/pol/ - Our president is starting a war just for the votes. Only it's not the same as last time. The "war on terror" wasn't too bad. This is Iran. They've got allies. Their allies have nukes. They probably have nukes. Realistically, how unlikely is it that our CIA


/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

[Return] [Go to Bottom] [Catalog]

 No.751[D]

Our president is starting a war just for the votes. Only it's not the same as last time. The "war on terror" wasn't too bad. This is Iran. They've got allies. Their allies have nukes. They probably have nukes. Realistically, how unlikely is it that our CIA is blissfully anaware? If this escalates, it could literally spell the end of the world. No joke. This isn't about attacking sand niggers anymore. This is really, really bad. There's two ways this could go. We don't escalate, it's fine. Or, we escalate, shit hits the fan, and inevitably, nukes start flying. I don't know exactly what weapons world war 3 will be fought with, but world war 4 will be fought with rocks.

This could spell the end of the human race. There's a 10% chance that we're all dead by 2021.

I may never acquire the success in life I know I can have, just because someone wanted to win the election again.

Bummer.

 No.752[D][DF]

>>751
Niggerspacing

 No.753[D][DF]

>>751
Chill
This’ll all blow over in a few weeks

 No.754[D][DF]

>>753
Sure it will. But will it be blown over by sense, or shockwave?

I'm not confident either way.

 No.755[D][DF]

>>752
In a way, i'm joking about niggerspacing
news story just now "iranian foreign minister that attack on us troops was "proportionate" and in (((((self-defence)))))"
Well, things are getting dark.
I dont really know what else to say
What will we do if things end up being worse?
I guess we need to keep an eye out if things get worse, and we need to do things to come togeather as brothers in anonyimity
Try to keep 22chan up for as long as possible, and just keep living day by day

 No.756[D][DF]

>>755
Live every moment as if it's our last.

 No.757[D][DF]

Let's break down the possibilities with a bit of logic.
If this doesn't just blow over, we're fucked. ww3, all that jazz.
If it DOES blow over, this is just another thing that Iran will never forget whenever dealing with us. Sandniggers will keep burning flags and yelling "death to america" or whatever, except they'll do it any more. Some form of conflict will become even more unavoidable.
Either way, this is a shitty situation dear ol' trumpy has dumped on us.

 No.758[D][DF]

I mean, it could not be by nuke, it could be by cyberattack which is better then getting wiped out. At this point, politics dont matter beleive what you want to belive, just dont tear other people down for it.
America due to being distracted by infighting politically will easily get invaded and torn apart and then either china or iran will take over
Personally i don't think trump "dumped it on us"
I mean, Soleimani was massicuring us troops, it was a matter of time before somthing would happen

 No.759[D][DF]

>>758
Yeah, but seriously? A fucking missile? They couldn't have been less discreet.

 No.760[D][DF]

Trump didn't exactly choose though.
This was planned by generals, who learned that solieimani was planning something. They pretty much asked trump to greenlight him getting killed before he can pull something off, and the only way to do it was by drone strike. Either let him go and see what he does, or kill him.

 No.761[D][DF]

>>760
This whole situation sucks and if I'm alive by next year I'm buying all my family and friends big macs.

 No.762[D][DF]

File: 0f6757160cf86fcd89c0277402….gif (2.48 MB, 200x200, 1:1, 1578474661547.gif) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

As a foreigner i don't understand how this can reach countries that are not related to the conflict, for example, my country has never involved in any world war and it has maintained neutral on this. Is there any danger for me?
i'm just pic at the moment

 No.763[D][DF]

Does this means we get fallout games on sale on steam?

 No.764[D][DF]

>>763
No, it means you get fallout for free, and without any bug or shitty engine!

 No.765[D][DF]

>>751
Fuck you nigger for having such a scary pic

 No.766[D][DF]

>>763
>>764
unfunny samefag is unfunny

 No.767[D][DF]

>>751
>There's a 10% chance that we're all dead by 2021.
Hell yeah!

 No.768[D][DF]

File: 1511099917676.png (427 KB, 860x656, 215:164, 1578521214038.png) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>>751
>Our president is starting a war just for the votes
a shitton of US presidents after FDR have done exactly that, sometimes directly in the Middle East, sometimes indirectly in Central America and other places on the globe.
>they haev the big nukes
No shit, nukes have been a thing since literally ww2, also if I had a dollar for every time the USA did a "surgical missile strike" somewhere in the world, I would have enough money to buy myself my very own Recreational McNuke, and exactly how many of those missile strikes have turned into ww3? Yeah, exactly none of them.
>If this escalates, it could literally spell the end of the world
Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have been war playgrounds for a long time now, at this point nobody even gives a shit what goes on there.
Iran itself hasn't even received a single bomb strike from the USA (and vice-versa) and that's all that matters, neither of the sides is going to start a full on war because one persian fuck was killed in a desert between Israel and Iran.
Everyone shouted "WW3, WW3, REEEE" back when the norks shot a ballistic missile right over Japan in their airspace. Did anything happen?
In the Middle East, Obama bombed some hospitals, Trump bombed some airfields. Maybe something happened here?
As always-no. Pic related is what happens EVERY SINGLE TIME.
tl;dr OP is a faggot like always.

 No.769[D][DF]

If anything everything is going good so far, trump is trying to keep things peaceful.
I mean nostradamus predicted that the east would fight with the west, and that would spell the end of the way we live normally.
Then, around WWI
A book that written that said that this is the "golden era" and just like the romans, everything's gonna tumble down. That scared everybody INCLUDING hitler. And look at what happened.

 No.770[D][DF]

File: 1548457586242.gif (1.94 MB, 230x175, 46:35, 1578530346971.gif) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>>769
>nostradamus predicted

 No.771[D][DF]

>>770
Elaborate nigger

 No.772[D][DF]

>>771
I think his point is that listening to predictions is dumb

 No.773[D][DF]

That's my point though.

 No.774[D][DF]

Iet me explain myself a little.
DON'T LISTEN TO THOSE GODAMN HYPEMEN.
No, for the love of christ wwIII is not going to happen. EVERYBODY EVERY CENTURY IS AFRAID of some massive war going down, and it only rarely happends.
You cant really just depend on one news source, and news outlets with liberal afflictions are painting the story as of the evil dictator trump want's to start ww3
IF you want to read about this on going event GO every NIGHT and READ SEVERAL NEWS SOURSES. Ignore godanm twotter, facecuck and where ever else that they talk about WWIII because all they can talk about is WWIII and how we all are going to die and make stupid memes, pound sand, and how it's trumps fault. is not WWIII. No one even did anything to even start it yet.
Yes, trumps SOMETIMES is autistic. But look how he handled the whole "iran firing 15 fucking missiles at our u.s. military bases event" no one got injured, or killed and only a tiny amount of damage was had. He said he just wanted peace.
Yeah, i know i'm autistic looking back, i could have worded things a lot better, but don't be autistic too by posting a shitty reaction image with no elaboration whatsoever.

 No.775[D][DF]

>>751
Anon, what the hell is this image, and how is it related? Some type of bug?

 No.777[D][DF]

File: check em.png (670.18 KB, 960x749, 960:749, 1578561522368.png) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

ww3 is a meme

 No.778[D][DF]

File: 154768733177.gif (453.6 KB, 200x317, 200:317, 1578584354067.gif) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>>777
Checked correctly

 No.779[D][DF]

Whats worse? Its a phucking twitter war. Everything is twitter politics these days. The Iranians were making threats to dubai and other places over twitter. Twitter is quite possibly the most destructive political platform.
Something i found really interesting were the earthquakes. They were ~5.7 something i believe, right on top of Iran.

 No.780[D][DF]

>>775
It's a mother's love. Some kind of centipede protecting is young. Adorable, yes?

I didn't have a relevant photo saved

 No.781[D][DF]

Thank's for explaining op
She's keeping her kittens warm

 No.782[D][DF]

>>751
Can this thread please fucking die so I can stop seeing that stupid fucking centipede on the front page everyday?

 No.783[D][DF]

>>782
How hard is it to make a new thread or reply to an older thread?

 No.784[D][DF]

>>783
I don't want to spam

 No.785[D][DF]

Thank fucking God that pic is gone now

 No.848[D][DF]

literally nothing happened lol op is a twitternigger that got poisened by the shit they spew and thought ww3 was actually gonna happen.
this is your brain on twitter lads
it should be a facg that you should not rely on ((social media)) for facts
a good chunk of shit said there is opinion pieces anyways

 No.862[D][DF]

File: download (1).jpg (86.99 KB, 1162x600, 581:300, 1585098472954.jpg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

Ok you guys were right, ww3 never happened.

 No.863[D][DF]

>>862
been a while since i saw this pic

 No.865[D][DF]

File: however.png (34.82 KB, 300x349, 300:349, 1585107169992.png) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]


 No.923[D][DF]

It's been 4 months, did ww3 start? It did not. OP is a faggot.

 No.939[D][DF]

File: Eyeballs Fuxxored.jpg (12.92 KB, 251x246, 251:246, 1588920187271.jpg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]


 No.1330[D][DF]

Do nukes really exist? Or are they a psyop like the moon landing? If nukes existed I feel like they have been used a few more times since 1945. How can any country have nukes and resist the temptation to use them?

 No.1331[D][DF]

>>1330
>inplying the moon landing's fake
>why wouldn't they use nukes
Uh, i dunno, radiation? the fact that it would make things toxic for thousands of years? the chain reaction that would lead to M.A.D?

 No.1332[D][DF]

>>1330
>>1331
Like South Africa, Sweden, or Ukraine? Three countries that supposedly chose to dismantle or give away their nuclear arsenal, while Pakistan and North Korea apparently still have them? Or all the countries that signed a treaty on nukes, meaning they basically can't use them at all anyways?
So I would say yes, nuclear science simply doesn't add up, there are no realistic physical elements to nukes, and all alleged nuclear bombings have supposedly resulted in weapons hotter than the sun. If nukes are hotter than the sun, then why are their effects so minimal? The alleged nuclear tests are far weaker than they claim to be.
The mostly jewish Manhattan project supposedly took 3 weeks to develop the first 3 American nukes after all those years of research despite having problems with their plutonium supply. Do you really believe this?
All-in-all, after actually looking into it, nukes really seem to be a fictional psy-op to scare off people from fighting the JWO. The Samson option is effectively a massive scare tactic, as evil as it may sound.

 No.1333[D][DF]

>>1332
*explosions hotter than the sun, to clarify. Hiroshima alone was supposedly 3 times hotter than the sun, and that's excluding all of the other nuclear tests. However, these were all only tests that nobody could actually see, and were never used in combat or for other purposes. There were planned uses of nukes in the 50s during the Korean war against the Chinese army on the Korean border, but that never happened.

 No.1339[D][DF]

File: chain_reaction.png (249.88 KB, 754x671, 754:671, 1593267932521.png) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>>1332
>sciences I don't understand must be fake
I suppose this means magnets are a psyop, too?

 No.1341[D][DF]

>>1339
False equivalency: it's impossible to "understand" atomic physics, you probably never knew that for most of history, atoms were known about, but they were never considered a part of actual science, they were simply ideas. Wikipedia admits this:
>Atomism (from Greek ἄτομον, atomon, i.e. "uncuttable, indivisible")[1][2][3] is a natural philosophy proposing that the physical world is composed of fundamental indivisible components known as atoms.
>References to the concept of atomism and its atoms appeared in both ancient Greek and ancient Indian philosophical traditions. The ancient Greek atomists theorized that nature consists of two fundamental principles: atom and void. Unlike their modern scientific namesake in atomic theory, philosophical atoms come in an infinite variety of shapes and sizes, each indestructible, immutable and surrounded by a void where they collide with the others or hook together forming a cluster. Clusters of different shapes, arrangements, and positions give rise to the various macroscopic substances in the world.[4][5]
>The particles of chemical matter for which chemists and other natural philosophers of the early 19th century found experimental evidence were thought to be indivisible, and therefore were given by John Dalton the name "atom", long used by the atomist philosophy. Although the connection to historical atomism is at best tenuous, elementary particles have become a modern analogue of philosophical atoms.
Atomism is a philosophy, and not a science, the atomic theory is only a theory based on this philosophical idea. The jew Oppenheimer, involved in the construction of the bomb even alludes to this by saying "I am become death, destroyer of worlds". This line is literally from Vishnu in the Bhagavad Gita.

 No.1346[D][DF]

>>1341
A theory is an idea backed by observed facts. The simple, purely hypothetical models provided in the past eventually evolved into the modern atomic model as more and more repeatable observations were made. This model is still evolving. But the fact stands that atoms and their effects have been observed and even photographed on multiple occasions by multiple observers. While the model is still evolving, these facts are indisputable:
>matter is made of small particles called "atoms"
>atoms are made of different subatomic particles
>different combinations of these particles create different elements and isotopes with wildly varying properties
>some elements and isotopes are made of unstable combinations of subatomic particles
>these unstable elements and isotopes tend to break apart, or decay
>this decay releases a small amount of released matter and energy
>the released matter can collide with and destabilize other unstable elements/isotopes, triggering their decay in a chain reaction.
If you will deny all this as "baseless theory," likely on the grounds that it is distantly removed from typical life and therefore simple to manufacture, then riddle me this:
Where does the power originating from a nuclear power plant come from?
How does your smoke detector work?
What is radiology and why is it so effective at giving us accurate diagnoses and effective treatments?
How come a geiger counter remains accurate even when held by a gentile in a lead box?
Is radiation sickness a curse placed on us by witches for trespassing?
What is Cherenkov radiation?
Are the Northern Lights truly the spirits of our ancestors?
What has fueled the Sun for all these endless years?
Science is universal. It cannot be locked in a lab. Just ask David Hahn.
I'll stand for you saying nukes are a psyop that were never actually developed or deployed. But to say all of nuclear and atomic physics is a lie while providing no viable alternative theory is total lunacy.

 No.1348[D][DF]

>>1346
You're stretching the entire argument into a bunch of nonsense. All I need to do to topple the entire atomic model is this:
>>matter is made of small particles called "atoms"
We can't know this because atoms are an abstraction that nobody can see or touch based exclusively on hypothetical concepts, therefore the atomic theory is literally a baseless theory.

 No.1349[D][DF]

File: strontiumatom.jpg (5.53 KB, 295x171, 295:171, 1593271528439.jpg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>>1348
I'm starting to get the feeling you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. Also, see:
>atoms and their effects have been observed and even photographed on multiple occasions by multiple observers.
pic related.

 No.1350[D][DF]

>>1349
>I'm starting to get the feeling you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory
I do, and it turns out that this is why the "atomic theory" is completely baseless and contradicts itself. Atoms are still only an idea, and have never actually been observed.
>pic related.
That's supposedly an "atom" of strontium. Effectively, it's just 150 pictometres of strontium, it in no way proves the atomic theory.

 No.1364[D][DF]

SCIENTIFIC METHOD MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?
A THEORY is developed from repeated OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION. It is an explanation for natural phenomena and can be used to create inventions. A theory can be disproved and another put in its place if the latter theory is more accurate, detailed, or avoids a problem seen in the earlier theory. This is seen in the constant evolution of the atomic model from Democritus's ancient "everything is just made of a bunch of indestructible balls of which there's an infinite number of varieties" to the current clustered quark model.
The current theory does a pretty damn good job of explaining, you know, everything. That doesn't mean it is correct, however, there could be some alternative explanation that is more accurate. However, considering how perfectly atomic physics explain everything you can think of, you would need to find an overwhelmingly large flaw in it. If you have any idea what this flaw might be I would be fascinated to hear about it. At the moment, however, the only argument you have presented against atomic physics is that you want to make-believe that nukes are impossible. I don't give a shit if you say nukes are made up, that's politics or history or some droll field that doesn't actually matter. But you had to go and open your big mouth and say something stupid about SCIENCE.
RUSSELL'S TEAPOT, BITCH. THE BURDEN OF PROOF (OR DISPROOF) LIES ON THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING THE CLAIM. THAT'S YOU, SHITWAD, NOW GET TALKING BEFORE I SLAP YOUR TEETH OUT. WHAT'S YOUR GRAND THEORY? IF NOT ATOMS AND PARTICLES, THEN WHAT?
I expect your theory to cover every bit of "nonsense" I listed in >>1346. From power plants to the sun. I'll also add in a few little irrelevant oddities such as "chemistry" and "law of conservation and the "equivalence of mass and energy." If it doesn't do so THOROUGHLY then you're an officially-confirmed retard. If it does I will be very excited because that, my friend, means scientific progress.
That's the beauty of SCIENCE, isn't it? It's thoroughly immune to jewry of all varieties, even yours. Fools can try to politicize it, but they'll never change it.
(And to answer your paltry little faux-inquiry about nukes burning hotter than the sun, the thing about that is the heat is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation which disperses at literally the speed of light. That very high temperature is only there for an unimaginably brief period of time.)

 No.1365[D][DF]

>>1364
THE WORLD NEEDS PEOPLE LIKE YOU PREACH BROTHER

 No.1367[D][DF]

>>1339
Motherfucking magnets. How do they work?

 No.1375[D][DF]

>>1364
>The current theory does a pretty damn good job of explaining, you know, everything. That doesn't mean it is correct, however, there could be some alternative explanation that is more accurate. However, considering how perfectly atomic physics explain everything you can think of, you would need to find an overwhelmingly large flaw in it. If you have any idea what this flaw might be I would be fascinated to hear about it. At the moment, however, the only argument you have presented against atomic physics is that you want to make-believe that nukes are impossible. I don't give a shit if you say nukes are made up, that's politics or history or some droll field that doesn't actually matter. But you had to go and open your big mouth and say something stupid about SCIENCE.
Overstretching a statement that really shouldn't be that long, capitalising so much, and adding so many insults is some talmudic way of conveying a paragraph that I've seen many times before. Yep, here's what I'm dealing with. No, atomic physics doesn't explain everything we think of! In-fact, the pre-Socratics already knew this; Zeno's Paradox of the Arrow refutes atomism as a whole:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100712095732/https://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/c/cohen/phil320/atomism.htm
>Zeno's argument that an (apparently) moving arrow is really at rest throughout its flight seems easy to evade if one insists that space is continuous (and hence infinitely divisible). But an atomist who insists on theoretically indivisible atoms seems bound to deny that space is infinitely divisible. And Zeno's Arrow Paradox poses an especially troubling problem for such an atomist.
>For how will the arrow (or any object, in fact) move through an atomic space? Since the space cannot be divided, the tip of the arrow must advance from one end of the space to the other without ever having occupied any of the intervening space. At one moment, t1, it's in one place, p1; at some later moment, t2, it's in another place, p2. But if you pick any time ti that falls between t1 and t2, the arrow is either still at p1 or already at p2. It never moves from p1 to p2, because the space from p1 to p2 is atomic and therefore cannot be divided.
>Although we cannot, of course, be certain that Zeno intended his Arrow Paradox specifically against the atomists, it constitutes a formidable objection to an "atomic" conception of space.
But what about the modern quark-model of atomism? That's been rejected by many modern scientists as well, including Tesla (whom I personally believe to be overblown but not to the extent that jews like Einstein are)
>Tesla disagreed with the theory of atoms being composed of smaller subatomic particles, stating there was no such thing as an electron creating an electric charge. He believed that if electrons existed at all, they were some fourth state of matter or "sub-atom" that could exist only in an experimental vacuum and that they had nothing to do with electricity.[259][260] Tesla believed that atoms are immutable—they could not change state or be split in any way. He was a believer in the 19th-century concept of an all-pervasive ether that transmitted electrical energy.[261]
Continuum mechanics is thus the proper alternative to atomic theory.
>nuclear power plants
Are a hoax.
>smoke detector
Not predated on the existence of millions of particles that make up everything, only smoke itself.
>What is radiology and why is it so effective at giving us accurate diagnoses and effective treatments?
Radio waves are a form of light, there is no involvement of any atomic particles as they do not really exist.
>How come a geiger counter remains accurate even when held by a gentile in a lead box?
Doesn't detect atomic radiation, again, "electromagnetic radiation" is wrong, radio waves are a form of light.
>Is radiation sickness a curse placed on us by witches for trespassing?
It's not based on nuclear radiation, it's toxicity. Nearly all incidents of nuclear radiation,
>According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR): "Even among the progeny of the survivors of the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who [supposedly] received radiation doses hundreds? of times higher than the radiation doses to the inhabitants of regions contaminated by the Chernobyl accident, no radiogenetic disturbances of health have been found."
Here's a video taken deep in the Belarusian Chernobyl radiation zone. Skip to 15:00 and you'll see how an old local of the Chernobyl zone saw it as a tax-scam/overblown incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIC73xZPLgU [Embed]
>What is Cherenkov radiation?
Radio waves are a form of light, refer back to that.
>Northern Lights
Celestial phenomena in geographical extremes. Forgot aurora australis too, did you?
>What has fueled the Sun for all these endless years?
It's been fueled by light, as it is again a celestial being.

 No.1376[D][DF]

>>1346
>>1364
Faulty science, similarly to superstitions in the past and present is the tool by which political psy-ops are enacted, such as the moon-landing hoax (or more generally, the cold war/capitalist-communist dialectic per se), coronavirus hoax (more broadly, the germ theory of disease as a whole), climate-change scaremongering, many holohoax stories, and also the nuclear hoax. They can be faulty theories that were legitimately proposed, but were wrong, yet are kept on anyways, or they can be total kabbalistic alchemy like nukes.

 No.1378[D][DF]

File: cherenkovrad.jpg (60.52 KB, 700x466, 350:233, 1593358384713.jpg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>>1375
>arrow paradox
Please tell me you're trolling. That is entirely unrelated. Like every paradox Zeno thought up, it's meant to show that perfect logic can bring you to an inaccurate conclusion. In other words, it's supposed to be bullshit. Of course Achilles can beat a tortoise in a footrace, of course an arrow moves through space, of course I can walk across the room and grab a doorknob. Try to understand philosophy things a little better before you open your mouth next time. If you're arguing that atomism makes a "smallest unit" that an arrow can move, then, well, no. There is nothing in atomic theory that says empty space is also made of atoms. [spoiler]if you get really deep into the shithole that is quantum physics tho you've got planck units, but really who believes that lol[/spoiler]
>tesla
>modern
You gonna build your models on the word of a dead man over living science? You really should be sticking to history. Tesla was brilliant, sure, but he also died nearly 80 years ago. Men, no matter how great they may be, are fallible by nature. Not at all like SCIENCE!
>Continuum mechanics
Yeah, cool, but how does it explain the world around us? If you want me to lend any credence to this theory you can start by explaining the phenomena I have provided. I'm still especially interested in how chemical reactions work and the law of conservation of mass and energy.
>nuclear power plants are a hoax
Maybe, not my field to say, but the power that comes from them most certainly isn't. A large nuclear plant can put out nearly 8,000 megawatts which can power tens of millions of households. Are there massive coal plants hidden beneath every reactor? Are they secretly hydroelectric? Geothermal? Is there some hidden jew science going on in there even more incredible than nuclear? If the latter then why not just weaponize that instead of going to the immense effort of lying about all of nuclear science?
>smoke detectors
Typically uses the controlled decay of Americium to produce a beam of alpha particles. I'm not saying smoke is made of individual atoms.
>"radio is emag which is just light"
But where's it coming from? Why does uranium give off this energy while it slowly transmutes into lead? Why does cherenkov radiation just appear around submerged nuclear reactors? Why is this light emitted in small amounts by dead things? Why does the dead-thing light then fade at a predictable rate using the half-life formula?
>rad sickness
How come this toxicity can be transmitted through a vacuum? What is this poison made of? Why does it linger for a predictable period of time?
>"Chernobyl and nukes are fake so those people didn't actually get radiation sickness"
Radiation sickness isn't inflicted by catastrophe alone. Maybe Chernobyl and Hiroshima were fake, that's not my arena, but their victims aren't the only people to ever suffer the effects of radiation poisoning. [spoiler]As a side note, if you're going to take the word of some old russian fart on television as undeniable proof that chernobyl was a tax scam then you're special.[/spoiler]
>aurorae
Wow, good job, you identified it as a celestial phenomena. Great work. But what causes it? And no, I didn't forget about the southern lights. They're caused by the same thing (according to repeated observation and experimentation) so I didn't see much value in differentiating. What a petty nitpick.
>the sun is fueled by light
lol.
>>1376
Theories are wrong sometimes, as they are ultimately the product of man. But damn do they do a good job explaining the world around us. That's the point. They are the most accurate means we have at this time of explaining the world around us, in time we'll likely get better theories that fit broader observations. They are theories, not laws. They've certainly done a better job explaining things than you have. Look at all the wonderful things we've created with them. That's SCIENCE!
pic related, it's some cool-ass cherenkov radiation. For those who don't know it's basically a sonic boom except with light. If you've ever seen it with the naked eye, you're strapped to a hospital bed with your skin melting off because you don't have DNA anymore. How cool is that?

 No.1379[D][DF]

>>1378
whats cool about the color, it's a "fake" color, its supposed to be something else, but our eyes says it's "blue" we can't comprehend it.

 No.1380[D][DF]

>>1378
>That is entirely unrelated.
No, it is, and you're deflecting. If these tiny particles called "atoms" exist and don't split, then why can arrows go through these particular entities?
That entire article seems to be another concession by a jew (Marc Cohen) of the flaws of atomism (within a philosophical context) and thus, the flaws of nukes, similar to the jewish plagiarist Einstein though he did so far more covertly.
>You gonna build your models on the word of a dead man over living science?
"Living science" is just what the powers at be pick and choose out of science. They'll ignore any past objections to the germ theory (Bechamp) and the atomic theory (Tesla, though he's still well known) and just push them so hard, they become indisputable facts to use for fake nukes and fake viruses.
>I'm still especially interested in how chemical reactions work and the law of conservation of mass and energy.
The burden of proof is on the scientists to prove that these tiny particles called "atoms" even exist, otherwise their entire involvement in how they create these chemical reactions is just gobbeldygook. They're the ones claiming this in the first place and can never properly and concisely explain their existence; because they don't exist.
>the power that comes from them most certainly isn't. A large nuclear plant can put out nearly 8,000 megawatts which can power tens of millions of households. Are there massive coal plants hidden beneath every reactor? Are they secretly hydroelectric? Geothermal? Is there some hidden jew science going on in there even more incredible than nuclear? If the latter then why not just weaponize that instead of going to the immense effort of lying about all of nuclear science?
Likely not the latter, but the source of their power definitely isn't nuclear, as atomic science and thus nukes are fake. They have to be powered by something else; which we don't know about, but it could be just a large quantity of a pre-existing renewable source.
>Typically uses the controlled decay of Americium to produce a beam of alpha particles.
As I said before, the existence of smoke isn't predated on there being tiny of particles based on decaying material.
>But where's it coming from? Why does uranium give off this energy while it slowly transmutes into lead? Why does cherenkov radiation just appear around submerged nuclear reactors? Why is this light emitted in small amounts by dead things? Why does the dead-thing light then fade at a predictable rate using the half-life formula?
Because radio waves are themselves a form of light, that's a fact, not predated on the existence of tiny particles.
>How come this toxicity can be transmitted through a vacuum? What is this poison made of? Why does it linger for a predictable period of time?
Like what I said with power plants, they're likely produced by toxic fumes and are predated on the presence of power plants, Chernobyl being one of them.
>but their victims aren't the only people to ever suffer the effects of radiation poisoning.
These are the two biggest examples though. Is there anything else that has to be explained with the existence of atoms?
>Wow, good job, you identified it as a celestial phenomena. Great work. But what causes it? And no, I didn't forget about the southern lights. They're caused by the same thing (according to repeated observation and experimentation) so I didn't see much value in differentiating. What a petty nitpick.
Not predated on the existence of atoms, but on continuum mechanics as a consequence of the moonlight displayed near the earth's magnetic fields, i.e. on geographic extremes. No particles involved here.
>Theories are wrong sometimes, as they are ultimately the product of man. But damn do they do a good job explaining the world around us. That's the point. They are the most accurate means we have at this time of explaining the world around us, in time we'll likely get better theories that fit broader observations. They are theories, not laws. They've certainly done a better job explaining things than you have. Look at all the wonderful things we've created with them. That's SCIENCE!
And you don't believe anyone is suppressing alternative theories, not mattering if it refutes a past theory or regardless of how much more insight they may provide?
There's hardly any public academic debate in these circles, and that's for a reason. Most people never even heard about Antoine Bechamp despite the fact that he refuted Louis Pasteur, whose theory is normalised with widespread irrational fears of germs and bacteria, especially during this COVID-19 psy-op, and his name is immortalised in the process of "pasteurisation". The atomic theory is normalised with the fear that any major war will result in a destruction of the earth with man-made weapons. These theories aren't widespread due to curiosity, but because they actually serve evil interests.

 No.1381[D][DF]

>>1380
>If these tiny particles called "atoms" exist and don't split, then why can arrows go through these particular entities?
That, my friend, is aerodynamics. The atmosphere isn't a, oh what's the word, "continuum" of air.
>science is just what the elites say it is
No, it's what is backed up by repeated observation and experimentation. Current theories are the most effective means of explaining all this. As was said, science cannot be locked up in a lab. You can build a nuclear power core at home from old glow-in-the-dark paint. You can build a microscope and look at little swimmy things in week-old chicken broth. You can take swabs from a healthy person and from a sick person and compare the microscopic organisms present in each. Shit's universal, yo. And yes, I've heard of Bechamp. He's still in the textbooks, don't you worry. His theories sucked at explaining what is observed and so they have naturally been left in the past. Same as with a million other disputes between scientists through the ages. Again, if you can come up with an alternate theory that better explains observations and the results of experimentation, then I'd love to hear it.
>The burden of proof is on the scientists to prove that these tiny particles called "atoms" even exist
Surprise, they've done it, with REPEATED OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIMENTATION. Gee, I've sure said that a lot. I wonder why.
Now, as someone who would supplant the current theory with a more accurate one, burden of proof lies on (you). Dig something up that isn't simple contrarianism or total idiocy.
>power plants
Congratulations, you got this one out of the way. Maybe we're all being lied to, can't really be proven without storming Kashiwazaki-Kariwa. See how easy politics are?
>existence of smoke isn't predated on there being tiny of particles based on decaying material.
No, but the method of detection is. Get it over with and look up "ionization smoke detector." I'm sure as hell not going to explain it to you.
>radio waves are themselves a form of light, that's a fact, not predated on the existence of tiny particles.
Sure, but you're missing the point. I'm asking WHERE do they come from and WHY. What's the mechanism behind their gradual release. Why only select substances.
>radiation poisoning is fumes
This just in, turns out radiation is a gas actually not radio waves? But it's still radio waves with geiger counters and smoke detectors and radiology. We're still trying to figure out how exactly this gas can pass through thick sheets of glass and why we can't just pull in giant fans to blow it away.
>anything else that has to be explained with the existence of atoms?
There might be semi-effective ways of explaining these on a case-by-case basis in a vacuum, but the atomic theory covers all of it and more in the real world. It's a solid thing that's so far been true in anything and everything. It's going to take the discovery of an overwhelming flaw to topple it. Nobody's going to give up an accepted theory that hasn't failed yet in favor of a barely-developed, tenuous theory that's based more on outdated philosophy than in science.
>moonlight displayed near the earth's magnetic fields causes aurorae
feckin lol, m8. That's some next level shit right there. Aurorae can appear during the new moon, lunar eclipses, even when the moon is on the other side of the planet. Hell, they're even more visible during these times because the absence of a strong moon means less ambient light.
>you don't believe anyone is suppressing alternative theories, not mattering if it refutes a past theory or regardless of how much more insight they may provide?
I'd accept it, if the alternate theories did provide more insight. At the moment though they're saying the sky is a solid block that arrows can easily move through (but they couldn't if it was a bunch of little bits floating around freely), the sun is powered by light, and the aurorae are made by moonlight.

 No.1382[D][DF]

>>1381
>That, my friend, is aerodynamics. The atmosphere isn't a, oh what's the word, "continuum" of air.
This is deflection. I'm not talking about the entire atmosphere, I'm talking about how arrows literally go through different molecular entities.
>No, it's what is backed up by repeated observation and experimentation. Current theories are the most effective means of explaining all this. As was said, science cannot be locked up in a lab. You can build a nuclear power core at home from old glow-in-the-dark paint. You can build a microscope and look at little swimmy things in week-old chicken broth. You can take swabs from a healthy person and from a sick person and compare the microscopic organisms present in each. Shit's universal, yo.
This is a bunch of alphabet soup. Typical talmudic overstretching of simple facts coupled with negro slang. These "theories" are unquestioned by the vast majority of people, and undefended by scientists, yet everyone who does go against it is ostracised. And yes, much of science is locked in a lab. Did anyone without ties to outside agencies ever go to the moon? No, a government agency supposedly did so (in-reality, they didn't and just faked the images).
>I've heard of Bechamp. He's still in the textbooks, don't you worry. His theories sucked at explaining what is observed and so they have naturally been left in the past.
And I know you never read his actual works, as they disprove the germ theory and to this day, explain diseases such as cancer far better than that of the germ theory's explanation. In other words, the powers that be didn't find it as useful as the germ theory and so discarded it.
You've probably never heard about Abraham Flexner. He was a jewish teacher with no medical degrees or health qualifications, yet in 1910, he forced the germ theory among other specific scientific theories into all American (and thus eventually, international) health establishments. There were literally schools shut down doctors imprisoned by the US government for falling short of the qualification of the "Flexner report":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report
>The Flexner Report[1] is a book-length landmark report of medical education in the United States and Canada, written by Abraham Flexner and published in 1910 under the aegis of the Carnegie Foundation. Many aspects of the present-day American medical profession stem from the Flexner Report and its aftermath.
>The Report (also called Carnegie Foundation Bulletin Number Four) called on American medical schools to enact higher admission and graduation standards, and to adhere strictly to the protocols of mainstream science in their teaching and research. The report talked about the need for revamping and centralizing medical institutions. Many American medical schools fell short of the standard advocated in the Flexner Report and, subsequent to its publication, nearly half of such schools merged or were closed outright. Colleges in electrotherapy were closed.
>Homeopathy, traditional osteopathy, eclectic medicine, and physiomedicalism (botanical therapies that had not been tested scientifically) were derided;[2] some doctors were jailed.[citation needed]
>The Report also concluded that there were too many medical schools in the United States, and that too many doctors were being trained. A repercussion of the Flexner Report, resulting from the closure or consolidation of university training, was reversion of American universities to male-only admittance programs to accommodate a smaller admission pool. Universities had begun opening and expanding female admissions as part of women's and co-educational facilities only in the mid-to-latter part of the 19th century with the founding of co-educational Oberlin College in 1833 and private colleges such as Vassar College and Pembroke College.
>Furthermore, given his adherence to germ theory, he argued that, if not properly trained and treated, African-Americans posed a health threat to middle/upper class whites.
(he only saw negroids as a threat to "whites" (including jews) due to a non-uniformity in germ theory adherence among them, though there were far more white anti-Pasteurists at the time)
For this reason, the modern acceptance of the germ theory is a jewish psy-op in every way possible. It's not the result of honest scientists accepting it via repeated observation, it's the result of a jew with no background in health complaining to the US government, and the US government enforcing it with an iron fist.

 No.1383[D][DF]

>>1382
>arrows literally go through different molecular entities
No. Aerodynamics. Say it with me, A-Ro-Di-Nam-Icks. The molecules move and bump around and get out of the way of the more massive/energetic object. Do u even physics. Go ahead and large scale it, fill a field with balloons and ride a bike through it. Does the bike stop when it hits a balloon? Do the balloons pop instantly when the bike touches them? Of course not.
>this is a bunch of alphabet soup
You're retarded. The point is, these things are applicable anywhere to anyone. You don't have to trust a bunch of white-jacketed freaks with weird goggles who like to use big words. You can go out and get your daily dose of SCIENCE by your own hand. That's how legitimate discoveries are made, after all.
>everyone who (goes against common scientific theory) is ostracized
Only if they're unscientific sore losers like you who can't back up an alternate theory to save their life. Seriously, come the hell on. Who's going to listen to some asshole who says that atoms can't exist and refuses to cite any kind of proof outside of an ancient philosophical paradox and choosing to attack the scientific community instead of trying harder to validate their theory.
>Germ theory doesn't explain cancer
Maybe because cancer isn't caused by germs? lol. Nobody's trying to apply germ theory to cancer, buddy boy.
>moon landing blah blah blah
There you go on with your history and politics and other lame nerd baggage. That's an event, faked or real who actually cares. Not me. We're talking SCIENCE! The closest thing to "science" about the moon landing I can say is the principles behind it: the functioning of a rocket engine, gravity, the trigonometry of escape velocity and aiming, engineering odds and ends, basically the means of getting there and back. You can test most if not all of these principles out at home with simple experimentation. SCIENCE! The only thing between you and discovery is your own laziness.
>Oh yeah? What about THIS GUY! I bet you've never heard of HIM!
blah blah politics history blah blah jew blah who actually cares it's not SCIENCE! Talk SCIENCE or GO AWAY!

 No.1384[D][DF]

And don't think I've forgotten about your little continuum mechanics thing. Still waiting for some explanations that I'm sure will be *very* enlightening.

 No.1385[D][DF]

>>1381
>There have been several notable occasions in history when persons offering invaluable contributions to the advancement of human understanding have been ignored, ridiculed and even persecuted in their time. In most cases, however, their work has subsequently been given a deserved measure of recognition. Some great ones, though, have not enjoyed such rejuvenation and have “suffered the slings” of obscurity.
>So it is with Bechamp’s [1]. Had the profound voice of his science not been silenced, much of humankind may have been spared the worst aspects of the infectious or vital stresses of the 20th century. Since the case can be made that the approved but improper and dangerous treatment of infectious “diseases” over the last century has in large part given rise io the present epidemic wave of degenerative “disease,” including cancer, AIDSyndroine or Ebola, we might have been spared these miseries as well. At the least, we would have understood much more clearly why we have them. Fortunately, however, Bechamp’s [1] work has been kept alive by small, successive bands of truth-seekers.
>The adoption by science of Louis Pasteur’s germ theory as the whole truth, without regard to the subtleties and deep insight of Bechamp’s [1] microzymian principle, represents one paraphrased: “There is no medical doctrine as potentially dangerous as a partial truth implemented as whole truth.” Any medical professional, bioscientist, health care practitioner, or lay person for that matter, who wishes to gain insight into the origins and nature of infectious and chronic illness, against the backdrop of a marvelous view of the life process, must consider Bechamp. And they must entertain one of the most important concepts to come out of his illustrious career-microbiological pleomorphism as it relates to disease and its symptoms.
The full article can be read freely here:
https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/who-had-their-finger-on-the-magic-of-life---antoine-bechamp-or-louis-pasteur.html
>Surprise, they've done it, with REPEATED OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIMENTATION. Gee, I've sure said that a lot. I wonder why.
No they haven't. They literally took a small portion of strontium (around 150 pictometres, could be higher or lower as it doesn't matter when fooling the proles), and pushed it as an "independent atom of strontium", when it is in no way an atom as in some particle made up of smaller particles that forms larger things. It's like taking an atomic amount of bread, and calling it an "atom of bread". Technically, someone doing that would be right, but it has absolutely nothing to do with proving the atomic theory. "Atoms" have never been observed or touched, it's based completely on hypothetical concepts.
>Congratulations, you got this one out of the way. Maybe we're all being lied to, can't really be proven without storming Kashiwazaki-Kariwa. See how easy politics are?
There are actual examples of stuff like this happening, as I have just shown with the germ theory literally being pushed by a jewish teacher with no medical background whatsoever.
>Sure, but you're missing the point. I'm asking WHERE do they come from and WHY. What's the mechanism behind their gradual release. Why only select substances.
Continuous light being emitted, there is no such thing as "electromagnetic radiation" so to speak. I don't have to repeat myself.
>This just in, turns out radiation is a gas actually not radio waves?
I'm saying "radiation poisoning" isn't exactly "radiation poisoning" so to speak. The effects of what is called "radiation poisoning" are effects of toxic fumes typically coming with devices that emit radio waves.
>There might be semi-effective ways of explaining these on a case-by-case basis in a vacuum, but the atomic theory covers all of it and more in the real world. It's a solid thing that's so far been true in anything and everything. It's going to take the discovery of an overwhelming flaw to topple it.
Yet nobody can ever explain the existence of atoms as they are presented in the atomic theory, scientists have known this for the 1-2 centuries that it's ever existed.
>Nobody's going to give up an accepted theory that hasn't failed yet in favor of a barely-developed, tenuous theory that's based more on outdated philosophy than in science.
That is exactly what the atomic theory is. Continuum mechanics have already (correctly) interpreted theories such as tides for centuries, whereas atomic theory is based off a literal outdated philosophy brought to "reality" in the 19th century, it was stuck in limbo for 2500 years and still cannot be proven.
>Aurorae can appear during the new moon, lunar eclipses, even when the moon is on the other side of the planet
...which still constitutes a presence of moonlight. It's also possible for solar wind to cause aurora borealis/australis, yet still be continuous/not made up of particles.

 No.1387[D][DF]

>>1383
>No. Aerodynamics. Say it with me, A-Ro-Di-Nam-Icks. The molecules move and bump around and get out of the way of the more massive/energetic object. Do u even physics. Go ahead and large scale it, fill a field with balloons and ride a bike through it. Does the bike stop when it hits a balloon? Do the balloons pop instantly when the bike touches them? Of course not.
That's a lot of talmudic babbling right here, topped with an explanation that has nothing to do with Zeno's arrow paradox; it has nothing to do with aerodynamics. The arrow has to go through these supposed molecular entities that exist in a space that cannot be split, it cannot move from one point to another due to all these spaces that atoms exist in, this thus refutes the atomic theory.
>You're retarded. The point is, these things are applicable anywhere to anyone. You don't have to trust a bunch of white-jacketed freaks with weird goggles who like to use big words. You can go out and get your daily dose of SCIENCE by your own hand. That's how legitimate discoveries are made, after all.
Ad hominem, and more talmudic alphabet soup, coupled with more pointless capitalisation. I cannot observe atoms myself, so if I were to get my "daily dose of science by my own hand", I'd just reaffirm myself.
>Only if they're unscientific sore losers like you who can't back up an alternate theory to save their life. Seriously, come the hell on. Who's going to listen to some asshole who says that atoms can't exist and refuses to cite any kind of proof outside of an ancient philosophical paradox and choosing to attack the scientific community instead of trying harder to validate their theory.
More nonsensical babbling, topped with a strawman.
>Maybe because cancer isn't caused by germs? lol. Nobody's trying to apply germ theory to cancer, buddy boy.
Also a strawman. Despite the fact that it's accepted that "infectious pathogens" (only applicable under Pasteur's theory) such as Helicobacter pylori, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HPI, Epstein–Barr (unrelated, though these men actually tie into the Epstein psy-op) and HIV can be a cause of cancer, and supposedly account for over 15% of cancer cases in the developed world (I say supposedly as I do not adhere to the germ theory), I was talking about how nobody properly understands it under Pasteur's theory.
>There you go on with your history and politics and other lame nerd baggage. That's an event, faked or real who actually cares. Not me. We're talking SCIENCE! The closest thing to "science" about the moon landing I can say is the principles behind it: the functioning of a rocket engine, gravity, the trigonometry of escape velocity and aiming, engineering odds and ends, basically the means of getting there and back. You can test most if not all of these principles out at home with simple experimentation. SCIENCE! The only thing between you and discovery is your own laziness.
>blah blah politics history blah blah jew blah who actually cares it's not SCIENCE! Talk SCIENCE or GO AWAY!
And there's the jewish chimpout for this thread. Your narrative is that all science, including the germ and atomic theories are accepted due to agreements and concessions, and when I provide proof that it isn't the case (that the germ theory of disease was literally forced on the American education system), you're going to resort to a massive strawman, claim that "IT ISN'T SCIENCE" and just run away. The point I was conveying is that Bechamp wasn't rejected because his theories weren't good enough, it's because a jewish Pasteurist told the US government to "shut them down"..

 No.1388[D][DF]

Just to explain in more-detail the meaning Zeno's arrow paradox:
>a moving arrow moves as it does in real life if one insists space is continuous and can be infinitely split
>philosophical atomists that hold the existence of atoms (or modern scientific atomic theorists that hold the existence of molecular entities comprised of atoms) hold that atoms and motion require space, but that space requires its own space, ad infinitum; they deny that space is infinitely divisable
>thus in Zeno's paradox, the arrow is stuck in the air
Atoms do not exist and cannot be observed, and cannot reasonably exist going by Zeno's paradox.

 No.1389[D][DF]

>if you can't see it, it doesn't exist

 No.1390[D][DF]

>>1389
You cannot see, feel, or observe atoms in any way (none of the examples presented in this thread are real examples of indivisible tiny particles that make up most of matter, only really small parts of metals that are passed as "atoms"), and they originated as a purely hypothetical idea in the past. Does that imply atoms can still exist? Going by Zeno's arrow paradox, they cannot reasonably exist anyways.

 No.1391[D][DF]

>sometimes the scientific community rolls over people with legitimately valuable insights
Sure. I'm not arguing that point. Bechamp's model wasn't perfect, but he had some experimentation and observation on his side. You don't.
>no they haven't they just took a picture of a little spec of strontium
You know what "repeated" means. And it's not just about photographs. What about Thomson's experiment with the cathode ray and the magnets? What about Rutherford's little trick with the alpha particles and that gold foil? The modern atomic model covers these experiments and all others. What does yours cover?
>continuous light being emitted
lolwut. WHY. HOW. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself I'm asking you to explain the mechanism behind these substances releasing energy in the form of light.
>toxic fumes come from devices that emit radio waves
Go get a canister of these fumes then. By all means this is something that should be researched. Maybe we'll be able to develop a super special kind of fan that specializes in blowing them away, or a special kind of glass that this gas doesn't permeate through but radio waves still do.
>Yet nobody can ever explain the existence of atoms as they are presented in the atomic theory
First I'm hearing of it. How are atoms impossible to explain? Little bits that are also made of little bits that can interact with other little bits in predictable ways. There you go, it's explained. A lot simpler than continuum mechanics, innit?
>continuum mechanics do explain certain parts of the natural world
Sure, but atomic theory explains all that and a hell of a lot more. That's why it's what folks use these days instead of continuum mechanics.
>atomic theory is based off a literal outdated philosophy.
I chuckle as I push my sunglasses further up my face. What a fool, I think, to cling to the idea that atomic theory is purely philosophical in nature. My fingers dance across the keyboard: REPEATED OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION
>ooga booga moon aurora
How does the continuum model explain aurorae? How come moonlight throws a disco party at the poles and nowhere else? What exactly is happening to the moonlight at the poles? The moon being on the other side of the planet still constitutes a presence of moonlight? How does that work? Is moonlight different than other kinds of light? If you meant that it's just light from celestial objects, why not just say that?
>aerodynamics is talmudic babbling
Nice defense mechanism you've got there. Seems to be a recurring thing with you. Aerodynamics, how air moves around. The arrow does not just zoom through the atoms and molecules by splitting them apart, it pushes them out of the way. In this, the air is also resisting the arrow slowing it down and causing it to surrender its momentum to gravity. Indivisible (which isn't strictly true anyways, suck my large hadron collider) is not equal to immovable.
>ad hominem
Act like a retard, get treated like a retard. SCIENTIFIC METHOD! IT'S THERE TO BE USED!
Still not seeing you try to prove an alternate model with Observations™ or Experiments™. You are doing precisely what I said. You are just some asshole who says that atoms can't exist and refuses to cite any kind of proof outside of an ancient philosophical paradox and choosing to attack the scientific community instead of trying harder to validate their theory. That's not a strawman, it's an observation.
>some germs can increase the occurrence of cancer
Yes. It's poorly understood, but it happens. And regardless of what you've read about Béchamel he didn't exactly have that one pinned down. With our more modern technology we can see that neither Bellchan nor Pasteur were 100% in the right, which is just how science works. What did I say about theories evolving over time? Did that fly over your head completely?
You aren't one of those people who throws around the word "strawman," are you? I'm not exaggerating your points at all. You're doing this to yourself.
>distinguishing your politicin' and historicizin' from SCIENCE is chimping out
Then ooh ooh ah ah give me banana. You keep trying to shift this from SCIENCE to lame humans and stuff and I won't let you. I'm not running away, I'm keeping this on-topic. Bechamp was discredited for a number of reasons. One of them was political in nature. How about that. Yeah, keep your politickin' out of this. Immune to jewry.
>more about Zeno's paradox
Fine, we'll shift methods on this one a little bit since it continues to be a point of contention. How does your continuum model fix that? How does an arrow have an easier time moving through a block of infinitely-divisible air than it does through a bunch of disparate, free-floating molecules with infinitely-divisible void between them?
>still using a philosophical paradox from when "atoms" meant infinite variety and indivisibility to discredit a modern theory built on modern observations and technology
>still not answering my questions

 No.1393[D][DF]

>>1391
>You know what "repeated" means. And it's not just about photographs. What about Thomson's experiment with the cathode ray and the magnets? What about Rutherford's little trick with the alpha particles and that gold foil? The modern atomic model covers these experiments and all others. What does yours cover?
On Thomson, Hawking (who I see as incredibly overblown as well) admits that he never saw an electron:
>He was experimenting with currents of electricity inside empty glass tubes, a phenomenon known as cathode rays. His experiments led him to the bold conclusion that the mysterious rays were composed of minuscule "corpuscles" that were material constituents of atoms, which were then thought to be the indivisible fundemental unit of matter. Thomson did not "see" an electron, nor was his speculation directly or unambiguously demonstrated by his experiments. But the model proved crucial in applications from fundemental science to engineering, and today all physicists believe in electrons, even though you cannot see them.
On Rutherford, Edmund Whittaker writes:
>Thus, Rutherford was led to what was perhaps the greatest of all his discoveries, that of the structure of the atom…He found that if a model atom were imagined with a central charge concentrated within a sphere of less than 3 x 10 -12cm. radius, surrounded by electricity of the opposite sign distributed throughout the rest of the volume of the atom, then this atom would satisfy all the known laws of scattering of alpha or beta particles, as found by Geiger and Marsden…Thus the Rutherford atom is like the solar system…"
So they were not actually observing atoms.
>lolwut. WHY. HOW. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself I'm asking you to explain the mechanism behind these substances releasing energy in the form of light.
It has to be continuous mechanism of some sorts, emitting light instead of particles. Admittedly, I've never experimented with them myself, these alternative-theories just make the most sense to me.
>First I'm hearing of it. How are atoms impossible to explain? Little bits that are also made of little bits that can interact with other little bits in predictable ways.
And how do we know these little bits exist and interact with other little bits?
>Sure, but atomic theory explains all that and a hell of a lot more.
And their own existence cannot be proven.
>How does the continuum model explain aurorae? How come moonlight throws a disco party at the poles and nowhere else? What exactly is happening to the moonlight at the poles? The moon being on the other side of the planet still constitutes a presence of moonlight? How does that work? Is moonlight different than other kinds of light? If you meant that it's just light from celestial objects, why not just say that?
Yeah, light from celestial objects, is it not clear what I meant?
>I chuckle as I push my sunglasses further up my face. What a fool, I think, to cling to the idea that atomic theory is purely philosophical in nature. My fingers dance across the keyboard:
>REPEATED OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION
Stretching your sentence as usual are you? Because as I have shown, it isn't actually proven by repeated observation and experimentation.
>Nice defense mechanism you've got there. Seems to be a recurring thing with you.
That's literally what's going on right now, you have a passive-aggressive way of exchanging words, artificially stretching your sentences to make them look more sophisticated when you can just type out all of your main points, without needing to capitalise everything and use all this effeminate rhetoric.
(skipping all this talmudic babble, i.e. the same thing)
>Fine, we'll shift methods on this one a little bit since it continues to be a point of contention. How does your continuum model fix that? How does an arrow have an easier time moving through a block of infinitely-divisible air than it does through a bunch of disparate, free-floating molecules with infinitely-divisible void between them?
It's explained in the paradox, and still applies to the modern atomic theory
>Zeno's argument that an (apparently) moving arrow is really at rest throughout its flight seems easy to evade if one insists that space is continuous (and hence infinitely divisible). But an atomist who insists on theoretically indivisible atoms seems bound to deny that space is infinitely divisible. And Zeno's Arrow Paradox poses an especially troubling problem for such an atomist.
Continuous/easily divisible space = continuum physics, particles = obviously atomism.

 No.1394[D][DF]

>>1393
>Thomson and Rutherford can't be entirely certain they didn't observe something else
Yes, but the same can be said of gravity. Maybe the earth is just constantly accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2.
At this point it sure seems a lot like their findings correlate perfectly with the observed world. They've certainly helped us create some nifty inventions.
>Admittedly, I've never experimented with them myself, these alternative-theories just make the most sense to me.
Then you have a starting point. You're already at a disadvantage, I have personally recreated many classic experiments regarding atomic theory and sincerely tried to come up with alternate explanations but came up empty.
>And how do we know these little bits exist and interact with other little bits?
You already know what I'm going to say, don't you.
>their own existence cannot be proven
By the scientific definition of proven, it's been done many times over. I'm sorry, I kind of thought we were all on the same page regarding definitions but I've thought about it a bit and I really don't think we are. I've been using the scientific definition of proven which means "supported by overwhelming evidence." You're looking for something more like "I have personally touched and smelled a atom and God told me what it was." Again, theories are about what best explains the world around us. If atomic theory is all backwards, then the new theory will just mean more information for everyone. That's progress.
>is it not clear what I meant?
Yeah. Related to the bit about why exactly some substances emit radio waves and not others, I need specifics. Atomic theory gives me "charged particles ejected from violent nuclear activity in the sun are pulled towards the earth's magnetic poles, ionizing the upper atmosphere resulting in light-emitting plasma." Atomic theory also tells me what nuclear fusion is, what a particle is, what a charge is, what an ion is, what causes light emission, and what plasma is so that's in no way "Talmudic babbling." Your explanation just isn't robust enough to compete. It needs to be developed if it's to be taken seriously.
>you have a passive-aggressive way of exchanging words
Cry me a river, faggot. This ain't Buckingham Palace.
>you stretch your sentences
Sometimes every now and then big words and sentences can explain complex things in ways that simple small ones can't. Maybe I abuse the English language, maybe I don't, but you're sure pitching one hell of a fit over the way I use words you don't like. I promise you, I'm not trying super hard to look intelligent here. I just paid attention in high school. Also, I'm passionate about SCIENCE!
>more about arrow paradox
I think what you're struggling with here is that you're thinking modern atomic theory is comparable to the ancient one. We do not, in this day and age, believe atoms to be indivisible or the absolute smallest possible things. There are things smaller than an atom, and an atom can be split into smaller parts. There is no problem with the atomic model and motion related to this paradox. Certainly none which aren't present in your continuum model.
Look, we can go in circles all day about this with me asking questions and you refusing to answer them, but all that really matters is >>1364. If you want the attention of anyone who matters, you need to use your SCIENTIFIC method. Find some real evidence to support your alternative theory, not something you pulled from your head or what you've decided makes the most sense.
>ask a question
>research to see if an answer already exists
>construct a hypothesis
>conduct an experiment (a good one is repeatable, unbiased, designed around the hypothesis, has a control, and isolates the independent variable)
>thoroughly analyze data
>come up with a conclusion based on results
>share findings with others so they can repeat your experiment
It seems a lot to me that you want to go through the process backwards, starting with an answer and then fabricating evidence to back it up. That's a big no-no. But, if you can construct a legitimately solid experiment that supports your theory and debunks the current atomic model, then congratulations. You got yourself some ground to stand on. Until then you're just a dancing fool.
There's no reason to be a caveman about this. You can use SCIENCE!

 No.1396[D][DF]

>>1394
>Yes, but the same can be said of gravity. Maybe the earth is just constantly accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2.
Gravity has far more backing than the atomic theory, but discussing it is for another time, it's been disputed in the past as well.
>They've certainly helped us create some nifty inventions.
But my point with this is how these innovations, including nuclear weapons are fake, and that nukes in particular are a psy-op utilising faulty science.
>You already know what I'm going to say, don't you.
Not observation and experimentation, we've never observed atoms through that.
>By the scientific definition of proven, it's been done many times over. I'm sorry, I kind of thought we were all on the same page regarding definitions but I've thought about it a bit and I really don't think we are. I've been using the scientific definition of proven which means "supported by overwhelming evidence." You're looking for something more like "I have personally touched and smelled a atom and God told me what it was." Again, theories are about what best explains the world around us. If atomic theory is all backwards, then the new theory will just mean more information for everyone. That's progress.
That evidence as I have already pointed out, is not applicable; Thomson and Rutherford never really saw an atom.
>charged particles ejected from violent nuclear activity in the sun are pulled towards the earth's magnetic poles, ionizing the upper atmosphere resulting in light-emitting plasma." Atomic theory also tells me what nuclear fusion is, what a particle is, what a charge is, what an ion is, what causes light emission, and what plasma is so that's in no way "Talmudic babbling." Your explanation just isn't robust enough to compete. It needs to be developed if it's to be taken seriously.
1. My definition for talmudic babbling was the way you spoke, not necessarily the theories themselves (though I do disagree with them and acknowledge that they have been used in massive psy-ops)
2. We don't know that these particles even exist, realistically they cannot even exist.
>
I think what you're struggling with here is that you're thinking modern atomic theory is comparable to the ancient one. We do not, in this day and age, believe atoms to be indivisible or the absolute smallest possible things. There are things smaller than an atom, and an atom can be split into smaller parts. There is no problem with the atomic model and motion related to this paradox. Certainly none which aren't present in your continuum model.
That's missing the point though. It's not that atoms don't have subatoms in the ancient model, this is the reason why the ancient model faulty according to Zeno's arrow paradox, and it can still apply to the modern atomic theory: >>1388
>space is indivisible, matter consists of these molecular entities, realistically the arrow is stuck in the air
>in a continuous space, the arrow goes through the air as it does realistically
(just a small point to make, "atomos" in Greek literally means indivisible, so the "fact" that in the atomic theory, subatoms exist contradicts the meaning of "atom" itself)



[Reply to this Thread]

[Return] [Go to top] [Catalog]
[Post a Reply]