.....

As silly as this may sound, the energy we use today is probably nothing like we used years ago, due to the technology of designing low energy products, unlike years ago when we had energy zapping electric fires and electric ring cookers and big televisions etc.

A growing population requires even more energy than what we used to use.  If the population stayed the same, and electrical devices continued to be made more efficient, then yes, we would use less.

Or did you mean something different?

Harping on about calculations? I asked you to show me hudrogen stacks and how hydrogen build up is a problem for working power stations. So far you have epicly fails to do so. Even with a new story that is completely unrelated to what we are talking about. After you fail to do so you the. Say this

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 23, 2013, 08:45:47 AM

what have you got to hide by not showing me the source of your photo. all i want to do is find out why they think those towers are hydrogen release valves. i can find no reference any where on the internet to anything called a hydrogen stack at a nuclear powerstation. maby you caould show me another photo from another stations as of a hydrogen stack while you are at it?

Look it up Thaggy. I'm not that interested in what they say they are anyway.

Well il tell you now. I have looked it up. And you are wrong. Pure and simple realy. We shouldn't be surprised realy iv yet to see an occasion that you are completely right.

I may be wrong but I am yet to see anything apart from what I have described.

Scepti, is there evidence of this¿ Is this just a possible theory¿

No your just wrong. All opinion and uneducated guess work. Lack of understanding isn't bieng sceptical it's just being ignorant. Your theory is so stupendously idiotic it is just dumbfounding. The most basic problem is where do they get this vast amount of hydrogen needed from? You can't generally find in its basic form on earth. It's generally chemically tied to another substance eg oxygen = water. Which requires energy to split. More energy than you would get back may I add. I think you theory needs work. Maby a basic understanding of chemistry. Or are chemists all in on the conspiracy as well

what have you got to hide by not showing me the source of your photo. all i want to do is find out why they think those towers are hydrogen release valves. i can find no reference any where on the internet to anything called a hydrogen stack at a nuclear powerstation. maby you caould show me another photo from another stations as of a hydrogen stack while you are at it?

did you find this, pythagoras?

http://allthingsnuclear.org/annotated-photos-of-fukushima-continued/

photo 6

Is there anything worth reading in these 57 pages of discussion?

Is there anything worth reading in these 57 pages of discussion?

Only if you like to see the Round Earth Theory being debunked.

Maybe I'm wrong. Ok , I'll accept that if that becomes the case...

Yes, you are wrong.  The problem is that you refuse accept it.

Quote from: FlatOrange on February 23, 2013, 04:14:32 PM

Is there anything worth reading in these 57 pages of discussion?

Only if you like to see the Round Earth Theory being debunked.

Yes. Which page, please?

Quote from: markjo on February 23, 2013, 07:27:00 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 23, 2013, 02:09:16 PM

Maybe I'm wrong. Ok , I'll accept that if that becomes the case...

Yes, you are wrong.  The problem is that you refuse accept it.

Tell me why I am wrong.

You are wrong because you have already admitted that you do not understand what you are talking about.  You over simplify and misrepresent things so that you can say that they are fake.

Quote from: Dr.Nor on February 23, 2013, 04:25:28 PM

Quote from: FlatOrange on February 23, 2013, 04:14:32 PM

Is there anything worth reading in these 57 pages of discussion?

Only if you like to see the Round Earth Theory being debunked.

Yes. Which page, please?

Pretty much everyone.

I cannot and will not look at stupid equations that are (in my opinion) based on absolute none-sense.(again, my opinion)...

Just because it doesn't make any sense to you, that doesn't mean that it's fake. 

You can sit there and tell me you know that Nuclear fission works, yet you have not seen it working in any laboratory or any power plant, or any bomb.

Have you been reading Wilmore's "only trust direct sensorial evidence" rants?  Of course you can't see atoms splitting.  I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that they could.  But that doesn't mean that you can't observe effects of nuclear decay, such as tritium night sights or radium watch dials. 

You can profess to know the make up of what it's supposed to be and you could amaze and baffle the most intelligent people with what you know, yet all you would be doing is telling a story.

If can tell that things are fake, then what makes you think that intelligent people can't figure out that things are fake too?

If I believe Nuclear weapons are fake, I'm not believing that because I don't like equations, (although this would be true)..I'm doing it because most of this stuff raises more questions than they answer.

What makes you think that those questions haven't been answered too?

Detective work can hinge on a gut feeling, yet to satisfy it, you have to keep delving, which is what I am doing.

Detective work can start with a gut feeling, but it should never end there.  It should end with good, solid evidence.  Seriously, take a college level physics course that includes labs were you can put your questions to the test. 

Exactly what is your expertise in lunar surface composition? Which materials do you know on Earth that do not reflect radio waves? Or are you telling us that the Moon is made of magical cheese, the only substance on Earth or Heaven that absorbs radio waves apart from the painting on the F-117?

Every time you are asked to support something about your claims you suddenly become the premiere expert in that subject on this whole planet. And you don't call that trolling?

Listen, I've had my fill of sceptimatic, but this post is full of irony.


Edit: Apologies, as I just noticed I replied to a very old post that in a thread I had not read before.

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 23, 2013, 08:45:47 AM

what have you got to hide by not showing me the source of your photo. all i want to do is find out why they think those towers are hydrogen release valves. i can find no reference any where on the internet to anything called a hydrogen stack at a nuclear powerstation. maby you caould show me another photo from another stations as of a hydrogen stack while you are at it?

did you find this, pythagoras?

http://allthingsnuclear.org/annotated-photos-of-fukushima-continued/

photo 6

I had a look at the photo and it seams to suggest its a exhaust system for the air inside the chamber. Can't realy tell more than that. But I do appreciate the link because I actually can't find anywhere what those towers are.

Oh and sceptic. I have found out why you won't give me a link to your photo you showed me and refused to Give the link. It's because it's a generic photo of Fukushima and you have put the annotation on their describing  it as a hydrogen stack. shame on you for falsifying evidence like that this is why I wanted a link and we can see clearly now why you didn't provide it.

You have yet to explain to me where we get this endless supply of hydrogen from as a alternate fuel source.

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 23, 2013, 07:36:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 23, 2013, 04:39:03 AM

Thaggy:
 From what they say, I think they say that the hydrogen stack is sort of a safety stack to vent off any build up of Hydrogen from the fissioning process.

can you show me a picture of a hydrogen stack please

I will happily accept that if you I've me the link to the website you got the pic from. I don't see what's so hard about that? I provide links most of the time and if I don't I will quite gladly put them up. Until then you have yet to prove they are hydrogen stacks. A term I have never yet seen used In regards to any part of a nuclear power plant. Let alone under normal operating conditions power plants don't produce hydrogen in any meaningful quantity.

You are also yet to show me where the vast quantities of hydrogen come from to power your hydrogen power stations.

You are all big on talk but when it gets down to things called evidence and sources you run for the hills.

That link is to a rabid Conspiricist site......Isreal destroyed it did they?
Why do all Conspiracist idea's always seem to have more than a hint of anti-semitism about them?

 

Nuclear atoms cannot be seen, They are invisible, yet they can be split and better split by invisible neutrons. It's merely a magic show where the magician pulls out an invisible rabbit from his hat and looks to be holding it up, yet the audience cannot see it. The only difference is, the audience would never go to another magic show because they had to rely on the belief the rabbit was invisible and they are not stupid enough to accept this, yet the very same people will accept invisible atoms somehow splitting and blowing up cities and creating worldwide destruction.

Atoms can be seen with Electron Microscopes and STMs.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zD85gk2FGL8/TnOzMXotV_I/AAAAAAAAh_0/XtYp-FlP3k0/s1600/colloid_sphere_atoms.jpg

Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2013, 06:13:11 AM

 

Quote

Nuclear atoms cannot be seen, They are invisible, yet they can be split and better split by invisible neutrons. It's merely a magic show where the magician pulls out an invisible rabbit from his hat and looks to be holding it up, yet the audience cannot see it. The only difference is, the audience would never go to another magic show because they had to rely on the belief the rabbit was invisible and they are not stupid enough to accept this, yet the very same people will accept invisible atoms somehow splitting and blowing up cities and creating worldwide destruction.

Atoms can be seen with Electron Microscopes and STMs.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zD85gk2FGL8/TnOzMXotV_I/AAAAAAAAh_0/XtYp-FlP3k0/s1600/colloid_sphere_atoms.jpg

Are they "Nuclear" atoms?

Of course. There is no other kind in that all atoms possess a nucleus. If you mean an atom of uranium or plutonium or something, no that is not. This is:

You seem to be in danger of embarrasing yourself now....

Do you really believe that anything you havn't seen with your own eyes doesn't exist?

How about the billions of individual cells that make up any living organism, or are they made out of magic pixie dust too?

1. Google electron microscopes.  2. Google atoms. 3. Take a look at Rama Set. 4. Have a laugh.

you - thats who is or rather should be embarrassed.

Lack of ability to comprehend a subject shouldnt be taken as a green light to invent al sorts of unworkable hypothesis to cover up your ignorance, it really shouldnt.

1. Google electron microscopes.  2. Google atoms. 3. Take a look at Rama Set. 4. Have a laugh.

Now now Dr. Nor. Be respectful. I could have posted the scientific paper I also found on new methods of creating higher contrast in such images but I just wanted to show that such visual evidence is easily accessible. Evidence of a global conspiracy is still being looked for. I would like to see some.

Quote from: sevenhills on February 24, 2013, 07:50:46 AM

you - thats who is or rather should be embarrassed.

Lack of ability to comprehend a subject shouldnt be taken as a green light to invent al sorts of unworkable hypothesis to cover up your ignorance, it really shouldnt.

I don't do the inventing, I question the invented, as in Nuclear power and Nuclear weapons.
My stories are no less legitimate than the stories told to yourself. You know. The one's you cling to like a limpet.

They aren't the same. Scientific theories are subjected to falsifiable experimentation. The results are published in peer-reviewed journals, studied by whomever has the time (you can do it too). Subjected to criticism, revised as necessary and sent back to experimentation if necessary.

Your stories are mulled over by you, criticized by only you and not subjected to any sort or review. Please tell me if that is not true. I will trust science over you every time.

wow. that link was a nice little read wasn't it.  i can see adsactly why you didn't want to post that. so my original point stands. where are the hydrogen stacks. this man just randomly calls them that he is a conspiracy nut a few steps behind you in his path to embarrassment.  show me a hydrogen stack at another power station. show me one at Fukushima for that matter because a conspiracy nut calling a tower that does not make it one.

also you still haven't answered my question where does the vast quantities of hydrogen come from to power your hydrogen power stations?

and how do you extract hydrogen from the sea?

but yous say nuclear power is all a hoax
kind of biting your own tail off hear.


so let me get this straight.

nuclear reactors create electricity.

then nuclear reactors use said electricity to split hydrogen and oxygen from water

than they burn now extracted hydrogen for electricity?



hmmmmm..... somethings not adding up hear

no im trying to get a straight answer out of you.

 step up to the plate them and explain to us all how it works then? you are obviously all clued up about the secret underworld we are all to brainwashed to see. so come on then hear is your chance.

thats a no then? am i corect?

what a suprise.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2013, 08:28:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2013, 08:07:36 AM

Quote from: sevenhills on February 24, 2013, 07:50:46 AM

you - thats who is or rather should be embarrassed.

Lack of ability to comprehend a subject shouldnt be taken as a green light to invent al sorts of unworkable hypothesis to cover up your ignorance, it really shouldnt.

I don't do the inventing, I question the invented, as in Nuclear power and Nuclear weapons.
My stories are no less legitimate than the stories told to yourself. You know. The one's you cling to like a limpet.

They aren't the same. Scientific theories are subjected to falsifiable experimentation. The results are published in peer-reviewed journals, studied by whomever has the time (you can do it too). Subjected to criticism, revised as necessary and sent back to experimentation if necessary.

Your stories are mulled over by you, criticized by only you and not subjected to any sort or review. Please tell me if that is not true. I will trust science over you every time.

There's science and there's Pinocchio science.

Not sure what you are getting at, but I am going to move on. You should try and address Pythagoras' concerns. They seem to be legitimate.

lol you dont have an answer do you. in absence of an answer what else im a suposed to do but try and figure out what on earth you are on about myself and the only thing i can come up with is


nuclear reactors create electricity.

then nuclear reactors use said electricity to split hydrogen and oxygen from water

than they burn now extracted hydrogen for electricity?

which is absolutly rediculous becasue at every stage you lose electricity which means its more eficiant to just use the nuclear energy in the 1st place.

below is a source which isnt a conspiracy website explaining how energy transformation isnt 100 % eficiant.