ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: Maui Fire Breaks SCIENCE as we know it…
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (54)
sorted by:
The facts add up perfectly fine as long as you add "space lasers" to the list of possibilities.
And why would you do that? There is no evidence for their existence. No orbit. No operational theory. You do realize that satellites zip along rather rapidly and would only be in view for a few minutes? The facts add up if you admit the behavior of flash fires in high winds.
Melted aluminum in an area where the ambient environment is such that any heat (such as a tire fire) should have dissipated away (thus preventing aluminum from melting) is exactly evidence of their existence. The aluminum wheels and the ground are both excellent thermal conductors, with the ground an infinite thermal sink unless there is a TON of fuel to heat it up. There is no way to melt aluminum with thermal energy alone without the entire surrounding environment being so hot that the boundary conditions between the aluminum and the ground are no longer a thermal boundary.
You could also take five seconds and look at designs for space based solar energy transmission. Such an investigation (beyond wikipedia, but it's a place to start) also addresses your "no theory," "no operational theory," and "satellites zip along rather rapidly" arguments, which are trivially shut down in other ways, but it's all nice and neatly rebutted in a simple investigation into space based solar energy, so I'll leave it at that.
You are speaking nonsense. What was available to burn didn't walk away. If the tires burned, the wheels were right there. You know it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum---and it doesn't kill the person holding the torch. It was commonly done in my junior high school metalshop class. The only thermal sinking that went on was when the molten aluminum dribbled away from the fire and congealed on the ground. I think you are speaking beyond the realm of practical experience.
I know all about space-based solar energy transmission, since it was first proposed in the late 1970s, looking over the shoulder of Boeing's design work on giant solar panel arrays in orbit. I knew John J. Olson, the engineer who produced some splendid artwork on the subject. There are no such things presently. Moreover, their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight. The designs had the satellites placed at geostationary orbit altitude and they were BIG, with dimensions in kilometers. Nothing like that exists, and we really don't know if they can be built (aspirations notwithstanding). All the current attempts at "proving" the concept involve satellites in low Earth orbit, where they indeed will "zip along rather rapidly." I've analyzed one proposed system, and it fell apart once the orbital and optical physics were accounted for. It also turns out that there is a very adverse relationship between the diameter of the satellite power aperture and the ground-based receiver aperture. They must both be big...and this has nothing to do with the amount of power being projected, so even a small-powered experiment will have an uphill test. Yeah, I would say understanding the operating theory and having analyzed proposed system examples constitutes "investigation" beyond what your quick scan provided. You flunk your rebuttal. It helps to actually know what is being talked about.
You always start off with an attack. You always then assume people have no idea what they are talking about if they don't put in every possible counter argument from the beginning. It's absolutely ludicrous. Your rebuttals are very often an anecdote that is based on completely different conditions and you then call it "the same," I know you aren't an idiot, yet you make so many argumentative errors; ad hominem, pro hominem, appeals to consensus, straw men, red herrings, etc. While you occasionally address the argument presented, more often than not you don't, rather you employ these argumentative errors and fill in the gaps with hubris (appeals to your "authority"). These tactics are exactly what the "fact checkers" do, which makes me think you might be an agent provocateur.
To address your anecdote and show its error:
A thing will melt if it receives more thermal energy than it can dissipate away. These are heat flows. If the flow coming into a volume is more than the flow going out and the total heat energy in the volume is higher than it's melting threshold (determined by it's chemical bond strength which is largely affected by its crystalline structure), then a metal will melt. That's how it works, it's not complicated. A blow torch is a large concentration of thermal energy in a small area. Its design purpose is to put in more energy into an volume than flows out of that volume. As soon as the threshold is met, it melts. That is what a blow torch is designed to do. That's it's whole purpose. It works on just about anything because again, that is what it is designed to do. It's all about heat energy v. volume v. dissipation rate out of that volume.
A tire fire on the other hand isn't shoving all of it's energy into a tiny spot on the wheel. On the contrary, most of it is going into the atmosphere and not into the wheel at all. What heat does go into the wheel isn't concentrated in one space, but is reasonably uniform (compared to a blow torch), thus the entire wheel will have a relatively uniform heat (there will be variance, but it won't be huge). Because aluminum is an extremely good thermal conductor, that heat energy will go to the nearest sinks. What are the nearest sinks? Well, the wheel is not sitting in free space, it's connected to an iron rod (the axle) and to the ground. The axle will take that heat away reasonably quickly, distributing it to the entire iron structure of the car. again, there will be a fair bit of variance there (more than in the aluminum), but heat still flows well in iron, so it will take away a good amount of heat. The ground is also a very good thermal conductor (relative to many things) and is a huge volume (effectively infinite) so it is, quite literally, a thermal ground (in the "electrical ground" sense). The aluminum wheel is connected to ground, thus as long as the thermal energy flow out to ground is the same or larger than the energy flow in, a wheel will not melt.
Interestingly, there are no reports of aluminum wheels melting from fires prior to a few years ago. Do a restricted date search from before 2012 (when the US Govt was legally allowed to spread propaganda through the media). You won't find any. All such reports come from the past few years.
As for the rest, your argument relies on the assumption that you know every single project that has ever been done. You begin with the absolutely unbelievable assumption that the technologies you may know something about can't be modified. For example:
There are microwave frequencies that can be used to better effect metal, yet you assume no one might have decided to make that change. The project design you know about wasn't capable of the required energy levels, so you inject the assumption that another project couldn't possibly have been created that was different and more effective than the one you know about.
I mean...
What the holy hell kind of gaslighting bullshit is that? It's like you're not even trying.
Your argument is based on the assumption that because you may have some level of experience in a field, that you know the limits of technology. That's fine that you believe that, but I think you are wrong. I think you are wrong because I know first hand that the government shuts down research and silences technological breakthroughs. I also know second hand (from numerous friends and family in top secret research) that the government has compartmentalized secret research projects and secret working technology. "Compartmentalized" means that someone in one top secret research project will likely have no knowledge whatsoever about other research projects, even if they are related technologies. Most importantly, no one knows all of what there is, yet you always assume you do.
It is this hubris that is most telling. You come off as "knowing it all," and you do know enough to make it appear (to those without enough experience) as if your assessment is correct. But regardless of what you do have knowledge of, no one knows it all, yet you spread around your "expertise" as an "authority" and "debunker" all the time. Because of your hubris and the argumentative fallacies you employ in your rebuttals, I am just shy of convinced that you are an agent provocateur. I will point that out every instance you use these fallacious "fact checker" like tactics in your rebuttals.