Nuclear Power Exaggerated

  • 4288 Replies
  • 734563 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #390 on: May 24, 2010, 03:38:51 PM »
Everytime someone says the radiation left over on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would make it uninhabitable it makes me cringe, the radiation levels are far smaller then bombs today have. The reason being is those were some of the first bombs ever made, we learned alot from those two drops and the simple fact that people use this poor logic when they dont even beleive in missles makes me cringe even more. Do your research on the -inside- first before you begin spouting nonsense.

Actually, one of the main reasons that the residual radiation wasn't so bad is because both blasts were air bursts.  A surface or sub-surface blast would have contaminated the ground that used to be where the crater goes and settled as fallout.  Since both bombs were detonated well above the ground, radioactive fallout was not nearly as significant an issue.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #391 on: May 25, 2010, 12:47:22 AM »
Basically the easiest way to verify that atoms exist is take November 17 on a tour of Chernobyl (they actually do tours there now), and sneak him into the actual power plant. Next, place him close to reactor 4, retreat to a safe distance and watch him turn to sludge. Everybody wins.

On the topic of Chernobyl, you said the Soviet government overexaggerated the effects. Why then was Pripyat evacuated so late and the initial cleanup done under complete secrecy? People working on the reactor clean-up werent even aware it was a nuclear power plant, and were wondering why the red flag that the firefighters placed above the reactor (soviet symbolism) paled to light pink in less than an hour.

Also explain to me how the build-up of uranium that occured in Britain some months after the radioactive cloud passed over Europe (verified by farmers who ended up with radioactive meat from their cows) really got there.
A quote from one of rthe admins in the believers section
Quote
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the
Earth being contested in this forum? What is
going on?
Oh the irony

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #392 on: May 25, 2010, 06:29:52 AM »
Basically the easiest way to verify that atoms exist is take November 17 on a tour of Chernobyl (they actually do tours there now), and sneak him into the actual power plant. Next, place him close to reactor 4, retreat to a safe distance and watch him turn to sludge. Everybody wins.

On the topic of Chernobyl, you said the Soviet government overexaggerated the effects. Why then was Pripyat evacuated so late and the initial cleanup done under complete secrecy? People working on the reactor clean-up werent even aware it was a nuclear power plant, and were wondering why the red flag that the firefighters placed above the reactor (soviet symbolism) paled to light pink in less than an hour.

Also explain to me how the build-up of uranium that occured in Britain some months after the radioactive cloud passed over Europe (verified by farmers who ended up with radioactive meat from their cows) really got there.

He won't listen, I have tried to prove that atoms exist before.  November 17th either is faking it or he is just living in 100 BC. 

As for what you said, I'm not aware that the people doing clean up didn't know what they were doing.  I was under the assumption that the workers, who were soldiers, knew it was radioactive but were told that it was at a lower level than it really was. The videos showing them cleaning shows them being timed as to limit exposer. I'm pretty sure they knew somewhat of what they were doing but not all of what they were doing.  There is a good video on it, which may even be on youtube.  I have the name written somewhere, but its the PBS video.   
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #393 on: May 25, 2010, 09:46:59 AM »
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #394 on: May 25, 2010, 09:49:54 AM »
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
The irony is that youre asking a former submariner that. Unless hes lying which he probably is. A sailor on a nuclear sub that doesnt believe in atoms is like having an atheist priest
A quote from one of rthe admins in the believers section
Quote
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the
Earth being contested in this forum? What is
going on?
Oh the irony

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #395 on: May 25, 2010, 08:55:00 PM »
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
The irony is that youre asking a former submariner that. Unless hes lying which he probably is. A sailor on a nuclear sub that doesnt believe in atoms is like having an atheist priest

No it is not. An atheist priest would be a perfectly acceptable person, though he would have quite the inner quandary. A priest's life does not depend on God's existence.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #396 on: May 25, 2010, 09:18:23 PM »
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
The irony is that youre asking a former submariner that. Unless hes lying which he probably is. A sailor on a nuclear sub that doesnt believe in atoms is like having an atheist priest

No it is not. An atheist priest would be a perfectly acceptable person, though he would have quite the inner quandary. A priest's life does not depend on God's existence.
I didnt say that either was unacceptable, but im saying if you were picking out a crew for ur nuclear sub, you wouldnt pick a guy that you know doesnt believe in atoms.

Or if you needed to go to church im sure you wouldnt go to the church run by someone you know is atheist. Im saying those traits make people seem less professional
A quote from one of rthe admins in the believers section
Quote
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the
Earth being contested in this forum? What is
going on?
Oh the irony

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #397 on: May 25, 2010, 09:37:47 PM »
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
The irony is that youre asking a former submariner that. Unless hes lying which he probably is. A sailor on a nuclear sub that doesnt believe in atoms is like having an atheist priest

No it is not. An atheist priest would be a perfectly acceptable person, though he would have quite the inner quandary. A priest's life does not depend on God's existence.
I didnt say that either was unacceptable, but im saying if you were picking out a crew for ur nuclear sub, you wouldnt pick a guy that you know doesnt believe in atoms.

Or if you needed to go to church im sure you wouldnt go to the church run by someone you know is atheist. Im saying those traits make people seem less professional

I really wouldn't give a shit if he believed in atoms or not, theoretical knowledge is unimportant, while practical knowledge of how to operate the systems is all that matters.

I thought you meant his willingness to travel on a submarine, I apparently assumed you were more intelligent than you really are. The lightbulb was made without knowledge of an electron, I'm sure monitoring a few gauges can be done without absolute belief in the atom.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #398 on: May 25, 2010, 10:18:33 PM »
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
The irony is that youre asking a former submariner that. Unless hes lying which he probably is. A sailor on a nuclear sub that doesnt believe in atoms is like having an atheist priest

No it is not. An atheist priest would be a perfectly acceptable person, though he would have quite the inner quandary. A priest's life does not depend on God's existence.
I didnt say that either was unacceptable, but im saying if you were picking out a crew for ur nuclear sub, you wouldnt pick a guy that you know doesnt believe in atoms.

Or if you needed to go to church im sure you wouldnt go to the church run by someone you know is atheist. Im saying those traits make people seem less professional

I really wouldn't give a shit if he believed in atoms or not, theoretical knowledge is unimportant, while practical knowledge of how to operate the systems is all that matters.

I thought you meant his willingness to travel on a submarine, I apparently assumed you were more intelligent than you really are. The lightbulb was made without knowledge of an electron, I'm sure monitoring a few gauges can be done without absolute belief in the atom.

"Men, i have grave news. There has been an accident in the reactor compartment, and i need so and so to go in and do this and that"

"uhhhhhhhhh...."

You shouldnt care, but it is always good to have someone on who knows whats cracking.
A quote from one of rthe admins in the believers section
Quote
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the
Earth being contested in this forum? What is
going on?
Oh the irony

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24186
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #399 on: May 26, 2010, 05:47:55 AM »
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.


Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #400 on: May 26, 2010, 09:22:48 AM »
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.



But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
A quote from one of rthe admins in the believers section
Quote
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the
Earth being contested in this forum? What is
going on?
Oh the irony

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24186
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #401 on: May 26, 2010, 01:23:58 PM »
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.



But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.

You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.

I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #402 on: May 26, 2010, 04:15:39 PM »
Tsar Bomba Video


You do, really do realise, that is not the real vide of Tsar Bomba, and is a video made by someone totally random and unrelated to anything, as that is just a video of a random Nuclear bomb going off, and NOT the actual video of Tsar Bomba at all?
That would be a simulation of the fabric of space-time bending back upon itself

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #403 on: May 27, 2010, 12:16:49 AM »
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.



But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.

You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.

I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
Only works assuming the car never breaks down
A quote from one of rthe admins in the believers section
Quote
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the
Earth being contested in this forum? What is
going on?
Oh the irony

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24186
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #404 on: May 27, 2010, 03:02:45 AM »
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.



But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.

You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.

I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
Only works assuming the car never breaks down
Unless you have a tow truck and mechanic.  ::)

No one floated away prior to understanding gravity

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #405 on: May 27, 2010, 05:49:23 AM »
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.



But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.

You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.

I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
Only works assuming the car never breaks down
Unless you have a tow truck and mechanic.  ::)

No one floated away prior to understanding gravity
But some did attempt to fly.

We'll agree to disagree then. Somehow i think that out of two people with identical driving abilities, id rather get in a car with the person who knows how to do basic repairs on a car. Might just be me or might be the fact that russian cars are shit.
A quote from one of rthe admins in the believers section
Quote
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the
Earth being contested in this forum? What is
going on?
Oh the irony

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24186
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #406 on: May 27, 2010, 06:53:24 AM »
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.



But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.

You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.

I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
Only works assuming the car never breaks down
Unless you have a tow truck and mechanic.  ::)

No one floated away prior to understanding gravity
But some did attempt to fly.

We'll agree to disagree then. Somehow i think that out of two people with identical driving abilities, id rather get in a car with the person who knows how to do basic repairs on a car. Might just be me or might be the fact that russian cars are shit.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, CAR REPAIRS YOU!


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #407 on: May 28, 2010, 06:25:16 AM »
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.



But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.

You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.

I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
Only works assuming the car never breaks down
Unless you have a tow truck and mechanic.  ::)
If a zombie is chasing you, then you won't have time to wait for a tow truck or mechanic.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24186
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #408 on: May 28, 2010, 01:11:25 PM »
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.



But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.

You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.

I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
Only works assuming the car never breaks down
Unless you have a tow truck and mechanic.  ::)
If a zombie is chasing you, then you won't have time to wait for a tow truck or mechanic.
But if a zombie is stuck under your grill or undercarriage, you may want a mechanic to work on your vehicle instead of risking getting bit yourself.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #409 on: May 28, 2010, 10:52:46 PM »
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
The irony is that youre asking a former submariner that. Unless hes lying which he probably is. A sailor on a nuclear sub that doesnt believe in atoms is like having an atheist priest

No it is not. An atheist priest would be a perfectly acceptable person, though he would have quite the inner quandary. A priest's life does not depend on God's existence.
I didnt say that either was unacceptable, but im saying if you were picking out a crew for ur nuclear sub, you wouldnt pick a guy that you know doesnt believe in atoms.

Or if you needed to go to church im sure you wouldnt go to the church run by someone you know is atheist. Im saying those traits make people seem less professional

I really wouldn't give a shit if he believed in atoms or not, theoretical knowledge is unimportant, while practical knowledge of how to operate the systems is all that matters.

I thought you meant his willingness to travel on a submarine, I apparently assumed you were more intelligent than you really are. The lightbulb was made without knowledge of an electron, I'm sure monitoring a few gauges can be done without absolute belief in the atom.

"Men, i have grave news. There has been an accident in the reactor compartment, and i need so and so to go in and do this and that"

"uhhhhhhhhh...."

You shouldnt care, but it is always good to have someone on who knows whats cracking.

All you need to know about a decaying atom in a fission reactor is "this much mass puts off this much energy" the rest of it is completely irrelevant.

Practical knowledge is all that is needed, and it would all be supplied in training. A better example than the mechanic is, a mechanic doesn't need to know shit about metals and their properties to fix a hole in your steel frame. His practical knowledge of metals is far more important than his actual understanding of how a metal functions.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #410 on: May 29, 2010, 06:23:58 AM »
a "nuke" ...  who are trained in the details of both the practicalities of operating a reactor and its corrollary systems as well as (the official version of) the theory behind it
The teaching of the theoretical aspect is heavily falsified.  Unfortunately, this false theory (of the alleged real existence of atoms and molecules) is typically unquestioningly and blindly assumed correct and accepted as truth by students (whether military or civilian) because of an association with the obvious concrete practical reality it pretends to explain.  The teaching of a veritable fabrication of a false reality is what makes these and other engineering schools houses of conceited liars.

Why do you still post?  You are on a freaking computer. I have already brought up that computers can't work without atoms existing. 
You can't even answer the question of why different "things"( atoms/molecules to me) have different properties. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #411 on: June 01, 2010, 12:54:25 AM »
I really wouldn't give a shit if he believed in atoms or not ... while practical knowledge of how to operate the systems is all that matters.

Well said. 
This is the essence of one of Duhem's books which, for example, does not deny practical facts of the collusion of certain elements.  More to the point, Duhem does not even deny the usefulness of certain models for their usefulness in the furtherance of understanding of chemical reactions, but he does deny the making of idols out of theoretical models (of atoms, molecules) which are not by any means proven to be physical reality reguardless of their utility in explaining chemical reactions to a certain extent.

Smaller assumes atoms exist, and he is just as wrong in that assumption as he is to assume that I was allegedly lying when I said that I am a veteran of the US Navy Submarine Force because I most definitely am.  I was a submarine yeoman (secretary) and drove the ship (on both SSN and SSBN) and not a "nuke" (one who receives two years of "nuclear" training prior to submarine service (at schools in Ballston Spa, NY and another one in the Carolinas) and who are trained in the details of both the practicalities of operating a reactor and its corrollary systems as well as (the official version of) the theory behind it, but I did complete five years aboard such submarines - one boomer and one fast attack. 
Sorry but i can also reason like you: pics or you werent.

So far youve just attacked my viewpoint and not responded to my arguments on page 20. So does this mean youll take up my offer of giving you a tour of chernobyl and then making you stand next to the reactor?

Raist: IMO people with practical but not even an ounce of theoretical knowledge lead to shit like the Komsomolets submarine disaster.
A quote from one of rthe admins in the believers section
Quote
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the
Earth being contested in this forum? What is
going on?
Oh the irony

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #412 on: June 02, 2010, 04:52:38 AM »
There are no nuclear weapons; the nuclear reactors are simply Reich/Tesla aether accumulators, as I have explained many times before here.

As for the correct model of the atom, which clearly shows that O. Hahn and L. Meitner (not to mention E. Fermi) faked their experiments...

No atoms had even remotely been seen visually until 1985, when IBM Research Almaden Labs was the first to use an electron tunneling microscope to actually photograph the organization of molecules of germanium in an ink-blot. Here what we see from this experiment are indistinct, fuzzy spherical objects that appear to have some non-spherical geometric qualities to their shape and are in an extremely geometric pattern of organization, which was definitely a surprise for conventional science. How could the random nature of atoms described by the Heisenberg principle, ever result in such an ordered pattern? Perhaps the probability distributions are not 'distributions' at all.



Furthermore, when quantum physicists have studied the electrons of the atom, they have observed that they are not actually points at all, not particulate in nature, but rather form smooth, teardrop-shaped clouds where the narrowest ends of the drops converge upon a very tiny point in the center.

There are no Electron Orbits! Bohr's model, which started the notion of electrons traveling around the nucleus like planets has misled a lot of people and scientists. If you have learned such an idea, forget about it immediately. Instead, all calculations and all experiments show that no satellite-like orbital motion exists in the normal atom. Instead, there are standing wave patterns, very similar indeed to the polar plots of antenna radiation patterns. For example, see the case M=0 and L=0, where the standing wave pattern is entirely spherical, this being equivalent to a pure isotropic antenna radiation plot. Similarly for M=1, L=1, the pattern is exactly the same as that of a half wave dipole, and so on. No one ever asks or requires for an antenna's radiation pattern to be formed of orbiting electrons, and yet we know that the standing wave generated from a typical radio antenna, posseses inertia, and can act upon external matter by means of radiation pressure. The electron path is NOT around and far off the nucleus, nor is the atom made up of 99.999% empty space!. Instead, the center of the electron pattern is also the center of the proton pattern. This is the normal situation of the H atoms in the universe; they have spherical symmetry, not orbits. You see, particulate matter is not requirement to generate the effects known to define matter.


From one of the most prestigious physicists of the second half of the 20th century, Harold Puthoff:

Classical physics tells us that if we think of an atom as a miniature solar system with electronic planets orbiting a nuclear sun, then it should not exist. The circling electrons SHOULD RADIATE AWAY their energy like microscopic radio antennas and spiral into the nucleus. To resolve this problem, physicists had to introduce a set of mathematical rules, called quantum mechanics, to describe what happens. Quantum theory endows matter and energy with both wave and particle-like characteristics. It also restrains electrons to particular orbits, or energy levels, so they cannot radiate energy unless they jump from one orbit to another.
Measuring the spectral lines of atoms verifies that quantum theory is correct. Atoms appear to emit or absorb packets of light, or photons, with a wavelength that exactly coincides with the difference between its energy levels as predicted by quantum theory. As a result, the majority of physicists are content simply to use quantum rules that describe so accurately what happens in their experiments.

Nevertheless, when we repeat the question: "But why doesn't the electron radiate away its energy?", the answer is: "Well, in quantum theory it JUST DOESN'T". It is at this point that not only the layman but also some physicists begin to feel that someone is not playing fair. Indeed, much of modern physics is based on theories couched in a form that works but they do not answer the fundamental questions of what gravity is, why the Universe is the way it is, or how it got started anyway.

Bohr had no right to propose a postulate WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE SOURCE OF THE ENERGY REQUIRED FOR THE ELECTRONS TO CONTINUE TO ORBIT AROUND THE NUCLEUS. The assumptions made by both Rutherford and Bohr are dealt with in the Case against the Nuclear Atom by Dr. Dewey Larson, and are shown to be dead wrong.

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana02.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana03.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana04.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana05.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana01.htm

W. Pauli introduced the notion of the neutrino, BASED TOTALLY ON THE ORBITING ELECTRON MODEL OF BOHR; here are some comments:

THE ELUSIVE NEUTRINO: In my opinion the neutrino concept is the work of a relativistic accountant who tries to balance his books by making a fictitious entry. He does not recognize the existence of the aether and so, when accounting for something where an energy transaction involves an energy transfer to or from the aether, he incorporates an entry under the heading 'neutrinos'.

Since the 1980s technological advances such as the the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) have made it possible to view, and even manipulate, the individual atoms on the surfaces of solid matter. Such images are widely available, but each one takes a considerable amount of time to produce by moving the tip of the probe slowly back and forth across the target, and in every case the atoms depicted are clearly defined, as in the image below, which is a representation of the image of atoms at the surface of a sample of solid matter.



Such images, when first produced, finally confirmed beyond all doubt the existence of atoms as individual, spherical structures, which in solids are in close proximity to others and arranged in the rows or patterns that could be expected to form for a conglomeration of larger spherical objects such a balls or oranges. But the most striking result is that there is no evidence of discontinuity in these images, and even more significantly there is no evidence of the assumed independent motion or oscillation of atoms in this state.

If as kinetic theory suggests, each of the atoms of a solid are oscillating eternally within a set volume of empty space separating it from adjacent atoms, then instead of the clearly defined images of rows of spherical atoms, the images of the atoms would be indistinct and blurred.

Any independent observer would accordingly conclude that in this state of matter atoms do not have any characteristic of independent motion and that no empty space or vacuum exists, between them, eminent physicists however, instead of accepting these visual images as representing the reality of atomic interactions in solids, cling to current scientific dogma and reject these clear results, inventing vague and patently unsatisfactory reasons as to why these empirical results do not contradict the hypothetical concepts of kinetic motion and discontinuity.


http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm
A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON...there are some threads which attempt to prove the fake nuclear weapons scenario (see the material I have posted here already)...the physics behind the nuclear atom is completely false...
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=894


Sun Neutrino Paradox.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume9/issue2/features/cull2.html

The explanation offered in the 1930s by H. Bethe (thrown out of Germany for incompetence) is completely wrong, and the modern arguments using the tau-neutrino/muon-neutrino (from electron-neutrino), and a fourth type of neutrino, do not work either.

A site which shows that the sun neutrino problem has not been solved at all:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

The 'missing neutrinos' problem is a serious one. *Corliss considers it 'one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy.' (W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 40.) Bahcall comments on the seriousness of the problem:

'At least one part of the theory of stellar interiors is probably wrong, although there is yet no observational evidence that the basic ideas of stellar evolution and nuclear fusion in stars are incorrect. We of course do not know which part of the theory is wrong, but it seems likely that the solution of the solar neutrino problem may affect other applications of the theory of stellar interiors.'John N. Bahcall, 'Some Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics,' Astronomical Journal, 76:283 (1971).


It is hoped that some type of 'barrier' will yet be found which is shielding the earth so that solar neutrinos which ought to be there since the hydrogen fusion theory 'has to be correct'will yet be discovered. But Larson takes a dim view of the situation.

'The mere fact that the hydrogen conversion process can be seriously threatened by a marginal experiment of this kind emphasizes the precarious status of a hypothesis that rests almost entirely on the current absence of any superior alternative. 'Dewey B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984), p. 11.


Scientists have searched for incoming solar neutrinos since the mid-1960s, yet hardly any arrive to be measured. Yet, they dare not accept the truth of the situation?for that would mean an alternative which would shatter major evolutionary theories.

Neutrinos, as N. Tesla showed, COME FROM THE AETHER AND NOT FROM THE ATOM ITSELF.


*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #413 on: June 02, 2010, 06:38:18 AM »

Since the 1980s technological advances such as the the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) have made it possible to view, and even manipulate, the individual atoms on the surfaces of solid matter. Such images are widely available, but each one takes a considerable amount of time to produce by moving the tip of the probe slowly back and forth across the target, and in every case the atoms depicted are clearly defined, as in the image below, which is a representation of the image of atoms at the surface of a sample of solid matter.



Such images, when first produced, finally confirmed beyond all doubt the existence of atoms as individual, spherical structures, which in solids are in close proximity to others and arranged in the rows or patterns that could be expected to form for a conglomeration of larger spherical objects such a balls or oranges. But the most striking result is that there is no evidence of discontinuity in these images, and even more significantly there is no evidence of the assumed independent motion or oscillation of atoms in this state.



You question so much, have you ever questioned the following? Pictures like this have been around since the 1980s.  There is even one on one of my physics text book covers.  Does it see odd that your claim that these pictures disproves physics, yet these "disproven" theories are still taught?  Why would you not question your own assumption.  "Well these images should change physics but they don't so maybe my assumptions are wrong and these theories are still right"
Did you ever wonder that? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #414 on: June 02, 2010, 07:36:38 PM »
There are no nuclear weapons.
I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would argue otherwise.

*

Lorddave

  • 18127
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #415 on: June 02, 2010, 08:20:34 PM »
There are no nuclear weapons.
I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would argue otherwise.

I thought those were Atomic weapons, not nuclear.  (What the difference is, I'm not sure)
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #416 on: June 02, 2010, 08:47:39 PM »
There are no nuclear weapons.
I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would argue otherwise.

I thought those were Atomic weapons, not nuclear.  (What the difference is, I'm not sure)
They are the same thing. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #417 on: June 02, 2010, 08:49:49 PM »
Quote from: smaller
Raist: IMO people with practical but not even an ounce of theoretical knowledge lead to shit like the Komsomolets submarine disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-278_Komsomolets

"On 7 April 1989, while under the command of Captain 1st Rank Evgeny Vanin and running submerged at a depth of 335 metres (1,099 ft) about 180 kilometres (100 nmi) southwest of Bear Island (Norway), fire broke out in the aft compartment, and even though watertight doors were shut, the resulting fire spread through bulkhead cable penetrations. The reactor scrammed and propulsion was lost. Electrical problems spread as cables burned through, and control of the boat was threatened. An emergency ballast tank blow was performed and the submarine surfaced eleven minutes after the fire began. Distress calls were made, and most of the crew abandoned ship."

I have not yet looked for a more detailed explanation of what happened, but I suspect proper emergency procedures were not followed.  Knowledge and working familiarity with emergency procedures is what is important in an emergency like a fire on a boat.  Reguardless of its origin, the fire obviously became electrical.  Submarine reactors supply two kinds of energy:  propulsion (turning the shaft) and electrical power for the boat.  At least with US submarines in a fire in the engine room, power from the reactor is temporarily shut off to identify which of two electrical circuits is affected.  I do not know about Soviet boats, but the reactor compartments of US submarines have two loops coming off the reactor (which are quite hot and turn water passing by them into steam which itself turns turbines which power equipment).  After the fire is located, one of the circuits is restored and thus supplies power for everything.  My understanding is that if a running reactor is left without an outlet for too long, then the reactor must be shut down (i.e. scram) to avoid a worse catastrophe such as overheating or explosion.

More likely than not, the Komsomolets reactor had to be shutdown for this reason.  I would expect that it was purposely shutdown (and probably rightly so given the conditions at the moment, but I would like to see more details of the event to confirm that).  What led to that necessity was most likely improper emergency response to the fire.

Knowledge of reactor components and what they do by the personnel who operate it and knowledge of emergency response procedures by everyone onboard is what is needed in such dire emergencies - not reflection upon esoteric atomic theory.

So how do they work with your model? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #418 on: June 02, 2010, 10:28:19 PM »
Quote from: sokarul
So how do they work with your model?

Obviously you are talking about the theory of how so-called nuclear reactors generate heat.
It's actually a good question.

The following quote is from this link:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm

"Despite all the cosmic energy that the word "nuclear" invokes, power plants that depend on atomic energy don't operate that differently from a typical coal-burning power plant. Both heat water into pressurized steam, which drives a turbine generator. The key difference between the two plants is the method of heating the water. While older plants burn fossil fuels, nuclear plants depend on the heat that occurs during nuclear fission, when one atom splits into two."

I agree with everything except for the last sentence which is what your question is essentially about.  For one thing, the article is also wrong about coal which does not come from fossils.  That is another modern myth concocted by Lomonosov in the eighteenth century.  Aside from that, I discern two essential differences between burning coal and burning uranium for the production of energy.

1) Burning uranium (or plutonium) produces a lot more energy than coal for the same volume of material (and we would likely agree).

2) The other difference is that more disinformation in the form of outright lies accompanies the burning of uranium.  Coal produces heat simply because it burns.  Uranium is the same way.  It just produces a whole lot more heat.  Unlike burning coal, burning uranium is a chemical fire (there are different kinds of fire).  The condition of the uranium that is installed in reactors is chemically designed deliberately to burn at a high temperature so it is natural for it to be dangerous.  Nothing magical about that.  Most of the reactor rods are constructed of chemicals which are designed to lower the rate of burning.  The more they are inserted into the fire, the weaker it becomes.  These rods perform the same function as closing the lid on a barbecue pit.  

All this talk of the movement of neutrons as well as splitting atoms is all rubbish.  It has no place in reality.  What is important is that chemicals react with other chemicals to make a fire.  The uranium inside a reactor begins to burn because chemicals which create a fire within it upon contact are inserted into the reactor via a rod. The interaction of these chemicals is what initiates the heat process (as opposed to mythical fission) in a reactor.  

Nuclear fission is mythical.  It never existed.
I'm retarded for even ask that.  I knew your answer would be crap.

Edit: there was stuff here but it's not even worth it, I just can fix stupid.

Also don't lecture me about chemistry.  It's what I do for a living and what you know nothing about.  
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 10:33:23 PM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Tech

  • 107
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #419 on: June 02, 2010, 11:36:05 PM »
There are no nuclear weapons.
I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would argue otherwise.
If you are speaking of the people who underwent the bomb attacks of August 1945 and were interviewed shortly after it happened, then you think wrong.

According to some people here, those cities weren't nuked or anything, they were the victims of some sort of big fire bomb or something, and the U.S. never developed nuclear weapons. But they believe the earth is flat so what do they know?