1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: July 10, 2023, 02:48:34 AM »

Apparently there is some complaint about being in 'dark times' -

Did you ever, Tom?

2

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: July 06, 2023, 08:18:46 PM »

Ironic. Let me guess, you, too, incorrectly believe mass can be magically converted into energy? I guess in your mind, when you burn the gasoline in a car, it just goes "poof" and turns into energy.

That's NOT how it works.

Maybe you should look up how the bombs are claimed to actually work instead of quoting your favorite pop-sci equations.

Thanks for your concern, but there is no need for me to do that.  I already know.  Unlike you.

Here's a hint: even nuclear bomb liars don't claim you can extract all the mass of a nuclear bomb and turn it into energy! Wow! I hope you look it up and feel silly afterwards.

Your ignorance is showing again.  No one that knows what is actually taking place would ever say this.  No shame in not knowing, only in trying to pass yourself off as an expert when it's painfully obvious you are not.

No need to be so rude, especially after you said you were going to stop responding

So, still no evidence of your claims?  BTW "speaking out of your ass" is not an insult.  It's a colloquial term meaning "speaking from ignorance", which is just usually a statement of fact. 

... because nuclear bombs don't exist.

Yes, that is one of your ridiculous claims, and your evidence for it is ... ?

3

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: July 05, 2023, 11:43:38 PM »

lol, Imagine the afterlife, Jesus trying to explain to Rushy that he was blown up by a nuclear weapon.
"Prove it, you long-haired, liberal, hippie freak!"

Rushy's ad hominem is a bit more subtle but I do get your meaning here.

4

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: July 05, 2023, 09:26:57 PM »

Why does everyone say this? It's obvious how little physics you understand (bringing up e=mc^2). You should know you can't convert mass to energy in that way.

This here is 100% pure bunk.  Do you realize this proves, beyond any shadow of the tiniest doubt, that you do not understand the slightest thing about where nuclear energy comes from.  Yet you still feel qualified to discuss it and taunt me for wanting out of this discussion?  It is now obvious why you don't accept any of the evidence presented - because you are not able in any way to see that it is evidence.  So, again, no point it having a discussion with you on it.  You have just put in writing you don't understand any of it.

I don't have to provide evidence of something not existing, how many times must I state that?

Nobody is asking for that.  You have made some monumentally ridiculous claims here.  We are asking for evidence for those claims.  You have provided exactly none.  Which leads us (me, anyway) to think you have none and you were really just speaking out of your extreme lower digestive system anatomy.

Update here:  Let's add to this the fact that you are asserting that something that is already accepted as an established fact does not exist.  In this case, yes, the onus is squarely on you to provide evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the established fact is wrong.  Into other words that nuclear weapons don't exist.  The best way to do that is to use your superior knowledge to show they can't exist.  Another way would be to provide irrefutable evidence (in the true meaning of "evidence") that all the things that happened that are currently explained by the use of nuclear weapons are better explained by some other means (that's the thing you have not done).

The important takeaway is that you found a way to think you're right without supporting your position. Go ahead, run away from the thread. No one will miss you. "wah wah wah you don't like my extra good evidence of explodey pictures!"

There is no longer any point in arguing about nuclear weapons.  The only evidence you say you will accept is not something anyone here can provide.   

On the other hand, if you like I can stick around to be a thorn in your side and we can discuss what actually constitutes what people call "evidence" and how it needs to be treated to be if use.  However, that subject is not likely to go anywhere as has been demonstrated by you gleefully rejecting evidence presented here without even taking the time to learn the significance of it to the subject at hand with a sound "Nuh uuhh"!  Besides, such a discussion would be off topic for the thread.

So I'll let you get back to your ad hominem rhetoric.

5

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: June 30, 2023, 02:34:46 PM »

I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected.

Good, I'm glad I could provide something you like.  Makes me feel warm and cuddly.

Your ask is asinine and you know it.  Nuclear weapons, even the tiniest ones, are not cheap.  They are many millions of dollars.  No one is just going to go ahead and build one in your presence and then take you out to show you it blowing up.  They are not going to do it on camera without cut shots either because the cost will be roughly the same and the effort will be higher.

It's pretty easy, and disingenuous, to ask for proof that is a practical impossibility.

The reason why you and others like you get so defensive on this subject is because you must somehow believe that "x is real" without having any evidence for it whatsoever.

Hilarious!  Yeah, like you must believe nuclear weapons are fake without having any evidence for it whatsoever?  Okay, I can see how you'd be an expert in doing that.

See, here's the issue and why I assume you'd reject any attempt at proof.  There is already ton's of evidence.  You just don't trust it.  What would ever make any of us think you would trust any further evidence?

Anyway, this thread is going off the rails.  From my perspective I'll give you the last word.

6

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: June 29, 2023, 11:34:19 PM »

I already provided a post that states exactly what level of evidence I want to see.

I can verify that:

I would need to see, either in person or an adequate video, actually showing the internals of the device, showing that it's obviously not faked using a large amount of conventional explosive, and then actually detonated. The video of course would need to be devoid of jumpcut editing where they go "here see this is totally it, this is totally what explodes!" and then it suddenly jumps to an explosion as if that's the device that was used.

Of course if one was provided it would not be accepted.  Either the "CGI!!!" cry would resound or Rushy would be busy moving the goal posts.

It is not possible to convince a conspiracy theorist their conspiracies are wrong.  This should be obvious.  Since their theories and their thinking are not based on established fact (IOW the lies we're being told) then established fact cannot shake them.  More likely you will be accused of being part of the conspiracy and only serve to make it more concrete in their minds.

7

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: June 28, 2023, 02:40:57 PM »

Next time, try reading what I post before replying.

I did.  My response was a discussion of what you posted and in particular your pointing out the "believe" in the quote you provided.

I'm not sure why you are being so defensive.

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: iSpace lunar lander images of Earth

« on: June 28, 2023, 02:10:51 PM »

Ok, where's your proof (≠ evidence) that it's real? Let's hear it, then.

Science does not deal in proof, it deals in evidence.  So, from a scientific perspective there can be no proof that these pictures are real, nor can there be scientific "proof" of anything.

Since you are the one that deals in proofs, can we have your proof they are CGI?  Actually I'd be happy with some evidence.

9

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: June 18, 2023, 05:09:07 PM »

There's that magic word "believe" again.

Nothing in there removes the fact that she carried radium around in her pockets and was exposed to it's radiation.

Aplastic anemia has quite a few known causes, one of them being exposure to the kind of radiation emitted by radium.  They can try to eliminate the other causes but without absolute knowledge of every minute of her life it would be difficult or impossible to be 100% sure that the cause was the radiation.  Even if you did have intimate knowledge of every minute of her life you could not discount the possibility that she acquired the condition from a yet unknown cause.  I assume the consensus was that it was the most likely cause, hence the use of the word "believe".

Also, the choice to use that word is that of the author of that piece and may not have been the word used by the person/people making the determination of cause.

10

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Size of the Sun

« on: February 24, 2023, 07:25:17 PM »

The problem with his "mathematics" is that if you assume the earth is flat and do this from different latitudes on the earth simultaneously (so that the sun is over the same spot on the earth) you get different values for the altitude of the sun.  Since the sun cannot be at different altitudes at the same time, either math just does not work and we need to throw it out (of course it does work, so we can't throw it out), or the earth is not flat.

It was precisely to patch up results like this in a desperate effort to hold onto the notion of a flat earth that the geniuses around here invented EA, AKA "Bendy Light".  Did you ever read the wiki?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 22, 2023, 09:55:42 PM »

Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?

Well, your answer does not answer the question I asked, but I'll answer you.  I maintain you could never determine the shape of the earth (one way or the other) by such an observation.  The Earth is just too big for that.  So not seeing a curvature by looking out over the sea would convince me of nothing because that is exactly what I expect to see on either a mostly flat Earth or one that is a sphere of 41,804,460 feet in diameter.

However, that is all flat earthers have.  That you don't see any curvature.  The point is, you cannot expect to see any curvature whether the Earth is flat or not because if it is spherical it is just too big to be able to see a curvature

Given that and that you seem to agree with me, why do you think the Earth is flat?

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 21, 2023, 08:27:45 PM »

In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.

Very good observation Simon.  It's not supposed to.

The question is actually quite simple.  Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem.  You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right?  The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"

The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature.  Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat?  What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter?  If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet.  Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?

13

Science & Alternative Science / Sabine explains bad science: Contemporary Particle Physics

« on: February 12, 2023, 03:27:12 AM »

14

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: January 30, 2023, 08:14:46 PM »

All you know is that someone exploded something and now there is radiation. That isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb and you know it.

We know more than that.  We know the extent and profile of the radiation released.  Sure, there were radioactive substances released as a result of the nuclear detonations, but not much.  Compared to the amount of fissionable material involved in the Chernobyl meltdown there is a relatively small amount in an atomic bomb.  A bomb only requires about 10lbs.  A small fraction of what was available in the reactor.  The difference is the huge amount of and type of radiation released and in a very short period of time.  Don't believe the "propaganda" as you call it.  Do some study into the physics.

As to "propaganda", what are the odds that Japan (and the rest of the enemies of the US) would support the US's supposed propaganda about nuclear bombs after they just demolished two major Japanese cities?  Just a bit of a stretch.  But I digress.  It's not an argument, just a little comic relief

Go back and read your OP.   "It's Fake!" is all it says.  No evidence whatsoever.  Typical flat earth "theory" there.

You're right Bill, I can't prove it doesn't exist, but the idea that I need to do so is your logical fault, not my own. I can't prove a variety of nonsense statements, such as whether or not Santa and the tooth fairy exist. However, I don't think this really helps your case. Backing you all the way up to "you can't prove me wrong" shows how little you have to stand on in the first place.

Well, to be honest, if that is what I was basing my argument on, you would have me.  However, it's not.  I am basing it on the completely different fingerprint a nuclear detonation leaves when compared to any other release of nuclear radiation.  As I think I stated before, there is nothing like it.  Not even remotely.  You can come by months or even years later and easily tell whether there was a bomb, a reactor meltdown or a lady scientist walking around with radium in her pockets.

Anyway Rushy.  I'll give you the last word.  I'm not going to change your mind on this.  Only you can do that, and it would not be that hard for you to delve into the science behind it.

15

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: January 28, 2023, 05:00:06 PM »

For example: "The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects". Marie Curie died of "radiation effects", did someone nuke her, Bill?

No.  She exposed herself to it by carrying radium around in her pockets.

Was Chernobyl a nuclear bomb all along? The answer is no, it wasn't.

Right.  And the result was substantially different than what you get when a bomb is detonated.  In the Chernobyl incident radio active substances like cesium 137 and iodine 131 were released. 

Radiation isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb, but you already know that, so why are you bringing it up when I've already pointed it out in the thread?

Because you are wrong.  There are different types and profiles of radiation release.  Atomic/nuclear bombs are unique in the extreme.  No other process/event produces a radiation release profile like a nuclear bomb.  Nothing.

Perhaps you should read the thread before responding again.

I did.  Perhaps you should learn something about nuclear physics.

Go back and read your OP.   "It's Fake!" is all it says.  No evidence whatsoever.  Typical flat earth "theory" there.

16

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: January 27, 2023, 05:27:29 PM »

You should really read the things you write before you post. Why did you even bother posting it? Did you think stating the wondrous fanciful tales of your imagination was actually relevant to the thread? I can only assume the answer is yes.

I did.  Except for the 10 million ton crates of TNT in my yard (there are only 2).  The rest are all facts.  Your incredulity does not change that.  Sorry.

Also the reality of atomic bombs is a fact.  Nagasaki and Hiroshima were also not fire bombed.  The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects some time after the detonations.  Specifically from the kind of radiation that is released from a nuclear detonation such as gamma and neutron radiation which make up approximately 50% of the energy released.  Radiation that is singularly missing from fire bombing.  So .. sorry .. you are wrong about that too.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: January 27, 2023, 05:13:16 PM »

If you are in the middle of the Pacific, it will mean no difference.

You are somehow under the impression a body of water encompassing that many million square miles is going to remain consistently level across it's length and width?

Maybe you simply did not understand the question.  I'm not under any impression.  I know from experience exactly how it looks in the middle of the pacific ocean having been there.  Albeit it was in a large boat, but nonetheless, it looks as flat as piss on a platter.

But you folks claim the earth is flat because it looks flat, right?  You see no curvature.

So, the question is, what would you (or any other flat earther) need to see to be convinced the earth is a sphere rather than flat?

Basically I think we are trying to get our heads around why you would expect to see any curvature looking out over a twelve million, seven hundred and forty thousand meter diameter planet.

18

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?

« on: January 27, 2023, 04:07:26 AM »

It's just strange that a magical lightsaber showed up in these very legitimate photos, and its existence was only retconned in after people pointed out that it looked strange.

What makes you think it's a lightsaber?  I'm not claiming it's not, but I'd be interested to know why you are convinced it is.

19

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: January 27, 2023, 03:59:24 AM »

What's this thing called?

[snip]

That's called TNT.

How much TNT?

At least one crate of it.

Oh yeah.  One of those 10 million ton crates of TNT.  I still have 3 or 4 of those in my back yard for clearing tree stumps.

You realize (I'm sure you do) that TNT does not explode with enough speed and force to create a mushroom cloud like that, don't you?

20

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Electricity video - how most people are wrong.

« on: January 27, 2023, 03:50:58 AM »

He does not provide any evidence at all that the field is jumping the gap and not following the wires.

Well, it simply does.  As the field builds on one wire it will quickly (at the speed of light) envelope the other wire, putting that wire into a increasing magnetic field.  This will, of course, induce a current in that wire.  This current will be (and depending on the separation of the wires) be much smaller than the current induced into the drift velocity of the free electrons within the wire but it will be induced very shortly after the circuit is made.  Some time later the increase in the free electron drift velocity will make the trip and add to the induced current.  Both mechanisms are at play.

If one used a sensitive ammeter instead of a big (useless) bulb one would see a small current induced within (depending on a reasonably small wire separation distance) a few picoseconds, then some time later (depending on the loop length and the velocity factor of the conductor) a much larger current added due to electron drift.  Veratasium overstated the induction effect.  He has been dragged through the fence on this.