Nuclear power/atomic theory is fake thread on Cluesforum

Be the 1st to vote.….

A number of issues in this thread have been discussed before and relevant to that particular item under discussion. However, I would like to concentrate on ‘nuclear’ power itself.

No tags for this post.

6 thoughts on “Nuclear power/atomic theory is fake thread on Cluesforum

  1. barbm124

    smj, that’s a very silly video. A normal glass does not block IR rays from a remote. For this you’ll need a special filter, which is part of almost every digital camera now. A pyramid works like a prism and bends light if it is made of glass. That’s simple physics. Also a wall reflects IR pretty well and you can control your TV a little bit pointing the remote the other way. The video is of the flat earth quality. It’s crap. You can make some useful experiments yourself, if you’re really interested in it. Get yourself an old digital camera on ebay for a few bucks, remove the IR blocker there. There’s lot of videos on youtube how to do this and then you can photograph the IR frequencies. Then buy yourself an IR filter, which blocks everything but the IR frequencies and you’ll see, how this really works.

    As for the cluesforum article written by sharpstuff, I only partly agree with him. The atom theory is only a theory of course but it is useful for instance in chemistry where it helps to predict and explain chemical reactions. A rocket, or any other mass always has to be accelerated even if it is driven by explosives. For instance a bullet shot from a gun also accelerates for a very short time until it reaches its maximum speed and then uses inertia to reach its maximum distance. The same applies for rockets of any kind. You cannot explain nukes away claiming that the atomic theory is wrong because it isn’t wrong. It works in chemistry. Nukes does not exists but not because of the atomic theory. That’s illogical and sharpstuff does that on purpose. As for radiation, we all use it every day in our ovens. It is also called IR radiation but it is a different frequency than in our remotes. An oscilloscope translates electromagnetic signals through oscillators into optical projections of a wave where the frequency reflects itself in the geometrical form of the wave. It proves the wave theory. There is no such prove for the particles part of the waves particles dualism. A wave does not move objects and once spread it does not have the attribute speed. Just watch something on a water wave, it stays in the same place. Surfers have to be accelerated by boats to surf on waves. Objects swing up and down but don’t move otherwise. That’s why I don’t believe in the speed of light in a vacuum. Which is the basis of all theoretical physics. I also don’t believe in viruses and contagion which is the basis of all microbiology. But not everything we are being taught in schools is wrong. The problem I see there is that scholars no longer learn that stuff properly. And if you don’t really understand something, you don’t understand its limits, then you’re inclined to draw wrong conclusions.

    1. smj

      I have no idea if ir is blocked by regular glass. Don’t care really. I reckon the petes don’t either. They just enjoyed pointing out that the nasa lady said ir was blocked by glass. I do know there are different types of glass. The petes will prolly amend their view in another video. They do that all the time cause they are true sceptics.

      Now let’s type at each other about atoms. When you type about atom theory and chemistry are you typing about quantum chemical orbits and valence? Linus Pauling wrote the Bible on such nonsense of course…

      “Linus Pauling published in 1931 his landmark paper on valence bond theory: “On the Nature of the Chemical Bond”. Building on this article, Pauling’s 1939 textbook: On the Nature of the Chemical Bond would become what some have called the bible of modern chemistry. This book helped experimental chemists to understand the impact of quantum theory on chemistry. However, the later edition in 1959 failed to adequately address the problems that appeared to be better understood by molecular orbital theory. The impact of valence theory declined during the 1960s and 1970s as molecular orbital theory grew in usefulness as it was implemented in large digital computer programs. Since the 1980s, the more difficult problems, of implementing valence bond theory into computer programs, have been solved largely, and valence bond theory has seen a resurgence.”…

      …we both know dna(with its psilly as above so below microsatellites andwhatnot)is bullpsience of course but wasn’t linus also watson and crick’s rival in the hustle to invent Dna?…

      …funny story; pauling’s son ratted his pa out per the ridiculous narrative when he was at the cavendish(I’ve typed about the cavendish ad nauseam of course. hank gave us the g constant and that’s where the electron, neutron and protons were invented. Shit, jj gave us the electron particle and his son gave us the electron wave there. It’s also where watson and crick visualized dna of course).

      “With the arrival of the new year, the Cavendish researchers put their skis away, shook the snow from their coats, and resumed their work.  It wasn’t long into the term before Peter learned, from two letters received in February, that his father was, in fact, having difficulty with some of the van der Waals distances hypothesized to be near the center of his DNA model. In response – and almost as an afterthought – Peter casually asked his father for a manuscript of the DNA proposal, mentioning that his coworkers in Max Perutz’ unit would like to give it a read. Upon receiving the paper, Peter promptly revealed to Watson and Crick that the Pauling-Corey model was a triple helix, a concept similar to one that Watson and Crick had developed themselves – and rejected – back in 1951.
      This moment was a major turning point for Watson and Crick, who only then realized that they still had a chance to discover the structure before Linus Pauling. That said, what followed may not have been quite the race as it was made out to be after the fact. At least, Peter Pauling did not see it that way, and the casual manner in which his father interacted with him (and with others at the Cavendish) seems also to belie such a dramatization.”…

      I’ve also asked you before about your school daze at your Alma Mater’s research reactor. I only asked because I was interested in the voltage of the glorified cathode ray tube that you would have used to atom smash. So what is the input to the oscilloscopes? Wouldn’t pulsed voltage result in the geometric wave pattern? Pete & Peter seem to think and I do too that isotopes are manufactured with pulsed high voltage. It also seems to me that’s why shrodinger’s psi symbol has been confirmed experimentally by the atomic hustlers with their quasi probablistic harmonic oscillator theory and ain’t radar just more pulsed voltage?…

      …I’m sure you’re aware of the manhattan project’s ties to radar……

      …compton proved onestone’s discrete packets of light and was luis fecking alvarez’ mentor per the narrative of course. I’ve stated many times that electricity is magic to me. It’d be great if you could clear up any misconceptions I may have of the glorified cathode ray tubes we call particle accelerators.

      The problem I have with scholars isn’t that they don’t learn shite properly it’s that they are so damned gullible. Children and academics…

      1. barbm124

        smj, there are different kinds of glass and different kinds if IR (780nm-1nm). A camera sensor can visualize some of it. I use a 720nm filter occasionally with my astro-modified Canon. Try to photograph your remote control. The IR-blocker will prevent it. Without it, you’ll see the spot.
        I only mentioned the atomic theory in connection with chemistry. Quantum physics as all the theoretical physics is crap. That way you can contaminate every useful theory. Linus Pauling is of the same quality as Albert Einstein. Just a face for fake theories. You can simulate anything in a computer program, even star wars and big bang and such. That’s not reality. I’ve seen a small reactor (the size of a regular house though) in my university times where it was used by students of physics for experiments. It seemed very real to me. It did not produced any electricity as far as I remember it. Oscilloscopes work basically the same way old TV sets did back then. There is a high voltage generator which produces a stream of electrons in a focused electromagnetic field which is then bend to scan over a fluorescent canvas. If driven by signals coming from oscillators it translates alternative current into an image of a wave. You can visualize a radio wave for instance but you’ll need a receiver which translates the radio frequencies into something the oscillators can manage. It’s a very useful tool for engineers. See, all this signals are called “electromagnetic” for a reason. You can always translate one into another one by using electrical equipment with coins and such. It doesn’t really matter if there are really electrons moving or something else. Visualizing the electricity with electrons helps to communicate and exchange knowledge. It is real because the TV or radio programs are real, because music from a loudspeaker is real, because a microwave oven is real, etc. Not so the things quantum physics claim to explain.

        1. smj

          Good on you for having a cool camera but like I typed before I don’t care about ir and glass. And I know how crt televisions used to work and that ac current can be made to appear as a sinusoidal wave form andwhatnot but thanks for the lessons nonetheless of course.

          I just wanted to know what you did at the research reactor that makes you think atomic psience is real. “It seemed real” doesn’t mean much to me. I reckon there are millions of gullible apes that believe in spaceships because cape canaveral seems real to them. I would like to know if you were manufacturing isotopes or if you actually saw a neutron beam or do you remember what the specific type of fuel was or whether you were involved in the process of manufacturing the fuel, and if not, do you know where y’all got your fuel from? You know stuff like that.

          Bytheway, it’s a given that your research reactor didn’t produce electricity because it’s common knowledge research reactors are net energy users.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. logo

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.