Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Weitter Duckss

Why Atmospheres of Stars Lack Metals?

275 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

That's what you're trying to imply. My assertions are clear: there is no evidence (there is evidence for the opposite) about the mapping of nuclear bombs in processes in the universe.

Not sure what this means, but if it is an implication that fission doesn't occur naturally I have allready told you about the Oklo natural fission reactor. Did you not read that link ?

Here is another one, please read ithttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

I just warn: in the universe there are no bottles, screws, labs ... that create special conditions.

The laws of the universe doesn't change just because you are in a lab, that is a rediculous thing to say.

What you can do in a lab is to create special conditions to test the laws of the universe, but you can't change them. So if you can create fusion in a lab it is because it is a fundamental process in the universe, not because a lab have special properties. Labs aren't magical !

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Everything happens without interference of humans and supernatural forces.

So you are dealing with supernatural forces now ? I should be surprised, but I am really not.

 

Now that I have given you an example of fission outside the lab (again), are you now willing to answer my question about how nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors work, given your assertion that fission and fusion doesn't exist ?

Remember I just gave you an example of a natural nuclear reactor, so don't use the excuse about the laws of the universe being different in a lab.

I will continue this until you either come up with an alternative explanation, or concede that your idea is faulty.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

I'll ask again: how much mass falls into the Sun (per year)? Just give approximate number.

You are throwing word "evidence" more than often, yet you are unable to show actual evidence.

So I avoid a discussion where there is no verifiable evidence that can be put into the relationship. There is evidence that matter falls on Sun. There is no evidence or estimation of the quantity of matter. Relationship with Earth, I gave up. Your desire to compare this data with the article, from the link, will not be satisfied yet.

 Let's discuss where the matter goes, which "winds off" Sun? Does it eat, cat *****, or is there a greater gravity than Sun nearby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Not sure what this means, but if it is an implication that fission doesn't occur naturally I have allready told you about the Oklo natural fission reactor. Did you not read that link ?

Here is another one, please read ithttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/

The laws of the universe doesn't change just because you are in a lab, that is a rediculous thing to say.

What you can do in a lab is to create special conditions to test the laws of the universe, but you can't change them. So if you can create fusion in a lab it is because it is a fundamental process in the universe, not because a lab have special properties. Labs aren't magical !

So you are dealing with supernatural forces now ? I should be surprised, but I am really not.

 

Now that I have given you an example of fission outside the lab (again), are you now willing to answer my question about how nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors work, given your assertion that fission and fusion doesn't exist ?

Remember I just gave you an example of a natural nuclear reactor, so don't use the excuse about the laws of the universe being different in a lab.

I will continue this until you either come up with an alternative explanation, or concede that your idea is faulty.

Although almost all this material, which has a 24,000-year halflife, has since disappeared (primarily through natural radioactive decay),

It was not, as we had expected, found to a significant extent in the uranium-rich mineral grains. Rather the lion’s share was trapped in aluminum phosphate minerals, which contain no uranium at all…

Chemical reactions would not do the trick, because all isotopes are chemically identical. Perhaps nuclear reactions, such as neutron capture?..

But even if nature could miraculously create a similar process on a microscopic scale, the mix of xenon isotopes in the aluminum phosphate grains we studied would have been different from what we found. For example, measured with respect to the amount of xenon 132 present, the depletion of xenon 136 (being four atomic mass units heavier) would have been twice that of xenon 134 (two atomic mass units heavier) if physical sorting had operated. We did not see that pattern.”

 If we assume these speculations are correct, this is not against my article.

 “Lava can be hot, but never radioactive (low radiation that exist in the lava is considered that they are not harmful to people and life).
Radioactive elements and compounds are present in the crust of Earth. Lava can go through that matter and demonstrate radioactivity, but that does not provide evidence of magma being radioactive. Plates and volcanoes move.” http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Why-Atmospheres-of-Stars-Lack-Metals

There are other options for the offered article:

“As there is an infinite quantity of particles, all connections occur in a full volume of mostly very different particles.

 In such a vast quantity, another type of connection may also occur.

An element consists of one or more particles, threads, that are defficient or sufficient; such a particle tends to achieve a balance. All particle-creating environments have their own characteristics, but all of them have an upper limit of sustainment of connected particles. On Earth, the upper limit goes from polonium (Po) to uranium (U).

 It is important to know that connecting does not follow the rule of the upper limit; it occurs to the contrary of the rule. Such an element takes new particles and at the same time rejects those particles that have already been a constituent part of the element, with radiation that accompanies such a process.” http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#6c

We at the universe are discussing billions of billions x Chernobyl, Fukuyama, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and all of the atomic and hydrogen bomber experiments.

Observe the Relationship: The fusion on Earth takes place in a core that is deep at 5,100 to 6,378 km. Why are Earth Pressures Special? on Sun it's over a million km  deep. Is this the science you want to represent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2017 at 4:12 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

So I avoid a discussion where there is no verifiable evidence that can be put into the relationship. There is evidence that matter falls on Sun. There is no evidence or estimation of the quantity of matter. Relationship with Earth, I gave up. Your desire to compare this data with the article, from the link, will not be satisfied yet.

 [...]

Again, how much matter falls into the Sun? You are constantly blabbering about evidence, and now you throw "There is no evidence or estimation of the quantity of matter"?!!!

On 11/13/2017 at 4:12 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

 Let's discuss where the matter goes, which "winds off" Sun? Does it eat, cat *****, or is there a greater gravity than Sun nearby?

 

By large it becomes interstellar medium. You would know that if you would had studied the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Again, how much matter falls into the Sun? You are constantly blabbering about evidence, and now you throw "There is no evidence or estimation of the quantity of matter"?!!!

By large it becomes interstellar medium. You would know that if you would had studied the subject.

Evidence exists to prove the growth of the body out of any doubt. It is now hit in articles, newly acquired "minds" (https://www.space.com/32266-young-stars-grow-chaotically-study-shows.html  ...  etc).


There is evidence that the radiation is ionizing and disintegrating particles. It is not necessary to reach the particles with Sun. There is substance in the space (particles, dust, and other bodies). Enough to look at the comet, the planet's atmosphere and shavtiti to radiation in correlation with matter produce clearly visible event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Evidence exists to prove the growth of the body out of any doubt. It is now hit in articles, newly acquired "minds" (https://www.space.com/32266-young-stars-grow-chaotically-study-shows.html  ...  etc).


There is evidence that the radiation is ionizing and disintegrating particles. It is not necessary to reach the particles with Sun. There is substance in the space (particles, dust, and other bodies). Enough to look at the comet, the planet's atmosphere and shavtiti to radiation in correlation with matter produce clearly visible event.

shavtiti ? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

shavtiti ? :wacko:

See, understand, notice, not be blind, comprehend (shavtiti,replacement a and v, of shvatiti).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Evidence exists to prove the growth of the body out of any doubt. It is now hit in articles, newly acquired "minds" (https://www.space.com/32266-young-stars-grow-chaotically-study-shows.html  ...  etc).

[...]

You, obviously, completely misunderstood article (and the paper it references). Its about young pre-main sequence stars (more precisely, FU Orionis stars) which are still in formation stage. This research is continuation of previous researches, for example, Lee Hartmann and Scott J. Kenyon, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 1996. 34:207–40.
 

Since you have no clue how much mass falls into the Sun, I'll ask in other way: how much mass has to fall (per time unit) into the Sun to keep it shining for 10 billion years?

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/11/2017 at 3:16 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

Although almost all this material, which has a 24,000-year halflife, has since disappeared (primarily through natural radioactive decay),

It was not, as we had expected, found to a significant extent in the uranium-rich mineral grains. Rather the lion’s share was trapped in aluminum phosphate minerals, which contain no uranium at all…

Chemical reactions would not do the trick, because all isotopes are chemically identical. Perhaps nuclear reactions, such as neutron capture?..

But even if nature could miraculously create a similar process on a microscopic scale, the mix of xenon isotopes in the aluminum phosphate grains we studied would have been different from what we found. For example, measured with respect to the amount of xenon 132 present, the depletion of xenon 136 (being four atomic mass units heavier) would have been twice that of xenon 134 (two atomic mass units heavier) if physical sorting had operated. We did not see that pattern.”

Those are very selective quotes from the article. For people who haven't read it they do give an explanation for the things Weitter Duckss quoted.

It seems rather dishonest to only use select quotes taken out of context.  

Quote

 If we assume these speculations are correct, this is not against my article.

Like I just told you there is nothing to support you ideas once you actually read the entire article.

Quote

 “Lava can be hot, but never radioactive (low radiation that exist in the lava is considered that they are not harmful to people and life).
Radioactive elements and compounds are present in the crust of Earth. Lava can go through that matter and demonstrate radioactivity, but that does not provide evidence of magma being radioactive. Plates and volcanoes move.” http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Why-Atmospheres-of-Stars-Lack-Metals

There are other options for the offered article:

“As there is an infinite quantity of particles, all connections occur in a full volume of mostly very different particles.

 In such a vast quantity, another type of connection may also occur

An element consists of one or more particles, threads, that are defficient or sufficient; such a particle tends to achieve a balance. All particle-creating environments have their own characteristics, but all of them have an upper limit of sustainment of connected particles. On Earth, the upper limit goes from polonium (Po) to uranium (U).

 It is important to know that connecting does not follow the rule of the upper limit; it occurs to the contrary of the rule. Such an element takes new particles and at the same time rejects those particles that have already been a constituent part of the element, with radiation that accompanies such a process.” http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#6c

We at the universe are discussing billions of billions x Chernobyl, Fukuyama, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and all of the atomic and hydrogen bomber experiments.

So once again you have to resort to quoting yourself in order to prove yourself. :rolleyes:

Quote

Observe the Relationship: The fusion on Earth takes place in a core that is deep at 5,100 to 6,378 km. Why are Earth Pressures Special? on Sun it's over a million km  deep. Is this the science you want to represent?

There is no fusion in the Earths core, so I am not sure what you mean here ?

Once again you have managed to respond to one of my question without ever actually answering the question. I must admit that this is getting a little tiresome.

Why are you so afraid of answering questions that doesn't fit your narrative ?

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Those are very selective quotes from the article. For people who haven't read it they do give an explanation for the things Weitter Duckss quoted.

It seems rather dishonest to only use select quotes taken out of context.  

Like I just told you there is nothing to support you ideas once you actually read the entire article.

So once again you have to resort to quoting yourself in order to prove yourself. :rolleyes:

There is no fusion in the Earths core, so I am not sure what you mean here ?

Once again you have managed to respond to one of my question without ever actually answering the question. I must admit that this is getting a little tiresome.

Why are you so afraid of answering questions that doesn't fit your narrative ?

Quote = selectively, otherwise quote the whole text. I did not intend to criticize the text, but to express suspicion (doubt is the mother of science).

I accept ideas that are logical and use evidence. Article is only farfetched conjecture.

My quotations use as: it is already written and better English. My quotes are also selective, they are the reflection (quote) of my text.

 

Fusion in the Earths core .

Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%)

(“Some dynamics in the disk, such as dynamical friction, are necessary to allow orbiting gas to lose angular momentumand fall onto the central massive object. Occasionally, this can result in stellar surface fusion” )

and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%)

(Fission, a splitting of something into two or more parts). Wikipedia

 

I use the words fission and fusion in exchange for radioactive processes.

Radioactive processes are exclusively related to extreme radiation. To claim one, without the evidence of the other is just a fairy tale, it is not science.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Since you have no clue how much mass falls into the Sun, I'll ask in other way: how much mass has to fall (per time unit) into the Sun to keep it shining for 10 billion years?

Star = star (body that emits significant radiation).

 

Time, I always removed from the debate. Here I also published the article "Who is lying that the earth is old 4.5 to 5 billion years?".

This topic, time, will sometimes come to the discussion.

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#18b .. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Star = star (body that emits significant radiation).

 [...]

I'll ask again: HOW MUCH MASS (in kilograms per second) HAS TO FALL INTO THE SUN? Give number.

25 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Time, I always removed from the debate. Here I also published the article "Who is lying that the earth is old 4.5 to 5 billion years?".

This topic, time, will sometimes come to the discussion.

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#18b .. etc.

Another drivel from madman? No thanks.

So how old Sun is? And how old Earth is? Give numbers, not senseless drivel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

I'll ask again: HOW MUCH MASS (in kilograms per second) HAS TO FALL INTO THE SUN? Give number.

Another drivel from madman? No thanks.

So how old Sun is? And how old Earth is? Give numbers, not senseless drivel.

 

 

Star Mass M Sun Temperature K
2M1207 ~0,025 2550 ± 150
Teide 1 0,052 2600 ± 150
VHS 1256-1257 0,07-0,015 2.620 ± 140
Van Biesbroeck's star 0,075> 2.600
DENIS 1048-1039 0,075> 2.200
Teegarden's Star 0,08 2.637
DX Cancri 0,09 2.840
TVLM 513-46546 0,09 2.500
Wolf 359 0,09 2,800 ± 100
Gliese 777 0,09 5.417

The stars emit radiation (hot) at 0.025 M Sun. They do not need additional material for their definition. Do you remember, Mass (pressure forces) + rotation and binary effects and point. 

For the age of Earth, read the article, everything is written. For Sun, apply the same parameters.

 

Planet

Mass of Jupiter

Temperature K

Distance AU

GQ Lupi b 1-36 2650 ± 100 100
ROXs 42Bb 9 1,950-2,000  157
HD 106906 b 11 1.800 ~650
DH Tauri b 12 2.750 330
CT Chamaeleontis b 10,5-17  2.500 440
HD 44627 13-14 1.600-2.400 275
1RXS 1609 b 14 1.800 330
UScoCTIO 108 b 14 2.600 670
Oph 11 B 21 2.478 243
HIP 78530 b 24 2.700 740
Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2017 at 10:16 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

 

 

Star Mass M Sun Temperature K
2M1207 ~0,025 2550 ± 150
Teide 1 0,052 2600 ± 150
VHS 1256-1257 0,07-0,015 2.620 ± 140
Van Biesbroeck's star 0,075> 2.600
DENIS 1048-1039 0,075> 2.200
Teegarden's Star 0,08 2.637
DX Cancri 0,09 2.840
TVLM 513-46546 0,09 2.500
Wolf 359 0,09 2,800 ± 100
Gliese 777 0,09 5.417

The stars emit radiation (hot) at 0.025 M Sun. They do not need additional material for their definition. Do you remember, Mass (pressure forces) + rotation and binary effects and point. 

For the age of Earth, read the article, everything is written. For Sun, apply the same parameters.

 

Planet

Mass of Jupiter

Temperature K

Distance AU

GQ Lupi b 1-36 2650 ± 100 100
ROXs 42Bb 9 1,950-2,000  157
HD 106906 b 11 1.800 ~650
DH Tauri b 12 2.750 330
CT Chamaeleontis b 10,5-17  2.500 440
HD 44627 13-14 1.600-2.400 275
1RXS 1609 b 14 1.800 330
UScoCTIO 108 b 14 2.600 670
Oph 11 B 21 2.478 243
HIP 78530 b 24 2.700 740

Instead of posting single number, you brought whole bunch unrelated ones. Obviously you don't have answer, and you don't know how to estimate it. Not surprising.

Ok, next question: what happens to the movement in the presence of friction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Instead of posting single number, you brought whole bunch unrelated ones. Obviously you don't have answer, and you don't know how to estimate it. Not surprising.

Ok, next question: what happens to the movement in the presence of friction?

I always look at the whole whole. All data in one place gives a relevant conclusion. From these two tables, there is all the necessary knowledge about the so-called evolution of the stars (due to constant growth). Data say that the body can (if it fulfills the necessary conditions) become a star at Jupiter's weight. There are examples at the mass of the Earth.
Keeping this in mind, we eliminate a whole set of hypotheses and open a new chapter on the stars and other bodies.
The era passed when they were untouchable when their word was a law. Readers are no longer illiterate. (this applies to untouchables, who live in their fiction).

For your question, give an example (published evidence) to what you are aiming for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

I always look at the whole whole. All data in one place gives a relevant conclusion. From these two tables, there is all the necessary knowledge about the so-called evolution of the stars (due to constant growth). Data say that the body can (if it fulfills the necessary conditions) become a star at Jupiter's weight. There are examples at the mass of the Earth.

[...]

Show me how much mass falls into the Sun. I already have shown you that Earth is losing as much mass as it gains.

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]
The era passed when they were untouchable when their word was a law. Readers are no longer illiterate. (this applies to untouchables, who live in their fiction).

[...]

You are. Definitely.

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

For your question, give an example (published evidence) to what you are aiming for.

Still avoiding questions, aren't you?

Ok, you claim that temperature of the stars is due to rotation, and, consequently, friction. Sun's rotational energy is ~1.5·1036 J (basic physics and simple math), and Sun puts out ~3.8·1026 J/s. Now, if your "theory" would be right, Sun would stop rotating in just over 100 years, unless there is energy source that would keep it rotating. So, main question: what is the source of Sun's rotation? If you will say "mass falling into cyclones", I'll ask again: how much mass has to fall into those "cyclones" to keep Sun radiating ~3.8·1026 J/s? And how that "falling mass" keeps Sun rotating, if it falls "into cyclones in poles"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/11/2017 at 8:28 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

Quote = selectively, otherwise quote the whole text. I did not intend to criticize the text, but to express suspicion (doubt is the mother of science).

I accept ideas that are logical and use evidence. Article is only farfetched conjecture.

My quotations use as: it is already written and better English. My quotes are also selective, they are the reflection (quote) of my text.

 

Fusion in the Earths core .

Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%)

(“Some dynamics in the disk, such as dynamical friction, are necessary to allow orbiting gas to lose angular momentumand fall onto the central massive object. Occasionally, this can result in stellar surface fusion” )

and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%)

(Fission, a splitting of something into two or more parts). Wikipedia

 

I use the words fission and fusion in exchange for radioactive processes.

Radioactive processes are exclusively related to extreme radiation. To claim one, without the evidence of the other is just a fairy tale, it is not science.

 

 

 

How does nuclear weapons work ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

How does nuclear weapons work ?

How does it work? A series of fools are created, constructed, and used (in the nature of unavailable natural forces) for the purpose of mass killing.

When it is, to them, a little, then these weapons are trying to kill and the universe.

Only Propaganda of Evil and Power. Bad attempt at putting their blame on nature.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Show me how much mass falls into the Sun. I already have shown you that Earth is losing as much mass as it gains.

You are. Definitely.

Still avoiding questions, aren't you?

Ok, you claim that temperature of the stars is due to rotation, and, consequently, friction. Sun's rotational energy is ~1.5·1036 J (basic physics and simple math), and Sun puts out ~3.8·1026 J/s. Now, if your "theory" would be right, Sun would stop rotating in just over 100 years, unless there is energy source that would keep it rotating. So, main question: what is the source of Sun's rotation? If you will say "mass falling into cyclones", I'll ask again: how much mass has to fall into those "cyclones" to keep Sun radiating ~3.8·1026 J/s? And how that "falling mass" keeps Sun rotating, if it falls "into cyclones in poles"?

I'm not dealing with claims and hypotheses. I just use all (me) available data in one place. Hypotheses and bad claims are my food. (S Cassiopeiae 3,5-10 M Sun,  Radius 930   R Sun, Temperature 1.800 K) (Gliese 7770,09 M Sun, 5.417°K) (ROXs 42Bb, 9 Mass of Jupiter, 2650 ± 100°K, distance 100 AU)

Rotation is all present in the universe. Rotation begins with proton due to imbalance + and - charge and particle relief (see atom). Cyclone is over 99, ..% only rotation product. It is seldom a source of rotation.

If there is no other force, rotation would exist because of the constant circle of the body around the star. Without the orbit of the rotacoy would result from the rotation of the galaxy,

Look at the volcanoes. The matter goes into the stratosphere does not go to moon or Charon. It's the same with Sun. The material is locked by gravity. Great gravity does not mean that Sun takes the Venus or Titan atmosphere. Gravitation Sun loses priority to Mercury and much earlier (if there is a body).

Cyclones (friction, layers of matter within the body), in 96.15% of the total amount of stars in Milky Way, do not play a key role (cyclones are a star rotation product, mostly).  …

from earlier  http://phys.org/news/2015-10-scientists-rocky-planets-pebbles.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

How does it work? A series of fools are created, constructed, and used (in the nature of unavailable natural forces) for the purpose of mass killing.

When it is, to them, a little, then these weapons are trying to kill and the universe.

Only Propaganda of Evil and Power. Bad attempt at putting their blame on nature.

 

Great another non answer.

Are you ever going to answer this or are you going to keep avoiding the issue everytime I ask? If you are going to avoid answering it reflects badly on you. 

So lets try again and this time try to give an actual answer: How does nuclear weapons work ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

How does it work? A series of fools are created, constructed, and used (in the nature of unavailable natural forces) for the purpose of mass killing.

When it is, to them, a little, then these weapons are trying to kill and the universe.

Only Propaganda of Evil and Power. Bad attempt at putting their blame on nature.

 

So, in other words, you actually don’t know how nuclear weapons work. Well, who would have thunk it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Great another non answer.

Are you ever going to answer this or are you going to keep avoiding the issue everytime I ask? If you are going to avoid answering it reflects badly on you. 

So lets try again and this time try to give an actual answer: How does nuclear weapons work ?

How does nuclear weapons work ?

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/217306-explaining-the-unimaginable-how-do-nuclear-bombs-work etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badeskov said:

So, in other words, you actually don’t know how nuclear weapons work. Well, who would have thunk it.  

You're almost right, almost. I do not want that kind of knowledge. Everyone in 5 minutes can gain superficial knowledge if he wants to. I'm not among them.
Unlike most of you, I've been through the war. That's more than enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

So you accept nuclear fission and fusion now ? Because thats what your link says.

Or did you just link to the first hit that came up on a google search ?

Yes I did search "How does nuclear weapons work" and the first hit that came up was the one you gave. I guess we now know your level of "research". :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

So you accept nuclear fission and fusion now ? Because thats what your link says.

Or did you just link to the first hit that came up on a google search ?

Yes I did search "How does nuclear weapons work" and the first hit that came up was the one you gave. I guess we now know your level of "research". :rolleyes:

Congratulations. You immediately understood from letter to character. Still do not know how to not you accept on: that , the topic, I avoid in a wide arc. In particular that since 2004 trying it to remove from the physics of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.