.....

You might as well add Donald Duck into it and Mickey and Minnie, because it's all an absolute joke.

Yours was a joke. dephelis is being more accurate.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 03, 2013, 03:04:28 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 03, 2013, 03:00:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 03, 2013, 02:57:46 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 03, 2013, 02:56:28 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 03, 2013, 02:55:13 PM

Quote from: Bollybill on March 03, 2013, 02:50:46 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 03, 2013, 02:48:53 PM

Quote from: Bollybill on March 03, 2013, 02:43:41 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 03, 2013, 02:39:19 PM

Apparently, this is how it went.

1.....400 B.C. Democritus’ atomic theory posited that all matter is made up small indestructible units he called atoms.

2...1903    Hantaro Nagaoka proposed an atomic model called the Saturnian Model to describe the structure of an atom.

3....In 1955 Professor of Physics, Erwin Mueller, became the 1st person to see an atom, using a field ion microscope of his own design.
.....................................................................................
1938     Lise Meitner, Hahn, Strassman discovered nuclear fission.
1942      Enrico Fermi created the first man-made nuclear reactor.
......................................................................................



So here's how it all works.
You get someone sat on a rock (probably) looking about on the beach and maybe sees a grain of sand and thinks, "hmmm, there's something smaller than this and smaller and smaller...maybe something like an atom.... right , I haven't a clue what to do about this but I'll write it down on my note pad and leave it in my safe so it gets passed down, because I'm sure this thought will come in handy one day when I'm just floating dust myself."

Years and years down the line, someone comes along and thinks, " I think i'll make a structure up of atoms that I have never seen...here we go, all done."

Years later, someone knocks up a nuclear reactor by smashing atoms and splitting them, blindly, creating a reaction of Nuclear proportions.

Years later, messing about with a microscope that he builds himself..Erwin, sees an atom, that he really didn't need to see , because people already knew how to split them and do all sorts with them with their eyes closed.

Right ladies and gentlemen, I want you all to close your eyes and split some atoms. First one to do so and create a chain reaction, gets a home made, direct from the cow, chocolate milk shake. 

Yes or no, do you doubt the existence of atoms?

That's a tricky question to be honest.

I doubt the existence of something that they call atoms that miraculously create energy with no input.

So, no?

They don't create energy from nothing.

Once you roll the ball down the endless steep hill, it rolls and rolls with the slightest of input.

Not sure what you mean here.

Let's take the nuclear reactor scenario.
You put in your rods...move the control rods slightly and somehow the atoms start attacking each other and creating heat for years and years continuously.
It's all based on fantasy.

Eventually the fuel runs out though. Why do you think the fuel should be spent quickly?  There are probably trillions and trillions of atoms in the uranium fuel and nuclear fission is, by many times, the most efficient way to extract energy from fuel.

Why should atoms simply smack into each other and create heat or better still explode into a mammoth cloud. They either fission slowly or they blow the hell out of cities...which is it.
I don;t want to know about this added bit of plutonium that magically makes it act like a raging nutter and somehow makes it super fission with atoms all diving out splitting the hell out of each other in a nano second and entire cities are obliterated.
Can't people see how silly it all is.

When uranium is fissioned it is split in to atoms of two lighter elements. The weight of these two new atoms does not equal the original mass of the uranium atom split. What happened?  Some of the matter was converted to energy. How much energy?  Well you take the missing amount of mass(m) multiply it by the speed of light, swuared(c^2) and you get the amount of energy released. E=mc^2!  It works every time!

Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.

So tell me. What part of Einstein's paper tipped you off that his science is bogus?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 03, 2013, 02:39:19 PM

Apparently, this is how it went.

1.....400 B.C. Democritus’ atomic theory posited that all matter is made up small indestructible units he called atoms.

2...1903    Hantaro Nagaoka proposed an atomic model called the Saturnian Model to describe the structure of an atom.

3....In 1955 Professor of Physics, Erwin Mueller, became the 1st person to see an atom, using a field ion microscope of his own design.
.....................................................................................
1938     Lise Meitner, Hahn, Strassman discovered nuclear fission.
1942      Enrico Fermi created the first man-made nuclear reactor.
......................................................................................

Not quite, that's a fairly simplistic view of how it went.

1. First eastern concept of atomism dates back to Indian Jainism in ~6th century BC.

2. First western concept of atomism is 5th Century BC, by Leucippus (Democritus' teacher).

3. Democritus systematises Leucippus' views, and coined the phrase atom. (Well the greek word atomos IIRC)

4. Robert Boyle expands on corpuscularianism in the mid 17th century.

5. Newton then uses corpuscularianism in his theory on light in the 1670's.

6. The chemist Lavoisier defines elements as substances that can't be broken down further in mid/end 18th century.

7. John Dalton uses atomism in the early 19th century, to describe how elements always react in whole number ratios. Leading him to postulate a hypothesis that ultimately leads to atomic theory.

8. At around the same time Robert Brown is looking into Brownian motion.

9. Brownian motion is analysed by Einstein in early 20th century.

10. Einstein's work is then used by Jean Perrin to experimentally verify Daltons hypothesis.

11. Mendeleev publishes his first version of the periodic table of elements.

I think I could describe another 20-30 (still wouldn't be everyone) notable individuals who contributed to atomic theory. But I'll need to get to the rest of my science history/text books which involves getting a step-ladder. My wife's asleep and I'm not sure she'll appreciate the noise of bringing it in through the bedroom door to the garden.

Ta Ta

Don't forget:

The nucleus is the very dense region consisting of protons and neutrons at the center of an atom. It was discovered in 1911, as a result of Ernest Rutherford's interpretation of the famous 1909 Rutherford experiment performed by Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden, under the direction of Rutherford. The proton–neutron model of nucleus was proposed by Dmitry Ivanenko in 1932.^[1]

Also: History of Nuclear Physics

Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.

Do I need to explain it to you again?

Quote from: Pythagoras on March 03, 2013, 02:10:07 PM

no i don't know who it was and what do you mean by discover? 1st theorize about their existence or 1st to directly observe their existence or a consequence of their existance

Let's go the three ways.

1. Who first theorised the atom and the neutron.

2. Who actually discovered that they do indeed exist.

3. Who was the first person to see the atom by microscope and also the neutron.

1. Leukippos, followed by his disciple Demokrit (first atomic theory)

2. I would say Rutherford. His experiments with gold foils for the first time clearly demonstrated the atomic structure of matter. If you are really interested you should google that.

3. Don't know. Too lazy to find out.

Scepi is trying to discredit Albert Einstein............ ok.

http://www.alberteinstein.info/manuscripts.html

Somebody is going to a lot of trouble to digitise things that wern't written arn't they?

Quote from: Rama Set on March 03, 2013, 05:39:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 03, 2013, 03:54:09 PM

Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.

So tell me. What part of Einstein's paper tipped you off that his science is bogus?

None of it.
I don't believe Einstein actually put anything down on paper. It was all done for him, in my opinion of course.

Even if your claim, which has no basis in reality and is only backed up by your inadequate intuition, were true, which it clearly is not, it still does not make the science contained in the papers invalid. You should stop trying to bring great man down to your level. It is pathetic.

Quote from: sokarul on March 03, 2013, 08:13:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 03, 2013, 03:54:09 PM

Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.

Do I need to explain it to you again?

You don't need to explain bogus science to me, I have no time for bogus science.

You seem to think that when someone goes to study physics at university that there's a class where all is revealed and physics students are told to not reveal their use of magic on pain of death.

Quote from: sevenhills on March 04, 2013, 04:20:32 AM

http://www.alberteinstein.info/manuscripts.html

Somebody is going to a lot of trouble to digitise things that wern't written arn't they?

I'm not saying they weren't written. I'm saying it's very possible they weren't written by Einstein. I think he was just a puppet used to fabricate a myth.

Do you have anything other than an opinion to back this up?  Anything at all?  A cryptic passage from his biography?  Something?  Otherwise it would appear that your supposedly open mind is tightly shut.

Quote from: Manarq on March 04, 2013, 05:10:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 01:00:52 AM

Quote from: sokarul on March 03, 2013, 08:13:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 03, 2013, 03:54:09 PM

Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.

Do I need to explain it to you again?

You don't need to explain bogus science to me, I have no time for bogus science.

You seem to think that when someone goes to study physics at university that there's a class where all is revealed and physics students are told to not reveal their use of magic on pain of death.

I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.

It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.

Have you taken a nuclear physics course?

Quote from: Manarq on March 04, 2013, 05:31:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 05:25:29 AM

Quote from: Manarq on March 04, 2013, 05:10:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 01:00:52 AM

Quote from: sokarul on March 03, 2013, 08:13:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 03, 2013, 03:54:09 PM

Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.

Do I need to explain it to you again?

You don't need to explain bogus science to me, I have no time for bogus science.

You seem to think that when someone goes to study physics at university that there's a class where all is revealed and physics students are told to not reveal their use of magic on pain of death.

I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.

It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.

Have you taken a nuclear physics course?

No.

Have you taken any course in anything you so vigorously refuse to understand or "believe"?

Quote from: geepun92 on March 04, 2013, 05:43:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 05:37:36 AM

Quote from: Manarq on March 04, 2013, 05:31:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 05:25:29 AM

Quote from: Manarq on March 04, 2013, 05:10:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 01:00:52 AM

Quote from: sokarul on March 03, 2013, 08:13:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 03, 2013, 03:54:09 PM

Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.

Do I need to explain it to you again?

You don't need to explain bogus science to me, I have no time for bogus science.

You seem to think that when someone goes to study physics at university that there's a class where all is revealed and physics students are told to not reveal their use of magic on pain of death.

I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.

It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.

Have you taken a nuclear physics course?

No.

Have you taken any course in anything you so vigorously refuse to understand or "believe"?

Yep.

I'm curious to know what.

Quote from: Manarq on March 04, 2013, 05:31:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 05:25:29 AM

I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.

It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.

Have you taken a nuclear physics course?

No.

What a surprise, scepti is doing senseless claims again.

Quote from: robertotrevor on March 04, 2013, 07:15:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 05:37:36 AM

Quote from: Manarq on March 04, 2013, 05:31:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 05:25:29 AM

I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.

It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.

Have you taken a nuclear physics course?

No.

What a surprise, scepti is doing senseless claims again.

Oh, forgive me, I didn't know I was dealing with a collective set of Nuclear physicists. 

You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to know your claims are not based on anything.

Quote from: robertotrevor on March 04, 2013, 07:15:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 05:37:36 AM

Quote from: Manarq on March 04, 2013, 05:31:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 05:25:29 AM

I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.

It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.

Have you taken a nuclear physics course?

No.

What a surprise, scepti is doing senseless claims again.

Oh, forgive me, I didn't know I was dealing with a collective set of Nuclear physicists. 

You don't get it?
It is funny because the first thing you did to show your disbelief of atoms was asking Pythagoras if he had ever seen one, and then you seem to base your entire argument in that it is completely ok not to believe in atoms because we can't see them.
And now you explain us exactly how universities teach nuclear physics. Have you taken a nuclear physics course? "No" lol
Can you at least be congruent with yourself?

Quote from: robertotrevor on March 04, 2013, 09:39:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 08:57:51 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on March 04, 2013, 07:15:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 05:37:36 AM

Quote from: Manarq on March 04, 2013, 05:31:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 05:25:29 AM

I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.

It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.

Have you taken a nuclear physics course?

No.

What a surprise, scepti is doing senseless claims again.

Oh, forgive me, I didn't know I was dealing with a collective set of Nuclear physicists. 

You don't get it?
It is funny because the first thing you did to show your disbelief of atoms was asking Pythagoras if he had ever seen one, and then you seem to base your entire argument in that it is completely ok not to believe in atoms because we can't see them.
And now you explain us exactly how universities teach nuclear physics. Have you taken a nuclear physics course? "No" lol
Can you at least be congruent with yourself?

My point is, that nobody has seen one , yet somehow , nuclear fission was created and then the atomic bomb based on the invisible atom and nucleus.

If you can't see how nonsensical that is, then that's fair enough.

I know what your point is. My point is: Have you ever been in a nuclear physics class? no, then your comment about it is senseless.

Luckily sight is not the only way to learn about things, you can't trust your vision as the only source of knowledge or experimentation. Instead of whining about how we can't see atoms, you could be asking (yourself, do a research, i won't answer if you ask me) how we know they exist, you know, pretend for a moment that the answer is not that someone made them up, try being open minded. I really don't trust in your intelligence to understand that, but the "you can't see it, its fantasy" argument is not valid, and its boring already.

Who is actually feeding us this dis-information, why and who pays what must be truly staggering costs of keeping "us" in the dark, for what appears to be no valid purpose what so ever?

No, Im not kidding you- Why does it affect theeverage person whether space travel works, the earth is a giant pyramid orwhatever?

The costs of intructing hundreds of thousands of people in false practices, nearly 70 years of imaginary nuclear power, paying for a space race that never happened.........

...My claim has no real basis in reality...

And we're done here.

Right
That almost makes sense ( In an"I can read it sort of way") so where does this money go to? Whose is the pocket it is lining?
Thats ignoring the fact that most Governments can raise as much taxation as they see fit regardless of what it is for?

Do you have any idea how much money the UK government spends per annum, and on what?

Or is the National Audit Office part of the conspiracy too?

I don't care if you find my answer boring. ...

Ok, this is your answer to my post, you will stick to the "if you dont see it, its fantasy" because you dont know any better. The rest is just you trying to change the subject again and more sensless claims and im not interested in that.

The Defence budget of the UK (which I guess these things are part of) is about 9% oftotal government spending - Theyarnt doing very well at ripping us in the UK off are they?

There is no political content in what I posted, I simply gave you some facts (you know thoses things you dont believe much) about how much the government of the UK spends...........

ITs all available on line should you wishto break it down for yourself - Or are accountants part of the Conspiracy...Actually mine may well be

SO basically, you don't beleive anything at all unless it suits your agenda - Which appears to be to disbelieve everything...... Nicely Circular that one!

I hope the tinfoil hat is nice and comfy

I don't care if you find my answer boring. You are no nuclear physicist and you simply rely on the books you read or what you are told and that's it really, so you are no more qualified than me, yet I have the fact that the atomic bomb test footage is as faked as hell and the scare of nuclear fall out is just as fake, in terms of long lasting deadly radiation.

The problem today is, we are told that much mis-information, we don't know what is actually entirely legitimate, so it relies on doing a bit of detective work to see the flaws in the stuff they feed us with, which is mainly media spin and footage to match.

He was not challenging you on knowledge of nuclear physics per se, but rather the ostrich like attitude you take towards these things.  As I have said before in this thread, there are many ways to detect something other than sight.  Humans have four others at their disposal without even resorting to technology.  Seeing an atom would tell you less about its nature than the other methods scientists have used.  Look in to those methods, you know, educate yourself.

The Defence budget of the UK (which I guess these things are part of) is about 9% oftotal government spending - Theyarnt doing very well at ripping us in the UK off are they?

I know where you are going with this, but 37.5 billion Pounds yearly is nothing to sneeze at.  But yes, sceptimatic hears what he wants to often.

The only one fooling you is yourself scepti.

Quote from: robertotrevor on March 04, 2013, 12:04:06 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 11:13:54 AM

I don't care if you find my answer boring. ...

Ok, this is your answer to my post, you will stick to the "if you dont see it, its fantasy" because you dont know any better. The rest is just you trying to change the subject again and more sensless claims. And im not interested in that.

I don;t see much from you, that's why I'm not interested.
Crank it up instead of trying to use nah nah's and I might take you a bit more serious Berty.

I don't think you understood my post very well, i corrected it on the quote. I don't have much else to tell you because as I said, your main argument has no validity.
But you are just jumping from topic to topic whenever it suits you. First you are debating about nuclear power, paraphrasing everything you ever read on conspiracy sites about how its fake, when you don't know what else to say, you change to atoms not existing because we don't see them, and as that shitty argument didn't last long, arguments don't matter because we are not nuclear scientists. Now its all about the government, the lies, the people etc.
And everyone else is just following your game, jumping behind you.
 
BTW and off topic, I dont get the berty thing, is that how they call robertos in usa or something?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 12:14:16 PM

Quote from: robertotrevor on March 04, 2013, 12:04:06 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2013, 11:13:54 AM

I don't care if you find my answer boring. ...

Ok, this is your answer to my post, you will stick to the "if you dont see it, its fantasy" because you dont know any better. The rest is just you trying to change the subject again and more sensless claims. And im not interested in that.

I don;t see much from you, that's why I'm not interested.
Crank it up instead of trying to use nah nah's and I might take you a bit more serious Berty.

I don't think you understood my post very well, i corrected it on the quote. I don't have much else to tell you because as I said, your main argument has no validity.
But you are just jumping from topic to topic whenever it suits you. First you are debating about nuclear power, paraphrasing everything you ever read on conspiracy sites about how its fake, when you don't know what else to say, you change to atoms not existing because we don't see them, and as that shitty argument didn't last long, arguments don't matter because we are not nuclear scientists. Now its all about the government, the lies, the people etc.
And everyone else is just following your game, jumping behind you.
 
BTW and off topic, I dont get the berty thing, is that how they call robertos in usa or something?

I think he said he's from the UK, which confuses me with his profound use of the imperial and complete lack of knowledge about the metric system (he once didn't know what m/s meant, but I'm sure he was trolling).