• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

This guy sits on the "House Committee on Science, Space and Technology".

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
You keep on using words that you have no understanding of. Yet you try to talk to people like you know what you are talking about.

It's not anything complicated ether, you simply sound ignorant of what you are talking about. How about first you understand mass-energy equivalence and the basic units that are used and what it means. You should also learn about relativity and some quantum physics.

There are multiple things you have written is factually wrong, using words that don't mean what you think they do.

The rest mass can be known exactly or know to a certain decimal place, it just depends on the units used.
Oh, its not anything complicated is it? Tell me something why you didn't invent the theory of everything yesterday? :rolleyes:

All your points of me not knowing anything can be proved by exactly telling me where I'm wrong.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
The best part is when he tells us that WE'RE being "arrogant". What a tool.

You know you could have actually been useful if you had tried debating me on the actual points I raised instead of perpetually attacking me? I don't call everyone arrogant. But you sir take the cake. :rolleyes:
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,699
138
106
Oh, its not anything complicated is it? Tell me something why you didn't invent the theory of everything yesterday? :rolleyes:

All your points of me not knowing anything can be proved by exactly telling me where I'm wrong.
oh where to start... well I guess I will just take quote's you have posted earlier. These are not even close to all you have said wrong, but it will show how wrong you have been on nearly everything you have said.

An example of this: Lets take one KG of any matter and mix it with another KG of antimatter. One ton of matter translates into 21.5 Gigatons of energy. So two tons of it gives us 43 gigatons of energy.

So 2 TONS = 43 Gigatons.
gigatons are not a unit of energy. That would be mass or weight depending on what you are talking about.

One gram of matter releases energy equal to a 21.5 KT nuke explosion. It makes the easiest comparison. Maybe I should have specified that. I will do so in the future, so thank you.

21.5 Kt from a gram, 21.5 Mt from a kg, 21.5 gt from a ton.
If you want to say a 21.5 Kt explosion or bomb that is fine, as it is a normal way to explain an explosion and we know it to mean 21.5 Kt of TNT.

Lets take an example of a KG of matter, since by my own estimation here and by all scientific considerations, a KG of matter should have 21.5 MT of radiation or the chemical energy of 2,150,000 tons of TNT or just one meatball by the flying spaghetti monster, it is very likely that rational structures within our universe ( in terms of protons, electrons, neutrons, remember I'm simplifying for your benefit here) have no inherent 'absoluteness' here. Why? You will ask. Here is my explanation:
21.5 MT of radiation which is none sense that words in that order don't make any sense. I know you are trying to say a 21.5 MT Nuke explosion since you seem to think that means something but all those words say is that the nuclear bomb explosion will be similar to 21.5 MT of TNT. To say 21.5 Nuke explosion or 2,150,000 tons of TNT would be like saying the same thing if you got the numbers right. If it's 21.5 MT that is 21,150,000 tons.

Saying this is a 21.5 MT bomb is the same as saying that this nuke is equivalent to 21.5 MT of TNT. But you think they mean different things because you keep on saying ...21.5 MT Nuke..., or ...2,150,000 ton TNT...

One KG of matter on Earth is mostly 21.5 Megatons of chemical energy released by 2,150,000 tons of exploding TNT of a few Kgs of fissile U238, but can you really measure it so? You can't in the ultimate perspective of things.
As I show before this the words in that order don't make any sense. 21.5 Megatons of chemical energy... by 2,150,000 tons of exploding TNT... This doesn't make any sense. 21.5 Megatons can be mass or weight it isn't a unit of energy, just read what I said above and hopefully you will understand.

Of course, genius. The rest mass of the two groups of fifty zillion protons will be the same. But only in a frame of reference when they possess no motion relative to each other. These two groups of fifty zillion protons will be absolutely the same if they are not moving with respect to each other. This is at best again an approximation because in real life everything is moving and has its own velocity (both external and internal). Relativistic mass is the one which is relevant in real life.

Your entire point of rest mass being the same everywhere is just a calculation convenience. It does not apply to real life. All mass in this universe is relativistic.
It is Rest mass that is used in the e = sqrt((m*c^2)^2 + (pc)^2) equation.
Rest Mass is the only real mass people care about, relativistic mass is something physicist avoid using as it adds to confusion. Lets say I am on a spaceship that has an engine that can accelerate at 10m/s^2 and doesn't use any fuel. I start accelerating away from you at 10 m/s^2. I have an accelerometer on my spaceship. I could accelerate away from you for as long as I wanted and my accelerometer would always read 10 m/s^2. The mass of my spaceship would always be the same, the speed we are moving away from each other will always be less than the speed of light. On the spaceship everything would seem just the same as when the voyage started.

Lets say you wanted to calculate how much energy the mass of my ship is equivalent to. You use the Rest mass, if you were to use the relativistic mass you would get totally wrong results.

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2009/04/rest-mass-versus-relativistic-mass.html

In real life everything is and isn't moving it just depends on the frame of reference. In my frame of reference I am not moving, neither is my house, computer,...
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
oh where to start... well I guess I will just take quote's you have posted earlier. These are not even close to all you have said wrong, but it will show how wrong you have been on nearly everything you have said.



gigatons are not a unit of energy. That would be mass or weight depending on what you are talking about.



If you want to say a 21.5 Kt explosion or bomb that is fine, as it is a normal way to explain an explosion and we know it to mean 21.5 Kt of TNT.



21.5 MT of radiation which is none sense that words in that order don't make any sense. I know you are trying to say a 21.5 MT Nuke explosion since you seem to think that means something but all those words say is that the nuclear bomb explosion will be similar to 21.5 MT of TNT. To say 21.5 Nuke explosion or 2,150,000 tons of TNT would be like saying the same thing if you got the numbers right. If it's 21.5 MT that is 21,150,000 tons.

Saying this is a 21.5 MT bomb is the same as saying that this nuke is equivalent to 21.5 MT of TNT. But you think they mean different things because you keep on saying ...21.5 MT Nuke..., or ...2,150,000 ton TNT...



As I show before this the words in that order don't make any sense. 21.5 Megatons of chemical energy... by 2,150,000 tons of exploding TNT... This doesn't make any sense. 21.5 Megatons can be mass or weight it isn't a unit of energy, just read what I said above and hopefully you will understand.
Yes, I completely understand that using a nuke explosion to estimate/explain mass-energy conversion is not exact either in terms of numbers or units used. I also know the standard unit of energy is joule and also that a gram of matter has 9.0×10^13 J whereas the yield of the fatman nuke (21.5KT rated) was 8.8×10^13 J.

Why did I do this? I did that for simplicity and also in a direct way of extending the original point above i.e. in the highest sense, the units and structures do not matter by themselves i.e there are limitless ways to express mass-energy equivalents. I used the nuke explosion primarily to ensure the average reader understands the scale of things which I was talking about here.

The average reader may most probably not immediately understand the implications of one gram of matter expressed in joules i.e 9.0 x 10^13 J. But when I say it is an equivalent of a 21.5 KT nuke explosion, he will immediately know it will ruin his day for good. When I say 21.5 KT nuke explosion for a gram, he knows it will fuck up his city, when it is 21.5 MT for a KG, he knows it will fuck with his state, when it is a 21.5 GT for a ton, he definitely knows his country is not going to look pretty after that. So my using this nuke explosion as a model for matter conversion was simply a convenient tool to help the reader understand and get the picture of the scale of things. And no, it was not wrong, just unorthodox, a conceptual convenience . You give me lack for merely using the non standard unit for mass-energy conversion, surely I deserve it, but I gave the reasons for the same and you are guilty of a much greater crime, inventing fantasies to prove your point as I shall explain below.


It is Rest mass that is used in the e = sqrt((m*c^2)^2 + (pc)^2) equation.
Rest Mass is the only real mass people care about, relativistic mass is something physicist avoid using as it adds to confusion. Lets say I am on a spaceship that has an engine that can accelerate at 10m/s^2 and doesn't use any fuel. I start accelerating away from you at 10 m/s^2. I have an accelerometer on my spaceship. I could accelerate away from you for as long as I wanted and my accelerometer would always read 10 m/s^2. The mass of my spaceship would always be the same, the speed we are moving away from each other will always be less than the speed of light. On the spaceship everything would seem just the same as when the voyage started.

Lets say you wanted to calculate how much energy the mass of my ship is equivalent to. You use the Rest mass, if you were to use the relativistic mass you would get totally wrong results.

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2009/04/rest-mass-versus-relativistic-mass.html

In real life everything is and isn't moving it just depends on the frame of reference. In my frame of reference I am not moving, neither is my house, computer,...
Err what? A spaceship which is fueled by nothing, but your fantasies? What did I say earlier? I said rest mass is used for a calculation convenience as opposed to you saying physicist use real mass to avoid confusion. Whats the difference? If I join your statement with mine. I get this:

Physicists use real mass for calculation convenience.

I already said the rest mass is the summation of all the masses of the individual, discrete units of matter within. I never debated this, I only claimed the value is still inaccurate and needs to be continuously measured. Do you really think the absolute rest masses (i.e latent energy within a standard structural unit of matter) have been found? No, it has not been so. Read this if you want, they were still measuring the proton's mass last in 2007-08. I don't think they will ever stop.


The internal dynamics of the proton are complicated, because they are determined by the quarks' exchanging gluons, and interacting with various vacuum condensates. Lattice QCD provides a way of calculating the mass of the proton directly from the theory to any accuracy, in principle. The most recent calculations[9][10] claim that the mass is determined to better than 4% accuracy, even to 1% accuracy (see Figure S5 in Dürr et al.[10]). These claims are still controversial, because the calculations cannot yet be done with quarks as light as they are in the real world . This means that the predictions are found by a process of extrapolation, which can introduce systematic errors.[11] It is hard to tell whether these errors are controlled properly, because the quantities that are compared to experiment are the masses of the hadrons, which are known in advance.
These recent calculations are performed by massive supercomputers, and, as noted by Boffi and Pasquini: "a detailed description of the nucleon structure is still missing because ... long-distance behavior requires a nonperturbative and/or numerical treatment..."[12] More conceptual approaches to the structure of the proton are: the topological soliton approach originally due to Tony Skyrme and the more accurate AdS/QCD approach that extends it to include a string theory of gluons, various QCD-inspired models like the bag model and the constituent quark model, which were popular in the 1980s, and the SVZ sum rules, which allow for rough approximate mass calculations. These methods do not have the same accuracy as the more brute-force lattice QCD methods, at least not yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#cite_note-Fodor-9
This is the exact point I have been stating. I never said the mass of the proton cannot be found. My original claim was and remains that such natural physical values will force us to make continuous observation of the same with better and better instruments. You didn't need that ridiculous example to make that point. Any two proton in the universe will have its rest mass as the same because of its structural aspect remaining the same anywhere in the universe.

I say it again: Rest mass is the same for all classes of matter, but only approximate yet. Relativistic matter is the 'truth' of the physical reality outside our calculations. But even a computed relativistic mass will still be approximate if done by us. The objective truth of reality can be gain only through continuous measurements with increasing accuracy.

Now you also used the speed of light in your fantasy example as a bid to make some point, but do you really understand the implications of mass-energy conversion law. Your own example gets tripped by the very link you posted. I will bring up the exact point in that article, the reason how you misunderstood mass-energy equivalence.

Einstein's tolerance of E=mc^2 is related to the fact that he never used in his writings the basic equation of relativity theory. However, in 1948 he forcefully warned against the concept of mass increasing with velocity. Unfortunately this warning was ignored. The formula E=mc^2, the concept relativistic mass, and the term rest mass are widely used even in the recent popular science literature, and thus create serious stumbling blocks for beginners in relativity.
Here is the proper info about this:

The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all transfers of matter and energy)

The concepts of both matter and mass conservation are widely used in many fields such as chemistry, mechanics, and fluid dynamics. Historically, the principle of mass conservation, discovered in chemical reactions by Antoine Lavoisier in the late 18th century, was of crucial importance in progressing from alchemy to the modern natural science of chemistry.

In a thermodynamically closed system (i.e. one which is closed to exchanges of matter, but open to small exchanges of non-material energy (such as heat and work) with the surroundings) mass is only approximately conserved. In this case the input or output of energy changes the mass of the system, according to special relativity, although the change is usually small since relatively large amounts of energy are equivalent to only a small amount of mass. Mass is absolutely conserved in so-called isolated systems, i.e. those completely isolated from all exchanges with the environment . In special relativity, the mass-energy equivalence theorem states that mass conservation is equivalent to total energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics. [/B] In special relativity the difference between closed and isolated systems becomes important, since conservation of mass is strictly and perfectly upheld only for isolated systems. In special relativity, mass is not converted to energy, as such, since energy always retains its equivalent amount of mass within any isolated system. However, certain types of matter may be converted to energy, so long as the mass of the system is unchanged in the process. When this energy is removed from systems, they lose mass. [/B]
In general relativity, mass (and energy) conservation in expanding volumes of space is a complex concept, subject to different definitions, and neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity and in Minkowski space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
Now if you can understand what Einstein said in your own link and the points I bolded in my link, the implications means that unless you invent a way for feasible propellantless propulsion, your spaceship is bound to lose MATTER as it accelerates forward. The energy the expelled propellant imparts to you is your acceleration, but then even if there is an hypothetical propellantless engine, then you will need somekind of engine uses a nuclear or antimatter source which still means mass loss.

Now if you use some kind of external force to power your momentum, it will still impact the mass of your ship due to perhaps elegant or/and gentle degradation which at some point of time will destroy your ship eventually (thus making it lose mass.) If you use gravity, then perhaps your means of acceleration is unlimited, but your journey usually ends with a loud splat on the surface of the source of that gravitational field sooner or later. To avoid this, you will need something to steer your ship which again means fuel and you can guess the next.

Please do not invent fantasy fallacious examples to try prove a point. You end up hurting yourself. :colbert:
 
Last edited:

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,699
138
106
Yes, I completely understand that using a nuke explosion to estimate/explain mass-energy conversion is not exact either in terms of numbers or units used. I also know the standard unit of energy is joule and also that a gram of matter has 9.0×10^13 J whereas the yield of the fatman nuke (21.5KT rated) was 8.8×10^13 J.

Why did I do this? I did that for simplicity and also in a direct way of extending the original point above i.e. in the highest sense, the units and structures do not matter by themselves i.e there are limitless ways to express mass-energy equivalents. I used the nuke explosion primarily to ensure the average reader understands the scale of things which I was talking about here.

The average reader may most probably not immediately understand the implications of one gram of matter expressed in joules i.e 9.0 x 10^13 J. But when I say it is an equivalent of a 21.5 KT nuke explosion, he will immediately know it will ruin his day for good. When I say 21.5 KT nuke explosion for a gram, he knows it will fuck up his city, when it is 21.5 MT for a KG, he knows it will fuck with his state, when it is a 21.5 GT for a ton, he definitely knows his country is not going to look pretty after that. So my using this nuke explosion as a model for matter conversion was simply a convenient tool to help the reader understand and get the picture of the scale of things. And no, it was not wrong, just unorthodox, a conceptual convenience . You give me lack for merely using the non standard unit for mass-energy conversion, surely I deserve it, but I gave the reasons for the same and you are guilty of a much greater crime, inventing fantasies to prove your point as I shall explain below.
BS, you come back here after looking up some basic stuff. Where as before you clearly showed you had no understanding about even the basics of what you were talking about and showed it over and over again. I even said it would have been fine if you had used the words correctly, said it was equivalent to a 21.5 MT bomb. But you didn't you went into this or, 2,150,000 tons tnt, chemical energy, radiation,.... which showed clear lack of understanding of what you were saying. Even here you show your ignorance as you aren't using a "Nuke explosion model", you are using TNT.

Err what? A spaceship which is fueled by nothing, but your fantasies? What did I say earlier? I said rest mass is used for a calculation convenience as opposed to you saying physicist use real mass to avoid confusion. Whats the difference? If I join your statement with mine. I get this:

Physicists use real mass for calculation convenience.

I already said the rest mass is the summation of all the masses of the individual, discrete units of matter within. I never debated this, I only claimed the value is still inaccurate and needs to be continuously measured. Do you really think the absolute rest masses (i.e latent energy within a standard structural unit of matter) have been found? No, it has not been so. Read this if you want, they were still measuring the proton's mass last in 2007-08. I don't think they will ever stop.


This is the exact point I have been stating. I never said the mass of the proton cannot be found. My original claim was and remains that such natural physical values will force us to make continuous observation of the same with better and better instruments. You didn't need that ridiculous example to make that point. Any two proton in the universe will have its rest mass as the same because of its structural aspect remaining the same anywhere in the universe.

I say it again: Rest mass is the same for all classes of matter, but only approximate yet. Relativistic matter is the 'truth' of the physical reality outside our calculations. But even a computed relativistic mass will still be approximate if done by us. The objective truth of reality can be gain only through continuous measurements with increasing accuracy.

Now you also used the speed of light in your fantasy example as a bid to make some point, but do you really understand the implications of mass-energy conversion law. Your own example gets tripped by the very link you posted. I will bring up the exact point in that article, the reason how you misunderstood mass-energy equivalence.



Now if you can understand what Einstein said in your own link and the points I bolded in my link, the implications means that unless you invent a way for feasible propellantless propulsion, your spaceship is bound to lose MATTER as it accelerates forward. The energy the expelled propellant imparts to you is your acceleration, but then even if there is an hypothetical propellantless engine, then you will need somekind of engine uses a nuclear or antimatter source which still means mass loss.

Now if you use some kind of external force to power your momentum, it will still impact the mass of your ship due to perhaps elegant or/and gentle degradation which at some point of time will destroy your ship eventually (thus making it lose mass.) If you use gravity, then perhaps your means of acceleration is unlimited, but your journey usually ends with a loud splat on the surface of the source of that gravitational field sooner or later. To avoid this, you will need something to steer your ship which again means fuel and you can guess the next.

Please do not invent fantasy fallacious examples to try prove a point. You end up hurting yourself. :colbert:
First I used a ship where it doesn't need fuel to make a point. As calculating with fuel complicates things needlessly for the point I was making. Which was on the craft you would not use the relativistic mass after the ship had been accelerating but it's rest mass.

Once again you turn your points on there heads and have no clue about what you are reading or writing. Yes systems can lose mass/matter though heat energy, this isn't what you have been talking about. Yes relativistic effects on the mass-energy equation cause problems with that since mass/matter can transform into energy. Plus the difference in systems when using relativity needs to be pointed out as the mass won't change even when mass is transformed into energy if that energy is still part of the system as the are equivalent. I am not really sure what you were trying to point out here, as Rest mass is still used in the mass-energy equation. Relativistic mass is never used in these equations. When we say it's mass "increases" due to velocity, what we are actually saying is that the inertia increases, but the amount of matter does not. I don't think you know what Relativistic mass means as if you think relativistic mass is used in the energy-mass equation you are plainly wrong.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
BS, you come back here after looking up some basic stuff. Where as before you clearly showed you had no understanding about even the basics of what you were talking about and showed it over and over again. I even said it would have been fine if you had used the words correctly, said it was equivalent to a 21.5 MT bomb. But you didn't you went into this or, 2,150,000 tons tnt, chemical energy, radiation,.... which showed clear lack of understanding of what you were saying. Even here you show your ignorance as you aren't using a "Nuke explosion model", you are using TNT.



First I used a ship where it doesn't need fuel to make a point. As calculating with fuel complicates things needlessly for the point I was making. Which was on the craft you would not use the relativistic mass after the ship had been accelerating but it's rest mass.

Once again you turn your points on there heads and have no clue about what you are reading or writing. Yes systems can lose mass/matter though heat energy, this isn't what you have been talking about. Yes relativistic effects on the mass-energy equation cause problems with that since mass/matter can transform into energy. Plus the difference in systems when using relativity needs to be pointed out as the mass won't change even when mass is transformed into energy if that energy is still part of the system as the are equivalent. I am not really sure what you were trying to point out here, as Rest mass is still used in the mass-energy equation. Relativistic mass is never used in these equations. When we say it's mass "increases" due to velocity, what we are actually saying is that the inertia increases, but the amount of matter does not. I don't think you know what Relativistic mass means as if you think relativistic mass is used in the energy-mass equation you are plainly wrong.
Jesus, you are even more stupid than I thought. Are you a liberal? Please confirm here since I cannot make an estimation how stupid you can truly be? Please let me know so I can classify your level of bigotedness and bias accordingly.

Yep, you computed a factor something 'irrelevant' as fuel as a convenient factor of your fantasies. Yep, real scientific there! Shall I applaud you ? No, wait, fuck you!!

No idiot! Accelerated directed systems do not lose heat just by themselves, they lose something you cannot imagine I.E. PROPELLANT by the factor of their of their acceleration unless they have extreme velocities. Sorry, I'm forced to include you in the class of ignorants alongwith Shira who called all free thinkers psychos What can be a worse class of men than these so called 'liberal' assholes who classify free thought otherwise than themselves as perversion or psychotic?

I know where you stand, please do not try to pretend otherwise.

Really paul98, All I'm trying to point out here is for you not to distort truth with your own personal beliefs.

It is clear you know nothing. All you have is half baked knowledge, Now I do not care what will make a man sit on the board or committee for science, but it is amply clear none of you all can either.

I apologize for my revelations here.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,699
138
106
Jesus, you are even more stupid than I thought. Are you a liberal? Please confirm here since I cannot make an estimation how stupid you can truly be? Please let me know so I can classify your level of bigotedness and bias accordingly.

Yep, you computed a factor something 'irrelevant' as fuel as a convenient factor of your fantasies. Yep, real scientific there! Shall I applaud you ? No, wait, fuck you!!

No idiot! Accelerated directed systems do not lose heat just by themselves, they lose something you cannot imagine I.E. PROPELLANT by the factor of their of their acceleration unless they have extreme velocities. Sorry, I'm forced to include you in the class of ignorants alongwith Shira who called all free thinkers psychos What can be a worse class of men than these so called 'liberal' assholes who classify free thought otherwise than themselves as perversion or psychotic?

I know where you stand, please do not try to pretend otherwise.

Really paul98, All I'm trying to point out here is for you not to distort truth with your own personal beliefs.

It is clear you know nothing. All you have is half baked knowledge, Now I do not care what will make a man sit on the board or committee for science, but it is amply clear none of you all can either.

I apologize for my revelations here.
LMAO did I touch a nerve, of course you need something to propel a real engine. We aren't talking about that, that part has nothing to do with the example. Do I have a real space ship, do I need to tell you how many people are on it, do I need to tell you how the propulsion system works,.... All of this is irrelevant, the only relevant part is that the spaceship has a rest mass, and is accelerating at 10m/s^2. How it's accelerated has zero bearing on what I am talking about. I am simply showing you that if on the space ship your accelerometer is reading 10m/s^2 for a long long time you both wont be going faster than the speed of light when compared to where you started. Your ship will also have the same rest mass after that long time. If you wanted to know the mass-energy conversion you would still use the spaceships rest mass.

As you can see I don't care or want to both to calculate anything to do with the fuel or propulsion method thus it is meaningless. I could make some some exotic or magic engine that takes random particles in space as you fly by or energy from quantum fluctuations,... some other stupid method I would make up. None of it matters, since this has nothing to do with the example that I am giving and point I am making.

Are you going to address any of the stuff you have written that is plainly wrong, or where you don't understand? Or are you just going to point out oh that magic engine that has nothing to do to change anything I have said doesn't exist?
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,699
138
106
Here are two simple questions.

In the mass-energy equivalence equation does the mass in it use the rest mass or relativistic mass?

In a 21.5 MT nuke explosion what does the 21.5 MT stand for?
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
Here are two simple questions.

In the mass-energy equivalence equation does the mass in it use the rest mass or relativistic mass?

In a 21.5 MT nuke explosion what does the 21.5 MT stand for?

First all I will address your fundamental problem, your conceptualization of reality, then we can work on the rest, eh? Just like a psychiatric patient, eh? What do you say?

Let me begin by saying you have no fucking idea what real life or reality is all about. I beaten around the point, on the fucking point itself and what the else do you fucking what me to do? I ALREADY FUCKING SAID THIS A MILLION TIMES ALREADY, moron! I have NO FUCKING DISPUTE ABOUT THE ABSOLUTE MASS OF A PROTON OR WHATEVER. ALL I CLAIMED WAS ALL THESE ESTIMATES CAN BE FURTHER REFINED BY ONLY MORE FURTHER CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT.

What the fuck? Are all you are kindergarten kids? Get some fucking true scientific sense, kids. It will make sense that way. I make no reference to God or any fucking higher power or divinity. All I ask you is to make you use your convictions to sense a higher reality, a reality which shall make you see sense of this reality in terms of better units than you use today.

Giving Knowledge is as much a task uphill as learning something new. Jeez, you guys are truly ignorant and biased. This I can say with very much sorrow.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,699
138
106
First all I will address your fundamental problem, your conceptualization of reality, then we can work on the rest, eh? Just like a psychiatric patient, eh? What do you say?

Let me begin by saying you have no fucking idea what real life or reality is all about. I beaten around the point, on the fucking point itself and what the else do you fucking what me to do? I ALREADY FUCKING SAID THIS A MILLION TIMES ALREADY, moron! I have NO FUCKING DISPUTE ABOUT THE ABSOLUTE MASS OF A PROTON OR WHATEVER. ALL I CLAIMED WAS ALL THESE ESTIMATES CAN BE FURTHER REFINED BY ONLY MORE FURTHER CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT.

What the fuck? Are all you are kindergarten kids? Get some fucking true scientific sense, kids. It will make sense that way. I make no reference to God or any fucking higher power or divinity. All I ask you is to make you use your convictions to sense a higher reality, a reality which shall make you see sense of this reality in terms of better units than you use today.

Giving Knowledge is as much a task uphill as learning something new. Jeez, you guys are truly ignorant and biased. This I can say with very much sorrow.
So you can't answer two simple questions.... figures I am done here, you have yet to show you have even basic understanding about what you are talking about. The words you use don't mean what you think they do. Basically all you are saying is that we don't know certain things, but use words like truth, or have no idea what real life is all about. None of what you say makes sense since you don't say what you mean. You don't say we can't know the exact energy, mass, or some other random unit of something. You say we don't know the truth about this thing. Which is meaningless.

Until you show you have a basic understanding about what you are talking about I am done here. As you don't seem to be listening to anything I have said.
 
Last edited:

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
So you can't answer two simple questions.... figures I am done here, you have yet to show you have even basic understanding about what you are talking about. The words you use don't mean what you think they do. Basically all you are saying is that we don't know certain things, but use words like truth, or have no idea what real life is all about. None of what you say makes sense since you don't say what you mean. You don't say we can't know the exact energy, mass, or some other random unit of something. You say we don't know the truth about this thing. Which is meaningless.

Until you show you have a basic understanding about what you are talking about I am done here. As you don't seem to be listening to anything I have said.
Hey ignorant. everytime you made a nonsense claim, I told where the general logic made you get butthurt. All of your words above are meaningless babble, this has been clear ever since you invented a ship thatn't need fuel. Now I'm not claiming I'm superior than you. I can and will admit that I have held as my beliefs some stupid things. All of us are human. I freely admit I made mistakes in my life before, so why don't you just admit yours and let everything be bygones.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Hey ignorant. everytime you made a nonsense claim, I told where the general logic made you get butthurt. All of your words above are meaningless babble, this has been clear ever since you invented a ship thatn't need fuel. Now I'm not claiming I'm superior than you. I can and will admit that I have held as my beliefs some stupid things. All of us are human. I freely admit I made mistakes in my life before, so why don't you just admit yours and let everything be bygones.
Paul has exposed you as the idiot you are. More importantly he has exposed your megalomania, you lash out as a child when challenged with something you cannot answer.

You should seek help from a qualified professional before engaging in any more "truth" discussion weirdo.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
Paul has exposed you as the idiot you are. More importantly he has exposed your megalomania, you lash out as a child when challenged with something you cannot answer.

You should seek help from a qualified professional before engaging in any more "truth" discussion weirdo.
Thats right, asshole. How about you address what I asked Paul?

Oh wait, you cannot and neither can your buttbuddies, Paul whatever and shira.

There is nothing psychotic or megalomaniac within me. You guys are the fucked up creeps who cannot accept reason beyond your own beliefs. I'm sure if most of you had lived in the times of Socrates, you will have been amongst the first to denounce him and side with the church. Most of you people's mentality is to ingratiate yourself with the ruling power. Please reform yourself all of you, thank you!
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
What kind of assholes can the above people be!

They can classify anyone a psychotic by their own motherfucking standards,

These people are truly, truly evil. They are also selfish and rotten to the core too.

There is no greater enemy of liberty than them.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,699
138
106
Here are two simple questions.

In the mass-energy equivalence equation does the mass in it use the rest mass or relativistic mass?

In a 21.5 MT nuke explosion what does the 21.5 MT stand for?
so are you ever going to answer these two simple questions?
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
What kind of assholes can the above people be!

They can classify anyone a psychotic by their own motherfucking standards,

These people are truly, truly evil. They are also selfish and rotten to the core too.

There is no greater enemy of liberty than them.
Going of the rails on the crazy train!!
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
Thats right, asshole. How about you address what I asked Paul?

Oh wait, you cannot and neither can your buttbuddies, Paul whatever and shira.

There is nothing psychotic or megalomaniac within me. You guys are the fucked up creeps who cannot accept reason beyond your own beliefs. I'm sure if most of you had lived in the times of Socrates, you will have been amongst the first to denounce him and side with the church. Most of you people's mentality is to ingratiate yourself with the ruling power. Please reform yourself all of you, thank you!
Socrates died 400 years before Jesus was born, so "The Church" didn't exist in Socrates' lifetime, Professor. Perhaps you were thinking of Galileo?
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
And what are you if not a biological mammal?
I have Spirit that needs flesh to live in the 3rd dimension. That spirit is of God and is part of a collective . Don't run with that. But you are an animal I am not . You have forsaken your spirit and care only about the soul (flesh) Most of us are lost in the pleasure of flesh because you do not or have not experienced the pleasure of the spirit . That doesn't mean it won't happen for you . You can change , BUT its not a CHANGE YOU CAN COUNT on. You likely profess not being or careing about the spirit . Your problem as with all your kind is . You understand humanity from the mind only . Christ came to downtraden souls (flesh ) to bring them the pleasure of the spirit and many threw the ages have experienced that and felt as Good about themselves as the most poweful worldly kiings . Likely better because someone always wants to knock that King off his high horse . The king sleeps with 1 eye open . The man who lives in the spirit sleeps a restful sleep with NO FEAR.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,083
189
106
For you it sums it up .


Many many christian more than not except science as science. Of course there is discourse between people of faith and those who lack faith. If you believe your an evolved Ape that is your right . and people of faith should treat you as you profess to be . an animal you act like one and talk like when when you link to such things . Thats his belief not many believe what he says. the majority of people who have faith really don't care what you think or say. Its like they say . He has the right to believe as he does . Might not be wise to say such in a muslim country . I know for fact that you wouldn't . Because they would kill you . You being a coward wouldn't say such a thing because of your fear. That is your defining moment .

If you want to stereotype every atheist or scientist that believes in evolution as fact as talking and acting like an Ape... Then, why don't you ask your fucked up god to cure your cancer and see how that goes. I can link to whatever I want to link.

Most atheist like myself could give a fuck what you believe in as well. But when they are sitting on science and tech board I give a shit and so should you if you had half a brain to see though the BS.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY