Go out to the desert where Trinity was detonated. Figure out what caused the radiation and glass littering the desert. After you write your paper, have it peer reviewed and published please send us the link.
Halton Arp gave a different explanation of what 'Red Shift' and 'Blue shift' indicate , and it is nothing to do with cosmological distance. NASA is constantly releasing information that defies the mythical 'Top speed' of the universe being Lightspeed. if in fact lightspeed is only the measurement of light itself in a vacuum then all of Einsteins equations are wrong, as suspected.
I don't know how many papers were published. Tesla was a bit of an eccentric. Most of his research was peer reviewed though. He was constantly working with scientists who would verify his results.
He did constantly publish his findings for others to verify though.
So, yeah. Even Tesla was subject to peer review and publishing.
I'd suggest reading a few of his available works. For instance, "Experiments With Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency" is available on Kindle and is worth the read.
Yup. I think the electric universe is the reality we live in. But even those working on the fringes of this subject are working with others in order to corroborate their findings. The only was they will be able to convince "mainstream" science is through "peer" review. That's why these guys are publishing videos of their experiments and discussing results in forums.
Plasma cosmologists and electrical engineers are doing actual real science in these fields yet all the television can spurt out is more of the same old model with its fantastic leaps of faith, it's truly upsetting
peer review science is highly flawed, ask a thousand cosmologists who thought Einstein was wrong, their papers are never presented on the television, only the Standard Model. why?
"I refuse to do this since I don't have the capability, knowledge, skills, or intellectual capacity to validate my claims. Therefore, I will argue that the academic system itself is flawed. Hopefully, you will ignore the fact that I refuse to research this subject myself."
EG&G created the footage, here are examples of test footage, alot of which was used in multi-composites to create the laughable bombs which defy common sense
I disagree. I believe the best course to investigate this theory would not involve pictures or film. It would be understanding the process.
But at the same time researching if photography or video making would even be possible within viewing distance of the extreme ionization, light, radiation, and EMP. These things reach way farther than the visible explosion.
What if it is an occurrence that can only be viewed live and what we have seen are just artists representations.
I am countering the narrative of nuclear armegeddon which has been presented to the world, it is real enough for alot of people to think I've lost my marbles. :) so its been worthwhile lol
Ok so...not to argue or anything but, if what you say is true, then wtf did they use in japan? Serious question, that was definitely radioactive afterwards.
Tokyo and many other cities were firebombed, if you look at the photos of hiroshima the only buildings destroyed were wooden. Brick buildings in the 'blast zone' stood strong, that makes no sense whatsoever
i cant say what was responsible for any radiation, the country was in the hands of the US military for many years afterwards, maybe before in some guise. the japanese said they would never surrender, the hoax of the mythical 'Nuke' gave them enough of an excuse to publically surrender, they were already beaten
I'm not saying you are wrong I'm just wondering... I know I've seen old footage of the survivors with chunks of hair missing an teeth falling out, but I guess I can't say without any doubt that it was from radiation either, anyway thanks as I'm just genuinely interested
Yeah, but they used hundreds of bombers to firebomb Tokyo. Not one.
can you see a crater in this picture??
If you had any clue what you were talking about, you'd know the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was an air burst that detonated 1,900 feet above the surface. It would not leave a crater. That was one of the reasons there was so little fallout.
There has never been any "fuel air explosive" capable of generating the force equivalent to 18,000 tons of TNT, which is what a 18 kiloton nuclear bomb produces.
ok, so if no crater or ground burn ,where is the bellow of phallic smoke and carbon soot reaching instantly into the sky to be filmed by the pilots coming from? surely not the tiny wooden shacks and mules being vapourised. can you explain how a mid air instant chain reaction at the speed of light generate orange and red flames, carbon soot and smoke? does japan have some sort of atmospheric forest?
surely not the tiny wooden shacks and mules being vapourised. can you explain how a mid air instant chain reaction at the speed of light generate orange and red flames, carbon soot and smoke?
Did you not know that air burns? Did you not know that when you burn all the air in one location, is creates a vacuum that sucks the surrounding air and dust into itself?
There was no crater because the explosion happened at nearly 2000 feet above the surface, but the giant hole in the atmosphere created by that explosion soon collapsed and acted like a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking dust and smoke and water vapour into itself.
That's what you see burning and creating a column as the now superheated air and dust rises.
What never made sense to me was in 1948 they were able to create an explosion to vaporize the city come from a small "bomb" size device.... yes everyone still stands around pumping billions of gallons of liquid fossil fuel into their cars... and humanity didn't discover how to channel this much energy for use in powering cities etc.
They actually work in almost exactly the same way. The difference is a nuclear weapon is an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction, whereas a nuclear power station is a controlled nuclear chain reaction.
Not instantly, nor free. Fuel was "burned" at an extremely high rate to release that energy.
if the americans created that in the 40's then every africoon country would have a nuke by now.
Nope, because you see it's not as easy as you make out. It takes incredibly precise machining of incredibly unstable materials to make the core of even the most simple nuclear bomb.
If there is even a slight mistake you get an incomplete chain reaction - essentially a dud.
that sort of chain reaction would take an input of high energy
Not really. You just have to achieve critical mass in a precise way for the energy contained in the fuel to spontaneously release itself.
Did the bomb carry batteries?
Nope, it contained highly radioactive elements in precise quantities and machined to incredibly small tolerances. They only reason it didn't explode the instant it was made is because the fuel was kept below critical mass until the bomb detonated.
The detonation of the bomb forced the fuel to achieve critical mass in a precise way, which resulted in an uncontrolled chain reaction and a very big boom.
agreed, people fail to realise that if you could liberate even a small part of the energy of uranium by slamming two pieces together in a tube would devastate a whole city, why is my lawnmower still using diesel to run?
surely if pakistan, one of the most backward societies on earth can keep its mitts on enriched uranium and dangerous WMDs without the cheeky taliban getting a bit and arming a Toyota hilux to NUKEAGEDDON , then that alone shows what a pathetic little charade it all was.
You are right. It's almost as if in 1950 we discovered how to use time travel but can only us it inside of a small secret sphere, for military war time decisions.
Semi off topic but related. Has anyone ever realized how many "nukes" were detonated through the years for "testing" yet there's been no "nuclear winter"? Am I missing something or has this been covered already?
The results of detonating 10,000 nuclear warheads in the period of about an hour would be very different from 50 years of testing.
As it is, the small number of nuclear tests have changed the background radiation level of the planet, and radiocarbon dating is not reliable after 1945 because of the fallout.
Conversely, nuclear testing increased the amount of 14
C in the atmosphere, which attained a maximum in 1963 of almost twice what it had been before the testing began.
everybody is so in awe and totally swamped by the NUKE fairytale that people don't even require a visual, haha. or subtitles to be scared of NUKAGEDDON
please look and tell me this is what an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction looks like? you know, like what happens in the suns atmosphere (not the centre i add, the sun is a cold rocky body covered in water. ever wondered why sunspots are vastly cooler than the upper atmosphere?) i beg to differ.
The results of detonating 10,000 nuclear warheads in the period of about an hour would be very different from 50 years of testing.
As it is, the small number of nuclear tests have changed the background radiation level of the planet, and radiocarbon dating is not reliable after 1945 because of the fallout.
Conversely, nuclear testing increased the amount of 14
C in the atmosphere, which attained a maximum in 1963 of almost twice what it had been before the testing began.
65 comments
6 Balthanos 2016-01-06
Go out to the desert where Trinity was detonated. Figure out what caused the radiation and glass littering the desert. After you write your paper, have it peer reviewed and published please send us the link.
6 Putin_loves_cats 2016-01-06
To be fair, and an honest question. Was Tesla's work ever peer reviewed and published?
1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
Halton Arp gave a different explanation of what 'Red Shift' and 'Blue shift' indicate , and it is nothing to do with cosmological distance. NASA is constantly releasing information that defies the mythical 'Top speed' of the universe being Lightspeed. if in fact lightspeed is only the measurement of light itself in a vacuum then all of Einsteins equations are wrong, as suspected.
the bomb would not work.
2 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
Actually, Hubble himself never agreed that "red shift" indicated expansion. He said it was a "hitherto unknown property of light".
His best guess was that light lost energy over cosmological distances, causing the red shift.
1 Balthanos 2016-01-06
I don't know how many papers were published. Tesla was a bit of an eccentric. Most of his research was peer reviewed though. He was constantly working with scientists who would verify his results.
He did constantly publish his findings for others to verify though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikola_Tesla_writings#Works
So, yeah. Even Tesla was subject to peer review and publishing.
I'd suggest reading a few of his available works. For instance, "Experiments With Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency" is available on Kindle and is worth the read.
1 Putin_loves_cats 2016-01-06
Awesome, thanks.
-1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
thank you, yes i have enjoyed finding out about him, I'm sure he knew Nuclear weapons were a work of fiction.
None of einsteins equation acknowledge Electricity at all, yet our whole universe is tingling with it.
are you aware of the Thunderbolts project? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19XmiW4fkGU
1 Balthanos 2016-01-06
Yup. I think the electric universe is the reality we live in. But even those working on the fringes of this subject are working with others in order to corroborate their findings. The only was they will be able to convince "mainstream" science is through "peer" review. That's why these guys are publishing videos of their experiments and discussing results in forums.
-1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
Plasma cosmologists and electrical engineers are doing actual real science in these fields yet all the television can spurt out is more of the same old model with its fantastic leaps of faith, it's truly upsetting
1 shmusko01 2016-01-06
well since he died before their employment that would make sense
-2 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
peer review science is highly flawed, ask a thousand cosmologists who thought Einstein was wrong, their papers are never presented on the television, only the Standard Model. why?
4 Balthanos 2016-01-06
"I refuse to do this since I don't have the capability, knowledge, skills, or intellectual capacity to validate my claims. Therefore, I will argue that the academic system itself is flawed. Hopefully, you will ignore the fact that I refuse to research this subject myself."
0 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
use your eyes then, intuition and common sense require very little research
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mULZzwtPM2U
1 Balthanos 2016-01-06
Thanks for validating my previous statement.
-1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
well, i didnt, i told you to stop being such a fanny :) sort of
3 [deleted] 2016-01-06
[deleted]
2 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHr2Rdg8tIM
EG&G created the footage, here are examples of test footage, alot of which was used in multi-composites to create the laughable bombs which defy common sense
2 [deleted] 2016-01-06
[deleted]
0 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
peace
2 ShakesJr 2016-01-06
Evidence?
-6 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
your eyes will do, pick any explosion footage you can find and just look at it.
pathetic
chinas! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mULZzwtPM2U
2 yellowsnow2 2016-01-06
I disagree. I believe the best course to investigate this theory would not involve pictures or film. It would be understanding the process.
But at the same time researching if photography or video making would even be possible within viewing distance of the extreme ionization, light, radiation, and EMP. These things reach way farther than the visible explosion.
What if it is an occurrence that can only be viewed live and what we have seen are just artists representations.
1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
I am countering the narrative of nuclear armegeddon which has been presented to the world, it is real enough for alot of people to think I've lost my marbles. :) so its been worthwhile lol
It was a psyop. simple and plain
1 katarinakittykat 2016-01-06
Well for sure 100% of nuke footage is fake. Other than that I cannot say.
2 RadMicah 2016-01-06
Ok so...not to argue or anything but, if what you say is true, then wtf did they use in japan? Serious question, that was definitely radioactive afterwards.
-1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
Tokyo and many other cities were firebombed, if you look at the photos of hiroshima the only buildings destroyed were wooden. Brick buildings in the 'blast zone' stood strong, that makes no sense whatsoever
can you see a crater in this picture?? http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452719d69e2019aff522373970b-pi
1 RadMicah 2016-01-06
Thanks, ya I wasn't shilling I was asking seriously and you sir make a valid point. What about the radiation though if I may ask?
-1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
i cant say what was responsible for any radiation, the country was in the hands of the US military for many years afterwards, maybe before in some guise. the japanese said they would never surrender, the hoax of the mythical 'Nuke' gave them enough of an excuse to publically surrender, they were already beaten
1 RadMicah 2016-01-06
I'm not saying you are wrong I'm just wondering... I know I've seen old footage of the survivors with chunks of hair missing an teeth falling out, but I guess I can't say without any doubt that it was from radiation either, anyway thanks as I'm just genuinely interested
1 shmusko01 2016-01-06
Actually, since the photo shows mostly destroyed buildings, you can't tell what was there previously, can you?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki did, however have numerous brick buildings that were destroyed completely.
why would there be a crater?
0 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
Yeah, but they used hundreds of bombers to firebomb Tokyo. Not one.
If you had any clue what you were talking about, you'd know the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was an air burst that detonated 1,900 feet above the surface. It would not leave a crater. That was one of the reasons there was so little fallout.
1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
most likely a fuel air burst. the germans were already using them on the russian front.
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
There has never been any "fuel air explosive" capable of generating the force equivalent to 18,000 tons of TNT, which is what a 18 kiloton nuclear bomb produces.
1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
ok, so if no crater or ground burn ,where is the bellow of phallic smoke and carbon soot reaching instantly into the sky to be filmed by the pilots coming from? surely not the tiny wooden shacks and mules being vapourised. can you explain how a mid air instant chain reaction at the speed of light generate orange and red flames, carbon soot and smoke? does japan have some sort of atmospheric forest?
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
Did you not know that air burns? Did you not know that when you burn all the air in one location, is creates a vacuum that sucks the surrounding air and dust into itself?
There was no crater because the explosion happened at nearly 2000 feet above the surface, but the giant hole in the atmosphere created by that explosion soon collapsed and acted like a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking dust and smoke and water vapour into itself.
That's what you see burning and creating a column as the now superheated air and dust rises.
1 bot-bought-bot 2016-01-06
What never made sense to me was in 1948 they were able to create an explosion to vaporize the city come from a small "bomb" size device.... yes everyone still stands around pumping billions of gallons of liquid fossil fuel into their cars... and humanity didn't discover how to channel this much energy for use in powering cities etc.
3 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
You mean the hundreds of nuclear power stations around the world are an expensive hoax?
-2 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
a power station uses radiation to generate heat, like a steam engine... Nuclear weapons work in an entirely different way...
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
Not really.
They actually work in almost exactly the same way. The difference is a nuclear weapon is an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction, whereas a nuclear power station is a controlled nuclear chain reaction.
0 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
uncontrolled chain reaction, ? two pieces or enriched uranium sliding down a tube, colliding and instantly turning into released free energy?
it's amazing how easily you swallow that. if the americans created that in the 40's then every africoon country would have a nuke by now.
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
Not instantly, nor free. Fuel was "burned" at an extremely high rate to release that energy.
Nope, because you see it's not as easy as you make out. It takes incredibly precise machining of incredibly unstable materials to make the core of even the most simple nuclear bomb.
If there is even a slight mistake you get an incomplete chain reaction - essentially a dud.
0 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
that sort of chain reaction would take an input of high energy, Did the bomb carry batteries?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycma9v-z7WE&index=6&list=PLznScaQ3uUA084LZXrNiDsMDCdQfJ_BQd
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
Not really. You just have to achieve critical mass in a precise way for the energy contained in the fuel to spontaneously release itself.
Nope, it contained highly radioactive elements in precise quantities and machined to incredibly small tolerances. They only reason it didn't explode the instant it was made is because the fuel was kept below critical mass until the bomb detonated.
The detonation of the bomb forced the fuel to achieve critical mass in a precise way, which resulted in an uncontrolled chain reaction and a very big boom.
2 whollyfictional 2016-01-06
No one powers cities with plastic explosives either...
1 bot-bought-bot 2016-01-06
yeah the Middle Eeks
-3 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
liberating pure energy from metal at the speed of light is not the same as a chemical explosion.
1 whollyfictional 2016-01-06
And since fossil fuels are turned into energy by chemical explosions...
0 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
agreed, people fail to realise that if you could liberate even a small part of the energy of uranium by slamming two pieces together in a tube would devastate a whole city, why is my lawnmower still using diesel to run?
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
Because diesel doesn't kill you and your entire neighbourhood if it leaks?
-1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
in 90 years that would have been contained. you know, like Boilers are safer now than they were 30 years ago
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
And what do you think would happen if Al Qaeda could get its hands on nuclear material via atomic lawnmowers?
0 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
surely if pakistan, one of the most backward societies on earth can keep its mitts on enriched uranium and dangerous WMDs without the cheeky taliban getting a bit and arming a Toyota hilux to NUKEAGEDDON , then that alone shows what a pathetic little charade it all was.
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
You seem to think the Taliban are not essentially clowns controlled by the Pakistani version of the CIA.
1 bot-bought-bot 2016-01-06
You are right. It's almost as if in 1950 we discovered how to use time travel but can only us it inside of a small secret sphere, for military war time decisions.
1 giantfrogfish 2016-01-06
+1
1 The_Free_Marketeer 2016-01-06
Semi off topic but related. Has anyone ever realized how many "nukes" were detonated through the years for "testing" yet there's been no "nuclear winter"? Am I missing something or has this been covered already?
1 Putin_loves_cats 2016-01-06
That's actually a really good fucking question. Can anyone chime in? Maybe, not "weaponized"?
2 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
There have been 2,081 nuclear tests over a period of about 50 years.
There are around 15,000 nuclear weapons in the armouries of the nine nuclear powers.
The results of detonating 10,000 nuclear warheads in the period of about an hour would be very different from 50 years of testing.
As it is, the small number of nuclear tests have changed the background radiation level of the planet, and radiocarbon dating is not reliable after 1945 because of the fallout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
1 Putin_loves_cats 2016-01-06
Thanks for the info/links. Was genuinely curious.
1 RadMicah 2016-01-06
Tell that to the Hiroshima survivors, they r pretty devoted to the lie.
1 cw3brett 2016-01-06
My grandparents watched atomic tests out of the Nevada Test Site from Las Vegas in the 50's. It was sort of a thing actually.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--wMvcKSp0--/17wh8kqt8yopvjpg.jpg
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/08/atomic-tests-were-a-tourist-draw-in-1950s-las-vegas/375802/
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5902390/wild-vegas-parties-celebrated-atomic-bomb-tests-of-the-1950s
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/08/9600ccpct2d1/4140fc603.jpg
-1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
Yes, they must have seen the same TNT Dump explosion that the troops witnessed.
1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
everybody is so in awe and totally swamped by the NUKE fairytale that people don't even require a visual, haha. or subtitles to be scared of NUKAGEDDON
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI85Zh9GcbA
NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT EXIST POSSE! :)
1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
very, very not real....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kYwX8eVTTk&list=PLznScaQ3uUA084LZXrNiDsMDCdQfJ_BQd&index=20
please look and tell me this is what an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction looks like? you know, like what happens in the suns atmosphere (not the centre i add, the sun is a cold rocky body covered in water. ever wondered why sunspots are vastly cooler than the upper atmosphere?) i beg to differ.
-1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
LOOK AT THE CHINESE 'NUKE' ..... it's hilarious how they created and composited this movie propaganda. time will expose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mULZzwtPM2U
2 alien13869 2016-01-06
Wait, so because a country that is known for censorship created a 'fake' video, all nuclear weapons are fake?
1 K-THORNZ 2016-01-06
they all are, but the chinese were really terrible at it
2 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-01-06
There have been 2,081 nuclear tests over a period of about 50 years.
There are around 15,000 nuclear weapons in the armouries of the nine nuclear powers.
The results of detonating 10,000 nuclear warheads in the period of about an hour would be very different from 50 years of testing.
As it is, the small number of nuclear tests have changed the background radiation level of the planet, and radiocarbon dating is not reliable after 1945 because of the fallout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating