pretzelogik Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 How many years have to pass with no further evidence to bolster a narrative have to pass before the story simply becomes a myth? If there hasn't been a bomb used in one hundred years, is that enough time? I may be around for that, in fact. I would hope people begin to doubt something they have seen no actual evidence of in one hundred years, but there are a lot of people that believe in the bible, so I have my doubts. So far, anyone who has posted a contrary response to the OP's proposition has made assertions based on their beliefs, which are comprised of argument ad vericundium, and have not addressed the points which are referenced from Heiwa's site. Also presented have been the conflict of interest argument, the contradictory narratives and the contradictory imagery, none of which have been addressed. So, in essence, the statements could be summarized as: what is proposed conflicts with long held beliefs, the idea that those beliefs could be false creates discomfort, that discomfort can be discharged by posting base assertions that continue to reinforce the beliefs. So far FDR has done some good work in dislodging the faith held in the state, religion and the family, but there seems to be a particular reverence for state funded science that is curious, to say the least. 2 1
J. D. Stembal Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Chernobyl happened almost 29 years ago. Fukushima occurred nearly 4 years ago. I don't think the myth of nuclear physics is fading away any time soon.
FriendlyHacker Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 How many years have to pass with no further evidence to bolster a narrative have to pass before the story simply becomes a myth? If there hasn't been a bomb used in one hundred years, is that enough time? I may be around for that, in fact. I would hope people begin to doubt something they have seen no actual evidence of in one hundred years, but there are a lot of people that believe in the bible, so I have my doubts. So far, anyone who has posted a contrary response to the OP's proposition has made assertions based on their beliefs, which are comprised of argument ad vericundium, and have not addressed the points which are referenced from Heiwa's site. Also presented have been the conflict of interest argument, the contradictory narratives and the contradictory imagery, none of which have been addressed. So, in essence, the statements could be summarized as: what is proposed conflicts with long held beliefs, the idea that those beliefs could be false creates discomfort, that discomfort can be discharged by posting base assertions that continue to reinforce the beliefs. So far FDR has done some good work in dislodging the faith held in the state, religion and the family, but there seems to be a particular reverence for state funded science that is curious, to say the least. You're missing the point, you don't have to believe in gravity, gravity cares not about what we believe, it will still be there long after we are gone. You don't have to believe in nuclear fission or fusion, it will continue to be the very thing that allows you and any life form in Universe to be possible.
shirgall Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 Why nobody has attacked another country with nukes again? Because it means the end of the human species, and even the craziest people in government are not willing to do it. The other answer is that when the leaders themselves are threatened just as much as the soldiers are they become much more circumspect. 1
pretzelogik Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 You're missing the point, you don't have to believe in gravity, gravity cares not about what we believe, it will still be there long after we are gone. You don't have to believe in nuclear fission or fusion, it will continue to be the very thing that allows you and any life form in Universe to be possible. I get a suntan, therefore whacking metal together makes terrific explosions? I experience gravity, I don't believe in it. I have no experience of nuclear bombs,, other than what I (or we) have been told. The point is, I have examined the story and the evidence and they come up short in terms of credibility. It would be really great if someone would actually refute at least one of the points being made here in regard to the evidence presented, but at his point my experience is that of countering beliefs rather than a measured examination of facts. That's okay by me, as these beliefs must serve a purpose, I am just thankful to not have them any longer. Cheers! 1 1
J. D. Stembal Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 I get a suntan, therefore whacking metal together makes terrific explosions? I experience gravity, I don't believe in it. I have no experience of nuclear bombs,, other than what I (or we) have been told. The point is, I have examined the story and the evidence and they come up short in terms of credibility. It would be really great if someone would actually refute at least one of the points being made here in regard to the evidence presented, but at his point my experience is that of countering beliefs rather than a measured examination of facts. That's okay by me, as these beliefs must serve a purpose, I am just thankful to not have them any longer. Cheers! Why are you thankful that you do not believe in nuclear weapons? What does it gain you other than awkward glances from the believers?
pretzelogik Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Why are you thankful that you do not believe in nuclear weapons? What does it gain you other than awkward glances from the believers? I don't know if I am correct in my assumption that I am somewhat more advanced in age than others that frequent the boards, but my memories of the cold war and the nuclear threat are very vivid and these concerns caused me a great deal of stress when I was younger. I recall a lot of serious talk in the media about how if some madman were to get control of the doomsday button we would all be vaporized. I internalized this, as I knew intuitively then that we were ruled by psychopaths. The media frenzy regarding the nuclear threat has tapered these days, which is a bit strange if the threat really does exist, or maybe everyone is just more comfortable now with the sword of Damocles over their heads. My gratitude comes from being able to dispense with the fear entirely, as opposed to having an uneasy trust that the psychopaths will do the right thing. Maybe I was just a more of a worrier than most once upon a time, but nukes of any stripe give me zero concern today. As far as the awkward glances, I only share these types of thoughts in places where I have some trust they will be well received or at least the ridicule will be polite; the FDR forum has been very kind in that respect and the flaming has been mercifully minimal. It's a radical idea even for this forum and judging from prior experience in the real world, I have a lot to learn in terms of presenting challenging ideas to those invested in the popular narrative. 2 1
Sal9000 Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 How do you explain that there are nuclear reactors and accidents with those? After all, it's the same principle. Are the nuclear reactors fake too?
FriendlyHacker Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 I get a suntan, therefore whacking metal together makes terrific explosions? I experience gravity, I don't believe in it. You get a suntan, or a third degree burn depending of your exposure, because a massive object 92 billion miles away is whacking hydrogen gas together. If you don't believe in nuclear fusion, please tell me how the Sun actually works, because it seems every astrophysicist in the world is wrong, and you are correct, so you must have a much better explanation. 1
st434u Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Having spent most of my 20's researching conspiracy theories and stepping up to my soapbox to tell others about it, I'm pretty sure I can recognize when somebody else has a problem. So, to the OP, lemme just say I'm sorry dude. I'm sorry that the world is the way it is and I'm sorry there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. There are so so many other issues that are sooo much easier to prove both logically and empirically that it pains me some folks spend their precious short lives researching things they can't change while wishing the world were different. I applaud your tenacity, I truly do, but if I were you (which I was) then I would seriously sit down and think about why these subjects interest you and what you can honestly do with the information. Whenever I see threads like this, I keep thinking of when screaming "9/11 was an inside job" with bullhorns in walmarts and on the streets was considered effective activism. There is always going to be a conspiracy to unravel and it's always going to be about something that can't be proved and really doesn't matter any longer. There are people that skill talk about the JFK assassination. My god that is sad. I don't need science to prove you're wrong about the nukes. I only need logic and observation. Look at how our society is run, look at the sociopaths that seem to never loose their grip on power and influence. Look at the shit people are willing to do to their own kids for fucks sake! Of course the human race created horrible weapons like nuclear bombs. Of course the human race is capable of staging an incident by tossing planes into buildings. There are people in this world so screwed that they are willing to murder and rape even the most helpless and defenseless of our species, and you're coming on here making a case that nukes aren't real. Are you fucking kidding me? It's not your place to say what someone should or should not devote their time to investigating. You think it's sad? I think it's sad you spend your time telling people like the OP to shut up and go home, because it makes you feel uncomfortable, what he's doing. Look, if you have issues with conspiracies because you feel you've made a fool of yourself in the past, that's your own damn problem. Don't try and project that onto everyone else. If you don't find this interesting or important, then move along and go look for something else that you do find interesting. When you come in here trying to make yourself out to be some wise man who is above this stuff, and you're trying to tell people what to do with their time, you just make yourself look like a fool. Yes, again. 2
pretzelogik Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 How do you explain that there are nuclear reactors and accidents with those? After all, it's the same principle. Are the nuclear reactors fake too? I don't see how bombs are related to reactors. My research into reactors is inconclusive; I have no direct experience of a reactor or an accident, nor any means of verifying such. It seems everything we have been told about the negative impacts of nuclear fallout is false. You get a suntan, or a third degree burn depending of your exposure, because a massive object 92 billion miles away is whacking hydrogen gas together. If you don't believe in nuclear fusion, please tell me how the Sun actually works, because it seems every astrophysicist in the world is wrong, and you are correct, so you must have a much better explanation. Whether I believe in fusion or anything else or what else anyone believes about things is immaterial. My point is and has been, that the evidence provided to support the existence of nuclear bombs is weak. If the evidence of the existence of bombs in the clip below looks like a real unadulterated video capture of an event to you as opposed to a creation of Hollywood, then I cannot see how discussion of fusion is relevant. 1 1
FriendlyHacker Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 My point is and has been, that the evidence provided to support the existence of nuclear bombs is weak. Your point was that whacking things together can't create huge explosions, if you're wrong about that since this is how the Sun works, and you never noticed it for lack of any training in astrophysics, what else are you wrong about? Do you realize that you will only be able to tell fact from fiction if you understand the issue yourself, and refusing to read books on physics will not get you closer to the truth? 1
pretzelogik Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 My point is that whacking two pieces of metal together (even enriched uranium) will create enough force to level an entire city is an extraordinary claim and, a la the title of latest call in show podcast, requires extraordinary evidence. I question the evidence. Why is the evidence (imagery) that supports bombs continually sidestepped? Have you even looked at the clips? 1 1
Sal9000 Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 whacking two pieces of metal together... create enough force... Do you even physics bro? 2
pretzelogik Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Do you even physics bro? "In essence, the Little Boy design consisted of a gun that fired one mass of uranium 235 at another mass of uranium 235, thus creating a supercritical mass. A crucial requirement was that the pieces be brought together in a time shorter than the time between spontaneous fissions. Once the two pieces of uranium are brought together, the initiator introduces a burst of neutrons and the chain reaction begins, continuing until the energy released becomes so great that the bomb simply blows itself apart." http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fission/Fission7.shtml 1 1
FriendlyHacker Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 My point is that whacking two pieces of metal together (even enriched uranium) will create enough force to level an entire city is an extraordinary claim and, a la the title of latest call in show podcast, requires extraordinary evidence. I question the evidence. Seems you question a lot of things you don't understand, but these highly complex issues can't be explained in a messaged board. You need years of study so you can begin to understand the evidence, so I would suggest taking this amazing curiosity you have, and use it to learn how to evaluate the evidence for the things you question. The reason I ask about knowing the rocket equation, is because if you understand the equation and look into the amount of fuel and weight of rockets that went to the moon, you will notice they have the exact amount of fuel to do it. And you might have never thought about this little piece of information as evidence, because it's evidence only visible for those who understand how rockets work. 1 1
Sal9000 Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 The Little Boy design was used once. Later models (and Fat Boy) used an implosion to condense Uranium or Plutanium to reach the critical mass. Later on, secondary or tertiary stages were added to induce a fusion. 1
pretzelogik Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Seems you question a lot of things you don't understand, but these highly complex issues can't be explained in a messaged board. You need years of study so you can begin to understand the evidence, so I would suggest taking this amazing curiosity you have, and use it to learn how to evaluate the evidence for the things you question. The reason I ask about knowing the rocket equation, is because if you understand the equation and look into the amount of fuel and weight of rockets that went to the moon, you will notice they have the exact amount of fuel to do it. And you might have never thought about this little piece of information as evidence, because it's evidence only visible for those who understand how rockets work. Maybe the confusion we are having here is how we define the word evidence, and your complete unwillingness to comment on what I have presented as evidence. Mathematics is not evidence. Equations are not evidence. Video, pictures and narratives are evidence. In a court motivation is considered in drawing a conclusion. If it can be demonstrated that what is presented as evidence is fictional, and that those who contrived it had a powerful motivation to have done so, the equations are immaterial as is the layman's understanding of such equations. My question to you is: What do you have invested in this particular narrative that makes it impossible for you to answer whether the video evidence presented is contrived or not? Do you really believe that they fired nuclear shells out of a cannon? Those videos are presented as facts. I find them nothing short of ridiculous fabrications. Don't cannons jam or misfire? Did a bunch of military personnel stand around watching this thing be shot out of a cannon knowing the potential for mishap? These are common sense questions and don't require an advanced degree. Why do you refuse to comment on the imagery? Please pardon me if you are visually impaired, it is not my intention to be rude and if you do not have full visual capabilities, please accept my sincere apologies. The Little Boy design was used once. Later models (and Fat Boy) used an implosion to condense Uranium or Plutanium to reach the critical mass. Later on, secondary or tertiary stages were added to induce a fusion. From Wiki about Fat Man (strange that this stuff is even on Wiki, but whatever): ...beryllium–210polonium "urchin" is crushed,[33] pushing the two metals together and thereby releasing a burst of neutrons into the compressed... ...pit of the nickel-plated delta-phase alloy of 239plutonium–240plutonium–gallium (96%–1%–3% by molarity).[34][35] A fission chain reaction then begins. The tendency of the fissioning pit to blow itself apart prematurely is reduced by the inward momentum of the... ...natural-uranium "tamper" (inertial containment). The tamper also reflects neutrons back into the pit, accelerating the chain reaction. If/when sufficient fast neutrons are produced, the tamper itself undergoes fission, accounting for up to 20% of the weapon's yield.[30] So, we are still talking about pushing two pieces of together and Kablooey! a city is vaporized. I find this to be an extraordinary claim. So, I think the evidence should be extraordinary. I find the evidence, once again, imagery and narrative, to be quite thin. 2 1
Romulox Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 I don't see how bombs are related to reactors. The existance of nuclear fission and its use in nuclear reactors to generate electricity does not seem to be in question, at least not by the original link that was posted. A typical commercial reactor that produces about 3000 MW (or 3 billion Joules/sec) of heat will produce the same amount of energy released by the Fat Man bomb (88 trillion Joules) in a little over 8 hours. My point is that whacking two pieces of metal together (even enriched uranium) will create enough force to level an entire city is an extraordinary claim and, a la the title of latest call in show podcast, requires extraordinary evidence. I question the evidence. If it is known that nuclear fission can produce these quantities of energy in a reactor by moving some metal rods into close proximity, why is it extraordinary to claim that a similar amount of energy can be created using the same physical mechanism but in a slightly different manner? Why does this require extraordinary evidence? The evidence is inherent in the physical laws and equations that govern nuclear reactions; applying these laws allow for the controlled operation of a nuclear reactor. Since I can see that my local nuclear plant is generating electricity but has not yet melted into a puddle of lava, I can reasonably claim that these laws are not made up. These same laws also conclude that nuclear bombs are very possible and accurately predict the destructive consequences (21,000 tons of TNT = levelled city). It seems to me that extraordinary evidence is required to prove that nuclear bombs are not possible. 4
J. D. Stembal Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 These are common sense questions and don't require an advanced degree. Why do you refuse to comment on the imagery? Please pardon me if you are visually impaired, it is not my intention to be rude and if you do not have full visual capabilities, please accept my sincere apologies. We have eyes, just like you. At least, I have two of them. If it doesn't require advanced knowledge, you should be able to explain the animation techniques used to fake this video from 1953 in the U.S.S.R.
MrCapitalism Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Why is the evidence (imagery) that supports bombs continually sidestepped? Have you even looked at the clips? Yes, and you posted some awesome stuff.. thanks for sharing. I especially like the video of the Nuclear cannon.. very cool. Here's some information from Wikipedia. If the footage is fake, then of course this is all false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upshot-Knothole_Grable The test remains the only nuclear artillery shell ever actually fired in the U.S. nuclear weapons test program. Grable was the second of only four gun-type warheads ever detonated (the first was Little Boy, the weapon used against Hiroshima, the last two were test firings of the W33; all other atomic weapons were implosion-type weapons). The shell, designated a Mark 9 nuclear weapon, had a diameter of 280 mm (11.02 in), was 138 cm (54.4 in) long and weighed 364 kg (803 lb). The M65 Atomic Cannon from which it was fired had a muzzle velocity of 625 m/s (2,060 ft/s), for a nominal range of 32 km (20 mi), and weighed 77 metric tons (85 t). The detonation of Grable occurred 19 seconds after its firing.[1] It detonated over 11,000 yards (over 10 km, 6.25 mi) away from the gun it was fired from, over a part of the Nevada Test Site known as Frenchman Flat. The explosion was an air burst of 160 m (524 ft) above the ground (7 m (24 ft) above its designated burst altitude), 26 m (87 ft) west and 41 m (136 ft) south of its target (slightly uprange). Its yield was estimated at 15 kilotons, around the same level as Little Boy. An anomalous feature of the blast was the formation of a precursor, a second shock front ahead of the incident wave. This precursor was formed when the shock wave reflected off the ground and surpassed the incident wave and Mach stem due to a heated ground air layer and the low burst height.[1] It resulted in a lower overpressure, but higher overall dynamic pressure, which inflicted much more damage on drag sensitive targets such as jeeps and personnel carriers. This led strategists to rethink the importance of low air bursts in tactical nuclear warfare.[2] I find these threads which question the narrative of something usually end up informative. If the evidence of the existence of bombs in the clip below looks like a real unadulterated video capture of an event to you as opposed to a creation of Hollywood, then I cannot see how discussion of fusion is relevant. Since others are discussing the physics of fission reactions, I think it would be interesting to explore the Cinematic production angle. The doubter's claim is that nuclear weapons do not work. However, ample video and photographic evidence exists of their detonation, with the implied conclusion that this footage is falsified. The mushroom clouds are special effects made by Hollywood. Okay, lets examine the technological state of special effects at the time of production. Here's a montage for "The War of the Worlds", produced in 1953, the same year as the posted Grable test. Seems pretty obvious that Hollywood just wasn't capable of pulling that off at the time. Hell, I even tried to find a recent example of a nuke going off on screen to compare to this "falsified footage" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxkamWaya8k 55 years of technological innovation and experience and the best the can do is make a totally believable mushroom cloud. The shock wave is inferior, and the blast damage is obviously computer generated or scale mockups. 2
pretzelogik Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 ... If the footage is fake, then of course this is all false. I find these threads which question the narrative of something usually end up informative. Thank you so much for taking the time to thoughtfully consider this possibility, if even as a thought experiment. In the cannon footage, the report occurs simultaneous with the explosion, which would be an impossibility in real life. The bus and car destruction sequences are recycled from other films for some reason. In the "Nukes Don't Exist" by Hoaxbusters clip, there are a number of frames in which parts of the explosion are static as other parts unfold around them, which would also be a real world impossibility that would be attributed to different layers of video, one static, the other dynamic. In many videos that can be found on the Atom Central archive, clouds as well as the smoke trailers, remain undisturbed by shock waves - also attributable to separate layers. As far as the available arsenal of special effects in 1953, while it does appear that the War of the Worlds had far less access in terms of special effects, an argument could be made for the military having greater access to special effects than the top studios in Hollywood. In fact, the military may have had the top studio in Hollywood for a number of years, the Lookout Mountain Observatory where the atomic/nuclear footage was produced: http://wikimapia.org/11710014/Lookout-Mountain-Air-Force-Station, While it may appear that Hollywood did not have the means to produce effects such as those in the nuclear archive, this may have been an issue of budget. The official narrative of the development of the atom bomb is that it took a tremendous amount of economic and human resources. Those resources could have been used for the development of a hoax, with the same level of security restrictions, probably more than what would have been in place for actually creating a real bomb. It's doubtful that a Hollywood studio could have been granted permission to film a 100 Ton TNT explosion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYNLGFNCXgA What I have come to understand is that there is no division between the military, Hollywood and the so-called "news" media; they are all operating in concert under the same herd management directives. The military has no particular interest in destruction, per se, and if the objectives can be met by deception, resources are used more efficiently. 3 1
MrCapitalism Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 In the cannon footage, the report occurs simultaneous with the explosion, which would be an impossibility in real life. The bus and car destruction sequences are recycled from other films for some reason. I think you're right in regards to the recycled footage being cut in. It's probably for a dramatic effect. The reality of weapons testing is most likely too boring for widespread consumption. I'm not sure what you mean by 'report.' Are you talking about the sounds of explosion and cannon fire? I imagine the original footage was filmed without a sound channel, and expect all of the sounds in these videos to be added later for dramatic effect. They may have even added the sounds at the Lookout Mountain Secret Studio in the 50's - 60's for all we know. 1
FriendlyHacker Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Maybe the confusion we are having here is how we define the word evidence, and your complete unwillingness to comment on what I have presented as evidence. Mathematics is not evidence. Equations are not evidence. Video, pictures and narratives are evidence. In a court motivation is considered in drawing a conclusion. If it can be demonstrated that what is presented as evidence is fictional, and that those who contrived it had a powerful motivation to have done so, the equations are immaterial as is the layman's understanding of such equations. My question to you is: What do you have invested in this particular narrative that makes it impossible for you to answer whether the video evidence presented is contrived or not? Do you really believe that they fired nuclear shells out of a cannon? Those videos are presented as facts. I find them nothing short of ridiculous fabrications. Don't cannons jam or misfire? Did a bunch of military personnel stand around watching this thing be shot out of a cannon knowing the potential for mishap? These are common sense questions and don't require an advanced degree. Why do you refuse to comment on the imagery? Please pardon me if you are visually impaired, it is not my intention to be rude and if you do not have full visual capabilities, please accept my sincere apologies. From Wiki about Fat Man (strange that this stuff is even on Wiki, but whatever): ...beryllium–210polonium "urchin" is crushed,[33] pushing the two metals together and thereby releasing a burst of neutrons into the compressed... ...pit of the nickel-plated delta-phase alloy of 239plutonium–240plutonium–gallium (96%–1%–3% by molarity).[34][35] A fission chain reaction then begins. The tendency of the fissioning pit to blow itself apart prematurely is reduced by the inward momentum of the... ...natural-uranium "tamper" (inertial containment). The tamper also reflects neutrons back into the pit, accelerating the chain reaction. If/when sufficient fast neutrons are produced, the tamper itself undergoes fission, accounting for up to 20% of the weapon's yield.[30] So, we are still talking about pushing two pieces of together and Kablooey! a city is vaporized. I find this to be an extraordinary claim. So, I think the evidence should be extraordinary. I find the evidence, once again, imagery and narrative, to be quite thin. I don't care about movies being fake or not, even if you find fake movies out there it certainly can't disprove the feasibility of nuclear bombs, since correlation is not causation. I can show you some Youtube movies of people floating and it won't disprove gravity, cause gravity is determined by mathematics, statistics and reliable data gathering tools, not by evaluating Youtube videos.
pretzelogik Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 I don't care about movies being fake or not, even if you find fake movies out there it certainly can't disprove the feasibility of nuclear bombs, since correlation is not causation. I can show you some Youtube movies of people floating and it won't disprove gravity, cause gravity is determined by mathematics, statistics and reliable data gathering tools, not by evaluating Youtube videos. I don't know whether nuclear bombs are feasible or not, perhaps they are. My questions concern the proof, as opposed the conceptual. It may be possible in theory to bombard lead with radioactive particles and transmute it into gold, but I would be suspicious of images an narrative alone if I ran into an entrepreneur with that business model who was looking for investors. As far as gravity goes, my understanding of the relationship between gravity and mathematics is the inverse of your description, i.e, gravity exists and its effects are observable and yet quite independent of mathematics. Mathematics may be used to make reliable predictions about the effects of gravity on matter, but mathematics cannot create gravity. 1 1
FriendlyHacker Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 I would be suspicious of images an narrative alone if I ran into an entrepreneur with that business model who was looking for investors. I would be suspicious too and I sure hope nobody out there is dealing nukes as a business model!
Romulox Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 As far as gravity goes, my understanding of the relationship between gravity and mathematics is the inverse of your description, i.e, gravity exists and its effects are observable and yet quite independent of mathematics. Mathematics may be used to make reliable predictions about the effects of gravity on matter, but mathematics cannot create gravity. The mathematics that describe the effects of gravity have been proven through observation/experimentation; measuring the rate of a dropped bowling ball, the amount of time for the moon to orbit the earth, etc.... If I want to predict the rate at which a bowling ball falls on Pluto, I simply change the inputs to the equation (the mass and radius of the planet) and get a different result. If I predict that ball will behave differently on Pluto, thereby claiming that the established theory of gravity is false and that we need to launch a mission to Pluto to confirm this, I better have a rational argument to justify why the experimentally observed effects of gravity do not apply elsewhere in the universe. Similarly, the mathematics that describe the effects of nuclear fission have been proven through observation/experimentation; the predictions of nuclear physics have been experimentally confirmed through precise measurments of the power outputs of nuclear reactors, given the mass and density of uranium in the reactor. If I want to predict the effects of smashing two pieces of uranium together, as in the Little Boy bomb, I simply change the mass and density inputs in the governing equation. If the predicted energy output was equivalent to that of a firecracker, or enough to vaporize the earth, the burden of proof would then be on me to explain why. However, the result is an energy output about equal to 20,000 tons of TNT, about what you would need to level a city. The burden of proof is therefore on YOU to prove that the equations that govern nuclear fission, the effects of which have been repeatedly observed in nuclear reactors and other countless experiments, are false. An argument based on whether or not some youtube movies are fake or not is completely irrelevant. 1
shirgall Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 The mathematics that describe the effects of gravity have been proven through observation/experimentation... Specifically, the Theory of Gravity has not been disproven by verifiable evidence, and has tons and tons of validations of predictions by experiment. 1
ResurrectMyself Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Mathematics may be used to make reliable predictions about the effects of gravity on matter, but mathematics cannot create gravity. Nobody is claiming that mathematics are anything else but a descriptive tool.
Livemike Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 So the thousands of seismologists who recorded atomic explosions, the hundreds of atmosphere measurements of radioactive remnants of atomic bombs and the DOZENS OR MORE OF DEAD ABORIGINES are just propaganda? You sir are a sick fuck.
pretzelogik Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Nobody is claiming that mathematics are anything else but a descriptive tool. Earlier in the thread the statement was made that gravity is determined by mathematics. There was a metaphor about videos of people floating and whether that would disprove gravity. It was actually quite apt. As people don't typically float, we would be wise to question the authenticity of a video depicting floating people. As we see metals banging together quite frequently, a video depicting this ordinary phenomenon causing the vaporization of a city should similarly invite some skepticism. 1 4
ResurrectMyself Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 As we see metals banging together quite frequently, a video depicting this ordinary phenomenon causing the vaporization of a city should similarly invite some skepticism. I'm pretty certain you don't see two pieces of uranium 235 "banging together quite frequently". You're oversimplifying atom bombs.
pretzelogik Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 I'm pretty certain you don't see two pieces of uranium 235 "banging together quite frequently". You're oversimplifying atom bombs. Am I? Just whack a couple of these together and a whole city, gone..... 1 4
Recommended Posts