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:
Completely untrue. A thing will melt if it has absorbed enough heat energy to break the bonds (and the crystalline structure) in a localized area. That is how you can melt steel, which melts at 2500 F with wood, which has a flame temperature of about half that. It requires a insulated kiln to trap the heat to ensure that the steel will absorb enough heat energy.
A flame temperature higher than the melting point is only one way to accomplish melting, and even then, it still will not happen if the dissipation rate is faster than the incoming heat energy flow. That is why a thing doesn't melt instantaneously when exposed to such a flame.
The way I have explained it is how it works. Your understanding is insufficient. Just look it up, it's not hard.
Aluminum wheels have been popular for 30 years. They started melting in 2018. You have not addressed the topic directly, but are pretending you have through a straw man.
It may not be important to them, but it is an important piece of evidence that you still have not correctly addressed. Aluminum wheels will NOT MELT in a tire fire, period. I have given a substantial argument that you did not address (correctly) and perhaps more importantly, there is no actual evidence of it occurring prior to about 2018, and a metric fuckton after that.
From q#2225
Couple this with videos from the Navy of objects that, if the video evidence is as it suggests, can warp space (change directions and accelerate at impossible speeds). If they have technology that can warp space, then there are programs that exist that are FAR outside of the public domain. Your knowledge is irrelevant to what is possible. IRRELEVANT. You don't know shit. I don't know shit either about our technology, but I admit I don't know. I am willing to ask questions, you aren't.
It would be if the intention was to create distrust in the government. In fact, that would be a perfect use of the technology in that case.
I am not, nor have I ever made claims without evidence to back it up. Just because you think the evidence is insufficient, doesn't make it not corroborating evidence. You are completely unwilling to even ask questions, and your responses are very often totally incorrect full of false assumptions, like your concept of "melting". Your level of your own "rightness" would be almost laughable if it weren't interfering in what could otherwise be a productive conversation. Seriously, maybe you should brush up on thermo so we can have a proper conversation. Your physics is obviously a little rusty.
It would help if you could be succinct.
Check any book on thermodynamics. An object cannot become hotter than its environment if the heat is arriving by physical contact (conduction or convection). It is also true radiatively. Otherwise, we would have a violation of the 2nd Law.
The adiabatic flame temperature of wood combustion is 3,596 F. Coal/coke has an adiabatic flame temperature greater than 3,900 F. We use an insulated environment to reach that flame temperature. Nobody here is talking about instantaneous melting---though it is a great piece of nonsense to imply that I am saying so. I performed the calculations for melting such things as aluminum or titanium by a laser beam, close to 40 years ago. I haven't forgotten what you never knew.
When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires? Since the introduction of lithium batteries and being in the midst of a forest fire. If you have an interesting point of statistics, write an article and get it published somewhere. I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.
I have pointed out that tire fires have the temperature necessary to melt aluminum. I have also pointed out that evaporating aluminum can catch fire at a comparable temperature. You simply shrug this off.
Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics. I have worked in these programs. They are "interesting," but they do not involve any violations of known physics. The Navy videos are also "interesting" but have features suggestive of optical effects in the camera. In any case, they prove nothing. You can't build any case of "if they have technology X..." Well, do they? No answer. And, by the way, you have no idea what questions I have asked or considered. The fact is that I know more shit about this than you can pretend to know.
Use of DEWs? You don't spend billions of dollars for the sake of something that can be accomplished by thugs and cigarette lighters. It would be a waste of billions of dollars.
No, you don't have evidence. You have some facts that you want to interpret as "evidence," when they are much more easily explained in a mundane manner. You don't bother to consider the other hypotheses: large fire arrows delivered by arbalest, fire bombs delivered by drifting balloons, fire-breathing dragons (how do you know they don't exist?), thermite grenades tossed from a helicopter. For being an apostle of open-mindedness, you are stuck on one track.
Well, forever really (100+ years). Large fires with cars in them have happened since cars.,
Regardless, you have obviously not looked at the evidence. Look at the video that is the topic of the OP of this thread. The car's wheel melted completely, running in rivulets on a mostly flat plain, which means it stayed melted while in complete contact with the ground for a while in an open field without any fuel around except the car itself. And nothing else was burned around it except the other car and a few feet of grass. The air temperature in the nearby environment was obviously ambient. There was no way from a tire burning into ambient air to achieve a high enough heat in such an environment. Not even slightly close. Not even close to close.
And this is one of dozens of such examples. If these cars were in an effective oven, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.
You do not understand how the world works. Please read my report on this topic. I show, unequivocally, that there is a single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. That same corporation also controls all science publishing. That doesn't mean I couldn't self publish on an open publisher (Researchgate e.g.), but if it isn't pushed by a "real" journal (all of which are completely controlled) then it wouldn't be seen by anyone.
The "laws of physics"? Physics is a mathematical model. It has nothing to do with how the universe really works. Physics is useful, it is not truth. We have no fucking clue what the laws of the Universe are. We can't even reasonably define space and time, and they may be emergent properties of something more fundamental which looks absolutely nothing like our concept of them. There is no way to know what properties may emerge from that fundamental, or how we may be able to manipulate our environment with a better understanding of it.
I never said they were "proof", but it is evidence that can't be ignored or attempted to explain away as "optical effects" because you can't explain them otherwise. I think that is your fundamental problem. You don't understand how little we know about how things really work.
The Universe is whatever it is. It can do whatever it can do. We have no idea what is possible. Your statements suggest that you not only think of our models as some sort of "truth," but you rely on your understanding of a model as some sort of absolute understanding of "how the Universe really works."
Let go of what you "know" just enough so that you can ask the right questions.
You act astounded about the behavior of molten metal. I can melt (e.g.) lead in a crucible and pour it on a driveway or garage floor and it will slither along before it solidifies. The behavior of the aluminum is not abnormal. The video is mostly repetitive nonsense by people who are ignorant of combustion temperatures and melting points. There was fuel in the car: gasoline and rubber...maybe some of the upholstery. So, don't imagine there was nothing to burn.
I don't buy into massive conspiracies unless there is some tangible evidence. Just assuming it as an omnibus explanation for facts you don't want to accept is a delusion.
You may have no idea of the laws of physics (and I think you don't) but I have worked with them for 50 years and they are (guess what?) self-enforcing. Woe betide anyone who thinks they are false or arbitrary. Saying something is beyond your understanding says more about you than about the world.
We don't know whether the Navy videos are truly something or an aberration of the optical system. (The shape of the supposed object is very similar to the kind of cusped aberration resulting from an oblique focal image. This would be like seeing a speck in your camera viewfinder, thinking it was an insect, and being amazed that no matter how hard you tried to follow it, it was constantly leading you.) There are better results from radar contacts, which have been written up in (e.g.) the Journal of Optics, back in the 1970s. Everybody seems to think that this material is "new" and "ground-breaking," but it is part of a vast body of observation that goes back to the 1940s. Nothing new to me, which is why I have no expectation of any revelations.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I have 3 degrees in science and technology, a field in which I have practiced for 50 years, resulting in 9 patents (certifiable new ideas) and technical developments (DEWs) that people here opine about. I don't think that throwing that all away will be a path to enlightenment. Having an open mind does not mean having an empty mind.
A law is a limit. A real limit is something that can never be done, not by anyone or anything ever. Presumably the Universe has such limits (Natural Law). But physics is just a model. "Laws of physics" are just the limits of the model. It says nothing about what the Universe itself can or can't do, or what something else can or can't do inside of it. For example, assuming the Big Bang is true (which I don't, but for arguments sake), from all observable evidence, the existence of the Universe itself is a violation of both CoE and CoM. And it has violated those "laws" on numerous occasions according to cosmological models (inflation, dark energy, etc.). People excuse those away as "space can do whatever it wants" but that is an argument from the model itself, against the evidence. Space is likely emergent from the same "stuff" as that which we call "particles" emerge from, so the argument really falls flat on all counts.
I don't think they are "false," I just think they aren't proven true. Indeed, physics can't "prove" them because physics is always just a model by definition. The actual Universe is the only determinant of what the limits are, our physics is just useful. I don't think the laws of physics are arbitrary at all. On the contrary, our physic models are extremely good, and thus the limits that the models suggest are themselves extremely good. But that doesn't make them true, it just makes them useful.
If you believe the model is truth, you become incapable of seeing any evidence that doesn't fit the model. The truth is whatever it is. I don't proclaim to know it, but you seem to do so. That makes you blind to anything that doesn't fit your world view.
I agree. The evidence is not conclusive. I also have seen the other evidence you mention. The total evidence is not conclusive, but it doesn't have to be "conclusive" to be compelling. "Conclusive" and "compelling" are just thresholds that are different for everyone. Even when a thing is conclusive that doesn't make it true. It just means a person (or multiple people) believes it. If you are not compelled by the evidence that's fine, but many people are, because it is very compelling.
I never suggested throwing away your knowledge. I only suggested that you allow yourself to question it. You seem to hold too tightly to the models and your experience with them.