Nuclear (i.e. fission and fusion) mythologies and politics

[Dinwar]

Correct; for example, the heat from Pu-238 used to fuel deep-space probes comes essentially entirely from alpha decay. It does have a very slow rate of spontaneous fission as well, but this is pretty insignificant.

I never meant to imply that everything always decays the same way. What I actually said was that the underlying principles are the same--the same physical laws that allows the atoms to undergo natural decay are the physical laws that allow a nuclear bomb to go "boom". It's just like how the same physics lies behind both sniper rifles and bottle rockets--the principles are the same, but they're two different applications.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

...I don't want to know.

Ugh. I need to learn to listen to myself and not let my curiosity get the better of me.

http://nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=274&start=12

http://nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=274

http://nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=274&start=20

Read and weep. Some gems:

Some commenter on youtube brought up the very obvious question, which I didn't thing of, as to why the Breivik manifesto and FAcebook page are in English, while Brevik is norwegian.

Yeah, now why on earth could that be, especially given how many Norwegian speakers there are worldwide.

A few survivor stories, reminding me of Holocaust survivor stories. "I looked into his eyes, and leaped into the water, not a moment too soon."

Yeah, they really had a knack for leaping into water, those Holocaust survivors. Lucky for them the Nazis couldn't swim!

Probably the several different IDF soldiers involved in the shooting were being coordinated by radio communications from a central point.

I love how CT-ers require require an impossible level of evidence for other peoples' claims, but can spew whatever hateful garbage they want themselves without having to back them up in any way whatsoever.

Breivik killed 62 or so in an hour and half, and ran out of ammo.

Okay, this one is heartless even for a CT-er. No, he didn't kill "62 or so". He killed 69.
Oh, and he had 190 rounds left when captured.

No wounded. Either dead or unscathed. Very unusual.

I litterally could not think of a response to this. Sorry.

A few days ago, the police took Breivik back to Otoya, and he spent eight hours 'recreating' an event that supposedly took him one and a half hours originally.

Oh my bloody god... if you're going to make up disgusting conspiracy theories out of real-world tragedies, at the very least pretend to care enough to research basic stuff like number of dead or, oh, the name of the freaking island!

There's lots of doubt about the official story.

Firstly, there's no such thing as an "official story", and secondly, in order to make statements such as this one you should figure out what the "official story" actually *********** says!

My uncle lost a loved one in the Utøya massacre. Several of my friends have lost loved ones. I know I will never get this through to people like you, but real people have died in this attack.

It's one thing for you guys to make up fantasies about how nuclear reactors aren't real. But to take a real-world human tragedy of this magnitude and turn it into your personal little plaything without thinking to do a minute of actual research... it's repulsive.

 

[sts60]

I never meant to imply that everything always decays the same way.

And I'm sorry that my post reads that way - I was only referring to Rerev.'s distinction between the two modes, not to his assessment of your words.

What I actually said was that the underlying principles are the same--the same physical laws that allows the atoms to undergo natural decay are the physical laws that allow a nuclear bomb to go "boom". It's just like how the same physics lies behind both sniper rifles and bottle rockets--the principles are the same, but they're two different applications.

Well, they both get fired at people.

 

[Dinwar]

Well, they both get fired at people.

Guns don't kill people. It's those annoying little pellets of lead traveling at high velocities that kill people.

And I'm sorry that my post reads that way - I was only referring to Rerev.'s distinction between the two modes, not to his assessment of your words.

The way I figure, if you're agreeing with Rerev. I obviously need to clarify what I said.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Guns don't kill people. It's those annoying little pellets of lead traveling at high velocities that kill people.

How do we know that? I have never seen a gun actually kill anything. I've seen guns be fired, and I've been to shooting ranges where there have been casings and targets with holes in them and such, but as I've never seen them actually being used in anger, I can only conclude they can't hurt anyone.

So the next time you hear of IDF soldiers killing Palestinians in attacks, keep in mind it's a an Illuminati hoax. Sure, you hear of soldiers being stationed out in the field with guns and such, but why would they check to see if their guns could actually kill anything? They're not being paid to ask questions, after all.

 

[Rerevisionist]

Hans - I repeat, check the site for proofs that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't in fact atom bombed. I'm not going to retype material here. Or don't - your choice.

ApolloGnomon - part of the case against NASA is biological rather than a matter of physics, though it hasn't really been explored. That was the point of the backpack exercise. There's at least one published drawing. There's also the fact that the 'astronauts' were shown cheerfully carrying these things which clearly were lightweight. Given the pressure, temperature, air and water requirements of human beings, it's not possible they could use these things for about a week in a vacuum under full sunlight. I'm simply pointing out that NASA never ran a live test - understandably. You're free to post irrelevant material on this site, but that question remains. Incidentally I've seen some evidence they are trying to rig up something for Mars but it's a joke.

I'm amazed that lots of you think that radioactive decay proves atomic bombs exist.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

 

[excaza]

I'm amazed that lots of you think that radioactive decay proves atomic bombs exist.

Well no, bombs going off prove they exist.

 

[Dinwar]

How do we know that? I have never seen a gun actually kill anything.

Actually, I have. My dad used the butt of his rifle to kill a few things on various hunting trips we've been on together. So guns don't kill people, they kill rodents.

I'm amazed that lots of you think that radioactive decay proves atomic bombs exist.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

Well, perhaps this is because you've thus far merely asserted that these steps exist, and insulted anyone who disagrees with you like a petulant child. If you have actual data to back up this rediculous assertion (and remember, you're not just saying that nuclear bombs don't exist--you've questioned the existence of nuclear reactors as well, so that's a valid topic) please present it. Insults won't win you any followers here.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed response to previously moderated content

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

WHY did they lie about nuclear power again?

For ***** and giggles? I honestly have no idea... It seems that keeping up such a massive charade would be an immense drain on resources (financial, man-power, etc.) that could be better spent on far more productive things (like chemtrails ).

 

[excaza]

Apologies if this has already been asked, but what is powering NASA's probes if nuclear power doesn't actually exist? Are they fakes?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Hans - I repeat, check the site for proofs that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't in fact atom bombed. I'm not going to retype material here. Or don't - your choice.

But you have satarted the thread here and are making your arguments here. Don't you think you should support them here rather than waving at an entire web site?

For your Atmoic Hoax to work every Nuclear Physicis and Engineer on the planet for the last 50 years at least has to be in on it. Add in to that all the military presonel and contractors who have worked on weapons and propulsion systems and you are looking at millions of people.

All the Professors and students at Univerities for fifty years must have been in on it as well.

At what point is a student told it's a hoax but they have to keep quiet about it?

Who pays for all this? How much does it cost? How is the complete silence enforced? Whoever is behind it must have some pretty effective means of keeping all those generations of epole in line and quiet.
Why are you allowed to put up your website that you claim exposes it all with no fear of being silenced while all the millions that have been in on the hoax for all these decades have kept quiet?

What is the point of the hoax?

 

[Rerevisionist]

...
Well, perhaps this is because you've thus far merely asserted that these steps exist, and insulted anyone who disagrees with you like a petulant child. If you have actual data to back up this rediculous assertion (and remember, you're not just saying that nuclear bombs don't exist--you've questioned the existence of nuclear reactors as well, so that's a valid topic) please present it. Insults won't win you any followers here.

As for being a hired clown, I'm rather proud to be a corporate shill (salvage paleontology). Never got a dime from any group dealing with nuclear power, though. I've PAID people who deal with it (radiometric dating is rather important in my line of work), but I'm certainly not in the payroll of anyone with any influence over nuclear power.

[I couldn't get my own quote included].

I find it hard to believe you're so stupid; but maybe you are. I'll try to be schematic:--

[1] Radioactive decay exists - some elements spontaneously decay in a way presumably not understood. Generally this is a slow process, certainly in nature, otherwise it wouldn't be noticeable. Atomic weights vary, and the general idea of eg. neutrons being given off, nuclei splitting, electrons rearranging, or something, is established.

[2] An atomic explosion needs several extra things: (1) There must be a chain reaction (2) that chain reaction has to be set off or triggered in some way, to be controllable (3) there has to be a lot of energy produced (4) the energy has to cause an explosion, rather than e.g. melting or dissipation (5) an optional extra is fusion.

[1] is true and accepted and uncontroversial. [2] however is NOT THE SAME. It also needs a careful dissection of the parts - for example the vast energy idea comes partly from the e=mc squared formula. If that is nonsense or doesn't apply, it's a matter of empiricism or thermodynamics to work out how much heat is evolved. Note that it doesn't follow that great heat will produce an explosion; it's not something accessible to ordinary intuition, as it's far outside any normal experience. But it worth noting that the sun does not explode, despite being powered supposedly by fusion.

_________

I presume 'salvage paleontology' means something like dating underwater artefacts, both man made and e.g. fossil and natural, such as rocks. Perfectly valid thing to be. But does it qualify you to explain why films of early 'nukes' are faked? Or to comment on Hiroshima without, apparently, checking any of the information?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Honestly I find this thread very funny, but I don't want to encourage Revisionist any more. It's actually very sad.

 

[Macgyver1968]

But it worth noting that the sun does not explode, despite being powered supposedly by fusion.

Pure stundie gold!

 

[Dinwar]

I find it hard to believe you're so stupid; but maybe you are.

Look, kid, I've been debating with Creationists for more than a decade now. If you want to insult me, calling me "stupid" isn't even going to come close to the worst insult I've recieved TODAY. Put some effort in, man! At least be a LITTLE creative.

[1] Radioactive decay exists - some elements spontaneously decay in a way presumably not understood. Generally this is a slow process, certainly in nature, otherwise it wouldn't be noticeable. Atomic weights vary, and the general idea of eg. neutrons being given off, nuclei splitting, electrons rearranging, or something, is established.

[2] An atomic explosion needs several extra things: (1) There must be a chain reaction (2) that chain reaction has to be set off or triggered in some way, to be controllable (3) there has to be a lot of energy produced (4) the energy has to cause an explosion, rather than e.g. melting or dissipation (5) an optional extra is fusion.

This has precisely NOTHING to do with the nuclear physics involved, and as such is really irrelevant to my claim. As for the steps, 1 is more or less certain (the concept you're looking for here is "critical mass"), 2 can be accomplished with a neutron gun, 3 isn't a requirement it's a result, 4 isn't a requirement it's a result, and 5 is a straw man since you and I have been discussing fission.

As for the speed of the process, it's hardly slow. Radon gas is poisonous, and uraninite can completely expose the film in a radiation badge in two hours (seen the experimental evidence). Cosmogenic isotopes can decay at even faster rates (see that Faure and Mensing book for a full discussion). So that part's a fabrication.

But it worth noting that the sun does not explode, despite being powered supposedly by fusion.

Actually, a better view of the sun (any star, really) is that it's a massive explosion, so large that it occurs on astronomic timescales--it's just ballanced by the pull of gravity, which is equally massive. "Explosion" doesn't mean "instant", just "really, really fast". I suggest talking to any astronomer on the topic.

I presume 'salvage paleontology' means something like dating underwater artefacts, both man made and e.g. fossil and natural, such as rocks.

You would be utterly wrong. Look up the term rather than making assumptions. I would suggest that this habbit of making assumptions is the cause of many of the problems people have with your ideas.

Perfectly valid thing to be. But does it qualify you to explain why films of early 'nukes' are faked?

I have knowledge of isotopic geochemistry, which does qualify me to discuss nuclear physics at a level exceeding anything you've presented thus far. I'll certainly bow to any of the experts on nuclear physics in this discussion, but when it comes to the science behind nuclear bombs I'm at the level of a very informed lay person. A background in the K/Pg event also means that I'm more familiar than most with the energy necessary to cause certain deformations, like shock quartz. My wife studied physics as a Ph.D. candidate (left the program when we moved for my job), so I've actually discussed nuclear physics with physicists. Again, I'll bow to experts here but I certainly won't be intimidated by someone who's yet to demonstrate an understanding of the basics behind nuclear physics.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sorry, LANDR, I missed this one. OK in sequence of believability:

[1] Japan was not nuked; it's a complete fabrication.

Yeah. All it took was convincing the residents of Hiroshima to burn down their city, spread radioactive materials around, traces of which still linger, and then cause many of their folks to die painfully of radiation poisoning.

I am also impressed by the great lengths the French have gone to, detonating vast devices under water to simulate nuclear tests, spreading radiation around liberally to prove their point. And the British MOD to do the same on island outposts, then somehow giving many of the soldiers cancer and heavy doses of radiation, (at exactly the same time as "faking" atomic detonation tests) so they were forced to die slowly and painfully, while not being recognised for decades.

Bravo.

Anybody else wishing some people had read Heinlens "Solution Unsatisfactory" in their youth? Sheesh.

 

[Tomtomkent]

. But it worth noting that the sun does not explode, despite being powered supposedly by fusion.
?

The sun made entirely from nuclear explosions held together by gravity? The one smacking hydrogen together to make helium? That sun?

Yeah te word Super Nova mean anyting?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Sheesh.

You've summed up three pages of thread in one word. Beautiful.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

ApolloGnomon - part of the case against NASA is biological rather than a matter of physics, though it hasn't really been explored. That was the point of the backpack exercise.

Flibbertybibble.

There's at least one published drawing. There's also the fact that the 'astronauts' were shown cheerfully carrying these things which clearly were lightweight. Given the pressure, temperature, air and water requirements of human beings, it's not possible they could use these things for about a week in a vacuum under full sunlight.

http://0.tqn.com/d/space/1/0/c/g/s66-24478.jpg
{edit to add:}
the above link is an image of astronauts walking to the rocket carrying the portable cooling unit


The handheld portable cooling units were only to get the astronaut into the spacecraft. They had a runtime of a couple hours with minimal cooling provided.

The PLSS, the backpack, was a different unit with an 8-hour run time for astronauts working at a rate of 1200 btu/hour. After that the water and oxygen was refilled and the battery and CO2 scrubber cartridge were changed.

The Command/Service module and the Lunar Module had large life support systems.

I'm simply pointing out that NASA never ran a live test - understandably. You're free to post irrelevant material on this site, but that question remains. Incidentally I've seen some evidence they are trying to rig up something for Mars but it's a joke.

Your assertion that Nasa "never ran a live test" is based on your incorrect presumption that engineering testing methodology would attempt to simulate all design criteria simultaneously with a human subject, rather than subjecting various materials and subsystems to methodical tests for their respective design criteria, leading to further integration tests and culminating in the "stand-up EVA" testing in Apollo 9.

You may not know that the Skylab missions used the same suits, the Shuttle suits use life support systems derived from the Apollo PLSS, and the Russians use the same basic materials and principles in their "Orlan" suits on the ISS.

I'm amazed that lots of you think that radioactive decay proves atomic bombs exist. You either don't perceive the missing logical steps, or maybe are just another bunch of hired clowns; I can't tell which.

Are "idiot" and "paid shill" my only choices?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

My uncle lost a loved one in the Utøya massacre. Several of my friends have lost loved ones. I know I will never get this through to people like you, but real people have died in this attack.

My deepest sympathies for your families and friends loss, Safe-Keeper.