One Hundred Percent Doomed

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

And not only that, remember when Moses was trying to get the Pharaoh of Egypt to "Let my people go?" One of the plagues that was unleashed upon Egypt was burning hail. Hail is H20. In Job 38:22, this is also alluded to:

Job 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? Or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail?

The Pharaoh certainly saw the "treasures of the hail." It was hydrogen power.

I have you to thank for a new piece of knowledge that is the most perfect fit here.
I'm shaking my head at your well rounded thinking. An amazing response.
Bravo!

a reply to: TzarChasm

I read recently that one cannot be called "good" if one does not have the capacity for evil. Does god have the capacity to be a villain?

The fact that you constantly look for ways to discredit God. Certainly
has served you well in this one instance. I regret to admit I'm going
to have to do some searching on this one Chaz. I'm reluctant to answer
other wise. Perhaps you've posed the question before now? Maybe you
could save me some time? Shocking for me and possibly you as well
but I am being honest with you. It's a GOOD question.

a reply to: Randyvine2

Hi Randy, About your quote could you tell me what ancient text i can find that in please, i have never heard that one mentioned before and would like to check if there are any more clues in its surrounding context.

Thanks

a reply to: Panartisis

Certainly This is the full text from the KJV of the Living Bible.

Rev 11:18
And the nations were angry; and Thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that Thou shouldest give reward unto Thy servants the prophets, and to the saints and them that fear Thy name, small and great, and shouldest destroy them that destroy the earth.”

It should be noted that when the Bible speaks of world it is referring to
the world man has created for himself. Or our HABITATION on the planet.
When it says Earth it is referring to Gods creation the planet itself.

Your very welcome

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"Why?"

Because I take the opinion of a Fortune 50 company over some internet rando.

That has ZERO to do with your suggesting I should go tell some unknown entity about LFTR tech.

But if you feel they are wasting their money due to your vast knowledge of nuclear physics perhaps you should apply for a position and teach them a thing or two.

Or perhaps you should not speak about that which you know absolutely nothing.

LFTR tech isn't something I know much about, but I am capable of reading information provided by those that do.

Kirk Sorenson (Flibe energy) is not some 'internet rando', unlike you (or me), he is an actual nuclear physicist and nuclear that has actual working designs of actual LFTR nuclear reactors.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
That has ZERO to do with your suggesting I should go tell some unknown entity about LFTR tech.

Sure it does, they wouldn't be investing huge amounts of capital if 1960's tech was the answer.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"That has ZERO to do with your suggesting I should go tell some unknown entity about LFTR tech."

Sure it does, they wouldn't be investing huge amounts of capital if 1960's tech was the answer.

Well...

1. it again has nothing to do with you suggesting I should go tell them, because I don't care about them,

2. the fact that you refer to LFTas '1960s tech' just shows your total and absolute ignorance about the current state of LFTR tech. As I said, Kirk has been working on this for the last couple of decades, the last ten years via his company (Flibe) developing real, actual functional designs.

As to whether or not other people are pursuing other tech, I have no problem with that - but LFTR tech has the most promise as far as flexibility, manufacturing cost, maintenance cost, and multiple profit streams (energy not even being the most profitable stream).

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Randyvine2

Which is why I hope either MIT or Lockheed can do something with their fusion programs, that is the only 'green' energy that will make a difference.

Thorium-cycle nuclear reactors sound promising, too, and the technology seems ready for mass production now or very soon. But, yeah, I really hope one of the "alternative" hot fusion projects succeeds, and LENR, aka cold fusion, is finally gaining some credibility. The ITER/tokomak project is ridiculously expensive and huge, with the first power from commercial offshoots projected for 2050.

Edit: Looks like I should have read the whole thread before commenting on thorium reactors. Late to the party as usual.

a reply to: Randyvine2

Nuclear fusion above all else. Fision until then. The rest is nowhere near our potential.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: TzarChasm

I read recently that one cannot be called "good" if one does not have the capacity for evil. Does god have the capacity to be a villain?

The fact that you constantly look for ways to discredit God. Certainly
has served you well in this one instance. I regret to admit I'm going
to have to do some searching on this one Chaz. I'm reluctant to answer
other wise. Perhaps you've posed the question before now? Maybe you
could save me some time? Shocking for me and possibly you as well
but I am being honest with you. It's a GOOD question.

I don't know what the true answer to Tzarchasm's question is, but I believe it could be found in contemplating this next question:

Who is the 'more' good person...
...one who can 'only' be good - or one who is capable of evil, but who 'decides' to always 'choose' being good?

Well, if we're all doomed lets open a can O' AJ...

a reply to: lostgirl

A pyramid structure is the easiest and most natural large scale structure you can build with only rocks.

Again I think it's a great philosophical question. And may have a different
answer per individual? Best I can do.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Get your ALEX JONES action hero today!

Brought to you by Ronco Chicago Ill. 60609.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Randyvine2

Nuclear fusion above all else. Fision until then. The rest is nowhere near our potential.

Do you think fusion is green energy? It's an energy source consisting of 80 percent energetic neutron streams which are good if you want to create them but it’s truly bizarre that it would ever be hailed as the ideal electrical energy source.An absorption of neutron (one would say shielding) causes initiation of certain nuclear reactions (e.g. radiative capture or even fission), which is accompanied by a number of other types of radiation. In short, neutrons make matter radioactive, therefore with neutrons we have to shield also the other types of radiation as the entire plant will become radioactive.


In fact, these neutron streams lead directly to four regrettable problems with nuclear energy: radiation damage to structures as its bombarded by neutrons; radioactive waste; the need for biological shielding; and the potential for the production of weapons-grade plutonium 239.

And it will still have several problems a fission plant has such as overheating so requires huge coolant demands it's going to be very expensive and can cause a tritium release just like a fission plant.

Then you will need fission plants to fuel fusion plants. Tritium scarcely exists in nature, because this isotope is radioactive with a half-life of only 12.3 years. The main source of tritium is fission nuclear reactors. So we need them to keep fusion plants running.

So why not just stick with fission plants and avoid all those extra steps since if anything they will supply less energy and cost significantly more.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
2. the fact that you refer to LFTas '1960s tech' just shows your total and absolute ignorance about the current state of LFTR tech.

The internal combustion engine is 1800's tech, just because you gussy it up doesn't change when it's from.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The internal combustion engine is 1800's tech, just because you gussy it up doesn't change when it's from.

No of course not, but yet again, you make irrelevant condescending references in order to maintain some semblance of fake superiority.

The fact is, LFTR tech in the 60's was already actually working, just like the internal combustion engine, and in fact it should have been our future. They chose the fast breeder tech because they wanted weapons grade plutonium, which isn't a by product of LFTRs (on the contrary, they can actually eliminate all of the currently stockpiles of radioactive waste).

The state of LFTR tech today has made extraordinary leaps forward from where it was in the 60's.

But by all means, continue yammering, it is entertaining after all.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
...and in fact it should have been our future.

But it wasn't, now some exceptionally brilliant individuals are working on something much more contemporary as our future.

I hear the telegraph might make a comeback soon...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The knowledge you guys all have is very impressive indeed.
I tip my hat to all of you gals and guys.

a reply to: Randyvine2

I'm watching birth announcements in the local paper bottom out. And this is before the realization that young women who got the vaccines are now sterile or will have serious trouble conceiving. And still " died suddenly" or "died unexpectedly" obituaries in the paper. The Elite parasites wanted a depopulation and they seem to have gotten their wish.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
now some exceptionally brilliant individuals are working on something much more contemporary as our future.

Shiny, new, and completely and totally unproven, with vague claims of having something viable, maybe, by 2050, or 2150.

I hear the telegraph might make a comeback soon...

And yet again, you make irrelevant condescending references in order to maintain some semblance of fake superiority.

The fact is, LFTR tech in the 60's was already actually working, in the 60's, and in fact it should have been our future. They chose the fast breeder tech because they wanted weapons grade plutonium, which isn't a by product of LFTRs (on the contrary, they can actually eliminate all of the currently stockpiles of radioactive waste).

The state of LFTR tech today has made extraordinary leaps forward from where it was in the 60's.

But by all means, continue yammering, it is entertaining after all.