What?! Nuclear Hoax

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

If you claim that nukes are genuine, then you need to prove it.

If you claim the world is flat, then you need to prove it.
See how that works?

You claim the world is a ball, without any proof of it, do you see how that works?

I like this discussion, I think there is at least a small merit of potential to it. But why do we gotta always go to the flat Earth thing? That discussion, imo, is on an entirety different scale and should be discussed on a different thread. Just shouting out my late-night opinion here.

a reply to: Wookiep

But why do we gotta always go to the flat Earth thing?

Because, on the face of it, this topic is pretty much the same thing. A denial of reality.

As well as the fact that the poster believes that the world is flat and that there is no such thing as nuclear weapons.

Coincidence?

A source of actual power is proven to exist in the real world.

Water is used to generate electricity, for example. It's proven to exist. No doubt at all.

Solar power collects light from the Sun for energy, and it's proven to exist, as well.

Nothing proves nuclear power exists, in any way. Radiation is a cover for a fake power, which doesn't exist.


Same as gravity is a fake 'force', with no proof it exists in any way, either.

It's 'believing' in something they claim exists, no proof is ever needed for those who 'believe' in the god-like entities of science.

a reply to: Phage

If the OP is actually saying nukes don't exist then u have a valid point. But flat Earth is an extremist view, imo, but the the nature of "fallout" and the actual effects of radiation on humans and life in general is a pretty valid and interesting convo to have, imo.

I know nukes exist. They are likely the most known destructive weapons on Earth (although I actually doubt that now with all the Black ops etc) but I think the radiation thing should be discussed. Especially since the RAD levels of where "danger" and precautions should be raised were radically increased since Fukushima. I find that weird and I think it's good to discuss it. I just don't find that to be as extreme as the flat Earth argument.

a reply to: turbonium1

Water is used to generate electricity, for example. It's proven to exist. No doubt at all.

You know that hydropower comes from gravity, right? Water sitting in a lake, no power. Falling water, power.

a reply to: Phage

Not to mention solar power is also nuclear power.

originally posted by: Wookiep

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

If you claim that nukes are genuine, then you need to prove it.

If you claim the world is flat, then you need to prove it.
See how that works?

You claim the world is a ball, without any proof of it, do you see how that works?

I like this discussion, I think there is at least a small merit of potential to it. But why do we gotta always go to the flat Earth thing? That discussion, imo, is on an entirety different scale and should be discussed on a different thread. Just shouting out my late-night opinion here.

You're right about that, it's an entirely different issue than this topic.

Someone here keeps on bringing it up, still, on unrelated threads.

We want to discuss the actual issue, not feed a troll, so let's move along....

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Water is used to generate electricity, for example. It's proven to exist. No doubt at all.

You know that hydropower comes from gravity, right? Water sitting in a lake, no power. Falling water, power.

No. Water CURRENT is the source of energy, which is converted into electrical power. Why do you think dams are built to stop all those powerful rivers?

a reply to: turbonium1

Why do you think dams are built to stop all those powerful rivers?

To increase the distance the water falls, due to gravity, and to collect it. The water behind the dam isn't moving. The power is generated when it falls through the turbines.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Why do you think dams are built to stop all those powerful rivers?

To increase the distance the water falls, due to gravity, and to collect it. The water behind the dam isn't moving. The power is generated when it falls through the turbines.

You actually believe water that is falling from above is creating the energy?

The current of a river is the energy source of water, not falling water.

The power is generated by the FLOW of water, not the 'fall' of water.

If it was from falling water, lakes would work, by 'gravity' making lake water, which has no current, simply 'fall' to create power....this is not the case, obviously.

Simply excavate the ground at the edge of a lake, to make the water 'fall down', and see how that works for you!! Not so good, I'll bet!

a reply to: turbonium1

You actually believe water that is falling from above is creating the energy?

No. It's turning potential energy into kinetic energy. Gravity is good at doing that. The potential energy came from the Sun.

The power is generated by the FLOW of water, not the 'fall' of water.

Oh. What makes the water flow?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

You actually believe water that is falling from above is creating the energy?

No. It's turning potential energy into kinetic energy. Gravity is good at doing that. The potential energy came from the Sun.

The power is generated by the FLOW of water, not the 'fall' of water.

Oh. What makes the water flow?

That is, what makes a river flow, but not a lake? It's not 'gravity', that's for sure. A river flows over the surface below, and it doesn't 'fall' down anywhere, obviously.

a reply to: turbonium1

Oh.

Why does water flow from a higher elevation to a lower elevation and not the other way?

a reply to: turbonium1

whatever kind of drugs your on.....i want some






jesus christ how do you get thru you day without getting stuck in a corner/


i realllly reallly hope this is just some strange game we are playing because if not.......i honestly feel bad for you if you believe this bat poop craziness

a reply to: turbonium1


Where are the turbines in hydroelectric dams, at the top or the bottom of the dam?

Where is your explanation for the marker layer of bomb-related fission products in the soil?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: penroc3
Can't help it.
Stuck in a corner...
heh.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1


Where are the turbines in hydroelectric dams, at the top or the bottom of the dam?

Why don't they use water from lakes, if the current isn't the power source, and it's the 'gravity'?

Wouldn't a lake create the same 'fall' power, too? Good luck with that one.

Turbines are at the bottom of the dam, and the current of that water flows fast, from the current, and makes the turbine spin around fast, creating energy from the water.

Why not show a lake that does the same, if you think it's not current?


Why do you always say things 'fall', if they are 'pulled' down by 'gravity'? That's my argument, objects fall. You say the same thing, that objects fall.

The truth really does reveal itself in many ways, indeed.

a reply to: turbonium1

What makes the water flow downwards?

Do feel free to find me a lake providing hydroelectric power that doesn't have a dam attached.

Good luck with that one.

Turbines are at the bottom of the dam because it's the all of water from higher elevaation to lower that provides the kinetic energy to power the turbine. That fall is a result of gravity.

My PhD was on reservoirs. I'd run away now if I were you.

Meanwhile, you omitted this bit:

Where is your explanation for the marker layer of bomb-related fission products in the soil?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

What makes the water flow downwards?

Do feel free to find me a lake providing hydroelectric power that doesn't have a dam attached.

Good luck with that one.

Turbines are at the bottom of the dam because it's the all of water from higher elevaation to lower that provides the kinetic energy to power the turbine. That fall is a result of gravity.

My PhD was on reservoirs. I'd run away now if I were you.

I'm arguing someone who believes in a force that doesn't exist, so I'm fine, thanks.

We're also off the main topic, so I'll address this and return to the thread issue...

You say "That fall is a result of gravity." Two completely different arguments in one sentence. A fall is not a 'pull'. If you believe a force 'pulls' objects down to Earth, then say that objects are 'pulled' down.

If I said an object was 'pulled' down from air, but not by any force, you'd jump all over it, and say I can't even make a logical argument. That's exactly what YOU are doing here, making two entirely different arguments, all the time.

As for what makes water flow downward, it is the mass and density of water, which makes it move downward through air, within the tunnel/pipe/etc. Same as any object falls through air because of their mass and density.

You keep believing there must be some 'force' which is involved, for no reason, other than you need a 'force' to hold your round Earth argument. That doesn't work. You say things 'fall', which is not consistent with your own argument. You make excuses for saying 'fall', like you can't say 'pull' for some reason. Anyone who believes in gravity should say things are 'pulled down' from air, but they say things 'fall', without even realizing what they're saying conflicts with their own belief.


We have waterfalls. We don't have any waterpulls, though. Niagara FALLS, not Niagara PULLS. What about a free fall?

An imaginary force, which doesn't exist, without a shred of valid proof, which can't even be consistent as a supposed 'force', by 'pulling' objects down to Earth, yet not 'pulling' objects (ie:astronauts) to Earth when high enough, and - the clincher - 'holds' a moon 250,000 miles from Earth in place! It works, then doesn't work, then works again, which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If they put this in a sci-fi flick, you'd cry how stupid the writers were when they thought this one up.

Actual forces are simply energy that is directed, in some way.

THAT IS WHY any actual force can be proven, as directed energy, by an opposing force, in the opposite direction. The first force offers RESISTANCE against the opposing force, which is moving in the opposite direction of the first force.

If you pull a piece of metal away from a magnet holding it, you pulling it away is the opposing force to the magnetic force, and you feel the magnetic force RESIST your pull of the metal, at first, and less RESISTANCE is felt the further away the metal piece, until there is no more RESISTANCE from the magnet.

This proves there is an actual force here, which RESISTS an opposing force.

Same as any actual force is proven, because force is directed energy, there are opposing forces to it, which prove they exist. When you walk into a wind, it RESISTS your opposing force of walking against the wind. When you try to swim against a force of a river's current, you feel RESISTANCE from it, and it's much harder to swim against the current.

I've heard every excuse from your side that we cannot compare magnetic force to 'gravitational' force.

There is absolutely NO possible reason we cannot compare these two, very similar 'forces'. Magnetic forces 'pull' metallic objects towards a magnet, and 'gravity' supposedly 'pulls' all objects to the Earth's surface.

But 'gravity' offers no RESISTANCE to opposing forces, unlike the magnetic force does. It is undeniable proof that 'gravity' does not, cannot, exist, in any way.

If some sort of material had a piece of metal on top of it, and you pulled the metal away, the only way you would know if the material was a magnet of some type, would be if you felt RESISTANCE from it when you pulled away the metal...right?

If you pulled the metal off of something that offered NO RESISTANCE, you'd know it wasn't held there by any 'force' within the object...right?


It is exactly the same process for all objects which are on the Earth. We are the pieces of metal, on top of material.
The only way to know if we are on top of a 'magnet', holding us down to Earth, or if we are simply on top on material, which doesn't hold us down....is if there is RESISTANCE offered by the material below objects which oppose it, and if there is NO resistance, we know that the material below is NOT holding objects down to it, and is not a force, exactly the same way we knew if the material was not a magnet.


All you can do is endlessly claim there is some incredibly powerful force within Earth, which 'pulls' objects down to the surface, without any evidence to support it, and ignore the ACTUAL EVIDENCE that shows it doesn't exist, because it would offer resistance if it DID exist. An actual force resists opposite forces, there are no exceptions. In fact, we could never even prove actual forces exist at all, unless they offered RESISTANCE to opposing forces!


Anyway, I'll go back to the issue at hand......

A force proven to exist by RESISTING an opposing force.

a reply to: turbonium1

And I'm trying to debate with a flat earther. You have no evidence for your argument, you;re just posting wall of text word salads in the hope people will just give up and let you carry on shouting into the wind unchallenged.

Got a hydropower lake without a dam for me yet?

Got an explanation for the 137-Cs marker layer?

Want to call these people liars?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I'm watching a programme on Smithsonian right now called 'Testing the atomic bomb' . It contains countless examples of things you claim don't exist. Stuff you don't have, like evidence.