Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
- Stack asked you how much TNT.
- Your reply was: "At least one crate of it"
And? That means there could be *gasp* more than one crate of it! Oh no! I guess we really do have to discuss what "at least" means! Extraordinary. I'm starting to think you're not really interested in an actual argument at all.
I didn't ever reference government claims on mushroom clouds. I was just asking you about how you arrived at your own conclusion that when a crate of TNT is detonated that it is capable of forming a mushroom cloud many miles high.
Where did I say it's only a single crate? Are we about to have a discussion on what "at least" means?If you've confirmed that you don't subscribe to Zeteticism than that would explain why your conclusions aren't based on your own observations but an amalgamation of conspiracy theories.
This is truly ironic, given that the only reason you believe nuclear bombs exist is because a large group of people keep telling you they do. Nuclear bombs exist in the same way the Enterprise from Star Trek does or the Death Star from Star Wars. Better be careful, don't declare war on Russia, they'll blow up your planet with a moon-sized space station! That's on the same order of delusion as nuclear bombs.
I didn't say mushroom clouds weren't possible with a crate of TNT. I was just asking you what of your own Zetetic observational research have you done to build your own confidence and conclude that with a crate of TNT the observation would be that of a mushroom cloud many miles in the sky?
Again, you'll notice that I never mentioned whether it was possible or not. Unfortunately. It looks like you assumed.
(When an atomic bomb has been detonated, it has been observed to look like that of a mushroom cloud many miles high in the sky.)
I don't subscribe to Zeteticism and I have no idea why you'd make that assumption (or even bring it up!).
No government on this planet claims mushroom clouds appear during air detonations of nuclear weapons. That's entirely a quality of ground detonations. Wow! Once again you have no idea what you're talking about! What a surprise!So the nuclear explosions of the past didn't happen but you would believe one that happens now?
If Pakistan did set off a nuke how would you know it really happened and wasn't a false flag media operation?
Holy Shit! How do we know anything really happened!?! What if nothing's happening right at this very moment and we don't even know it?
We're fucked! We're fucked! Please send us to CN! End our ignorant suffering! Kill us Kill us!
My point is that if a big bomb that was easy to use existed, governments would use it nonstop. You don't see false flags or "nuclear terrorism" because it turns out lugging around kilotons of TNT is difficult and something you only do when you have access to large deserts or Siberia. It's not that they don't use the bomb because it's big and scary, they don't use it because it's not real.
Think about it. Your argument is that a big very powerful bomb exists that can oppress any non-nuclear nation and governments don't use it. Why? Sure, MAD is the reasoning behind not attacking other nuclear powers. But why not attack a non-nuclear state with it? Why is it okay for Russia to level cities with conventional arms but not okay to do it with a nuke? All I ask is that you take a bit of time to think about the conclusions you're making. Stop having these weird emotional outbreaks and THINK for a bit before you write words and hit the "post" button.
What studies or research have you done to conclude that when a crate of TNT is set off, that the blast pattern behaves like that of a mushroom cloud many miles up in the sky?
Did you perform some type of very small scale experiment or did you reference ordinance experts to arrive at your conclusion?
What studies did you perform to say that pattern must be unique to nuclear explosions? You're asking me to provide you evidence that all possible types of explosion don't match that of a nuclear explosion. That's a completely nonsensical way to approach an argument. You've been here for at least like a year by now, shouldn't your ability to form serious arguments be improving?
Since you brought it up, let's talk a bit about non-nuclear explosions. In fact, let's use wikipedia. It's mainstream. You like mainstream things, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloudQuotemushroom clouds generated by explosions were being described centuries before the atomic era
Uh oh, it looks like you're wrong! Wow! Who knew! If only you had the ability to research basic facts before posting then this could have all been avoided. Tragic!
What's this thing called?
[snip]
That's called TNT.You are getting wrapped up in conspiracy theories again. Its what's led to your faulty conclusion that space travel is a hoax and that the Earth is flat.
Sometimes we tend to leverage conspiratorial thinking because it gives is a sense of control or comfort in dealing with a chaotic world or events that we don't have control over.
And so it's likely the reason why you posted this thread.... you may be looking for consensus and comfort in the chaotic and dangerous world we live in.
"You're looking for consensus, that's why you post facts that go against mainstream narratives." What? You're just echoing propaganda you read somewhere in a media article. You clearly don't even understand what the words in it mean. Activate your neurons, my man. If you're going to agree with mainstream ideas, you could at least do it in a way that doesn't make your side look even worse.Are you kidding? Las Vegas used to host nuclear test viewing parties.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/atomic-tourism-nevada/
"Dude this totally happened, people totally saw the nuke and weren't just treated to a big explosion."
Gee, the only thing that can explodey the big way must be nukes. Can't have big explosions without nukes! ... The absolute state of modern critical thinking skills.If nuclear bombs do exist, what proof would it take for you to believe it?
If nuclear bombs existed, we'd have nuclear terrorism, we'd have states like Pakistan using them to bully neighbors. Russia would have nuked Ukraine first, not invaded, made a fool of themselves, then threatened to use them later. Ukraine doesn't even have nukes! What, are they afraid NATO will declare war on them? That's a MAD scenario. There is absolutely zero downside to nuking non-nuclear states and yet no one does it. How curious! Humanity must be super restrained, intelligent and moral. It can't be that nukes are made up nonsense!
Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them!Incorrect. Over 2000 nuclear bombs have been used since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
Drill down the sources and it's just a government saying "dude trust me".
Considering all of the recent fearmongering regarding Putin using nuclear weapons, I felt it necessary to remind everyone here that nuclear weapons simply do not exist.
They're not real.
They're made up.
It's a meme.
Seriously, they are nothing other than WWII propaganda that the Allies made up to scare Japan into surrendering and to keep Russia from continuing the war. Then Russia started to claim it also totally had nukes and yet no one ever used them. Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them! Wow! It must be because humanity is so strong willed and moral and definitely not because they don't exist.
The sun is being reflected by (or is actually placed inside) the dome.
I honestly am not sure what we are arguing about.
All I am saying is that when Tron used a solid glass dome shaped object to perform an experiment, that the solid glass wouldn't be an accurate representation of our atmosphere (the atmoplane). We don't live in and breath in solid glass.
If Tron wanted to redo the experiment and simulate it via a physical dome to simulate his firmament, than his firmament dome could be like a thin glass shell vs. being totally filled in with glass.
Again, am not sure what we are arguing about.
Yes, therefore. the solid glass is keeping the atmoplane in. The dome is NOT simulating the atmoplane.But you did write that using a solid glass dome to simulate the atmoplane is wrong. The Dome holds the atmoplane in.The Dome is not the atmoplane.
1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.
Yup. Thats why I said don't use a dome filled with glass to simulate a flat earth.
As I mentiined to Tron, our atmosphere (or atmoplane as you call it) is not solid glass.
I don't believe in a physical dome. Unfortunately in Tron's experiment where he wanted to use a physical dome, he filled his dome with solid glass. We all know that our atmosphere (the atmoplane as you call it) does not consist of solid glass.
It is simulating the DOME, not the atmoplane.
Typical obfuscation, probably purposeful, on your part.
But you did write that using a solid glass dome to simulate the atmoplane is wrong. The Dome holds the atmoplane in.The Dome is not the atmoplane.
1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.
Yup. Thats why I said don't use a dome filled with glass to simulate a flat earth.
The Dome is not the atmoplane.
1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.
Cashew its like saying refraction exists through solid mediums - liquid mediums - and gaseous atmospheric mediums... Its an established phenomenon. We can argue how much atmospheric refraction exists which I think is your general point.
I can give you a few numbers as to what the diameter of the earth is, sun, moon, and distance between them but its really not worth it.
But generally I'd put all my distances within thousands of miles which is similar to some general FE theory.
The bulb is definitely too big but I'm not sure about the distance being wrong. I used to think a spotlight sun was the only way to simulate the day/night and other observations on earth but then I tried different distances and they all worked the same. I'm trying to recreate Voyager 1 photos of the sun and earth to get a more accurate simulation...
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/536/voyager-1s-pale-blue-dot/
Here's a close up of the Earth Sun relationship...
Earth is located where it says "E", Venus "V" and the sun appears in only some photos but I marked it as "Sun". You can see how far away Earth is relative to the Sun which I hope isn't too far off from my photo. Moving the lightbulb away like I did is not accurate but I was just proving the point of atmospheric refraction. If you actually turn the Map in a circular motion or in many other configurations you can also get a sunset and night effect. It's bizarre almost but the light just fades away.
It's not, but the atmosphere has water vapor which can add to refraction...
Yes solid..
It only included the word sun after I pointed out your off-topic contribution.MCToon,This thread is about explanations of sunsets, not about ships.
You've pushed your original OP question off the rails by engaging with flat earthers in a way that they are not going to want to engage with you. Stick to the dialogue and try and take emotion out of it if you want a fruitful debate. (yes, I've learned my lesson on approach and am trying to do better)
Action80
In terms of perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane being a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question:
1) What are the physics or science behind these three variables that cause a ship to appear to sink towards the surface of the Earth (whether the surface be land or water)?
2) When a ship moves away from an observer, why does a ship always appear to "sink down" towards Earth's surface but never appear to "sink up" towards Earth's atmosphere?
- Round Earthers would say that because the Earth is a globe, you are seeing the ship move about Earth's curvature and thus the bottom of the ship begins to "disappear" first.
- I think MCToon is asking you to explain the physics or science regarding why/how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause the sun to appear to "sink down" on a flat plane.
MCToon claims sunsets cannot happen on a flat earth, based on an extremely comprehensive analyis he performed regarding two issues, those being perspective and refraction.
Quiet please, while he gathers the data as to provide the particulars...
My above post included the sun (i.e. sun setting) and a question as to why the sun always sets "down" but never sets "up" on a flat earth.
As MCToon is gathering his data would you be able to provide some clarity as to how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause a sun to set down vs. up?
I am not going to entertain your off-topic original contribution/only to later revise game.
MCToon,This thread is about explanations of sunsets, not about ships.
You've pushed your original OP question off the rails by engaging with flat earthers in a way that they are not going to want to engage with you. Stick to the dialogue and try and take emotion out of it if you want a fruitful debate. (yes, I've learned my lesson on approach and am trying to do better)
Action80
In terms of perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane being a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question:
1) What are the physics or science behind these three variables that cause a ship to appear to sink towards the surface of the Earth (whether the surface be land or water)?
2) When a ship moves away from an observer, why does a ship always appear to "sink down" towards Earth's surface but never appear to "sink up" towards Earth's atmosphere?
- Round Earthers would say that because the Earth is a globe, you are seeing the ship move about Earth's curvature and thus the bottom of the ship begins to "disappear" first.
- I think MCToon is asking you to explain the physics or science regarding why/how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause the sun to appear to "sink down" on a flat plane.
MCToon claims sunsets cannot happen on a flat earth, based on an extremely comprehensive analyis he performed regarding two issues, those being perspective and refraction.
Quiet please, while he gathers the data as to provide the particulars...
most of you on this site are nothing more than satans shills. enjoy eternity smoking hot....
Billo, I'm sorry man - I don't have the "smoking gun" that your looking for.So, you have no idea why it's way closer than 384,400 km, but your 100% sure it is?
Well, that's how FE theory works, but at least you admit it.
