EquisDeXD

We already know stars can, what else in nature can?

I don't see enough evidence that it was impossible to have been an atomic blast, so I think I can solve this by starting a new thread and making the topic, much much clearer.

So in other words he's using Hiroshima which was a nuclear device in place of all evidence that is supposedly a natural occurance? That isn't very wise, I wouldn't think john would do that because there's definitely differences in the circumstances of a nuclear device with mountains and no forest, like for instance the shockwave in a naturally occurring event would definitely not have a perfect radial outward shockwave like a configured nuclear device. Absorbing uranium only gives the skeletons the normal level of background radiation for whatever availibility of uranium that there is in the soil. I'm going to have to disagree with you there because at Hiroshima there were many survivors who had radiation sickness, and objects within a fair proximity to the epicenter of any nuclear blast can be irradiated, not to mention that the nuclear fallout would have spread over some distance, the air and material near the epicenter get's irradiated and then carried over as nuclear fallout or blown away in the shockwave wherever it travels too. I'm not concerned with the non-atomic blast possibilities, I already know about those, I don't get why your incapable of comprehending that. Well you'd think at least in my research that at ONE site that mentioned it would have said "but the levels of radiation were completely normal". Not the case, I haven't found one site that says the skeletons at the site are at or below the normal amount of radiation for the area.

Wait, I was thinking about that myself, but I specifically remember seeing from a scientific text book that when an electro-magnetic field exerts a repulsive force on another object that the other object exerts the same force, this has to be true because if you push on a wall, it pushes back with the same force, but both you and the while are composed of atoms, and those atoms repel each other which is why you don't push the wall down, it's also the reason why all matter doesn't just automatically collapse to the lowest possible energy state and form black holes, because there's electro-magnetic repulsion between atoms that exert the force needed to keep objects up. So, if you push on the wall and it pushes back with the same force, and the mechanism for the force equivalence is an electro-magnetic field, then it should be logically concluded that an electro-magnetic field does not violate the third law when carrying momentum, so how exactly does it violate the third law? You mentioned a time delay, but how does that mean the same amount of force isn't eventually transferred?

Well conventionally, according to the laws of the US, there is.

Well I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, I don't know exactly what the crisis is, but based on the reference to Hitler and a few others, it seems to point out some conflict with the use of technology and how people like to think that society is more enlightened because its more technological and has more science yet most of the time the drive for using science is just emotional. But, that doesn't mean it can't have other meanings. I think that it could also mean that society likes to think its so much more enlightened because of how much technology it has, yet ironically the presence of such technology creates ignorance, people just seem to stop caring about learning because they think they are already so advanced.

Let's start with the government, don't kill people. In the US at least, there is a clear line between the separation of "Church" and "State", yet all state laws say it's illegal to kill someone because it's written in the constitution. To me it makes sense, we wouldn't have a function society, most people would be miserable or fearful, it would essentially just be brute nature, I don't need religion for that.

Well can you then elaborate on just how it describes global society? Because in global society, as with a government, you have the cycles of birth, high times, low times, then collapse, then the cycle starts over somewhere else.

The universe contains every physical object, and where an object will be in a future coordinate is not a physical thing in present time, and it's not 100% determinable where an object will be due to the nature of quantum statistics. An object does not currently exist where it "will" exist, so the notion that the universe contains an object at a future time coordinate doesn't make a lot of sense. Saying "there was no point in time" that the universe didn't exist is also a meaningless conjecture, because logically time didn't exist before the universe. I also don't really see how the universe is eternal from these conjectures. No, you don't need "meta time", you just need the absence of time. True nothingness is a hard concept to grasp, but if you think of time merely as another dimension that has changing coordinates or properties like any other dimension, you can picture existence without time a lot easier. Before the existence of the universe was before the existence of time, which means there was nothing to count the length of time that the universe wasn't in existence, so theoretically all of non-existence was an instantaneous moment that took 0 time.

Wait, I don't get this, what's the problem? Eventually his answers would prove that the gluon theory is currently impossible, why did there need to be another thread? Aether? The concept of Aether was dismissed quite a while ago, I doubt Illuusio thinks its real, who mentioned aether? Oh wait I got mainstream confused with a different concept, but misunderstandings can still become a "mainstream" belief, like the notion that a radioactive substance will make things radioactive is mainstream which is why it comes up in things dealing with radiation like news and movies, even though that's wrong, or the notion that you add speeds of opposing objects to get the relative speed is mainstream in the public eye, even though that concept completely fails when the sum would be greater than light.

I guess I 'm confused by your seeming disagreement with it. Show me any other excavation on the planet where skeletons are naturally highly radioactive. It said even in Ophilite's quaotation that trinitite can be and often is the result of nuclear blasts. There's no impact crater, which makes a normal meteor improbable, so I'd like to see you offer a better explanation. A hypothesis was that tectonic activity caused compression of a pocket of a higher concentration of uranium 235 which set of the reaction, under those circumstances the uranium ore deposit would have been shifted away from the glassy field over time and in the event, most likely northward. I agree with what you were trying to get at, which is that a lot of damage is caused by either the shockwave or left over debris, but the shockwave of an atomic bomb actually carries with it radioactive material, it's a hydrogen bomb that has a higher yield of thermal energy and therefore causes more damage from heat and fire. I completely agree that most naturally occurring uranium isn't very radioactive, which should indicate that it's strange for specific skeletons to have a higher amount of radiation. Also, a lot of natural uranium radiation is alpha decay, which is why its not damaging. Gamma rays are definitely damaging, if you replaced all the alpha decay with gamma decay you could easily get cancer from handling uranium. But neutron bombardment from an atomic reaction can. What? Did you seriously use the word "bomb"? I said in the first post that I don't believe the alien conspiracy, the whole point of this is that there was no bomb or any device at all and that it was a naturally occurring event.

It must have been that the same Lorentz who both wrote the papers on magnetism and time dilation relative to other frames of reference, Einstein graduated with a degree in physics in 1900 and got the patent job in 1902 but Lawrentz work on relativity wasn't known until 1905. This is getting confusing because I know lawrentz was working on problems with relativistic light from multiple frames of reference, but Einstein was the person who created the theory of general relativity in 1915, but the Lawrentz works on relativity couldn't have been physically understood until after the notion that time and space were one thing was already created. But the ultra-violet catastrophe was a problem black body radiation, and Maxwell postulated that it's because energy was quantized, even though Einstein had already said that in 1905? Doesn't that mean that he did in fact solve it? How doesn't it? I know Einstein had something to do with it, he used the findings of some part if it for his theories.

Mainstream science is just the scientific news that's most readily available and shoved out, why are you defending it? And how is a blue shift hijacking? The blue shift is a confirmed phenomena, and logically matter or energy would have to approach the singularity after passing the event horizon due to the curvature of space, it also does have to deal with the topic at hand because if everything is converted into photons after a certain point, then the OPs theories couldn't happen, photons definitely can't implode and black holes would have no gluon field strength at all and would also mean objects don't actually survive compression beyond the point of degeneracy in a black hole.

Well I think in this case society = government, because you ahead government that starts out with its problems and people try to modify it to work, then eventually people get greedy and as the government erodes away, eventually leading to it's collapse and then another cycle starts.

But time doesn't look outward, it looks forward and backward.

But it wasn't the whole ground that was radioactive, it was specifically the glass or the skeletons. Yet someone based someone's scientific understanding on a statement of a belief in a particular phenomena. When did I say anyone is smarter than anyone else? I specifically said that they didn't have enough scientific evidence to support either subject was smarter. I said that there wasn't confirmation of the levels radiation, otherwise go watch that history channel clip like I said, the fields of glass are caught on camera. Fields of glass can form from the heat caused by the impact from meteors, but if those shock-waves occurred, they would leave a crater behind, and if there was erosion so extreme that it eroded the crater away and leveled the landscape, it would have eroded the glass away too. http://en.wikipedia....fission_reactor The speculation of tectonic compression is highly improbable, but at least we have evidence that states nuclear reactions can occur naturally.

Seems like a depiction of the aging process while simultaneously possibly the cycle of a government, which isn't completely accurate.

But if it was determined that it was impossible then they wouldn't have so many people working on the project.

Well it makes perfectly legitimate sense than from the reference of the singularity that there would be a blue shift as light approaches it, but I mean from an observer not at the singularity yet. But there's still the question "how" they are compressed, what do they actually make when they are all compressed? And there's still something about black hole thermodynamics that doesn't match up, because blackholes have entropy, but the entropy is caused by the uncertainty in thermal energy within the black hole, so that would have to mean that the photons have to have an uncertainty greater than the event horizon even if they are supposedly at the singularity, but how do you have such a great uncertainty without a very long wavelength?

But if this was a normal level of radiation, no one would have bothered to point it out, the concept could have easily been dismissed, but there were supposedly levels of radiation comparable to hiroshima, not just natural water deposit levels. Levels from water deposits are, well, normal, there's no point pointing them out. If you read my earlier posts you'll find I'm well aware it occurred in Libya ad Egypt as well, it occurred in multiple locations around the world, and Trinitite is I think a "western" or US term because its named after the first US bomb detonated in the US, but I can still find and did link to that there are in fact fields of green glass in the Indus valley in the Rajasthan province of India, which matches the description of Trinitite. Exactly, there's a crater when it's caused by a meteor, but there is not always a crater when a field of glass is found, which is why it's a mystery if a metoer was always involved. That just shows what I was saying already, I said I didn't rule out the possibility that it was a normal meteor and your link also shows that it is still possible for an atomic blast to be the result, I already stated MULTIPLE TIMES that I know that an atomic bomb didn't for sure happen, I ALREADY KNOW there's a chance it didn't, but given the unique circumstances I want to know what can cause nuclear explosions besides nuclear weapons. From one of my later links there seems to be geological evidence that larger than normal concentrations of Uranium 235 can naturally form, which is what refined uranium in nuclear devices has a higher concentration of. I had a hypothesis of a uranium meteor but it seems improbable that a smaller one would have a high concentration of 235, but it would seem like in ore deposits that 235 can naturally form from decay like Plutonium can in the critical density necessary for a nuclear reaction, albeit very rarely.

Meteors usually do leave an impact crater on land or they explode and disintegrate in the atmosphere which is why the theory is a problem, but the physics has yet to be proven that a meteor could produce such a large area of molten glass and heat enough up exactly just before hitting the ground so that previous thermal energy wasn't lost to the air over such a large area without leaving a crater or without being big enough to leave any other marks. It would have to be a big meteor to make it that near to the ground and not completely disintegrate in the atmosphere, but it would also have to explode nearly perfectly outward and into perfectly small pieces that were all small enough to all completely disintegrate just before hitting the ground in a radial blast to heat up the air over such a large area for the temperature hot enough to melt solid rock to occur, but if it's that big and it exploded why aren't there any pieces left? Why no smaller impact craters? And what about all the radioactivity?

Well, they explain about mass, which would be used to create a unifying theory of quantum gravity that would help solve problems with relativistic mass gain and loss as well as black holes.

No, Higg's Bosons are suppose to explain why mass exists, or at least how gravity interacts with particles. The uncertainty and superposition of particles was already thought of like over half a century ago and it describes particles as having similar properties to waves.

Wait, how does the photon "gain" energy by moving to a lower energy potential? And still, what is a singularity made out of and then if there's no increase in uncertainty how can heat leak out from a black hole? How do photons even get compressed?

I know that there are random pockets in which radiation can be higher than normal for whatever reason, but supposedly the radioactivity of the skeletons was comparable to those of Hiroshima, but I suppose without further knowledge of exactly how much of what radiation that it can't be determined. Again, I don't care about whatever religion he has. There's no confirming information that it was an atomic blast, but there's no confirming information that it was anything else that even the best geologists in the world though of either. Meteor? No impact crater. Volcano? None that I see. Fireball? Eh, maybe if the physics can be proven that it's possible for a fireball to do such a thing. There's still the actual FILM FOOTAGE from the history channel of the trip to the Indus valley, and there's these. http://www.ceveni.co...in-ancient.html This has more detail on the event, it's not direct evidence of trinitite, but it does mention a field of glass or crystalline substances, and trinitite is a glass. The youtube video, I know know it's saying that the people actually traveled to the moon as in it agrees there's a conspiracy, or if they are merely translating the ancient documents of which throughout human history there are such random accounts of things like battles in the sky and beings from space. http://beforeitsnews...bs-2442710.html I can't seem to get the exact word "trinitite", but "fields of green-yellowish glass" seems like a pretty good match throughout a number of different sources, I think Trinitite is a western term because it's the name given to the mineral after it was found as the result of the first atomic bomb tested which was in New Mexico, known as Trinity.