• 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?

nomuse said:
You may easily be right. There is no provenance on that image. Therefore, it is not an official record or document of ANYTHING.

You might as well say that this: http://www.spellseo.ru/matte/alien_civilization/final_matte.jpg is proof of extra-terrestrial civilization.
Click to expand...

Ok..... so..... if that was a fake picture of the Nagasaki mushroom cloud, where are the real photos? There must have been thousands of photos taken of it by both amateur and professional photographers. The Japanese people had a lot of cameras even back then.
 
Anders Lindman said:
But they do look fake. Here are some more examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RQJyt-BzM

Of course, I'm not 100% sure that nuclear weapons are a hoax. It's an interesting theory though. If true then much of recent human history suddenly looks very different than what we have been told.
...
Click to expand...

LOL That moronic narrator cracked me up! "This looks artificial" "now they show us these trees"

Just proves how CTists don't get off their damn computers... There are no nukes because the trees were in rows. Herp Derp, the moron has never seen trees in rows. I have. Am I in on it? Trees in lines are convenient for nuke tests because one can see how many lines got directly destroyed, although I don't know whether that was the main purpose. Also, I would say they were planted there, as I doubt (what looks like) pine trees grow in the desert (...).

Also, if they were miniatures, then why in the name of the FSM didn't They™ make the forest look realistic?! I am a miniature builder and I spend great time during a build, figuring out how to make a forest look realistic, especially where and in what pattern I "plant" my trees. It'd be the first thing to consider. This doesn't hold any water, Anders.

"It just looks fake" is no argument whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
I'm tempted towards a new aphorism:

"Incompetence is the first refuge (of a conspiracy theorist) to explain the actions of the conspiracy."

It needs a lot more work before it is pithy.
 
Belz... said:
I'm sure it [The Bomb/Cloud video] was photoshopped.
Click to expand...
No, it's probably accurate. Shock waves don't have any permanent affect on clouds. Only clouds caught in the convection curents directly over the blast or near the surface and caught in shear winds would have any reason to be distorted. Shock waves just transiently raise the pressure of the air and the clouds in the air. Pointing out that the cloud was "intact" after the shock waves passed is about as significant as pointing out that the air was still there after the wave passed.
 
Last edited:
Yah...it's a compression wave, not a net expansion. You can lose sight of the clouds in a Wilson Cloud, but even that is a transient event. The pulse of heat mostly passes through the air...the only air that is significantly raised in temperature is what we call the FIREBALL.

I think the "unaffected clouds" he is having trouble with are mostly a trick of perspective...he thinks they are closer to the blast than they are (and, yes, the shock wave on his first example was mostly confined to the water anyhow).

Hrm. Makes me want to know the physics more. Is there a point, as you raise the temperature of air, that it becomes effectively opaque to infrared and thus forms a sharp boundary trapping the heat within?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
No, it's probably accurate. Shock waves don't have any permanent affect on clouds. Only clouds caught in the convection curents directly over the blast or near the surface and caught in shear windws would have any reason to be distorted. Shock waves just transiently raise the pressure of the air and the clouds in the air. Pointing out that the cloud was "intact" after the shock waves passed is about as significant as pointing out that the air was still there after the wave passed.
Click to expand...

And a cloud is also resilient against heat radiation from an atom bomb explosion next to it? :rolleyes:
 
nomuse said:
...
I think the "unaffected clouds" he is having trouble with are mostly a trick of perspective...he thinks they are closer to the blast than they are (and, yes, the shock wave on his first example was mostly confined to the water anyhow).
...
Click to expand...

And more importantly, that they're on the same level as the explosion.

Anders Lindman said:
And a cloud is also resilient against heat radiation from an atom bomb explosion next to it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The explosion happened at 469 meters above Nagasaki and at 580 meters above Hiroshima respectively. Clouds are a tad bit higher.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Should I have used fewer big words in the third sentence of mine you quoted?
Click to expand...

Here is the third sentence from that quote: "Only clouds caught in the convection curents directly over the blast or near the surface and caught in shear windws would have any reason to be distorted."

I can't find anything about heat radiation there.
 
Anders Lindman said:
It's enough as a start of a theory imo. Then more investigation will be needed to really determine if they are fake or not.
Click to expand...

No, seriously it really depends on who's saying, "it looks fake", and what kind of "investigation" you mean. If I see a picture of an atomic explosion that "looks fake" to me, the fact that there are thousands of pictures of atomic explosions, and the world's scientists are in strict agreement that atomic explosions are a fact, I am compelled to believe it's actually NOT fake.

When I see a UFO picture, then I'm dubious
 
Anders Lindman said:
Those aboard the ship will experience the entire universe speeding up according to Einstein.
Click to expand...

Well, let's keep it simple then, since you are having trouble understanding things.

This has been OBSERVERED. If you have a particle that at rest to you decays in 2 seconds, then if it is moving at 90% of the speed of light relative to you, it will decay in 4 seconds. Time for the particle is running slower.

We've put an atomic clock on a jet and run it around the world, and the clock experienced time slower on the trip (being a very small fraction of a second slow after it got back).

Atomic clocks deeper in Earth's gravity well similarly tick slower.

Here's a pretty good explanation for why Relativity predicts this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHjpBjgIMVk&feature=player_embedded#!

Again, this has been observed.
 
twinstead said:
No, seriously it really depends on who's saying, "it looks fake", and what kind of "investigation" you mean. If I see a picture of an atomic explosion that "looks fake" to me, the fact that there are thousands of pictures of atomic explosions, and the world's scientists are in strict agreement that atomic explosions are a fact, I am compelled to believe it's actually NOT fake.

When I see a UFO picture, then I'm dubious
Click to expand...

Actually if the atom bomb is a hoax it doesn't prove Einstein's theories to be false. So it's perhaps better to examine possible fake scientific data. If Einstein's theories are wrong then there is a great chance that there is a conspiracy going on in the highest levels of science. Nuclear science is also a potential candidate for a conspiracy of course because of all the secrecy and stuff involved with nuclear technologies.
 
Drachasor said:
Well, let's keep it simple then, since you are having trouble understanding things.

This has been OBSERVERED. If you have a particle that at rest to you decays in 2 seconds, then if it is moving at 90% of the speed of light relative to you, it will decay in 4 seconds. Time for the particle is running slower.

We've put an atomic clock on a jet and run it around the world, and the clock experienced time slower on the trip (being a very small fraction of a second slow after it got back).

Atomic clocks deeper in Earth's gravity well similarly tick slower.

Here's a pretty good explanation for why Relativity predicts this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHjpBjgIMVk&feature=player_embedded#!

Again, this has been observed.
Click to expand...

As I have written about earlier in this thread, if Einstein's theories are false, then the positive scientific experiments have been faked by gatekeeper scientists as a part of a monstrous conspiracy. So I don't trust those results.
 
Sorry, but I have to...

Anders, you know, there is an "edit" button.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Actually if the atom bomb is a hoax it doesn't prove Einstein's theories to be false. So it's perhaps better to examine possible fake scientific data. If Einstein's theories are wrong then there is a great chance that there is a conspiracy going on in the highest levels of science. Nuclear science is also a potential candidate for a conspiracy of course because of all the secrecy and stuff involved with nuclear technologies.
Click to expand...

The fundamentals of nuclear technology aren't secret. Any physicist on Earth can explain how it works and even what is needed to build one. The only problem with examining fake scientific data is to present some scientific data that is fake, because it's hard to examine something that doesn't exist.

Did I miss where you presented any commonly-held scientific data that you can show is "faked"? And not something you think "may be faked". That doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
From what I understand about Einstein's theory it doesn't say that going faster than light is impossible. Just says that the closer to the speed of light you get, the more mass you accumulate which requires you to spend more energy to go faster.

So it would be easy to propel a neutrino (which has no mass) faster than light. This might not sound too terribly useful, but imagine enveloping that neutrino in a packet of information: voila, ftl communications.
 
twinstead said:
The fundamentals of nuclear technology aren't secret. Any physicist on Earth can explain how it works and even what is needed to build one. The only problem with examining fake scientific data is to present some scientific data that is fake, because it's hard to examine something that doesn't exist.

Did I miss where you presented any commonly-held scientific data that you can show is "faked"? And not something you think "may be faked". That doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Finding out that Einstein's relativity theories are a hoax would solve a lot of problems. Just look at those poor suckers who are struggling with incredible mathematical stunts to try to 'unify' Einstein's bogus theories with quantum mechanics which by the way looks way more credible as a theory to me than the relativity insanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom