What's your take on atomic energy?

For those who wish to establish a relationship with Satan.

Topics of discussion include: Demons, Magick, Satanic Witchcraft and much more!

http://www.joyofsatan.com / http://www.joyofsatan.org
Post Reply
User avatar
TopoftheAbyss
Posts: 1532
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:39 am

What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by TopoftheAbyss »

Is it the future?
Image
Hail Astarte, Guardian of the Aryan Race!
User avatar
Henu the Great
Posts: 2549
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 1:08 pm
Location: Elevated

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Henu the Great »

I thought fusion is the future.
Hail Satanas the most Beautiful and Glorious!

Hail Hitler, our Great Führer!

Consistency is efficiency

Satan Is God main site

Rtr, runic pronunciations and more at Magenta 666 Youtube Channel

Evilgoy ritual timer & Interactive Final RTR & Paintable Tetragrammaton Final RTR


Oy vey fucking kikes
User avatar
Jack
Posts: 3247
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:48 pm

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Jack »

I like the idea of Atomic energy if were going away from Petroleum and coal
User avatar
Master
Posts: 835
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 11:56 pm

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Master »

The difference between fuel-fired thermal power stations such as oil, coal and the like compared to nuclear power stations is the level of destruction. In the former there is destruction of larger molecules and units, while in the latter there is destruction of atoms. In both cases water is heated to make the alternator move. And both involve destruction. If humanity will burn uranium and other radioactive elements, these elements will end up and then it will be necessary to learn and create nuclear devices using other elements, however, this is a path to self-destruction. The universe is an infinite source of matter and energy put together. The sun is a giant source of energy. Solar panels are an imitation of photosynthesis. The Sun sacrifices itself with fission and fusion and shines for us, it is a great resource of electrons and many other particles. Matter and energy are fundamental resources for existence. Some scientists have said that access to solar energy by solar panels is limited. So, the solution is to have more advanced access to solar energy. It is necessary to develop and evolve in order to better manage things.
Ignorance Kills
User avatar
Ol argedco luciftias
Posts: 5487
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:00 am
Location: Duat, Orion

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Ol argedco luciftias »

The best is Geothermal, but that does not work well everywhere. Geothermal is a closed system, a circuit of water pipes that go deep in the ground. The heat deep under ground turns the water to steam, then the steam comes up and turns a turbine generator to make electricity, then the steam cools down back into water and goes back deep into the ground. It never runs out, it is clean, it does not pollute anything, and it works very well.


A solar panel, just building the solar panel puts out more pollution than it would ever be able to save in its whole lifetime of energy production. So solar panels are actually more harmful than just using some clean form of fossil fuel like Natural Gas. They need to mine all kinds of rare elements and materials to put into the solar panels. And this makes these rare elements get spread all over the land and water, and even into the plants. And some of these materials are deadly to the whole ecosystem.

Nuclear power is extremely clean, efficient, and effective. I think it is one of the best forms of energy. It can efficiently create enough electricity to power very large cities and areas of land. The only problem we need to solve with that is finding a clean safe way to dispose of the used up nuclear materials.
satanama666
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:29 pm

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by satanama666 »

can you explain in detail what do you mean?
as far as i know atomic energy means nuclear fission and fusion
User avatar
Poweredbythesun
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:47 am
Location: Nowhere of particular interest
Contact:

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Poweredbythesun »

While it is far better than what we currently use, Nuclear power is underdeveloped. And far more often than not, demonized by all media.

I personally have been an advocate for Nuclear energy for years, and I do see it as the future of power generation. But there are a great deal of advances that can be made, that are not being made because the funding isn't there and our scientists are being held back.


I can however see a large push towards nuclear fusion and more advanced nuclear fission in the future, when our scientists are guided by Satan and the Jews are no longer in power.


As to the current state of Nuclear power though, it is far more advanced than most people realize. However, the public's view of Nuclear power is still as if advancements weren't made after the Gen I and II reactors. Gen III and IV are far more safe, and now with molten salt reactors, MOX reactors, and breeder reactors there is significantly more fuel too. Meaning sustaining them, and worrying about fuel waste are almost entirely taken care of.

Finally, as to radiation. If the public knew the images below were a place IN the U.S., and that coal fired power plants create more radioactive waste than any Nuclear power plant, there would be less worry about radiation (which is where the HUGE Anti Nuclear bias comes from).

Image Image Image

The images above are of the Nevada Test Site, and all of those markers are where Nuclear bombs were detonated. This is a site IN the continental U.S.A.
Praise the sun!
HAIL SATAN!!

Image Image Image

Physical change through spiritual warfare!
Gear88
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:31 pm

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Gear88 »

A long time ago back in the year 2000 nearing 2001. My older friend who was interested in future tech.

Mentioned about a murdered man, he was found dead in his car with a gunshot from an assailant. The man was a Dr., pioneering a new nuclear cold-fusion tech. Apparently with 5 or so plants placed strategically in the continental states you can power the entire nation literally produce so much hundreds of megawatts if not outright terrawatts maybe even petawatts of power. Funny thing he said once these 5 are built and quickly, once every 70-80 years you can just plop down a new plant and power the entire grown energy grid. As long as you built a new one around those seven some odd decades you had unlimited power for the grid.

I believe he mentioned other sources of power can be rendered obsolete so no more need for dirty energy fossil fuels nor wind nor anything. The cold-fusion plants just pump a shitload of energy.

It's no surprise that the enemy reptards and greytards use pretty much nuclear, cold-fusion devices. Like it's been stated they don't rely on free energy devices like our Gods do. So whatever they power it's nuclear hell even their vimanas are basically water, light/heavy water power plants in some cases of people witnessing vimanas of the enemies floating over fresh water literally absorbing the water from the lake or fresh water body. Kinda begs a question how they power their submarine vimanas so-called USO if they wish to avoid the salt in sea water maybe some sort of advanced desalinator.

Anyways nuclear is good but kinda dirty I mean we dig out a lot of nuclear matter think Uranium one and shillary clinton bullshit that Trey Gowdy is investigating and funny enough we dig out a lot of rich uranium so no need to waste so much time and effort in enriching it's already pretty damn decent.

But unfortunately everything having to do with uranium is dirty from the ores of uranium down to the factory turning it into atomic pellets to the waste product. It's all one big radioactive dirty shit stain. Hell the fact that it should be left in the ground and not bothered with is proof enough we need free energy.

I'm still hopeful for nuclear to help the nation maybe even like this Dr. wanted have the military guard the facilities but frankly I'm all about the free-energy basically Tesla and all the people who stand for this kind of tech.

Unfortunately it's not easy with you know who breathing down you neck going "Goyim you need to pay for every ounce of energy, we need to berg shekels, Oy vey.
:idea: National Socialism is not fascism, fascism is not National Socialism!

Why are we memetically assaulted into a lump labelled Fascism. Do you, pinko, know what Fascism really is :?:

Fascism = State first = Totalitarian
National socialism = O.R.I.O.N. = Our Race Is Our Nation.

http://www.satanisgod.org <- Main Index

Communism is political Judiasm!
Zionism is Jewish supremacy!
National Socialism is political Satanism!
O.R.I.O.N. is Gentile Supremacy with respect to other Racial-Nations!
Xtianity is preparation for Communism!
Xtianity is Communism with a tinsel of metaphysics!
Communism is Xtianity for Atheist!
User avatar
Zeffie of the Wind
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:05 pm
Location: 高天原

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Zeffie of the Wind »

Nuclear and atomic energy are the same thing and we already have nuclear power plants.

I think it is an interesting avenue we can take in regards to energy technology but if we are going for free energy that doesnt rely on fossil fuel or can cause possible harmful radiation then I think going the route Tesla took would be better. Or we could improve upon solar energy technology.

Personally I want would want to make use of electro-magnetic force via magnets to generate rotational movement. By increasing the rotation to the speeds of light similar to the merakaba we could generate alot of kinetic energy that could be transformed into electricity. Of course it doesnt actually need to reach those speeds nor would I know how to but even half of that is enough to generate a whole lot of energy.
Powerofjustice
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:31 pm

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Powerofjustice »

Fusion, fission, doesn't matter its all jewish science. We are still using victorian age technology and call it an innovation. A nuclear reactor produces heat that boils water to spin a turbine, thats all. A bloody turbine !? Fusion is the real challenge, but still doesn't make it any safer though it may result in a tremendously larger power output. Just google all the patents seized under the "national security act". I don't want to be the guy to spout the free energy nonsense, but there are thousands more from solar panels that have 80% efficiency where as current ones can barely manage 25-30 under perfect conditions, to batteries that can store mind blowing ammounts of energy.

Tesla showed J.P. Morgan a r.c. car (if you can call it that at the time) that appeared to charge itself as it drove around, and tried to market his technology and get an investment to develop it further. Can you guess what Morgan said ? "If we cant put a meter on it we don't want it"...
User avatar
Ravenheart666
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:47 pm
Location: In a tree by the brook

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Ravenheart666 »

I saw some info on the subject ,and from what I understood is that , for the current infrastructure to go nuclear would be great , yet "impossible" at the same time because of it's rate of growth. Because nuclear reactors require lots of time to build and pretty up there cost-wisely. That being said Nuclear grate! greener than whatever alternatives, but current society way too "energy-demanding" and cheap allegedly.
FOR ANYBODY THAT'S NEW TO ASTRO-READING!
https://mrigashirsha666.wixsite.com/astrobrief

Hail Satan!
User avatar
Invictus
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:39 am
Location: This is Sparta

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Invictus »

Zero-Point energy, also known as void energy, is far more efficient. The only problem is that we don't know how to harness it yet. Our advancements in quantum physics and it's application in technology will determine whether or not we can harness it and how.
Here's a short, oversimplified explanation https://invidio.us/watch?v=xCxTSpI1K34
TopoftheAbyss wrote:Is it the future?
Meine Ehre heißt Treue
User avatar
GG Allin
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:27 pm

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by GG Allin »

TopoftheAbyss wrote:Is it the future?
"Nuclear is the worst form of energy and causes environmental issues that take decades to solve. Just using solar panels on all houses connected into a local grid would give enough energy to power everything despite the weather all year around. Motionless generators with magnets which create an alternating magnetic field can be used for powering homes,even crystals and magnets together can be used to generate energy. Scalar physics being employed for free energy can generate massive amounts of energy that equal to a star as well. There are now plasma batteries that never run out of energy." HP Mageson666

https://ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.ph ... rgy#p83833
GG = OO = ∞

BRUTALITY AND BLOODSHET TO ALL REPTILIANS!
User avatar
13th_Wolf
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:00 pm
Location: Mars

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by 13th_Wolf »

I think certain avenues of atomic energy are important in developing things which require a lot of energy very quickly, probably then only for military or experimental science means. For general powering of our society we should use solar energy as it's along the lines of what Satan wants for us to do.

Nuclear energy sounds cool, but at the current state of human conscious development would cause a lot of problems for the Earth and for humans. Solar energy and other forms which are renewable like Wind and Geothermal energy should become the universal and central forms of energy production. If societies on Earth become more cohesive from any positive social result of the ongoing world events, people are going to end up building more of these energy sources anyway, as they are generally cheaper than a massive power plant that uses dwindling or dangerous resources, and they also are more will be more in the collective interest for long-term survival as well.

I second Master's quote of "The Sun sacrifices itself with fission and fusion and shines for us". It's very poignant and a good way to put it. We don't have to sacrifice ourselves to radiation when we have our Sun and our life giver doing it for us. The Sun is eternal in its processes of Fusion and fission, the Earth and humans are not so much.

H A I L

S A T A N !
Image
卐卐卐卐
Mein Kampf (Ford Edition) - http://der-fuehrer.org/meinkampf/englis ... ation).pdf
March of The Titans: The Complete History of The White Race - https://www.16chan.xyz/.media/7229e17fc ... ionpdf.pdf
The International Jew - https://www.americannaziparty.com/InternationalJew.pdf
Protocols of Zion - https://www.xroads.virginia.edu/~MA01/K ... tocols.pdf

Code: Select all

<?php
print("The Age of information is becoming the Age of True information");
?>
User avatar
NinRick
Posts: 2249
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:14 pm
Location: Satan's Empire

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by NinRick »

Ol argedco luciftias wrote:The best is Geothermal, but that does not work well everywhere. Geothermal is a closed system, a circuit of water pipes that go deep in the ground. The heat deep under ground turns the water to steam, then the steam comes up and turns a turbine generator to make electricity, then the steam cools down back into water and goes back deep into the ground. It never runs out, it is clean, it does not pollute anything, and it works very well.


A solar panel, just building the solar panel puts out more pollution than it would ever be able to save in its whole lifetime of energy production. So solar panels are actually more harmful than just using some clean form of fossil fuel like Natural Gas. They need to mine all kinds of rare elements and materials to put into the solar panels. And this makes these rare elements get spread all over the land and water, and even into the plants. And some of these materials are deadly to the whole ecosystem.

Nuclear power is extremely clean, efficient, and effective. I think it is one of the best forms of energy. It can efficiently create enough electricity to power very large cities and areas of land. The only problem we need to solve with that is finding a clean safe way to dispose of the used up nuclear materials.
I noticed that you are pretty knowledgeable regarding science and connecting science with spirituality
Very nice man!
"Don’t quit. Suffer now,
and live the rest of your life as a Champion.“

How to advance spiritually:

1) Follow Inanna’s eight-fold path of advanced empowerment

2) Keep your soul clean and build an Aura of Protection.. Returning Curses Pt 1 & Pt 2

->Hatha yoga session, to facilitate the ascension of your serpent

-> daily RTR and work for Satan -> show your gratefulness

STAND TALL, BE PROUD, BE STRONG, YOU ARE PART OF SATAN‘S HOUSE!

HAIL SATAN!!
HAIL BAAL-ZEBULON!!
HAIL LERAJIE!
User avatar
Ol argedco luciftias
Posts: 5487
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:00 am
Location: Duat, Orion

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Ol argedco luciftias »

NinRick wrote: I noticed that you are pretty knowledgeable regarding science and connecting science with spirituality
Very nice man!
I spent most of my childhood watching Science Channel and Discovery Channel. And I always remember basically everything that I ever learn. Also paid very close attention in all my history and science classes. If I see anything related to any other thing that I heard before, it makes me remember about that other thing.

I'm most interested in electro-magnetic forces and actions. And it really is amazing how perfectly all those equations match up with the spiritual knowledge that we have here. But all of it is really the same thing, the same fundamental types of forces that everything is made from. Like how a swastika spinning counter-clockwise at the speed of light, the magnetic field is in a circle the same direction it is spinning, this creates a current of energy going directly into you. This comes from the equations between electric current, magnetic fields, and movement. But it is also true spiritually. When you see this symbol in your mind focused on your 3rd eye, and you imagine it spinning in that direction, you really do feel the current going into your 3rd eye. This is one of the most obvious examples that I can think of, that nobody can try to deny. These shapes are in the deepest layers of physics, and they are always true in every situation.
User avatar
Master
Posts: 835
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 11:56 pm

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Master »

13th_Wolf wrote:I think certain avenues of atomic energy are important in developing things which require a lot of energy very quickly, probably then only for military or experimental science means. For general powering of our society we should use solar energy as it's along the lines of what Satan wants for us to do.

Nuclear energy sounds cool, but at the current state of human conscious development would cause a lot of problems for the Earth and for humans. Solar energy and other forms which are renewable like Wind and Geothermal energy should become the universal and central forms of energy production. If societies on Earth become more cohesive from any positive social result of the ongoing world events, people are going to end up building more of these energy sources anyway, as they are generally cheaper than a massive power plant that uses dwindling or dangerous resources, and they also are more will be more in the collective interest for long-term survival as well.

I second Master's quote of "The Sun sacrifices itself with fission and fusion and shines for us". It's very poignant and a good way to put it. We don't have to sacrifice ourselves to radiation when we have our Sun and our life giver doing it for us. The Sun is eternal in its processes of Fusion and fission, the Earth and humans are not so much.
It is, in fact, the form of energy normally used by autotrophic organisms, i.e. those that perform photosynthesis, commonly referred to as "plants" (from which fossil fuels also originate); the other living organisms exploit, instead, the chemical energy obtained from plants or other organisms that in turn feed on plants and therefore ultimately also exploit solar energy, albeit indirectly.

Almost all other energy sources available to humans such as fossil fuels, hydropower, wind energy, wave energy, biomass energy, with the only exceptions of nuclear energy, geothermal energy and tidal energy, derive more or less directly from this energy. It can be used directly for energy purposes to produce heat or electricity with various types of plant. On Earth, the value of this energy (local or global, daily, monthly or annual) can be calculated as the product between the average insolation, heliophane in the time interval considered and the incident area considered. From the energy point of view, it is an alternative energy to traditional fossil fuels, renewable and, regardless of the capture and conversion technologies used, clean (green energy) and one of the energies supporting the hypothetical green economy in modern society. It can be properly exploited through different technologies and for different purposes, although in the technological versions that do not provide for integrated storage, the exploitation suffers from variability and intermittence of production or not full programmability (dispatching) due to day-night cycles and cloud cover. On average, the Sun radiates at the threshold of the Earth's atmosphere 1367 W/m², known as the solar constant and distributed according to the solar spectrum. Taking into account that the Earth is approximately at a sphere with an average radius of 6371 km, it intercepts a section of more than 127.5 million km² of the solar emission, whose product for the solar constant corresponds to an intercepted power of 174300 TW. Depending on the season, due to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, this intercepted power varies between 168500 TW and 180000 TW. Of this value, about 30% is reflected back or intercepted by the atmosphere and a part ends up on the oceans; but the remaining power potentially captured on land remains enormous, of the order of several tens of thousands TW of power (to make a comparison, keep in mind that the average power of a large power plant is around 1 GW, where one TW is worth a thousand of these plants). The average solar radiation or insolation is, at European latitudes, as an annual average, between 3 kWh per day in the north and 5 kWh per day in the south. If we imagine an equivalent source as a total quantity, but at constant power, dividing the values by the number of hours per day, we obtain between 125 W/m² and 210 W/m². Obviously this measure only serves for a convenient calculation of the potential of a surface area of a territory, but the real source is strongly intermittent with cyclic diurnal peaks that vary seasonally. The amount of solar energy that arrives on the earth's soil is therefore enormous, about ten thousand times more than all the energy used by mankind as a whole, but little concentrated, in the sense that it is necessary to collect energy from very large areas in order to have significant quantities, and rather difficult to convert it into energy that can be easily exploited with acceptable efficiencies. For its exploitation, generally high cost technological products are needed, which currently make solar energy considerably more expensive than other methods of energy production. The development of technologies that can make the use of solar energy cheap is a very active area of research but one that, for the moment, has not yet had revolutionary results. At present, most studies focus on new generations of photovoltaic cells with a higher efficiency than the current ones or on photovoltaic cells with an efficiency similar to that of the current cells but much cheaper.

More ambitious studies aim at the construction of orbiting solar power plants. These power plants should collect the sun's rays directly into space and transmit the power absorbed on Earth by means of microwaves or laser beams. Prototypes of photovoltaic cogeneration systems in which the simultaneous production of electrical and thermal energy is carried out are being tested.
Almost all the characteristics of a star, including brightness, size, evolution, life cycle duration and ultimate destiny, are determined by its mass at the time of formation. Mass, radius, acceleration of gravity at the surface and period of rotation can be measured on the basis of stellar models; mass can also be calculated directly in a binary system using Kepler's laws combined with Newtonian mechanics or through the gravitational lens effect. All these parameters, associated, can allow to calculate the age of the star.

Most stars are between 1 and 10 billion years old. The length of a star's life cycle depends on the mass it has at the time of its formation: the more massive a star is, the shorter its life cycle is. In fact, the pressure and temperature that characterize the nucleus of a massive star are much higher than those present in less massive stars; as a consequence, hydrogen is melted more "efficiently" through the CNO cycle (instead of the proton-proton chain), which produces a higher amount of energy while reactions take place at a faster pace. The most massive stars have a life close to a million years, while the less massive ones (such as orange and red dwarfs) burn their nuclear fuel very slowly and live for tens or hundreds of billions of years.
The Universe is commonly defined as the complex that encloses all space and what it contains, i.e. matter and energy, planets, stars, galaxies and the content of intergalactic space. Scientific observation of the Universe, whose observable part has a diameter of about 92 billion light years, suggests that the Universe has been governed by the same laws and physical constants for most of its history and in all its observable extension, and allows inferences about its early stages. The Big Bang theory is the most credited cosmological model describing the birth of the Universe; it is estimated that the Big Bang occurred, seen from our local time frame, about 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago. The maximum theoretically observable distance is contained within the observable universe. Observations by supernovas have shown that the Universe, at least in the region containing the observable universe, seems to expand at an increasing rate, and a series of models have arisen to predict its final fate. Physicists are uncertain about what preceded the Big Bang; many refuse to speculate, doubting that information about the original state can ever be found. Some propose models of a cyclic universe, others describe an initial state without boundaries, from which space-time emerged and expanded at the time of the Big Bang. Some theoretical speculations on the multiverse of cosmologists and physicists speculate that our universe is only one of many that can exist.
Studying and exploring the universe is the greatest thing you can do forever.

Image
Ignorance Kills
Gear88
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:31 pm

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Gear88 »

For the people who mentioned mining minerals, ores, and material underground for rare-Earth products. Were we supposed to never use those materials nor mine them?

If humanity is about half-a million years old(~500K). We never touched the stuff nor our Gods touched the stuff till just about after enemy incursion.

IS THAT how it's supposed to be? Never touch the stuff focus on Spirit-tech devices using say a materializer or some sort of alternative material?

I know the Gods don't prevent us from doing things they help and provide technical support but is certain stuff "forbidden" or used in some alternative way as to not poison our ecosystems nor ourselves. Kinda like a nuclear weapon the Gods WANT us to have nuclear weapons but not to blow the shit out of each other cause some crazy yids want their apocalypse.
:idea: National Socialism is not fascism, fascism is not National Socialism!

Why are we memetically assaulted into a lump labelled Fascism. Do you, pinko, know what Fascism really is :?:

Fascism = State first = Totalitarian
National socialism = O.R.I.O.N. = Our Race Is Our Nation.

http://www.satanisgod.org <- Main Index

Communism is political Judiasm!
Zionism is Jewish supremacy!
National Socialism is political Satanism!
O.R.I.O.N. is Gentile Supremacy with respect to other Racial-Nations!
Xtianity is preparation for Communism!
Xtianity is Communism with a tinsel of metaphysics!
Communism is Xtianity for Atheist!
User avatar
Master
Posts: 835
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 11:56 pm

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by Master »

Master wrote:
13th_Wolf wrote:I think certain avenues of atomic energy are important in developing things which require a lot of energy very quickly, probably then only for military or experimental science means. For general powering of our society we should use solar energy as it's along the lines of what Satan wants for us to do.

Nuclear energy sounds cool, but at the current state of human conscious development would cause a lot of problems for the Earth and for humans. Solar energy and other forms which are renewable like Wind and Geothermal energy should become the universal and central forms of energy production. If societies on Earth become more cohesive from any positive social result of the ongoing world events, people are going to end up building more of these energy sources anyway, as they are generally cheaper than a massive power plant that uses dwindling or dangerous resources, and they also are more will be more in the collective interest for long-term survival as well.

I second Master's quote of "The Sun sacrifices itself with fission and fusion and shines for us". It's very poignant and a good way to put it. We don't have to sacrifice ourselves to radiation when we have our Sun and our life giver doing it for us. The Sun is eternal in its processes of Fusion and fission, the Earth and humans are not so much.
It is, in fact, the form of energy normally used by autotrophic organisms, i.e. those that perform photosynthesis, commonly referred to as "plants" (from which fossil fuels also originate); the other living organisms exploit, instead, the chemical energy obtained from plants or other organisms that in turn feed on plants and therefore ultimately also exploit solar energy, albeit indirectly.

Almost all other energy sources available to humans such as fossil fuels, hydropower, wind energy, wave energy, biomass energy, with the only exceptions of nuclear energy, geothermal energy and tidal energy, derive more or less directly from this energy. It can be used directly for energy purposes to produce heat or electricity with various types of plant. On Earth, the value of this energy (local or global, daily, monthly or annual) can be calculated as the product between the average insolation, heliophane in the time interval considered and the incident area considered. From the energy point of view, it is an alternative energy to traditional fossil fuels, renewable and, regardless of the capture and conversion technologies used, clean (green energy) and one of the energies supporting the hypothetical green economy in modern society. It can be properly exploited through different technologies and for different purposes, although in the technological versions that do not provide for integrated storage, the exploitation suffers from variability and intermittence of production or not full programmability (dispatching) due to day-night cycles and cloud cover. On average, the Sun radiates at the threshold of the Earth's atmosphere 1367 W/m², known as the solar constant and distributed according to the solar spectrum. Taking into account that the Earth is approximately at a sphere with an average radius of 6371 km, it intercepts a section of more than 127.5 million km² of the solar emission, whose product for the solar constant corresponds to an intercepted power of 174300 TW. Depending on the season, due to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, this intercepted power varies between 168500 TW and 180000 TW. Of this value, about 30% is reflected back or intercepted by the atmosphere and a part ends up on the oceans; but the remaining power potentially captured on land remains enormous, of the order of several tens of thousands TW of power (to make a comparison, keep in mind that the average power of a large power plant is around 1 GW, where one TW is worth a thousand of these plants). The average solar radiation or insolation is, at European latitudes, as an annual average, between 3 kWh per day in the north and 5 kWh per day in the south. If we imagine an equivalent source as a total quantity, but at constant power, dividing the values by the number of hours per day, we obtain between 125 W/m² and 210 W/m². Obviously this measure only serves for a convenient calculation of the potential of a surface area of a territory, but the real source is strongly intermittent with cyclic diurnal peaks that vary seasonally. The amount of solar energy that arrives on the earth's soil is therefore enormous, about ten thousand times more than all the energy used by mankind as a whole, but little concentrated, in the sense that it is necessary to collect energy from very large areas in order to have significant quantities, and rather difficult to convert it into energy that can be easily exploited with acceptable efficiencies. For its exploitation, generally high cost technological products are needed, which currently make solar energy considerably more expensive than other methods of energy production. The development of technologies that can make the use of solar energy cheap is a very active area of research but one that, for the moment, has not yet had revolutionary results. At present, most studies focus on new generations of photovoltaic cells with a higher efficiency than the current ones or on photovoltaic cells with an efficiency similar to that of the current cells but much cheaper.

More ambitious studies aim at the construction of orbiting solar power plants. These power plants should collect the sun's rays directly into space and transmit the power absorbed on Earth by means of microwaves or laser beams. Prototypes of photovoltaic cogeneration systems in which the simultaneous production of electrical and thermal energy is carried out are being tested.
Almost all the characteristics of a star, including brightness, size, evolution, life cycle duration and ultimate destiny, are determined by its mass at the time of formation. Mass, radius, acceleration of gravity at the surface and period of rotation can be measured on the basis of stellar models; mass can also be calculated directly in a binary system using Kepler's laws combined with Newtonian mechanics or through the gravitational lens effect. All these parameters, associated, can allow to calculate the age of the star.

Most stars are between 1 and 10 billion years old. The length of a star's life cycle depends on the mass it has at the time of its formation: the more massive a star is, the shorter its life cycle is. In fact, the pressure and temperature that characterize the nucleus of a massive star are much higher than those present in less massive stars; as a consequence, hydrogen is melted more "efficiently" through the CNO cycle (instead of the proton-proton chain), which produces a higher amount of energy while reactions take place at a faster pace. The most massive stars have a life close to a million years, while the less massive ones (such as orange and red dwarfs) burn their nuclear fuel very slowly and live for tens or hundreds of billions of years.
The Universe is commonly defined as the complex that encloses all space and what it contains, i.e. matter and energy, planets, stars, galaxies and the content of intergalactic space. Scientific observation of the Universe, whose observable part has a diameter of about 92 billion light years, suggests that the Universe has been governed by the same laws and physical constants for most of its history and in all its observable extension, and allows inferences about its early stages. The Big Bang theory is the most credited cosmological model describing the birth of the Universe; it is estimated that the Big Bang occurred, seen from our local time frame, about 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago. The maximum theoretically observable distance is contained within the observable universe. Observations by supernovas have shown that the Universe, at least in the region containing the observable universe, seems to expand at an increasing rate, and a series of models have arisen to predict its final fate. Physicists are uncertain about what preceded the Big Bang; many refuse to speculate, doubting that information about the original state can ever be found. Some propose models of a cyclic universe, others describe an initial state without boundaries, from which space-time emerged and expanded at the time of the Big Bang. Some theoretical speculations on the multiverse of cosmologists and physicists speculate that our universe is only one of many that can exist.
Studying and exploring the universe is the greatest thing you can do forever.

Image
A galaxy is a large set of stars, systems, clusters and star associations, gases and dust (which form the interstellar medium), bound by the reciprocal force of gravity. The name derives from the Greek γαλαξίας (galaxìas), which means "of milk, milky"; it is a clear allusion to the Milky Way, the Galaxy par excellence, of which the solar system is part. Galaxies are very large objects; they range from the smallest dwarf galaxies, containing a few hundred million stars, to giant galaxies, which also have a thousand billion stars, orbiting around a common centre of mass. Galaxies have been categorised according to their apparent shape, i.e. on the basis of their visual morphology. A very widespread typology is the elliptical one, which, as we can well argue from the name, has an ellipse profile. Spiral galaxies, on the other hand, have a discoidal shape with spiral-like structures departing from the nucleus. Galaxies with irregular or unusual shapes are called peculiar galaxies; their strange shape is usually the result of the effects of tidal interactions with nearby galaxies. If such interactions are particularly intense, due to the great closeness between the galactic structures, the fusion of the two galaxies may take place, resulting in the formation of an irregular galaxy.  The collision between two galaxies often gives rise to intense stellar formation phenomena (Starburst jargon). There are probably more than 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe; according to new research, however, the estimated number of galaxies in the universe would be at least ten times higher and more than 90% of the galaxies in the observable universe would be undetectable with the telescopes we have today, which are still too little powerful.  Most of them have a diameter between 1000 and 100,000 parsecs and are usually separated by distances in the order of millions of parsecs (megaparsec, Mpc).  The intergalactic space is partially filled by a small gas, whose density is less than one atom per cubic meter. In most cases the galaxies are arranged in the Universe according to precise associative hierarchies, from the smallest associations, formed by some galaxies, to clusters, which can also be formed by thousands of galaxies. These structures, in turn, associate in the most imposing galactic superclusters. These large structures are usually arranged within huge currents (such as the so-called Great Wall) and filaments, which surround immense voids in the Universe. Although it is not yet completely clear, dark matter seems to constitute about 90% of the mass of most spiral galaxies, while for elliptical galaxies this percentage is believed to be lower, varying between 0 and about 50%. The data coming from the observations lead us to think that at the centre of many galaxies, although not all of them, there are supermassive black holes; the presence of these singular objects would explain the activity of the nucleus of the so-called active galaxies. However, their presence does not necessarily imply that the host galaxy is active, since the Milky Way most likely also hides a massive black hole called Sagittarius A* in its core.
Deep space observations show that galaxies are often found in relatively close associations with other galaxies. Solitary galaxies that have not had significant interactions with other galaxies of similar mass in the last billion years are very rare: only 5% of the observed galaxies show conditions of true isolation. However, these isolated formations may have had interactions and possibly merged with other galaxies in the past, and may also have smaller satellite galaxies. Isolated galaxies, sometimes also called field galaxies, may produce stars at a higher than normal rate because their gas is not ripped away by interactions with other nearby galaxies. On a larger scale, the Universe, in accordance with Hubble's law, is constantly expanding, resulting from the increasing distance between individual galaxies. Galactic associations can overcome this tendency to expansion only on a local scale, through their mutual gravitational attraction. Such associations were formed in the first stages of the Universe, when groups of dark matter attracted together their respective galaxies; later on the closest groups merged, giving rise to larger clusters. This process of fusion between groups of galaxies heated the intergalactic gas inside the cluster to high temperatures, which in some cases reached 30-100 million K. This temperature value is not to be considered in classical terms, but it is a value obtained taking into account the kinetic energy of the particles, which are extremely rarefied. About 70-80% of the mass of a cluster is formed by dark matter, of which 10-30% goes to constitute this gas at high temperature; the remaining 20-30% of the total forms the galaxies. Most of the galaxies of the Universe are gravitationally bound in hierarchical structures of clusters, which follow the shape of a fractal, containing most of the baryonic mass of the Universe. The most common type is the galactic association, consisting of a few members. In order for the association to remain stable, each member galaxy must have a sufficiently low velocity to avoid its own receding (see Virial Theorem); however, if the kinetic energy is too low, the group could evolve into a group with fewer galaxies, since some of them will tend to merge with each other. The larger structures, which contain several thousand galaxies concentrated in an area of a few megaparsec (1Mpc = one million parsecs), are called clusters. These structures are often dominated by a single giant elliptical galaxy, known as the brightest cluster galaxy, which over time disintegrates its satellite galaxies due to its great tidal force, acquiring mass. Clusters and associations, often together with some individual galaxies, are in turn grouped into super clusters of galaxies, which contain tens of thousands of galaxies. At the level of the superclusters, the galaxies are arranged within vast surfaces and filaments, surrounded by vast empty areas. Beyond this scale, the Universe appears to be isotropic and homogeneous. The Milky Way is a member of an association called the Local Group, a relatively small group of galaxies with a diameter of about one megaparsec.  The Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy are the two brightest galaxies in the group, and they regulate their gravitational dynamics; the other members of the group are dwarf galaxies, often satellites of the two main ones.  The Local Group is in turn part of a spheroid-shaped structure within the Virgin's Supercluster, a very large structure of groups of galaxies surrounding the Virgin's Cluster.
Above I wanted to put a better gif but I didn't find what I was looking for on the internet. What I wanted to put is a hierarchical view of the cosmos. Some time ago, I saw something like this somewhere on the internet, and as a bigger thing the multiverse was shown. The Big Bang and the multiverse are Jewish lies. An infinite thing cannot be started by a non-infinite thing, such as an explosion for example. An infinite thing cannot end. The universe is infinite and therefore has neither beginning nor end. And here lies the big bang lie. Another lie to dispel is the multiverse. The universe is the whole and the infinite. There can be no more "everything" and "infinity". There can be no more reality and more truth. There is only one infinite whole and there is only one truth or eternal reality of the infinite and eternal universe. Speaking of hierarchy in the universe, galaxies are very large units. Units of galaxies form larger units, the clusters. More than likely, there are even larger units. I find the universe very fascinating and wonderful.
Ignorance Kills
User avatar
NinRick
Posts: 2249
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:14 pm
Location: Satan's Empire

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by NinRick »

Ol argedco luciftias wrote:
NinRick wrote: I noticed that you are pretty knowledgeable regarding science and connecting science with spirituality
Very nice man!
I spent most of my childhood watching Science Channel and Discovery Channel. And I always remember basically everything that I ever learn. Also paid very close attention in all my history and science classes. If I see anything related to any other thing that I heard before, it makes me remember about that other thing.

I'm most interested in electro-magnetic forces and actions. And it really is amazing how perfectly all those equations match up with the spiritual knowledge that we have here. But all of it is really the same thing, the same fundamental types of forces that everything is made from. Like how a swastika spinning counter-clockwise at the speed of light, the magnetic field is in a circle the same direction it is spinning, this creates a current of energy going directly into you. This comes from the equations between electric current, magnetic fields, and movement. But it is also true spiritually. When you see this symbol in your mind focused on your 3rd eye, and you imagine it spinning in that direction, you really do feel the current going into your 3rd eye. This is one of the most obvious examples that I can think of, that nobody can try to deny. These shapes are in the deepest layers of physics, and they are always true in every situation.
So if you visualise the swastika, it‘s geometry works actively for you and forces energy inside of you?

Something I find funny about electro-magnetism and spirituality. You can see flashes in your eye either if you are an astronaut in space (due to powerful electromagnetic waves) or if you are near a very powerful magnet and move a bit too fast... or if you raise your kundalini lol
That shows that even energy is electromagnetism, if you ask me.
"Don’t quit. Suffer now,
and live the rest of your life as a Champion.“

How to advance spiritually:

1) Follow Inanna’s eight-fold path of advanced empowerment

2) Keep your soul clean and build an Aura of Protection.. Returning Curses Pt 1 & Pt 2

->Hatha yoga session, to facilitate the ascension of your serpent

-> daily RTR and work for Satan -> show your gratefulness

STAND TALL, BE PROUD, BE STRONG, YOU ARE PART OF SATAN‘S HOUSE!

HAIL SATAN!!
HAIL BAAL-ZEBULON!!
HAIL LERAJIE!
satanama666
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:29 pm

Re: What's your take on atomic energy?

Post by satanama666 »

Ol argedco luciftias wrote:The best is Geothermal, but that does not work well everywhere. Geothermal is a closed system, a circuit of water pipes that go deep in the ground. The heat deep under ground turns the water to steam, then the steam comes up and turns a turbine generator to make electricity, then the steam cools down back into water and goes back deep into the ground. It never runs out, it is clean, it does not pollute anything, and it works very well.


A solar panel, just building the solar panel puts out more pollution than it would ever be able to save in its whole lifetime of energy production. So solar panels are actually more harmful than just using some clean form of fossil fuel like Natural Gas. They need to mine all kinds of rare elements and materials to put into the solar panels. And this makes these rare elements get spread all over the land and water, and even into the plants. And some of these materials are deadly to the whole ecosystem.

Nuclear power is extremely clean, efficient, and effective. I think it is one of the best forms of energy. It can efficiently create enough electricity to power very large cities and areas of land. The only problem we need to solve with that is finding a clean safe way to dispose of the used up nuclear materials.
i remember hoodedcobra saying nuclear energy is the most used energy and that we can't go in the"green peace"way,however,i agree more with mageson's solar panels,since nuclear energy is NOT clean,it's the most TOXIC and dangerous one,plus,there are homemade solar cells made out of simple,eco-friendly materials,just search on the internet for them
Post Reply