• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

Anders Lindman said:
...
Click to expand...

But it's dangerous imo to cling to ideas too much based on only what authorities have told us.

You've cited several authorities in support of your beliefs. What makes your authorities so much more credible than someone else's?

Your approach doesn't seem more reliable. I would argue that it's dangerous to believe in stuff you just make up and don't really think about.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Is it another of your pet theories that ionising radiation is harmless?

Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning
Click to expand...

"Although radiation was discovered in late 19th century, the dangers of radioactivity and of radiation were not immediately recognized. ... dangers of radiation were not fully appreciated by scientists until later. In 1945 and 1946, one U.S. scientist and one Canadian scientist died from acute radiation exposure in separate criticality accidents." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning

"After World War II, the prospects of using "atomic energy" for good, rather than simply for war, were greatly advocated as a reason not to keep all nuclear research controlled by military organizations." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#History

So massive propaganda was created to label radioactive radiation as dangerous after the second world war, the same time as when nuclear power should be made public technology. And isn't it curious how the separate accidents for the two scientists mirror the separate findings by two scientists who allegedly discovered HIV? And people think: Two separate events, by respectable scientists, this must be real. Well, what if it's not real but a hoax in both cases?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
But it's dangerous imo to cling to ideas too much based on only what authorities have told us.

You've cited several authorities in support of your beliefs. What makes your authorities so much more credible than someone else's?

Your approach doesn't seem more reliable. I would argue that it's dangerous to believe in stuff you just make up and don't really think about.
Click to expand...

Take quantum mechanics for example. It explains very well how semiconductors work. It may not be a fully complete theory but I have no reason so far to believe it's a hoax. Einstein's theories on the other hand seem suspicious to me.
 
Anders Lindman said:
...So massive propaganda was created to label radioactive radiation as dangerous after the second world war, the same time as when nuclear power should be made public technology.
Click to expand...
You have that completely backwards. What "massive propaganda" against nuclear power are you imagining? Can you give us an example? On the contrary, nuclear fission was self-evidently capable of causing terrible harm and the propaganda that was needed was to persuade the public that nuclear power was safe.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Take quantum mechanics for example. It explains very well how semiconductors work. It may not be a fully complete theory but I have no reason so far to believe it's a hoax. Einstein's theories on the other hand seem suspicious to me.
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked. You say trusting authority is bad. Yet you cite authorities and ask us to trust them. Why the double standard?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Try wikipedia.

Or buy them in a gift shop.

http://apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp/apollo/aps_poster01e.htm
Click to expand...

It's difficult to tell if it's an official blueprint. But one thing I found interesting is that it says the height is 107 meters something and Wikipedia says it's 111 meters something if I remember correctly, and 107 meters was the result I got myself when I measured a Saturn V rocket from a hi-res picture by counting pixels, compared to the height of the VAB. So that could very well be the correct height. The question is if it's the real Saturn V rocket or a fake mockup to show to the public (hedging my bets as usual :D).
 
Anders Lindman said:
It's difficult to tell if it's an official blueprint. But one thing I found interesting is that it says the height is 107 meters something and Wikipedia says it's 111 meters something if I remember correctly, and 107 meters was the result I got myself when I measured a Saturn V rocket from a hi-res picture by counting pixels, compared to the height of the VAB. So that could very well be the correct height. The question is if it's the real Saturn V rocket or a fake mockup to show to the public (hedging my bets as usual :D).
Click to expand...


Definite troll!
 
JayUtah said:
That's not what I asked. You say trusting authority is bad. Yet you cite authorities and ask us to trust them. Why the double standard?
Click to expand...

I trust authorities unless I see a possible reason for a conspiracy. For example the 9/11 Commission, or NIST or some official source like that said that the molten material pouring out of the 81th floor from one of the WTC towers was something other than molten steel. I think it was molten steel plus thermite and that they deliberately cover that up.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
You have that completely backwards. What "massive propaganda" against nuclear power are you imagining? Can you give us an example? On the contrary, nuclear fission was self-evidently capable of causing terrible harm and the propaganda that was needed was to persuade the public that nuclear power was safe.
Click to expand...

As the quote I posted from Wikipedia said, it was not at all self-evident. Here it is again:

"Although radiation was discovered in late 19th century, the dangers of radioactivity and of radiation were not immediately recognized. Acute effects of radiation were first observed in the use of X-rays when Wilhelm Rontgen intentionally subjected his fingers to X-rays in 1895. He published his observations concerning the burns that developed, though he attributed them to ozone rather than to X-rays. His injuries healed later. ... Nevertheless, dangers of radiation were not fully appreciated by scientists until later. In 1945 and 1946, one U.S. scientist and one Canadian scientist died from acute radiation exposure in separate criticality accidents. In both cases, victims were working with large quantities of fissile materials without any shielding or protection." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning

If it really was self-evident, then the dangers would have been recognized already in 1895, instead of not being 'fully appreciated' by scientists until after the second world war.
 
Last edited:
Greedo said:
You do know that Wikipedia isn't really reliable.
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought my crude measurement of 107 meters was a margin of error compared to the almost 111 meters Wikipedia mentions, but the blueprint says 107 meters something so that makes me believe the blueprint has the correct height. Still, I'm not sure how official the blueprint is or if the blueprint is for a fake mockup rocket instead of a real rocket with other dimensions.
 
Why is this thread not in "abandon all hope"? :rolleyes:

Your theories don't make any sense, and you know it.
 
Last edited:
nomuse said:
Radioactive radiation?
Click to expand...

Yes, isn't the claim that radioactive radiation is dangerous just a lie as a cover for other lies related to nuclear power? Otherwise after world war II any public company could start manufacturing nuclear power plants and discover the hoax about how fission power doesn't generate near the energy they claim it does.
 
Greedo said:
Why is this thread not in "abandon all hope"? :rolleyes:

Your theories don't make any sense, and you know it.
Click to expand...

But the result from CERN is not a theory. And the result strengthens the conspiracy theory that Einstein's theories are a hoax to hide real science kept hidden from the public. How many shadows projects are going that the public inclusive ordinary scientists don't have a clue about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom