Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Soft Particle Physics

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
I'm not saying that the Nazca plains is a landing strip, that was your saying. What I'm saying is that you need to be on the air to see them, and I don't think you could make them by being on the ground the whole time.
You never saw the videos on youtube of guys making complex shapes in crop circles that can only be appreciated from the air?


If one looks at the inventions of the past, your more likely to come up with new things of the future, take for example Japan, they looked to the past, and look at them now, they are chillin'.
Just a cryptic comment with no meaning that's apparent. Most of what I run across from Japan lately is stuff like heated protests over re-opening nuclear plants so I'm not used to seeing them chillin, that radiation is pretty hot.


And have you even read the Vaimanika Shastra?
This? What does that prove?


Maharshi Bharadwaaja:

I make obeisance to the Divine Being, who is visible on the crest of the Vedas, who is the fountain of eternal bliss, and whose abode is reached by Vimaanas or Aeroplanes.
So the way to meet God is by flying an airplane to God's house. How does this prove anything?




posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm still having a hard time trying to get my head wrapped around the whole Nazca lines being done without a in-the-sky shot. Now if it was done on a hill I can understand that, but a plains, no, having a hard time with that one. Because, going off of video made in Hollywood (Not very reliable) and tours done by people (Somewhat reliable), Peru is no walk in the park, it's filled with predator eat predator. So, yes, I can understand people saying, "They did it by land." But what I don't understand is, how did they do it without a mistake on their part?

A human being can't walk in a straight line if they are blindfolded. So a ariel shot from the sky, is the only solution that seems reasonable to me.

However, I'm more focusing on what is built, not who is in the sky. If they can build flying saucers, then why can't we?

Simple, some people are too stubborn to accept the fact that energy is free. I mean why are there at least 46 US patents of people that made flying saucers and they had prototypes. And why quartz crystals (Really amazing, living capacitor) can hold so much electricity and can fly or levitate?



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
I'm still having a hard time trying to get my head wrapped around the whole Nazca lines being done without a in-the-sky shot.
You really don't research things very well:

Nazca Lines

Contrary to the popular belief that the lines and figures can only be seen with the aid of flight, they are visible from atop the surrounding foothills.
I guess you missed this. But even if they weren't visible from the foothills, you never addressed my point about how guys make extremely complex crop circle shapes that can't be appreciated from the ground. You just ignore things that contradict your distorted viewpoint? I guess so.


However, I'm more focusing on what is built, not who is in the sky.
You don't see the relevance? If it's an incredible story, it's not credible. If the part about flying to visit god on a mountaintop isn't real, why would you assume anything else is?

So if I wrote that I visited Zmorg in the Perseus star system on my rocket powered bike, you'd be interested in my rocket powered bike and not worried about the rest of the story?



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nazca Lines

Contrary to the popular belief that the lines and figures can only be seen with the aid of flight, they are visible from atop the surrounding foothills.
I guess you missed this. But even if they weren't visible from the foothills, you never addressed my point about how guys make extremely complex crop circle shapes that can't be appreciated from the ground. You just ignore things that contradict your distorted viewpoint? I guess so.


It was stated as a hypothesis. Hypothesis and theories can change but laws can't unless they are broken all the way down. I exclude the idea of double-think and do it in the most rational manner as if I was living there, in that spot, as if it was being done in front of me. As well, I don't really rely on Wikipedia that often because it's people's opinions collected together, edited by the people, and created by the people.




However, I'm more focusing on what is built, not who is in the sky.
You don't see the relevance? If it's an incredible story, it's not credible. If the part about flying to visit god on a mountaintop isn't real, why would you assume anything else is?


A story is a story, people's point of view of what they saw, what they felt, and what was going through their mind. The best story teller is one who puts themselves in the shoes of the one they are talking about, whether by experience or by making it up as they go.



So if I wrote that I visited Zmorg in the Perseus star system on my rocket powered bike, you'd be interested in my rocket powered bike and not worried about the rest of the story?


My interest would be that on how you built it, why you built it, and how you came back on it. I have my engineering hat on and people usually like to see things with their own eyes, hear what they hear, and believe what they wish to believe. But it's the belief and action that go together and in turn give the person what he/she wants.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
people usually like to see things with their own eyes, hear what they hear, and believe what they wish to believe.
You believe what you wish to believe, which was the main option available before science.

Now that we have science, we are offered another choice: to believe what can be demonstrated with facts, evidence, and repeatable experiments. Sometimes this evidence doesn't show us what we wish to believe, so then we have a choice:

-believe what you wish to believe, or,
-believe the evidence.

I choose to believe the evidence, but you still believe what you wish to believe as people did before we had science (as seen by the complete lack of evidence for anything you have said). It's your choice to do this if you want, but you are giving up several hundred years of scientific advancements in the process. You do have another choice.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Now that we have science, we are offered another choice: to believe what can be demonstrated with facts, evidence, and repeatable experiments. Sometimes this evidence doesn't show us what we wish to believe, so then we have a choice:

-believe what you wish to believe, or,
-believe the evidence.


But with belief, comes evidence, so all in due time, but not on my timetable.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
For all those still watching this, I have rediscovered something that I passed over, it's the Tunguska event.

Link

They said it was a meteor, but do meteors cause a massive amount of heat, a massive amount of light that can reach all the way to London to where a person can read a newspaper at night without a light?

This post should be put on "Weapons" Thread, but I need to do this first. Ignorance, in any shape or form, is what kills people. I'm not one to kill, and I don't have the heart to kill a person that has done nothing but good. But the only heart I have towards those who do evil is the one that shows them that they don't have to be like this.

Thank you.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 



They said it was a meteor, but do meteors cause a massive amount of heat, a massive amount of light that can reach all the way to London to where a person can read a newspaper at night without a light?


Yes, they do, actually. The Tungaska event was more likely caused by a comet, though. The volatiles would have made it more explosive.


This post should be put on "Weapons" Thread, but I need to do this first. Ignorance, in any shape or form, is what kills people. I'm not one to kill, and I don't have the heart to kill a person that has done nothing but good. But the only heart I have towards those who do evil is the one that shows them that they don't have to be like this.


I don't follow you. Why are you talking about killing people all of a sudden?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
After seeing the name Galen I re-watched an interview with him. It's an interesting video and though it has no real relevance to the main topic I will still post it.


Galen Winsor is a nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, WA; Oak Ridge, TN; Morris, IL, San Jose, CA; Wimington, NJ. Among his positions of expertise he was in charge of measuring and controlling the nuclear fuel inventory and storage.





posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I said that I don't have the heart to, because this tech is dangerous.

Plus, name another incident that happened like that incident. I can't find any, can you?
edit on 9-9-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 



They said it was a meteor, but do meteors cause a massive amount of heat, a massive amount of light that can reach all the way to London to where a person can read a newspaper at night without a light?


Yes, they do, actually. The Tungaska event was more likely caused by a comet, though. The volatiles would have made it more explosive.
Actually the source FreedomCommander used lists several reasons why it's not a meteor but probably a comet instead, so I have no idea why he's contradicting his own source? The bright night skies have been cited as possible evidence of a cometary tail causing the illumination as the Earth passed through it, and a primarily rocky body doesn't normally have a cometary tail.

FreedomCommander, that source isn't very reliable in general (in spite of the header "biblical-accurate-certain"), but the article you cited is 30 years old and there is some research in the last 30 years worth considering if you really want to look into that event.

In 2001 a study was published saying the direction appeared to come from the asteroid belt, which contradicts your 1982 source saying it had a trajectory indicating it didn't come from the asteroid belt. However, simulations have suggested that some comets may even reside in the asteroid belt, so even if the object came from the asteroid belt, it could have been comet-like in composition:

www.astronomynow.com...

Some objects can contain varying compositions of rock and ice, so the distinction between a meteor and a comet isn't as clear as previously thought.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Plus, name another incident that happened like that incident. I can't find any, can you?
Here's a list of unexplained explosion events:

en.wikipedia.org...


I have estimated that the frequency of Tunguska-type impacts worldwide is only about once in a thousand years. That's on the edge of implausible since one happened only a century ago, but I think anything more often than once a century is inconsistent both with historical records and with observations of NEAs in space.

source: www.astrobio.net...

So you have to look further back to find explosions that large but there are smaller unexplained explosions in recent history, generally also thought to be impacts from cosmic objects.
edit on 9-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


But the interesting thing is, out of all of them, have any of them given off light to a large area? I keep on finding only that event.

Why?

As well, it's radiation. Radiation is mainly composed of positive charges, very dangerous for a human being.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
But the interesting thing is, out of all of them, have any of them given off light to a large area? I keep on finding only that event.

Why?

As well, it's radiation. Radiation is mainly composed of positive charges, very dangerous for a human being.
Light is by definition a form of radiation, called electromagnetic radiation. But light isn't composed of positive charges. UV light can cause skin cancer, so yes some light radiation can be harmful.

en.wikipedia.org...

night skies in Asia and Europe were aglow;[12] it has been theorized that this was due to light passing through high-altitude ice particles formed at extremely low temperatures, a phenomenon that occurred again when the Space Shuttle re-entered the Earth's atmosphere.
The other bolides weren't as large and probably didn't have as much ice content, so I'm guessing that's why they didn't light up the sky.
edit on 9-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


why say that? When light diffracts it grows less and less. How is it possible for light to be shown at ~7000 miles but not in the US all due to a supposed "Meteor"?

One more reason why I learn this stuff, to solve the paradoxes of our time on my own account.
edit on 10-9-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


why say that? When light diffracts it grows less and less. How is it possible for light to be shown at ~7000 miles but not in the US all due to a supposed "Meteor"?
Probably for the same reason that the western US got hit with higher radiation levels from Fukushima than the Eastern US did. Things can move around in the atmosphere and stratosphere but that doesn't mean the range is unlimited.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


But haven't I told you that radiation, if in the right doses and the right treatments, that it will help a person live better?

I'm not quick to believe what news say, not I'm a quick to believe what education says. For example, if one says to you "jump off a bridge." you wouldn't do it. But if they say "Jump off the bridge and we will make sure that you'll be caught." and you might be more willing to do it, even if they lie.

Since when did the AMA and the U.S. government begin to be concerned with our daily lives? I believe never.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
But haven't I told you that radiation, if in the right doses and the right treatments, that it will help a person live better?
When did you "told me" that?

I'm the one who posted that claim by Ann Coulter here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

And she's got a problem with evidence almost as bad as yours, though in her case she has evidence, it's just bad and misinterpreted.

In your case it's worse, as you have no evidence at all, right?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Alright, I'll repeat myself again.

There are three types of radiation, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma.

Alpha rays are consisting of helium nuclei or a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons. Unknown number of them.

Beta rays are consisting of electrons of ordinary electricity.

Gamma rays are consisting of ether particles of a large negative charge nature. They have no more of a penetrating ability than a stream of very negative charged electrons and they are no more harmful than that same stream of electrons. This also say that they cannot penetrate as readily as other electrons.

That only leaves one type of ray that is dangerous, the Alpha. If there is a positive charge and it gets into the human body, that positive charge will take all the good negative charges we need in order to function correctly. But their penetration power is limited and in due process they are quickly changed into a harmless helium gas.

Now I don't know about that person and the whole "Explosion on Jupiter" deal but all I know is that there is a explosion on that planet. Did people die? I don't know. Was a city leveled by that explosion? I don't know. Was that a natural cause? I don't know. All I know is that there was a explosion. This is similar to what I'm talking about. All I know is Soft Particle Physics.

Those who are steeped deep into the academic arena, they will have the intent to kill what I was self-taught.
edit on 11-9-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
There are three types of radiation, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma.

Alpha rays are consisting of helium nuclei or a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons. Unknown number of them.

Beta rays are consisting of electrons of ordinary electricity.

Gamma rays are consisting of ether particles of a large negative charge nature. They have no more of a penetrating ability than a stream of very negative charged electrons and they are no more harmful than that same stream of electrons. This also say that they cannot penetrate as readily as other electrons.

That only leaves one type of ray that is dangerous, the Alpha.
you got about half that right and half wrong.

Alpha particles can be stopped with a sheet of paper or the skin.
Beta particles can be stopped with a sheet of foil
Gamma radiation can be stopped with thick lead, and is used to kill things:

Gamma Ray

Gamma radiation is often used to kill living organisms, in a process called irradiation. Applications of this include sterilizing medical equipment (as an alternative to autoclaves or chemical means), removing decay-causing bacteria from many foods or preventing fruit and vegetables from sprouting to maintain freshness and flavor.

Despite their cancer-causing properties, gamma rays are also used to treat some types of cancer, since the rays kill cancer cells also. In the procedure called gamma-knife surgery, multiple concentrated beams of gamma rays are directed on the growth in order to kill the cancerous cells. The beams are aimed from different angles to concentrate the radiation on the growth while minimizing damage to surrounding tissues.
So the killing properties of gamma rays can be good if they are used to kill cancer cells, or kill organisms growing in the food we eat. But because they are so hard to stop, they can be far deadlier than alpha particles.





new topics




 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join