My guess is a construction method or something for the foundations of that building, you can see the rolls in the June picture
09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
Possibly scattering by fine atmospheric dust. Just a dustier day maybe.
In Fig. 12 you can see that the imaginary component of the refractive index (the part responsible for absorption) for an aerosol increases as wavelength decreases, indicating greater absorption of bluer light.
They were dredging the pier to be deep enough so an SSBN could actually sink there.
That's the thing -- if there was a sinking, we don't know how the water entered into it. There is certainly no reason to think it had to have entered through the top of the submarine. What if it was a problem with the ballast tank on one side which caused ingress of water which caused it to tip over before letting in more water in an asymmetric way?
The quality of the imagery and the depth of the water makes it unclear if we would be able to see a submerged submarine on its side.
All of which isn't to say that I believe that there was a sinking. In fact, to repeat what I wrote before: the point I'm making is that technically speaking, the satellite picture we have can neither prove nor disprove anything and is basically useless.
If one wants to make an adamant argument against the idea of a submarine having sunk, your argument would be stronger if you did not use the satellite image as evidence, because one can easily turn the argument against you and say it could have sunk in a different manner where it wouldn't be visible to above the water anyhow.
I also use historical precedents of actual submarine sinkings at dock. Otherwise nobody can prove a negative.
However I must point out that if they have to invent more and more contrived scenarios in the face of simple questions then it is a bad sign for their credibility when the alternative scenario - nothing sank - isn't changing.
It is like how it looked very bad for geocentric star systems when they had to add epicycles to compete with heliocentric ones.
Equation
Lieutenant General
It's probably using the blue tarp for the concrete foundation construction, common for metal fabrication warehouse type buildings.
Covering the foundation after being poured helps to increase the heat therefore to cure the concrete faster.
In theory of course, I agree with you.
The inability to prove a negative, is exactly why trying to make a watertight (no pun intended) argument is impossible and trying to push too hard in that direction is going to be futile.
It ends up in stalemate of "no one can definitively know what, if anything is there".
if it tipped over on the side, it would've caused damaged to the pier.
That's my main issue with the claim of a major accident. How do you get to that point without causing more damage to nearby. And how do you move such a large piece in 1 day? Are cranes even what you would want to use in such a scenario?
Well if it tipped over where the sail faces the river rather than the pier, it wouldn't have necessarily caused significant damage.
We can see that in the picture with the various cranes gathered around the pier, the pier has also been repositioned so we cannot rule out if there may have been some form of damage that we cannot visualize.
It's also not like we have continuous day to day good quality imagery of the events there anyway (if there was such imagery then none of this would be a problem because we'd all know what had happened).
IMO, the people who are using the satellite images we have at hand, to declare that there was a major accident or sinking are being silly. However I think people cannot use the satellite images to argue the other point definitively either -- the images cannot prove that there was no accident or sinking.
The pictures are entirely indecisive.