Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

[twinstead]

Because shadows can only be cast on objects really close?

That means solar and lunar eclipses are a hoax! I want a new investigation!

 

[Drachasor]

I have heard that the original Maxwell equations are not used and that some variant of them is used instead.

There's a relativist form of them and so forth, but his original work predicts the speed of light to be constant to all observers. Ergo, electronics and radio must be faked. As fake as GPS.

The reason I believe the new result from CERN is NOT a hoax is because I said long before they presented their result that Einstein's theories are a hoax.

So if a new conspiracy superficially resembles something you said, it must not be a conspiracy?

 

[nomuse]

Look to the left and below the initial cloud. You see clouds that clearly get enveloped and destroyed by the blast.

That one you are focusing on? We can't tell how far away it is. Evidently it was far enough away to avoid the blast entirely.

That's what I thought at first as well, and I am prepared to believe it, but I think that what we are actually seeing is the visibility of those clouds being lost in the similar-looking cloud of the developing explosion.

In any case it doesn't matter; a cloud is a localized patch of air where the moisture content has crossed the dew point. Unless you move the air or radically change the humidity or the temperature of said air, you aren't going to "destroy" a cloud.

Heck...you can send a smoke ring hurtling through the air on nothing but the drive produced by a rotating torus. It doesn't "destroy" the aerosolization; it just follows along wherever the air is going. And in the case of a bomb, very little air is permanently displaced. Instead a pressure wave is superimposed on the static air. Also, the heated air of the fireball rises, and draws outside air into the temporary vacuum; this is what causes the column.

There is no reason to expect a cloud which is not actually inside the mushroom cloud to be more than marginally effected.

 

[Greedo]

Everything is non-locally connected. The entire universe is a wholeness. The past exists now and only now, the same with the future.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No...that's a Wilson Cloud. It is a temporary condensation often observed in humid air during the rarefaction phase of the shock wave. In fact, it is cooler air than that around it, not warmer (and certainly not superheated).

Ha! Ok, I was wrong about the steam, but the Wilson Cloud in the video only shows that the explosion was made from conventional explosives. A real atom bomb explosion would have generated a lot of heat preventing any Wilson Cloud from forming, or?

 

[Drachasor]

Ha! Ok, I was wrong about the steam, but the Wilson Cloud in the video only shows that the explosion was made from conventional explosives. A real atom bomb explosion would have generated a lot of heat preventing any Wilson Cloud from forming, or?

And conventional explosives don't make heat? Is that your argument? They just blow up without any increase in the ambient kinetic energy?

 

[Anders Lindman]

So if a new conspiracy superficially resembles something you said, it must not be a conspiracy?

If someone shows credible evidence for the CERN result being a conspiracy, then I would look at that with an open mind. I don't cling to theories just for the sake of clinging.

 

[Drachasor]

No...that's a Wilson Cloud. It is a temporary condensation often observed in humid air during the rarefaction phase of the shock wave. In fact, it is cooler air than that around it, not warmer (and certainly not superheated).

Ahh, that's informative. Cool.

 

[Greedo]

Ha! Ok, I was wrong about the steam, but the Wilson Cloud in the video only shows that the explosion was made from conventional explosives. A real atom bomb explosion would have generated a lot of heat preventing any Wilson Cloud from forming, or?

Okay, please explain in detail, in your own words how an atom bomb works. You found out all this incredible stuff, then you must be able to explain that.

 

[Drachasor]

If someone shows credible evidence for the CERN result being a conspiracy, then I would look at that with an open mind. I don't cling to theories just for the sake of clinging.

I have to disagree. You've shown no credible evidence for Relativity being wrong. You've in fact rejected all the supporting evidence for the sole reason that you don't like the conclusion.

Edit: Wouldn't the mere fact you think the scientific community is run by a conspiracy be enough to suspect any "new" result is controlled by said conspiracy?

 

[Greedo]

If someone shows credible evidence for the CERN result being a conspiracy, then I would look at that with an open mind. I don't cling to theories just for the sake of clinging.

The irony!

 

[Travis]

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).

The film was shot from a plane at around 40,000 feet dozens and dozens of miles away with a telephoto lens. Ascertaining how close that cloud was to the explosion would be very hard.

Ha! Ok, I was wrong about the steam, but the Wilson Cloud in the video only shows that the explosion was made from conventional explosives. A real atom bomb explosion would have generated a lot of heat preventing any Wilson Cloud from forming, or?

For someone that seems to think nuclear weapons can't exist you sure expound a lot on what they should look like. Maybe I should claim that geysers don't exist because a real geyser should spurt green and purple house cats into the air while all the ones we do see only spurt water, steam or mud.

And of course the true nature of geysers is kept from us because of that need to keep an arbitrary shield around "true" knowledge.

 

[Anders Lindman]

And conventional explosives don't make heat? Is that your argument? They just blow up without any increase in the ambient kinetic energy?

Conventional explosives create much less heat radiation than an atom bomb, when model explosions are used that are smaller than what a real atom bomb explosion would be. By model I mean that the conventional explosion is still very large involving hundreds or even thousands of tons of TNT, but smaller than the atom bomb they are faking.

 

[Drachasor]

Conventional explosives create much less heat radiation than an atom bomb, when model explosions are used that are smaller than what a real atom bomb explosion would be. By model I mean that the conventional explosion is still very large involving hundreds or even thousands of tons of TNT, but smaller than the atom bomb they are faking.

Conventional explosions are also much, much smaller, so that heat is confined to a much, much smaller area. An atomic bomb just scales the process up and over a much, much large area. There's no reason to think similar principles wouldn't be at work in both.

 

[Anders Lindman]

For someone that seems to think nuclear weapons can't exist you sure expound a lot on what they should look like. Maybe I should claim that geysers don't exist because a real geyser should spurt green and purple house cats into the air while all the ones we do see only spurt water, steam or mud.

And of course the true nature of geysers is kept from us because of that need to keep an arbitrary shield around "true" knowledge.

Geysers are real. Nuclear weapons MAY be real, I admit that, but my guess at the moment is that they are a hoax. Fakery all the way, buddy.

 

[Greedo]

Geysers are real. Nuclear weapons MAY be real, I admit that, but my guess at the moment is that they are a hoax. Fakery all the way, buddy.

I soon can't bear to read this drivel anymore.

 

[nomuse]

Conventional explosives create much less heat radiation than an atom bomb, when model explosions are used that are smaller than what a real atom bomb explosion would be. By model I mean that the conventional explosion is still very large involving hundreds or even thousands of tons of TNT, but smaller than the atom bomb they are faking.

So those were model battleships the Baker shot was tossing around?

You seem to forget that these things are observed, and can be measured. Scaled.

 

[Drachasor]

Geysers are real. Nuclear weapons MAY be real, I admit that, but my guess at the moment is that they are a hoax. Fakery all the way, buddy.

Just curious, but was Japan's involvement in WW2 as fake as what made them surrender? Were the survivors of the nuke also fake?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Conventional explosions are also much, much smaller, so that heat is confined to a much, much smaller area. An atomic bomb just scales the process up and over a much, much large area. There's no reason to think similar principles wouldn't be at work in both.

Ok, sounds reasonable. But aren't atom bombs supposed to generate much more heat radiation than conventional explosives, even when their sizes are equal?

 

[Drachasor]

Ok, sounds reasonable. But aren't atom bombs supposed to generate much more heat radiation than conventional explosives, even when their sizes are equal?

If one is producing a lot more energy in the same time frame, why would the size of the resulting blast be equal? It will spread out as much as the energy allows.