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

[Craig4]

I have a fun idea Anders. Why don't you call the US State Department and tell them you're spreading the truth and that they can get rid of the Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control. Do the same to the US Department of Defense and the Russian Ministry of Defense and tell them to stop pretending about the missiles and bombs. When you're done call the rest of the nuclear capable nations and tell them to drop the charade. See what happens. I'd love to hear recordings of the phone calls.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Unfortunatley, we're discussing the debris, not the explosion. The lines on the picture you posted are DEBRIS--ie, the after-effects of the explosion, not the explosion itself.

Ha! Gotcha. AFTER the explosion the debris basically follows a straight path. And from a tiny amount of fission material that means radial lines moving going straight from the material. In a huge asteroid there is no point-like center like that and instead a huge mess of pulverized material and no short explosion like in an atom bomb, so there are nonlinear effects for a much longer time and over a much larger area for an asteroid. Apples and oranges.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I have a fun idea Anders. Why don't you call the US State Department and tell them you're spreading the truth and that they can get rid of the Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control. Do the same to the US Department of Defense and the Russian Ministry of Defense and tell them to stop pretending about the missiles and bombs. When you're done call the rest of the nuclear capable nations and tell them to drop the charade. See what happens. I'd love to hear recordings of the phone calls.

I don't have the heart to disturb their little charade. They may get upset like little children. Let them continue to play.

 

[Dinwar]

I haven't seen any firecracker producing a mushroom cloud.

I have. Do I get a cookie?

I've also seen the after-affects of a grain silo explosion. The unconciouis fire-fighters were in a radial pattern, but their motion was certainly not straight out. They hit a few things on the way down, including in a few cases each other. The exact same principles apply, though in a much smaller scale (in terms of particle size), in any explosion. I get that you can't wrap your mind around differences in scale, but that's your problem and does not reflect reality--larger pieces of bomb, which would have more air resistence, would move at different rates than smaller or more spherical ones, and this would result in a great deal of bouncing around. You see it quite clearly in, as I said, larger-scale particles in explosions, and in pretty much every high-energy depositional event.

You're talking sedimentology here, and you demonstrably know nothing about it.

Ha! Gotcha. AFTER the explosion the debris basically follows a straight path. And from a tiny amount of fission material that means radial lines moving going straight from the material.

This is no "gotcha" moment. You seem to not understand what an explosion IS. "After" the explosion consists of everything that occurs except the microseconds during which the fission occurs. The instant a piece of the shell flies off, it's in the "after" phase. And you've yet to provide ANY evidence that we should expect the material to move straight, while I've provided an actual experiment to demonstrate the principles that dictate that the material will not.

In a huge asteroid there is no point-like center

Only because you lack any understanding of scale. If you were the size of a fly, a nuclear explosion would have no point-like center either.

so there are nonlinear effects for a much longer time and over a much larger area for an asteroid. Apples and oranges.

You're still focused on what causes the explosion, and not the debris. Do you want to talk about the debris, or do you want to talk about the physics of the explosion? I'm not going to let you get away with pretending to talk about one while you talk about the other, which is what you're doing here. Pick one, and let's discuss it.

 

[Anders Lindman]

"After" the explosion consists of everything that occurs except the microseconds during which the fission occurs.

That is exactly one of my points. For how long duration does the 'explosion' of the asteroid impact go on?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So what is your explanation? Alien superlaser or turbulence or both? See my previous post #609. Provide some math for your argument if you will.

Oh... now you want proof. What happened to truth being self-evident?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Oh... now you want proof. What happened to truth being self-evident?

Yes, when the truth is known, then it's obvious. Evidence is useful when there is confusion to remove uncertainty. The evidence itself doesn't change the state of the truth, but can help to remove the confusion that obscures the truth.

 

[Dinwar]

That is exactly one of my points. For how long duration does the 'explosion' of the asteroid impact go on?

Depends. But in genearl it's the time it takes for the debris particles to complete their flight (same as nuclear explosions). The only difference is that Chixilub threw debris higher, in proportion to the size of the explosion, and it therefore took comperably longer for the material to fall down (for the same reason that it takes longer for a ball thrown straight up by a professional baseball player to fall than it does for the same ball thrown in the same direction by a 5-year-old). I'm not talking the thousand years of darkness that followed--I'm talking about the debris that fell more or less immediately. And I've described the principles involved, and an experiment you can do yourself to illustrate that turbulant fluid flow can be radial and appear straight. You've thus far provied a picture that can support both of us, and mere assertions.

 

[Craig4]

I don't have the heart to disturb their little charade. They may get upset like little children. Let them continue to play.

The above is just another way of saying you lack the courage of your convictions.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yes, when the truth is known, then it's obvious. Evidence is useful when there is confusion to remove uncertainty. The evidence itself doesn't change the state of the truth, but can help to remove the confusion that obscures the truth.

But the fact that no evidence is being provided in support of the alien laser should tell you that it is truth, correct? There's no confusion in the claim, therefore no need for evidence.

 

[Mr.D]

Quantum mechanics seems fairly accurate while Einstein's relativity looks like more of a diversion to me.

But Quantum Mechanics predicts that atomic bombs work!

 

[Dinwar]

Evidence is useful when there is confusion to remove uncertainty. The evidence itself doesn't change the state of the truth,

This just hurts...The evidence IS THE TRUTH. The truth doesn't exist as some free-floating abstraction without ties to reality, reality IS the truth.

Anyway, I had an idea. The Tungusca event was a bolide of some sort that exploded in the air. Its' a smaller scale, but very similar to an atomic explosion. By your logic, the trees should be perfectly radial away from the center (or in the direction of the force; it's the same, but the more general statement accounts for the thing coming in at an angle). That's not what you see in the photos--they're generally radial, but some cross each other. Why is that? The explosion was very, very fast, just like a nuclear explosion (and the trees at the center were left standing, like with the nuclear bomb explosions in Japan). Why did the trees not lay down perfectly radially from the center of the blast?

 

[Anders Lindman]

But Quantum Mechanics predicts that atomic bombs work!

Theory and practice are two different things.

 

[sylvan8798]

What Richard Doland calls the breakaway civilization: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi2zuhALndA

Thousands of scientists, all around the world, united in their willingness to play along...

 

[Anders Lindman]

This just hurts...The evidence IS THE TRUTH. The truth doesn't exist as some free-floating abstraction without ties to reality, reality IS the truth.

Anyway, I had an idea. The Tungusca event was a bolide of some sort that exploded in the air. Its' a smaller scale, but very similar to an atomic explosion. By your logic, the trees should be perfectly radial away from the center (or in the direction of the force; it's the same, but the more general statement accounts for the thing coming in at an angle). That's not what you see in the photos--they're generally radial, but some cross each other. Why is that? The explosion was very, very fast, just like a nuclear explosion (and the trees at the center were left standing, like with the nuclear bomb explosions in Japan). Why did the trees not lay down perfectly radially from the center of the blast?

The evidence is the truth? Let's say that we have person A and person B and one of them has stolen a silver spoon. Evidence shows that it's person B who is the thief. Later on it turns out that the actual thief is person A. Is the truth in the evidence? Clearly not. The truth stands on its own regardless of evidence for or against.

In the Tungusca event there was huge amounts of air between the explosion and the trees which means nonlinear dynamics. In the Trinity test there was basically zero air between the explosion and the straight radial lines on the ground.

 

[Dinwar]

The evidence is the truth? Let's say that we have person A and person B and one of them has stolen a silver spoon. Evidence shows that it's person B who is the thief. Later on it turns out that the actual thief is person A. Is the truth in the evidence? Clearly not. The truth stands on its own regardless of evidence for or against.

So what IS the truth? What is this floating abstraction, without ties to reality? (the error you commit here, by the way, is confusing a subset of the evidence with all evidence)

In the Tungusca event there was huge amounts of air between the explosion and the trees which means nonlinear dynamics.

You honestly don't see what the problem with this is?

In the Trinity test there was basically zero air between the explosion and the straight radial lines on the ground.

Okay, let's go back to basic.

There is a boom. Something caused it--we don't care what just now (and it doesn't matter at all). The boom has debris associated with it--pieces of the thing that went boom, unused fuel, and bits and pieces of the surrounding terrain.

What happens to that stuff?

You're basically saying that that stuff magically deposits itself in a perfectly straight line, without interacting with anything--any debris, any air, ANYTHING--because it was moving so fast.

I'm saying that as fast as it's moving, the fact that the stuff has to fall down means that fluid dynamics comes into play, and the fact that the stuff isn't perfectly uniform means that interactions between debris particles comes into play. And I've both provided evidence for this (in the form of an explosion I'm quite familiar with) and experimental evidence (which I assume you're too afraid to run, as it clearly demonstrates a radial pattern generated by turbulent flow).

 

[Anders Lindman]

So what IS the truth? What is this floating abstraction, without ties to reality? (the error you commit here, by the way, is confusing a subset of the evidence with all evidence)

You honestly don't see what the problem with this is?

Okay, let's go back to basic.

There is a boom. Something caused it--we don't care what just now (and it doesn't matter at all). The boom has debris associated with it--pieces of the thing that went boom, unused fuel, and bits and pieces of the surrounding terrain.

What happens to that stuff?

You're basically saying that that stuff magically deposits itself in a perfectly straight line, without interacting with anything--any debris, any air, ANYTHING--because it was moving so fast.

I'm saying that as fast as it's moving, the fact that the stuff has to fall down means that fluid dynamics comes into play, and the fact that the stuff isn't perfectly uniform means that interactions between debris particles comes into play. And I've both provided evidence for this (in the form of an explosion I'm quite familiar with) and experimental evidence (which I assume you're too afraid to run, as it clearly demonstrates a radial pattern generated by turbulent flow).

Truth is very easy to explain. For example 2+2=4. That is an example of self-evident truth. Then there are truths that cannot be seen directly. For example people in the past believed that the sun orbited around Earth, and they even had scientific theories to prove that (the epicycle theories). The truth is of course that Earth orbits around the sun and new theories and observations showed that. The fact in this case, the truth, existed even before people started developing epicycle theories and the heliocentric theory. Earth's movement around the sun is independent of any evidence for or against it.

The straight lines in the Trinity crater show a linear motion of the debris after the explosion, and that's fine, but the lines should start from the explosion and radiate from a single common point. They don't! In the Tungusca event there was a lot of air between the blast and the trees so there the motion would be nonlinear, meaning all kinds of complex turbulence and stuff like that which means that the motion of the air not necessarily would have to be like straight lines.

 

[Dinwar]

Truth is very easy to explain. For example 2+2=4. That is an example of self-evident truth. Then there are truths that cannot be seen directly. For example people in the past believed that the sun orbited around Earth, and they even had scientific theories to prove that (the epicycle theories). The truth is of course that Earth orbits around the sun and new theories and observations showed that. The fact in this case, the truth, existed even before people started developing epicycle theories and the heliocentric theory. Earth's movement around the sun is independent of any evidence for or against it.

You're equivocating again. We were discussing evidence and truth, not the correctness or incorrectness of theories.

The straight lines in the Trinity crater show a linear motion of the debris after the explosion, and that's fine, but the lines should start from the explosion and radiate from a single common point.

Nothing but mere assertion on your part. I've already explained how debris can fail to produce perfectly radial patterns. I assume at this point that you're simply ignoring my explanations.

In the Tungusca event there was a lot of air between the blast and the trees so there the motion would be nonlinear, meaning all kinds of complex turbulence and stuff like that which means that the motion of the air not necessarily would have to be like straight lines.

The issue isn't the amount of air between the explosion and the debris, it's how the debris moves. It can be right next to the bomb, it can even be PART OF the bomb, and the principle is the same: debris hits stuff, and when it does it either sticks (inelastic collision) or it bounces (elastic collision). Add to that the fact that you cannot move air fast without creating turbulence (and the experiment with the faucet will demonstrate that turbulent flows certainly can be predominantly radial), and I'd be quite surprised to find debris from an explosion making perfectly radial patterns.

We ARE NOT TALKING about what happens during the explosion. We're talking about deposition here. The photo you showed shows NO PART of an explosion--NONE. It shows the debris left over after the explosion. Thus, we're not talking about the blast. We're talking about how particles are deposited after a blast. Sedimentology has a really clear picture of this, complete with theoretical models and experiments. They contradict pretty much everything you say.

ETA: Here'st the thing: if all we were dealing with was the shock wave, yeah, I could see the argument that things should be in a straight line. But we're not. We're dealing with the shock wave, AND EVERYTHING THAT COMES AFTER IT, which is going to be a huge volume of very turbulant air. This shifts stuff around. Again, you're looking at a depositional event, which means you need to look at everything from the boom to the point where the material stopped moving. You're not, therefore you have an incomplete idea of what's going on. The fact that you don't understand fluid dynamics and are unwilling to run a simple experiment (seriously, I'm asking you to put something flat in a sink and turn on a bloody faucet!) compounds that error.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Truth is very easy to explain. For example 2+2=4.

You're telling us that 2+2=5.

That's why you fail.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You're equivocating again. We were discussing evidence and truth, not the correctness or incorrectness of theories.

Nothing but mere assertion on your part. I've already explained how debris can fail to produce perfectly radial patterns. I assume at this point that you're simply ignoring my explanations.

The issue isn't the amount of air between the explosion and the debris, it's how the debris moves. It can be right next to the bomb, it can even be PART OF the bomb, and the principle is the same: debris hits stuff, and when it does it either sticks (inelastic collision) or it bounces (elastic collision). Add to that the fact that you cannot move air fast without creating turbulence (and the experiment with the faucet will demonstrate that turbulent flows certainly can be predominantly radial), and I'd be quite surprised to find debris from an explosion making perfectly radial patterns.

We ARE NOT TALKING about what happens during the explosion. We're talking about deposition here. The photo you showed shows NO PART of an explosion--NONE. It shows the debris left over after the explosion. Thus, we're not talking about the blast. We're talking about how particles are deposited after a blast. Sedimentology has a really clear picture of this, complete with theoretical models and experiments. They contradict pretty much everything you say.

Evidence and truth are two separate things. Evidence can be true or false. True evidence simply means that it matches the truth.

I was not describing what happened during the explosion. The large masses of air between the explosion and the trees, AFTER the explosion would have caused nonlinear turbulence and things like that in the Tunguska case.