Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

Quote from: bl4ke360 on September 13, 2009, 11:32:44 PM

Your logic is just hilarious, I wish I had more room in my sig to add your post there. It's probably the stupidest reasoning I've heard in my life. Grenades used in war are also intended to kill people, but thousands of people survived grenade blasts. Using your logic, grenades couldn't possibly exist.

Grenades don't undergo rigorous testing the way nuclear weapons are purported to.

Of course because you're a weapons expert. Before Hiroshima, there wasn't even any nuclear bomb tests. Hiroshima was the first nuclear bomb ever used. However, grenades were tested hundreds to thousands of times before they were ever brought into the battlefield.
You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Wikipedia is your friend:

"Trinity was the first test of technology for an atomic weapon. It was conducted by the United States on July 16, 1945, at a location 35 miles (56 km) southeast of Socorro, New Mexico on the White Sands Proving Ground, headquartered near Alamogordo. Trinity was a test of an implosion-design plutonium device. Using the same conceptual design, the Fat Man device was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, on August 9. The Trinity detonation was equivalent to the explosion of around 20 kilotons of TNT and is usually considered the beginning of the Atomic Age."

Wikipedia is your friend:

"Trinity was the first test of technology for an atomic weapon. It was conducted by the United States on July 16, 1945, at a location 35 miles (56 km) southeast of Socorro, New Mexico on the White Sands Proving Ground, headquartered near Alamogordo. Trinity was a test of an implosion-design plutonium device. Using the same conceptual design, the Fat Man device was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, on August 9. The Trinity detonation was equivalent to the explosion of around 20 kilotons of TNT and is usually considered the beginning of the Atomic Age."

So since you're admitting they have been used before, what is the point of this thread?

I thought I giving you an opportunity to correct your post:

Of course because you're a weapons expert. Before Hiroshima, there wasn't even any nuclear bomb tests. Hiroshima was the first nuclear bomb ever used. However, grenades were tested hundreds to thousands of times before they were ever brought into the battlefield.
You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

If my opinion is the definitive answer to this thread, it's the first I've heard about it and if you choose to continue thinking that no tests were ever done, it's okay with me.  Let your error stand.

I thought I giving you an opportunity to correct your post:

Quote from: bl4ke360 on September 13, 2009, 11:50:13 PM

Of course because you're a weapons expert. Before Hiroshima, there wasn't even any nuclear bomb tests. Hiroshima was the first nuclear bomb ever used. However, grenades were tested hundreds to thousands of times before they were ever brought into the battlefield.
You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

If my opinion is the definitive answer to this thread, it's the first I've heard about it and if you choose to continue thinking that no tests were ever done, it's okay with me.  Let your error stand.

If it's a fact that tests have been done, then it proves nuclear bombs exist which makes this entire thread worthless.

I seem to remember a number of people on this thread that would dispute the Wikipedia article.  Are you just dismissing them all? Or are you agreeing with them?  Your 'if' leaves the question open.

Before Hiroshima, there wasn't even any nuclear bomb tests. Hiroshima was the first nuclear bomb ever used.

What?  I believe you mean the first one used in war, it was tested beforehand.  No military in its right mind would send out people on an attack with untested equipment.

As for other weapons, guns are made to kill, when the first "gonnes" were made they had one purpose and one purpose only, to kill enemy soldiers.  That being said small arms are tested much more rigorously than other weapons because they are used the most and the lives of soldiers depend most on them.  They're also much cheaper to test on.  And this was in response to robosteve.

The real sad thing is that the original poster actually has people believing the same thing, if he were alone in his ignorance i wouldn't be as depressed about this whole thing.  I also find it kind of funny that he is so critical about something when he hasn't even looked at the theory backing it up.

New supporting evidence that nuclear bombs might not exist:

loki700: The "theory backing it up," as you put it, is Einstein's flawed "Theory of Relativity" which is officially debunked: http://www.you.com.au/news/1121.htm

New supporting evidence that nuclear bombs might not exist:

loki700: The "theory backing it up," as you put it, is Einstein's flawed "Theory of Relativity" which is officially debunked: http://www.you.com.au/news/1121.htm

Yes, because unauthenticated quotes from American POWs, who are deprived of information while in a prison camp, which are then put in a youtube video, definitely constitute proof.


All those military reports, test results, pictures, post-war fatalities report and declassified documents that anyone can look up are probably lies. 

Quote from: Violent on January 14, 2009, 02:30:09 AM

Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: According to Einstein mass and energy are "different manifestations of the same thing," and "very small amounts of mass may be converted in to a very large amount of energy." Now this all sounds very scientific, but it's very important to note its title: The Theory of *Relativity* -which is dissolutionist- and next and perhaps even more revealing is the spoken equation itself, which is apparently Masonic / Kabalist: E is equal to mc-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light." We've got the Square mentioned repeatedly. Light is given a velocity and is squared.

Well yes, that's how nuclear power stations work. Even if you deny the existence of nukes then power stations still prove that the equation is sound.

Well, he'd deny the existence of those, too.

Can you prove that atoms even exist?

The very fact that you are typing on a computer is proof enough.  All electronic devices are based on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and atomic theory.  Proof of their existence is well established. 

I love this thread 

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on January 13, 2009, 07:53:35 PM

Can you prove that atoms even exist?

The very fact that you are typing on a computer is proof enough.  All electronic devices are based on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and atomic theory.  Proof of their existence is well established. 

Can you prove anything you just said or are you parroting back what you've been told?

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 09:10:15 AM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on January 13, 2009, 07:53:35 PM

Can you prove that atoms even exist?

The very fact that you are typing on a computer is proof enough.  All electronic devices are based on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and atomic theory.  Proof of their existence is well established. 

Can you prove anything you just said or are you parroting back what you've been told?

As an Electrical Engineer, yes I can.  Any specific questions or should I just have you google a tunnel diode?

Quote from: Raist on October 17, 2009, 10:34:06 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 09:10:15 AM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on January 13, 2009, 07:53:35 PM

Can you prove that atoms even exist?

The very fact that you are typing on a computer is proof enough.  All electronic devices are based on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and atomic theory.  Proof of their existence is well established. 

Can you prove anything you just said or are you parroting back what you've been told?

As an Electrical Engineer, yes I can.  Any specific questions or should I just have you google a tunnel diode?

I said can YOU prove any of those things. Not can you link to someone else who claims they have proved it.

Not in any way that you would accept, but all you need are a couple of transistors, a diode or two, a power supply, and a breadboard and you can do the experiments yourself.

Not in any way that you would accept, but all you need are a couple of transistors, a diode or two, a power supply, and a breadboard and you can do the experiments yourself.

None of that would prove atoms are doing that. They may lead you to believe in atoms, but I doubt they would give you a result proving once and for all that atoms do exist in the forms we claim.

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 07:08:34 PM

Not in any way that you would accept, but all you need are a couple of transistors, a diode or two, a power supply, and a breadboard and you can do the experiments yourself.

None of that would prove atoms are doing that. They may lead you to believe in atoms, but I doubt they would give you a result proving once and for all that atoms do exist in the forms we claim.

Of course, that's why its still called Atomic Theory.... But for all intents and purposes of science, we consider it fact, since the theory is consistent with all known observations and data that we currently have. (unless there's something I don't know about, in which case please correct me)

Quote from: Raist on October 17, 2009, 07:36:34 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 07:08:34 PM

Not in any way that you would accept, but all you need are a couple of transistors, a diode or two, a power supply, and a breadboard and you can do the experiments yourself.

None of that would prove atoms are doing that. They may lead you to believe in atoms, but I doubt they would give you a result proving once and for all that atoms do exist in the forms we claim.

Of course, that's why its still called Atomic Theory.... But for all intents and purposes of science, we consider it fact, since the theory is consistent with all known observations and data that we currently have. (unless there's something I don't know about, in which case please correct me)

So you admit you don't know that atoms exist?

Quote from: Pete on October 17, 2009, 07:41:55 PM

Quote from: Raist on October 17, 2009, 07:36:34 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 07:08:34 PM

Not in any way that you would accept, but all you need are a couple of transistors, a diode or two, a power supply, and a breadboard and you can do the experiments yourself.

None of that would prove atoms are doing that. They may lead you to believe in atoms, but I doubt they would give you a result proving once and for all that atoms do exist in the forms we claim.

Of course, that's why its still called Atomic Theory.... But for all intents and purposes of science, we consider it fact, since the theory is consistent with all known observations and data that we currently have. (unless there's something I don't know about, in which case please correct me)

So you admit you don't know that atoms exist?

I don't know absolutely positively for sure. But then again, I don't know that you aren't a pink unicorn. You could also be a space alien. But my theory, born out by observations and all the current knowledge I posses, would indicate that you are a human being. I could be wrong, but I'm not really worrying about the possibility that I'm wrong.

Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 07:49:21 PM

Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

You have evidence that disproves atomic theory? I'm actually curious as to what you believe in if not atomic theory.

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 07:49:21 PM

Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

Actually, electricity and radio waves. Could you please explain how electro-magnetism works if atoms dont exist? Mmmm

Actually, electricity and radio waves. Could you please explain how electro-magnetism works if atoms dont exist? Mmmm

The photon does not require the existence of atoms, see the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 11:27:01 PM

Actually, electricity and radio waves. Could you please explain how electro-magnetism works if atoms dont exist? Mmmm

The photon does not require the existence of atoms, see the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Perhaps, but i would like to see a theory of electro-magnetism that doesnt involve atoms.  My guess is that there isnt one.

Perhaps, but i would like to see a theory of electro-magnetism that doesnt involve atoms.  My guess is that there isnt one.

See Maxwell's Equations.

Quote from: Raist on October 17, 2009, 08:57:25 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 07:49:21 PM

Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

You have evidence that disproves atomic theory? I'm actually curious as to what you believe in if not atomic theory.

The burden of proof is on you.

Which of course is a straw man, since there is no way I could prove it to you in written form in a forum.  Except to say that the sciences of chemistry, biology, physics, and most other sciences rely on the atomic model, and if there was even a tiny error in it, it would have been noticed.

Quote from: Pete on October 17, 2009, 08:58:52 PM

Quote from: Raist on October 17, 2009, 08:57:25 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 07:49:21 PM

Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

You have evidence that disproves atomic theory? I'm actually curious as to what you believe in if not atomic theory.

The burden of proof is on you.

What? I was just honestly curious as to what you believe in, if not atomic theory. Its not my responsibility to say what you believe.