The Expanding Universe

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
user737
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm

The Expanding Universe

Post by user737 » Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:12 am

https://www.cnet.com/news/universe-is-e ... knows-why/
It's become clear that something in the cosmos just doesn't add up.
Hard to add things up and get the right value if you are adding wrong numbers.
In fact, it's expanding at a much faster rate than it should.
Should? Listen up everybody, the "scientists" have confirmed the universe is not acting as it "should."
Quick, someone call the Gaff Squad.
For some time now [Ed's translation: whole careers] there's been a mismatch in observations of the early universe done with the European Space Agency's Planck Telescope and what astronomers see when they measure the more nearby, modern parts of space with NASA's Hubble Telescope.
For some time now conventional understanding has been wrong; we just plow ahead.
Riess says the discrepancy strongly suggests there's a piece missing in the puzzle that scientists have put together over the years to model the history of the universe.
Ironically they think they are missing a single piece when they're really missing the whole picture!

The article then goes on the re-hash Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

This is my favorite:
The actual explanation remains a mystery.
The use of the word "actual" is perfect. They have an explanation. It's bunk. The actual explanation remains a mystery. Spot on.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma

user737
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm

Re: The Expanding Universe

Post by user737 » Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:03 pm

Similar on NY Post:
https://nypost.com/2019/04/26/the-unive ... s-thought/

Points here for underlying study.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: The Expanding Universe

Post by bperet » Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:37 am

Something --daniel posted to his Facebook...
RRWilson-on-TOE.jpg
Stay blind for the money
RRWilson-on-TOE.jpg (75.45 KiB) Viewed 3962 times
Every dogma has its day...

user737
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm

Re: The Expanding Universe

Post by user737 » Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:47 pm

bperet wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:37 am
Something --daniel posted to his Facebook...
RRWilson-on-TOE.jpg
Robert R. Wilson
American Physical Society,
Manhattan Project, Los Alamos,
Fermilab

Talk about a lie... nuclear atom bomb is about the biggest there is.
I am a former naval nuclear submarine officer and having a hard time coming to grips that I spent years of my life underwater playing D5 guardian.

Nuclear power works, this I can absolutely attest to. I want to learn more about how it really works and how we can improve the process.

Fermi is decidedly not "our guy."
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: The Expanding Universe

Post by bperet » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:18 am

user737 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:47 pm
Nuclear power works, this I can absolutely attest to. I want to learn more about how it really works and how we can improve the process.
When I looked at nuclear fission in the Reciprocal System, I found that a nuclear reactor works, but nuclear explosions do not. (See: Where's the Kaboom?)

One of the original concerns of a nuclear weapon was that there was not enough fissionable material available to make the chain reaction. Turns out they were right... the basic mistake was that they assumed a neutron exchange--and in the RS, that atom does not have neutrons, it has neutrinos. BIG difference. So it ends up that you can burn a nuclear reaction to get a very hot fire, but the fission rate is simply too slow to make it explode. And if you look at the spectrum of so-called nuclear explosions, it is on the wrong end--red/yellow. If it were a nuclear explosion, it would be in the intermediate and ultra-high speed region, making it bright blue, ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma rays. Not observed, though.
Every dogma has its day...

wsitze
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: Southern New Mexico
Contact:

Re: The Expanding Universe

Post by wsitze » Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:12 pm

Sorry Bruce,

I spent nearly 4 years as a fusing specialist (AF) for some of the earlier (and later) fission weapons. I'm probably one of the few people you know who has seen plutonium up close and too personal. If they don't work, what was being loaded under the wings of fighter jets during the Cuban Crises? They were some of the weapons I disassembled and reassembled for maintenance. Plus, Trinity was real as some of the ranchers, mostly deceased now, near White Sands attested. Something made a big bang with blinding light and fused the sand. My father was one of those ranch hands just after he graduated from high school, and we lived in the area until I graduated from HS (still do within an hours drive). I'm too knowledgeable of the intimate details to accept your extension on Larson's work, which is generally correct, but not on this.
Graybeard

user737
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm

Mechanism for nuclear explosion

Post by user737 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:14 am

It seems to me we may be at an impasse given nuclear testing is not longer permitted:
https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/h ... 945-today/

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibitsany nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosionanywhere in the world.

No longer having to "prove it" (having convinced a sufficient portion of the population it can be done), they are also no longer in a position where they can prove it. Checkmate.

If everything is based on scale, then if a micro-explosion cannot be demonstrated, neither can a larger explosion.

We speak of critical mass, this understandably would be the minimum mass of material (based on a known density) necessary to allow for an uncontrolled reaction (i.e. the mechanism goes super-critical and power output exponentially increases in time). It seems incredulous to me that with a scale reaching to the stars, all that is needed to produce a nuclear explosion is 5 or 10 kg of fissionable material.... but not 5 or 10 grams. So, 5 grams is insufficient but 5 kg is "enough" on a scale reaching to the stars, literally. Not likely.

Of course, there are also geometric considerations. The shape and size of the sub-critical masses and how they come together would be significant in consideration of the overall design.

Somebody help me out here.

P.S. When a nuclear reactor goes super critical it does *not* explode... it melts down. Precisely the process I would anticipate would occur in a nuclear "bomb." High levels of heat energy are created during the uncontrolled power generation acting to insert negative reactivity, inhibiting further fission, culminating in a total shutdown of the process.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Mechanism for nuclear explosion

Post by bperet » Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:41 pm

user737 wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:14 am
If everything is based on scale, then if a micro-explosion cannot be demonstrated, neither can a larger explosion
This is an interesting observation. In Nature, it takes a supernova to make a nuclear bomb. I just don't see how it can be accomplished on a smaller scale--as Larson states, "anything that can exist, it does exist." I don't see any nuclear bombs occurring in Nature on any scale other than stellar.
Every dogma has its day...

Djchrismac
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Mechanism for nuclear explosion

Post by Djchrismac » Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:13 am

bperet wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:41 pm
user737 wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:14 am
If everything is based on scale, then if a micro-explosion cannot be demonstrated, neither can a larger explosion
This is an interesting observation. In Nature, it takes a supernova to make a nuclear bomb. I just don't see how it can be accomplished on a smaller scale--as Larson states, "anything that can exist, it does exist." I don't see any nuclear bombs occurring in Nature on any scale other than stellar.
Agreed:
Djchrismac wrote:Sorry but you're quoting Sunfire of the Silver Legion and Veteran's Today... that's enough for me to know that the "mini-nukes" theory is distracting from the truth... how can you have a mini nuclear explosion? And why no reports of radiation allover New York?
https://fora.conscioushugs.com/viewtopi ... nuke#p6091
In support:
daniel wrote:
Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:00 pm
soldierhugsmember wrote:
Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:01 am
Khalezov has put out a lot of material on mini-nukes.
There's been loads of those over the years - the media call them massive car bombs or fertilizer explosions
The Bali bomb was a mini-nuke
The Okie bombing was also a mini-nuke
I have a problem with that, because, even after over a thousand tests in French Polynesia in the last 50 years, they have yet to get a "big nuke" to work. And the problem is "insufficient fissionable material." I could not conceive of how they could get one to work with even less material. Sounds like misdirection.
https://fora.conscioushugs.com/viewtopi ... nuke#p6095
So What is Really Going on behind the nuclear programs?
http://mileswmathis.com/caes.pdf
http://mileswmathis.com/NRO2.pdf

I read something a while back that had lots of evidence for the WW2 atomic bombs being massive indeniary bombs, not nuclear, but the 'fallout' has been sold to us as nuclear... there was supposed to be an Earth-Shattering Kaboom! http://www.conscioushugs.com/wheres-the-kaboom/

It's often useful to see associations in order to determine the truth of something and the deep association of nuclear with another massive fake tells me all I need to know:
Let’s sum it up. Did Einstein play a role in the creation of the atomic bomb? Of course — his physics isn’t irrelevant, and his letter to Roosevelt did start one phase of the work. But both of these things are less prominent than the Time-magazine-cover-understanding makes them out to be. They weren’t central to what became the Manhattan Project, and if you could somehow, magically, remove Einstein from the equation, it isn’t at all clear that the atomic bomb wouldn’t have been built around the time it actually was built. I don’t think you can really credit, or blame, Einstein for the atomic bomb, in any direct fashion. Einstein did play a role in things, but that role wasn’t as crucial, central, or direct as a lot of people imagine. If you could magically drop him out of history, I think very little in terms of atomic bombs would have been affected.

So why does the Einstein and the bomb myth persist? Why does everybody learn about the Einstein letter, if it wasn’t really was sparked the Manhattan Project? There are two answers here, I think. One is that Einstein was, even before the war, one of the best-known, best-recognized physicists of the 20th century, and was synonymous with revolutionary science and genius. Having him “predict” the atomic bomb with equations in 1905 — 40 years before one was set off — is the kind of “genius-story” that people love, even if it obscures more than it enlightens. It also has a high irony quotient, since Einstein was forced to flee from Germany when the Nazis took power.

But there’s another, perhaps more problematic aspect. In many early copies of the Smyth Report that were distributed by the government, copies of the Einstein letter were mimeographed and loosely inserted. The magnification of Einstein’s role was purposefully encouraged by the government in the immediate period after using the weapon. (And it was even a convenient myth for Einstein, as it magnified his own importance and thus potential influence.) Hanging the atomic bomb on Einstein’s head was an act of self-justification, of sorts. Einstein was the world’s greatest genius in the eyes of the public, and he was a well-known pacifist, practically a scientific saint. After all, if Einstein thought building a bomb was necessary, who could argue with him?

Image

Image

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/06/ ... -einstein/
Mini-nukes I mean really... we may as well be getting our education from this guy!

Image

The simple summary below is the best i've seen on the topic:
Atom bombs do not work
The original newspaper release was that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were fire bombed like Tokyo and it was only later that the story of the Abomb surfaced. All brick buildings were left standing, including the Bank of Japan which is still in use today. No residue “radiation”..
No Atom bombs have ever been used even during the Vietnam war where every other despicable weapon was used including chemicals. The USA lost this war.
No dictator or mad leaderr has ever used nuclear weapons.
All photos and film of atomic explosions are easily proven fake http://mileswmathis.com/trinity.pdf
Various scientists have shown the actual mechanics of an Abomb are not workable http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm

The Atomic bomb hoax was thought up by the USA, Russia and UK after WWII. Various other countries have been let into the hoax. The idea is to keep the masses in constant fear.

Not one single nuclear weapon large or small has ever been used.

Logical conclusion:- They don’t work
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... o_not_work
The link in the post above to Anders Björkman's website is fascinating, he's done a lot of excellent work on nukes, the moon and more:
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm

Anders has pages and pages of great info, he's a brief sample:
Nuclear weapons are 100% US/USSR (Russia)/Japanese collusion, infringements, infractions, stupid propaganda, lies, pseudoscience or bad science and history fiction. It upsets many American and Japan State Boards of Education (or Indoctrination), SBOEs, that force teachers to tell pupils that US scientists and engineers top secretly (hm!) developed atomic bombs 1942/5 at enormous costs using the best brains in the world. It is a scandal that nobody wants to talk about today.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: The Expanding Universe

Post by bperet » Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:10 am

I do find it curious that the rise of "nuclear weapons" and the ban on private citizens possessing nuclear materials came just shortly after it was discovered that radioactive materials seemed to be the key to "free energy" devices, such as T. Henry Moray's "Moray valve," a small, 2-foot long box that could produce 50kw out of thin air.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply