Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

  • 1237 Replies
  • 289279 Views
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2009, 07:32:11 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2009, 12:52:24 AM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17721
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #32 on: January 16, 2009, 01:13:38 AM »
Quote
Tom, stop with the devils advocate.  It doesn't look good for your FE stance.

Military propaganda is a weapon just as powerful as any real weapon.

Agree'd. Fire doesn't do this: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bomb/shadow2.gif

Did the Japanese take those pictures, or did the US Military take those pictures?

Quote

Plenty of conventional bombs make mushroom clouds.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2009, 07:02:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2009, 01:23:02 AM »
Agree'd. Fire doesn't do this: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bomb/shadow2.gif

Did the Japanese take those pictures, or did the US Military take those pictures?

Quote

.
There is a big difference in the size of the mushroom cloud. I can set off a little bit of gunpowder and it will make a mushroom cloud

Plenty of conventional bombs make mushroom clouds.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2009, 06:42:40 AM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
Your mother.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #35 on: January 16, 2009, 12:23:50 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2009, 12:35:21 PM »
Replace "mass" with energy.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2009, 01:44:20 PM »
LOL, these round earthers know absolutely no physics then they tell us our theories are impossible.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2009, 01:53:04 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
There is a reason I put mass in quotes. If you want to calculate gravitational acceleration by only using energy go right ahead I on the other hand will do it correctly and calculate its relativistic mass before I calculate its acceleration.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2009, 02:28:47 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
your retarted. [/physics]
Your mother.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2009, 03:22:18 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
your retarted. [/physics]
Study physics further than what Wiki will teach you
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2009, 03:25:09 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
your retarted. [/physics]
Study physics further than what Wiki will teach you
Stop talking to yourself.
Your mother.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2009, 03:32:24 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
your retarted. [/physics]
Study physics further than what Wiki will teach you
Stop talking to yourself.
Here let me help you, I know it is hard to get away from wiki

http://www.setileague.org/askdr/photon.htm
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #43 on: January 16, 2009, 03:58:18 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2009, 05:38:30 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
your retarted. [/physics]
Study physics further than what Wiki will teach you
Stop talking to yourself.
Here let me help you, I know it is hard to get away from wiki

http://www.setileague.org/askdr/photon.htm
The webpage you linked does not address the question correctly.
Your mother.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #45 on: January 16, 2009, 05:40:50 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
g=Gm/r2
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #46 on: January 16, 2009, 05:51:30 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
g=Gm/r2
you're obtuse.
Your mother.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #47 on: January 16, 2009, 06:00:05 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
g=Gm/r2
And you're applying a relativistic situation into a non-relativistic equation because...?

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #48 on: January 16, 2009, 06:02:52 PM »
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
g=Gm/r2
And you're applying a relativistic situation into a non-relativistic equation because...?
that is a relativistic equation
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #49 on: January 16, 2009, 06:04:26 PM »
Uh, no. M != m

The "m" in that equation is invariant mass, not relativistic mass.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #50 on: January 16, 2009, 06:06:52 PM »
'cbarnett97', you obviously have not passed any course in General Relativity, so, please, either read some more, or stop posting on this matter.
Your mother.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #51 on: January 16, 2009, 06:13:54 PM »
Uh, no. M != m

The "m" in that equation is invariant mass, not relativistic mass.
and what is the invariant mass of a photon?
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #52 on: January 16, 2009, 06:14:27 PM »
0.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2009, 06:28:46 PM »
Perhaps this link would be of some use to see how propagation of light in a weak gravitational field is treated:

Your mother.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #54 on: January 16, 2009, 10:36:47 PM »
Perhaps this link would be of some use to see how propagation of light in a weak gravitational field is treated:

And that shows how relativistic mass is an outdated term how?
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #55 on: January 17, 2009, 02:58:56 AM »
This professor at Berkley seems to think that Calutrons were discovered when the UN went after Saddam Hussein...

A calutron being the device used to refine Uranium into a usable nuclear weapons grade material.


Interesting... jmo...

"Nukes 4of6: Enrichment, Nuclear Iraq and Nuclear Reactors" - Richard Muller



Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #56 on: January 18, 2009, 03:45:31 PM »
Uhh, you do realize that hundreds of nuclear bombs have been tested around the world and that north korea has nowhere near the ability to create any CGI.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17721
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #57 on: January 18, 2009, 08:47:52 PM »
Uhh, you do realize that hundreds of nuclear bombs have been tested around the world and that north korea has nowhere near the ability to create any CGI.

Why would North Korea need to create CGI?

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #58 on: January 18, 2009, 10:10:31 PM »
I've met certain persons who "worked" at the aledged Test Site out here who will swear, on a bible and a fifth, that all that "nukyilar bombs" is a big hoax and that the top Brass spend the budget on hookers and blow here in Sin C.

But then; how do you explain that radioactive Elvis clone roaming the desert wastes preying on unwary tourists?

Tom, you seem to be a near complete fuckin' tool.


"When the the inescapable truth of the lie permeates your every thought, then you are fully brain-jacked by the agents of the Contunuous Conspiracy conspiracy and may be irrevocably mentally comprimised."
 believe that; the Earth is flat until such time as I stand within the Space Station and personally see that it is a Globe.
or that the Earth is a sphere until such time as I stand upon the Icewall and personally see that it is a Flat Disk.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #59 on: January 23, 2009, 08:15:21 AM »
Check out this revealing article about fake Russian nuclear bombs: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19981118/ai_n14192997

It proves that fake nuclear bombs do exist.