get an X-Ray?
Once it's supposedly fissioning though, it becomes ultra dangerous, spewing out radiation but also spawning plutonium for some strange reason.
More radiation actually. It does not "spawn" anything. How can it make a larger atom while being split in half?
Now if you enrich this Uranium with a bit of plutonium and a few other select elements, you can make a bomb.
How does the bomb work.
Easy....
What you do is.. you put a few enriched uranium discs at one end of the bomb and at the other end, you put a bullet type shaped uranium lump.
Behind that, you pack in some gun powder charges, set the charges off and it propels the bullet uranium chunk into the metal discs, then bang, your city is gone.
Of course, this all happens because dear old Einstein scribbled his E=MC2 equation down of which only the smartest brains on the whole planet can make any sense of it seems.
Actually, it would have worked without the equation. But Einstein certainly helped.
Basically though, in a Nutshell, Einstein decided that ... energy = mass, times the speed of light squared and bingo, your hide and seek type atoms can glow like the sun or create sun like toxic mushroom clouds.
Ever seen a radium clock?
Well sod it then, I am going to make a snooklear bomb and I'm going to explain it. My snooklear theory will also power snooklear power stations as well.
Ok, first of all, I need my elements.
To make my bomb, I will need:
Poolanium TD216
Cueallathide
Tipethaclothanol.
Baizeothium 147
Ok, these ingredients are fine for my power station but to make my bomb effective, I need to enrich my Poolanium TD216 to create Poolanium 218 and now I'm ready.
I look forward to the results of your testing.
-
Your first point could easily be propaganda at that time.
Yes, you're right! They photoshopped the photos of hiroshima after the bomb fell! Conventional weapons are certainly powerful enough to level a city with one bomb!
If we can't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there, I agree... but it does mean that they somehow blindly split the atom.
I guess you're under the impression that they took one atom and split it. I'm not going to try and explain this to you, as you seem to have a hard time grasping simple topics such as friction and inertia, I won't even try nuclear physics.
Mass to energy conversion would depict something like a 20 stone man jumping down on a see saw, catapulting a 10 stone man upwards stuff like that. Fissioning is simply a magic trick.
No, that's not mass to energy conversion. That energy transfer. Conservation of momentum. Mass to energy conversion is when mass... gets turned into energy. Not when mass is used to cause kinetic energy.
Well go and look at pictures of it, they seem to handle it as if it was lead.......I say...they seem to handle it as if it was "lead" ::)
I've never seen pictures of someone just holding uranium. There's so much radiation spewing out of it, it should literally burn your hands. It's called a radiation burn.
Apparently, supposed fissioning Uranium spawns Plutonium in reactors we are led to believe, plus other elements.
I'm not sure about that. I know that putting uranium in a particle accelerator can make plutonium. It's been a while since I've researched Nuclear Physics, so I could be forgetting something. But when an atom fissions, it splits in half. So the actual fission is not creating Uranium. The process does release extra neutrons in the system, which is why it's called a chain reaction. I suppose it could be releasing extra protons as well, which could be getting lodged in other uranium nuclei, causing there to be some plutonium in the reactor. But I don't remember ever hearing about that.
A luminous clock? Yes I have.... are those hands fissioning?
Not just a luminous clock, a radium clock. The hands and numbers are painted with radium which is a radioactive substance that glows because it's so radioactive.
-
Nuclear fission and fusion rely on magic as well in my opinion.
I do not believe nuclear bombs work and I'm extremely sceptical about nuclear power stations fissioning Uranium that is basically a dense, yet extremely hard metal, so we are told.
You see....Nuclear reactions rely on splitting atoms, which cannot be seen, yet they can be split. How in the hell did they manage that in the 1940's.
How does a few lumps of metal smashed together manage to blow up a city?
Apparently you can mine Uranium, melt it into shaped and machine it and it's harmless...it can be played with without protective gloves or clothes or masks.
Once it's supposedly fissioning though, it becomes ultra dangerous, spewing out radiation but also spawning plutonium for some strange reason.
Now if you enrich this Uranium with a bit of plutonium and a few other select elements, you can make a bomb.
How does the bomb work.
Easy....
What you do is.. you put a few enriched uranium discs at one end of the bomb and at the other end, you put a bullet type shaped uranium lump.
Behind that, you pack in some gun powder charges, set the charges off and it propels the bullet uranium chunk into the metal discs, then bang, your city is gone.
Of course, this all happens because dear old Einstein scribbled his E=MC2 equation down of which only the smartest brains on the whole planet can make any sense of it seems.
Basically though, in a Nutshell, Einstein decided that ... energy = mass, times the speed of light squared and bingo, your hide and seek type atoms can glow like the sun or create sun like toxic mushroom clouds.
Well sod it then, I am going to make a snooklear bomb and I'm going to explain it. My snooklear theory will also power snooklear power stations as well.
Ok, first of all, I need my elements.
To make my bomb, I will need:
Poolanium TD216
Cueallathide
Tipethaclothanol.
Baizeothium 147
Ok, these ingredients are fine for my power station but to make my bomb effective, I need to enrich my Poolanium TD216 to create Poolanium 218 and now I'm ready.
Now I machine the merged elements into snooker ball like projectiles and smash both balls into each other with carefully measured out gunpowder, making sure I achieve a velocity of 88mph to achieve a snookission reaction explosion 2,265 times as bright as the Sun, using my SB=E=MC2 equation, which is snooker balls equals energy, equals mass times speed of light squared. ;D
It's easy to mock something that you don't understand, isn't it? However, in the end, it just makes you look silly.
-
Ask victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Fukushima et al.
-
I don't feel silly for saying it.
You may not feel silly, but you sure look that way to others. It's not so much that you don't understand what you're talking about, rather it's your steadfast refusal to even consider that you might be wrong despite you knowing full well that you don't understand what you're talking about that is most frustrating.
-
go to a library, borrow some physics books
rent a geiger counter
do more resaerch on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Fukushima et al before stating stupid things
-
oh, you're a conspirationit!
that's why you are ready to question everything without reasoning and believe everything without reasoning
-
i am not.
when i see a conspirationist website about a moon landing, i am not convinced for instance
-
yes. so do i for people who tell me things "unofficially"
-
I don't feel silly for saying it.
You may not feel silly, but you sure look that way to others. It's not so much that you don't understand what you're talking about, rather it's your steadfast refusal to even consider that you might be wrong despite you knowing full well that you don't understand what you're talking about that is most frustrating.
I spent most of my life believing everything I am now questioning because I didn't have time or the inclination to question anything. I took everything the media came out with as gospel.
I was very naive...well not so much naive as ignorant as to what was going on around me.
My first taste was looking into the moon landings and seeing some of the stuff and the crap landing craft, which made me slap myself as to how I fell for it.
What nailed it for me to really start questioning things was September 11 2001.
There's many things in life that I go with and accept but there's many things that I question, which is what I'm doing.
911 is what got me questioning things, then the moon landings, now flat earth.
-
Hiroshima victims describe a sticky black type rain....could it be a fuel air bombs? Why does it have to be atomic?
Same for Nagasaki.
They all also experience severe symptoms of radiation sickness, and the people at the center of the blast were vaporized. Conventional weapons don't vaporize people or turn sand into green glass.
All the animals appear to be thriving around Chernobyl, so who knows what the blast was, it doesn't have to be Nuclear.
Oh, so you've been to Chernobyl and seen the animals then? Good for you, I hope you're feeling okay. Also, the blast wasn't nuclear. Do some research. Nuclear reactors don't explode like Nuclear bombs.
Fukushima is the same, we can only go on what the news feed us.
For a nuclear plant, that supposedly had 3 melt downs, it doesn't appear to be having much effect.
I guess the people dying or dead from radiation exposure isn't much of an effect.
Do I know for sure nuclear energy doesn't exist?
The answer is no, I don't but it certainly doesn't add up to me.
Now I can be called simple, silly, stupid...I can be told, I don't understand physics, atoms, neutrons, protons or whatever.
The fact is, I'm questioning it.
If you were questioning it, you would try to find answers. When you found answers, you would investigate the answers. You're doing none of that. You're not questioning anything. You're denying the existence of major facts in the world around you simply because you don't understand it.
-
I can only investigate answers by sifting through info on the internet using both sides of any argument and come to my own conclusions based on that.
Ah, I see, the internet is the only resource to find anything, anywhere, any time. You can't construct experiments to verify the laws of physics as we know them. Gotcha. Because Einstein and Newton and Maxwell learned everything they knew from the internet too.
I cannot physically go to Chernobyl and investigate, nor can I go to Japan to do the same.
I'm looking for answers all the time and the more I delve into it, the more I side with no nuclear weapons or power.
Yes, from things you read on the internet. So you could be reading anything. And if you find a reputable resource for information and you don't understand the information, it's false.
Basically I'm questioning a metal that can somehow wipe a city out by somehow fissioning super fast all started by a powder charge slamming two pieces of metal together and being made to believe it's atoms and neutrons that nobody can see suddenly become visible as a radiation killing vaporizing mushroom cloud of black and grey dust.
Not all nuclear weapons slam uranium together. That's only one type.
I'd love to know where the dust comes from.
It's this new invention called "ash." I'm not sure if you've heard about it, it's all the rage these days.
I'm told to believe that Uranium pellets, stuck inside rods ,somehow start shooting neutrons about and splitting atoms that actually create intense heat that can power a reactor for years on end and be shut down by sticking control rods between them.
The very same stuff is said to power submarines and air craft carriers etc.
This supposed dangerous nuclear power that could poison oceans, the air and land gets put into submarines. ::)
News flash, people of Earth. Sceptimatic doesn't understand how things work, so they don't work the way they're described too. EVERYTHING is a conspiracy to confuse the masses. In face, we still live in the stone age and this is all a fancy illusion. Are you now saying that they can't put nuclear reactors in ships if they use the proper radiation shielding?
-
Ash comes from burning things. Usually, when there's a massive explosion and a lot of heat, a lot of things turn to ash very quickly. So I guess that would explain the ash from a nuclear weapon going off in the middle of a city.
-
Ash comes from burning things. Usually, when there's a massive explosion and a lot of heat, a lot of things turn to ash very quickly. So I guess that would explain the ash from a nuclear weapon going off in the middle of a city.
Once again..where did this ash mushroom cloud come from with a supposed atomic bomb detonated over 1000 feet above ground?
Well seeing as the blast radius of this weapon is more than 5 miles, I'd say the pieces of the city that didn't immediately get vaporized burned, and the blast also threw ash from the ground up into the air. That is the explanation for the falling ash and black rain.
-
Ash comes from burning things. Usually, when there's a massive explosion and a lot of heat, a lot of things turn to ash very quickly. So I guess that would explain the ash from a nuclear weapon going off in the middle of a city.
Once again..where did this ash mushroom cloud come from with a supposed atomic bomb detonated over 1000 feet above ground?
Well seeing as the blast radius of this weapon is more than 5 miles, I'd say the pieces of the city that didn't immediately get vaporized burned, and the blast also threw ash from the ground up into the air. That is the explanation for the falling ash and black rain.
So that's the explanation for the black sticky rain is it..and it couldn't have been a fuel air bomb raining this black rainy fuel down onto the city?
Take a look at Hiroshima after this supposed massive 15 kiloton atomic blast. If you notice, the roads are as clean as a whistle. Surely they should be strewn with debris.
What is this "fuel air bomb" that you keep talking about? I've never heard of such a thing.
15 kiloton is a pretty small atomic bomb. I believe the first one tested was larger than that. Can you show me pictures where the road is "clean as a whistle" that were taken right after the bomb went off? Also, do you know that one of emergency responders first priorities is to clear the roads so that emergency crews can get through and help people, lest they be cut off and die when they could have been helped? So should you find any pictures, make sure they were taken before the emergency responders got there.
-
"What is this "fuel air bomb" that you keep talking about? I've never heard of such a thing.
15 kiloton is a pretty small atomic bomb. I believe the first one tested was larger than that. Can you show me pictures where the road is "clean as a whistle" that were taken right after the bomb went off? Also, do you know that one of emergency responders first priorities is to clear the roads so that emergency crews can get through and help people, lest they be cut off and die when they could have been helped? So should you find any pictures, make sure they were taken before the emergency responders got there."
I think he means this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon) not sure how one or even a very many of these explain hiroshima better than a nuclear bomb
-
What about the people in Australia that got radiation sickness after atomic bombs were tested?
Especially since I have met some of these people. They must be in on it though. The British government creates a conspiracy about nuclear weapons so they can hold fake tests in Australia, then fakes trying to move native aboriginals out of the area, then fakes that a lot of them refused coz it was their spiritual land, then the Australian government fakes that the people that stayed too close to the fake blasts got fake sick, then fakes them sueing the government for fake compensation.
-
What about the people in Australia that got radiation sickness after atomic bombs were tested?
Especially since I have met some of these people. They must be in on it though. The British government creates a conspiracy about nuclear weapons so they can hold fake tests in Australia, then fakes trying to move native aboriginals out of the area, then fakes that a lot of them refused coz it was their spiritual land, then the Australian government fakes that the people that stayed too close to the fake blasts got fake sick, then fakes them sueing the government for fake compensation.
Whatever was tested could have been anything and anyone that got sick, it could have been some other toxic sickness that they wouldn't have a clue about.
After all, who in those days knew anything about radiation sickness or it's variations.
Did you know that the supposed atom bombs that were supposedly dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never tested.
Yes that's right...no tests were done to see if they would work, they just dropped them without having a clue what would actually happen....yeah right.
The reason why they never tested it is because it wasn't an atom bomb and metals don't magically just blow up and destroy cities.
Except for the fact that the explosions could be seen by people in near by towns.
-
What about the people in Australia that got radiation sickness after atomic bombs were tested?
Especially since I have met some of these people. They must be in on it though. The British government creates a conspiracy about nuclear weapons so they can hold fake tests in Australia, then fakes trying to move native aboriginals out of the area, then fakes that a lot of them refused coz it was their spiritual land, then the Australian government fakes that the people that stayed too close to the fake blasts got fake sick, then fakes them sueing the government for fake compensation.
Whatever was tested could have been anything and anyone that got sick, it could have been some other toxic sickness that they wouldn't have a clue about.
After all, who in those days knew anything about radiation sickness or it's variations.
Did you know that the supposed atom bombs that were supposedly dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never tested.
Yes that's right...no tests were done to see if they would work, they just dropped them without having a clue what would actually happen....yeah right.
The reason why they never tested it is because it wasn't an atom bomb and metals don't magically just blow up and destroy cities.
Except for the fact that the explosions could be seen by people in near by towns.
So what. They wouldn't know what a nuclear explosion was against a conventional one.
So what about the Mushroom cloud? I didn't realise regular explosives had this effect.
The problem I have is, instead of believing what makes the most sense, it requires you to believe a never ending string of extra things that have to be added each time your point is challenged.
It's never ending.
-
So what about the Mushroom cloud? I didn't realise regular explosives had this effect.
Actually, they do. They're just much, much smaller than ones created by nukes.
-
nuclear fusion keeps the sun 'burning' ;)
-
I was thinking more of Napalm.
Napalm is dropped from a bomb-like shell, and it opens above the ground, spraying a ~100-200 meter area in extremely sticky, burning material (kind of like petroleum jelly) that is very hard to put out. It burns hot, but not hot enough to completely and instantly vaporize human bodies, bone and all, and leave ashy "shadows" on the walls behind where they stood. It also doesn't cause ionizing radiation.
Whatever was tested could have been anything and anyone that got sick, it could have been some other toxic sickness that they wouldn't have a clue about.
Yes, exception ionizing radiation from nuclear weapons causes a very specific set of symptoms. Hairloss, red blotches on the skin, fingernails falling off, vomiting up blood/bile, and even tumorous growths given enough exposure.
After all, who in those days knew anything about radiation sickness or it's variations.
Marie Curie and anyone who'd ever used an x-ray machine.
Did you know that the supposed atom bombs that were supposedly dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never tested.
Yes that's right...no tests were done to see if they would work, they just dropped them without having a clue what would actually happen....yeah right.
Oh, so you've never heard of the Manhattan Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_project). You know, the secret project back in the 1940s to create the weapon to end World War II where they tested several nuclear weapons, as well as toying with ideas of other weapons technologies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_project)
The reason why they never tested it is because it wasn't an atom bomb and metals don't magically just blow up and destroy cities.
[/quote]
You're right, metal doesn't magically explode, but very heavy metals like Uranium and Plutonium, which are highly radioactive, can have their atoms split, releasing energy and an extra neutron. Given the right push, the right amount of U-235, this can cause a massive chain reaction, causing a nuclear explosion.
-
If I'm questioning nuclear weapons, I'm also questioning anything leading up to them aren't I, which means the Manhattan project as well.
Why don't you go chill out in the Nevada testing grounds for a while. Many more of these weapons have been tested there.
I've heard arguments about, " how can so many people be a part of it and no one mentions it as a hoax"
My answer to that is simple.
If it was a made up deterrent, then there only need to be a few people involved and all high up people. There would be no need for anyone else to be in on it as there is nothing to be in on.
All the people who've gotten sick from the radiation and actually have been radioactive from radiation exposure would have to be in on it, as well as the doctors treating them, the people making Geiger counters, the people contracting, building, and operating nuclear plants, the people that dispose of nuclear waste, the people who get a hold of the uranium, the people who built the cold war bomb shelters, the people who operate the nuclear missile silos, and not to mention that kid who built his own nuclear reactor in his parents' shed back in the 90s. That's a lot of people.
Oh and apparently the first bomb tested was supposedly the one dropped on Japan.
Bit risky that don't you think, seeing as they had no clue about what something like that( if it was ever real) would do.
Don;t you think they would have tested the bomb before the drop?
... Do you read anything before you speak? There were several bombs tested in the Nevada desert before anything was used on Japan. They had to make sure it worked before they used it. Would have been pretty funny to Japan if they dropped a big bomb shell on Hiroshima and nothing happened huh?
-
If I'm questioning nuclear weapons, I'm also questioning anything leading up to them aren't I, which means the Manhattan project as well.
Why don't you go chill out in the Nevada testing grounds for a while. Many more of these weapons have been tested there. I would have no problem going to any of those supposed nuke sites, none whatsoever.
I've heard arguments about, " how can so many people be a part of it and no one mentions it as a hoax"
My answer to that is simple.
If it was a made up deterrent, then there only need to be a few people involved and all high up people. There would be no need for anyone else to be in on it as there is nothing to be in on.
All the people who've gotten sick from the radiation and actually have been radioactive from radiation exposure would have to be in on it, as well as the doctors treating them, the people making Geiger counters, the people contracting, building, and operating nuclear plants, the people that dispose of nuclear waste, the people who get a hold of the uranium, the people who built the cold war bomb shelters, the people who operate the nuclear missile silos, and not to mention that kid who built his own nuclear reactor in his parents' shed back in the 90s. That's a lot of people.There's many types of radiation which geiger counters could be picking up. I have a stud wall detector that makes silly sounds. I also have a electric cable detector that makes weird sounds when picking up the current. It's not hard to say something is testing poisonous radiation when in fact it can be detecting any radiation or electromagnetic force or static from people, etc. Even people who have been X-rayed or had certain elements given to them or wiped on them.........those that are operating nuclear plants don;t have to know what they are dealing with. The supposed nuclear fission happens in a sealed reactor and it's people who are pushing buttons, possibly believing they are doing this and that, when it could be controlling something different.
................People who operate nuclear missile silo's are simply told to sit there at the ready to press launch after a code is given, they don't have to know what warhead in inside a missile.............Don;t mention the kid that built his own nuclear reactor, please....no really please, because I have you down as a decent debater with intelligence...don't spoil it. ;)............ In anything large like war/nuclear power/space exploration, stuff like that, it's compartmentalisation ...peter doesn't know what Paul is doing, who is clueless as to what Jan is doing, who in turn doesn't know what Vera is doing.
Oh and apparently the first bomb tested was supposedly the one dropped on Japan.
Bit risky that don't you think, seeing as they had no clue about what something like that( if it was ever real) would do.
Don;t you think they would have tested the bomb before the drop?
... Do you read anything before you speak? There were several bombs tested in the Nevada desert before anything was used on Japan. They had to make sure it worked before they used it. Would have been pretty funny to Japan if they dropped a big bomb shell on Hiroshima and nothing happened huh?Nevada was after Japan, not before. Look it up.
If you have no problem going there, go there.
Geiger counters detect ionizing radiation, not electromagnetic radiation, and are in no way similar to your "stud wall detector" and "electric cable detector." They look for ionizing radiation, which is composed of particles. When particles hit the detector, it makes a noise. Dangerous levels of this radiation mean more noise. X-Rays wont make someone dangerously radioactive unless they are under a constant stream for quite a while, in which case only an isolate spot on their body will be burnt and dangerously radioactive.
The bombs were tested in Nevada before and after bombing Japan. The first nuclear weapon ever used by mankind was in the Nevada desert before they were used in warfare.
-
Thinkingman.
I'm trying to tell you that the geiger counters could be anything , where ordinary people are concerned.
All people see is a needle with rads on and whatever, and placed along their bodies.
They could be geared to picking up body static or anything and the people wouldn't know.
And I never said x-rays will make someone dangerously radiated.
You are wrong about supposed atomic bomb testing in Nevada before Japan.
What ever you say, denyimatic. You will deny anything just to deny it so that you can try and convince yourself that you question things.
-
1. Trinity was the first nuclear bomb test. It was before the bombs were dropped in Japan and the test took place in New Mexico, not Nevada.
2. Two different types of bombs were used on Japan. The implosion bomb was the type they tested. The gun barrel type was never test completely before it was used on Japan.
3. Plutonium and Uranium are not mixed together in bombs.
4. Sceptimatic, Geiger counters can be checked with source material. They do indeed pick up radiation.
-
I'm not denying they pick up radiation, I'm saying that it's possible that they could be simply picking up harmless radiation that naturally occurs or even some that simply pick up static and whatever.
The ones I used don't.
The Japan atom bomb was never tested before it was supposedly unleashed on Japan.
What they say they tested before that, was not the same type of bomb, allegedly.
I just told you what happened. Two types of bombs were dropped on Japan, one was test completely and one wasn't.
Below is how they say atomic bombs work.
Plutonium is created by exposing uranium to the neutron flux in an operating nuclear reactor and letting it "soak up some neutrons" and transform into plutonium. This is the most common approach to obtaining weapons materials that the nuclear powers use. So we have our nuclear material, and all we need to do now is make a bomb.
This is in the top 10 dumbest things I have ever read on this site.
Edit:Upon further review, I found what you are talking about. You just worded your statement incorrectly which made it look completely wrong.
-
I'm not denying they pick up radiation, I'm saying that it's possible that they could be simply picking up harmless radiation that naturally occurs or even some that simply pick up static and whatever.
Geiger counters are designed to pick up only harmful radiation. Alpha, beta, and gamma rays. They do detect static electricity.
The Japan atom bomb was never tested before it was supposedly unleashed on Japan.
What they say they tested before that, was not the same type of bomb, allegedly.
There were two different bombs dropped on Japan. One on Hiroshima, one on Nagasaki. The first one was a Uranium-235 Implosion type bomb, which was fully tested before use. The other was a design that had not gone through the testing completely, it was a Gun-type Plutonium bomb.
Below is how they say atomic bombs work.
Plutonium is created by exposing uranium to the neutron flux in an operating nuclear reactor and letting it "soak up some neutrons" and transform into plutonium. This is the most common approach to obtaining weapons materials that the nuclear powers use. So we have our nuclear material, and all we need to do now is make a bomb.
More neutrons does not make Uranium into Plutonium. You need more protons. This is done in a particle accelerator. Plutonium-239 is not the only fissionable material used in nuclear weapons. Uranium-235 is also used. Neptunium-237 and isotopes of americium can also be used.
-
I'm not denying they pick up radiation, I'm saying that it's possible that they could be simply picking up harmless radiation that naturally occurs or even some that simply pick up static and whatever.
Geiger counters are designed to pick up only harmful radiation. Alpha, beta, and gamma rays. They do detect static electricity.
The Japan atom bomb was never tested before it was supposedly unleashed on Japan.
What they say they tested before that, was not the same type of bomb, allegedly.
There were two different bombs dropped on Japan. One on Hiroshima, one on Nagasaki. The first one was a Uranium-235 Implosion type bomb, which was fully tested before use. The other was a design that had not gone through the testing completely, it was a Gun-type Plutonium bomb.
Below is how they say atomic bombs work.
Plutonium is created by exposing uranium to the neutron flux in an operating nuclear reactor and letting it "soak up some neutrons" and transform into plutonium. This is the most common approach to obtaining weapons materials that the nuclear powers use. So we have our nuclear material, and all we need to do now is make a bomb.
More neutrons does not make Uranium into Plutonium. You need more protons. This is done in a particle accelerator. Plutonium-239 is not the only fissionable material used in nuclear weapons. Uranium-235 is also used. Neptunium-237 and isotopes of americium can also be used.
I could very well be missing something here but the way I understood what scientists were saying was, plutonium does not exist naturally and is the product of nuclear fission.
If this is so, then they must have built a nuclear reactor in the 30's or am I missing the point here?
Plutonium occurs naturally. However what you are talking about is how they make weapons grade plutonium out of uranium. You just skipped some step which made your statement look dumb.
-
I'm not denying they pick up radiation, I'm saying that it's possible that they could be simply picking up harmless radiation that naturally occurs or even some that simply pick up static and whatever.
Geiger counters are designed to pick up only harmful radiation. Alpha, beta, and gamma rays. They do detect static electricity.
The Japan atom bomb was never tested before it was supposedly unleashed on Japan.
What they say they tested before that, was not the same type of bomb, allegedly.
There were two different bombs dropped on Japan. One on Hiroshima, one on Nagasaki. The first one was a Uranium-235 Implosion type bomb, which was fully tested before use. The other was a design that had not gone through the testing completely, it was a Gun-type Plutonium bomb.
Below is how they say atomic bombs work.
Plutonium is created by exposing uranium to the neutron flux in an operating nuclear reactor and letting it "soak up some neutrons" and transform into plutonium. This is the most common approach to obtaining weapons materials that the nuclear powers use. So we have our nuclear material, and all we need to do now is make a bomb.
More neutrons does not make Uranium into Plutonium. You need more protons. This is done in a particle accelerator. Plutonium-239 is not the only fissionable material used in nuclear weapons. Uranium-235 is also used. Neptunium-237 and isotopes of americium can also be used.
I could very well be missing something here but the way I understood what scientists were saying was, plutonium does not exist naturally and is the product of nuclear fission.
If this is so, then they must have built a nuclear reactor in the 30's or am I missing the point here?
Plutonium occurs naturally. However what you are talking about is how they make weapons grade plutonium out of uranium. You just skipped some step which made your statement look dumb.
So did they have a nuclear reactor in the 30's that made weapons grade plutonium out of the fissioned uranium?
No, they had other locations producing it in different ways.
I suggest you watch "The day after Trinity". It is on youtube.
-
I'm not denying they pick up radiation, I'm saying that it's possible that they could be simply picking up harmless radiation that naturally occurs or even some that simply pick up static and whatever.
Geiger counters are designed to pick up only harmful radiation. Alpha, beta, and gamma rays. They do detect static electricity.
The Japan atom bomb was never tested before it was supposedly unleashed on Japan.
What they say they tested before that, was not the same type of bomb, allegedly.
There were two different bombs dropped on Japan. One on Hiroshima, one on Nagasaki. The first one was a Uranium-235 Implosion type bomb, which was fully tested before use. The other was a design that had not gone through the testing completely, it was a Gun-type Plutonium bomb.
Below is how they say atomic bombs work.
Plutonium is created by exposing uranium to the neutron flux in an operating nuclear reactor and letting it "soak up some neutrons" and transform into plutonium. This is the most common approach to obtaining weapons materials that the nuclear powers use. So we have our nuclear material, and all we need to do now is make a bomb.
More neutrons does not make Uranium into Plutonium. You need more protons. This is done in a particle accelerator. Plutonium-239 is not the only fissionable material used in nuclear weapons. Uranium-235 is also used. Neptunium-237 and isotopes of americium can also be used.
I could very well be missing something here but the way I understood what scientists were saying was, plutonium does not exist naturally and is the product of nuclear fission.
If this is so, then they must have built a nuclear reactor in the 30's or am I missing the point here?
Plutonium occurs naturally. However what you are talking about is how they make weapons grade plutonium out of uranium. You just skipped some step which made your statement look dumb.
So did they have a nuclear reactor in the 30's that made weapons grade plutonium out of the fissioned uranium?
No, they had other locations producing it in different ways.
I suggest you watch "The day after Trinity". It is on youtube.
You mean Trinity being the one where they stacked up 100 tons of TNT on a purposely built staging and made out they were showing what force a nuke could unleash and then set a nuke off just after. ::)
Oh good. You finally looked it up. You started this thread based on false knowledge. Even the title is wrong like it was pointed out. You don't know what you are talking about. Sorry, but you are not going to win this argument. Come back later when you are more educated on the topic at hand.
-
I looked it up years ago.
Then why did you make the claim that the bombs were untested?
I haven't started this thread based on false knowledge at all, you cannot prove that.
The thread title clearly shows you don't know what you are talking about. You either think that the sun splits atoms instead of fusing them or that nuclear reactors fuse atoms instead of spiting them.
You can be sorry all you want about me not winning this argument, yet by you saying this, is not going to win you it either is it.
I don't even have to win the argument because you already lost it.
You are going on like you are an expert on this.
I'm no expert but I know a thing or two about it.
-
Nuclear bombs do not exist.
-
Nuclear bombs do not exist.
So does that mean that the Cold War was an elaborate hoax that America and the Soviet Union concocted together?
Are Iran now in on the hoax?
Jeez, every nation in the world is just best buds when it comes to hoaxes eh?
-
So does that mean that the Cold War was an elaborate hoax that America and the Soviet Union concocted together?
No, the Soviet Union and the USA were enemies. Have you never even encountered a history book before?
Are Iran now in on the hoax?
Iran is supposedly attempting to create nuclear weapons. They have not succeeded, for the obvious reason that they do not exist.
Jeez, every nation in the world is just best buds when it comes to hoaxes eh?
Only in your mind, apparently.
-
that's another one: nuclear bombs do not exist!
clearly you've not done your homework (and you are insulting people in Hiroshima, nagasaki, bikini islands, some parts of nevada etc)
-
Nuclear bombs do not exist.
You do not exist, therefore your argument is invalid. Therefore nuclear bombs exist.
-
i was also invoking data: what the survivors can tell, what the experimentators did, etc
-
The real point though is, how us intelligent humans, or so we think, can simply accept being told that two lumps of dense "metal" can be slammed into each other and somehow destroy cities.
Troll.
-
i was also invoking data: what the survivors can tell, what the experimentators did, etc
It was 1940's Japan in a shanty town. Nobody knew what an atom bomb was. Nobody had access to any data.
Nobody told those people what was about to happen.
When it happened, people died, people were burned.
Anybody that did know what was going on had no means to tell anyone what really happened.
The propaganda machine would have been in full flow and any witnesses would have been simply fobbed off or told to shut up.
Any witnesses of later dates could easily have been brainwashed into believing an atom bomb or even fake witnesses.
It wouldn't be difficult to do, given the year it happened.
Even the news said it could have been propaganda in the early days.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that America and Japan used this as a warning to Russia etc and maybe to the enemies of the world.
All of the nuke videos I've seen look so fake it's just not funny.
The real point though is, how us intelligent humans, or so we think, can simply accept being told that two lumps of dense "metal" can be slammed into each other and somehow destroy cities.
you're just so stupid it begs belief
-
One was supposedly untested.
Then why did you claim they both untested?
Now you are just guessing. I don;t think the sun is any kind of nuclear reactor, fission or fusion.
This is another reason why you shouldn't be arguing about stuff which you know nothing about.
I've lost nothing.
Whatever you say.
You only know what you have been brainwashed to know, simple as that.
Doesn't work that way.
Nuclear bombs do not exist.
So does that mean that the Cold War was an elaborate hoax that America and the Soviet Union concocted together?
Are Iran now in on the hoax?
Jeez, every nation in the world is just best buds when it comes to hoaxes eh?
Don't worry. He is just trolling.
-
you're just so stupid it begs belief
Well, his retardation doesn't stop him writing sentences, so my guess is trolling, or a kid posturing - one who thinks denying reality somehow makes him a free-thinker rather than a moron. Lots of us make than mistake in our teens.
-
Troll.
you're just so stupid it begs belief
This is not acceptable. You have an entire internet of sources and the weight of the world's scientific community behind you. There is no excuse for this as a rebuttal. If you aren't interested in the arguments offered, don't post.
-
Mods of most forums tend to warn trolls, rather than encourage them.
Then again, FES seems to be one big troll itself.
-
another victory for fet: Thork behind a dim-witted lazy stuborn feeble mind. (yeah, i know, you are going to ban me instead of using your brain)
-
Mods of most forums tend to warn trolls, rather than encourage them.
Then again, FES seems to be one big troll itself.
If you want to see it as a game, play by the rules.
If you carry on accusing all and sundry of being trolls and derailing the topic, you will be taking a holiday.
You may take this as a warning.
another victory for fet: Thork behind a dim-witted lazy stuborn feeble mind. (yeah, i know, you are going to ban me instead of using your brain)
I was just asking that you are civil and interesting. Now I am demanding it.
-
Ok. i just have problems with spetimatic very low level of understanding and very high level of denying.
-
why don't you read littterature about nuclear energy and then try to prove if it's a hoax or not?
-
try to prove if it's a hoax or not
-
try to prove if it's a hoax or not
How can I prove it?
I cannot prove it's a hoax.
I've read and looked at a lot of stuff that makes me question it all and believe in my own mind that it might not be what we are told it is.
If you understood what you were reading you wouldn't have a problem believing in nuclear weapons and nuclear energy as it would be quite clear that they are possible.
-
Nuclear energy is not evidence for nuclear weapons. My stove can heat water, that doesn't mean it can destroy cities. Likewise, simply because a power plant is using nuclear fission to turn water into steam does not mean that same process can obliterate cities.
The real reason that nuclear war has not broken out is that the devices simply do not exist.
-
Nuclear energy is not evidence for nuclear weapons. My stove can heat water, that doesn't mean it can destroy cities. Likewise, simply because a power plant is using nuclear fission to turn water into steam does not mean that same process can obliterate cities.
The real reason that nuclear war has not broken out is that the devices simply do not exist.
So were hiroshima and nagazaki not atomic bombs, or were they not destroyed at all?
-
So were hiroshima and nagazaki not atomic bombs, or were they not destroyed at all?
That was firebombing, nothing more. Why do you think the American military chose two cities built mainly out of wood with no strategic military value?
-
I know you are trolling but I will still play.
Nuclear energy is not evidence for nuclear weapons. My stove can heat water, that doesn't mean it can destroy cities. Likewise, simply because a power plant is using nuclear fission to turn water into steam does not mean that same process can obliterate cities.
Luckily for everyone, the process is different between making power and making an explosion. So I agree, the process of turning water to steam with nuclear fission will not "obliterate cities". The process to "obliterate cities" is quite complex. Not to mention these days, almost all of the energy from nuclear weapons is actually from fusion, like the sun uses. But they do contain a fission bomb to start the process.
The real reason that nuclear war has not broken out is that the devices simply do not exist.
Fallacy.
-
Luckily for everyone, the process is different between making power and making an explosion. So I agree, the process of turning water to steam with nuclear fission will not "obliterate cities". The process to "obliterate cities" is quite complex. Not to mention these days, almost all of the energy from nuclear weapons is actually from fusion, like the sun uses. But they do contain a fission bomb to start the process.
Supposedly the power plants use the exact same process to heat the water that the bombs use to make explosions. Not one power plant has ever exploded, leveling miles and miles of land. The worst "meltdown" was just radiation. Furthermore the type of bomb does not matter, as neither exists.
-
So were hiroshima and nagazaki not atomic bombs, or were they not destroyed at all?
That was firebombing, nothing more. Why do you think the American military chose two cities built mainly out of wood with no strategic military value?
Because it was about sending a message?
-
Because it was about sending a message?
How silly. War is about crushing the opponent, not sending messages. If I had a bomb that could wipe cities off the map I could turn Tokyo to rubble, but instead I use it on an old wooden village? The sheer idiocy of such a thing staggers me, more so that other people would actually believe I did such a thing. Furthermore if they wanted to send messages, why did they ever firebomb Tokyo in the first place? The motives you state are not consistent.
-
Supposedly the power plants use the exact same process to heat the water that the bombs use to make explosions.
Bombs would have use higher concentration of uranium 235. Weapons grade as one would say. Where power plants use less amounts of fissile uranium 235. In a bomb. either uranium or plutonium, the material is stored in a non critical form and then when you want the bomb to go off, the material is forced into a critical state. Power plants will never have a critical mass. Power plants control the reaction where as in bombs the reaction goes uncontrolled on purpose.
There processes are quite different.
Not one power plant has ever exploded, leveling miles and miles of land. The worst "meltdown" was just radiation.
It would be pretty stupid for engineers to design a nuclear power plant that could explode like a bomb. And as I pointed out, the process doesn't allow it.
Furthermore the type of bomb does not matter, as neither exists.
Just pointing it out because people, including you, don't actually know much about this topic yet like to argue against it.
-
Ok, what about the people who saw the mushroom cloud? instead of a lot of not so large explosions?
-
Nuclear energy is not evidence for nuclear weapons. My stove can heat water, that doesn't mean it can destroy cities. Likewise, simply because a power plant is using nuclear fission to turn water into steam does not mean that same process can obliterate cities.
The real reason that nuclear war has not broken out is that the devices simply do not exist.
Seriously, are you that bored that you need to stoop to this level of trolling?
-
Bombs would have use higher concentration of uranium 235. Weapons grade as one would say. Where power plants use less amounts of fissile uranium 235. In a bomb. either uranium or plutonium, the material is stored in a non critical form and then when you want the bomb to go off, the material is forced into a critical state. Power plants will never have a critical mass. Power plants control the reaction where as in bombs the reaction goes uncontrolled on purpose.
There processes are quite different.
Do you have any real evidence? You can type these things all you want, that does not make them true. There is no reason to believe these weapons exist.
Just pointing it out because people, including you, don't actually know much about this topic yet like to argue against it.
Was that statement intended to be as ironic as possible?
Ok, what about the people who saw the mushroom cloud? instead of a lot of not so large explosions?
Mushroom clouds are not exclusive to nuclear bombs. The idea of such is propaganda.
-
Mushroom clouds are not exclusive to nuclear bombs. The idea of such is propaganda.
Firebombing does?
-
Do you have any real evidence? You can type these things all you want, that does not make them true. There is no reason to believe these weapons exist.
There is plenty of evidence out there. I could post some but you would just deny it.
It's works both ways though. Just because you say they don't exist doesn't mean that they don't.
Was that statement intended to be as ironic as possible?
Here is what I do. (It's yellow cake) http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_0273.jpg (http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_0273.jpg)
What do you do at work? Oh that's right, you were in the military.
-
There is plenty of evidence out there. I could post some but you would just deny it.
It's works both ways though. Just because you say they don't exist doesn't mean that they don't.
Right. Is this where you get mad, tell me "its all over the place" and then expect me to Google it? You're not posting any because it doesn't exist. Simple.
Here is what I do. (It's yellow cake) http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_0273.jpg (http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_0273.jpg)
What do you do at work? Oh that's right, you were in the military.
Ah, you're the one that does all the piss tests. There should be lots of easy work for you in Colorado or some other backwards drug-laden state.
-
There is plenty of evidence out there. I could post some but you would just deny it.
It's works both ways though. Just because you say they don't exist doesn't mean that they don't.
Right. Is this where you get mad, tell me "its all over the place" and then expect me to Google it? You're not posting any because it doesn't exist. Simple.
I will get them, in the mean time why don't you post the research you base your opinion on.
Ah, you're the one that does all the piss tests. There should be lots of easy work for you in Colorado or some other backwards drug-laden state.
That is not what I do.
-
Right. Is this where you get mad, tell me "its all over the place" and then expect me to Google it? You're not posting any because it doesn't exist. Simple.
I will get them, in the mean time why don't you post the research you base your opinion on.
[/quote]
I have. It appears to be you who has not.
That is not what I do.
Ah, I see. So you don't do the brains part of the examination? I'm sure you enjoy gathering the samples then. Someone has to do it, I suppose.
-
I have. It appears to be you who has not.
Why don't you quote it to bring it to the end of the thread.
Ah, I see. So you don't do the brains part of the examination? I'm sure you enjoy gathering the samples then. Someone has to do it, I suppose.
Nope, not that it matters. My point was that you have no qualifications at all, while I have some.
-
So were hiroshima and nagazaki not atomic bombs, or were they not destroyed at all?
That was firebombing, nothing more. Why do you think the American military chose two cities built mainly out of wood with no strategic military value?
firebombing does not create a mushroom cloud
-
firebombing does not create a mushroom cloud
Incorrect.
Why don't you quote it to bring it to the end of the thread.
Yeah, yeah, I had a quote error. If you honestly can't figure out what I was responding to, I think you should be worried.
Nope, not that it matters. My point was that you have no qualifications at all, while I have some.
That is a logical fallacy, and a poor one at that. Piss testers don't have graduate degrees in nuclear physics.
-
@Mods,
How come this Irushwithscvs clown doesn't get called out? Nearly every post is either low content, rude or intentionally obtuse. Usually all of them combined.
Most of doesn't even make any sense:
Piss testers don't have graduate degrees in nuclear physics.
-
Yeah, yeah, I had a quote error. If you honestly can't figure out what I was responding to, I think you should be worried.
I said quote your evidence to bring it to the end of the thread. The thread is 11 pages long and you said you already posted evidence. All I see you trying to make points. That doesn't constitue evidence. So feel free to quote or repost the evidence you claimed to have already posted. sceptimatic needs to actually fix his quote, again.
That is a logical fallacy, and a poor one at that. Piss testers don't have graduate degrees in nuclear physics.
I hate to rain on your parade but I don't do pee testing. I of course, don't do nuclear phycis either. It gets old when people try to argue against science because they don't understand it.
The science behind a nuclear bomb it quite simple. Take a non critical mass then force the mass into critical state. Pretty simple.
-
How is this possible when it was told that they were so radioactive that people couldn't live there and plants would not grow etc.
The main reason that there was so little residual radiation is because the bombs were detonated at an altitude of about 600 meters.
-
I said quote your evidence to bring it to the end of the thread. The thread is 11 pages long and you said you already posted evidence. All I see you trying to make points. That doesn't constitue evidence. So feel free to quote or repost the evidence you claimed to have already posted. sceptimatic needs to actually fix his quote, again.
You want me to give you evidence that something does not exist? Are you so desperate that this is all you could come up with? "Give me evidence that magical pink unicorns don't exist!"
I hate to rain on your parade but I don't do pee testing. I of course, don't do nuclear phycis either. It gets old when people try to argue against science because they don't understand it.
The science behind a nuclear bomb it quite simple. Take a non critical mass then force the mass into critical state. Pretty simple.
I, too, am tired of people such as yourself who do not understand basic scientific endeavors, and lap up whatever someone else has told them. The scientific process of fusion and fission can not cause bombs. It never has, and it never will. It can, however, heat up some water and funnel it through a turbine.
-
You want me to give you evidence that something does not exist? Are you so desperate that this is all you could come up with? "Give me evidence that magical pink unicorns don't
There are lots of evidence of nuclear explosions. If you want to say nuclear bombs don't exist, you need to disprove them.
-
You want me to give you evidence that something does not exist? Are you so desperate that this is all you could come up with? "Give me evidence that magical pink unicorns don't
There are lots of evidence of nuclear explosions. If you want to say nuclear bombs don't exist, you need to disprove them.
No, there aren't. There are lots of pictures labeled as nuclear explosions. It is amazing what thoroughly placed propaganda can do to the mind.
(http://www.jeffgothelf.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/unicorn.jpg)
Look, a unicorn! How magical. Imagine I placed this everywhere, history books, biology books. I told everyone how unicorns exist we just don't use them because they're dangerous. Then I post the science behind unicorns. Everyone would indeed believe unicorns are very real and very dangerous, regardless of how they have never seen one, and never will.
-
No, there aren't. There are lots of pictures labeled as nuclear explosions. It is amazing what thoroughly placed propaganda can do to the mind.
(http://www.jeffgothelf.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/unicorn.jpg)
Look, a unicorn! How magical. Imagine I placed this everywhere, history books, biology books. I told everyone how unicorns exist we just don't use them because they're dangerous. Then I post the science behind unicorns. Everyone would indeed believe unicorns are very real and very dangerous, regardless of how they have never seen one, and never will.
Your "argument" is that anything could be a lie, but you have yet not disproven atomic bombs evidence. So "everything can be a lie, therefore atomic bombs are a lie" that is not an argument, is just you believing atomic bombs are fake, because you want to, not because you have reasons to do so. You should have said from the beginning it was a matter of belief for you. There is no reason to argue about that.
-
You want me to give you evidence that something does not exist? Are you so desperate that this is all you could come up with? "Give me evidence that magical pink unicorns don't exist!"
Ok, so you said you posted evidence and you can't. Thanks for admitting you lied.
You want evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhatten_project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhatten_project) Look at how many sub projects were involved.
Watch Day After Trinity, which I already posted. It is on youtbe. You will need to debunk that.
Debunk all of what Oppenheimer did.
They built nuclear triggers 10 miles from where I currently live. These were nuclear bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats) After it closed it became a Superfund site. Explain all the plutonium contamination. Explain all the law suits from radiation poisoning. Explain how a mother of someone I used to play soccer with died from working there. Explain the Rockey Flat's Grand Jury. I met the foreman of the grand jury. He was a state representative at the time.
Explain how Countries that hate America still talk about nuclear weapons.
Explain Mordechai Vanunu.
Explain Operation Opera.
Read "Radioactivity, Ionizing Radiation, and Nuclear Energy" By Jiri Hala and James Navratil. I work with James Navatil. He is a Nobel prize winner.
I, too, am tired of people such as yourself who do not understand basic scientific endeavors, and lap up whatever someone else has told them.
Open your eyes, kid. The notion of nuclear weapons is far greater than you can imagine. At work I see what science research is capable of completing. I don't need to "lap up" science.
The scientific process of fusion and fission can not cause bombs. It never has, and it never will. It can, however, heat up some water and funnel it through a turbine.
The sun can heat the earth from 93 million miles away but it's process can't make a bomb? Who are you trying to fool?
Oh wait I already know.
Seriously, are you that bored that you need to stoop to this level of trolling?
Your trolling still won't beat me.
-
Ok, so you said you posted evidence and you can't. Thanks for admitting you lied.
Feel free to point out where I said that. Keep in mind I do hope you had the intelligence to figure out that quote error. I would hate for you to embarrass yourself again.
You want evidence.
Look at how many sub projects were involved.
Watch Day After Trinity, which I already posted. It is on youtbe. You will need to debunk that.
Debunk all of what Oppenheimer did.
They built nuclear triggers 10 miles from where I currently live. These were nuclear bombs. After it closed it became a Superfund site. Explain all the plutonium contamination. Explain all the law suits from radiation poisoning. Explain how a mother of someone I used to play soccer with died from working there. Explain the Rockey Flat's Grand Jury. I met the foreman of the grand jury. He was a state representative at the time.
Explain how Countries that hate America still talk about nuclear weapons.
Explain Mordechai Vanunu.
Explain Operation Opera.
Read "Radioactivity, Ionizing Radiation, and Nuclear Energy" By Jiri Hala and James Navratil. I work with James Navatil. He is a Nobel prize winner.
* NUKELIES.ORG - Annotated NUKE LIES - "Do nuclear bombs exist?" - first nuke skeptic video of 2008 (http://#)
The simple answer is that all that you stated is things you simply believe to be true. As they are not evidence at all. I suggest you read some introductory physics textbooks, mainly about thermodynamics and its implications along with relativity. A bomb simply isn't possible, the math barely works, and the reality does not work at all.
The sun can heat the earth from 93 million miles away but it's process can't make a bomb? Who are you trying to fool?
You think you can fit the Sun into a room? We can see who the troll really is.
-
Feel free to point out where I said that. Keep in mind I do hope you had the intelligence to figure out that quote error. I would hate for you to embarrass yourself again.
I have. It appears to be you who has not.
* NUKELIES.ORG - Annotated NUKE LIES - "Do nuclear bombs exist?" - first nuke skeptic video of 2008 (http://#)
The simple answer is that all that you stated is things you simply believe to be true. As they are not evidence at all. I suggest you read some introductory physics textbooks, mainly about thermodynamics and its implications along with relativity. A bomb simply isn't possible, the math barely works, and the reality does not work at all.
You don't believe 1,000s of scientists but you believe one youtube video? Nice. The narrator sounds 16 years old max. I'm sure he is an expert in the field. Here is part one of Day After Trinity. Guess you have to believe it too. And you say I blindly believe in stuff.
The Day After Trinity Part 1.avi (http://#)
Here is what you should have said.
"I can't disprove anything you listed."
You think you can fit the Sun into a room? We can see who the troll really is.
Lrn2mechinism
-
Feel free to point out where I said that. Keep in mind I do hope you had the intelligence to figure out that quote error. I would hate for you to embarrass yourself again.
I have. It appears to be you who has not.
??? Where does that say I posted evidence?
You don't believe 1,000s of scientists but you believe one youtube video? Nice. The narrator sounds 16 years old max. I'm sure he is an expert in the field. Here is part one of Day After Trinity. Guess you have to believe it too. And you say I blindly believe in stuff.
The Day After Trinity Part 1.avi (http://#)
Here is what you should have said.
Nothing like good ol' propaganda from stories to keep the mind chained. Do you have any real evidence?
Lrn2mechinism
Now you're just full blown trolling. I'm not surprised, given how badly this has been going for you.
-
??? Where does that say I posted evidence?
I will get them, in the mean time why don't you post the research you base your opinion on.
I have. It appears to be you who has not.
Nothing like good ol' propaganda from stories to keep the mind chained. Do you have any real evidence?
You can't even answer my "fake" evidence, so you won't be able to answer "real" evidence. You thought posting a youtube video from a unknown kid would constitute as debunking evidence.
Now you're just full blown trolling. I'm not surprised, given how badly this has been going for you.
Actually, you just don't know what you are talking about. Nothing about fusion requires the sun. Like I said, learn the mechanism. Scientists learn mechanisms so they can be applied to many applications. You wouldn't know this, that is why I told you.
-
I find it really silly how all these you tube videos of supposed nuclear bombs going off, not once does the camera shake.
In some footage, the bomb doesn't even affect the clouds, yet goes right through them.
The videos are fake and it stands out like a sore thumb.
Now if they can fake the videos, they are hiding something, now what could that be?
Could it be the fact that Nuclear bombs do not and never have worked?
You are making assumptions. Assumptions don't prove points. Try again.
-
??? Where does that say I posted evidence?
I will get them, in the mean time why don't you post the research you base your opinion on.
I have. It appears to be you who has not.
Can you show me where the word "evidence" appears? I'm not seeing it.
You can't even answer my "fake" evidence, so you won't be able to answer "real" evidence. You thought posting a youtube video from a unknown kid would constitute as debunking evidence.
You thought posting a lot of books and requesting me to read/disprove them was a viable response. You can't post exact articles because you're afraid I'll pick them apart, so you post vast swathes of information in the hopes that I will deny such a request (and I did). You don't have any real evidence, that much you have made painfully obvious.
Actually, you just don't know what you are talking about. Nothing about fusion requires the sun. Like I said, learn the mechanism. Scientists learn mechanisms so they can be applied to many applications. You wouldn't know this, that is why I told you.
It is in fact you who appears to be so uneducated that even the most basic concepts are out of your reach. It would appear I have to teach you years of physics just to get you even close to par and I don't have the time nor the motive to do so. Just know that the math does not match the reality, don't burn your brain out trying to think about it too much.
-
I find it really silly how all these you tube videos of supposed nuclear bombs going off, not once does the camera shake.
In some footage, the bomb doesn't even affect the clouds, yet goes right through them.
The videos are fake and it stands out like a sore thumb.
Now if they can fake the videos, they are hiding something, now what could that be?
Could it be the fact that Nuclear bombs do not and never have worked?
You are making assumptions. Assumptions don't prove points. Try again.
All I can go on are assumptions.
I assume the camera didn't shake because a team of 50 engineers engineered it not to. Which one of us is correct?
You say nuclear bombs work without actually knowing if they do or not. That is also an assumption.
as·sump·tion/əˈsəm(p)SHən/
Noun:
A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof:
The problem is there is proof. You just ignore it. But you do admit to having no proof yourself. Thanks for ending the argument with you.
-
What proof do you have?
Just one piece of proof.
You want evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhatten_project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhatten_project) Look at how many sub projects were involved.
Watch Day After Trinity, which I already posted. It is on youtbe. You will need to debunk that.
Debunk all of what Oppenheimer did.
They built nuclear triggers 10 miles from where I currently live. These were nuclear bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats) After it closed it became a Superfund site. Explain all the plutonium contamination. Explain all the law suits from radiation poisoning. Explain how a mother of someone I used to play soccer with died from working there. Explain the Rockey Flat's Grand Jury. I met the foreman of the grand jury. He was a state representative at the time.
Explain how Countries that hate America still talk about nuclear weapons.
Explain Mordechai Vanunu.
Explain Operation Opera.
Read "Radioactivity, Ionizing Radiation, and Nuclear Energy" By Jiri Hala and James Navratil. I work with James Navatil. He is a Nobel prize winner.
-
Can you verify that you work with this man and if so,...
I say hi to him at the coffee machine. .. can you verify that you have seen a nuclear bomb go off, or fissioning inside a nuclear reactor?
I have never seen a hole in one in golf. That does not mean they never happen.
You have demonstrated time and time again that you cannot debate correctly. You have shown that you do not know what you are talking about. You admitted to not have any proof or evidence of your claims. Like I said before, I am done with you. If you can demonstrate even just a little knowledge of the scientific method I will go back to answering your claims.
I await Irushwithscvs's response.
-
Fix your post.
-
I like how you skipped over my response. Given up so soon, have we?
-
??? Where does that say I posted evidence?
I will get them, in the mean time why don't you post the research you base your opinion on.
I have. It appears to be you who has not.
Can you show me where the word "evidence" appears? I'm not seeing it.
Don't change your argument. Research is evidence when you enter research into an argument. If you don't think so, where is the research you posted?
You thought posting a lot of books and requesting me to read/disprove them was a viable response. You can't post exact articles because you're afraid I'll pick them apart, so you post vast swathes of information in the hopes that I will deny such a request (and I did). You don't have any real evidence, that much you have made painfully obvious.
It's one book. Refute the operations that are said to have gone on at the location known as Rockey Flats.
This should be simple for you.
It is in fact you who appears to be so uneducated that even the most basic concepts are out of your reach. It would appear I have to teach you years of physics just to get you even close to par and I don't have the time nor the motive to do so. Just know that the math does not match the reality, don't burn your brain out trying to think about it too much.
Pipe dream.
-
Don't change your argument. Research is evidence when you enter research into an argument. If you don't think so, where is the research you posted?
Not really, research is simply research. Since by definition you can not provide evidence that something does not exist, this research does not qualify as evidence towards something not existing.
It's one book. Refute the operations that are said to have gone on at the location known as Rockey Flats.
This should be simple for you.
Prove that any such operations happened in the first place.
Pipe dream.
Nuclear weapons are a pipe dream. Thought up by an American empire that wanted to control the masses with fear of a city-destroying bomb. Its fear-inducing power is still in wide use today, regardless of its nonexistent scientific basis and it having never existed at all.
-
It's hard to argue with FET'ers when good thought out posts refuting what they say are just deleted. I'm starting to get sick of my arguments to FET points being deleted when it gets too much for them.
Case in point, I had a big long post in this thread about the Australian nuclear tests but it is now nowhere to be found. What's the point in even arguing if our points are just going to be removed after they are made...
-
Not really, research is simply research. Since by definition you can not provide evidence that something does not exist, this research does not qualify as evidence towards something not existing.
This is so far from the truth it is not even funny. No stop avoiding the fact that you did not post research when you claimed you did.
Prove that any such operations happened in the first place.
So you can't? Gotcha
Pipe dream.
Nuclear weapons are a pipe dream. Thought up by an American empire that wanted to control the masses with fear of a city-destroying bomb. Its fear-inducing power is still in wide use today, regardless of its nonexistent scientific basis and it having never existed at all.
Assumption
-
This is so far from the truth it is not even funny. No stop avoiding the fact that you did not post research when you claimed you did.
The Youtube video alone qualifies as research.
So you can't? Gotcha
I say the same to you. This whole time you ask me to prove things that didn't happen. Prove that the universe was not created by a giant T-rex. Ah, that is right, you can't. I suppose I win! Are you really this childish? Stop trolling.
Assumption
If the American Empire really controlled a city-destroying bomb, it would have taken over a lot more of the world instead of just settling for a few islands in the Pacific. It could make entire countries fall to their knees in days. Nothing happened because the bomb was nothing more than a fear tactic.
-
This is so far from the truth it is not even funny. No stop avoiding the fact that you did not post research when you claimed you did.
The Youtube video alone qualifies as research.
It was posted after your claim. Try again.
I say the same to you. This whole time you ask me to prove things that didn't happen. Prove that the universe was not created by a giant T-rex. Ah, that is right, you can't. I suppose I win! Are you really this childish? Stop trolling.
It is a fallacy to claim you are right because I am wrong. This is actually what you are doing.
http://www.constitution.org/jury/gj/rocky_flats/rocky-flats-grand-jury-report.htm (http://www.constitution.org/jury/gj/rocky_flats/rocky-flats-grand-jury-report.htm)
In the report you will find that the companies controlling Rocky Flats polluted the ground with plutonium.
You can either try to debunk the claim or agree that they had plutonium and we can move on to more evidence.
If the American Empire really controlled a city-destroying bomb, it would have taken over a lot more of the world instead of just settling for a few islands in the Pacific.
A unbacked up assumption
It could make entire countries fall to their knees in days.
True
Nothing happened because the bomb was nothing more than a fear tactic.
Fallacy.
-
It was posted after your claim. Try again.
Irrelevant. We are speaking of posted in the past tense, both posts of which were in the past.
It is a fallacy to claim you are right because I am wrong. This is actually what you are doing.
http://www.constitution.org/jury/gj/rocky_flats/rocky-flats-grand-jury-report.htm (http://www.constitution.org/jury/gj/rocky_flats/rocky-flats-grand-jury-report.htm)
In the report you will find that the companies controlling Rocky Flats polluted the ground with plutonium.
You can either try to debunk the claim or agree that they had plutonium and we can move on to more evidence.
Claiming something does not exist does not make me "right." You are making the claim that something exists and I am skeptical of that claim. The skeptic is not out to prove how "right" he is, only how the claim is incorrect, which yours is. Furthermore, you still have not posted any evidence that nuclear bombs exist. Plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear bombs.
A unbacked up assumption
Incorrect. History tells us that the American Empire, when given the chance, will attempt to take over an opponent entirely. i.e. Germany. With a nuclear bomb it could take over just about every opponent, but it did not. Thus the nuclear bomb's power was a myth.
-
The simple answer is that all that you stated is things you simply believe to be true. As they are not evidence at all. I suggest you read some introductory physics textbooks, mainly about thermodynamics and its implications along with relativity. A bomb simply isn't possible, the math barely works, and the reality does not work at all.
Ooh, physics textbooks is it now? Actually, why don't you tell us of one single physics textbook that says nuclear bombs are not possible?
Or why don't you produce an actual scientist who agrees with you? Just one. Maybe two?
And the maths "barely works" (whatever that means)? Why don't you take us through that dogdy math? Go on, I dare ya.
-
The simple answer is that all that you stated is things you simply believe to be true. As they are not evidence at all. I suggest you read some introductory physics textbooks, mainly about thermodynamics and its implications along with relativity. A bomb simply isn't possible, the math barely works, and the reality does not work at all.
Ooh, physics textbooks is it now? Actually, why don't you tell us of one single physics textbook that says nuclear bombs are not possible?
Or why don't you produce an actual scientist who agrees with you? Just one. Maybe two?
And the maths "barely works" (whatever that means)? Why don't you take us through that dogdy math? Go on, I dare ya.
I double dare ya!
-
So does that mean that the Cold War was an elaborate hoax that America and the Soviet Union concocted together?
No, the Soviet Union and the USA were enemies. Have you never even encountered a history book before?
Are Iran now in on the hoax?
Iran is supposedly attempting to create nuclear weapons. They have not succeeded, for the obvious reason that they do not exist.
Jeez, every nation in the world is just best buds when it comes to hoaxes eh?
Only in your mind, apparently.
Maybe you want to check your response.
There was a fair amount of sarcasm in my post and it was directed at Sceptimatic, not you.
Of course the US and USSR were enemies. That's what I was saying!
For there to be no such thing as nuclear weapons what the hell were the US and USSR fighting about?
What was the Cuban missile crisis? An elaborate ruse that they agreed upon just to convince the world that the impossible nuclear weapons existed.
Don't argue with me on this one. You have completely misunderstood the point of my post.
-
If nuclear weapons didnt exist, Iran long ago would have taken part in the ruse to control the Middle East and more. The only reason they mave not have them already is the sanctions imposed, but that wont stop them.
its a 70+ year old technology.
Also what are all these Nuclear Powered devices for as they all work on the same prinicpal, the conspiracy trying to make money again?
-
Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not even similar, much less the same. Furthermore Iran is not aware that nuclear weapons are not real, hence why they are trying to build them.
-
If nuclear weapons are real, then why doesn't every country have them?
Well, it's not like gunpowder, you can't just mash some crap together with a stick and make a bomb. It's difficult and a highly kept secret and extremely regulated. You need to get a hold of the materials, specifically the fissile material, which I'm sure doesn't exist everywhere in the world. Then you need to know how to refine them the most efficient way with the best results, and you need to set up the weapons correctly.
-
If nuclear weapons are real, then why doesn't every country have them?
Well, it's not like gunpowder, you can't just mash some crap together with a stick and make a bomb. It's difficult and a highly kept secret and extremely regulated. You need to get a hold of the materials, specifically the fissile material, which I'm sure doesn't exist everywhere in the world. Then you need to know how to refine them the most efficient way with the best results, and you need to set up the weapons correctly.
Go and take a look at how many countries are supposed to be Nuclear armed.
You cannot tell me that every other country cannot build their own based on regulation.
Who in the hell is the regulator?
If Russia can supposedly build them..and America, Israel, Japan, China, and a supposed host of other countries, then why can't other countries?
Who tells them they can't?
Isn't that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
-
Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not even similar, much less the same. Furthermore Iran is not aware that nuclear weapons are not real, hence why they are trying to build them.
That's funny, earlier you were implying that they were by saying that nuclear reactors can't blow up whole cities, so nuclear bombs must not be real, that they used the same process, so it must not be real.
-
why don't you answer the questio, you seem to have such a vast knowledge.
what about the experiments in los alamos, in the bikini islands, in nevada, in siberia, in french polynesia?
-
If nuclear weapons are real, then why doesn't every country have them?
Well, it's not like gunpowder, you can't just mash some crap together with a stick and make a bomb. It's difficult and a highly kept secret and extremely regulated. You need to get a hold of the materials, specifically the fissile material, which I'm sure doesn't exist everywhere in the world. Then you need to know how to refine them the most efficient way with the best results, and you need to set up the weapons correctly.
http://gizmodo.com/5909961/kodak-had-a-secret-weapons+grade-nuclear-reactor-hidden-in-a-basement (http://gizmodo.com/5909961/kodak-had-a-secret-weapons+grade-nuclear-reactor-hidden-in-a-basement)
If a photography film company can stick a "weapons-grade" nuclear reactor in the middle of of city, what makes you think entire countries would really have a problem making them?
-
If nuclear weapons are real, then why doesn't every country have them?
Well, it's not like gunpowder, you can't just mash some crap together with a stick and make a bomb. It's difficult and a highly kept secret and extremely regulated. You need to get a hold of the materials, specifically the fissile material, which I'm sure doesn't exist everywhere in the world. Then you need to know how to refine them the most efficient way with the best results, and you need to set up the weapons correctly.
http://gizmodo.com/5909961/kodak-had-a-secret-weapons+grade-nuclear-reactor-hidden-in-a-basement (http://gizmodo.com/5909961/kodak-had-a-secret-weapons+grade-nuclear-reactor-hidden-in-a-basement)
If a photography film company can stick a "weapons-grade" nuclear reactor in the middle of of city, what makes you think entire countries would really have a problem making them?
Did I say it was impossible? Also, information on building the reactors is much more accessible than building the weapons. If you'll notice, my post was about the weapons, not the reactors.
-
Did I say it was impossible? Also, information on building the reactors is much more accessible than building the weapons. If you'll notice, my post was about the weapons, not the reactors.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Brown/index.html (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Brown/index.html)
That was from the first link of single Google search.
Iran is not stupid and nuclear bombs are not high end technology. If such a thing existed, they would have hundreds of them by now. They don't, because you can't create something that does not exist. Stop placing nuclear bombs on a pedastal.
-
Did I say it was impossible? Also, information on building the reactors is much more accessible than building the weapons. If you'll notice, my post was about the weapons, not the reactors.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Brown/index.html (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Brown/index.html)
That was from the first link of single Google search.
Iran is not stupid and nuclear bombs are not high end technology. If such a thing existed, they would have hundreds of them by now. They don't, because you can't create something that does not exist. Stop placing nuclear bombs on a pedastal.
Those diagrams were so technical rushy. Someone could definitely build a nuclear weapon using those alone.
I did not say Iran was stupid, and I did not call Nuclear Bombs "high end." I said they're not as simple as gun powder based weapons. Also, how can you be arguing whether or not the technology is high end or low end while arguing that it doesn't exist at the same time?
-
Those diagrams were so technical rushy. Someone could definitely build a nuclear weapon using those alone.
Technical specs aren't a requirement. They are engineers, not five year olds building a lego house.
I did not say Iran was stupid, and I did not call Nuclear Bombs "high end." I said they're not as simple as gun powder based weapons.
Actually, they really are, which is why it is so suspicious that no rogue country has ever built them.
Also, how can you be arguing whether or not the technology is high end or low end while arguing that it doesn't exist at the same time?
I'm pointing out that your argument is not logically consistent.
-
Those diagrams were so technical rushy. Someone could definitely build a nuclear weapon using those alone.
Technical specs aren't a requirement. They are engineers, not five year olds building a lego house.
Technical specs are required for someone who has never used the technology, or else they have to start from scratch, which would explain why it takes so long and is such a arduous task.
I did not say Iran was stupid, and I did not call Nuclear Bombs "high end." I said they're not as simple as gun powder based weapons.
Actually, they really are, which is why it is so suspicious that no rogue country has ever built them.
So they're simple and easy to build, so no one does it?
Also, how can you be arguing whether or not the technology is high end or low end while arguing that it doesn't exist at the same time?
I'm pointing out that your argument is not logically consistent.
You make a logically inconsistent argument to point out that my argument is not logically consistent? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply quote the pieces that were not consistent rather than the poor attempt at mocking me?
-
Irrelevant. We are speaking of posted in the past tense, both posts of which were in the past.
You lied. Get over it.
Claiming something does not exist does not make me "right."
Correct
You are making the claim that something exists and I am skeptical of that claim.
Ok
The skeptic is not out to prove how "right" he is, only how the claim is incorrect, which yours is.
The problem is you made your own claims. That is not what a skeptic is.
Furthermore, you still have not posted any evidence that nuclear bombs exist. Plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear bombs.
I have posted evidence. You have denied it. You have not disproved the evidence.
You did not disprove that Rockey flats didn't have plutonium so it is now understood that it did. Moving on to more evidence.
A highly informative PDF is available. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/co/co0400/co0471/data/co0471data.pdf (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/co/co0400/co0471/data/co0471data.pdf)
I know you aren't going to accept it. But the document provides details about every aspect of the plant from resources of it's own. You can look them up if you like. The best part of the document starts on PDF page 56. It explains how they made plutonium metal and formed the spheres needed for the bombs. Feel free to debunk any of it.
Incorrect. History tells us that the American Empire, when given the chance, will attempt to take over an opponent entirely. i.e. Germany. With a nuclear bomb it could take over just about every opponent, but it did not. Thus the nuclear bomb's power was a myth.
Fallacy.
This denying of Nuclear weapons is now paralleling the FET. Many people have to be in on the conspiracy. And not one of them came forward to say it was all fake. Even the people exposed to plutonium that have nothing left to lose.
-
I know you aren't going to accept it. But the document provides details about every aspect of the plant from resources of it's own. You can look them up if you like. The best part of the document starts on PDF page 56. It explains how they made plutonium metal and formed the spheres needed for the bombs. Feel free to debunk any of it.
??? So you agree that plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear bombs? They were clearly using a nuclear reactor to make it.
Incorrect. History tells us that the American Empire, when given the chance, will attempt to take over an opponent entirely. i.e. Germany. With a nuclear bomb it could take over just about every opponent, but it did not. Thus the nuclear bomb's power was a myth.
Fallacy.
I used historical backing, your turn.
This denying of Nuclear weapons is now paralleling the FET. Many people have to be in on the conspiracy. And not one of them came forward to say it was all fake. Even the people exposed to plutonium that have nothing left to lose.
Plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear weapons. Try again.
Technical specs are required for someone who has never used the technology, or else they have to start from scratch, which would explain why it takes so long and is such a arduous task.
Iran has many nuclear engineers and physicists. They have been using nuclear power technology for years.
So they're simple and easy to build, so no one does it?
Uranium is a very controlled substance now. But I can just point back to Kodak and say some has obviously slipped through the cracks. That said, no one does it because you can't build what does not exist.
You make a logically inconsistent argument to point out that my argument is not logically consistent? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply quote the pieces that were not consistent rather than the poor attempt at mocking me?
Attempting to feign empathy with the opponent's stance is not mockery.
-
??? So you agree that plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear bombs? They were clearly using a nuclear reactor to make it.
There is other uses for it.
You did not refute any part of the paper. You forfeit the argument.
I used historical backing, your turn.
USA attacked Iraq to stop them from taking over Kuwait in 1990. We didn't invade Kuwait. We "invaded" Germany because of the war. Germany became East and West Germany. It did not because East USA. Your turn.
Plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear weapons. Try again.
Now make a point with evidence that backs up any claim you have.
-
There is other uses for it.
You did not refute any part of the paper. You forfeit the argument.
You only pointed out a single part of the paper, which regarded plutonium being made via a nuclear reactor. It had nothing to do with nuclear bombs other than vaguely mentioning that the ingots were used to make the bombs. You must really be desperate if you think that supports your argument at all. Admit that you posted about a subject you know nothing about along with a paper you've never read, in the vague hopes it somehow supported your poor argument.
USA attacked Iraq to stop them from taking over Kuwait in 1990. We didn't invade Kuwait. We "invaded" Germany because of the war. Germany became East and West Germany. It did not because East USA. Your turn.
We demilitarized and invaded Japan as well when they surrendered from fear of a nonexistent bomb. Furthermore 1990 is a long way from when the bomb was at the height of its use. Clearly anything after the Cold War is irrelevant and even that is stretching it.
Now make a point with evidence that backs up any claim you have.
I would ask the same of you. A nuclear reactor can create plutonium. Plutonium doesn't prove the existence of nuclear bombs any more than aluminum proves the existence of automobiles. Its a pathetic attempt at evidence and you should be ashamed for even trying it.
-
Technical specs are required for someone who has never used the technology, or else they have to start from scratch, which would explain why it takes so long and is such a arduous task.
Iran has many nuclear engineers and physicists. They have been using nuclear power technology for years.
Nuclear energy technology is not the same as nuclear weapons technology. It's like saying a coal power plant is the same as Tomahawk cruise missile.
So they're simple and easy to build, so no one does it?
Uranium is a very controlled substance now. But I can just point back to Kodak and say some has obviously slipped through the cracks. That said, no one does it because you can't build what does not exist.
Yes, some does slip through the cracks. However, the technology does exist. Weapons can be made from almost any energy producing reaction. They have been made and used from fissile material.
-
How did they split the atom if they can't see it? How does the blind man find his way around on a bicycle if he can't see? How does the artillery gunner hit his target if he can't see it? How does a mechanic find a problem with your car if he can't see inside the engine block?
-
Nuclear energy technology is not the same as nuclear weapons technology.
Yes, it is. At least that is what nuclear engineers claim.
It's like saying a coal power plant is the same as Tomahawk cruise missile.
??? What part of a coal power plant's waste products is used in a cruise missile?
Yes, some does slip through the cracks. However, the technology does exist. Weapons can be made from almost any energy producing reaction. They have been made and used from fissile material.
None of this was even remotely relevant to the discussion.
-
Nuclear energy technology is not the same as nuclear weapons technology.
Yes, it is. At least that is what nuclear engineers claim.
Moving the goal posts again? Here, look at this;
Supposedly the power plants use the exact same process to heat the water that the bombs use to make explosions. Not one power plant has ever exploded, leveling miles and miles of land. The worst "meltdown" was just radiation. Furthermore the type of bomb does not matter, as neither exists.
That one is from page 6 and this...
Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not even similar, much less the same. Furthermore Iran is not aware that nuclear weapons are not real, hence why they are trying to build them.
...Is from the bottom of page 8. You've changed your opinion on this two times now in this one thread.
So to clarify, the only similarity between nuclear weapons technology and nuclear reactor technology is that they use fissile material.
-
So to clarify, the only similarity between nuclear weapons technology and nuclear reactor technology is that they use fissile material.
Incorrect. Both use the exact same process. The only difference is nuclear weapons supposed use a larger amount of the material all at once. If you can make a nuclear reactor, you can make a nuclear weapon. Thus if Iran does not have nuclear weapons but has nuclear reactors, the obvious answer is that nuclear weapons are in fact not real at all.
-
So to clarify, the only similarity between nuclear weapons technology and nuclear reactor technology is that they use fissile material.
Incorrect. Both use the exact same process. The only difference is nuclear weapons supposed use a larger amount of the material all at once. If you can make a nuclear reactor, you can make a nuclear weapon. Thus if Iran does not have nuclear weapons but has nuclear reactors, the obvious answer is that nuclear weapons are in fact not real at all.
Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not even similar, much less the same. Furthermore Iran is not aware that nuclear weapons are not real, hence why they are trying to build them.
-
So to clarify, the only similarity between nuclear weapons technology and nuclear reactor technology is that they use fissile material.
Incorrect. Both use the exact same process. The only difference is nuclear weapons supposed use a larger amount of the material all at once. If you can make a nuclear reactor, you can make a nuclear weapon. Thus if Iran does not have nuclear weapons but has nuclear reactors, the obvious answer is that nuclear weapons are in fact not real at all.
Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not even similar, much less the same. Furthermore Iran is not aware that nuclear weapons are not real, hence why they are trying to build them.
The context of that post was in regards to their process of implementation, not that actual process of fission/fusion. Now, do you have a real argument or have you simply given up?
-
So to clarify, the only similarity between nuclear weapons technology and nuclear reactor technology is that they use fissile material.
Incorrect. Both use the exact same process. The only difference is nuclear weapons supposed use a larger amount of the material all at once. If you can make a nuclear reactor, you can make a nuclear weapon. Thus if Iran does not have nuclear weapons but has nuclear reactors, the obvious answer is that nuclear weapons are in fact not real at all.
Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not even similar, much less the same. Furthermore Iran is not aware that nuclear weapons are not real, hence why they are trying to build them.
The context of that post was in regards to their process of implementation, not that actual process of fission/fusion. Now, do you have a real argument or have you simply given up?
You're moving the goal posts again rushy. You clearly said, they're not even similar, much less the same. The ONLY similarity is that there is fission involved. That's it.
-
You only pointed out a single part of the paper, which regarded plutonium being made via a nuclear reactor.
kinda.
It had nothing to do with nuclear bombs other than vaguely mentioning that the ingots were used to make the bombs.
Incorrect. There is only one use for plutonium spheres and it is making bombs.
You must really be desperate if you think that supports your argument at all.
Incorrect. Not only does it help support my argument but you could not refute the article.
Admit that you posted about a subject you know nothing about along with a paper you've never read, in the vague hopes it somehow supported your poor argument.
I did not know about that paper until I searched for it, but I know more than average about Rocky Flats. So do make assumptions.
We demilitarized and invaded Japan as well when they surrendered from fear of a nonexistent bomb.
No evidence presented. They surrender after being nuked. Furthermore 1990 is a long way from when the bomb was at the height of its use. Clearly anything after the Cold War is irrelevant and even that is stretching it.
One of the dumbest statements yet.
I would ask the same of you. A nuclear reactor can create plutonium. Plutonium doesn't prove the existence of nuclear bombs any more than aluminum proves the existence of automobiles. Its a pathetic attempt at evidence and you should be ashamed for even trying it.
Your post contained zero evidence for any of the arguments you made.
-
Incorrect. There is only one use for plutonium spheres and it is making bombs.
That is a fallacious argument. Since the bombs are not real, I could say they're made out of fairies and pixie dust.
Incorrect. Not only does it help support my argument but you could not refute the article.
You keep saying "refute the article" yet you don't mention what needs to be refuted. Nothing that I have read in that article goes against my argument.
I did not know about that paper until I searched for it, but I know more than average about Rocky Flats. So do make assumptions.
Then I would hope you would stop being so vague. Vagueness implies you have no idea what you're talking about and keep what you say that way in order to avoid specific confrontations. Surely since you claim the opposite, you should have no problem giving specific ideas and examples.
One of the dumbest statements yet.
"I can't argue it, I'm just going to say its dumb!" Forget higher education, I'm having a hard time believing you've made it out of high school.
Your post contained zero evidence for any of the arguments you made.
Are you purposefully being ironic or was that just accidental?
-
I will make a real reply when you enter any evidence into the discussion.
-
It is quite clear that once I asked you to be specific, you just gave up. I'm sure doing so is a lot easier than embarrassing yourself trying to argue with someone who has real scientific knowledge.
-
Don't change your argument. Research is evidence when you enter research into an argument. If you don't think so, where is the research you posted?
Not really, research is simply research. Since by definition you can not provide evidence that something does not exist, this research does not qualify as evidence towards something not existing.
It's one book. Refute the operations that are said to have gone on at the location known as Rockey Flats.
This should be simple for you.
Prove that any such operations happened in the first place.
Pipe dream.
Nuclear weapons are a pipe dream. Thought up by an American empire that wanted to control the masses with fear of a city-destroying bomb. Its fear-inducing power is still in wide use today, regardless of its nonexistent scientific basis and it having never existed at all.
So what was the cold war all about?
The cuban missile crisis?
-
So what was the cold war all about?
The cuban missile crisis?
The Cold War is named as such because no real fighting broke out. It was not really about anything other than two countries not really liking each other because of different economic and government ideals. When both of you claim to have weapons you both know don't really exist, you realize that neither of you can actually scare the other. Basically America and the USSR just stared at each other angrily/awkwardly until the USSR fell apart.
Clearly the Cuban Missile Crisis was a scare tactic by the USSR. It didn't work, because nuclear weapons are not real and President Kennedy was fully aware of that.
-
So what was the cold war all about?
The cuban missile crisis?
The Cold War is named as such because no real fighting broke out. Because nuclear weapons are not real and President Kennedy was fully aware of that.
Hahahhaha, this is a great post.
Vietnam, Korea, and a whole slew of other nations would disagree with the "no real fighting broke out" comment of yours.
-
Hahahhaha, this is a great post.
Vietnam, Korea, and a whole slew of other nations would disagree with the "no real fighting broke out" comment of yours.
Irrelevant. Vietnam and Korea were not nuclear powers.
-
"no real fighting broke out. "
Incorrect.
-
"no real fighting broke out. "
Incorrect.
Read the topic, please.
-
"no real fighting broke out. "
Incorrect.
Read the topic, please.
I did, but I don't see how it makes your statement true...
-
"no real fighting broke out. "
Incorrect.
Read the topic, please.
I did, but I don't see how it makes your statement true...
"Real" is a relative term and therefore up to interpretation. To me, "no real fighting broke out" means that no real nuclear threats existed. If you wish to interpret the statement differently, you're welcome to do so, but do keep in mind what the topic is. If your interpretation does not fit the topic then I don't see why it matters or why I should even entertain a response to you.
-
"no real fighting broke out. "
Incorrect.
Read the topic, please.
I did, but I don't see how it makes your statement true...
"Real" is a relative term and therefore up to interpretation. To me, "no real fighting broke out" means that no real nuclear threats existed. If you wish to interpret the statement differently, you're welcome to do so, but do keep in mind what the topic is. If your interpretation does not fit the topic then I don't see why it matters or why I should even entertain a response to you.
Real is not a relative term. Either there was actual fighting or there was not actual fighting. There was actual/real fighting in Korea and Vietnam as part of the Cold War. In Korea, General MacArthur was removed from his position for suggesting the use of Nuclear weapons against Chinese forces, among other things.
Plain and simple, Two armies meeting on the battle field and blowing each other to bits is real fighting by any "real" definition of the word. I am not going to get into a semantics debate with you over the word real however, I was more interested in making a snarky regarding your interpretation of the cold war and its lack of "real" fighting.
If you meant that the threat of nuclear force was never present, then that's what you should have said. Not that there was not any "real" fighting, because that means something completely different in every context i can think of, especially considering that the cold war involved a huge amount of actual wars where actual people fought and died.
-
Real is not a relative term.
Incorrect.
Either there was actual fighting or there was not actual fighting. There was actual/real fighting in Korea and Vietnam as part of the Cold War. In Korea, General MacArthur was removed from his position for suggesting the use of Nuclear weapons against Chinese forces, among other things.
Probably because further use of a propaganda tactic would get the public noticing that it is not real.
Plain and simple, Two armies meeting on the battle field and blowing each other to bits is real fighting by any "real" definition of the word. I am not going to get into a semantics debate with you over the word real however, I was more interested in making a snarky regarding your interpretation of the cold war and its lack of "real" fighting.
A proxy war is not a real war to me. Thus no real fighting was had.
If you meant that the threat of nuclear force was never present, then that's what you should have said. Not that there was not any "real" fighting, because that means something completely different in every context i can think of, especially considering that the cold war involved a huge amount of actual wars where actual people fought and died.
Everything I say you should interpret given the subject I am speaking on. Since you did not do that, that is your folly, not mine. Clearly you're not interested in the current subject, and only wished to derail the thread in some attempt to call me wrong on something. Well, I won't have it. Either start posting about the subject at hand or don't post at all.
-
Real is not a relative term.
Incorrect.
Either there was actual fighting or there was not actual fighting. There was actual/real fighting in Korea and Vietnam as part of the Cold War. In Korea, General MacArthur was removed from his position for suggesting the use of Nuclear weapons against Chinese forces, among other things.
Probably because further use of a propaganda tactic would get the public noticing that it is not real.
Plain and simple, Two armies meeting on the battle field and blowing each other to bits is real fighting by any "real" definition of the word. I am not going to get into a semantics debate with you over the word real however, I was more interested in making a snarky regarding your interpretation of the cold war and its lack of "real" fighting.
A proxy war is not a real war to me. Thus no real fighting was had.
If you meant that the threat of nuclear force was never present, then that's what you should have said. Not that there was not any "real" fighting, because that means something completely different in every context i can think of, especially considering that the cold war involved a huge amount of actual wars where actual people fought and died.
Everything I say you should interpret given the subject I am speaking on. Since you did not do that, that is your folly, not mine. Clearly you're not interested in the current subject, and only wished to derail the thread in some attempt to call me wrong on something. Well, I won't have it. Either start posting about the subject at hand or don't post at all.
Lol mmk.
-
Real is not a relative term.
Incorrect.
Either there was actual fighting or there was not actual fighting. There was actual/real fighting in Korea and Vietnam as part of the Cold War. In Korea, General MacArthur was removed from his position for suggesting the use of Nuclear weapons against Chinese forces, among other things.
Probably because further use of a propaganda tactic would get the public noticing that it is not real.
Plain and simple, Two armies meeting on the battle field and blowing each other to bits is real fighting by any "real" definition of the word. I am not going to get into a semantics debate with you over the word real however, I was more interested in making a snarky regarding your interpretation of the cold war and its lack of "real" fighting.
A proxy war is not a real war to me. Thus no real fighting was had.
If you meant that the threat of nuclear force was never present, then that's what you should have said. Not that there was not any "real" fighting, because that means something completely different in every context i can think of, especially considering that the cold war involved a huge amount of actual wars where actual people fought and died.
Everything I say you should interpret given the subject I am speaking on. Since you did not do that, that is your folly, not mine. Clearly you're not interested in the current subject, and only wished to derail the thread in some attempt to call me wrong on something. Well, I won't have it. Either start posting about the subject at hand or don't post at all.
This is just stupid Irush...
The cold war, USA and the USSR... it was all just posturing?
The cuban missile crisis was a bit of a laugh and there was no risk of nuclear war because nuclear weapons don't exist.
Do you hear yourself? Do you hear just how ridiculous you sound?
I could go on and argue with you but OrbisNonSufficit has said all that needs said. Not that it makes any difference. You are a lost cause.
-
The cold war, USA and the USSR... it was all just posturing?
The cuban missile crisis was a bit of a laugh and there was no risk of nuclear war because nuclear weapons don't exist.
Indeed.
Do you hear yourself? Do you hear just how ridiculous you sound?
Seeing as how you're the one who believes in bombs that can destroy cities, I could ask you the same thing.
I could go on and argue with you but OrbisNonSufficit has said all that needs said. Not that it makes any difference. You are a lost cause.
You don't want to put forth any points because you don't have any. You can continue believing in magic if you want, but you could at least admit that it is magic. "My magic is so powerful I don't need to post evidence!" Hilarious.
-
The cold war, USA and the USSR... it was all just posturing?
The cuban missile crisis was a bit of a laugh and there was no risk of nuclear war because nuclear weapons don't exist.
Indeed.
Do you hear yourself? Do you hear just how ridiculous you sound?
Seeing as how you're the one who believes in bombs that can destroy cities, I could ask you the same thing.
I could go on and argue with you but OrbisNonSufficit has said all that needs said. Not that it makes any difference. You are a lost cause.
You don't want to put forth any points because you don't have any. You can continue believing in magic if you want, but you could at least admit that it is magic. "My magic is so powerful I don't need to post evidence!" Hilarious.
Bollocks. Throughout this forum I have posted tons of opinions, evidence, videos, images. It is all ignored and met with cry's of 'magic, conspiracy, fake'. With no evidence for such claims. On another thread I posted a diagram of a 'zetetic' observation I made and it was pretty much ignored and met with the same cries yet absolutely no evidence from FE to counter it.
Plenty times I have asked questions or stated opinions for them to be skipped around, evaded, and ignored. Why? Coz this FE is utter nonsense. It relies on so many assumptions to make it work that it is laughable. UE, unknown energy sources, tiny suns, light up moons, invisible walls, imaginary conspiracies, bendy light and much much more. It's just too much to bothered debating anymore.
At first I found this place funny. Then I realised you were all serious. Now I realise you are all fucking idiots. Sad, desperate, probably lonely, deluded fools.
-
Bollocks. Throughout this forum I have posted tons of opinions, evidence, videos, images. It is all ignored and met with cry's of 'magic, conspiracy, fake'. With no evidence for such claims. On another thread I posted a diagram of a 'zetetic' observation I made and it was pretty much ignored and met with the same cries yet absolutely no evidence from FE to counter it.
All you have posted is things you thought were evidence. You just got angry when you found out it really was not evidence at all. A childish thing to do.
Plenty times I have asked questions or stated opinions for them to be skipped around, evaded, and ignored. Why? Coz this FE is utter nonsense. It relies on so many assumptions to make it work that it is laughable. UE, unknown energy sources, tiny suns, light up moons, invisible walls, imaginary conspiracies, bendy light and much much more. It's just too much to bothered debating anymore.
Uneducated opinions are obviously going to be ignored. You're not being ignored because you're just so smart, you're being ignored for the opposite reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
At first I found this place funny. Then I realised you were all serious. Now I realise you are all fucking idiots. Sad, desperate, probably lonely, deluded fools.
Here, take another trip to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)
Look at all these fascinating denialism mechanisms you employ.
-
Bollocks. Throughout this forum I have posted tons of opinions, evidence, videos, images. It is all ignored and met with cry's of 'magic, conspiracy, fake'. With no evidence for such claims. On another thread I posted a diagram of a 'zetetic' observation I made and it was pretty much ignored and met with the same cries yet absolutely no evidence from FE to counter it.
All you have posted is things you thought were evidence. You just got angry when you found out it really was not evidence at all. A childish thing to do.
Plenty times I have asked questions or stated opinions for them to be skipped around, evaded, and ignored. Why? Coz this FE is utter nonsense. It relies on so many assumptions to make it work that it is laughable. UE, unknown energy sources, tiny suns, light up moons, invisible walls, imaginary conspiracies, bendy light and much much more. It's just too much to bothered debating anymore.
Uneducated opinions are obviously going to be ignored. You're not being ignored because you're just so smart, you're being ignored for the opposite reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
At first I found this place funny. Then I realised you were all serious. Now I realise you are all fucking idiots. Sad, desperate, probably lonely, deluded fools.
Here, take another trip to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)
Look at all these fascinating denialism mechanisms you employ.
And what do you have other than what you think is evidence?
All you have is one man - Rowbotham.
One experiment - The bedford level
One book - Earth not a globe
Anything else?
-
And what do you have other than what you think is evidence?
All you have is one man - Rowbotham.
One experiment - The bedford level
One book - Earth not a globe
Anything else?
This is not the FE forums. If you wish to debate FET I suggest taking your points there.
-
And what do you have other than what you think is evidence?
All you have is one man - Rowbotham.
One experiment - The bedford level
One book - Earth not a globe
Anything else?
This is not the FE forums. If you wish to debate FET I suggest taking your points there.
Evaded as usual. Ok, will copy and paste elsewhere for you to answer.
-
Can anyone explain to me(if they believe Nukes are real), how they can keep them armed and ready for years on end in silos ready for an immediate strike?
How long does a bullet stay live for? Or a conventional bomb?
-
Can anyone explain to me(if they believe Nukes are real), how they can keep them armed and ready for years on end in silos ready for an immediate strike?
How long does a bullet stay live for? Or a conventional bomb?
Do bullets heat up and spew the radiation they say plutonium/uranium does....you know "weapons grade" nukes?
What does that have to do with shelf life?
-
All you have posted is things you thought were evidence. You just got angry when you found out it really was not evidence at all. A childish thing to do.
Your opinion does not deside what evidence is valid.
Uneducated opinions are obviously going to be ignored. You're not being ignored because you're just so smart, you're being ignored for the opposite reason.
So what you are saying is all your opinions are worthless. You have not refuted any evidence. You simple say in your opinion that it is bad. And you agree opinions cannot do that.
Look at all these fascinating denialism mechanisms you employ.
You pretty dumb claims. He is right. Can anyone explain to me(if they believe Nukes are real), how they can keep them armed and ready for years on end in silos ready for an immediate strike?
I can. Would you like me to?
-
Your opinion does not deside what evidence is valid.
Where did I say that it does?
So what you are saying is all your opinions are worthless. You have not refuted any evidence. You simple say in your opinion that it is bad. And you agree opinions cannot do that.
You haven't posted any evidence that required refutation.
You pretty dumb claims.
Ironic.
-
Your opinion does not deside what evidence is valid.
Where did I say that it does?
You made the claim in your post and past.
You haven't posted any evidence that required refutation.
You haven't posted any evidence that required refutation.
That is your opinion. And it's because you can't. Nor have you provide any evidence yourself.
Ironic.
I'm not going to proof read for you. I already waste enough time.
-
You made the claim in your post and past.
??? No I haven't. The fact that you have not posted any evidence is not a matter of my opinion.
That is your opinion. And it's because you can't. Nor have you provide any evidence yourself.
No, it is not my opinion. You have not posted any evidence. Furthermore the burden of proof is not on me, as I am not the one who thinks city-obliterating fairy bombs exist.
I'm not going to proof read for you. I already waste enough time.
If you were even marginally good at typing, you wouldn't need to.
-
You made the claim in your post and past.
??? No I haven't. The fact that you have not posted any evidence is not a matter of my opinion.
You can try and run around all you want. But all you do is use your opinion as fact.
No, it is not my opinion. You have not posted any evidence. Furthermore the burden of proof is not on me, as I am not the one who thinks city-obliterating fairy bombs exist.
It is your opinion as I did post evidence. The burden of proof is on you as the title of the thread is that they don't exist. Which you can't prove.
If you were even marginally good at typing, you wouldn't need to.
Cool story
-
You can try and run around all you want. But all you do is use your opinion as fact.
I never state my opinion as fact. It is you who interprets my opinionated statements as possible facts. Surely you can tell the difference between opinion and fact, no? Maybe that would be giving you too much credit.
It is your opinion as I did post evidence. The burden of proof is on you as the title of the thread is that they don't exist. Which you can't prove.
It is not my burden to prove everything that doesn't exist, doesn't exist. I could also make the thread title "Santa Claus does not exist" and it would not be my burden to prove that he does not exist.
-
You can try and run around all you want. But all you do is use your opinion as fact.
I never state my opinion as fact. It is you who interprets my opinionated statements as possible facts. Surely you can tell the difference between opinion and fact, no? Maybe that would be giving you too much credit.
It is your opinion as I did post evidence. The burden of proof is on you as the title of the thread is that they don't exist. Which you can't prove.
It is not my burden to prove everything that doesn't exist, doesn't exist. I could also make the thread title "Santa Claus does not exist" and it would not be my burden to prove that he does not exist.
This is why you went into the military instead of college.
Edit:And yes, you do still claim your opinion as fact.
-
This is why you went into the military instead of college.
This debate is clearly done, you have nothing left but personal insults.
-
This is why you went into the military instead of college.
This debate is clearly done, you have nothing left but personal insults.
It was done on November 27th. Nice cop out though.
I will make a real reply when you enter any evidence into the discussion.
AAAANNNNNYYY eeeevvvviiiidddddeeeennnnnccccceeee
-
AAAANNNNNYYY eeeevvvviiiidddddeeeennnnnccccceeee
That's right, we are still waiting for you to post evidence. I won't be holding my breath. Maybe you can start by looking up what evidence is, since you seem to think my opinion is flawless and factual.
-
AAAANNNNNYYY eeeevvvviiiidddddeeeennnnnccccceeee
That's right, we are still waiting for you to post evidence. I won't be holding my breath. Maybe you can start by looking up what evidence is, since you seem to think my opinion is flawless and factual.
Look at your NSA thread. How many links were in that thread? How many links did you post in this thread? Yeah. You are caught in a lie and you want to leave, thus the This debate is clearly done, you have nothing left but personal insults.
quote.
Give it up. Your GED can't beat me.
-
It's ok.
I am smarter than you.
I have more money than you.
I have more friends than you.
My family line makes your look like a line of homeless people.
You will never be as great as I am and will be.
You can't even touch me.
-
I haven't properly read this thread. How does it account for various videos of nuclear weapons in use, along with Nagasaki/Hiroshima?
This is why you went into the military instead of college.
This insult doesn't work in any way.
-
The videos are all faked.
When I say faked, I mean , all of them that make out that it's a nuclear explosion and to be fair they are pretty bad fakes as well.
I've seen some that make me question just how gullible human beings really are, who hang onto these videos as being real.
Really now?
Ok, seeing as you are an expert on examination and detection of fake nuclear explosions recorded on film I would really appreciate a detailed explanation of the processes involved in creating each of the 3 videos linked.
1)
(http://)
2)
(http://)
3)
(http://)
-
Ok this first one is simple and anyone will see this.
Take a look at the explosion that goes into the sky and up past the clouds.
Pay strict attention to the formation of these clouds before the explosion and after it and hat you will notice is...nuclear bombs can supposedly destroy cities yet are mere lightweights when it comes to scattering clouds.
The clouds never change, so what does this tell us?
It tells us that it's an image over and image.....Simple.
(http://)
I don't understand what you are saying.
To the right I see clouds being engulfed and obliterated by the very edge of the cloud shockwave.
-
This second one is fairly simple for the first part and then it requires a guess as to later parts.
If you look at the footage of the immediate explosion, you will see it goes dark for some strange reason, but if you look closely, you can see that it's some kind of over lay against the sun rising or setting at first.
The so called smoke part could either be a conventional bomb or it's some kind of coloured liquid in a water tank ...either way it's as fake as hell for anyone that wishes to scrutinise it.
(http://)
It goes dark probably because the camera couldn't handle the massive shift in light.
As for coloured liquid in water?? Really? Now you are just making shit up.
Unconvinced by your ramblings again.
-
Apart from this actually looking silly and fake, that's not a reason to say it is, so I question the camera man on this one and what flying machine it was filmed on.
It wasn't a plane, so it's either an airship or helicopter, in which case, why is it still in the air?
(http://)
Why is it not a plane?
What looks silly and fake?
-
Apart from this actually looking silly and fake, that's not a reason to say it is, so I question the camera man on this one and what flying machine it was filmed on.
It wasn't a plane, so it's either an airship or helicopter, in which case, why is it still in the air?
(http://)
Why is it not a plane?
What looks silly and fake?
That looks silly and fake.
So did they have hover planes then?
Have you ever been on a plane at high altitude?
How fast does the ground beneath you appear to move? Answer - not very fast at all.
The plane is not hovering.
-
Those illuminati bastards like to keep people scared.
-
They actually don't mind killing people.
-
Each video of supposed "nuclear explosions" is actually large quanities of TNT.
Give it up. Your GED can't beat me.
It's ok.
I am smarter than you.
I have more money than you.
I have more friends than you.
My family line makes yours look like a line of homeless people.
You will never be as great as I am and will be.
You can't even touch me.
-
I came across an interesting journal article on JSTOR while doing some reading about nautical navigation. Anyone interested in a facts-based history of ICBM navigational methods and technological developments written by a literate adult should check it out. It's a good read.
The Shaping of Nuclear Weapon System Technology: US Fleet Ballistic Missile Guidance and Navigation: I: From Polaris to Poseidon
Author(s): Donald MacKenzie and Graham Spinardi
Source: Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Aug., 1988), pp. 419-463
http://www.jstor.org/stable/285232 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/285232)
-
I came across an interesting journal article on JSTOR while doing some reading about nautical navigation. Anyone interested in a facts-based history of ICBM navigational methods and technological developments written by a literate adult should check it out. It's a good read.
The Shaping of Nuclear Weapon System Technology: US Fleet Ballistic Missile Guidance and Navigation: I: From Polaris to Poseidon
Author(s): Donald MacKenzie and Graham Spinardi
Source: Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Aug., 1988), pp. 419-463
http://www.jstor.org/stable/285232 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/285232)
A very good thing for you to look into if you want to, is, nuclear submarine ballistic missiles and how they are launched from under water.
Now as we are told...they are launched upwards from the sub, so maybe looking into how big these missiles are, against how high the hull of the submarine is for these things to fit upright into and also what launches them in that space.
Also, how the radiation from these warheads do not kill the crew.
Just a few pointers to look into if you want to.
Certain materials can provide protection against nuclear decay/radiation. There are not ongoing nuclear chain reactions in those warheads, so the radiation being emitted is likely something that can be dealt with proper material shielding.
-
Each video of supposed "nuclear explosions" is actually large quanities of TNT.
Why do nuclear explosions look different to TNT explosions?
-
Each video of supposed "nuclear explosions" is actually large quanities of TNT.
Why do nuclear explosions look different to TNT explosions?
They don't, conventional explosions can have a mushroom cloud.
-
Each video of supposed "nuclear explosions" is actually large quanities of TNT.
Why do nuclear explosions look different to TNT explosions?
Hoppy is correct. Nuclear explosions are indifferent from TNT explosions, which leads me to believe that nuclear explosions are not nuclear at all.
-
Also, how the radiation from these warheads do not kill the crew.
Radiation from plutonium 239 is easily shielded.
Hoppy is correct. Nuclear explosions are indifferent from TNT explosions, which leads me to believe that nuclear explosions are not nuclear at all.
Doesn't look the same to me.
eksplosion of Half Kiloton of TNT (http://#)
-
Doesn't look the same to me.
Ah, well let me compare it to all of the videos of 0.5kt nuclear explosions.
(There aren't any)
-
Doesn't look the same to me.
Ah, well let me compare it to all of the videos of 0.5kt nuclear explosions.
(There aren't any)
Of course not. Nuclear bombs produce so much more energy. You aren't going to find any 25 megaton TNT blasts either. Glad we are at an agreement that nuclear weapons have to exist.
-
Of course not. Nuclear bombs produce so much more energy. You aren't going to find any 25 megaton TNT blasts either. Glad we are at an agreement that nuclear weapons have to exist.
Big bomb blast (http://#)
They really don't, actually. A nuclear explosion is entirely indifferent from a large TNT explosion. Which means the nuclear explosions are just more and more TNT stockpiled together.
-
Of course not. Nuclear bombs produce so much more energy. You aren't going to find any 25 megaton TNT blasts either. Glad we are at an agreement that nuclear weapons have to exist.
Big bomb blast (http://#)
That is the same explosion I posted. We don't need to see it again.
They really don't, actually. A nuclear explosion is entirely indifferent from a large TNT explosion. Which means the nuclear explosions are just more and more TNT stockpiled together.
Wrong and a fallacy.
-
That is the same explosion I posted. We don't need to see it again.
Its from a different, more precise angle.
Wrong and a fallacy.
Incorrect.
-
A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto
"1945-1998" by ISAO HASHIMOTO (http://#)
-
Also, how the radiation from these warheads do not kill the crew.
Radiation from plutonium 239 is easily shielded.
Hoppy is correct. Nuclear explosions are indifferent from TNT explosions, which leads me to believe that nuclear explosions are not nuclear at all.
Doesn't look the same to me.
eksplosion of Half Kiloton of TNT (http://#)
Well at least we can deduce two things from this video.
1. A close nuclear detonation will in no way burn you and you will survive but could be knocked over, as is proved by Mr dummy.
2. We can take video recordings of these detonations as long as we order those nuclear proof video cameras that laugh in the face of destruction and radiation.
If you want to save your life, just scrutinise what Mr dummy is wearing and copy his clothing and you can sit and enjoy a family picnic in the park when everyone else who is not wearing the same clothes or factor 18 million sunblock....melts.
Now remember folks, do not underestimate this Mr dummy and his nuke proof clothing. Ok he did fall over but that's because he was a dummy and didn't have the foresight to balance himself, because , well, he's a dummy isn't he.
Now remember:.......This nuclear explosion can rip ships hulls wide open, so do not be foolish and go out buying metal sheeting for protection, just buy Mr dummy attire for a more pleasant nuclear experience.
;D
Aren't you clever today... You managed to deduce the effects of a nuclear explosion from a TNT explosion... Dumbass
-
Well at least we can deduce two things from this video.
1. A close nuclear detonation will in no way burn you and you will survive but could be knocked over, as is proved by Mr dummy.
Incorrect. The video is not of a nuclear blast. TNT or the explosive in the video, are not based on radioactive material. As such one cannot assume a nuclear blast will not burn a person. Compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
2. We can take video recordings of these detonations as long as we order those nuclear proof video cameras that laugh in the face of destruction and radiation.
The video still isn't a nuclear bomb, but yes there are camera setups that are designed to handle a nuclear blast.
If you want to save your life, just scrutinise what Mr dummy is wearing and copy his clothing and you can sit and enjoy a family picnic in the park when everyone else who is not wearing the same clothes or factor 18 million sunblock....melts.
Now you are just making things up, again.
Now remember folks, do not underestimate this Mr dummy and his nuke proof clothing. Ok he did fall over but that's because he was a dummy and didn't have the foresight to balance himself, because , well, he's a dummy isn't he.
Not a nuclear blast. As stated before, the blast in the video does not release nuclear radiation and the thermal heat is pretty low.
Now remember:.......This nuclear explosion can rip ships hulls wide open, so do not be foolish and go out buying metal sheeting for protection, just buy Mr dummy attire for a more pleasant nuclear experience.
;D
You have no idea what you are talking about.
-
scept, the problem is, even if someone explained to you exactly how nukes worked, you wouldn't understand it and would assume they were lying. perhaps you would understand if you wouldn't be so stubborn.
you claim to believe in rational thought, but the second someone presents you with rational evidence, you dismiss it without thinking. this has been proven again and again with your posts.
-
scept, the problem is, even if someone explained to you exactly how nukes worked, you wouldn't understand it and would assume they were lying. perhaps you would understand if you wouldn't be so stubborn.
you claim to believe in rational thought, but the second someone presents you with rational evidence, you dismiss it without thinking. this has been proven again and again with your posts.
...
I've looked very deeply into nuclear weapons and watched many many videos and even looked into how nuclear subs supposedly work etc, etc.
What I'm finding, which gets stronger by the week , is, Nuclear bombs are and always have been a clever hoax, which also got me thinking, well maybe Nuclear power is, also.
Why don't you post some of these videos and/or other forms you been looking into.
...
A person can sit there all day long and explain Nuclear physics to me and why this mix and that enrichment does this and that, yet it's nothing more than words.
I think if you understood what a person was explaining you would be able to "believe" it more.
If you were to take me to a lab and let me see a fissioning process, which I could observe as a chain reaction that appears to be sustaining itself without any external energy going to it, I would give myself a slap and say, " stop being so untrusting"
In the past the public was able to tour Nuclear Power Plants. You can look into and see if you can get a tour.
I don't think that's going to happen, so what should I do?
Should I just say, "ahh, what the hell, it's real and so are Nuclear weapons, regardless of videos and being told dense metals somehow blow up cities when smashed into each other, or should I keep on questioning it until I get some kind of satisfaction either way?
You can truly learn what is going on. That will help.
When you start to look deeper into things like Nuclear submarines...not only the propulsion and how it's somehow contained but also the ballistic missiles inside them that somehow are launched out of the water and then ignite , then go into the sky on their merry way towards the target.
You nee to realize just how much money is spent in the military.
The containment alone of a nuclear reactor in a submarine, as in generating the steam to propel it without the loss of radiation to the environment is a strange issue.
They do it on land. What is so hard to believe they can do it on a sub?
I'm about 99% sure in my own mind that nuclear power is a hoax in how they tell us it works and I'm 100% sure nuclear weapons do not exist at all"ever."
Like I said before. I think it's still of an issue of you not understand what you might be reading or watching or what is posted on this site. I can help you. Post a video you supposedly watched and I will help you understand it.
Until then, here is a video that from the start of it all. You can witness radiation what your own eyes. School do something similar to see radiation in a class room. Around 14 years ago I saw radiation in class. Maybe you were gone that day.
large diffusion cloud chamber with radon gas double-decaying! (http://#)
-
Going to a nuclear facility would be a waste of time as I would not see anything in action.
Going on a nuclear sub would be pointless as I would not be able to see the reactor or see it supposedly Fissioning.
You see it's all top secret, so that basically covers it doesn't it.
You used to be able to see stuff on tours. It looks like you can no longer take a tour of a nuclear power plant because of 9/11.
Not because it s top secret.
Apparently supposed nuclear power stations have a problem with hydrogen build up, so how do they dissipate that without venting it and radiation into the atmosphere?
Well hydrogen is not radioactive so they could vent that just fine.
I've heard they do have hydrogen stacks but I'm not too sure how this would work in a supposed closed loop type system.
I don't know how it works either because I didn't look it up. Simple scrubbers could take out any radioactive material that was mix in with the hydrogen gas but there probably isn't any. Pretty much only the fuel rods are radioactive.
Are you going to post the videos you watched yet? Or for that matter, any of the supposed stuff you read?
-
Most people have seen them. They're easy to find. Just type in nuclear bombs are a hoax and it brings up a lot.
The thing is, I don't just want to post them up as the clear hoaxes in them are simply brushed aide by those that will not even look because either they don't want to believe it's a hoax or they are afraid it starts to wreck their physics education and life's work on studying.
So don't have any?
Did you watch the video I posted? Do you have any questions on what you are seeing? Do you agree you are seeing radiation?
-
Most people have seen them. They're easy to find. Just type in nuclear bombs are a hoax and it brings up a lot.
The thing is, I don't just want to post them up as the clear hoaxes in them are simply brushed aide by those that will not even look because either they don't want to believe it's a hoax or they are afraid it starts to wreck their physics education and life's work on studying.
So don't have any?
Did you watch the video I posted? Do you have any questions on what you are seeing? Do you agree you are seeing radiation?
I'm not doubting radiation. I never have doubted it.
What I am doubting, is "nuclear" radiation from fissioning Uranium/plutonium.
I also dismiss the nuclear atom.
Explain nuclear atom.
Without using video or because you read about it or were told....give me 3 reasons as to why you know nuclear weapons are real and also nuclear power.
1. Physics
2.My job
3.War
-
This showed up on my youtube news feed.
Nuclear Reactors, Fantasy and fact! (http://#ws)
-
There's nothing to explain...I've never seen one and nor has anyone else.
We are done here.
-
This is how Nuclear power works.
First you have to get some Uranium, also known as yellow cake and refine it until you get a dense metal that looks like lead but heavier and yet somehow harder than titanium or something like that.
Anyway: What you do next is, you make a few little pellets and put them in water and these imagined Nuclear atoms get split and split creating stray neutrons which bombard more atoms and split them and so on.
It's all invisible until you see a big super glow called fissioning, all achieved by this dense lead like metal that looks like lead.
To shut this down, you have to put some neutron absorbing rods in between the pellets and that stops the neutrons from attacking the atoms.
Now I know what some people are thinking.
I bet you're thinking, "huh", but how can they know that neutrons are splitting atoms if they can't see what's happening.
That my friends is called "magic."
You should go and re-write the wiki pages on nuclear power. Seriously, those guys are waaay out. You've nailed it.
-
put a little more effort in than searching for videos on the internet. ask a professor at a university to explain the mechanics of a nuclear weapon to you. if you still think it is a hoax, that is your prerogative. but seeing a bunch of scientific gibberish that YOU don't understand doesn't devalue it's validity.
-
This is how Nuclear power works.
First you have to get some Uranium, also known as yellow cake and refine it until you get a dense metal that looks like lead but heavier and yet somehow harder than titanium or something like that.
Uranium oxide is known as yellow cake, not uranium. Please note this.
...
I bet you're thinking, "huh", but how can they know that neutrons are splitting atoms if they can't see what's happening.
You already agreed to the video I posted. Do you see radiation or not?
large diffusion cloud chamber with radon gas double-decaying! (http://#)
What do you think makes gold different from silver? Extra protons?
-
I'm going to go back to the Hiroshima think hear and try and explain something. The bomb they dropped was aimed at a T shaped bridge in the center of the city because it was easily visable from the altitude the bomb was dropped at. It was released at31,060 feet and took 43 seconds to fall to its detonation altitude. Now hear is the interesting bit. The bomb missed. By 800 feet. This was because of crosswinds. Now you may ask how we know this. And the anserw is simple. Flash shadows. You may remember the famous pictures of the shadows of people burnt into the stone? Well this didn't just happen to people. It happend to everything that cast a strong enough shadow. And you can use these to point back to the light source. And gues what. Using a bit of triangulation you find that a single bomb went of at adsactly where they say It did at the altitude it did. You can do it yourself a lot of the shadows are will their. No third party information. All the evidence can be seen yourself and you can do the calculations your self. So how do you explain that without the use of a atomic bomb?
-
to go by what your saying then i shouldn't believe new York exists. iv never been their and only seen pictures. iv never been to china so i guess they don't exist either. come to think of it iv never seen south america. maby that entire continent dosent exist ether. where does it stop? fuel air bombs dont create a flash any where near enough to cause flash shadows.
who said that Hiroshima was uninhabitable? it was an air burst and its a well know fact air bursts don't create that much long term radiation. only short term lethal doses ground burst on harden military targets do that. shadows are not inconstant. they all point away from the explosion. some pictures show railings with perfectly straight shadows that can all be triangulated back to the source.
why does not one person show any credible evidence of mass fire bombing. no eyewitness saying they saw thousands of bombers Dresden and hamburg. required thousands of bombers each with quite a few people in each bomber, im not sure how many. even the Japanese radar picked up the enola gay on its radar. just 1 plane! not thousands. why would they lie? one of the reasons so many people died in Hiroshima is that no one went to bomb shelters when the air raid siren went off. that's because it was 1 plane. im pretty certain if thousands of bombers were flying over everyone would go running to the shelters.
-
Why does somebody need to know what a atomic bomb is to be affected by it? You keep on saying how would they know what it is? Why does it matter. Why do no eye witnesses say thu saw hundreds if not thousands of airplanes? Why have no bomber crew come forward? The picture you are mentioning I am it aware of. I'm taking about pictures if railing and poles all with flash shadows cast behind them.
-
well 1stly just becusae you say it looks suspect doesnt make it so. what looks wrong with it? the diferent colours can be easaly explained by 1stly saying who knows if thats the positive or negative of the photo. and secondly different matirials exposed to the flash.
the poles and bushes seen still standing. well thats just common sense. a tube shaped object allows the blast wave to pass around the object with little effect on it. where as a flat surface provides maximum resistance hence why its kocked over.
the water valve looks doddgy to you as well. is that your scientific opinion?
in reguards to the black rain? ummm an entier city has just been turned into ash and sucked up into the sky? i wonder if that may be the source of the black rain?
-
yes because they are roads. you point out the city is made of wood. not like a modern city. the wood right at the center would have been nearly all vaporized and the ash blown away. leaving everything at the center of the blast out at the edges. and any wooden material was turned to ash in the resulting fire storm. what debris is left to cover the roads?
and your not answering my question about the bombers. how come no one saw hundreds of B29s? the worst raid in Tokyo required 334 bombers. why does everyone say that one flew over the city? so lets say the same again at least for Hiroshima. surely they would notice. also each bomber had 11 crew that's 3674 airmen. and that's just the air crew. perhaps tens of thousands of ground crew would prepared the aircraft and seen them take of? and not 1 single person has ever said anything . and that's just hiroshema. times that by 2 again for Nagasaki. any answers?
-
Just because you don't understand nuclear physics dosnt mean it can't work? Most of your posts start with I'm not an expert but this dosnt seam possible or shouldn't work.
Evacuated and cleared for redevelopment? What about the hundreds of thousands of people the died? The hundreds of thousands more that survived with horrific injuries to the point they are now shunned in Japanese society? I suppose they are all payed to lie? Quite frankly I think that statement would bring many people to tears if you said it to their face.
Te roads weren't passable after the explosion. Most photos were taken in the days and weeks after the bombs after the us army arrived to evaluate the distruction. All witness statements from survivors describe debris everywhere and body's everywhere you look. Rescuers describe not bieng to get to the blast zone because of debris blocking all the roads leading to the centre of the city so this whole clear road thing you keep bringing up is nonsense really. It makes perfect sense the roads In the centre of the blast are clear because all wood was burnt or blown to the outer rings of distruction where it blocked the roads for rescuers.
-
I doubt anyone understands nuclear physics, outside of those who made it up in the first place.
I have a good grasp on it. I offered to tutor you and you turned it down. Do not yell at Pythagoras for you inability to learn new ideas.
-
There is nothing that you can tutor me as regards nuclear physics, as regards a working nuclear bomb as I refuse to believe they work, so anything you recite from your official books is rendered pointless.
This is why you are wrong and all your arguments are wrong. This is why no one ever agrees with you in any of your threads.
-
we would all be licking windows if we all ignored what we were told. the ignorance in these posts is blinding.
-
let me get suckered in for a moment...
these images of fakery are on the internet right. what makes you think they are telling the real truth. those websites and videos are not the best place to get your education. i hope you eventually grow out of your quest to find the 'truth' as it will damage you later in life if you choose to follow a path like that.
-
There is nothing that you can tutor me as regards nuclear physics, as regards a working nuclear bomb as I refuse to believe they work, so anything you recite from your official books is rendered pointless.
This is why you are wrong and all your arguments are wrong. This is why no one ever agrees with you in any of your threads.
I don't care who agrees or disagrees with me, that's their prerogative, yet I'm entitled to disbelieve something that stinks of fakery, just the same as you are entitled to believe what you are told unconditionally by the media and accept propaganda as gospel.
You are on here asking questions in multiple threads and yet you say you already have opinions and you won't listen to anything else. What is the point of that? There is no point in you being here if you are not going to listen to anything anyone else has to say.
-
Yes it appears he has his mind made up. Perhaps he is looking for people to confirm his feelings towards these subjects.
-
Since there is no proof the holocaust happened there is also no proof that there are nuclear weapons.
-
Since there is no proof the holocaust happened there is also no proof that there are nuclear weapons.
Is there a sarcasm here I can't detect?
I hope there is... I really hope you are not also a holocaust denier.
-
Everyone who is not a Israeli hypocrite knows the holocaust didn't happen.
-
Everyone who is not a Israeli hypocrite knows the holocaust didn't happen.
And only a scumbag, racist, nazi pig with a tiny brain and pathetic, empty life would believe that it didn't.
You are the lowest of the low Beorn. Hopefully one day your pc is confiscated and searched. I'm sure the police would find some choice material from the darkest corners of the web on there. God knows how perverse your insignificant life gets. Must be pretty lonely in that warped, twisted little hovel of a mind.
In case you are in any doubt... go fuck yourself scumbag.
Mods - ban ime if you want but I would advise that you ban Beorn as NO society should want his likes associated with them.
-
Everyone who is not a Israeli hypocrite knows the holocaust didn't happen.
And only a scumbag, racist, nazi pig with a tiny brain and pathetic, empty life would believe that it didn't.
You are the lowest of the low Beorn. Hopefully one day your pc is confiscated and searched. I'm sure the police would find some choice material from the darkest corners of the web on there. God knows how perverse your insignificant life gets. Must be pretty lonely in that warped, twisted little hovel of a mind.
In case you are in any doubt... go fuck yourself scumbag.
Mods - ban ime if you want but I would advise that you ban Beorn as NO society should want his likes associated with them.
Reported for racism. Why do you hate the germans so much?
-
Everyone who is not a Israeli hypocrite knows the holocaust didn't happen.
And only a scumbag, racist, nazi pig with a tiny brain and pathetic, empty life would believe that it didn't.
You are the lowest of the low Beorn. Hopefully one day your pc is confiscated and searched. I'm sure the police would find some choice material from the darkest corners of the web on there. God knows how perverse your insignificant life gets. Must be pretty lonely in that warped, twisted little hovel of a mind.
In case you are in any doubt... go fuck yourself scumbag.
Mods - ban ime if you want but I would advise that you ban Beorn as NO society should want his likes associated with them.
Reported for racism. Why do you hate the germans so much?
Who mentioned the Germans numbnuts? Nazi is Nazi, German is German.
You really are laughable little toad aren't you.
-
Everyone who is not a Israeli hypocrite knows the holocaust didn't happen.
And only a scumbag, racist, nazi pig with a tiny brain and pathetic, empty life would believe that it didn't.
You are the lowest of the low Beorn. Hopefully one day your pc is confiscated and searched. I'm sure the police would find some choice material from the darkest corners of the web on there. God knows how perverse your insignificant life gets. Must be pretty lonely in that warped, twisted little hovel of a mind.
In case you are in any doubt... go fuck yourself scumbag.
Mods - ban ime if you want but I would advise that you ban Beorn as NO society should want his likes associated with them.
Reported for racism. Why do you hate the germans so much?
Who mentioned the Germans numbnuts? Nazi is Nazi, German is German.
You really are laughable little toad aren't you.
What have they done to you?
-
Everyone who is not a Israeli hypocrite knows the holocaust didn't happen.
And only a scumbag, racist, nazi pig with a tiny brain and pathetic, empty life would believe that it didn't.
You are the lowest of the low Beorn. Hopefully one day your pc is confiscated and searched. I'm sure the police would find some choice material from the darkest corners of the web on there. God knows how perverse your insignificant life gets. Must be pretty lonely in that warped, twisted little hovel of a mind.
In case you are in any doubt... go fuck yourself scumbag.
Mods - ban ime if you want but I would advise that you ban Beorn as NO society should want his likes associated with them.
Reported for racism. Why do you hate the germans so much?
Reported for holocaust denial. Which is crime punishable by prison in the UK and some of the EU.
-
Everyone who is not a Israeli hypocrite knows the holocaust didn't happen.
And only a scumbag, racist, nazi pig with a tiny brain and pathetic, empty life would believe that it didn't.
You are the lowest of the low Beorn. Hopefully one day your pc is confiscated and searched. I'm sure the police would find some choice material from the darkest corners of the web on there. God knows how perverse your insignificant life gets. Must be pretty lonely in that warped, twisted little hovel of a mind.
In case you are in any doubt... go fuck yourself scumbag.
Mods - ban ime if you want but I would advise that you ban Beorn as NO society should want his likes associated with them.
Reported for racism. Why do you hate the germans so much?
Reported for holocaust denial. Which is crime punishable by prison in the UK and some of the EU.
Oh no it's illegal in the UK! Look at me tremble now.
-
Everyone who is not a Israeli hypocrite knows the holocaust didn't happen.
And only a scumbag, racist, nazi pig with a tiny brain and pathetic, empty life would believe that it didn't.
You are the lowest of the low Beorn. Hopefully one day your pc is confiscated and searched. I'm sure the police would find some choice material from the darkest corners of the web on there. God knows how perverse your insignificant life gets. Must be pretty lonely in that warped, twisted little hovel of a mind.
In case you are in any doubt... go fuck yourself scumbag.
Mods - ban ime if you want but I would advise that you ban Beorn as NO society should want his likes associated with them.
Reported for racism. Why do you hate the germans so much?
Reported for holocaust denial. Which is crime punishable by prison in the UK and some of the EU.
The UK doesn't have any laws concerning holocaust denial. People have been imprisoned for it in Germany, though. Also, your retarted
-
Reported for holocaust denial. Which is crime punishable by prison in the UK and some of the EU.
No its not. The UK is one of the few European countries where it is not illegal. In fact when the EU tried to force that law as part of the whole EU, the UK just told them they'd veto it ,so that was the end of that proposal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
Feel free to read the wiki page and grab a fact or two before continuing with this thread.
-
il try bring things back on track shall i.
Well strangely enough, I do not buy into nuclear power either as I think that is a scam also...but that's another story.
id like to pick you brains on this on as well.
so where does the electricity they produce come from instead then?
-
Posting in this quality thread. Pythagoras, do you really have to keep it going? Let the thread die. Let it's suffering end.
-
if no one wants to post on it then they dont have to and it will until then i will ask questions.
-
Everyone who is not a Israeli hypocrite knows the holocaust didn't happen.
And only a scumbag, racist, nazi pig with a tiny brain and pathetic, empty life would believe that it didn't.
You are the lowest of the low Beorn. Hopefully one day your pc is confiscated and searched. I'm sure the police would find some choice material from the darkest corners of the web on there. God knows how perverse your insignificant life gets. Must be pretty lonely in that warped, twisted little hovel of a mind.
In case you are in any doubt... go fuck yourself scumbag.
Mods - ban ime if you want but I would advise that you ban Beorn as NO society should want his likes associated with them.
So is someone going to use the bamhammer? He's accusing the germans of killing people, that's like the most racist thing I've seen on here since nagger jesus.
-
questions then
1
how do nuclear submarines work?
2 France produces 77.1% of its electricity from nuclear power? where are the corresponding real power stations required to create the real energy?
3 after the fukushima nuclear power accident japan turned off all its nuclear power stations until safety test could be carried out. in the mean time japan suffered crippling power shortages to the point they had rolling black outs and factories had to close. why inflict your own country that has just suffered a massive disaster with further economic problems caused by power shortages.
once again i would like to point out that just because you cant understand how something works doesnt mean it doesnt.
no metals don't just glow super hot for decades just like oil out of the ground does not power our cars. its refined and processed into a more usable substance.
you keep referring to it as just metal? all metals are different. iron is magnetic copper is a excellent conductor of electricity. mercury is liquid at room tempriture and uranium and plutonium contain the properties required to do what they do. so just calling them metals to make your point isn't relay usfull is it now?
-
No it's not magic you are right it's physics. And all the maths works perfectly. Are you calling every nuclear physicist on the planet wrong? That's a bold claim.
And any anserws to my questions?
-
I hope you extend this level of skepticism to things like gravity and oxygen, too.
-
Sorry didn't see the anserws in the quote.
What is the heat source in the stirling engine?
-
I hope you extend this level of skepticism to things like gravity and oxygen, too.
Elaborate?
I will extend this skepticism to computers. I don't actually know how integrated circuits, or the world wide web works. Therefore I don't believe in the internet. I believe it some kind of trick. Somehow I am fooled in to believing that TFES actually exists.
-
I hope you extend this level of skepticism to things like gravity and oxygen, too.
Elaborate?
You can't see either of them.
-
I cat see sceptimatic. Maby he is a computer program made to test us with all these child like arguments.
-
With reference to the Stirling engine it does offer improvements in terms of silence for a submarine but it's not clear what it would do for endurance which is the real pull of nuclear power. Even nuclear powered subs are powered by a screw which is generally what gives them away. There alternatives as in Tom Clancy's 'Hunt for the red October' as far as I know they haven't entered service although it's quite possible we wouldn't know if they had.
The maths behind nuclear fusion is fairly accessible if you are willing to accept some more fundamental results without proof. For example http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introductory-Nuclear-Physics-Kenneth-Krane/dp/047180553X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1358094905&sr=8-2 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introductory-Nuclear-Physics-Kenneth-Krane/dp/047180553X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1358094905&sr=8-2) would be a good place to start. You seem to expect us to come up with flawless analogies - this is often not possible. In the case of relativity one can construct reasonable analogies by dumping one dimension of space and using the third dimension to create space-time. Thats what I do with my ball rolling on a rubber sheet analogies. Things based on quantum mechanics are more difficult as the mathematics is fundamentally different and analogies are generally less useful. If you really want to understand whats going on then you may to learn the maths or be satisfied with half-cut analogies. I like to understand whats going on so I have spent 15 years studying maths and physics - its the hard way to do it but its the only real way to make the decision for yourself.
-
comparing nuclear physics and crossing the road is the issue here XD
do tell, why would people even bother to fake nuclear power?
-
Or the properties of some elements have the power to agitate water so much that it creates steam. Look at sodium for instance. That is another metal with so called magical properties. Lithium is another good example of a reactive metal. Most people use lithium to power devices these days. Uranium is just better at it but unfortunately too unstable for joe public to use.
That seems simple enough to understand doesn't it?
-
scepti dsnt understand anything their for he dsnt believe anything. he struggles to accept anything he cant understand which as it turns out seems to be quite allot.
you cant explain how submarines can stay under water for 6 months plus at a time without any outside intervention. can you? batteries cant help you because their aren't any that can last that long and create so much energy. Stirling engine still requires a heat source. so according to you a submarine must use magic?
can i clear something uo. do you think scientist are wrong or lying to us?
-
are you trying to say every nuclear submarine in the world dsnt realy exist and its all a hoax? the royal navy only have nuclear attack submarines, no conventional ones. so the entire attack capability of the royal navy is a hoax? and yes they do stay under water for the time they say they do. how many tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have worked on them in the last 60 years?
-
your not answering my questions. are you saying that nuclear submarines dnt actually exist? and are a hoax because their is no technology apart from nuclear that could allow them to work? you can just ignore some things that nuclear power because you can explain how that part would work without it.
-
My 3000 mwh 3s lipo run my car for over an hour. You just strengthened my point with ur matches and coal analogy. So you are aware how reactive metal can be, explosive even. Luckily we have found metals with radioactive properties and we are able to utilise it.
Considering the energy can be measured your point is moot. I even saw radio active materials in school.
-
so an entier branch of physics and all the tens of thousands of people who are experts in at are wrong? and a industry employing tens of millions of people is a hoax. and all the evidence you can give us is in your opinion its rubbish? are you more qualified to know than the experts? or the millions of people that work in the industry? what is the benfitis of the hoax?
-
I hope you extend this level of skepticism to things like gravity and oxygen, too.
I don't know what gravity is.
I know that we breathe on this planet and we breathe air, which is provable by scuba diving.
There are many things I accept that I can't actually see because it's feasible to me and yet some things are not as feasible to me, so I question them.
Nuclear reactors have killed people.
-
I have seen protons (and electrons) colliding with atoms, literally in the case of electrons they emit a blue glow called cerenkov radiation.
Artificial nuclear materials are used routinely in medicine. Infact some hospitals have had to switch to naturally occurring isotopes in recent years as a cut in the number of research nuclear reactors has reduced the availability of some materials. Really we need to stop burying this valuable resource in mountains and start processing it into useful materials.
-
Its harder to directly observe and event with neutrons because they are not electrically charged and so don't leave a track in detectors. Protons and electrons you can see a single light particle turning into two heavier ones. With neutron fission you see nothing and then the products spontaneously occur. Although if the target was a beam of neutrons it's fairly safe to say the target was hit by a neutron and not a heavily laden swallow.
-
Well we know that if you fire a beam of neutrons into certain materials (most famously uranium) that spontaneously break apart. At the simplest level you can turn on and off the neutron beam and see the spontaneous break up of the uranium start and stop. In a subset of these materials something particularly interesting happens when the atom divides it doesn't break cleanly it will emit other single particles which can in turn break up more atoms. Uranium has this property which allows one to start a, preferably controlled, chain reaction. All of this has been seen experimentally, unfortunately not always for the right reasons.
-
Stop it with the friction - that's the other thread. This is quite easy to explain. The temperature of a material is determined by the velocity of its constituent molecules. The products of uranium fission are lighter than uranium, mass has been lost, this lost mass goes into making the constituents go faster. As E=mc^2 a little mass makes a lot of energy.
-
i think you are brainwashed. just my opinion.
i know a guy who fell in sheep dip as a child he went a bit mental too.
but point 1;
same thing as a bullet.
2;
i dont make then
3;
i havnt studied the subject.
neither have you for that matter so why not learn about all these things before making accusations again the entire scientific community.
if there is anything remotely technical thats quite impressive that you find hard to understand the best you have is that its either magical or a hoax. perhaps its just beyond your understanding and always will be.
-
Stop it with the friction - that's the other thread. This is quite easy to explain. The temperature of a material is determined by the velocity of its constituent molecules. The products of uranium fission are lighter than uranium, mass has been lost, this lost mass goes into making the constituents go faster. As E=mc^2 a little mass makes a lot of energy.
Lets look at a Nuclear bomb.
A Uranium projectile, or bullet is supposed to smash into a set of Uranium rings or discs at the other end of the bomb right?
For this to happen, it has to have powder charges explode behind the projectile to force it, at speed into the rings/discs and as soon as that happens, it creates a mammoth city destroying Nuclear explosion.
I have three massive problems with this.
1. When the powder charge ignites, how come it doesn't blow the bomb casing apart before the projectile hits the rings/discs.
2. Assuming the projectile does hit the rings/discs, why would it fission immediate into this super city busting mushroom cloud.
3. If Neutrons smash into atoms, then once the bomb has exploded, how do the Neutrons keep smashing into the atoms when it will be scattered into the air in quick time, meaning that it would be like a base ball batter trying to hit balls by running about in all directions with them raining all over the place, if you get my drift.
It's all magical stuff and very easy to brainwash folk into believing it all, yet it's far to far fetched for me to even contemplate.
Firstly, the nuclear bomb you are talking about is only a type of nuclear bomb, the gun-type nuclear bomb (for example "little boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy)", the bomb that was dropped on hiroshima). There are other types nuclear bombs such as fat man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man), an implosion-type nuclear bomb. Anyways here are answers to the questions.
1. As squevil said, same as with a bullet. Just because an explosion sends one thing flying does not mean all will be destroyed by that explosion
2. Well it is not immediate, however it happens really fast because of the massive amounts of energy involved. The neutrons have much energy from the fission they originated from and were "shot" from and so are moving very fast. As they are moving so fast, the next reactions will happen soon (as the distance traveled isn't a large amount) and they will multiply in number of reactions extremely quickly (as the uranium atoms are close enough together to have enough free neutrons whizzing about and actually hitting into other atoms to keep a sustained reaction. See critical mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass)).
3. Firstly, the neutrons will be moving as fast if not faster than the uranium atoms (as they are much less massive but are recieving roughly the same amount of energy) and the explosion is kind of like a build up and then an explosion. The reason the uranium is moving in the first place (though much of the moving things will probably be the end elements such as barium and krypton) is because of the free neutrons hitting the other uranium.
As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-
And as scepi as proven time and time again on hear he isn't very advanced.
-
Carrots dissolve in water.
-
Carrots dissolve in water.
i have missed your contributions
-
you say nuclear power is bogus because you dnt understand it? but millions of people who spend their whole lives studying it and working directly with it are wrong? because you dont understand it? or have a hunch as you put it. you offer us no evidence of anything wrong with the physics and maths behind it? you offer us no replacement energy source no reason for radiation poisoning in area where accident have happened? no way of reproducing nuclear explosions witnessed directly by hundreds of thousands of people over 50 years and recorded by thousands of hours of footage and hundreds of thousands of pictures. no evidence what so all. just a hunch?
-
well considering it was filmed in 1961 and its filming the largest man made explosion ever made which has nothing to compare it with then yes it looks quite good to me. what seams wrong with it?
-
Hear come the anserws that are o so easily avalible if you just do a bit if reaserch. Their is a creater because the fire ball was 5 miles in diameter. In actuality the fire ball didn't touch the ground. It's the compression wave that cause the creater. Most nuclear bomb tests don't have cameramen. It's all set to record on its own. Thier is no shaking 1 because the tape was filmed tens of miles away. We are the light 1st blast wave comes second. The film dosnt show the blast hitting the camera. And the cameras are stabised on too of round poles that are largely unaffected by high speed preasure waves. Why would a 3rd degree burn damage a house? The heat pulse only lasts a few seconds. Once again also in regards to the film surviving. The camera is protected. It's not a put on the ground and hope for the best situations.
-
How far away is the camra? How fast do blast waves travle? You do the maths. Simple realy.
I'm belive everything I say because it fits everything I see. Something that can't be said for you. What should a 50 megatons nuclear explosion look like?
-
Yes It was pure decvistation. What's your point? You seam to forge also Hundreds of thousnds of people have seen thes explosions in person. What did they see if jot a nuclear explosion?
-
Well 1stly Hiroshima nakisaki plus every nuclear test is observed by hundreds to thousands of observers. My grandad bieng one of them. Thier have been 2053 nuclear explosons since 1945.
-
Why. He is just one person of many thousands like iv mentioned. My arguments have nothing to do with what he saw. Why did all those people see if not a nuclear explosion?
-
My grandad fine just a interesting point in my family history. Where is the huge pile of TNT required to create the same yield? Baring in mind this much https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=100+ton+test&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=NWr0UIWkL4eFhQfk6YDYAg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=480&bih=268#i=15. (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=100+ton+test&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=NWr0UIWkL4eFhQfk6YDYAg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=480&bih=268#i=15.) Was required for a 0.1 kilotons yield?
-
yes it is well done but the yield is way to small. how do you suppose you create a 15 megaton explosion for example using your technique?
also this shows the preparation for a nuclear explosion test skip to 8.12 to see the how they are filmed. notice very well secured on round poles which the blast moves around with little resistance.
-
You can't pick and chose the explosons that use that technique. I'm still wondering then how they make a 15 megatons explosion then.
Using the sun as the core of the explosion? Not following. You forget that it wasn't just idiot troops watching the explosions it was the scietists that designed them.
-
the Castle bravo test conducted left a crater 6,500 feet (2,000 m) in diameter and 250 feet (76 m) in depth. how do you suppose that got their? ???
As a result of the blast, the cloud contaminated more than seven thousand square miles of the surrounding Pacific Ocean including some of the surrounding small islands like Rongerik, Rongelap and Utirik. i wonder how that happend ???
A Japanese fishing boat, Daigo Fukuryu Maru, came in direct contact with the fallout, which caused many of the crew to grow ill; one eventually died. This resulted in an international uproar and reignited Japanese concerns about radiation. i wonder how they got ill? ???
-
This guy is either hitting puberty and knows everything or is just trolling lol.
-
You are flat out denying not questioning.
-
the Castle bravo test conducted left a crater 6,500 feet (2,000 m) in diameter and 250 feet (76 m) in depth. how do you suppose that got their? ???
As a result of the blast, the cloud contaminated more than seven thousand square miles of the surrounding Pacific Ocean including some of the surrounding small islands like Rongerik, Rongelap and Utirik. i wonder how that happend ???
A Japanese fishing boat, Daigo Fukuryu Maru, came in direct contact with the fallout, which caused many of the crew to grow ill; one eventually died. This resulted in an international uproar and reignited Japanese concerns about radiation. i wonder how they got ill? ???
Did you see the detonation to make this crater?
Do you know for sure that these islands are or were contaminated by Nuclear radiation and also, do you know for sure that this trawler went through radiation and made sailors sick, or is it just what you deduced from the media?
how do you suppose to find anything out in life if you have to experience it 1st hand for you to conclude it must be true?
how else was the creator formed. one day was a island and the next it was a huge hole in the ocean.
how would you suggest that all the sailors got sick? they all sailed through the recorded radioactive fallout area.
also you know castle brave was an accident right? a lot of people nearly died because of it.
-
it was ment to be a 6 megaton blast. their was a problem with its design that caused the yield to be far in excess of what it was supposed to be. scientist were trapped inside the blast radius and a navy vessel with observers was also far to close the the blast and resulting radiation plume.
-
You are flat out denying not questioning.
If it bothers you, then don't partake.
It doesn't. I'm just making a statement. You claim to have questions but dismiss any answers. You are proposing that things are not what they seem to make yourself appear clever or the black sheep. But you are just associating yourself with the tin foil hat clans. I bet you watch a lot of rubbish about fake things on YouTube and websites over looking at videos on how it really works. Have you ever noticed how detailed and informative the real videos are? Doesn't this ring bells at all?
-
i dont know adsactly from what i know they mixed lithium 7 in with the lithium 6 ( 60/40) secondery charge. they thought the lithium 7 was inert but turns out it wasnt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo)
nearly killed a lot of people. funny thing to admit to if ll fake. ??? just saying
-
The last paragraph is exactly why the tin foil hat clan exists. Doesn't mean it's wrong though.
You won't see space first hand
You won't see a nuclear reactor
You won't witness many things but does that make it false because people can't give direct evidence over the Internet? I far from a know it all, I was more into drugs than academics when I was at school. But I'm not paranoid about everything.
I'm just trying to give you friendly advice that's all. Take those Internet rumblings with a pinch of salt, most of them guys just need attention.
-
i dont know adsactly from what i know they mixed lithium 7 in with the lithium 6 ( 60/40) secondery charge. they thought the lithium 7 was inert but turns out it wasnt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo)
nearly killed a lot of people. funny thing to admit to if ll fake. ??? just saying
It's not just a funny thing to admit to, it's downright ridiculous to even contemplate them making that mistake, considering the supposed genius in making the working bombs of the 1940's that worked just fine.
Little accidents go down well when you want to keep the masses on their toes, just like Apollo 13 being repaired with duct tape and cardboard.
It makes for good shock tactics.
are you under the impression that in science scientists never make mistakes and never admit to them?
scientist make mistakes all the time and for the most part admit then all the time. its how science works.
why is it outrageous to claim they would make that mistake?
-
the lithium 7 was assumed to be inert. plus the scientist were under severe pressure from the military to produce the bomb and short cuts were made. simple relay. they had intended to use pure lithium 6 but it was in short supply so quickly had to make a substitute.
did you know in the trinity tests, some scientist warned the military that the bomb could cause a chain reaction in the earths atmosphere destroying the earth. guess what, the scientist were ignored and the test went ahead. they were wrong of course (thank god) but the test still went on.
-
how do they scare an enemy that know they are false?
-
oh you mean 4 years? ??? the time between the american bomb and the Russian bomb. makes sense i suppose. lol why didn't the Russians just tell the world america is lying or just invade western Europe knowing america wouldn't be able to nuke it? ??? same for india, pakistan? russia, china? china, america? dsnt really make sense really.
-
There's no way that would be kept a secret, it's too widespread. Regardless of whether nuclear weapons exist or not, keeping their existence a lie is impossibly hard.
-
agreed considering every physicist on earth is either wrong or in on it ???
-
Septictank what's your spin on america invading countries because they are a nuclear threat?
-
There's no way that would be kept a secret, it's too widespread. Regardless of whether nuclear weapons exist or not, keeping their existence a lie is impossibly hard.
It's not as hard as you think.
It's all about compartmentalisation, meaning one doesn't know what the other is doing. A need to know and all that stuff.
I don't think there's ever been a conspiracy theory like this that was proven true. The larger and more complex they are, the more unrealistic they become.
-
the irony is that you accuse us of being blinkered but you are completely blind to any other possibility apart from the falsehood that nukes are fake. you have provided no evidence. just told us how the films dnt look right, giving us no explanation to why? dismiss any and all of the hundreds of thousands of witnesses of being wrong or in on the conspiracy. you give us no viable technology to replace nuclear power. no alternate power stations to replace the fake nuclear ones. no real reason as to why have this whole conspiracy. my list could go on for a very long time.
-
Wow, pytha. You're worse than Sokarul trying to convince me that carrots don't dissolve in water.
-
carrots dnt dissolve in water ??? i thought they did
-
Isn't that how you make carrot soup? Also, carrots are fissile.
-
why are you a better person to tell us if nuclear weapons/power is possible than a scientific whos whole carrier has been spent researching designing and teaching in that subject? were you abused by a scientist at some point on your life and now have trust issues?
-
the irony is that you accuse us of being blinkered but you are completely blind to any other possibility apart from the falsehood that nukes are fake. you have provided no evidence. just told us how the films dnt look right, giving us no explanation to why? dismiss any and all of the hundreds of thousands of witnesses of being wrong or in on the conspiracy. you give us no viable technology to replace nuclear power. no alternate power stations to replace the fake nuclear ones. no real reason as to why have this whole conspiracy. my list could go on for a very long time.
Why does it have to be viable technology to replace Nuclear power?
If Nuclear power doesn't work and Nuclear weapons don't, then don't you think the viable power could be what they were using in the first place for power, such as gas or even methane or hydrogen.
As for Nuclear weapons. Don't you think they can simply show off a ballistic missile and proclaim it to be Nuclear tipped as they say?
If I point a gun at you and tell you it has bullets in it when it hasn't, you aren't gonna be brave enough to tell me to 'fire it at me' are you.
Nuclear warheads are supposedly sitting in silos just waiting to be launched immediately and it appears that they can sit there decaying and spewing out killer radiation because apparently , the weapons grade Uranium/plutonium in them is not really radioactive until it smashes together and can be stockpiled into Nuclear subs ready for action by somehow catapulting out of the sub, vertically by compressed air, which shoots it out of the water, then once clear of the water, it ignited and zoom, into the air to travel hundreds of miles to it's target.
You wonder why I'm sceptical?
This would depend on several factors. If I believed you to be lying and/or trust you not to actually shoot me if there were bullets, I may as well tell you to fire it at me.
-
I meant if I could deduce this. Not that one would always be able to deduce this. In real life I have due to the fact that the person was a close friend of mine who loved to joke around like that. However, this is more of an exception. You would be right in most other situations. I would never mess with this kind of situation if it were someone I didn't know, or even didn't know enough. Heck, I wouldn't with some people I have known very well. I'm not arguing against your point despite my belief in nuclear weapons. I'm merely being a smartass to make a point about generalizations.
-
you are pointing a gun at my head with hoax bullets but you forget im holding a gun with fake bullets pointing at your head. we both know they are fake.
-
While I'm fairly confident that you are having a laugh; is it nuclear fission you don't believe in or just weapons? I should point out that most of the very large explosions shown here have little to do with uranium fission they are hydrogen fusion.
-
no
If I point a gun at you and tell you it has bullets in it when it hasn't, you aren't gonna be brave enough to tell me to 'fire it at me' are you.
im saying your scenario is wrong. i have the same gun as you and know its not loaded like you do their fore we both know we are bluffing.
USA/Russia
so you analogy dosent work
-
it all stems from the fact you don't understand it. i know im repeating myself but just because you don't understand something, and you don't understand a lot, dosnt make it impossible. your default position if you don't understand something is it must be fake and then guild a whole fabricated world that makes no sense around it. where as normal people just go wow that's amassing im glad someone put in all that time and effort into improving my life for me. i don't know how surgeons did a arm transplant in the uk this week but they did. its not magic although it seams that way to me.
-
I assumed if it were a joke it would have been in the top half. Which bit specifically? Forget bombs and power stations. We have a large nucleus which we can demonstrate from fundamental theory is not stable due to a large asymmetry in the number of protons and neutrons. In fact we know that such atoms can spontaneously decay. I assume you are happy with regular nuclear decay? All we are doing with nuclear fission is finding one that's pretty unstable but not quite unstable enough to spontaneously fall apart. So, we help it on it's way. We can do this with many of the heave elements but uranium has one very useful property when it decays you get three neutrons as well as the two daughter nuclei. In fact some types of neutron detector are made with uranium.
So what are you not happy with.
1) The entire concept of radioactive decay?
2) The idea of artificial fission (i.e. stimulating decay)?
3) Fission specifically with a certain Uranium isotope?
4) The idea that this is used commercially/militarily?
-
lol i should have guessed you thought that about pear harbor. i actually thought you were just trolling which i found realy amusing but im starting to think you believe all this. and i have to say i find it far far more amusing lol. you know absolutely nothing you say makes any sense to a normal persons right?
-
it has been shown. nuclear bombs and power stations are the biggest examples you just refuse to accept them. that's not our fault.
shown small nuclear fissioning? lols. uranium glow? it dsnt relay glow you know that right?
-
just saying the word magic because you dint understand it dsnt actual make it magic you know that right? it just means you dont understand it. its called technoiligy.
-
uranium dosent glow. that is a scientifically recognised fact. no scientist has ever said it did. did you think it did?
-
just saying the word magic because you dint understand it dsnt actual make it magic you know that right? it just means you dont understand it. its called technoiligy.
Do you actually understand Nuclear physics?
Can you decipher the equations that make up the so called E=MC2?
beyond knowing it means energy equals mass times the speed of light squared no i dont know much more but unlike you just because i dnt know how it works dosent mean i don't believe in it.
-
Ok so we have our radioactive elements which you seem happy with. I asume therefore that you are happy that there could be ones that a unstable-ish but not quite sufficiently to decay. By firing neutrons (and protons in some cases) at these nuclei we can tip them over the edge into decaying (or make previously stable nuclei unstable). This happens everyday around the world in hospitals for example with make flourine and carbon unstable for PET scans. PET isotopes have very short half lives and so have to be made on the day they are required, increasingly big hospitals have a little accelerator to produce these isotopes.
So back to Uranium. All that's difference about Uranium (and Thorium) as I said is that when they fall apart you get more neutrons. These can then go on to break up other nuclei thus allowing you to get out more energy than you put in, Uranium is by no means the only one with this property but you get three neutrons, it's comparatively abundant and actually until you start bombarding it not particularly radioactive.
The blue glow you are referring to, contrary to popular belief is nothing to do with fission. It's called Cerenkov radiation. It's a light that's emitted when a charged particle travels faster than light in that medium. So whilst an electron cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum it can travel faster than the speed of light in water. When it does so it emits light. What causes the blue light in cooling ponds is electrons from nuclear beta decay from products of fusion - Uranium itself does not do this. I have personally written software to analyse Cereknov light from particle beams and reconstruct the direction and momentum of the electrons.
-
And as scepi as proven time and time again on hear he isn't very advanced.
you know what, though, pythagoras?
he spells better than you.
just sayin
-
I don't believe it, I learned a lot of maths and proved it to myself as will most other 2nd year physics students.
It doesn't provide untold energy it provides a very specific amount of energy typically 100 MeV or so per fission (although no where near all of this goes into heat for powering turbines), in English that means a nuclear power station gets refueled every couple of years or so depending on how much it's used.
I'm not sure what Uranium's material properties are, it is denser than lead, just. It's fairly hard but not as hard as the heavy transition metals I don't think. Other than it's fissile properties it's pretty unremarkable. Uranium is not unique it's ability to produce energy by fission/fusion. Indeed many others work in principle Uranium just happens to be the best. The second choice is Thorium which India is pushing hard as it has loads of it. Has the advantage that it is fissile enough to run a power station but not enough to build a bomb.
-
It's used for artillery because it's plentiful, fairly hard and fairly heavy. Things like tantalum and tungsten might be better but they're very expensive. Lead is brittle. Titanium does get used sometimes I think but again it has lots of other industrial uses. Non-fissile isotopes of uranium have few other uses so why not use it for shells.
I probably did learn the proofs a bit at first. But as I work in particle and nuclear physics for a living (not in the nuclear industry) this stuff I have been through properly over the years. I agree it does sound incredible, that's why I chose to study it years ago and now get to play with the funky kit.
-
Titanium does get used sometimes I think but again it has lots of other industrial uses. Non-fissile isotopes of uranium have few other uses so why not use it for shells.
What would be the purpose of a Titanium round? ???
-
No idea it was a bit of a stab in the dark, I thought it was used in high velocity stuff, it has many of the right properties to be useful probably not dense enough. I'm probably just demonstrating one of the many reasons why physicists shouldn't be engineers and vice-versa.
-
In so far as it's possible to 'see' something that small. I have used uranium-235 based neutron detectors (although like most people it's mostly boron).
-
I was going to respond to sceptimatic but there are so many errors it would just be a waste of time.
Wow, pytha. You're worse than Sokarul trying to convince me that carrots don't dissolve in water.
You are still an idiot.
-
I was going to respond to sceptimatic but there are so many errors it would just be a waste of time.
Wow, pytha. You're worse than Sokarul trying to convince me that carrots don't dissolve in water.
You are still an idiot.
Wow, just wow. It's even spelled out for you and you still don't get it. You have the social aptitude of a door knob.
-
I was going to respond to sceptimatic but there are so many errors it would just be a waste of time.
Wow, pytha. You're worse than Sokarul trying to convince me that carrots don't dissolve in water.
You are still an idiot.
Wow, just wow. It's even spelled out for you and you still don't get it. You have the social aptitude of a door knob.
It's so spelled out you were never able to prove your statement, yet I showed it to be wrong.
-
It's so spelled out you were never able to prove your statement, yet I showed it to be wrong.
Whoooosh.
You have the social aptitude of a door knob.
-
It's so spelled out you were never able to prove your statement, yet I showed it to be wrong.
Whoooosh.
You have the social aptitude of a door knob.
You are dumb and you post dumb things.
-
no u
-
To move it out of this thread.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57333.0.html#.UPd6tWfNmSo (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57333.0.html#.UPd6tWfNmSo)
-
scepi has deleted all his posts ??? must have accepted he is wrong.
-
He deleted his other post after yours. I will answer it anyways.
Yes, I see you deleting your posts as a win.
You have demonstrated time and time again you use your opinion to dismiss facts, even though you say you look at both sides. You cannot grasp advanced concepts and thus force your lack of knowledge on everyone. You claimed no one new what E=MC^2 meant. This is just your ignorance. You do not know what others know.
Your past and new threads show you can't even comprehend simple physics. You need to step back and evaluate why you have so many problems with such simple things. And maybe when you do that, you then won't be so quick to dismiss things which you know nothing about but others do.
-
http://ancientnuclearwar.com/ (http://ancientnuclearwar.com/)
Did you know that WWII was NOT the first nuclear war this planet has ever experienced?
Ludicrous you say? It's not ludicrous when you explore the evidence.
-
iv actually watched a tv program on this and if all the accounts like the ones in your link are true then it does seem quite convincing.
-
i can't think of a reason it couldn't be true
-
go on..... ;D
-
Nuclear weapons don't exist, so an ancient nuclear war does not exist.
-
Other than some inaccuracies about the deposits in Africa it has all the makings of a good fringe theory. Some elements of truth some elements of speculation and the wildly speculatively stuff is almost entirely unprovable on way or the other. I like it, its basically Stargate which is awesome (the film not the poor TV shows it spawned).
-
agreed. far fetched but interesting. hard to pull the truth from the conjecture in it unfortunately and the tv show was way better!!!!!
-
Stargate which is awesome (the film not the poor TV shows it spawned).
How dare you. >:(
-
In the interests of peace I'll concede SG1 was pretty good it was the spin-offs that destroyed it, or maybe im just getting old.
-
In the interests of peace I'll concede SG1 was pretty good it was the spin-offs that destroyed it, or maybe im just getting old.
It got progressively dumber as they ran out of plot lines and removed Richard Dean Anderson. But that happens to just about every show out there.
-
Flat earthers with a sex life dont exist
-
Should I go and tell her it's all fake?
http://www.dailycamera.com/superior-news/ci_22492662/superior-host-rocky-flats-author-kristen-iversen-wednesday?source=rss (http://www.dailycamera.com/superior-news/ci_22492662/superior-host-rocky-flats-author-kristen-iversen-wednesday?source=rss)
-
Flat earthers with a sex life dont exist
You are a very intelligent, unique troll. I've never seen a comment like this one before.
-
Flat earthers with a sex life dont exist
You are a very intelligent, unique troll. I've never seen a comment like this one before.
And accurate, you forgot accurate.
-
Flat earthers with a sex life dont exist
You are a very intelligent, unique troll. I've never seen a comment like this one before.
And accurate, you forgot accurate.
Accuracy is key
-
Today no one was nuked. In a world where there are millions of nuclear weapons, you'd think someone would have used one by now. Odd.
-
they did. 1945 ???
-
Today no one was nuked. In a world where there are millions of nuclear weapons, you'd think someone would have used one by now. Odd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)
-
they did. 1945 ???
Huh? Are you referring to the firebombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Nuclear weapons have never been used because they don't exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)
A pathetic theory designed around the principles of chess, not reality. There are plenty of men in the world that would nuke an entire city just to watch it burn.
-
oh right yes i forgot two city fire bombed by 2 planes. wow silly me
-
oh right yes i forgot two city fire bombed by 2 planes. wow silly me
You lived in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time of the firebombing? Wow, you must be pretty old!
-
300,000 people survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima. 180,000 people survived the atomic bombings of Nagasaki . not one survive told a story of hundreds of bombers over the space of a few hours. they all describe one plane.
as for the bombers it would have required. well the biggest raid on Tokyo required 520 B-29s. B-29s have 11 crew so that 5,720 crew. plus 7 ground crew for each aircraft 3,640. so that's at least a total of 9,360 USAF personal that would have had be made to stay silent for the rest of their lives, including on their death beds.
this is how long it took the USAF to level Tokyo to the state seen in many photos
Partial list of B-29 missions against Tokyo
24 November 1944: 111 B-29s hit an aircraft factory on the rim of the city.
27 November 1944: 81 B-29s
29–30 November 1944: two incendiary raids on industrial areas, burning 2,773 structures.
19 February 1945: 119 B-29s hit port and urban area
24 February 1945: 229 B-29s plus over 1600 carrier-based planes.
25 February 1945: 174 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~28,000 buildings
4 March 1945: 159 B-29s hit urban area[8]
10 March 1945: 334 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~267,000 buildings; ~25% of city (Operation Meetinghouse) killing some 100,000
2 April 1945: >100 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory
3 April 1945: 68 B-29s bomb the Koizumi aircraft factory and urban areas in Tokyo
7 April 1945: 101 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory.
13 April 1945: 327 B-29s bomb the arsenal area
15 April 1945: 109 B-29s hit urban area[citation needed]
24 May 1945: 520 B-29s bomb urban-industrial area south of the Imperial Palace
26 May 1945: 464 B-29s bomb urban area immediately south of the Imperial Palace
20 July 1945: 1 B-29 drops a Pumpkin bomb (bomb with same ballistics as the Fat Man nuclear bomb) through overcast aiming at but missing the Imperial Palace[21]
8 August 1945: ~60 B-29s bomb the aircraft factory and arsenal
10 August 1945: 70 B-29s bomb the arsenal complex
i didn't need to be their, its one of the most well documented moments in history.
-
oh right yes i forgot two city fire bombed by 2 planes. wow silly me
He is just bored. He knows they exist.
-
300,000 people survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima. 180,000 people survived the atomic bombings of Nagasaki . not one survive told a story of hundreds of bombers over the space of a few hours. they all describe one plane.
as for the bombers it would have required. well the biggest raid on Tokyo required 520 B-29s. B-29s have 11 crew so that 5,720 crew. plus 7 ground crew for each aircraft 3,640. so that's at least a total of 9,360 USAF personal that would have had be made to stay silent for the rest of their lives, including on their death beds.
this is how long it took the USAF to level Tokyo to the state seen in many photos
Partial list of B-29 missions against Tokyo
24 November 1944: 111 B-29s hit an aircraft factory on the rim of the city.
27 November 1944: 81 B-29s
29–30 November 1944: two incendiary raids on industrial areas, burning 2,773 structures.
19 February 1945: 119 B-29s hit port and urban area
24 February 1945: 229 B-29s plus over 1600 carrier-based planes.
25 February 1945: 174 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~28,000 buildings
4 March 1945: 159 B-29s hit urban area[8]
10 March 1945: 334 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~267,000 buildings; ~25% of city (Operation Meetinghouse) killing some 100,000
2 April 1945: >100 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory
3 April 1945: 68 B-29s bomb the Koizumi aircraft factory and urban areas in Tokyo
7 April 1945: 101 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory.
13 April 1945: 327 B-29s bomb the arsenal area
15 April 1945: 109 B-29s hit urban area[citation needed]
24 May 1945: 520 B-29s bomb urban-industrial area south of the Imperial Palace
26 May 1945: 464 B-29s bomb urban area immediately south of the Imperial Palace
20 July 1945: 1 B-29 drops a Pumpkin bomb (bomb with same ballistics as the Fat Man nuclear bomb) through overcast aiming at but missing the Imperial Palace[21]
8 August 1945: ~60 B-29s bomb the aircraft factory and arsenal
10 August 1945: 70 B-29s bomb the arsenal complex
i didn't need to be their, its one of the most well documented moments in history.
Trust me! you need to be there.
-
In sory, why are you posting hear? ??? Last time you did you deleted all your posts.
-
In sory, why are you posting hear? ??? Last time you did you deleted all your posts.
Because it's a forum and until I'm told by the administrators or mods that I can't, I will post where I feel I can.
Hope this answers your question.
-
i didn't need to be their
Ignorance. I'll ignore the blatant typo as well.
, its one of the most well documented moments in history.
No, it isn't. Writing something in a history book does not make it history. If I took all of the made up garbage and bias out of every history subject in the world, there wouldn't be anything left.
-
i didn't need to be their
Ignorance. I'll ignore the blatant typo as well.
Do you know what "ignore" means?
-
Do you know what "ignore" means?
Do you? I'm going to go ahead and wait for you to say your own argument, that way you don't try to switch anything up when you realize you're wrong. I'm on to your little games, imp.
-
Do you know what "ignore" means?
Do you? I'm going to go ahead and wait for you to say your own argument, that way you don't try to switch anything up when you realize you're wrong. I'm on to your little games, imp.
You explicitly acknowledged the typo.
-
You explicitly acknowledged the typo.
What are you talking about? There aren't any typos there.
-
(http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5679/atombombk.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/atombombk.jpg/)
This is your simple city destroying atomic bomb.
This is the bomb or one variation of bomb that has had people from the 40's, right up to present day, worrying about the mass destruction of their countries.
I think the worst you would need to worry about with this bomb would be if the cordite charge detonated close to you, showering you in bomb casing and blowing you to pieces. If you were a few hundred metres away, maybe your ear drums would burst. As for radiation, I think you have more chance of getting sun burn waiting for the fall out.
-
(http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5679/atombombk.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/atombombk.jpg/)
This is your simple city destroying atomic bomb.
This is the bomb or one variation of bomb that has had people from the 40's, right up to present day, worrying about the mass destruction of their countries.
I think the worst you would need to worry about with this bomb would be if the cordite charge detonated close to you, showering you in bomb casing and blowing you to pieces. If you were a few hundred metres away, maybe your ear drums would burst. As for radiation, I think you have more chance of getting sun burn waiting for the fall out.
They don't use that type anymore.
-
(http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5679/atombombk.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/atombombk.jpg/)
This is your simple city destroying atomic bomb.
This is the bomb or one variation of bomb that has had people from the 40's, right up to present day, worrying about the mass destruction of their countries.
I think the worst you would need to worry about with this bomb would be if the cordite charge detonated close to you, showering you in bomb casing and blowing you to pieces. If you were a few hundred metres away, maybe your ear drums would burst. As for radiation, I think you have more chance of getting sun burn waiting for the fall out.
They don't use that type anymore.
It doesn't matter what type they use, they're all as much use as a cheap fire work.
-
Today the only thing nuked was a few TV dinners. Nuclear bombs yet again confirm their own non-existence.
-
Today the only thing nuked was a few TV dinners. Nuclear bombs yet again confirm their own non-existence.
so you require the death of potential millions of people for you to believe in their existence. that's sick even for you.
-
so you require the death of potential millions of people for you to believe in their existence. that's sick even for you.
I don't have to worry about the death of millions because nuclear weapons don't exist. You're the strange little man that believes in these things, not me.
-
well we have had over 2000 nuclear explosions in the past 70 years so take your pick from explosions to disprove their existence.
-
Nuclear weapons and power will be phased out soon enough but not until a plausible new destructive power has been put in place to keep us on edge, as well as a new energy source that is not dangerous to us but is expensive to produce but is abundant.
This will be the next ruse and Nuclear power will fade into history as something that was horrible but now does not exist, unless they want to use a stray weapon left over that's got into the hands of terrorists who will hold someone to ransom...but that's for the news media to report and makes a good sort of real life film to have us on the edge of our seats.
Basically our lives are run on fear and we are not allowed to concentrate on running through fields of daisies with the sun in our hair wearing clean fabric conditioner smelling light airy clothes, smiling among the cheery and pleasant wild life skipping about the wilderness. ;D
M.U.D...Mutually assured destruction. In chess, it's called a stale mate as there cannot be a winner, or can there be a winner?
They who launch first, will surely win won't they?
Nope.
Because they who launch first will be retaliated against won't they? Or will they?
Will those that launch first not have the ultimate advantage of destroying a country before that country has verified that the threat is real?
Are all nuclear weapons sat in silo's, all primed and ready, even though fissioning is occurring in the warheads as they sit waiting, plus fuel and detonators inside them all ready to simply launch on a high level order to unleash the beasts?
Who has the finger on the trigger?
Don't two trusted soldiers man each silo, each with a gun and key and codes, where one has to shoot the other in case of him/her going round the bend and launching?
Seems a hell of a lot to do, considering we get a 4 minute warning.
If nukes were real, one country could annihilate the other before they have had time to even contemplate getting to a silo launch state.
I think we get conned and told some whoppers, yet we live in fear of it because we all don't want to have a bad day in the sun burned stakes do we.
It makes me think about def con 5/4/3/2 and def con 1...is it defence condition or is it a definite con?
It gets me back to thinking of the the film I watched years ago with Mathew Broderick.."wargames"..I'm sure many of you will have seen it.
I think back to it all and how the super computer was playing a game of tic tac toe...basically nobody can win the game.
Can anyone remember the name of the machine? W.O.P.R......short for whopper maybe.
Sometimes you wonder if they are telling us about all this bull shit in films like this and seeing if we can understand their games.
Do I sound mad?
Stephen Falken: Now, children, come on over here. I'm going to tell you a bedtime story. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. Once upon a time, there lived a magnificent race of animals that dominated the world through age after age. They ran, they swam, and they fought and they flew, until suddenly, quite recently, they disappeared. Nature just gave up and started again. We weren't even apes then. We were just these smart little rodents hiding in the rocks. And when we go, nature will start over. With the bees, probably. Nature knows when to give up, David.
McKittrick: [McKittrick approaches Falken's group on stairs] I don't know what you think you can do here, Stephen.
Stephen Falken: [suddenly noticing] John! Good to see you. I see the wife still picks your ties.
McKittrick: What is- What has this kid been telling you?
Stephen Falken: [looking at screens] How far's he gone?
McKittrick: Well the President about ready to order a counterstrike. That's what we're recommending he do.
Stephen Falken: It's a bluff, John, call it off.
McKittrick: No, it's not a bluff. It's real.
Stephen Falken: [raising his voice from stairs] Hello, General Beringer! Stephen Falken!
General Beringer: [standing] Mr. Falken you picked a hell of a day for a visit!
Stephen Falken: Uh, uh, General, what you see on these screens up here is a fantasy; a computer-enhanced hallucination. Those blips are not real missiles. They're phantoms.
McKittrick: [McKittrick approaches Beringer] Jack, there's nothing to indicate a simulation at all. Everything is working perfectly!
Stephen Falken: But does it make any sense?
General Beringer: Does what make any sense?
Stephen Falken: [points to the screens] That!
General Beringer: Look, I don't have time for a conversation right now.
Stephen Falken: [Falken speaks as he approaches] General, are you prepared to destroy the enemy?
General Beringer: You betcha!
Stephen Falken: Do you think they know that?
General Beringer: I believe we've made that clear enough.
Stephen Falken: [face to face] Then don't! Tell the President to ride out the attack.
Colonel Joe Conley: Sir, they need a decision.
Stephen Falken: General, do you really believe that the enemy would attack without provocation, using so many missiles, bombers, and subs so that we would have no choice but to totally annihilate them?
Female Airman First Class: [on loudspeaker] One minute and thirty seconds to impact.
Stephen Falken: General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
Female Airman First Class: [on loudspeaker] One minute and twenty seconds to impact.
[after playing out all possible outcomes for Global Thermonuclear War]
Joshua: Greetings, Professor Falken.
Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.
Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Stephen Falken: What you see on these screens up here is a fantasy; a computer enhanced hallucination!
Stephen Falken: Are either of you paleontologists? I'm in desperate need of a paleontologist.
Jennifer: No, we're high school students.
Stephen Falken: Pity.
Stephen Falken: I loved it when you nuked Las Vegas. Suitably biblical ending to the place, don't you think?
Stephen Falken: The whole point was to find a way to practice nuclear war without destroying ourselves. To get the computers to learn from mistakes we couldn't afford to make. Except, I never could get Joshua to learn the most important lesson.
David Lightman: What's that?
Stephen Falken: Futility. That there's a time when you should just give up.
Jennifer: What kind of a lesson is that?
Stephen Falken: Did you ever play tic-tac-toe?
Jennifer: Yeah, of course.
Stephen Falken: But you don't anymore.
Jennifer: No.
Stephen Falken: Why?
Jennifer: Because it's a boring game. It's always a tie.
Stephen Falken: Exactly. There's no way to win. The game itself is pointless! But back at the war room, they believe you can win a nuclear war. That there can be "acceptable losses."
What am I getting at here?
The fact that we can be played just like that game and believe anything they tell us, yet in reality, they know on all sides that it's a fantasy...something most of us do not know.
-
(http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5679/atombombk.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/atombombk.jpg/)
This is your simple city destroying atomic bomb.
This is the bomb or one variation of bomb that has had people from the 40's, right up to present day, worrying about the mass destruction of their countries.
I think the worst you would need to worry about with this bomb would be if the cordite charge detonated close to you, showering you in bomb casing and blowing you to pieces. If you were a few hundred metres away, maybe your ear drums would burst. As for radiation, I think you have more chance of getting sun burn waiting for the fall out.
They don't use that type anymore.
It doesn't matter what type they use, they're all as much use as a cheap fire work.
Only to the uneducated like you.
-
(http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5679/atombombk.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/atombombk.jpg/)
This is your simple city destroying atomic bomb.
This is the bomb or one variation of bomb that has had people from the 40's, right up to present day, worrying about the mass destruction of their countries.
I think the worst you would need to worry about with this bomb would be if the cordite charge detonated close to you, showering you in bomb casing and blowing you to pieces. If you were a few hundred metres away, maybe your ear drums would burst. As for radiation, I think you have more chance of getting sun burn waiting for the fall out.
They don't use that type anymore.
It doesn't matter what type they use, they're all as much use as a cheap fire work.
Only to the uneducated like you.
I love that word "uneducated"..what does it mean?
-
well we have had over 2000 nuclear explosions in the past 70 years so take your pick from explosions to disprove their existence.
I just lit a stick of dynamite, oops, I mean nuclear bomb in my backyard. Better make that over 2001 recorded nuclear explosions.
-
I love that word "uneducated"..what does it mean?
Remember when you said no one understand E=MC^2? I explained it to you and you threw a hissy fit and still said no one understands it. Uneducated is something like that.
-
I love that word "uneducated"..what does it mean?
Remember when you said no one understand E=MC^2? I explained it to you and you threw a hissy fit and still said no one understands it. Uneducated is something like that.
How can you explain something that you don't understand.
-
I love that word "uneducated"..what does it mean?
Remember when you said no one understand E=MC^2? I explained it to you and you threw a hissy fit and still said no one understands it. Uneducated is something like that.
How can you explain something that you don't understand.
Basically the same as he is doing now again
-
I love that word "uneducated"..what does it mean?
Remember when you said no one understand E=MC^2? I explained it to you and you threw a hissy fit and still said no one understands it. Uneducated is something like that.
How can you explain something that you don't understand.
Basically the same as he is doing now again
I'd like to see him explain E=MC2 using the equations and explaining as he goes. Over to him.
-
I love that word "uneducated"..what does it mean?
Remember when you said no one understand E=MC^2? I explained it to you and you threw a hissy fit and still said no one understands it. Uneducated is something like that.
How can you explain something that you don't understand.
Basically the same as he is doing now again
I'd like to see him explain E=MC2 using the equations and explaining as he goes. Over to him.
Why should he put in the effort? You have shown absolutely zip all want/ability to understand it or even believe it is correct in anyway... Let alone getting you to understand a new concept/ change you opinion/admit your wrong is impossible...
-
I love that word "uneducated"..what does it mean?
Remember when you said no one understand E=MC^2? I explained it to you and you threw a hissy fit and still said no one understands it. Uneducated is something like that.
How can you explain something that you don't understand.
Basically the same as he is doing now again
I'd like to see him explain E=MC2 using the equations and explaining as he goes. Over to him.
I already did. Do you not remember your hissy fit?
-
I love that word "uneducated"..what does it mean?
Remember when you said no one understand E=MC^2? I explained it to you and you threw a hissy fit and still said no one understands it. Uneducated is something like that.
How can you explain something that you don't understand.
Basically the same as he is doing now again
I'd like to see him explain E=MC2 using the equations and explaining as he goes. Over to him.
Why should he put in the effort? You have shown absolutely zip all want/ability to understand it or even believe it is correct in anyway... Let alone getting you to understand a new concept/ change you opinion/admit your wrong is impossible...
Nothing is impossible. Extremely frustratingly hard, maybe...but not impossible. It's just how it's put across, which is the key.
-
I love that word "uneducated"..what does it mean?
Remember when you said no one understand E=MC^2? I explained it to you and you threw a hissy fit and still said no one understands it. Uneducated is something like that.
How can you explain something that you don't understand.
Basically the same as he is doing now again
I'd like to see him explain E=MC2 using the equations and explaining as he goes. Over to him.
I already did. Do you not remember your hissy fit?
No I don't remember a hissy fit...but anyway: let's see you put up the full equation and explaining it all the way through.
-
There's an explanation in here
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306819112 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306819112)
-
Apparently, even the best scientific heads cannot figure out what the hell the equation actually means in it's entirety and have no clue about the actual equation in itself, as in the formula.
-
Apparently, even the best scientific heads cannot figure out what the hell the equation actually means in it's entirety and have no clue about the actual equation in itself, as in the formula.
Do you have a source for this claim?
-
Scepti has been utterly confused by sokarul because sokarul understands about as much about physics as a piece of buttered toast. Extra buttered.
-
No I don't remember a hissy fit...but anyway: let's see you put up the full equation and explaining it all the way through.
Here it is from before. There is another post where I corrected one thing I said.
Without even looking at wikipedia. Here you go.
The full equation is something like E^2=(MC^2)^2+(PC^2)^2
Where
E is energy
M is mass
C is the speed of light
P is momentum
So the equation says the total energy is equal to rest-mass energy, MC^2, plus energy from momentum. Momentum of course being mass times velocity. So when the object has no velocity you can see how that term is zero and you are left with just rest-mass energy.
To use the equation for objects that have no mass, as in light photons it gets a bit tricky. For we all know light has energy but no mass. To use the equation you set rest-mass energy to zero and say that light has momentum(which can be seen in experiments) and then you can see how the equation works.
These two things I said are only true for relativistic speeds. E=MC^2 can also have the gamma term.
Gamma is 1 over the square root of velocity square over speed of light squared. This is used here on the website alot to make sure that objects don't accelerate to a velocity which is faster than the speed of light.
Satisfied?
And your hissy fit that I reported and Lorddave yelled at you for.
All you have done, is spouted an absolute piece of unbelievable crap based on what you believe you have copied. It's so stupid it begs the question of, "how gullible are you and those that cater to this."
Absolute shite and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this.
-
Scepti has been utterly confused by sokarul because sokarul understands about as much about physics as a piece of buttered toast. Extra buttered.
Mmm... toast.
-
Well it's settled, E=Mc2 exists.
-
Well it's settled, E=Mc2 exists.
Existence is definitive only to the observer.
-
Apparently, even the best scientific heads cannot figure out what the hell the equation actually means in it's entirety and have no clue about the actual equation in itself, as in the formula.
Do you have a source for this claim?
I once heard that if a person begins a statement with 'apparently' then that person is talking rubbish. It's so nice when a little folk-wisdom is confirmed.
-
Apparently, even the best scientific heads cannot figure out what the hell the equation actually means in it's entirety and have no clue about the actual equation in itself, as in the formula.
Do you have a source for this claim?
I once heard that if a person begins a statement with 'apparently' then that person is talking rubbish. It's so nice when a little folk-wisdom is confirmed.
That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion.
E=MC2 is a shortened version in a nutshell of the big equation for fantasy. E=MC2 exists in the lettering and number it shows like this(E=MC2) and that is all it will ever be as the equation of it all serves no purpose in life other than fantasy.
This is what I believe and will continue to believe and it's non negotiable.
-
Apparently, even the best scientific heads cannot figure out what the hell the equation actually means in it's entirety and have no clue about the actual equation in itself, as in the formula.
Do you have a source for this claim?
I once heard that if a person begins a statement with 'apparently' then that person is talking rubbish. It's so nice when a little folk-wisdom is confirmed.
That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion.
E=MC2 is a shortened version in a nutshell of the big equation for fantasy. E=MC2 exists in the lettering and number it shows like this(E=MC2) and that is all it will ever be as the equation of it all serves no purpose in life other than fantasy.
This is what I believe and will continue to believe and it's non negotiable.
You made a claim:
Apparently, even the best scientific heads cannot figure out what the hell the equation actually means in it's entirety and have no clue about the actual equation in itself, as in the formula.
I challenged it and asked for a source for this statement and you haven't provided one. Therefore I must conclude that you were talking out of your arse as usual and the best scientific heads have figured out what the equation means. To back up my statement I gave a link to a book which explains the equation. Here it is again
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306819112/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362745686&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306819112/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362745686&sr=1-1)
You must learn to stop telling lies.
-
The equation E=MC2 is based entirely on fantasy. It was concocted to cater for space and nuclear lies.
-
E=mc2 and all the math behind it was thought up long before space travel and nuclear weapons. i think you need to check your history.
-
E=mc2 and all the math behind it was thought up long before space travel and nuclear weapons. i think you need to check your history.
You give far too ,much credit to a history of Chinese whispers.
-
oh im sory. do you have a source or any evidence to suggest that E=MC2 was and its supporting math was thought up afterwards?
make sure to post it in you next post to show us how we are all wrong.
-
oh im sory. do you have a source or any evidence to suggest that E=MC2 was and its supporting math was thought up afterwards?
make sure to post it in you next post to show us how we are all wrong.
E=MC2 only exists as letters and a number. that's it. the rest of what it's supposed to be about is a load of old codswallop.
-
no didnt think you would. not a surprise really. we have come to expect as much from you.
-
no didnt think you would. not a surprise really. we have come to expect as much from you.
That's all you'll get from me Thaggy.
-
oh im sory. do you have a source or any evidence to suggest that E=MC2 was and its supporting math was thought up afterwards?
make sure to post it in you next post to show us how we are all wrong.
E=MC2 only exists as letters and a number. that's it. the rest of what it's supposed to be about is a load of old codswallop.
Hate to rain on your little kid parade but the full equation is easily demonstrated.
This simple video shows what I said about mass less particles still having momentum. If the video is wrong, why don't you explain it without normal physics.
Crookes radiometer (light-mill) (http://#)
-
I don't know what you are trying to prove with that video but it looks nothing like lumps of metal firing invisible atoms at other atoms inside a boiler/reactor.
E=MC2 is baloney. That's just my personal opinion. I come to this opinion because it's used to bring fantasy to this world.
It's like quantum physics, special relativity.
If you find something hard to explain, give it a name and make it all up.
-
I don't know what you are trying to prove with that video but it looks nothing like lumps of metal firing invisible atoms at other atoms inside a boiler/reactor.
E=MC2 is baloney. That's just my personal opinion. I come to this opinion because it's used to bring fantasy to this world.
It's like quantum physics, special relativity.
If you find something hard to explain, give it a name and make it all up.
So you can't explain the video. Got it.
-
I don't know what you are trying to prove with that video but it looks nothing like lumps of metal firing invisible atoms at other atoms inside a boiler/reactor.
E=MC2 is baloney. That's just my personal opinion. I come to this opinion because it's used to bring fantasy to this world.
It's like quantum physics, special relativity.
If you find something hard to explain, give it a name and make it all up.
So you can't explain the video. Got it.
Nothing to explain.
-
Nothing to explain.
The simple fact that you think there is nothing to explain shows just how little you really know.
-
Nothing to explain.
The simple fact that you think there is nothing to explain shows just how little you really know.
Oh ok.
-
Lol... I bet the holocaust didn't happen either, right guys?
-
Lol... I bet the holocaust didn't happen either, right guys?
Look in the lounge section, There's a topic on it.
-
Of course there is.
What would people have to gain by acknowledging the existence of the nuclear bomb? Specifically, why would the Japanese say it existed if they hadn't been bombed by it? Are you trolling?
-
Well, for one, the holocaust didn't happen. It was a ruse so Jews could initiate their zionist manifesto and have a good reason for doing so. Without the "holocaust" there wouldn't be an Israel. Odd.
Second, nukes do not exist. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were firebombed. It is no coincidence that both were mainly wooden towns with no military value. In fact, the only concrete building in the entire city of Nagasaki was still standing after the bombing. If such a nuclear bomb exists, it must not be very powerful, since a concrete structure shrugged it off like nothing even happened.
-
What are you talking about?! Both of those cities had tremendous military value. I suggest reading a history book... and a science book.
-
E=MC2 is baloney. That's just my personal opinion. I come to this opinion because it's used to bring fantasy to this world.
It's like quantum physics, special relativity.
If you find something hard to explain, give it a name and make it all up.
Special relativity has been confirmed in the laboratory. The lifetime of a muon is usually 2.2 microseconds. When a beam of these is produced at 99.94% of the speed of light their lifetime is extended to 60 microseconds exactly in accordance with special relativity.
-
E=MC2 is baloney. That's just my personal opinion. I come to this opinion because it's used to bring fantasy to this world.
It's like quantum physics, special relativity.
If you find something hard to explain, give it a name and make it all up.
Special relativity has been confirmed in the laboratory. The lifetime of a muon is usually 2.2 microseconds. When a beam of these is produced at 99.94% of the speed of light their lifetime is extended to 60 microseconds exactly in accordance with special relativity.
Well of course. ::)
-
E=MC2 is baloney. That's just my personal opinion. I come to this opinion because it's used to bring fantasy to this world.
It's like quantum physics, special relativity.
If you find something hard to explain, give it a name and make it all up.
Special relativity has been confirmed in the laboratory. The lifetime of a muon is usually 2.2 microseconds. When a beam of these is produced at 99.94% of the speed of light their lifetime is extended to 60 microseconds exactly in accordance with special relativity.
Well of course. ::)
I'm happy to set you straight.
-
What are you talking about?! Both of those cities had tremendous military value. I suggest reading a history book... and a science book.
It is quite obvious you haven't read either of those and aren't interested in the subjects.
-
It is quite obvious you haven't read either of those and aren't interested in the subjects.
I don't think you want to start arguing facts.
-
It is quite obvious you haven't read either of those and aren't interested in the subjects.
I don't think you want to start arguing facts.
I state facts, then someone like you comes along (not knowing who their betters are) and starts mouthing off at my facts. Get back to your urine testing and let me try to teach the uneducated masses some respect and possibly knowledge.
-
I state facts, then someone like you comes along (not knowing who their betters are) and starts mouthing off at my facts. Get back to your urine testing and let me try to teach the uneducated masses some respect and possibly knowledge.
You are a dumb little kid.
-
You are a dumb little kid.
Every time I await a response from you, I expect an intelligent answer but never get one. I suppose that does make me pretty dumb.
-
You are a dumb little kid.
Every time I await a response from you, I expect an intelligent answer but never get one. I suppose that does make me pretty dumb.
I never expect an intelligent response from you.
-
I never expect an intelligent response from you.
With all of these constant insults directed at me, I must be making you insecure or something.
-
I never expect an intelligent response from you.
With all of these constant insults directed at me, I must be making you insecure or something.
So what about your insults against me? You can't handle that I'm, actually a scientist.
-
So what about your insults against me?
I haven't said any insults. I just stated that I normally expect an intelligent response and I don't receive one. It is only insulting if you consider yourself to be unintelligent, which you just admitted you apparently do.
You can't handle that I'm, actually a scientist.
You hang out on a Flat Earth Society forum all day. I can't imagine you doing anything other than mundane lab work for someone else after you got a mediocre bachelor's degree.
-
I haven't said any insults. I just stated that I normally expect an intelligent response and I don't receive one. It is only insulting if you consider yourself to be unintelligent, which you just admitted you apparently do.
It is quite obvious you haven't read either of those and aren't interested in the subjects.
I don't think you want to start arguing facts.
I state facts, then someone like you comes along (not knowing who their betters are) and starts mouthing off at my facts. Get back to your urine testing and let me try to teach the uneducated masses some respect and possibly knowledge.
Nice try.
You hang out on a Flat Earth Society forum all day. I can't imagine you doing anything other than mundane lab work for someone else after you got a mediocre bachelor's degree.
A degree in chemistry is not mediocre. Nice try though.
-
A degree in chemistry is not mediocre. Nice try though.
Whatever you need to tell yourself so you can sleep at night, I suppose.
-
A degree in chemistry is not mediocre. Nice try though.
Whatever you need to tell yourself so you can sleep at night, I suppose.
You need to realize some people are just over qualified for the military.
-
You need to realize some people are just over qualified for the military.
Do you know any of those people?
-
You need to realize some people are just over qualified for the military.
Do you know any of those people?
Yes I do.
-
Yes I do.
Oh. I don't. Maybe I'll meet one some day, they're like unicorns.
-
First, about Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp06.asp (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp06.asp)
Second, Rushy, if you're going to mock our chemistry degrees, what is your degree in?
edit: And on subject, about the nukes, talk to the Hibakusha and see how they feel about your little "nuclear bombs don't exist" hypothesis.
-
First, about Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp06.asp (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp06.asp)
There were plenty of much more important areas to bomb, but firebombing would absolutely destroy Nagasaki and Hiroshima because they were mostly wood. The concrete building in the center of town withstood the firebombing easily.
Second, Rushy, if you're going to mock our chemistry degrees, what is your degree in?
About 71 right now.
edit: And on subject, about the nukes, talk to the Hibakusha and see how they feel about your little "nuclear bombs don't exist" hypothesis.
Eye witnesses are the single most unreliable and inconclusive type of evidence. Try again?
-
First, about Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp06.asp (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp06.asp)
There were plenty of much more important areas to bomb, but firebombing would absolutely destroy Nagasaki and Hiroshima because they were mostly wood. The concrete building in the center of town withstood the firebombing easily.
Second, Rushy, if you're going to mock our chemistry degrees, what is your degree in?
About 71 right now.
edit: And on subject, about the nukes, talk to the Hibakusha and see how they feel about your little "nuclear bombs don't exist" hypothesis.
Eye witnesses are the single most unreliable and inconclusive type of evidence. Try again?
You didn't provide any evidence that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not of military significance, as you originally claimed. Try again.
Good job dodging the degree question, I'll assume you don't have one.
And you don't have to believe the eyewitnesses, believe the characteristic radiation burns they got that wouldn't have happened through traditional bombing methods. And the birth defects, and other radiation-related problems that you don't get from getting firebombed.
-
Lolz:
You are just guessing at radiation burns. How would you know the difference from napalm or simply fire burns against radiation burns by those pictures.
Those places were fire bombed, air fuel bombed or something like that. The places were made of shacks of wood and a few concrete buildings here and there.
They were rebuilding the place just days after and if you look at the pictures of it, do you notice how smart the roads are, as if the place was intentionally burned down for redevelopment, so maybe those places were used as target practice after being evacuated.
People in those days, hadn't a clue what an atomic bomb was or done, yet some witnesses said it was raining black. Do atomic bombs rain black?
Maybe un ignited fuel from fuel bombs maybe?
-
black rain is ash mixed in the rain. you dimwit. would be produced by both.
the mixing of enormous amounts of airborne irradiated materials combined with heat and thermal currents from the firestorms led to rainfall in both cities within 30-40 minutes of the bombings. As the fallout particles were mixed with carbon residue from citywide fires, the result was the awesome—and injurious—“black rain.”
http://atomicbombmuseum.org/3_radioactivity.shtml (http://atomicbombmuseum.org/3_radioactivity.shtml)
try again
-
Lolz:
You are just guessing at radiation burns. How would you know the difference from napalm or simply fire burns against radiation burns by those pictures.
Those places were fire bombed, air fuel bombed or something like that. The places were made of shacks of wood and a few concrete buildings here and there.
They were rebuilding the place just days after and if you look at the pictures of it, do you notice how smart the roads are, as if the place was intentionally burned down for redevelopment, so maybe those places were used as target practice after being evacuated.
People in those days, hadn't a clue what an atomic bomb was or done, yet some witnesses said it was raining black. Do atomic bombs rain black?
Maybe un ignited fuel from fuel bombs maybe?
Do fire bombs cause shadows where people were standing? You can still see those shadows today, btw.
-
black rain is ash mixed in the rain. you dimwit. would be produced by both. try again
The bomb was supposedly dropped just under 2000 feet high. Where did all this ash come from?
-
the city that was vaporized and the huge fire storm it created sending the city in ash form into the atmosphere where with heat and moisture it fell again as rain. black rain.
-
the city that was vaporized and the huge fire storm it created sending the city in ash form into the atmosphere where with heat and moisture it fell again as rain. black rain.
Not from 2000 feet it wouldn't. A fuel air bomb would though.
-
Are you trying to tell me a nuclear bome wouldn't set fire and to a city and create ash?
-
Are you trying to tell me a nuclear bome wouldn't set fire and to a city and create ash?
I'm trying to tell you that a bomb dropped and exploded from 2000 feet would not create an ash cloud, how could it? Unless the bomb was filled with ash. Was it?
-
Nuclear bombs = unimaginable heat
Unimaginable heat = vaporised buildings and fires started everywhere
Vaporised buildings and fires everywhere = ash
Am I missing some thing? ???
-
Nuclear bombs = unimaginable heat
Unimaginable heat = vaporised buildings and fires started everywhere
Vaporised buildings and fires everywhere = ash
Am I missing some thing? ???
Yes...the ash.
-
Can you explain to me how a bomber managed to drop a bomb from 30,000 feet in 1945 and hit it's target?
-
Oh right. In sceptics world fires don't make ash. Makes sense I suppose.
Oh and it didn't hit its target it missed it by quite some way. But it's a nuclear bomb it dsnt realy matter much. CUS IT MAKE BIG BOOM!
-
Oh right. In sceptics world fires don't make ash. Makes sense I suppose.
Oh and it didn't hit its target it missed it by quite some way. But it's a nuclear bomb it dsnt realy matter much. CUS IT MAKE BIG BOOM!
Fires do make ash. But fires raining black rain down onto people from high up don;t contain ash, so where did the ash come from? The bomb?
Yes it missed it's target by , wait for it.....800 feet, from 30,000 feet up.
You would have more chance of hitting a bullseye on a normal dart board in a field throwing your dart from a bi plane, whilst strapped to the top wearing Biggles goggles.
-
Are you an expert on 1945 high altitude aiming abilities. Care to link us to a sorce saying that its not possible? I won't hold my breath lol.
The ash comes from fires I'm not sure why you can't understand this. But the. Again you are well know on hear for struggling with basic concepts.
-
Are you an expert on 1945 high altitude aiming abilities. Care to link us to a sorce saying that its not possible? I won't hold my breath lol.
The ash comes from fires I'm not sure why you can't understand this. But the. Again you are well know on hear for struggling with basic concepts.
Does black rain on a sunny day come directly from the exploded 2000 feet up atom bomb. What makes the black rain, is it the keystone cop atoms? is it the melted bomb casing? did they put 30 gallon of oil in the bomb?
What made the black sticky rain Thaggy?
-
Ash I just informed you. You are just incapable of understanding it. Not my fault. Like I said you are known for not being able to understand basic concepts.
Found a source for you claim on accuracy limitations yet? No? Lol
-
Lolz:
You are just guessing at radiation burns. How would you know the difference from napalm or simply fire burns against radiation burns by those pictures.
Those places were fire bombed, air fuel bombed or something like that. The places were made of shacks of wood and a few concrete buildings here and there.
They were rebuilding the place just days after and if you look at the pictures of it, do you notice how smart the roads are, as if the place was intentionally burned down for redevelopment, so maybe those places were used as target practice after being evacuated.
People in those days, hadn't a clue what an atomic bomb was or done, yet some witnesses said it was raining black. Do atomic bombs rain black?
Maybe un ignited fuel from fuel bombs maybe?
Why is radiation detected in places where nuclear blasts are said to have taken place?
-
Lolz:
You are just guessing at radiation burns. How would you know the difference from napalm or simply fire burns against radiation burns by those pictures.
Those places were fire bombed, air fuel bombed or something like that. The places were made of shacks of wood and a few concrete buildings here and there.
They were rebuilding the place just days after and if you look at the pictures of it, do you notice how smart the roads are, as if the place was intentionally burned down for redevelopment, so maybe those places were used as target practice after being evacuated.
People in those days, hadn't a clue what an atomic bomb was or done, yet some witnesses said it was raining black. Do atomic bombs rain black?
Maybe un ignited fuel from fuel bombs maybe?
Why is radiation detected in places where nuclear blasts are said to have taken place?
Geiger counters are clearly rigged
-
Lolz:
You are just guessing at radiation burns. How would you know the difference from napalm or simply fire burns against radiation burns by those pictures.
Those places were fire bombed, air fuel bombed or something like that. The places were made of shacks of wood and a few concrete buildings here and there.
They were rebuilding the place just days after and if you look at the pictures of it, do you notice how smart the roads are, as if the place was intentionally burned down for redevelopment, so maybe those places were used as target practice after being evacuated.
People in those days, hadn't a clue what an atomic bomb was or done, yet some witnesses said it was raining black. Do atomic bombs rain black?
Maybe un ignited fuel from fuel bombs maybe?
Why is radiation detected in places where nuclear blasts are said to have taken place?
Have you verified this radiation in places where blasts are "said" to have taken place?
-
Lolz:
You are just guessing at radiation burns. How would you know the difference from napalm or simply fire burns against radiation burns by those pictures.
Those places were fire bombed, air fuel bombed or something like that. The places were made of shacks of wood and a few concrete buildings here and there.
They were rebuilding the place just days after and if you look at the pictures of it, do you notice how smart the roads are, as if the place was intentionally burned down for redevelopment, so maybe those places were used as target practice after being evacuated.
People in those days, hadn't a clue what an atomic bomb was or done, yet some witnesses said it was raining black. Do atomic bombs rain black?
Maybe un ignited fuel from fuel bombs maybe?
Why is radiation detected in places where nuclear blasts are said to have taken place?
Geiger counters are clearly rigged
How would you know any different, seriously?
-
Because I'm a chemist and I've used Geiger counters.
-
Geiger counters are clearly rigged
How would you know any different, seriously?
[/quote]
People use them to check my lab for contamination. I run ICP-OES, it will tell me what elements are in a sample. I can see what radioactive ones are in a sample and a Geiger Counter can detect them up as well.
You seem to forget people do science for a living.
-
Because I'm a chemist and I've used Geiger counters.
I'll try and make myself clear, just so you know.
Lots of elements make radiation of some form and lots of man made machines and chemicals can be irradiated.
I don't have any problems with that. My issue is with Uranium and Plutonium emitting monstrous radiation by decay, yet creating mammoth energy from tiny input, which can energise whole cities and also obliterate them.
That's my problem with it. You can sit there and tell me all of the magic a chemist does and it means nothing.
If you are a nuclear scientist and have created this fission yourself and can prove it, then fair enough. If you can't, then you don't know what radiation a Geiger counter picks up as regards Plutonium/Uranium levels, you only know what you are told.
-
Geiger counters are clearly rigged
How would you know any different, seriously?
People use them to check my lab for contamination. I run ICP-OES, it will tell me what elements are in a sample. I can see what radioactive ones are in a sample and a Geiger Counter can detect them up as well.
You seem to forget people do science for a living.
[/quote]Do you fission Uranium and Plutonium in your lab?
Geiger counters can pick up radiation of sorts, I can't deny that, what I can contest is, you knowing they can pick up radiation from elements you know little or nothing about, except what you read about them.
-
Because I'm a chemist and I've used Geiger counters.
I'll try and make myself clear, just so you know.
Lots of elements make radiation of some form and lots of man made machines and chemicals can be irradiated.
I don't have any problems with that. My issue is with Uranium and Plutonium emitting monstrous radiation by decay, yet creating mammoth energy from tiny input, which can energise whole cities and also obliterate them.
That's my problem with it. You can sit there and tell me all of the magic a chemist does and it means nothing.
If you are a nuclear scientist and have created this fission yourself and can prove it, then fair enough. If you can't, then you don't know what radiation a Geiger counter picks up as regards Plutonium/Uranium levels, you only know what you are told.
What causes radioactivity if it isn't an unstable nucleus? Having an unstable nucleus is what enables atoms to undergo fission, and also what causes radioactivity.
-
Because I'm a chemist and I've used Geiger counters.
I'll try and make myself clear, just so you know.
Lots of elements make radiation of some form and lots of man made machines and chemicals can be irradiated.
I don't have any problems with that. My issue is with Uranium and Plutonium emitting monstrous radiation by decay, yet creating mammoth energy from tiny input, which can energise whole cities and also obliterate them.
That's my problem with it. You can sit there and tell me all of the magic a chemist does and it means nothing.
If you are a nuclear scientist and have created this fission yourself and can prove it, then fair enough. If you can't, then you don't know what radiation a Geiger counter picks up as regards Plutonium/Uranium levels, you only know what you are told.
What causes radioactivity if it isn't an unstable nucleus? Having an unstable nucleus is what enables atoms to undergo fission, and also what causes radioactivity.
Tell me why atoms jump from one rod to another in a nuclear reactor and don;t jump from pellet to pellet in the one rod.
-
Because I'm a chemist and I've used Geiger counters.
I'll try and make myself clear, just so you know.
Lots of elements make radiation of some form and lots of man made machines and chemicals can be irradiated.
I don't have any problems with that. My issue is with Uranium and Plutonium emitting monstrous radiation by decay, yet creating mammoth energy from tiny input, which can energise whole cities and also obliterate them.
That's my problem with it. You can sit there and tell me all of the magic a chemist does and it means nothing.
If you are a nuclear scientist and have created this fission yourself and can prove it, then fair enough. If you can't, then you don't know what radiation a Geiger counter picks up as regards Plutonium/Uranium levels, you only know what you are told.
What causes radioactivity if it isn't an unstable nucleus? Having an unstable nucleus is what enables atoms to undergo fission, and also what causes radioactivity.
Tell me why atoms jump from one rod to another in a nuclear reactor and don;t jump from pellet to pellet in the one rod.
You didn't answer my question. What causes radioactivity?
-
Because I'm a chemist and I've used Geiger counters.
I'll try and make myself clear, just so you know.
Lots of elements make radiation of some form and lots of man made machines and chemicals can be irradiated.
I don't have any problems with that. My issue is with Uranium and Plutonium emitting monstrous radiation by decay, yet creating mammoth energy from tiny input, which can energise whole cities and also obliterate them.
That's my problem with it. You can sit there and tell me all of the magic a chemist does and it means nothing.
If you are a nuclear scientist and have created this fission yourself and can prove it, then fair enough. If you can't, then you don't know what radiation a Geiger counter picks up as regards Plutonium/Uranium levels, you only know what you are told.
What causes radioactivity if it isn't an unstable nucleus? Having an unstable nucleus is what enables atoms to undergo fission, and also what causes radioactivity.
Tell me why atoms jump from one rod to another in a nuclear reactor and don;t jump from pellet to pellet in the one rod.
You didn't answer my question. What causes radioactivity?
I don't exactly know what causes it. Now can you answer my question.
-
Because I'm a chemist and I've used Geiger counters.
I'll try and make myself clear, just so you know.
Lots of elements make radiation of some form and lots of man made machines and chemicals can be irradiated.
I don't have any problems with that. My issue is with Uranium and Plutonium emitting monstrous radiation by decay, yet creating mammoth energy from tiny input, which can energise whole cities and also obliterate them.
That's my problem with it. You can sit there and tell me all of the magic a chemist does and it means nothing.
If you are a nuclear scientist and have created this fission yourself and can prove it, then fair enough. If you can't, then you don't know what radiation a Geiger counter picks up as regards Plutonium/Uranium levels, you only know what you are told.
What causes radioactivity if it isn't an unstable nucleus? Having an unstable nucleus is what enables atoms to undergo fission, and also what causes radioactivity.
Tell me why atoms jump from one rod to another in a nuclear reactor and don;t jump from pellet to pellet in the one rod.
You didn't answer my question. What causes radioactivity?
I don't exactly know what causes it. Now can you answer my question.
I don't know, I'm not a nuclear engineer and I've never worked on nuclear reactors. But if you don't know what causes radioactivity, how can you say that our explanation of radioactivity is wrong?
-
]Have you verified this radiation in places where blasts are "said" to have taken place?
People have, you can't argue this.
Do you fission Uranium and Plutonium in your lab?
No, but I do work with uranium and thorium on any given day.
Geiger counters can pick up radiation of sorts, I can't deny that, what I can contest is, you knowing they can pick up radiation from elements you know little or nothing about, except what you read about them.
As we established, I know quite more than you about science.(E=Mc2) So don't tell me what I know and don't know, do you understand?
I took this picture just for you.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_05961.jpg)
Each bottle in the middle shelf is a standard for one element. You can see how many there are. My main job is to measure elements in samples. Don't tell I don't know anything, that is you.
Lots of elements make radiation of some form and lots of man made machines and chemicals can be irradiated.
Yes, lots of elements have a radioactive isotope. Sodium and potassium are radioactive. Your kitchen contains irradiated food, that doesn't mean they become radiative. What you are saying is irradiated is really just contamination.
I don't have any problems with that. My issue is with Uranium and Plutonium emitting monstrous radiation by decay, yet creating mammoth energy from tiny input, which can energise whole cities and also obliterate them.
Let me make it simple for you.
Lets say a uranium atom has 100 energy. Still following? When that atom is hit by a alpha particle with has an energy of 3 from another uranium atom the first atom will break apart into two smaller atoms, lets just call them A and B. The energy of A is 20 and the energy of B is 30. Just made up values to keep it simple. So you see together uranium had an energy of 100, but apart the energy adds up to 50. The other 50 energy was lost as heat. In a reactor, this is what heats up water to make steam. It's quite simple. Did you follow?
.... If you can't, then you don't know what radiation a Geiger counter picks up as regards Plutonium/Uranium levels, you only know what you are told.
Unless you use gamma spectroscopy or some other spectroscopy to see what you have. People at my work don't tell me what is in their samples, I tell them. You need to open your mind and realize there is so much out there.
-
Because I'm a chemist and I've used Geiger counters.
I'll try and make myself clear, just so you know.
Lots of elements make radiation of some form and lots of man made machines and chemicals can be irradiated.
I don't have any problems with that. My issue is with Uranium and Plutonium emitting monstrous radiation by decay, yet creating mammoth energy from tiny input, which can energise whole cities and also obliterate them.
That's my problem with it. You can sit there and tell me all of the magic a chemist does and it means nothing.
If you are a nuclear scientist and have created this fission yourself and can prove it, then fair enough. If you can't, then you don't know what radiation a Geiger counter picks up as regards Plutonium/Uranium levels, you only know what you are told.
What causes radioactivity if it isn't an unstable nucleus? Having an unstable nucleus is what enables atoms to undergo fission, and also what causes radioactivity.
Tell me why atoms jump from one rod to another in a nuclear reactor and don;t jump from pellet to pellet in the one rod.
You didn't answer my question. What causes radioactivity?
I don't exactly know what causes it. Now can you answer my question.
I don't know, I'm not a nuclear engineer and I've never worked on nuclear reactors. But if you don't know what causes radioactivity, how can you say that our explanation of radioactivity is wrong?
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm simply not getting into the pointless argument of having to explain radiation when it comes in many factors and depends on what's meant by radiation. The word radiation gets mentioned and people automatically think Nuclear power/bombs, it's natural...but the Sun radiates heat, a household radiator radiates heat.
The issue is with Nuclear power/bombs in how fissioning can occur like it supposedly does by sticking rods of metal together in water and somehow atoms smash into atoms releasing neutrons and that's what they supposedly do, yet somehow super heat up.
Microwave ovens work by agitating molecules, like rubbing your hands together, yet it takes a large amount of energy to get them to do that.
Nuclear power works by simply using just chunks of metal (for want of a big scientific load of mumbo jumbo) and somehow without energy applied, they just heat water up for years and years...it's a load of old baloney as far as I'm concerned and Nuclear bombs are an even bigger farce.
That's my opinion.
-
]Have you verified this radiation in places where blasts are "said" to have taken place?
People have, you can't argue this.
Do you fission Uranium and Plutonium in your lab?
No, but I do work with uranium and thorium on any given day.
Geiger counters can pick up radiation of sorts, I can't deny that, what I can contest is, you knowing they can pick up radiation from elements you know little or nothing about, except what you read about them.
As we established, I know quite more than you about science.(E=Mc2) So don't tell me what I know and don't know, do you understand?
I took this picture just for you.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_05961.jpg)
Each bottle in the middle shelf is a standard for one element. You can see how many there are. My main job is to measure elements in samples. Don't tell I don't know anything, that is you.
Lots of elements make radiation of some form and lots of man made machines and chemicals can be irradiated.
Yes, lots of elements have a radioactive isotope. Sodium and potassium are radioactive. Your kitchen contains irradiated food, that doesn't mean they become radiative. What you are saying is irradiated is really just contamination.
I don't have any problems with that. My issue is with Uranium and Plutonium emitting monstrous radiation by decay, yet creating mammoth energy from tiny input, which can energise whole cities and also obliterate them.
Let me make it simple for you.
Lets say a uranium atom has 100 energy. Still following? When that atom is hit by a alpha particle with has an energy of 3 from another uranium atom the first atom will break apart into two smaller atoms, lets just call them A and B. The energy of A is 20 and the energy of B is 30. Just made up values to keep it simple. So you see together uranium had an energy of 100, but apart the energy adds up to 50. The other 50 energy was lost as heat. In a reactor, this is what heats up water to make steam. It's quite simple. Did you follow?
.... If you can't, then you don't know what radiation a Geiger counter picks up as regards Plutonium/Uranium levels, you only know what you are told.
Unless you use gamma spectroscopy or some other spectroscopy to see what you have. People at my work don't tell me what is in their samples, I tell them. You need to open your mind and realize there is so much out there.
I'm well aware there's so much out there and there's some really good work going on, which I have no qualms about at all.
You show me a shelf with a load of bottles on and this is to prove what?
So you mess about with Uranium do you. For what reason and also, tell me exactly what it looks like when it comes to you and tell me how you deal with it.
If you can be bothered, give me a low down on what you do with Uranium from receiving it, to finishing with it.
-
I'm well aware there's so much out there and there's some really good work going on, which I have no qualms about at all.
No, you don't have problems with it, that is why you don't believe anything.
You show me a shelf with a load of bottles on and this is to prove what?
To help establish credibility, which you have none of.
So you mess about with Uranium do you. For what reason and also, tell me exactly what it looks like when it comes to you and tell me how you deal with it.
Stop capitalizing element names.
I work for a mining research company. The company was originally founded for uranium research.
So to start. Usually the company receives ore samples. These may be rocks or core samples. Sample prep will crush them and do their thing and get head samples ready for engineers. These engineers will do whatever the client is paying them to do. As for uranium, I have posted yellow cake pictures. They will put the uranium into solution along with some other things from the original head sample and them precipitate out yellow cake. (usually 99% or more U3O8). Then they submit that sample of yellow cake to me and I put it into solution a run it. So when I get uranium containing samples there is a chance it is yellow cake or I can get a liquid with uranium into solution. More often though, I get a samples with many different elements in them. One project going on has uranium and thorium as waste. They want the other elements. It all depends on the client and the original ore. Any more questions?
If you can be bothered, give me a low down on what you do with Uranium from receiving it, to finishing with it.
Now why don't you comment on my simplified version of how nuclear power works and what problems you have.
-
You haven't given me a simplified version of how nuclear power works. All you've done is come up with some powders from mines and putting them into solutions and somehow uranium (note no capital) is discarded in some cases depending on what they want.
I think you know about as much about nuclear power as I do about walking on the moon.
-
I think you know about as much about nuclear power as I do about walking on the moon.
You need to take giant steps.
-
I think you know about as much about nuclear power as I do about walking on the moon.
You need to take giant steps.
How much do you know about nuclear weapons and power?
-
I think you know about as much about nuclear power as I do about walking on the moon.
You need to take giant steps.
How much do you know about nuclear weapons and power?
'Giant steps are what we take walking on the moon.' The Police song?
-
I think you know about as much about nuclear power as I do about walking on the moon.
You need to take giant steps.
How much do you know about nuclear weapons and power?
how much do you know about anything?
thats a rhetorical question, just thought id spell that out to you.
-
You haven't given me a simplified version of how nuclear power works. All you've done is come up with some powders from mines and putting them into solutions and somehow uranium (note no capital) is discarded in some cases depending on what they want.
You didn't read a thing I said.
I think you know about as much about nuclear power as I do about walking on the moon.
Your ignorance does not count as evidence for your arguments.
-
You haven't given me a simplified version of how nuclear power works. All you've done is come up with some powders from mines and putting them into solutions and somehow uranium (note no capital) is discarded in some cases depending on what they want.
You didn't read a thing I said.
I think you know about as much about nuclear power as I do about walking on the moon.
Your ignorance does not count as evidence for your arguments.
Your ignorance doesn't count as evidence either.
-
You haven't given me a simplified version of how nuclear power works. All you've done is come up with some powders from mines and putting them into solutions and somehow uranium (note no capital) is discarded in some cases depending on what they want.
You didn't read a thing I said.
I think you know about as much about nuclear power as I do about walking on the moon.
Your ignorance does not count as evidence for your arguments.
Your ignorance doesn't count as evidence either.
lol is that the best you can come up with
-
You haven't given me a simplified version of how nuclear power works. All you've done is come up with some powders from mines and putting them into solutions and somehow uranium (note no capital) is discarded in some cases depending on what they want.
You didn't read a thing I said.
I think you know about as much about nuclear power as I do about walking on the moon.
Your ignorance does not count as evidence for your arguments.
Your ignorance doesn't count as evidence either.
lol is that the best you can come up with
Is that the best you can come up with, saying, "is that the best you can come up with?"
Stop this silliness Thaggy.
-
Your ignorance doesn't count as evidence either.
I explained nuclear power in the simplest way I could and it was still too advanced for you.
-
Your ignorance doesn't count as evidence either.
I explained nuclear power in the simplest way I could and it was still too advanced for you.
You have explained nothing of the sort.
-
Your ignorance doesn't count as evidence either.
I explained nuclear power in the simplest way I could and it was still too advanced for you.
You have explained nothing of the sort.
he did its just still to advanced for you. lol. i think any explanation would be to advanced for you.
-
Be sceptical about something and everyone turns into a top nuclear scientist. ;D
-
Where are you sceptical? You are just ignorant of facts that's all.
-
Where are you sceptical? You are just ignorant of facts that's all.
And what are the "facts."
-
Where are you sceptical? You are just ignorant of facts that's all.
there is a difference between ignorance and lack of understanding.
-
I explained nuclear power in the simplest way I could and it was still too advanced for you.
You have explained nothing of the sort.
I did.
Let me make it simple for you.
Lets say a uranium atom has 100 energy. Still following? When that atom is hit by a alpha particle with has an energy of 3 from another uranium atom the first atom will break apart into two smaller atoms, lets just call them A and B. The energy of A is 20 and the energy of B is 30. Just made up values to keep it simple. So you see together uranium had an energy of 100, but apart the energy adds up to 50. The other 50 energy was lost as heat. In a reactor, this is what heats up water to make steam. It's quite simple. Did you follow?
Now what don't you understand?
-
I explained nuclear power in the simplest way I could and it was still too advanced for you.
You have explained nothing of the sort.
I did.
Let me make it simple for you.
Lets say a uranium atom has 100 energy. Still following? When that atom is hit by a alpha particle with has an energy of 3 from another uranium atom the first atom will break apart into two smaller atoms, lets just call them A and B. The energy of A is 20 and the energy of B is 30. Just made up values to keep it simple. So you see together uranium had an energy of 100, but apart the energy adds up to 50. The other 50 energy was lost as heat. In a reactor, this is what heats up water to make steam. It's quite simple. Did you follow?
Now what don't you understand?
So what makes them become hot?
-
So what makes them become hot?
Releasing energy.
-
So what makes them become hot?
Releasing energy.
So what you're saying is that heat causes heat?
-
So what makes them become hot?
Releasing energy.
So what you're saying is that heat causes heat?
The energy is lost as heat.
-
So what makes them become hot?
Releasing energy.
So what you're saying is that heat causes heat?
The energy is lost as heat.
Yes, so you've just defined "heat" as "heat". That's not very useful, is it?
-
So what makes them become hot?
Releasing energy.
So what you're saying is that heat causes heat?
The energy is lost as heat.
Yes, so you've just defined "heat" as "heat". That's not very useful, is it?
I did not do that.
-
So what makes them become hot?
Releasing energy.
So what you're saying is that heat causes heat?
The energy is lost as heat.
Yes, so you've just defined "heat" as "heat". That's not very useful, is it?
I did not do that.
Then what did you do?
-
Then what did you do?
Answered his question.
-
Then what did you do?
Answered his question.
That is correct. You answered his question by stating that heat is caused by releasing energy (heat transfer).
-
Then what did you do?
Answered his question.
That is correct. You answered his question by stating that heat is caused by releasing energy (heat transfer).
Released energy doesn't have to be heat. But in this case it is. He asked what makes them hot. I said the released energy. How was I incorrect?
-
Then what did you do?
Answered his question.
That is correct. You answered his question by stating that heat is caused by releasing energy (heat transfer).
Released energy doesn't have to be heat. But in this case it is. He asked what makes them hot. I said the released energy. How was I incorrect?
I didn't say you were incorrect. By all means, you're right. It's just that what you said was a truism.
-
This reminds me of a time a lecturer in my Chemical Mineralogy class asked (in the context of coordination chemistry) "What actually causes colour?" and a student answered something like "It's the wavelengths that aren't absorbed".
tl;dr cool story, bro
-
So what makes them become hot?
Releasing energy.
Ok, so they release energy as heat. What makes them heat up, what makes the energy become hot as it's released?
Why do they become super hot after smashing into other atoms and splitting them, as they are not agitating them, they are just colliding, as we are led to believe.
-
Splitting an atom releases energy. It's kind of the thing that underpins the whole subject.
-
Splitting an atom releases energy. It's kind of the thing that underpins the whole subject.
Ok. So what is it that keeps heating up and why does it keep heating up and up and up.
Here's what my logic tells me.
Bacteria multiply and grow, which is fair enough.
Now atoms, release this energy by sending neutrons towards other atoms and splitting them. and the split atoms get split again and again and again and again and again...ok I'm going on a bit here so I'll use a cake and a person.
The person is the nucleus and the cake is the atom.
The person cuts the cake in half. We now have two halves. The person then cuts each of the two halves in half, so now we have much smaller pieces of one cake and the more that each piece is cut in half, we have even "smaller" pieces, until it becomes impossible to cut it.
What am I getting at here you may ask.
Well, unless atoms grow like bacteria then they wither away to nothing in short order, which would be fine because we see reactions of things in chemistry labs , where you add something and it appears to expand and quickly dies, yet uranium/plutonium metal doesn't do this, it somehow releases a knife to split the cake which releases more knives to split the cake that was originally split, plus other cakes and so on and so on, yet here's the clever part.
After 6/8/10 years or even 20/30 years, this uranium/plutonium metal, as in power stations is still fissioning in spent fuel pools, and is exactly the same size as it started off meaning no decay.
Now a pedal bike left out in the rain over time will decay and fall apart and so will all other things, which as we know depends on the ability of the element as to how long it withstands time.
Now fair enough, this doesn't directly pertain to what we are told nuclear power is, as Einstein supposedly had his mind on it and put a nice big E=MC2 to it and wallop, we can also make it super fission and somehow smash neutrons into atoms even in an atomic explosion and somehow, they still smash into each other whilst being smashed together as metals smashing metals.
But of course, this is science and I don't understand it and yet everyone else does, or they seem to as some even post up the contents of their lab to prove it.
The truth is, unless you use the flow of water, the flow of wind or the light/heat of the sun, you are going to have to put as much energy into anything else to get out of it what you need and that includes magical chunks of dense metal supposedly fissioning for the sake of it.
-
So you are saying splitting atoms dosent release energy?
-
So you are saying splitting atoms dosent release energy?
Not exactly, no.
I'm saying that To get energy out of something, energy has to be put into it. For instance, if you want your car to run, you put in petrol/gas/diesel etc and it runs...but to keep it running you have to put in a lot of fuel.
If you want a coal fired power station to produce electricity from steam, you have to keep putting coal into the furnace all of the time.
Nuclear power is magical as you put pellets of dense metal inside a big container of water, pull a few rods up and away you go for the next 10 years, because some how atoms attack atoms by jumping from rod to rod, yet are all friends in the rod they're stacked in and yet whilst they flit from rod to rod in the water, somehow they heat up and I cannot figure out as to why they would heat up as it's not like they are rubbing together. They are supposedly just playing destruction derby and smashing into each other.
-
I'm saying that To get energy out of something, energy has to be put into it. For instance, if you want your car to run, you put in petrol/gas/diesel etc and it runs...but to keep it running you have to put in a lot of fuel.
The act of splitting an atom isn't exactly effortless. Energy is being put into it.
-
I'm saying that To get energy out of something, energy has to be put into it. For instance, if you want your car to run, you put in petrol/gas/diesel etc and it runs...but to keep it running you have to put in a lot of fuel.
The act of splitting an atom isn't exactly effortless. Energy is being put into it.
What energy is being put into it?
-
Nutrenos from a source inside the reactor starts a chain reaction.
Simple explanation with simple diagrams
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission)
-
Nutrenos from a source inside the reactor starts a chain reaction.
Simple explanation with simple diagrams
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission)
Of course they will make a plausible case Thaggy, it goes without saying. You can't make something up if you can't cover your tracks.
What makes an atom smash an atom?
-
Imagen a small rock thrown at a bolder balanced on the edge of a cliff. It pushes the bolder over the cliff. When it hits the floor it shatters into loads of small bits. Those small bits hit 3 more bolders balanced on the edge of the cliff below sending them over the edge. And on and on and on. Very simple explanation that I think should explain in. Or many use the domino effect. A tiny flick pushes over 1 balanced domino that then nocks over 3 dominoes which then nock over 3 dominoes each and on and on and on. All you need is a small input and you get a cascade effect giving you a massive out put.
-
Imagen a small rock thrown at a bolder balanced on the edge of a cliff. It pushes the bolder over the cliff. When it hits the floor it shatters into loads of small bits. Those small bits hit 3 more bolders balanced on the edge of the cliff below sending them over the edge. And on and on and on. Very simple explanation that I think should explain in. Or many use the domino effect. A tiny flick pushes over 1 balanced domino that then nocks over 3 dominoes which then nock over 3 dominoes each and on and on and on. All you need is a small input and you get a cascade effect giving you a massive out put.
Yes, I understand the concept, I just want to know how it creates the heat as in constant heat and yet 10 years later the pellets have only supposedly used 10 or so per cent of their fuel and yet are still exactly like how they started out.
Let's take your rock scenario. One smashes into a large rock which smashes into smaller rocks which smash into each other creating smaller ones and eventually in short order would become powder if the density was enough for them to keep breaking each other apart of course.
That's fine for cliff falling rocks, but as you can see, the energy is dissipated quickly.
Now the atoms don't fall off of cliff, so what makes them decide to attack the other atoms?
We also know that rocks smashing into each other would just make them crumble and not heat up and even less so in water and in water it would be hard for them to continually smash anyway, yet these atoms work fine in water and can smash into each other and somehow boil this water.
Do they smash and create little suns? do they smash and decide to rub against each other furiously?
-
Yes, I understand the concept, I just want to know how it creates the heat as in constant heat and yet 10 years later the pellets have only supposedly used 10 or so per cent of their fuel and yet are still exactly like how they started out.
In order to answer your question, let's take a quick look at an atom's nucleus. As you may have heard (but may or may not have accepted), neutrally charged neutrons and positively charged protons make up a nucleus. You also may have heard that like charges repel each other. Well, in a uranium nucleus, there are 92 positively charged protons and that many particles with the same charge don't like to be close together. In order to stick those like charges together, another particle is needed. It's called a gluon. It is the mediator of what is known as the strong nuclear force. These gluons need to have a lot of energy to be strong enough to bond (or figuratively "glue") those like charged particles together. Even so, with 92 like minded protons hanging out together in a nucleus, the gluons can barely keep them together and from time to time, the glue fails and the one big nucleus splits (fissions) into 2 or more smaller nuclei. When this splitting occurs, some of the energy that was used to hold the big nucleus together is released in the form of heat. So you see sceptimatic, the energy was there all along in the bonds that were trying to keep the nucleus together.
As for keeping the heat constant... Carbon control rods are used to soak up some of the neutrons release during fission in order to maintain the number of neutrons looking for nuclei to split. Think of the control rods as a braking mechanism for the reactions.
I hope this helps, but for some reason or other, I doubt it.
-
Yes, I understand the concept, I just want to know how it creates the heat as in constant heat and yet 10 years later the pellets have only supposedly used 10 or so per cent of their fuel and yet are still exactly like how they started out.
In order to answer your question, let's take a quick look at an atom's nucleus. As you may have heard (but may or may not have accepted), neutrally charged neutrons and positively charged protons make up a nucleus. You also may have heard that like charges repel each other. Well, in a uranium nucleus, there are 92 positively charged protons and that many particles with the same charge don't like to be close together. In order to stick those like charges together, another particle is needed. It's called a gluon. It is the mediator of what is known as the strong nuclear force. These gluons need to have a lot of energy to be strong enough to bond (or figuratively "glue") those like charged particles together. Even so, with 92 like minded protons hanging out together in a nucleus, the gluons can barely keep them together and from time to time, the glue fails and the one big nucleus splits (fissions) into 2 or more smaller nuclei. When this splitting occurs, some of the energy that was used to hold the big nucleus together is released in the form of heat. So you see sceptimatic, the energy was there all along in the bonds that were trying to keep the nucleus together.
As for keeping the heat constant... Carbon control rods are used to soak up some of the neutrons release during fission in order to maintain the number of neutrons looking for nuclei to split. Think of the control rods as a braking mechanism for the reactions.
I hope this helps, but for some reason or other, I doubt it.
Ok Marko, I have no qualms about your explanation in how you perceive what happens, or shall I say by what you read what happens but let's look at the other avenue.
An atom in reality is touch and go as to whether one can actually be seen and yet you have gluons, which is a great name by the way... and neutrons all inside this atom, which is extremely hard to see anyway, yet 92 protons are in this and all irritated to hell being stuck together by the gluons and want out...well a few of them do.
Once out, they look over the road to the neighbours and decide to attack them, even though they are free from those pesky gluons but unbeknown to them, the neighbours in the other tube over the road have exactly the same thought and they're busting for a fight, so a street riot ensues, only for it to get out of hand and the NAP intervene and quell the violence for a time being, until they decide to leave, in which case it kicks off again. NAP= neutron absorbing police.
I still do not see how immense energy can be released in the form of super heat but something that in reality just decides to jump from one ship to another yet are quite happy to live in the same house/tube without fuss.
-
Once out, they look over the road to the neighbours and decide to attack them, even though they are free from those pesky gluons but unbeknown to them, the neighbours in the other tube over the road have exactly the same thought and they're busting for a fight, so a street riot ensues, only for it to get out of hand and the NAP intervene and quell the violence for a time being, until they decide to leave, in which case it kicks off again. NAP= neutron absorbing police.
Not quite. It's more like the neutrons bust loose and head out in a straight line. If an atomic nucleus just happens to be in the way, then there's trouble. However, the odds of that neutron actually finding another nucleus to split depends on how many other uranium atoms there are near by.
I still do not see how immense energy can be released in the form of super heat but something that in reality just decides to jump from one ship to another yet are quite happy to live in the same house/tube without fuss.
How do you think gasoline releases its energy? Did you know that when gasoline molecules and oxygen molecules get together in the presence of enough heat, a number of chemical reactions occur where the two combine and then split apart to form other molecules. Well, it takes energy (in the form of heat from a match or spark plug) to combine the oxygen and gasoline molecules. That new molecule is quite unstable and splits into smaller molecules (water, carbon dioxide, etc.). Well, all of that splitting releases energy in the form of heat. This is pretty much the same thing that's going on during nuclear fission.
-
Exactly Marko, it takes energy in the form of heat with gasoline etc, yet nuclear uses no air or any heat does it.
It's dipped in a water tank and away it goes fissioning away and using no energy at all from any source.
Even more sillier when you stick it in a bomb casing and watch how quick it turns into a huge sun, destroying cities as quick as blowing down a stack of cards.
-
Exactly Marko, it takes energy in the form of heat with gasoline etc, yet nuclear uses no air or any heat does it.
It's dipped in a water tank and away it goes fissioning away and using no energy at all from any source.
Even more sillier when you stick it in a bomb casing and watch how quick it turns into a huge sun, destroying cities as quick as blowing down a stack of cards.
The energy from nuclear power comes from the decay and fission of uranium atoms. U-235 atoms are not stable (U-238 isn't stable either, but it's much more stable than U-235). Since it's not stable, it has the tendancy to eject chemical radiation in the form of neutrons. These neutrons slam into nuclei of other uranium atoms, causing them to split into smaller atoms like lead, and this fission produces more neutrons (which come from the nucleus of the atom). More and more neutrons are made through this chain reaction, which causes more and more uranium atoms to undergo fission, sustaining the chain reaction.
If the chain reaction is controlled (i.e. nuclear power plants), you get a slow release of energy, which transfers heat to the water and uses that to make power. If the chain reaction is uncontrolled (i.e. nuclear bombs), all the energy is released at once, causing a huge explosion.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it's fake.
edit: and it's not a "huge sun", the sun uses fusion, not fission.
-
Exactly Marko, it takes energy in the form of heat with gasoline etc, yet nuclear uses no air or any heat does it.
It's dipped in a water tank and away it goes fissioning away and using no energy at all from any source.
Even more sillier when you stick it in a bomb casing and watch how quick it turns into a huge sun, destroying cities as quick as blowing down a stack of cards.
The energy from nuclear power comes from the decay and fission of uranium atoms. U-235 atoms are not stable (U-238 isn't stable either, but it's much more stable than U-235). Since it's not stable, it has the tendancy to eject chemical radiation in the form of neutrons. These neutrons slam into nuclei of other uranium atoms, causing them to split into smaller atoms like lead, and this fission produces more neutrons (which come from the nucleus of the atom). More and more neutrons are made through this chain reaction, which causes more and more uranium atoms to undergo fission, sustaining the chain reaction.
If the chain reaction is controlled (i.e. nuclear power plants), you get a slow release of energy, which transfers heat to the water and uses that to make power. If the chain reaction is uncontrolled (i.e. nuclear bombs), all the energy is released at once, causing a huge explosion.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it's fake.
Oh , I understand how they say it works, in that, they , like you, tell us that this unstable fissioning occurs, yet this unstable fissioning can magically sit in submarine nuclear warheads and silos and even be messed around with and machined, without any problem.
You can place uranium/plutonium rings on top of each other and they will sit there happily playing cards for decades, until someone detonates some cordite and slams a uranium/plutonium bullet into it and boom, these card playing stable atoms, shout, " action stations, action stations, capes on, we are on the fly...repeat, we are on the fly...get ready to fireball out of here in a nano second and turn into a sun of radiated poison, obliterating anything in our path and irradiating anything on our travels."
Meanwhile, back the the power plant, the cousin pellets of just uranium are happily snoozing away in their tube beds, waiting for that big neutron absorbing curtain to open so they can all jump out, across to the next tube and fission fight to make water bubble and steam.
Pick a card.... ok put it back.... now shuffle the pack..... , I'll pass my magic wand over it, 'whoosh'...ok now find your card.
It isn't there you say?...well go and open the other sealed pack of cards on the other table...is your card in that pack?
It is? well that's called magical fissioning. :D
-
Exactly Marko, it takes energy in the form of heat with gasoline etc, yet nuclear uses no air or any heat does it.
It's dipped in a water tank and away it goes fissioning away and using no energy at all from any source.
Even more sillier when you stick it in a bomb casing and watch how quick it turns into a huge sun, destroying cities as quick as blowing down a stack of cards.
The energy from nuclear power comes from the decay and fission of uranium atoms. U-235 atoms are not stable (U-238 isn't stable either, but it's much more stable than U-235). Since it's not stable, it has the tendancy to eject chemical radiation in the form of neutrons. These neutrons slam into nuclei of other uranium atoms, causing them to split into smaller atoms like lead, and this fission produces more neutrons (which come from the nucleus of the atom). More and more neutrons are made through this chain reaction, which causes more and more uranium atoms to undergo fission, sustaining the chain reaction.
If the chain reaction is controlled (i.e. nuclear power plants), you get a slow release of energy, which transfers heat to the water and uses that to make power. If the chain reaction is uncontrolled (i.e. nuclear bombs), all the energy is released at once, causing a huge explosion.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it's fake.
Oh , I understand how they say it works, in that, they , like you, tell us that this unstable fissioning occurs, yet this unstable fissioning can magically sit in submarine nuclear warheads and silos and even be messed around with and machined, without any problem.
You can place uranium/plutonium rings on top of each other and they will sit there happily playing cards for decades, until someone detonates some cordite and slams a uranium/plutonium bullet into it and boom, these card playing stable atoms, shout, " action stations, action stations, capes on, we are on the fly...repeat, we are on the fly...get ready to fireball out of here in a nano second and turn into a sun of radiated poison, obliterating anything in our path and irradiating anything on our travels."
Meanwhile, back the the power plant, the cousin pellets of just uranium are happily snoozing away in their tube beds, waiting for that big neutron absorbing curtain to open so they can all jump out, across to the next tube and fission fight to make water bubble and steam.
Pick a card.... ok put it back.... now shuffle the pack..... , I'll pass my magic wand over it, 'whoosh'...ok now find your card.
It isn't there you say?...well go and open the other sealed pack of cards on the other table...is your card in that pack?
It is? well that's called magical fissioning. :D
Obviously it's a bit more complicated than the simplified version I explained. I'm not a nuclear physicist, I'm not even a physicist, I'm an analytical chemist. But here's the difference between us. When I don't understand something, I defer to the knowledge of the experts in the field. The people who have spent decades of their lives understanding the topic at hand. The people whose experiments, through peer-review, have withstood tremendous scrutiny by the scientific community.
When you don't understand something, you don't even try to understand it, you immediately assume that it's wrong and put all your effort into proving it's wrong, rather than verifying it. You know that there are teenagers who've built nuclear reactors, right? It's very, very difficult, but it can be done.
-
You see, you are correct, there is a massive difference between me and you in our ways of looking at stuff like this.
You hang on to every snippet about amazing stuff like nuclear bombs and stuff and what goes into them and ,as you now say, even teenagers have made nuclear reactors.
Naturally you are referring to "nuclear boy" I would presume. The boy that decided to go to walmart and buy a load of items and break them up and build his reactor.
I watched the video on him explaining it and do you know what I did?
I cried with laughing at it, at the thought of how many people are going to be looking, open mouthed at the amazing nuclear boy, the school boy genius.
It's stuff like this that makes me even more sceptical about what's in those power plants. I already know the bombs are fictional. Naturally that's just my personal thought.
I must have some kind of uncanny ability to spot liars and fakes I suppose, yet there are a good few on this forum that can actually spot the liars and fakes too.
Here's something for you and let's see if you can be 100% honest.
Is there a remote possibility however small that remote is, that we could be lied to about what nuclear power actually is and that nuclear bombs may not be what we think they are?
-
You see, you are correct, there is a massive difference between me and you in our ways of looking at stuff like this.
You hang on to every snippet about amazing stuff like nuclear bombs and stuff and what goes into them and ,as you now say, even teenagers have made nuclear reactors.
Naturally you are referring to "nuclear boy" I would presume. The boy that decided to go to walmart and buy a load of items and break them up and build his reactor.
I watched the video on him explaining it and do you know what I did?
I cried with laughing at it, at the thought of how many people are going to be looking, open mouthed at the amazing nuclear boy, the school boy genius.
It's stuff like this that makes me even more sceptical about what's in those power plants. I already know the bombs are fictional. Naturally that's just my personal thought.
I must have some kind of uncanny ability to spot liars and fakes I suppose, yet there are a good few on this forum that can actually spot the liars and fakes too.
Here's something for you and let's see if you can be 100% honest.
Is there a remote possibility however small that remote is, that we could be lied to about what nuclear power actually is and that nuclear bombs may not be what we think they are?
I was actually talking about this guy: http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2007-03/popsci-videoteen-builds-basement-nuclear-reactor (http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2007-03/popsci-videoteen-builds-basement-nuclear-reactor)
He didn't build a fission reactor, but he did build a small fusion reactor. But the point isn't really that he built a reactor, the point is that he designed an experiment, followed through with it, and got results that were in line with what a nuclear physicist would expect to see.
And yes, for 100% honesty, anything is POSSIBLE. So yes, it's possible that nuclear power isn't what we think it is. But is it probable, considering how many reactors and bombs have been designed using what we currently know about nuclear physics, and everything seems to work exactly the way we thought it should? It's incredibly unlikely.
And you say you "know" the bombs are fictional. You may "know" that, in the sense that you believe it strongly much like a Christian would "know" there's a god without being able to prove it. But in the end, much like the Christian, you can't prove it. However, unlike theism, your null hypothesis (i.e. nuclear bombs don't exist/nuclear power plants don't work) can be proven wrong through experimentation.
Either you're a very successful troll or you've fallen into the trap of having such an open mind that your brain fell out. If you're a troll, all I can say is bravo. Good job. If not... I honestly don't know what to say, but I feel very sorry for you.
-
You are correct, I cannot prove it's not real, I can just know in my mind that it's not and as you say, it's like a persons belief in god. They can believe it and nobody can discount it and to some it's true and to others it's not.
You don't have to waste your time feeling sorry for me, as my beliefs stay in the forum, they do not travel in life as in the outside world, because I'm well aware how the general public are so brainwashed , it would be a pointless discussion, with people just arguing that this is true and that's true because we have power, you know that sort of thing, yet without knowing what the hell nuclear power is supposed to actually be.
On here, I know the vast majority probably think I'm a lunatic, well ok, the vast majority are certain I'm a lunatic ;D but the fact is, as you have said, there is a possibility that we are being lied to, however remote you or others think it is. The fact is, there is a possibility.
When they shut down all the nuclear power stations and disband nuclear weapons for a more scary new weapon, then it might , I say "just might" make you think that maybe they were a scam and they have run their course.
-
You are correct, I cannot prove it's not real, I can just know in my mind that it's not and as you say, it's like a persons belief in god. They can believe it and nobody can discount it and to some it's true and to others it's not.
You don't have to waste your time feeling sorry for me, as my beliefs stay in the forum, they do not travel in life as in the outside world, because I'm well aware how the general public are so brainwashed , it would be a pointless discussion, with people just arguing that this is true and that's true because we have power, you know that sort of thing, yet without knowing what the hell nuclear power is supposed to actually be.
On here, I know the vast majority probably think I'm a lunatic, well ok, the vast majority are certain I'm a lunatic ;D but the fact is, as you have said, there is a possibility that we are being lied to, however remote you or others think it is. The fact is, there is a possibility.
When they shut down all the nuclear power stations and disband nuclear weapons for a more scary new weapon, then it might , I say "just might" make you think that maybe they were a scam and they have run their course.
Just out of curiosity, did you study anything at a university? And if so, what?
-
You are correct, I cannot prove it's not real, I can just know in my mind that it's not and as you say, it's like a persons belief in god. They can believe it and nobody can discount it and to some it's true and to others it's not.
You don't have to waste your time feeling sorry for me, as my beliefs stay in the forum, they do not travel in life as in the outside world, because I'm well aware how the general public are so brainwashed , it would be a pointless discussion, with people just arguing that this is true and that's true because we have power, you know that sort of thing, yet without knowing what the hell nuclear power is supposed to actually be.
On here, I know the vast majority probably think I'm a lunatic, well ok, the vast majority are certain I'm a lunatic ;D but the fact is, as you have said, there is a possibility that we are being lied to, however remote you or others think it is. The fact is, there is a possibility.
When they shut down all the nuclear power stations and disband nuclear weapons for a more scary new weapon, then it might , I say "just might" make you think that maybe they were a scam and they have run their course.
You have not entered any evidence for any of your claims other than your opinion. Why is it so hard to find something that agrees with you? Your opinion is not evidence for your arguments.
Another big problem is that you do not understand the concepts of what is being talk about in this thread. If you understood atoms, radiation, and energy you could apply those concepts to weapons and city power and see how they are both possible. But you fail to grasp the concepts so by default you will never agree with what everyone else says is possible. There is a reason why noone is arguing with you.
As for your million questions, if any of them were unanswered ask them again and I will answer them.
-
You are correct, I cannot prove it's not real, I can just know in my mind that it's not and as you say, it's like a persons belief in god. They can believe it and nobody can discount it and to some it's true and to others it's not.
You don't have to waste your time feeling sorry for me, as my beliefs stay in the forum, they do not travel in life as in the outside world, because I'm well aware how the general public are so brainwashed , it would be a pointless discussion, with people just arguing that this is true and that's true because we have power, you know that sort of thing, yet without knowing what the hell nuclear power is supposed to actually be.
On here, I know the vast majority probably think I'm a lunatic, well ok, the vast majority are certain I'm a lunatic ;D but the fact is, as you have said, there is a possibility that we are being lied to, however remote you or others think it is. The fact is, there is a possibility.
When they shut down all the nuclear power stations and disband nuclear weapons for a more scary new weapon, then it might , I say "just might" make you think that maybe they were a scam and they have run their course.
Just out of curiosity, did you study anything at a university? And if so, what?
University is for those that accept being in debt for a long period of their lives based on the expected job they believe they will gain , which amounts to a few per cent of what actually transpires.
-
You are correct, I cannot prove it's not real, I can just know in my mind that it's not and as you say, it's like a persons belief in god. They can believe it and nobody can discount it and to some it's true and to others it's not.
You don't have to waste your time feeling sorry for me, as my beliefs stay in the forum, they do not travel in life as in the outside world, because I'm well aware how the general public are so brainwashed , it would be a pointless discussion, with people just arguing that this is true and that's true because we have power, you know that sort of thing, yet without knowing what the hell nuclear power is supposed to actually be.
On here, I know the vast majority probably think I'm a lunatic, well ok, the vast majority are certain I'm a lunatic ;D but the fact is, as you have said, there is a possibility that we are being lied to, however remote you or others think it is. The fact is, there is a possibility.
When they shut down all the nuclear power stations and disband nuclear weapons for a more scary new weapon, then it might , I say "just might" make you think that maybe they were a scam and they have run their course.
You have not entered any evidence for any of your claims other than your opinion. Why is it so hard to find something that agrees with you? Your opinion is not evidence for your arguments.
Another big problem is that you do not understand the concepts of what is being talk about in this thread. If you understood atoms, radiation, and energy you could apply those concepts to weapons and city power and see how they are both possible. But you fail to grasp the concepts so by default you will never agree with what everyone else says is possible. There is a reason why noone is arguing with you.
As for your million questions, if any of them were unanswered ask them again and I will answer them.
You are entering what I could enter.
Let's change things.
Imagine you were sceptical and I wanted to kill it off. I would do what you are doing and quite easily.
Google is an easy tool to debunk, it is not an easy tool to be a sceptic. Can you see where I'm coming from?
-
...something retarded...
Google is an easy tool to debunk, it is not an easy tool to be a sceptic. Can you see where I'm coming from?
If it is so easy why can't you do it? Why can't you debunk my science books?
-
You are correct, I cannot prove it's not real, I can just know in my mind that it's not and as you say, it's like a persons belief in god. They can believe it and nobody can discount it and to some it's true and to others it's not.
You don't have to waste your time feeling sorry for me, as my beliefs stay in the forum, they do not travel in life as in the outside world, because I'm well aware how the general public are so brainwashed , it would be a pointless discussion, with people just arguing that this is true and that's true because we have power, you know that sort of thing, yet without knowing what the hell nuclear power is supposed to actually be.
On here, I know the vast majority probably think I'm a lunatic, well ok, the vast majority are certain I'm a lunatic ;D but the fact is, as you have said, there is a possibility that we are being lied to, however remote you or others think it is. The fact is, there is a possibility.
When they shut down all the nuclear power stations and disband nuclear weapons for a more scary new weapon, then it might , I say "just might" make you think that maybe they were a scam and they have run their course.
Just out of curiosity, did you study anything at a university? And if so, what?
University is for those that accept being in debt for a long period of their lives based on the expected job they believe they will gain , which amounts to a few per cent of what actually transpires.
Only in dumb countries that don't value education.
-
You are correct, I cannot prove it's not real, I can just know in my mind that it's not and as you say, it's like a persons belief in god. They can believe it and nobody can discount it and to some it's true and to others it's not.
You don't have to waste your time feeling sorry for me, as my beliefs stay in the forum, they do not travel in life as in the outside world, because I'm well aware how the general public are so brainwashed , it would be a pointless discussion, with people just arguing that this is true and that's true because we have power, you know that sort of thing, yet without knowing what the hell nuclear power is supposed to actually be.
On here, I know the vast majority probably think I'm a lunatic, well ok, the vast majority are certain I'm a lunatic ;D but the fact is, as you have said, there is a possibility that we are being lied to, however remote you or others think it is. The fact is, there is a possibility.
When they shut down all the nuclear power stations and disband nuclear weapons for a more scary new weapon, then it might , I say "just might" make you think that maybe they were a scam and they have run their course.
Just out of curiosity, did you study anything at a university? And if so, what?
University is for those that accept being in debt for a long period of their lives based on the expected job they believe they will gain , which amounts to a few per cent of what actually transpires.
So that's a no... do you study anything except conspiracy theories? Do you study mainstream physics? It's important to know exactly what you're debunking.
-
Scepti is a car mechanic.
-
THE UNIVERSITIES ARE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!! THEY WANT YOU TO GET BETTER JOBS, SO YOU EARN MORE MONEY, AND HAVE AN AWESOME 3 TO 7 YEARS OF YOUR LIFE!!!
-
University is for those that accept being in debt for a long period of their lives based on the expected job they believe they will gain , which amounts to a few per cent of what actually transpires.
University could also be for those who want to learn something in depth rather than superficially.
-
All of you who are trying to prove me wrong in my thoughts, tell me which of these subjects at university you took.
1. Nuclear physics/science.
2. Astro physics.
3.Rocket design/physics/engineering.
Also, do any of you work at a nuclear power station and if so, in what capacity?
-
All of you who are trying to prove me wrong in my thoughts, tell me which of these subjects at university you took.
1. Nuclear physics/science.
2. Astro physics.
3.Rocket design/physics/engineering.
Also, do any of you work at a nuclear power station and if so, in what capacity?
None of those matter as you think your opinion disproves all those.
-
All of you who are trying to prove me wrong in my thoughts, tell me which of these subjects at university you took.
1. Nuclear physics/science.
2. Astro physics.
3.Rocket design/physics/engineering.
Also, do any of you work at a nuclear power station and if so, in what capacity?
None of those matter as you think your opinion disproves all those.
I actually have my honours in mech engineering specialising in aeronautics from University of Pretoria... As well as I did 2 years of Theoretical Physics degree prior to that at the University of Stellenbosch... But the 2 years in Stellenbosch was mainly about drinking
-
But the 2 years in Stellenbosch was mainly about drinking
Perhaps it should be renamed Stellabosch. (Drum roll, cymbal crash.)
-
All of you who are trying to prove me wrong in my thoughts, tell me which of these subjects at university you took.
1. Nuclear physics/science.
2. Astro physics.
3.Rocket design/physics/engineering.
Also, do any of you work at a nuclear power station and if so, in what capacity?
None of those matter as you think your opinion disproves all those.
I don't think my opinion disproves all, at all.
Have a think about it for a moment.
If I'm dubious about nuclear power and especially nuclear bombs, then in reality I'm dubious about the minds that created them, which, if we go by me being wrong and it's all true in your eyes, means I'm going against far, far greater minds than you, right?
The thing is though, I'm not qualified, as in certificate wise and social wise to be sitting in the same room as those people, as far as they would be concerned, because they could tie me up in knots with what they know and I know that...but this isn't about me knowing all the gibberish formulas, it's about piecing together footage and snippets of info given out about it all and things not appearing to be what they are made out.
I didn't become a sceptic or whatever name you want to bestow on me, by questioning the equations as such... just the way it all appears as in the structure of what is supposedly used in it's visual form, as in discs of supposed uranium/plutonium and seeing footage of supposed nuclear explosions and the amateurish look of it all.
So what gives me the qualifications to deem it amateurish footage when I've never seen a nuclear bomb detonate in real life.
Answer: None, just as you and others don't have the qualifications to actually tell me I'm wrong, yet you all do, time and time again. So who's playing the I'm always right game, me or everyone?
I'm curious about the authenticity of much of the footage of all nuclear detonations and I think that any neutral person looking at it all would think the same.
Some of you fancy yourselves as top scientists and believe you are smarter than the average bear, so some tin foil hat nut case, 'in your opinion' isn't going to make you see the light or even make you challenge your own thinking, because you will not allow it to happen and will defend it to the hilt, as to do otherwise, would render all your hard efforts pointless, so I can well understand why people like you would keep up a stance.
-
All of you who are trying to prove me wrong in my thoughts, tell me which of these subjects at university you took.
1. Nuclear physics/science.
2. Astro physics.
3.Rocket design/physics/engineering.
Also, do any of you work at a nuclear power station and if so, in what capacity?
None of those matter as you think your opinion disproves all those.
I don't think my opinion disproves all, at all.
Have a think about it for a moment.
If I'm dubious about nuclear power and especially nuclear bombs, then in reality I'm dubious about the minds that created them, which, if we go by me being wrong and it's all true in your eyes, means I'm going against far, far greater minds than you, right?
The thing is though, I'm not qualified, as in certificate wise and social wise to be sitting in the same room as those people, as far as they would be concerned, because they could tie me up in knots with what they know and I know that...but this isn't about me knowing all the gibberish formulas, it's about piecing together footage and snippets of info given out about it all and things not appearing to be what they are made out.
I didn't become a sceptic or whatever name you want to bestow on me, by questioning the equations as such... just the way it all appears as in the structure of what is supposedly used in it's visual form, as in discs of supposed uranium/plutonium and seeing footage of supposed nuclear explosions and the amateurish look of it all.
So what gives me the qualifications to deem it amateurish footage when I've never seen a nuclear bomb detonate in real life.
Answer: None, just as you and others don't have the qualifications to actually tell me I'm wrong, yet you all do, time and time again. So who's playing the I'm always right game, me or everyone?
I'm curious about the authenticity of much of the footage of all nuclear detonations and I think that any neutral person looking at it all would think the same.
Some of you fancy yourselves as top scientists and believe you are smarter than the average bear, so some tin foil hat nut case, 'in your opinion' isn't going to make you see the light or even make you challenge your own thinking, because you will not allow it to happen and will defend it to the hilt, as to do otherwise, would render all your hard efforts pointless, so I can well understand why people like you would keep up a stance.
There's nothing wrong with being open-minded to other ideas. That's what science is all about. The problem, and I think you fall into this category, is when you become so open minded that your brains fall out. Questioning things is okay, but when you question absolutely everything you hear, you leave no time for actual learning.
-
I don't think my opinion disproves all, at all.
Have a think about it for a moment.
If I'm dubious about nuclear power and especially nuclear bombs, then in reality I'm dubious about the minds that created them, which, if we go by me being wrong and it's all true in your eyes, means I'm going against far, far greater minds than you, right?
Sure
The thing is though, I'm not qualified, as in certificate wise and social wise to be sitting in the same room as those people, as far as they would be concerned, because they could tie me up in knots with what they know and I know that
Sure
...but this isn't about me knowing all the gibberish formulas, it's about piecing together footage and snippets of info given out about it all and things not appearing to be what they are made out.
You didn't enter any of this into your argument. The only video that showed up was from Rushy and was narrated by a kid and easily able to be debunked. Until you enter your own evidence it just is your opinion. Plus there is so much evidence you have to ignore.
I didn't become a sceptic or whatever name you want to bestow on me, by questioning the equations as such...
But you did. Then I explained the equation and you still said it was wrong.
just the way it all appears as in the structure of what is supposedly used in it's visual form, as in discs of supposed uranium/plutonium and seeing footage of supposed nuclear explosions and the amateurish look of it all.
This is were qualifications do come into play. If you see a disk of uranium in an old movie you have no idea if it's real or not and you cannot claim otherwise. I can't claim if it's real or not. But I know the concepts of how it all supposed to work and I don't find a flaw in it. You find a flaw in the concepts while not knowing the concepts.
So what gives me the qualifications to deem it amateurish footage when I've never seen a nuclear bomb detonate in real life.
Answer: None, just as you and others don't have the qualifications to actually tell me I'm wrong, yet you all do, time and time again. So who's playing the I'm always right game, me or everyone?
We enter evidence to tell you that you are wrong. This is like a qualification. But the evidence we enter just sits there because you ignore it or because you don't understand it, you say it's wrong. Do you see the difference between us entering evidence and you just telling my something?
I'm curious about the authenticity of much of the footage of all nuclear detonations and I think that any neutral person looking at it all would think the same.
You can be curious about the authenticity but you are wrong to assume everyone should be the same.
Some of you fancy yourselves as top scientists and believe you are smarter than the average bear, so some tin foil hat nut case, 'in your opinion' isn't going to make you see the light or even make you challenge your own thinking, because you will not allow it to happen and will defend it to the hilt, as to do otherwise, would render all your hard efforts pointless, so I can well understand why people like you would keep up a stance.
Well when you bring no evidence of your own for your arguments it's easy not to change my stance. When you basically say what I do at work is fake, it's easy to not change my stance. Growing up less than an hour away from a nuclear bomb factory makes it easy to not change my stance. Having vast amounts of evidence for what I believe makes it easy for me to no change my stance.
-
But the 2 years in Stellenbosch was mainly about drinking
Perhaps it should be renamed Stellabosch. (Drum roll, cymbal crash.)
woomp woomp woooooooooh
-
geepun, when did you study? I studied electronic engineering at tuks... Of particular interest to me was physics - although I never pursued my dream of studying it separately as an extra - just read text books and did my own learning. Those physics lecturers were legendary!
-
geepun, when did you study? I studied electronic engineering at tuks... Of particular interest to me was physics - although I never pursued my dream of studying it separately as an extra - just read text books and did my own learning. Those physics lecturers were legendary!
Graduated in 2008... gotta say Physics was always the best subject...
-
Cool. I'm a 2008er too, but of the "the first 5 years of the 4 year course are the most difficult" variety. If you did 5 years, for the undergrad, then we were likely in the same physics lectures, starting with Alberts.
-
Unfortunately I got stuck doing 4 year undergrad... Bursary wouldn't lemme do it any other way, worth it I suppose... Plus a year postgrad, so woulda started same time as you...
-
I would have finished in 4 years, but I did electronic engineering... ;)
-
I would have finished in 4 years, but I did electronic engineering... ;)
Fair enough hahaha, first year electronics was irritating enough... 5 years of it amounts to self hurt
-
lol. Maybe. Doesn't matter - was a great 5 years anyway. One of my favourite courses was OG101 (especially during Super 14), and that made up for some of the crappier ones.
-
lol. Maybe. Doesn't matter - was a great 5 years anyway. One of my favourite courses was OG101 (especially during Super 14), and that made up for some of the crappier ones.
Are you from PTA originally or moved to study?
-
Originally from PTA - Willowridge High. Didn't even need to stay in res (luckily - was much less mission). A friend of mine also went to do masters in Stellenbosch, now he lives there. Says he loves it there. Are you from PTA? I see you're near Waterkloof airforce base. Do you work there? That's very cool. I ended up developing software and leaving the electronic stuff as a hobby. Don't get me wrong - software development is awesome, I just don't get to apply electronics knowledge to my work.
-
Nah originally from Margate, small private school no one has ever heard of... Stellenbosch is an awesome little town... Work for Denel, but been on the base for the last six months doing testing new weapon systems... Oddly, despite the aeronautics have spent the last 4 years developing land based systems... Mostly mods and new weapon systems for existing vehicles... Also did work on a South African UAV a few years back, off to Cape Town to do final testing and production on it at end of April...
-
Interesting stuff! My grandfather worked for Kentron doing weapons testing. He was part of the first team to move from CSIR to Kentron.
I guess you'll need to re-think your systems to account for a flat earth. ;D
Edit: Edit: Took away my first edit... I wonder if I could post what I did? Anyway, my grandfather worked on stuff which dealt with nuclear weapons.
-
Ah your grandfather has the same problem as me... I work on stuff that doesnt work on a flat earth, and he worked with nuclear weapons that didnt exist...
Didnt see your original post... gotta say though, working with the SANDF Im glad that we don't have nuclear capabilities any more... Some dodgy folks in high ranks
-
I believe the sun is electrical in nature and not powered by a fusion core although the high hydrodynamic magnetic resonance and the pressure it exerts on helium may cause fusion. A brief synopsis of the concept can be found here: http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm (http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm) More in depth research materials can be found in this brilliant resource: http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-Universe.com (http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-Universe.com)
-
Ok, so a nuclear sun isn't "electric". Well then this post should surely not be able to make it to the server.
-
Oh wow, it did. Ok, well then the nuclear sun is most definitely electric.
Besides, an electric sun which causes fusion still causes fusion. Nuclear energy is nuclear energy.
-
I don't think it's anything to do with nuclear fusion or fission, I simply believe it's just charged particles.
I think of the sun and earth working just like a dynamo would work on earth, obviously in a different context to how we see it though but in essence I think it's simply just electromagnetism at work and the earth is just magnetically charged too- and flat.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
I'll just leave this here.
-
You don't exist.
-
North Korea is threatening the U.S. with non-existent weapons, which is why no one will ever take them seriously.
-
North Korea is threatening the U.S. with non-existent weapons, which is why no one will ever take them seriously.
lol - cannot argue there. Perhaps the title of this thread should have been "Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist, in North Korea".
-
North Korea is threatening the U.S. with non-existent weapons, which is why no one will ever take them seriously.
Besides, even if they did have, its everyone else that should worry, esp. Canada and Mexico... Not a chance they gonna hit their target
-
There's not a chance that any will hit their target and do what they say they do, from any country but I do admit, it was one hell of a scare tactic for the gullible populations of the world and still is for most.
If you look at all ballistic missiles, you will see that most if not all would be lucky to travel a few hundred miles before being spent.
Nuclear submarines are even sillier with the supposed ballistic missiles fired from under water and supposedly nuclear armed lol.
They fire them (supposedly) vertically and they shoot out of the water, then ignite and on their way they go. ;D
Compressed air is the reason they pop out of the sea to start with, now go and look at the size of a trident missile and compare it to the height of the hull of a sub and factor in the compressed air needed under that to propel it out of the water before somehow ignition starts.
-
yes they test them all the time skeptic they are called slbms and the uk has recently done a test fire of one of its Trident missiles and guess what? it worked. funny that.
UK Unleashes Trident D5 Nuclear SLBM | 2012 | HD | (http://#ws)
Tomahawk cruise missiles are launched the same way
UK Ministry Of Defence - HMS Astute First Tomahawk Launch In US & Hit Target [480p] (http://#)
hear is a nice combo slow mo of Tomahawk Polaris and Trident missiles being launched using the method you without no explination say is imposible
Ballistic Missile Submarine (http://#ws)
-
I rest my case. ;D
-
glad you could admit you were wrong. very big of you skeptic. maby we could see some of the same common sense in the upper forums.
-
glad you could admit you were wrong. very big of you skeptic. maby we could see some of the same common sense in the upper forums.
I rest my case. All you have proved here is how fake they are.
-
are you saying Tomahawks missiles are fake?
-
are you saying Tomahawks missiles are fake?
I'm saying the launches are fake from the sub from underwater vertically.
-
so how did tomahawk missile launched from HMS Triumph destroy targets in libya?
-
so how did tomahawk missile launched from HMS Triumph destroy targets in libya?
Did they?
-
yes and again by
HMS Splendid in kosovo
again in Afghanistan don't know what subs
and again in Iraq again i don't know what sub
and this is just the royal navy. america have launched hundreds maby thousands in conflicts let alone tests
how were these fired in you warped world?
-
yes and again by
HMS Splendid in kosovo
again in Afghanistan don't know what subs
and again in Iraq again i don't know what sub
how were these fired in you warped world?
What evidence can you present that the exact missiles you claim were fired in the exact way you claimed and destroyed those targets? Do you have access to real top level target data or are you an armchair expert?
-
can you offer an alternative?
-
can you offer an alternative?
Do you have a size for these tomahawk missiles against the height of the submarine hull, seeing as they are fired vertical from under the sea and also, how can compressed air shoot them out of the water to ignite like they do.
To me it looks as fake as hell but I'm willing to be put right, although you have to accept it won't be easy.
-
oh and yes i can
remains of a tomahawk shot down over Belgrade during to conflict.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50525917 (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50525917)
-
oh and yes i can
remains of a tomahawk shot down over Belgrade during to conflict.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50525917 (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50525917)
Come on Thaggy, you can do better than this, surely.
-
its a tomahawk shot down and now in a museum? unless you can show me whats wrong with it then whats your problem?
-
and are you skeptic are you trying to say that the subs are to small to fit the missiles?
Weight 2,900 lb (1,300 kg), 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) with booster
Length Without booster: 18 ft 3 in (5.56 m)
With booster: 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m)
Diameter 20.4 in (0.52 m)
the ohio class subs have a beam of 13 meters. ( they are round)
the have 22 tubes with 7 tomahawks in each
nice picture of a Ohio class SSGN launch tube
(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/171/postommix.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/607/postommix.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
i see no problem with dimensions hear. im sure you do though
-
Oh I have no problem with a missile being fired from above water, I'm just having a problem with using compressed air to shoot a 20 foot missile vertically from under and out of the ocean, then for it to stop in mid air, ignite and fly away to a target.
-
you inability to comprehend a process is not proof it is fake its just proof of your inability to understand.. how do the royal navy fire its tomahawks if not from its submarines?
-
I also notice that these "nuclear" submarines also have a diesel engine, I wonder what they want that for. Surely the nuclear reactor could cater for a few subs couldn't it, if what we are told about them is true.
-
you inability to comprehend a process is not proof it is fake its just proof of your inability to understand.. how do the royal navy fire its tomahawks if not from its submarines?
I never said they didn't fire them from submarines. I'm questioning how they are fired from under water and propelled out of the water to then ignite and fly to their targets.
-
they are propelled out of the water using compressed gas and once at the surface ignite their engines and fly away. where is your problem? all you have said is you cant understand how it works not why it cant. until you can explain why it cant work then its just your inability to comprehend that's the problem not the ability of the missiles to launch from underwater.
-
I have a few problems with this video Thaggy.
You see, when the missile is launched, you clearly hear the roar of it before it comes out of the water...also it has no fins, so how is it guided to it's target?
Also why when showing things like this do they always revert back to early crappy video footage, when it should be as clear as anything.
Just a few pointers for you Thaggy.
UK Unleashes Trident D5 Nuclear SLBM | 2012 | HD | (http://#ws)
-
omg skeptic. stop embarrassing your self please. 1stly this is a trident ballistic missile. not a tomahawk cruise missile. why does a ballistic missile need fins? it is controlled by its rocked motor and once it is on its ballistic course it needs only minor course corrections to hit its target. but that's enough of that your are taking us of topic.
the sound this is your only issue with the launch? the sound is stock sound added to the footage afterwards of which can barely be heard over the patriotic music added over the clip..
-
perhaps we should use unedited videos with original sound in future yes?
like this one
US Navy demonstrates Awesome Underwater Missile Launch... (http://#ws)
-
omg skeptic. stop embarrassing your self please. 1stly this is a trident ballistic missile. not a tomahawk cruise missile. why does a ballistic missile need fins? it is controlled by its rocked motor and once it is on its ballistic course it needs only minor course corrections to hit its target. but that's enough of that your are taking us of topic.
the sound this is your only issue with the launch? the sound is stock sound added to the footage afterwards of which can barely be heard over the patriotic music added over the clip..
I never said it was a Tomahawk.
This ballistic missile comes out of the water and sort of rocks as if it could go in any direction. What corrects it's course as it doesn't have any steering mechanism.
-
perhaps we should use unedited videos with original sound in future yes?
like this one
US Navy demonstrates Awesome Underwater Missile Launch... (http://#ws)
;D ;D ;D
-
im not being led down another path with you sceptic if you have trouble with ballistic course corrector mid flight then start a thread for it.
so you were telling me how its impossible to launch a missile underwater............
-
im not being led down another path with you sceptic if you have trouble with ballistic course corrector mid flight then start a thread for it.
so you were telling me how its impossible to launch a missile underwater............
I didn't say it was impossible, I'm just wondering how compressed air can launch a missile from under water right out of the water and then for it to ignite and fly to it's target.
-
well go onto a website and read about it instead of insinuating it is impossible just because you cant understand it.
-
well go onto a website and read about it instead of insinuating it is impossible just because you cant understand it.
I didn't say it was impossible, I'm merely questioning if it's viable. I'm quite sure you understand it all Thaggy. After all, you understand everything known to man.
-
can you offer an alternative?
Congratulations, you've chosen the answer "armchair expert." If you have anything real to add to the topic, please do so. Until then, get out.
-
im not being led down another path with you sceptic if you have trouble with ballistic course corrector mid flight then start a thread for it.
so you were telling me how its impossible to launch a missile underwater............
I didn't say it was impossible, I'm just wondering how compressed air can launch a missile from under water right out of the water and then for it to ignite and fly to it's target.
The next time you take a bath, hold a bottle of shampoo under the water and release it. You will see that it practically launches itself from the water. This has to do with positive buoyancy, rocket fuel is less dense than water making the rockets positively buoyant. Compressed air plays a part in launching a submarine missile, but it,s buoyancy plays the biggest part. Ignition starts moments before the missile breaks the surface.
-
.....
-
The rocket "teeters" on exit because while underwater the magnetic gyrocompass is spinning up, on exit it picks up the earth's magnetic field and corrects its position. Some of them do as you suspect fail to orientate themselves and "crash and burn" but most dont.
The rockets steer with guide vanes in the direct flow of the engine. Or the engine may be gymble..
FAILED LAUNCH, [FUNNY] :D
(http://)
A GIMBALLED ENGINE,
(http://)
A VANE STEERED ENGINE,
(http://fly.historicwings.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/HighFlight-V2-2.jpg)
-
.....
-
I can assure you they can target things. Ask anyone who lived in London seventy years ago.
-
.....
-
I can assure you they can target things. Ask anyone who lived in London seventy years ago.
You mean the V2 rockets?
Yes,V2 Rockets and V1 Cruise Missles.
-
can you offer an alternative?
Congratulations, you've chosen the answer "armchair expert." If you have anything real to add to the topic, please do so. Until then, get out.
So you have no alternative congratulations as usual you posts are devoid of anything useful.
And get out? I'm alright thanx.
-
You see, this missile doesn't appear to have any of these things and I find it hard to believe that it could be used to target anything.
UK Unleashes Trident D5 Nuclear SLBM | 2012 | HD | (http://#ws)
Can you show us any evidence for these missiles not containing any of what were are describing or just your legendary opinion?
-
You see, this missile doesn't appear to have any of these things and I find it hard to believe that it could be used to target anything.
UK Unleashes Trident D5 Nuclear SLBM | 2012 | HD | (http://#ws)
Can you show us any evidence for these missiles not containing any of what were are describing or just your legendary opinion?
Can you show us the opposite?
-
Um the fact they are tested regularly and are a pillars of our nations defence plus hundreds of launches witnessed by sailors on board the submarines launching them the vessles watching the the launches. The thousands of designers who designed them the thousands of workers that built them the thousands of engineers that maintain them and he thousands of sailors that operate them. Add on to of that thousands of videos of launches including dramatic failures. The fact that this is no reason in physics or aerodynamic design that the would not work. And to top it of I'm not the one claiming they can't work and all footage is faked.
But as I said skeptic is just trying to run away from the fact he can't understand how a rocket can launch from underwater trying to bring another aspect of the flight into doubt.
-
Um the fact they are tested regularly and are a pillars of our nations defence plus hundreds of launches witnessed by sailors on board the submarines launching them the vessles watching the the launches. The thousands of designers who designed them the thousands of workers that built them the thousands of engineers that maintain them and he thousands of sailors that operate them. Add on to of that thousands of videos of launches including dramatic failures. The fact that this is no reason in physics or aerodynamic design that the would not work. And to top it of I'm not the one claiming they can't work and all footage is faked.
But as I said skeptic is just trying to run away from the fact he can't understand how a rocket can launch from underwater trying to bring another aspect of the flight into doubt.
Oh, I see. You are just making stuff up, speculating, conjecturing, and piecing together stuff that you have heard. So, in other words, you can't show us the opposite of what you are insisting we show you.
Thanks.
-
So jora you are saying the SLBMS don't exist then?
-
So jora you are saying the SLBMS don't exist then?
No, I was asking you for the same evidence that you are insisting from us.
-
I'm not asking anything from you I'm asking skeptic
Skeptic is insinuating that what they do is imposible. I am asking him to prove it. As of yet has has provided nothing but opinion.
-
I'm not asking anything from you I'm asking skeptic
Skeptic is insinuating that what they do is imposible. I am asking him to prove it. As of yet has has provided nothing but opinion.
So, you are asking him to prove a negative. I see, however, you will not prove the positive, will you?
-
What evidence would you like then?
It's not my fault he says hey don't exist is it unreasanobal for me to ask for evidence of a claim he made?
-
What evidence would you like then?
It's not my fault he says hey don't exist is it unreasanobal for me to ask for evidence of a claim he made?
I am not asking you for evidence. I was pointing out that you consistently ask for proof of things that you do not offer opposite proof for. You are lazy or a troll.
-
The fact they launch them is proof. The fact they are used in war is proof. To say it is not is to say all the launches are cgi ( insert evidence for claim) and the militery have alternate means for dilivering land strikes from submarines ( insert evidence) and this is the evidence I am asking for.
Hear is his claim all I am asking for is evidence not opinion.
are you saying Tomahawks missiles are fake?
I'm saying the launches are fake from the sub from underwater vertically.
-
The fact they launch them is proof. The fact they are used in war is proof. To say it is not is to say all the launches are cgi ( insert evidence for claim) and the militery have alternate means for dilivering land strikes from submarines ( insert evidence) and this is the evidence I am asking for.
Hear is his claim all I am asking for is evidence not opinion.
are you saying Tomahawks missiles are fake?
I'm saying the launches are fake from the sub from underwater vertically.
The fact that people tell you stuff is proof. Right, got it. You could try to do a little research in order to prove him wrong instead of just spouting out "facts" that you have heard, but I will take it that you are lazy and just want to come to this website in order to say, "LOL you can't prove the Earth is flat. HAHA LOL."
-
So you are saying the fact they are used all the time in wars is not proof of their existence?
Wow no wonder you get basic things like the shape of the earth wrong then.
-
So you are saying the fact they are used all the time in wars is not proof of their existence?
Wow no wonder you get basic things like the shape of the earth wrong then.
Nukes are used all the time in wars? Really? Some people might say that you are stupid for saying that.
-
No I'm talkin about tomohawks. Have been used in every majour conflict under taken by the US and UK since the Balkans. They are fired the same way from under water as tridents. He is also claiming tomohawks can't be fired from submarines. They use the same launch prinicle as trident.
Some peole might say your stupid for jumping to irrational conclusions without reading the argument fully. Your fault not mine. Like I said you get the shap of the earth wrong so I guess it goes hand in hand.
-
I will leave the nuke thing alone because it is obvious that you failed.
Now, what was you original problem with Sceptimatic?
-
You bought the nuke thing up so yes maby you should.
are you saying Tomahawks missiles are fake?
I'm saying the launches are fake from the sub from underwater vertically.
I'm asking for evidence they are fake. Is it realy unreasonable to ask for evidence to back up his claim. Remwber he made it not me. Especially when tomohawks which are launched virticly from US subs have been used in several wars with thousands of launches? And submarines are the only launch platform for uk tomohawks.
-
You bought the nuke thing up so yes maby you should.
are you saying Tomahawks missiles are fake?
I'm saying the launches are fake from the sub from underwater vertically.
I'm asking for evidence they are fake. Is it realy unreasonable to ask for evidence to back up his claim. Remwber he made it not me. Especially when tomohawks which are launched virticly from US subs have been used in several wars with thousands of launches? And submarines are the only launch platform for uk tomohawks.
Scepti should just join the military.
-
No I'm talkin about tomohawks. Have been used in every majour conflict under taken by the US and UK since the Balkans.
And none of those Tomahawks had nukes as warheads.
-
Haha, idiots, you've fallen for the tricks of the governments. They want you to think they're not as powerful as they are so you'll relax and not watch them as closely, but you've fallen for them. Albeit, most people aren't stupid enough to fall for the "Nuclear weapons don't exist" lie, but I'm sure the governments would be happier with more idiots like yous >:3
-
No I'm talkin about tomohawks. Have been used in every majour conflict under taken by the US and UK since the Balkans.
And none of those Tomahawks had nukes as warheads.
No they didn't but he is questioning the ability for a missile to be launched from underwater not the warhead they carry.
-
No I'm talkin about tomohawks. Have been used in every majour conflict under taken by the US and UK since the Balkans.
And none of those Tomahawks had nukes as warheads.
No they didn't but he is questioning the ability for a missile to be launched from underwater not the warhead they carry.
I believe your appeal to common sense is an exercise in futility. They are either intellectually challenged or masters of the art of trolling. If this site is a "Troll Trap" then it is we who are intellectually challenged! Whatever the reality I admire their "Steadfast stupidity".
-
I'm asking for evidence they are fake. Is it realy unreasonable to ask for evidence to back up his claim. Remwber he made it not me. Especially when tomohawks which are launched virticly from US subs have been used in several wars with thousands of launches? And submarines are the only launch platform for uk tomohawks.
I have a magical pink unicorn that can destroy buildings, and I can launch it from underwater. Please provide evidence that it is fake.
See, this is the reason I told you to get out, your argument is ridiculous. Replace "magical pink unicorn" with "[Insert mystery missile here]" and I just made your argument. Pathetic.
-
Has your pink unicorn used in every major US UK conflict in the last 20 years?
-
I'm asking for evidence they are fake. Is it realy unreasonable to ask for evidence to back up his claim. Remwber he made it not me. Especially when tomohawks which are launched virticly from US subs have been used in several wars with thousands of launches? And submarines are the only launch platform for uk tomohawks.
I have a magical pink unicorn that can destroy buildings, and I can launch it from underwater. Please provide evidence that it is fake.
See, this is the reason I told you to get out, your argument is ridiculous. Replace "magical pink unicorn" with "[Insert mystery missile here]" and I just made your argument. Pathetic.
Pythagoras isn't the one claiming that underwater launches are fake, Sceptimatic is. Why is it so unreasonable to demand that the person crying fake substantiate that claim with evidence?
-
.....
-
Has your pink unicorn used in every major US UK conflict in the last 20 years?
Yes.
Pythagoras isn't the one claiming that underwater launches are fake, Sceptimatic is. Why is it so unreasonable to demand that the person crying fake substantiate that claim with evidence?
Pytha is claiming they are real, scepti is saying they aren't. Scepti doesn't need to provide evidence that something doesn't exist, that is preposterous. Pytha needs to provide proper evidence that the missiles exist, which he refuses to do because he has no evidence whatsoever.
-
And how could I prove it then Marko?
What could I possibly do to prove it's fake?
Well, you can start with some technical difficulties that would make underwater launches impossible.
Pythagoras isn't the one claiming that underwater launches are fake, Sceptimatic is. Why is it so unreasonable to demand that the person crying fake substantiate that claim with evidence?
Pytha is claiming they are real, scepti is saying they aren't. Scepti doesn't need to provide evidence that something doesn't exist, that is preposterous. Pytha needs to provide proper evidence that the missiles exist, which he refuses to do because he has no evidence whatsoever.
Pythagoras posted videos of submarine missile launches. Sceptimatic did nothing to refute those videos or justify why he considers submarine missile launches preposterous. It's not as if missiles are mythical creatures.
-
Pythagoras posted videos of submarine missile launches. Sceptimatic did nothing to refute those videos or justify why he considers submarine missile launches preposterous. It's not as if missiles are mythical creatures.
Would you like me to post Stargate SG-1 as evidence that the U.S. Air Force has a magical teleportation ring in Cheyenne Mountain?
-
Pythagoras posted videos of submarine missile launches. Sceptimatic did nothing to refute those videos or justify why he considers submarine missile launches preposterous. It's not as if missiles are mythical creatures.
Would you like me to post Stargate SG-1 as evidence that the U.S. Air Force has a magical teleportation ring in Cheyenne Mountain?
But that is a science fiction serie. Why dont you try posting something relevant instead?
-
.....
-
Pythagoras posted videos of submarine missile launches. Sceptimatic did nothing to refute those videos or justify why he considers submarine missile launches preposterous. It's not as if missiles are mythical creatures.
Would you like me to post Stargate SG-1 as evidence that the U.S. Air Force has a magical teleportation ring in Cheyenne Mountain?
But that is a science fiction serie. Why dont you try posting something relevant instead?
The launches can equally be a science fiction series.
Yes. i know you think that way. but you have yet to prove it.
On the other hand I dont think anyone needs to prove what stargate is. nor is anyone claiming its not fiction.
-
Yes. i know you think that way. but you have yet to prove it.
On the other hand I dont think anyone needs to prove what stargate is. nor is anyone claiming its not fiction.
I claim it isn't fiction. They simply followed the actual Stargate team around with cameras and then aired the results.
-
Another bit of evid evidence is they are used constantly in wars? How do you get around this?
Balkans
Iraq x2
Afghanistan
Libya
-
Another bit of evid evidence is they are used constantly in wars? How do you get around this?
Balkans
Iraq x2
Afghanistan
Libya
You've been to all these places and fired these missiles? Quite the war veteran, hmm?
-
Yes. i know you think that way. but you have yet to prove it.
On the other hand I dont think anyone needs to prove what stargate is. nor is anyone claiming its not fiction.
I claim it isn't fiction. They simply followed the actual Stargate team around with cameras and then aired the results.
Well I claim you are fiction, now prove me wrong.
-
Well I claim you are fiction, now prove me wrong.
I don't have to, you have to prove me wrong. See: the rest of this thread. Or were you disagreeing with Pythagoras? Because I'm using his exact argument.
-
so rush so did the royal navy launch tomahawks during these campaigns if not by submarine?
-
so rush so did the royal navy launch tomahawks during these campaigns if not by submarine?
Why don't you tell me? You're the one claiming they exist, not me. Do you even understand what a skeptic is?
-
so you have no answer to what else they can launch from. if you have no alternative then how can you claim they cant launch from submarines? with no alternative to submarine launch then submarine launch can be the only option.
you also have no reason why physicly such launches are impossible. so get back to me when you have a coherent alternate theory.
-
so you have no answer to what else they can launch from. if you have no alternative then how can you claim they cant launch from submarines? with no alternative to submarine launch then submarine launch can be the only option.
The alternative is that the missiles don't exist at all. You continue to purposely avoid such a conclusion because you can't argue against it. Try again.
-
missiles dont exist? missiles in general or just submarine launched ones?
-
missiles dont exist? missiles in general or just submarine launched ones?
The submarine launched ones.
-
so how does the uk launch tomahawk missiles?
-
so how does the uk launch tomahawk missiles?
From boats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser)
-
which royal navy surface ships are capable of launching tomahawks. please enlighten me.
is it the type 23? or type 42? or the type 45?
-
which royal navy surface ships are capable of launching tomahawks. please enlighten me.
is it the type 23? or type 42? or the type 45?
Clearly one of them is, seeing as how missiles came from them. One isn't going to make full military capability public knowledge.
The SYLVER vertical launch system to be fitted to the new Type 45 destroyer is claimed by its manufacturers to have the capability to fire the Tomahawk, although the A50 launcher carried by Type 45 is too short for the weapon (the longer A70 silo would be required). Nevertheless, Type 45 has been designed with a weight and space margin to allow a Mk41 or Sylver A70 silo to be retrofitted, making TLAM Block IV a candidate to be fitted to the Type 45 if required. France, which also uses the SYLVER launcher, is developing a version of the Storm Shadow/Scalp cruise missile capable of launch from the SYLVER system, which has a shorter range but a higher speed.
Well, there you go.
-
which royal navy surface ships are capable of launching tomahawks. please enlighten me.
is it the type 23? or type 42? or the type 45?
Clearly one of them is, seeing as how missiles came from them. One isn't going to make full military capability public knowledge.
The SYLVER vertical launch system to be fitted to the new Type 45 destroyer is claimed by its manufacturers to have the capability to fire the Tomahawk, although the A50 launcher carried by Type 45 is too short for the weapon (the longer A70 silo would be required). Nevertheless, Type 45 has been designed with a weight and space margin to allow a Mk41 or Sylver A70 silo to be retrofitted, making TLAM Block IV a candidate to be fitted to the Type 45 if required. France, which also uses the SYLVER launcher, is developing a version of the Storm Shadow/Scalp cruise missile capable of launch from the SYLVER system, which has a shorter range but a higher speed.
Well, there you go.
well 45s were not in operation during the last use of tomahawks during operation Ellamy. so we can discount them. that leaves with the 23s 22s and 42s both of which have no tomahawk launchers on board to launch then from. type 42s have no vertical launch cells needed to launch tomahawks which leave us with the 22s and 23s
the 23s and 22s are primarily ant ship and anti submarine frigates with no capability for land attack beyond naval gun fire support using its main mk.8 gun.
its verticly launched silos consist of
2 x Sea Wolf anti air system (Total of 72 Sea Wolf missiles)
2 × Quad Harpoon missile launchers (total of 8 Harpoons)
so still waiting for an alternate launch platform
-
the sea wolf vertical launch silos are designed to take a sea wolf not a tomahawk cruise missile
sea wolf dimensions
Weight 82 kilograms (180 lb)
Length 1.9 metres (6.2 ft)
Diameter 300 millimetres (12 in
tomahawk
Weight 2,900 lb (1,300 kg), 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) with booster
Length Without booster: 18 ft 3 in (5.56 m)
With booster: 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m)
Diameter 20.4 in (0.52 m)
discrepancy much?
-
Military weapon deployment rosters are not public knowledge. Unless you're working on each of the cruisers right now, what you've just posted is completely irrelevant. All that was needed is that it is possible to fit them and I've shown it is. You can't disprove that they can't be fitted onto cruisers (and thus the submarines are not needed). Try again.
-
armaments of royal navy ships is extremely well know and is openly discussed in defense commite sessions and posted on the royal navy site. armements of uk ships has never been a secret.
just looking at photos of the vessel you can see no cruise missile launchers on any royal navy vessels.
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3792/4459806941809cc8d74f.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/4459806941809cc8d74f.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
where is the tomahawk launchers in this photo?
cruisers? the uk does not have any cruisers get your facts straight.
-
armaments of royal navy ships is extremely well know and is openly discussed in defense commite sessions and posted on the royal navy site. armements of uk ships has never been a secret.
just looking at photos of the vessel you can see no cruise missile launchers on any royal navy vessels.
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3792/4459806941809cc8d74f.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/4459806941809cc8d74f.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
where is the tomahawk launchers in this photo?
cruisers? the uk does not have any cruisers get your facts straight.
The point of secrets is that they're, shockingly, secret. If I am trying to trick the world into thinking I use missile subs, I'm not going to make it obvious that my cruisers are the ones firing missiles. It must be strange living in a world where you know everything despite the fact all said knowledge is spoon fed to you by the same entity you claim to know so much about.
All I had to do was show capability. You still have no armament evidence. Try again.
-
so now we have accepted royal navy ships cannot launch cruise missiles. care to explain the benefit pretending submarines can launch them when as you claim they cant?
-
so now we have accepted royal navy ships cannot launch cruise missiles.
You agree that a boat can't launch a cruise missile?
care to explain the benefit pretending submarines can launch them when as you claim they cant?
Psuedo-naval power to scare the enemy. "Oooh we can launch missiles from something you can't readily see!"
-
royal navy ships have no capability to launch cruise missiles
Psuedo-naval power to scare the enemy. "Oooh we can launch missiles from something you can't readily see!"
but for some reason their is always a royal navy frigate that has no capability to launch cruise missile at the adsact spot it is launched from? hmmmm
-
but for some reason their is always a royal navy frigate at the adsact spot it is launched from? hmmmm
This is knowledge you once again don't have.
royal navy ships have no capability to launch cruise missiles
Yes, they do. The submarines don't, though.
-
why don't they. why cant submarines launch missiles from underwater?
-
why don't they. why cant submarines launch missiles from underwater?
A question I don't need to answer. You claimed they can be launched from underwater. I made no such claim to the contrary, I am simply skeptical of your original claim and offered a viable alternative. If you're going to keep going full circle like this, should I just assume you've given up?
-
i make no such claim. its recognized fact. sceptic claimed they could not so i asked for evidence asking why they could not. i am yet to receive any.
-
i make no such claim. its recognized fact. sceptic claimed they could not so i asked for evidence asking why they could not. i am yet to receive any.
Saying something is "recognized fact" is a fallacious argument. I guess you don't want to provide evidence because you don't have any, what a surprise.
-
and what evidence would you consider acceptable?
-
and what evidence would you consider acceptable?
Detailed anecdotal or personal video. Third party evidence is inadmissable.
-
and what evidence would you consider acceptable?
Detailed anecdotal or personal video. Third party evidence is inadmissable.
You can't refute the "fake" evidence, you probably won't be able to refute any personal video. I don't know why a civilian would be in the middle of the ocean recording though.
Your trolling attempts fail.
-
hurr da durr mah crayon
Okay.
-
ITT: sokarul
-
Well I claim you are fiction, now prove me wrong.
I don't have to, you have to prove me wrong. See: the rest of this thread. Or were you disagreeing with Pythagoras? Because I'm using his exact argument.
No. you are using your usual "not giving an argument" argument.
-
hurr da durr mah crayon
Okay.
Twice in one day. Wag of the finger.
-
i make no such claim. its recognized fact. sceptic claimed they could not so i asked for evidence asking why they could not. i am yet to receive any.
Saying something is "recognized fact" is a fallacious argument. I guess you don't want to provide evidence because you don't have any, what a surprise.
If Parsifal does it so can we?
-
Your trolling attempts fail.
::)
-
No. you are using your usual "not giving an argument" argument.
I can't give an argument and also not give one, the two are mutually exclusive. Make up your mind.
-
No. you are using your usual "not giving an argument" argument.
I can't give an argument and also not give one, the two are mutually exclusive. Make up your mind.
Its not my fault you don't understand quotation marks.
-
Its not my fault you don't understand quotation marks.
If you wanted to give up the argument, you should have just said so, rather than making incoherent posts.
-
Its not my fault you don't understand quotation marks.
If you wanted to give up the argument, you should have just said so, rather than making incoherent posts.
You can google it. or find it in wikipedia also.
-
Its not my fault you don't understand quotation marks.
If you wanted to give up the argument, you should have just said so, rather than making incoherent posts.
You can google it. or find it in wikipedia also.
Check out the cabbage yard!
-
Do you even understand what a skeptic is?
Yes, but obviously you don't.
-
And as scepi as proven time and time again on hear he isn't very advanced.
you know what, though, pythagoras?
he spells better than you.
just sayin
Ha ha ....adsactly
-
Hard to believe this thread is still going.
Regarding the missiles, I take it that in tradition of this site - that for the evidence to be valid I must:
- Not be a member of the US Navy
- Swallow a GPS device to constantly record my location and to be posted on the internet for verification.
- Find my way on one of these ships without them knowing.
- Record the missile firing with three different cameras and two types of camcorders.
- Take no less than eight pictures of myself - each with a different member of the crew (captain included)
- Have a nurse draw a pint of my blood and write on it where it was taken.
- Take a picture of said blood and myself giving the thumbs up.
- Send blood and other bits of my person to be tested to assertain my time spent on said ship.
- Submit my clothes to be tested for the traces of the propellant used on said missiles.
- Included blood samples of all four members of the crew and their service records.
- Write my experiences in a book.
- Sell it for profit.
If I do all these things - is that proof?