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

[Rerevisionist]

@JAYDEEHESS - I know this may be difficult for you, but would you consider re-examining the evidence? It's not that difficult.

Part of the underlying philosophy of this Randi group is that, at one time, millions and millions of people believed things which turned out to be nonsensical. There are plenty of other examples, which, unfortunately in my view, Randi is too cowardly to address, because they are far more important than the lightweight material he alone concentrates on.

There's another point which you may not appreciate, which is the difference between science and empiricism. It's very often elided over, because scientists don't like to admit there are things they don't know. Take for example stainless steel: this was discovered empirically - it's still uncertain why it works. Or take titanium implants for hip replacements: these are good for anchoring human tissues to, but really nobody knows why. For most of the time human beings existed, nobody knew why they had to eat; it's only relatively recently the biochemistry and thermodynamics have been worked out. In the same way, it's perfectly possible to have PhDs in physics and have not the slightest idea about nuclear weapons. This is partly because of specialisation - many PhDs are on some tiny microsubject which has economic use. It's partly because it's easier to take stuff from textbooks. It's partly for career reasons - American academics are terrified of the truth in numerous ways. Now, whether you like it or not, whether your supposedly educated friends agree or not, whether your TV says so or not, the 1945 nuke material was faked: the supposed test, the supposed bomb, the supposed Hiroshima and Nagasaki single bomb, the radiation, the melted stone and soil etc - it was all made up. So were subsequent tests - don't take my word for it, make some effort for yourself. And try to see why it was done - there must have been varying motives, includuing making money from fraud, career advancement after 1945, dealing with Stalin, etc. I'll stop here as possibly I'm simply not getting through.

 

[Rerevisionist]

@Craig4 - it's touching that you have so much humanitarian concern, though I can't help noticing that the Vietnamese, who were butchered in large numbers by the USA< get no mention from you.

Now, first, if you look at that single photo (note there are no serious photos from the ground taken by Japanese people, despite the fact they had photographic equipment in 1945 and would be likely to film a strange new phenomenon) -- as I say, if you look, you'll find it's not a single mushroom cloud. In fact, it's two separate columns of smoke, I'd guess from two separate bombed towns.

If you check on the other material, you'll find it does not carry the message supposedly given to it. For example there's supposed to be a shadow of a person on a wall. But at the time the atom bomb supposedly dropped, Hiroshima would have been alive with people. Why should there be just one shadow? How come - and there's a book extract I scanned in - an eye witness said she lived 600 yards from the epicentre; when she opened the door to see what was going on, there were burning wooden buildings - there was no wiped clean irradiated hot surface. And so on.

 

[Kid Eager]

What????? Okay - I'll pick one example in your response: stainless steel. It is very well understood why it works.

Enough with the half-truths and lies - man up or go away.

 

[Ranb]

There are plenty of other examples, which, unfortunately in my view, Randi is too cowardly to address, because they are far more important than the lightweight material he alone concentrates on.

Do you understand that JREF, the JREF forum and James Randi are all separate entities? The people in this thread do not speak for JREF or Mr. Randi as far as I know. Got any evidence that James Randi has refused to address the topics you are concerned about? What makes you think he is alone in anything he concentrates on?

The bold type does nothing to support your arguments; or lack thereof.

Ranb

 

[Macgyver1968]

Or take titanium implants for hip replacements: these are good for anchoring human tissues to, but really nobody knows why.

Well...Kid covered stainless steel...we know how it works...the chromium in the steel forms a barrier of chromium oxide which protects the steel from corrosion...it's a well know process.

As for titanium medical implants...that's also know. Titanium is strong, lightweight, corrosion resistant, non-toxic, and is not rejected by the body. If you want a more detailed explanation click here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium#Medical

You seem to believe that because you don't understand something, no one else in the world does.

 

[tsig]

Well no, bombs going off prove they exist.

The extremely loud boom, the bright light and the hard radiation sleeting thru your body are hard to miss.

 

[tsig]

[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?

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were faked?

 

[tsig]

@JAYDEEHESS - I know this may be difficult for you, but would you consider re-examining the evidence? It's not that difficult.

Part of the underlying philosophy of this Randi group is that, at one time, millions and millions of people believed things which turned out to be nonsensical. There are plenty of other examples, which, unfortunately in my view, Randi is too cowardly to address, because they are far more important than the lightweight material he alone concentrates on.

There's another point which you may not appreciate, which is the difference between science and empiricism. It's very often elided over, because scientists don't like to admit there are things they don't know. Take for example stainless steel: this was discovered empirically - it's still uncertain why it works. Or take titanium implants for hip replacements: these are good for anchoring human tissues to, but really nobody knows why. For most of the time human beings existed, nobody knew why they had to eat; it's only relatively recently the biochemistry and thermodynamics have been worked out. In the same way, it's perfectly possible to have PhDs in physics and have not the slightest idea about nuclear weapons. This is partly because of specialisation - many PhDs are on some tiny microsubject which has economic use. It's partly because it's easier to take stuff from textbooks. It's partly for career reasons - American academics are terrified of the truth in numerous ways. Now, whether you like it or not, whether your supposedly educated friends agree or not, whether your TV says so or not, the 1945 nuke material was faked: the supposed test, the supposed bomb, the supposed Hiroshima and Nagasaki single bomb, the radiation, the melted stone and soil etc - it was all made up. So were subsequent tests - don't take my word for it, make some effort for yourself. And try to see why it was done - there must have been varying motives, includuing making money from fraud, career advancement after 1945, dealing with Stalin, etc. I'll stop here as possibly I'm simply not getting through.

It is the addition of a minimum of 12% chromium to the steel that makes it resist rust, or stain 'less' than other types of steel. The chromium in the steel combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to form a thin, invisible layer of chrome-containing oxide, called the passive film. The sizes of chromium atoms and their oxides are similar, so they pack neatly together on the surface of the metal, forming a stable layer only a few atoms thick.

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/metalsandalloys/a/aa071201a.htm

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Don't you guys know anything? CRES and titanium are magic... just like nuclear power.

 

[kookbreaker]

******* stainless steel, how do it work?

 

[Johny2x4]

I..I..

Just what in Primus´s name am I reading here?

 

[Horatius]

I have also been 'told' how the physics works and seen a Canadian designed reactor called "Slowpoke" in operation.

Speaking of things Canadian, and Nuclear, you might remember the little problem we had with the Chalk River reactor, and the shortage of medical isotopes that resulted. A guy I know was one of the lead engineering physics guys who's job it was to try and fix that. So, he must be in on it too, the bastard!

 

[Dinwar]

******* stainless steel, how do it work?

The bomb explodes, radiation falls. You can't explain that.

It's very often elided over, because scientists don't like to admit there are things they don't know.

This is what we call a "lie". Scientists LIVE for the unknown. In fact, if I had to say one key difference between a scientist and everyone else, I'd say that it's a scientist's love for the unknown. The thing is, they react differently than people expect. They either expect someone confronted with the unknown to cower in a corner in fear, or to bow down and worship it (God of the Gaps, both of them), or to hide from it and pretend it doesn't exist. A scientist relentlessly attacks it with everything they know, until it becomes known or is determined to be impossible to know.

Take for example stainless steel: this was discovered empirically - it's still uncertain why it works. Or take titanium implants for hip replacements: these are good for anchoring human tissues to, but really nobody knows why.

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark and say that you know about as much about metalurgy and medicine as you do about nuclear physics.

In the same way, it's perfectly possible to have PhDs in physics and have not the slightest idea about nuclear weapons.

No kidding. Physics is a pretty wide field. The thing is, it's NOT possible to get a degree in physics without understanding those pesky little underlying principles you keep evading so furiously. It's pretty hard to get a degree in geology without it, and I got to avoid quantum mechanics. It's also not possible to become a physicist who studies astronomy without it, because most of what astronomers study are nuclear explosions confined by gravity in one form or another (precursors, explosions, remnants, or duds). So there are a lot of people out there with a pretty good understanding of the theory involved in nuclear weapons.

And if you want to be a nuclear engineer, working on reactors (knew some people in school who were going for that), it's impossible to not learn nuclear physics. It's what we call a "job requirement".

It's partly because it's easier to take stuff from textbooks.

Okay, so add "textbook publishing" and 'scientific literature" to the list of things you know zilch about.

Here's some information for you: Real scientists tend to not real a whole lot of textbooks. What they read are journals, and in particular the papers published by their peers. It's more common to see a paleontologist reading P^3 than "Principles of Geology" or "Life through Time". It's more common to see a physicist with a copy of "Nature" in their hands than a particle physics book. And the thing with journals is, they have standards. First and foremost, you have to have data (and data, by definition, needs to be independently verifiable).

It's partly for career reasons - American academics are terrified of the truth in numerous ways.

Yeah.....Just a piece of friendly advice. When you start talking about "American academics" as a solid, cohesive block, you sound like someone who wears a tin foil hat. There aren't a whole lot of things that academics in the USA agree on.

Now, whether you like it or not, whether your supposedly educated friends agree or not, whether your TV says so or not, the 1945 nuke material was faked: the supposed test, the supposed bomb, the supposed Hiroshima and Nagasaki single bomb, the radiation, the melted stone and soil etc - it was all made up.

You've provided exactly ZERO evidence for these assertions, and made some rather rediculous claims in the process. Why should I believe you, as opposed to EVERY SCIENTIST I'VE EVER SPOKEN WITH? They have data. They can show me the data. They have other people test the data--quite often people who don't like them all that much. You have assertions, insults, and lies.

So were subsequent tests - don't take my word for it, make some effort for yourself.

I have. I've seen tectites. I've seen what happens when quartz is hit with radiation, and with nuclear bombs. It's quite convincing to someone who knows a thing or two about stress, strain, and petrology. Why should I believe you, rather than the evidence of my own eyes?

I'll stop here as possibly I'm simply not getting through.

Well, can you blame us? You've provided no evidence, you've insulted us, you've accused me directly of being a fraud or a fool, and you've generally done everything in the book to make yourself look like a crackpot--including, now, weird fonts. If this is all you have, I'd be forced to disagree with you even if I thought your conclusion had merit.

There are plenty of other examples, which, unfortunately in my view, Randi is too cowardly to address, because they are far more important than the lightweight material he alone concentrates on.

See, this is what I'm talking about. JREF isn't public property. It's owned by the JAMES RANDI Educational Foundation. You've now insulted the guy who gives you the platform to insult him on. This is not data, nor is it a logical argument. And it won't convince anyone. If this is all you've got, you've got nothing.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

If this is all you've got, you've got nothing.

Condensed for the tl;dr crowd.

 

[Kid Eager]

Again for ReRe - I'm making it simple for you:

Explain the Castle Bravo test

That's all: using *evidence*, present an explanation of what happened at the Castle Bravo test, that can substantiate the claims of your NukeLies Science^tm

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

[1] Japan was not nuked; it's a complete fabrication.
[2] That doesn't prove atom bombs don't exist. But...
[3] H Bombs as depicted are a fake
[4] That doesn't prove they don't exist, either. But...
[5] It would be easy for a test carried out now, or to have been carried out any time since 1945, to show they exist. But they haven't.
[6] There are therefore obvious queries over the physics, looked at on our site - including the influence of 'e=mc2', whether fission can go critical, and if it did whether it's controllable, and how dangerous in fact a handful of neutrons could be
[7] Nuclear power may not work - the evidence needs examination which would have to include electricity grids. It would spill over into windpower as a ppossible fraud, too.
[8] Nuclear subs are of importance because they are the only objects allegedly using only nuclear power. (There could be installations e.g. in Antarctica, but appear not to be).

Welcome to these forums, Rerevisionist. There seems to be a few things you need to know:

1) These are not your forums, so you do not get to decide who may post and what they must post.
2) Bald assertions will not work here; you will be asked for evidence.
3) You can ignore all this and just carry on with unfounded claims, but in the end you will be ignored, or ridiculed.
4) It doesn't matter what you think of James Randi. It is irrelevant for the topic at hand.

Oh, and since you are here, you need to present your evidence here. You can link to 3rd party information and authorities, but you cannot demand that we read through all of your own claims, on your website.

Finally, a piece of advice:

If you really want to discuss this (as opposed to just reiterating your claims to what you probably perceive as a greater audience), take one subject, e.g. "The Hiroshima bomb is faked", present your evidence, and we can discuss it.

It may appear a good tactics to flood the discussions with claims, but we are used to it, and know the countermeasures.

Hans

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

You seem to believe that because you don't understand something, no one else in the world does.

That's nukelies in a nutshell, right there. Every single thread is an "argument" along those lines.

And heaven help the unwitting soon-to-be-banned user who actually tries to help them understand something. They won't stand for that kind of nonsense, no-siree! It's a big, wet ban-hammer!



I've challenged them to NOT ban me:

Re: Problems Measuring 'Radiation' (e.g. 'electrosyl',Silkwo

Postby ApolloGnomon » 10 Nov 2011 05:06
You stated "it's difficult to get explicit descriptions of how 'meters' and so on work."

I presented information that I thought might help you understand "how meters and so on" work. Schematics, easily built by electronics hobbyists (I built one in high school with surplus parts); sources for the geiger tubes; complete commercially available units; descriptions and explanations for how they work and how to use them.

Your choice to reject the information out of hand, call me a troll and threaten to ban me does not bespeak a great deal of confidence in your knowledge base. It appears, instead, quite fearful of information

You state in another thread "The policy of this site is to encourage incisive debate." I don't see it. Instead, you've banned anyone who comes along and offers "the cut and thrust of of debate."

I haven't challenged your nuke myth, I've simply offered explanatory information on a couple of topics I know about, electronics and space hardware. Banning everyone who wanders into your little closed-loop doesn't seem like arguing from a position of strength but from a position of weakness.

I'd rather see you beat the crap out of my statements with information. But if you think banning me is the best (or only) way to defend your precious notions, by all means do so. Then I win.

Wanna win? Don't ban me. Prove me wrong with facts and information.

Or, you can follow through on your petty threat to ban me, proving that your ideas don't stand up to casual scrutiny.

ApolloGnomon

http://nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=271

They have neither responded to this post nor bothered to ban me.

{eta}
... thus far ....

 

[TheRedWorm]

That's nukelies in a nutshell, right there. Every single thread is an "argument" along those lines.

And heaven help the unwitting soon-to-be-banned user who actually tries to help them understand something. They won't stand for that kind of nonsense, no-siree! It's a big, wet ban-hammer!



I've challenged them to NOT ban me:

http://nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=271

They have neither responded to this post nor bothered to ban me.

{eta}
... thus far ....

The wooster's paradox, They can't ban you for fear of you looking correct, and they can't respond, because it would show them to be wrong.

 

[Horatius]

See, this is what I'm talking about. JREF isn't public property. It's owned by the JAMES RANDI Educational Foundation. You've now insulted the guy who gives you the platform to insult him on. This is not data, nor is it a logical argument. And it won't convince anyone. If this is all you've got, you've got nothing.

But it is pretty much a standard woo response. They judge how good a skeptic you are based solely on your level of agreement with their particular brand of woo. It never occurs to them that we reject their nonsense for the same reasons we reject nonsense like homeopathy, creationism, Holocaust denial, or 9/11 truth.

 

[Dinwar]

"Once you understand why you don't believe in other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in your god."