Sacred Russians strongest Hollywood

The developments of forums and the site. Humor and conviviality between the members of the forum - Tout est anything - Presentation of new registered members Relaxation, free time, leisure, sports, vacations, passions ... What do you do with your free time? Forum exchanges on our passions, activities, leisure ... creative or recreational! Publish your ads. Classifieds, cyber-actions and petitions, interesting sites, calendar, events, fairs, exhibitions, local initiatives, association activities .... No purely commercial advertising please.
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 01/11/15, 11:27

interesting video that perhaps explains better this white snow.
0 x
Image
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 01/11/15, 12:29

Another video that should close the debate on the issue of flickers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KLddMxHq0Y

It is very clear that the flickers are small flashes that illuminate the area locally and not a phenomenon of saturation of the CCD camera.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 01/11/15, 17:44

izentrop wrote:
Exnihiloest wrote: In the event of an N bomb, the neutrons being expelled at speeds of tens of thousands of km / s from the first phase of the explosion (duration <1 ms), it is at this precise moment that they could influence the camera , not several seconds later!
obamot wrote:... you're confusing, it's the photons that do not have mass
Neutrons though!
...


Obviously, I do not confuse anything, that's what I said:
"tens of thousands of km / s" for the neutrons at the start of the explosion.
Everyone knows that photons, they go at the speed of light, about 300.000km / s.
According to Wikipedia, the neutron velocity of a bomb n is 51400 km / s, more than 1 / 6th of the speed of light, so a huge kinetic energy that makes it not the layer of air between the explosion and the camera that will stop them or even slow them down significantly ...

So yes, neutrons that would arrive at the camera several seconds after the visible explosion is a most ridiculous hypothesis for who has some notions of physics. [Flytox Moderation]
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 01/11/15, 19:04

Sen-No-Sen, I had seen this video of the Russians, but it is of too bad quality and too far to be able to judge well (but it would indeed bring a point of admissible contradiction.)
Exnihiloest wrote:So yes, neutrons that would arrive at the camera several seconds after the visible explosion is a most ridiculous hypothesis

That's just your hypothesis right now, reread my texts, I never said anything like it. Besides this explosion has nothing to do with the substance of the debate, what I strive to try to recall.

[Flytox Moderation]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bi3py0Y_vg

Everything is there:
- the flicker here is at the same time as the explosion.
- the mushroom;
- the explanation of the suspicion of a neutron bomb (I do not see anywhere that there was a delay between this or that, the image clearly shows that no, it must be remembered that there are two sources of white pixels, that with delay due to collateral explosions, is NOT the one I'm talking about, I've already said.)
- it is also recalled that one or two planes under false flag were shot down and it is explained why the origin of this strike comes from Israel. I do not care much about the type of bomb. [Flytox Moderation]to understand the implication of the Hebrew state in this conflict (not only in this one, since the whole region was destabilized under their impulse, which has not stopped since the middle of the 70 years: but this is another debate). The type of bomb I have nothing to plug.

QED.

izentrop wrote:Neutrons though!

Uh, deduction, that's what I say. Do not you have a copy / pasted this time? : Mrgreen:


and...?

[Flytox Moderation]
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 01/11/15, 19:57

I still have doubts,

I find the mushroom extremely bright, the evaluation of the height suggests between 0.5 and 1 kT TNT equivalent ...

random white flickers remain suspect.

we do not have the precise and necessary elements to decide.
0 x
Image
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 01/11/15, 20:57

Obamot wrote:Sen-No-Sen, I had seen this video of the Russians, but it is of too bad quality and too far to be able to judge well (but it would indeed bring a point of admissible contradiction.)


This video?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KLddMxHq0Y
The quality is simply excellent! It's almost HD!


Remundo you write:
random white flickers remain suspect.


What criteria?

we do not have the precise and necessary elements to decide.


On the contrary!

I just want to know what criteria do you use to think that this is a neutron bomb?
Who first (in the media I hear) to launch this story of neutron bomb? (I know but it is to advance the debate).

I watched a video on liveumap, but I can not find it, we see the mushroom of the explosion much closer, less than a kilometer, the inhabitants of the area are still alive and infrastructure intact, it invalidates once again the use of a nuclear weapon.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 02/11/15, 02:30

sen-no-sen wrote:
Obamot wrote:Sen-No-Sen, I had seen this video of the Russians, but it is of too bad quality and too far to be able to judge well (but it would indeed bring a point of admissible contradiction.)


This video?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KLddMxHq0Y
The quality is simply excellent! It's almost HD!

Notes although I answer without leaning to one side or another (except in terms of the violation of airspace)

1) If we admit a diffusion "inelastic neutrons"on the surrounding material, that which would have led to gamma emissions visible from certain angles by some cameras and not others (unexplained white pixels in front of buildings for example) this is very well explained by the viewing angle. at the start, we have this iridescence that we think we see and which merges with the co-lateral explosions ... It is nevertheless almost 50% hidden by the fact that if you see the video of the explosion again, this This takes place in an important hollow (since this initial phase is largely masked by a hill.) In fact the position of the cameraman below, protects him de facto from direct emissions, specifically from this angle of view there.

2) In this view, during the co-lateral discharges, we could very clearly distinguish a hallo effect around the white light points coming from the co-lateral discharges. What was already seen on the other video where these explosions leaving traces of "spun" (during a shake) this thus clearly showed that there were 2 sources and not only one. While the other observer who filmed the scene with the pillar to his right, he was not sheltered from the hill and his sensor therefore seemed to reproduce two distinct phenomena, that of the co-lateral discharges, overlapping with that of the possible radiation which can panic a CMOS / CCD sensor: in this case (and if we accept this hypothesis) the pixels seemed more isolated could well arrive at the sensor in an equally disordered way, since passing clearly in front of certain infrastructures (buildings and in front of everything that was in the median plane of the field of vision)

3) Contrary to what I describe, from this point of view the initial explosion COULD look like fallout from a fireworks display, BUT: with the difference, as noted by Remundo, that it is the intriguing intensity, the suddenness and the importance of the explosion, which looks more like an atomic explosion, since it immediately follows the rise of the fungus (atomic?) in the atmosphere.

4) The phase which precedes the formation of a (proportionate) plasma ball is almost 90% obscured. This ball is a typical phenomenon and it is visible in the correct chronology (compatible with an atomic explosion) then the mushroom rises as in any other atomic explosion. So that's a lot of coincidences of simultaneous resemblances that can "correspond" with an unconventional explosion!

5) What is remarkable, it is especially 0: 02 the irisation of the ambient atmosphere and this simultaneously with the explosion and it could in no way be about co-lateral explosions (which take place later as co-lateral effects ...) on the one hand since this irisation would leave from the epicenter of the diffusion (explosion at the initial stage) and that on the other hand there is no deflagration which comes from the ground at this precise moment.

And obviously, all this is pure speculation on my part, but still supported by observation and correlations.

RTDC.

PS Ah, I know, I'll make a dreaded raven at the bar ^^
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 03/11/15, 20:16

Obamot wrote:...
Exnihiloest wrote:So yes, neutrons that would arrive at the camera several seconds after the visible explosion is an assumption [Flytox Moderation]

That's just your hypothesis right now, reread my texts, I never said anything like it.

[Flytox Moderation] This is not a hypothesis, that's what I say.

[Flytox Moderation]

here is what I am basing myself on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bi3py0Y_vg

Everything is there:
- the flicker here is at the same time as the explosion.
...

[Flytox Moderation] The flicker takes place over a duration of at least 3s, but the order of magnitude of the explosion-camera travel time for a proton is less than a millisecond, and the duration of the nuclear reaction producing the neutrons is also less than the millisecond !
You did not understand that this initial nuclear explosion, it is neither the shock wave, nor the thermal wave, nor the incandescent zone which continues several seconds later and with which you confuse it!
[Flytox Moderation]
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 06/11/15, 12:58

Exnihiloest wrote:
Obamot wrote:...
Exnihiloest wrote:So yes, neutrons that would arrive at the camera several seconds after the visible explosion is an assumption [Flytox Moderation]

[Flytox Moderation]


[Flytox Moderation]



Exnihiloest wrote:
here is what I am basing myself on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bi3py0Y_vg

Everything is there:
- the flicker here is at the same time as the explosion.
...

It's wrong,[Flytox Moderation]. The flicker takes place over a duration of at least 3s, but the order of magnitude of the explosion-camera travel time for a proton is less than a millisecond, and the duration of the nuclear reaction producing the neutrons is also less than the millisecond !
You did not understand that this initial nuclear explosion, it is neither the shock wave, nor the thermal wave, nor the incandescent zone which continues several seconds later and with which you confuse it!
[Flytox Moderation].

[Flytox Moderation]

In this one for example, the timing corresponds quite well with the video that follows (where we see flickering reach the camera beyond what you describe ... not to be confused with the defects of the film) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOAUVePCOyk

Which is undoubtedly comparable to that (in smaller scale):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WymvU_c8hbE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOAUVePCOyk
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 06/11/15, 22:08

[Flytox Moderation]
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "The bistro: site life, leisure and relaxation, humor and conviviality and Classifieds"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 267 guests