Nuclear (i.e. fission and fusion) mythologies and politics

Newtons Bit said:
Because making the math involved in GPS even more difficult is FUN!
Click to expand...

No, it actually is a trick to make the alleged relativity effects easy to handle in the GPS receivers:

"Altogether, the clocks of the satellites seem to run a little faster. The shift of time to the observer on earth would be about 38 milliseconds per day and would make up for an total error of approximately 10 km per day. In order that those error do not have to be corrected constantly, the clocks of the satellites were set to 10.229999995453 Mhz instead of 10.23 Mhz but they are operated as if they had 10.23 MHz. By this trick the relativistic effects are compensated once and for all." -- http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/errors.htm
 
Anders Lindman said:
No, it actually is a trick to make the alleged relativity effects easy to handle in the GPS receivers:

"Altogether, the clocks of the satellites seem to run a little faster. The shift of time to the observer on earth would be about 38 milliseconds per day and would make up for an total error of approximately 10 km per day. In order that those error do not have to be corrected constantly, the clocks of the satellites were set to 10.229999995453 Mhz instead of 10.23 Mhz but they are operated as if they had 10.23 MHz. By this trick the relativistic effects are compensated once and for all." -- http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/errors.htm
Click to expand...

Then if relatively didn't exist, as you allege, then the receivers would all have to continuously adjust for this difference in clock speeds. Thus making the math harder.
 
OK, I'm in a hotel room, in China, and I can't sleep just now, so .... just for kicks:

Anders Lindman said:
Because the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately adjusted to run at a slightly different rate.
Click to expand...

Yes, to compensate for the relativistic time dilation. so seen from Earth, they run on time.

My prediction is that relativistic effects have been experimentally confirmed in a correct way zero times.
Click to expand...
Really? I have to inform you that your prediction was wrong even before you were born.

The claim is that a rocket accelerating from Earth to near the speed of light relative to Earth will make those aboard the rocket experience say 10 years when those on Earth experience 1 year. This means that those aboard the rocket will experience the evolution on Earth speeding up x10 times, and as you said, neither Earth nor the rocket are separate from the universe, so those in the rocket will also experience the sun aging 10 years, and the rest of the Milky Way galaxy aging 10 years and the other galaxies aging 10 years, while those on Earth experience the universe aging only 1 year.
Click to expand...
No. It's Einstein's relativity that is false. Time is not a dimension. And going around in a rocket around Earth near the speed of light will not speed up the evolution of the entire universe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you got that mixed up about as much as it is at all possible. In fact so much that bits of it become right, by virtue of double negation.

I don't know where you read science, but I suggest you switch to a more reliable source, e.g. Donald Duck.

Nope. Most people are not ready for any real evidence of this. And besides, I don't have any solid evidence to present anyway.
Click to expand...

Not quite right. You do in fact provide quite solid evidence for something, albeit certainly not what you think. :D

A photo of a real atom bomb explosion should lack a Wilson cloud since the heat radiation from such alleged explosion would prevent such condensation cloud from forming.
Click to expand...
So, in your dimension, TNT and other conventional explosives don't produce any heat? Cool, man, literally cool. Must be in the class of the silent explosives used for the WTC. .... Hushacooliebombs.

:dio:

Hans
 
Last edited:
bynmdsue said:
You sure? That gif says that those on the rocket experience 5 yrs while those on earth experience 10. Travelling near the speed of light slows time not speeds it up.

The gif is correct. You're not.
Click to expand...

I am correct! I said the same as the gif says. Those in the rocket experience the evolution on Earth speeding up, so that when they return after 5 years in the rocket 10 years have gone by on Earth (according to Einstein's bogus relativity): http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/timedilation.gif

http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/sr2.htm
 
MRC_Hans said:
So, in your dimension, TNT and other conventional explosives don't produce any heat? Cool, man, literally cool. Must be in the class of the silent explosives used for the WTC. .... Hushacooliebombs.
Click to expand...

Conventional explosives create more kinetic energy than heat radiation compared to the alleged thermonuclear explosions, who generate massive amounts of heat radiation in relation to kinetic energy. If not, then I was wrong. :D If I am correct, then the appearance of Wilson clouds is a sign of the use of conventional explosives, such as TNT.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I am correct!
Click to expand...

Seriously dude, yer not. What you said was
The claim is that a rocket accelerating from Earth to near the speed of light relative to Earth will make those aboard the rocket experience say 10 years when those on Earth experience 1 year.
Click to expand...

Those on the rocket will experience 1 yr while those on earth will experience 10. Not the other way around.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Then if relatively didn't exist, as you allege, then the receivers would all have to continuously adjust for this difference in clock speeds. Thus making the math harder.
Click to expand...

IF they really have adjusted the clocks as they claim. I claim that they haven't adjusted the clocks in the GPS satellites.
 
bynmdsue said:
Seriously dude, yer not. What you said was

Those on the rocket will experience 1 yr while those on earth will experience 10. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...

:eek: Oh crock, yes you are correct. I got that part opposite of what I meant. The key is that those aboard the rocket will experience the entire universe speeding up according to Einstein's relativity. Because not only will Earth have aged 10 years but also the sun and rest of the solar system and the galaxy and so on.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I am correct! I said the same as the gif says. Those in the rocket experience the evolution on Earth speeding up, so that when they return after 5 years in the rocket 10 years have gone by on Earth (according to Einstein's bogus relativity): http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/timedilation.gif

http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/sr2.htm
Click to expand...

No, it actually is a trick to make the alleged relativity effects easy to handle in the GPS receivers:

"Altogether, the clocks of the satellites seem to run a little faster. The shift of time to the observer on earth would be about 38 milliseconds per day and would make up for an total error of approximately 10 km per day. In order that those error do not have to be corrected constantly, the clocks of the satellites were set to 10.229999995453 Mhz instead of 10.23 Mhz but they are operated as if they had 10.23 MHz. By this trick the relativistic effects are compensated once and for all." -- http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/errors.htm
Click to expand...

Ahh, I get it now! Your problem is reading comprehension. You read the correct info, but it gets thoroughly scrambled somewhere on the way between your eyes and your keyboard.

There is only one remedy for this: Stop reading and start making up things as you go. The results won't get any better, but you'll save a lot of time.

Hans
 
Anders Lindman said:
IF they really have adjusted the clocks as they claim. I claim that they haven't adjusted the clocks in the GPS satellites.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I see you already took my advice (making things up as u go). Much easier, ain't it? :p

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Ahh, I get it now! Your problem is reading comprehension. You read the correct info, but it gets thoroughly scrambled somewhere on the way between your eyes and your keyboard.

There is only one remedy for this: Stop reading and start making up things as you go. The results won't get any better, but you'll save a lot of time.

Hans
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean. I corrected my mistake in post #289 above.

Did you see my reply about the Wilson clouds?
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Conventional explosives create more kinetic energy than heat radiation compared to the alleged thermonuclear explosions, who generate massive amounts of heat radiation in relation to kinetic energy. If not, then I was wrong. :D If I am correct, then the appearance of Wilson clouds is a sign of the use of conventional explosives, such as TNT.
Click to expand...

You are not correct. It is the heat that creates the explosion, any explosion. The difference is that conventional explosives generate heat by creating gasses that are compressed, and hence hot. Nuclear explosions create heat directly, but the net result is basically the same.

You are also wrong on another account: Even if there was a fundamental difference in heat radiation (the spectral distribution is indeed somewhat different), air does not absorb much heat radiation, so it does not make any difference for the Wilson cloud.

Have heart, because those two errors mean that you need not try to explain how they hauled several thousand tons of TNT to Hiroshima and detonated it in mid-air. ;)

Hans
 
Anders Lindman said:
Conventional explosives create more kinetic energy than heat radiation compared to the alleged thermonuclear explosions, who generate massive amounts of heat radiation in relation to kinetic energy. If not, then I was wrong. :D If I am correct, then the appearance of Wilson clouds is a sign of the use of conventional explosives, such as TNT.
Click to expand...

You are not.
 
MRC_Hans said:
You are not correct. It is the heat that creates the explosion, any explosion. The difference is that conventional explosives generate heat by creating gasses that are compressed, and hence hot. Nuclear explosions create heat directly, but the net result is basically the same.

You are also wrong on another account: Even if there was a fundamental difference in heat radiation (the spectral distribution is indeed somewhat different), air does not absorb much heat radiation, so it does not make any difference for the Wilson cloud.

Have heart, because those two errors mean that you need not try to explain how they hauled several thousand tons of TNT to Hiroshima and detonated it in mid-air. ;)

Hans
Click to expand...

The spectral distribution for a nuclear explosion is surely very different than for an explosion with conventional explosives? :confused: Aren't atom bombs supposed to generate very high frequency radiation?

For example, check this out:

"The discovery of the ultraviolet radiation below 200 nm, named vacuum ultraviolet because it is strongly absorbed by air, was made in 1893 by the German physicist Victor Schumann." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet
 
Anders Lindman said:
The spectral distribution for a nuclear explosion is surely very different than for an explosion with conventional explosives? :confused: Aren't atom bombs supposed to generate very high frequency radiation?

For example, check this out:

"The discovery of the ultraviolet radiation below 200 nm, named vacuum ultraviolet because it is strongly absorbed by air, was made in 1893 by the German physicist Victor Schumann." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet
Click to expand...
Yes, a fraction of the energy is radiated at frequencies all the way up to Gamma rays.

The Wilson clouds we see around thermonuclear blasts have radii of a mile or more. The more a part of spectrum is absorbed, the shorter its range of influence will be. The less it is absorbed, the less will it heat up the air at a distance. Square rule applies, here. Net result: Wilson clouds galore.

But, congratulations on applying logic. All you need now is knowledge.

Hans
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, a fraction of the energy is radiated at frequencies all the way up to Gamma rays.

The Wilson clouds we see around thermonuclear blasts have radii of a mile or more. The more a part of spectrum is absorbed, the shorter its range of influence will be. The less it is absorbed, the less will it heat up the air at a distance. Square rule applies, here. Net result: Wilson clouds galore.

But, congratulations on applying logic. All you need now is knowledge.

Hans
Click to expand...

But can you show any calculations for that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom