• 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:
And you have supporting calculations or experiments showing that the fission reaction would happen slowly enough to blow the pieces apart before the reaction really took off? Or is this based purely on your incredulity?
Click to expand...

The faster the chain reaction, the faster the fission material is blown apart into subcritical mass.
Click to expand...

That's not a supporting calculation. That's rhetoric.
 
Anders Lindman said:
At least as far as I know. I have no interest in investigating it further. If there is any truth to the theory then it's a good idea to play it safe.
Click to expand...

How terribly convenient for you. So if it's true, you shouldn't investigate it ? Which means that, whether or not it's true, you can safely continue to believe it. Sounds fun !
 
Anders Lindman said:
That doesn't explain the clouds near the explosion remaining intact in the video clip I posted.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it was photoshopped.

Back in the 40s...

After traveling for 5 years in a rocket at 90% the speed of light relative to Earth then when returning 10 years has passed on Earth? That's ludicrous.
Click to expand...

It's only ludicrous if you don't have the basic knowledge to understand how it works... just like a tribesman would probably laugh at you when you explain to him that his angry mountain god is really just molten rock pressure from way below the ground.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Not according to this:

http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/timedilation.gif

After traveling for 5 years in a rocket at 90% the speed of light relative to Earth then when returning 10 years has passed on Earth? That's ludicrous. It means that not only will the passengers experience the evolution of Earth speeding up but also that the evolution of the sun and the rest of the entire universe also is speeding up by twice the speed!
Click to expand...

No, it's true according to that. The rocket has to undergo acceleration when it leaves the Earth, when it slows down turns around and speed back up, and when it slows down once more on arrival. That's what makes the time going slower on the rocket matter and makes the rocket's reference frame fundamentally different from the Earth's, because acceleration is NOT relative.

You CAN view it as "speeding up the universe" in the same way that running makes the Earth move around you because all the objects are now moving relative to you. Both are equally "crazy."

Again, time dilation has been observed in numerous experiments. It's extremely well confirmed.

I'll find or make some graphs for you demonstrating how this makes sense later (gotta sleep now). I admit it is very counter-intuitive, but it is true and backed up by all evidence.
 
Last edited:
Drachasor said:
No, it's true according to that. The rocket has to undergo acceleration when it leaves the Earth, when it slows down turns around and speed back up, and when it slows down once more on arrival. That's what makes the time going slower on the rocket matter and makes the rocket's reference frame fundamentally different from the Earth's, because acceleration is NOT relative.

You CAN view it as "speeding up the universe" in the same way that running makes the Earth move around you because all the objects are now moving relative to you. Both are equally "crazy."

Again, time dilation has been observed in numerous experiments. It's extremely well confirmed.

I'll find or make some graphs for you demonstrating how this makes sense later (gotta sleep now). I admit it is very counter-intuitive, but it is true and backed up by all evidence.
Click to expand...

No amount of running will speed up the evolution of the entire universe. Is this claim correct: http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/timedilation.gif

Or are you saying that since acceleration and deceleration are needed for the rocket there will be no time difference?
 
Erock said:
I'm not saying anything:D
Click to expand...

As I wrote before, it looks like a double exposure of two films, one with the explosion and the other with the clouds, and then fake shadows have been airbrushed onto the clouds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtSt5XZ7fq4

EDIT: Plus the film is from the 50s or something like that. The YouTube title is wrong. It's not the Hiroshima bomb. And no, airbrushing in this case does NOT mean digital editing. Project the film frame by frame onto large papers, add the shadows onto the clouds and then film each frame again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-H-JfTE0V4
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
As I wrote before, it looks like a double exposure of two films, one with the explosion and the other with the clouds, and then fake shadows have been airbrushed onto the clouds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtSt5XZ7fq4

EDIT: Plus the film is from the 50s or something like that. The YouTube title is wrong. It's not the Hiroshima bomb. And no, airbrushing in this case does NOT mean digital editing. Project the film frame by frame onto large papers, add the shadows onto the clouds and then film each frame again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-H-JfTE0V4
Click to expand...

<*Sigh*>

It's the Baker shot from Operation Crossroads in 1946. Underwater detonation, so most of the shock wave went there; that's why the clouds don't dissipitate (well, not all of them), to counter your "tough clouds" comment earlier.

Wasn't faked, quit wasting your time, and understand that these are real, very powerful weapons.
 
SUSpilot said:
<*Sigh*>

It's the Baker shot from Operation Crossroads in 1946. Underwater detonation, so most of the shock wave went there; that's why the clouds don't dissipitate (well, not all of them), to counter your "tough clouds" comment earlier.

Wasn't faked, quit wasting your time, and understand that these are real, very powerful weapons.
Click to expand...

"Crossroads consisted of two detonations, each with a yield of 23 kilotons:[1] Able was detonated at an altitude of 520 feet (158 m) on July 1, 1946; Baker was detonated 90 feet (27 m) underwater on July 25, 1946." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads

So if it was the underwater detonation it was only 27 meters under the surface. So the heat radiation from the atom bomb would have been essentially the same as for the one detonated 158 meters above the surface. Both those explosions, if they were real, would have evaporated the clouds with the heat radiation. Not to mention the pressure wave from the blast.

Here is another example of atom bomb fakery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sboAkl4DKEk
 
Anders Lindman said:
No offense, but people on forums can claim all kinds of things. Let's say it's true, then can't they fake the effect from the satellites? How? By having several transmitters on each GPS satellite pointed in different directions and with different signals.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, unless we're lying about the basics of radio communications, too. GPS signals have a wavelength of ~20 cm and they're being sent from an antenna that's only ~100 cm across (working from memory here). That puts very strict limits on how directional the signal can be. A GPS spacecraft simply can't generate independent beams for different parts of the Earth. And even if it could, there would be border areas between the beams where a receiver would two or three beams simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
...if it was the underwater detonation it was only 27 meters under the surface. So the heat radiation from the atom bomb would have been essentially the same as for the one detonated 158 meters above the surface. Both those explosions, if they were real, would have evaporated the clouds with the heat radiation. Not to mention the pressure wave from the blast.
Click to expand...

Got any maths to back up that assertion, or is it as entirely baseless as I expect?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Got any maths to back up that assertion, or is it as entirely baseless as I expect?
Click to expand...

I thought about it a bit more. The heat radiation from the underwater explosion might be less than the one above the surface even if it was only 27 meters under the surface since that would have created a ball of essentially super-hot steam expanding outwards. But if so, then the expanding ball of super-hot steam would have totally obliterated the clouds anyway.
 
Anders Lindman said:
No amount of running will speed up the evolution of the entire universe.
Click to expand...

No one is saying that the entire universe is accelerated. Time just doesn't flow at the same speed when you accelerate.

I get that this is hard to understand because it doesn't appeal to our day-to-day common sense. But do you have ANY reason to believe that it is false ASIDE from the difficulty in understanding it ?

Project the film frame by frame onto large papers, add the shadows onto the clouds and then film each frame again.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and according to JFK conspiracy theorists, they also faked the president's body. At some point it's just simpler to accept reality as fact than make up reasons why it's all false.

Or maybe you'd like to tell those folks at Hiroshima that it wasn't a nuclear bomb that fused their clothes to their skin.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I thought about it a bit more. The heat radiation from the underwater explosion might be less than the one above the surface even if it was only 27 meters under the surface since that would have created a ball of essentially super-hot steam expanding outwards. But if so, then the expanding ball of super-hot steam would have totally obliterated the clouds anyway.
Click to expand...

That's all interesting guesswork.

Conspiracy theorists love to guess, because they don't have any better tools.
 
dasmiller said:
Actually, no, unless we're lying about the basics of radio communications, too. GPS signals have a wavelength of ~20 cm and they're being sent from an antenna that's only ~100 cm across (working from memory here). That puts very strict limits on how directional the signal can be. A GPS spacecraft simply can't generate independent beams for different parts of the Earth. And even if it could, there would be border areas between the beams where a receiver would two or three beams simultaneously.
Click to expand...

"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

Compensated once and for all. Doesn't that mean that the GPS receivers don't have to compensate for relativistic effects?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom