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

[Anders Lindman]

You're telling us that 2+2=5.

That's why you fail.

Could be! Still the truth is immutable. Either nuclear weapons are a hoax or they are not. That truth is independent of any evidence for or against it. No offense, but this is simple logic stuff.

 

[Dinwar]

I was not describing what happened during the explosion.

Well you certainly weren't talking about what happened to cause the depositional pattern you're seeing, so you really weren't talking about ANYTHING, were you?

The large masses of air between the explosion and the trees, AFTER the explosion would have caused nonlinear turbulence and things like that in the Tunguska case.

Okay, either provide evidence that the air between the thing blowing up and the thing being deposited is the deciding factor in whether turbulance plays a role in the deposition, or please stop saying it. You sound like a broken record, and you're ignoring a rather large amount of evidence that I've either provided or referenced.

And depositional events are NOT self-evident. If you think they are, you don't know enough about them to talk about ripple marks in a stream bed, much less something as complex as an explosion.

 

[Dinwar]

That truth is independent of any evidence for or against it. No offense, but this is simple logic stuff.

Evidence=data. Data=facts of reality. Truth=reality. Therefore, evdience=truth. The evidence cannot be wrong, it can only be misinterpreted.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Well you certainly weren't talking about what happened to cause the depositional pattern you're seeing, so you really weren't talking about ANYTHING, were you?

Okay, either provide evidence that the air between the thing blowing up and the thing being deposited is the deciding factor in whether turbulance plays a role in the deposition, or please stop saying it. You sound like a broken record, and you're ignoring a rather large amount of evidence that I've either provided or referenced.

And depositional events are NOT self-evident. If you think they are, you don't know enough about them to talk about ripple marks in a stream bed, much less something as complex as an explosion.

Can there be have been any significant turbulence after the atom bomb explosion and the debris forming straight lines radiating out of the center of the explosion? No. So you cannot use turbulence as an excuse for the displacement of the lines.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Evidence=data. Data=facts of reality. Truth=reality. Therefore, evdience=truth. The evidence cannot be wrong, it can only be misinterpreted.

"Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: evidence

That which raises or lowers the probability of a proposition. The central question of epistemology is the structure of this process and its ultimate rationale." -- http://www.answers.com/topic/evidence#ixzz1f2omIxg3

 

[Dinwar]

Can there be have been any significant turbulence after the atom bomb explosion and the debris forming straight lines radiating out of the center of the explosion?

Sure there can. Behind the shock wave is a massive amount of turbulence--that's why it's a mushroom cloud, not a hemisphere cloud (again, it shows a hydraulic jump). There's also the interactions of the material in the air--remember, not everything moves as fast as the shockwave (in fact, it can't, otherwise it wouldn't be a shockwave).

You have two options: either everything moves exactly as fast as the shockwave, which domonstrably doesn't happen (the stem of the mushroom cloud proves that), or turbulence is a major factor in the deposition of debris. Which is it--the impossible, or what you disagree with for no reason other than your continued mere assertions?

 

[Anders Lindman]

A simple way of explaining why evidence is not the same as the truth is to show ONE SINGLE example of where this is not the case.

Here is such an example:

Before humanity (or space aliens) came into being no evidence existed for how Earth orbits the sun, yet the truth of that fact existed even without that evidence.

Q.E.D.

(Actually, it's an incredible hubris to believe that your evidence can alter the truth in any direction.)

 

[Craig4]

A simple way of explaining why evidence is not the same as the truth is to show ONE SINGLE example of where this is not the case.

Here is such an example:

Before humanity (or space aliens) came into being no evidence existed for how Earth orbits the sun, yet the truth of that fact existed even without that evidence.

Q.E.D.

(Actually, it's an incredible hubris to believe that your evidence can alter the truth in any direction.)

At some point were you going to present anything that even resembles the truth? We're still waiting for something that might possibly indicate nuclear weapons are a hoax.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Sure there can. Behind the shock wave is a massive amount of turbulence--that's why it's a mushroom cloud, not a hemisphere cloud (again, it shows a hydraulic jump). There's also the interactions of the material in the air--remember, not everything moves as fast as the shockwave (in fact, it can't, otherwise it wouldn't be a shockwave).

You have two options: either everything moves exactly as fast as the shockwave, which domonstrably doesn't happen (the stem of the mushroom cloud proves that), or turbulence is a major factor in the deposition of debris. Which is it--the impossible, or what you disagree with for no reason other than your continued mere assertions?

You cannot compare the mushroom cloud with the lines of debris just a few meters from the explosion. Can a cannon ball significantly be displaced by turbulence the first few meters after leaving the barrel? Of course not.

 

[Dinwar]

You cannot compare the mushroom cloud with the lines of debris just a few meters from the explosion.

Yes, I can. The exact same principles apply. In fact, the mushroom cloud IS COMPOSED OF DEBRIS.

Can a cannon ball significantly be displaced by turbulence the first few meters after leaving the barrel? Of course not.

Sure it can, and it's flat--out stupid to say it's not. You'd have to be completely ignorant of physics, history, and balistics. Besides, we're not talking an individual cannon ball--we're talking about a huge mass of debris, all interacting with one another and with the turbulent fluid it's in. And we're not talking about things that simply move then stop--we're talking about particles that experienced massive amounts of turbulence, beyond huricane force if my viceral understanding of the situation holds true, after they initially hit the ground. These things didn't touch the ground then stop cold--they bounced and rolled and got hit with other debris and got blown around by winds strong enough to rip the lungs out of your body.

Actually, it's an incredible hubris to believe that your evidence can alter the truth in any direction.)

Evidence is data, which are a subset of reality. Again, it can be misinterpreted but it cannot be wrong.

 

[Anders Lindman]

At some point were you going to present anything that even resembles the truth? We're still waiting for something that might possibly indicate nuclear weapons are a hoax.

I suspect that if they really want to cover up some evidence that is found showing a hoax it's always possible to do that. For example, if it turns out that the lines in the crater really were made by a bulldozer, then they can just say that "Yeah, sure, of course it's made by a bulldozer. It's a result of the work to cover the crater with dirt after the explosion."

 

[Anders Lindman]

Yes, I can. The exact same principles apply. In fact, the mushroom cloud IS COMPOSED OF DEBRIS.

Now you are just trolling. I give up arguing with you.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Evidence is data, which are a subset of reality. Again, it can be misinterpreted but it cannot be wrong.

That's not what I'm debating. I say that evidence doesn't change the truth.

 

[Dinwar]

Now you are just trolling. I give up arguing with you.

I'M trolling? I'm the one who's provided evidence, facts, and experiments to back up what I'm saying. You've merely asserted what you want to be true, without facts, without reference to any data, and demonstrating a gross misunderstanding of all of the relevant principles. I mean, you only think that the air between the bomb and the debris (as if there was a difference) is the only way turbulence can be involved! Have you ever watched an explosion on Mythbusters? And where do you think the mushroom cloud came from, magical elves?

 

[Dinwar]

That's not what I'm debating. I say that evidence doesn't change the truth.

You're right, in that what you say is true. However, you seem to confuse "truth" with "what someone thinks". The standard process is to gether data (the subset of data that's used to sway opinion is called evidence, so evidence=data, though data=/=evidence), then draw your conclusion from that data. If your conclusion corresponds to reality, it's considered true. If not, it's considered false. Evidence doesn't do squat--YOU do, during the whole "draw your conclusion" phase.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You're right, in that what you say is true. However, you seem to confuse "truth" with "what someone thinks". The standard process is to gether data (the subset of data that's used to sway opinion is called evidence, so evidence=data, though data=/=evidence), then draw your conclusion from that data. If your conclusion corresponds to reality, it's considered true. If not, it's considered false. Evidence doesn't do squat--YOU do, during the whole "draw your conclusion" phase.

No, I mean truth as the actual state itself, not what people think about it. Let's say that I ate a Big Mac yesterday. I can then provide evidence for that. The evidence is data about the actual event. However that is data ABOUT the actual event, not the actual event itself. The map is not the territory. The menu is not the dinner.

In the example above, NO amount of evidence can change the fact that I ate a Big Mac. The FACT, the truth, that I ate a Big Mac is independent of any evidence. We can say that the evidence is redundant in relation to the truth. The evidence may be useful for other things but it doesn't affect the actual truth. No map can change the actual territory.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Could be! Still the truth is immutable. Either nuclear weapons are a hoax or they are not. That truth is independent of any evidence for or against it. No offense, but this is simple logic stuff.

As has been pointed out to you before, all science is math. We know that nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are real because the math points in that direction.

You are the one telling us that 2+2=5. This is why you fail.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Now you are just trolling. I give up arguing with you.

Hmmmm, why does that sound so familiar....

Oh, right:

Funny how people start accusing each other of being a troll when they have lost an argument.

 

[Anders Lindman]

As has been pointed out to you before, all science is math. We know that nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are real because the math points in that direction.

You are the one telling us that 2+2=5. This is why you fail.

I doubt that the theories for that are entirely correct, but ok let's say that they are correct. The theories don't mean that atom bombs automatically have been developed successfully. Today's theories say that time travel is possible (which I don't believe but that is beside the point). That doesn't mean that we have time travel devices today.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Hmmmm, why does that sound so familiar....

Oh, right:

There is a difference between being accused of being a troll and actually being a troll.