Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ThinkingMan

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 55
61
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist
« on: November 27, 2012, 01:21:33 PM »
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.

62
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 27, 2012, 01:20:02 PM »
@robertotrevor

I love it. You do his experiment, it doesn't work the way he expects it, and he calls it bullshit, but wont try it himself. I guess he doesn't understand the scientific method and having control groups to rule out all other possibilities.

63
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 2013 Virgin Galactic Flights
« on: November 27, 2012, 01:04:13 PM »
Now, you say the other images are of "earth's lit disc," but that was not relevant to the questions about the other images.

The moon is simply fading from view, it is still obscured by the upper atmolayer.

So the atmosphere extends indefinitely, even to the point of being at the same altitude as the moon? This means it would also be at the same altitude as the sun.

The moon is fading from view, appearing to move downward, from ~400km above the surface of the earth, where there is little to no atmosphere present. What phenomena are we invoking to explain the reason for this?

64
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist
« on: November 27, 2012, 12:59:57 PM »
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.

65
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 27, 2012, 12:53:17 PM »
A deflated balloon is not a vacuum, quit wasting everyone's time.

I hear that if you pay the entrance fee at the California Exploritorium in San Francisco they have available at that facility an evacuated tube you might be able to convince them to let you try your experiment in.

There is no excuse for carrying on about assumptions on a renowned zetetic forum like this one.

Kendrick. You're wasting your strength in your fingers. You're words are falling on blind eyes. He is utterly convinced that a balloon is a vacuum and that thrust is a function of the air behind the engine.

66
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 2013 Virgin Galactic Flights
« on: November 27, 2012, 12:46:44 PM »
The larger picture is not real, the smaller images are of the Earth's lit disc.

Well I guess I should have seen that one coming. How do you know it's not real? The source states that it's from Apollo 11.  I'm sure I can find other images from Apollo, or maybe from Russian space missions. If you want to wait a few years, I can pull images from Chinese moon missions.

Now, you say the other images are of "earth's lit disc," but that was not relevant to the questions about the other images.

67
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 2013 Virgin Galactic Flights
« on: November 27, 2012, 12:37:13 PM »
So when someone sees this from space, this is the lit portion of the disk, correct?



So if the sun's light shines down on a circle of the earth, what is distorting the view from space to make it look like this crescent shape?

Also, since there is no atmosphere in space, the moon should be visible all of the time over the infinite plane given that there is nothing preventing one from being able to see it. So why can it not be seen all of the time, and why it can be seen rising up over the horizon while a craft/the ISS is in orbit. This image below will demonstrate what I'm talking about.



EDIT: Does the moon rest on the earth at times, and it is now rising up out of the fog of the atmosphere into space?

68
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 27, 2012, 11:16:03 AM »
have you done it in vacuum?

Don't think you're going to teach him anything that any of the rest of us tried to and failed. We also seem to be more versed in the topic than you are.

69
They'll replace it with something, and I'll bet it will be worse.

Something with the word freedom in it.

I'm not an atheist (or a theist, for that matter), but this country is not all about Christianity. It's supposed to be about freedom.
::)

Yawn. Why do you all still buy into that land of the free crap? No where has slaves and America isn't free. Its got all kinds of restrictions.

I don't buy into it. That's why I said "supposed" to. Of course, if you have a completely free society, that's anarchy, and I don't think that's a very good idea.

Yes you don't want a completely free society. However, Americans are so far away from even being slightly free that it's just laughable that you keep on insisting to call it a free country.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.  I have lived all over Europe and the middle East for many years while always having been a US citizen by birth.  I can tell you that the definition of "free" is never more apparent than in the US.  And to a fault I might add.  Nowhere else can you stand up and make statements or protests regarding politics, religion, sexual preference, or personal morality without fear of retribution from the government.  Of every country I have ever lived no where offers this freedom without persecution from the state.  You would have your head chopped off in the middle East if you said some of the shit you can say in the US.  Be imprisoned for life in China (or run over by a tank).  Be thrown in prison in Turkey.  Publicly caned in Indonesia. Fined in Switzerland or ostracized by a local community in Germany.

As I said...to a fault we give TOO MANY freedoms to TOO MANY people especially the ones not of our country.  Like I said.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

America is so free, when you twitter slang while in England you're not allowed to come in. America is so free, you need let people see you naked before you're allowed to come in. America is so free, when you smoke weed you can go to jail for a few years. America is so free, Patriot Act.

America is one of the freest countries in the world. We are giving up some freedoms for "security" reasons, which I think is a bunch of fallacious bullshit. But we still have many other countries beat. This does not mean we should accept things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA 2012.

70
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist
« on: November 27, 2012, 10:07:37 AM »
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?

71
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Should we get rid of Texas?
« on: November 27, 2012, 07:44:28 AM »
There are more than 40 states with petitions to secede.  First understand why a state would want to secede.  Then read the US Constitution especially the 10th Amendment regarding Reserved Powers.  Without this very powerful amendment we would be living as communists.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The purpose of the petitions is to let the federal government know the states have power and are not beholden to a central government if those interests are not in the interest of its citizens.

IT'S THE REASON WE TOLD THE BRITISH TO FUCK OFF.
Yet when the federal government threatens to cut off money to the states, they all fall in line.
Who has the power?

Ideals can sometimes be stronger than money. It's like when the American colonists complained about taxes and said they were fed up, so the British made a show of power with more troops and higher taxes. I'm aware that there were other issues, but guess what happened next?
It was more taxation without representation. Not so much the tax itself.

And while I agree, most people in power will not agree with you. And that's why they get elected.

It's strange that they don't agree, and rather unhealthy in my opinion. Those are the thoughts that this country was founded upon, and it's what made us strong and rise to a superpower. Now we've lost that. We're loosing our grip on the constitution, and consequently our freedoms. It's slowly falling apart, just like every other great empire.

72
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist
« on: November 27, 2012, 07:18:07 AM »
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.

73
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some incredible points about FET
« on: November 27, 2012, 07:10:47 AM »
Kindly read the thread. My argument in this thread was that magnification = refraction. I never said that all refraction was magnification.

No, you're argument started out that the atmosphere magnifies things, and then it changed after some responses and bickering about the difference between magnification and refraction into the fact that a glass magnifies something and refracts light during which you seemed to be implying that refraction=magnification. This is why it was argued against.

74
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Should we get rid of Texas?
« on: November 27, 2012, 07:06:10 AM »
There are more than 40 states with petitions to secede.  First understand why a state would want to secede.  Then read the US Constitution especially the 10th Amendment regarding Reserved Powers.  Without this very powerful amendment we would be living as communists.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The purpose of the petitions is to let the federal government know the states have power and are not beholden to a central government if those interests are not in the interest of its citizens.

IT'S THE REASON WE TOLD THE BRITISH TO FUCK OFF.
Yet when the federal government threatens to cut off money to the states, they all fall in line.
Who has the power?

Ideals can sometimes be stronger than money. It's like when the American colonists complained about taxes and said they were fed up, so the British made a show of power with more troops and higher taxes. I'm aware that there were other issues, but guess what happened next?

75
Flat Earth General / Re: the moon
« on: November 27, 2012, 07:02:57 AM »
Why do I need extra accuracy? I actually only need one or two photons and I can calculate the distance.

Watch from 6:25 to 8:00

Now that guy is collecting laser light after it has gone around a corner and back again (3 bounces) to see things around corners and to work out the exact shape. The moon distance only needs a straight line of sight and shape of the surface information is irrelevant (1 bounce). So you don't need a camera anywhere near the same speed.

So I ask you. What is easier? Building a high speed camera, or building a spaceship to put a man on the moon? Which is cheaper, more viable, more obvious, more logical?

You know deep down that sending a man with a reflector is the stupid and needlessly complicated way to do this. Moon reflectors are just another tall tale from the 'moon-men'.

Well, let's start with the fact that the camera technology you're referring to didn't exist then. Lets finish with the fact that they were sending people there anyway. The mission's only purpose was not just to put a reflector.

76
Flat Earth General / Re: the moon
« on: November 26, 2012, 01:58:18 PM »
This is very informative. Do you have any proof other than a photo that will likely be shopped by NASA?

How about the ability to receive a ping back by shooting a laser at the reflectors that have been placed up there?
Why do you need a reflector on the moon? The moon is shiny. Its supposed to reflect sunlight to earth already. Reflecting laser light should be a doddle.

Extra accuracy as a laser is only one beam, and the reflector is only in one spot, it would give you pinpoint accuracy as to how far away that one spot is.

77
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Should we get rid of Texas?
« on: November 26, 2012, 01:57:11 PM »
He's talking about the US economy, not the money the government has.

Economy is, in a large part, based on money. If the money is all borrowed, your economy sucks, and is bound to fail.

The federal budget is not the economy.

I know that, but if the federal budget collapse, the US economy will sure have a mess on it's hands, and the federal government has spread their fingers into every economic sector in the country and make huge contributions, including, but not limited to, welfare, aerospace, roads, policing, energy, research, space exploration, the internet, technological development, banks, the auto industry, oil and gas production.

78
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Should we get rid of Texas?
« on: November 26, 2012, 01:38:24 PM »
He's talking about the US economy, not the money the government has.

Economy is, in a large part, based on money. If the money is all borrowed, your economy sucks, and is bound to fail.

79
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist
« on: November 26, 2012, 01:36:45 PM »
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?

80
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Should we get rid of Texas?
« on: November 26, 2012, 01:12:16 PM »
The world does seem to be backing out of the US dollar, bit by bit. China is stronger right now. I think the world will survive without the US.

The US is the single largest GDP economy in the world. The economic crises of other nation would be of untold magnitude if the US were to just disappear.

I'm fairly certain that the US won't just disappear. But the US's money is all borrowed money. I'm pretty sure China would be okay without the US, as they lent the US most of the money that it uses now.

81
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist
« on: November 26, 2012, 01:10:33 PM »
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

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?

82
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist
« on: November 26, 2012, 12:49:53 PM »
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

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.

83
Flat Earth General / Re: the moon
« on: November 26, 2012, 12:11:49 PM »
I would just like to let you all know that men have landed on the moon.

Thank you

- Platitude
Uhmmmmmmm...that was in a film studio. It was faked.

I'm sure you've done a lot of research to prove that. Your name being "Science" and all, it's what I would expect from one such as yourself.

84
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Should we get rid of Texas?
« on: November 26, 2012, 11:58:44 AM »
The world does seem to be backing out of the US dollar, bit by bit. China is stronger right now. I think the world will survive without the US.

85
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 26, 2012, 11:11:41 AM »
to whom do you refer?

Everyone in here that's not sceptimatic.

86
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist
« on: November 26, 2012, 11:10:48 AM »
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.

87
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist
« on: November 26, 2012, 10:46:21 AM »
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.

88
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 26, 2012, 10:42:53 AM »
If I was a mod, I would close this topic. This is like trying to convince a brick to throw itself into place during construction.

89
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some incredible points about FET
« on: November 26, 2012, 08:28:52 AM »
Refraction may occur when light passes through the glass, but that does not mean refraction=magnification.

Magnification = refraction. Refraction is when light is modified in direction by passing through another medium. When light passes though curved glass the light spreads out via refraction and creates a magnified image. Refraction is root to how magnification works.

Magnification=refraction, but refraction≠magnification. You cannot move the goalposts while trying to make your point. In fact, you have strayed from your original argument about the atmosphere magnifying things into whether or not the glass is causing refraction and magnification at the same time.

90
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some incredible points about FET
« on: November 26, 2012, 06:28:29 AM »
Refraction may occur when light passes through the glass, but that does not mean refraction=magnification. In face, the two are completely separate. Magnification requires a convex lens between the observer and the light source/object to be magnified. The atmosphere is not a convex lens, is not uniform.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 55