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.

What? Can you seriously not read? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way. You demonstrate in post after post that your reading comprehension is flawed.)

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.

a) skeletons tend to preferentially absorb uranium from the environment

Absorbing uranium only gives the skeletons the normal level of background radiation for whatever availibility of uranium that there is in the soil.

 

 

 

b) most victims of a nuclear attack do not die of radiation, nor do their bodies display signs of elevated radiation levels

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.

 

 

The bulk of this thread is a string of posts in which we have attempted to help you understand what has been written. When are you going to start making an effort in this direction?

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.

 

 

Never bother to point it out? And that would be because an entertainment program never sensationalizes its findings?

 

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.

For example, the electromagnetic field can carry energy and momentum and so we can have violation of third law.

 

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?

I disagree with the bolded line above. all across the US Religious views are being used to take rights away from those who do not believe the same way.

 

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

Excellent reply. I wish some mods would learn from you. You have identified the point of possible disagreement, making it possible for me to address this point. Let me start with confessing my head is really spinning as all of sudden I am hearing cries from everywhere about our moral dilemma, and a need for a new religion, and there are new books about democracy being written, explaining how democracy is being destroyed, or explaining what an ideal democracy looks like and all the morality that goes with it. I am not alone with concerns about a "modern crisis", although my understanding of how we got in this mess is different. I came to my understanding of the problem by studying the history of education, and did so by collecting and reading old books. My information is not common because the source is not common, however, it is factual.

 

Just now, in a geology thread, I was ranting about this crisis from a different point of view. In general the public is extremely ignorant of geology, and some of noticed their local libraries do not have good books on geology. No matter how good our logic or our reasoning may appear, if it is too narrow, and in fact ignorant of a field of study as important as geology, it is bad reasoning with destructive ramifications. In the geology thread, the greater problem of our present industrial life style was identified as global warming. I threw in the terrible ramifications of being ignorant of where our oil comes from, the reality of it being finite, and the economic, military and political realities of oil.

 

I don't know what is meant by " the axioms for pursuing the reason or I guess using any part of it are purely emotionally driven" means? I think it is reasonable if we have an emotional reaction to the destruction of our lives. Actually I am reminded of a few Star Trek shows that address this question of the value of our emotions. I like what I learned from a diabetic pamphlet about anger. It explained anger is our natural warning system that something is warn. When we become aware of the anger, we are to check for what is wrong and think what needs to be done to correct the wrong. I tell children and their parents that fear is a sign of intelligence. Emotions are not a bad, but are an important part of survival system. What is really scary is humanity can self destruct with complete ignorance of what it is doing!

We need a new frame work for thinking. To ignore this is to remain on the path Germany followed. That is the path to the horrors of NAZI Germany. Let me repeat, there are many cries for an urgent need to gain awareness and change how we think. Others see what I am seeing, but they do not normally mention NAZI Germany. The link I used does mention NAZI Germany, but not what I think is essential to this understanding. What I think is essential to the understanding is, how education for technology is different from liberal education. I have been told I can not talk about this, by those who have no understanding of what I am talking about, so I used a link to make a point. It is really hard to talk about something I have been told not to talk about, but I think it is very important we have awareness of what is happening, why and the ramifications of it. There was a line of philosophy that lead to the idea that planners should plan our lives for us, and this is what we have educated for, a society that is planned and run by policy, while public education conditions the citizens to be lead by the planners.

 

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.

What's wrong with having morality just because you want to? Okay, what morality would you have us have?

 

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.

Seems to me this is just a case of semantics, you say society = government but this is really an over-simplification of what we see in society as a whole. You are making a huge assumption and as such it has very little justification in the real world.

 

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.

That doesn't mean it's not eternal. Remember that the universe is all that is, ever was, and ever will be. There is no point in time at which the universe did not exist. And since something is said to be eternal iff there is no time at which it does not exist, then the universe is, by definition, eternal.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

"Before the universe" is incoherent without positing some sort of meta-time, and there's no real reason to do that.

 

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.

!

Moderator Note

You know, the rules are arguably simpler than relativity, so it's not unreasonable to expect you to understand them. And then follow them.

 

Here's a rhetorical question: are you trying to get suspended?

 

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?

 

!

Moderator Note

New topic.

 

Ether/Aether is not mainstream science.

 

I think from your reply that you should read about how the scientific process works to understand how something become mainstream.

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.

which I explained earlier in post 38.

Did you not read it or not understand it?

I guess I 'm confused by your seeming disagreement with it.

 

 

How clear can I make this

I don't care if the skeletons are so radioactive that they glow in the dark.

Show me any other excavation on the planet where skeletons are naturally highly radioactive.

 

 

 

 

For an finish, it's not evidence of a nuclear reaction of any sort.

That's why I asked about fission products; they would really be the "smoking gun".

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.

 

 

 

"but at least we have evidence that states nuclear reactions can occur naturally. "

Exactly: we have evidence.

Specifically we have distorted isotope ratios in the uranium and we have fission products at Oklo.

But, I'm willing to bet we don't have them in your glassy field.

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.

 

 

 

If I was making a video and I wanted to make people think the skeletons were strangely radioactive I'd compare them to something that isn't nearly as radioactive as you would expect.

I might well choose the skeletons of the poor souls who died at Hiroshima.

 

Everybody knows they died as the result of an atom bomb so everyone will "know" that the bodies are very radioactive.

Everybody would be wrong.

Those people mainly died from fires and blast damage. Those don't give you a radioactive skeleton.

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.

 

But uranium doesn't do that- sure it's toxic like mercury or lead, but it's not actually very radioactive.

Most of the radiation is in the form of beta and gamma rays. But, since the beta particles have a range of a metre at most in air, they don't kill many people.

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.

The gammas don't give you a radioactive skeleton.

But neutron bombardment from an atomic reaction can.

 

 

Of course, the bomb will have spread a fair bit of uranium across the city.

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.

Einstein already had a teaching diploma from Zurich Polytechnic and was working towards his Phd while at the patent office. The only reason he took the job was because he couldn't find a teaching position.

 

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.

"his later works such as solving the Ultra-Violet Catastrophe"

 

That wasn't Einstein.

http://en.wikipedia....let_catastrophe

The phrase was coined in 1911

The special theory was already published by then.

However his work on the photoelectric effect (which shows the quantisation of energy) was published 1905

He was ahead of the game on quantum physics before he published relativity.

 

To some extent his ideas were a product of their time: if he hadn't made the leap, someone else would have, and probably fairly soon.

 

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.

!

Moderator Note

This doesn't look like mainstream science nor the discussion of the speculation at hand, therefore it's thread hijacking, please do not do it.

 

Please no one continue this train of discussion in this thread.

 

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.

Not at all, the cycle of a single government is much too short term. I'm talking about the cycle of a society as a whole, which is often many centuries. I apologise, for the ambiguity.

 

 

 

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.

Perhaps, probably, more than likely, what else could it be other than a predicted black hole? I suspect that us what it is. Then I ask about the so called "Event Horizon" yet to be seen, and the hole itself. At one time it was supposed to let nothing escape, now that his been proven wrong. So many unproven theories, String, Branes, Mulitiple Universes, Parallel Universes. Bosons, new elements in the Paticle Zoo, Dark this and that..., science is really so far from understanding what stuff is out there

 

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

So you know that there are places with high background radiation. that's a start.

But it wasn't the whole ground that was radioactive, it was specifically the glass or the skeletons.

 

 

 

Nobody asked about religion.

Yet someone based someone's scientific understanding on a statement of a belief in a particular phenomena.

I was making the point that, based on very little evidence, you were asserting that one person whom you have never met is smarter than another person whom you have never met.

that's dumb enough to be part of a comedy sketch.

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.

 

Please show me the film footage of the work done on the isotope ratios and the presence or absence of fission products: it sounds fascinating and it would be strong evidence.

Alternatively, accept that there isn't really any evidence that the skeletons were anything special..

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.

Obviously this is a broad analogy, but it does seem to fit the development of societies in general, although the first three requires a stretch of imagination. I have my own ideas as to the possible reasons for this, which I'll keep to myself, for now, lest I steer the discussion. The following is an analysis, of Shakespeare's poem, from wiki...

 

[/size][/font]

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

 

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

No, I provided you the link to show that in some cases, the question of possibility or not, is really THE key question.

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

Check this out -> http://en.wikipedia....ional_blueshift

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.

 

Singularity (in black holes) is just very, very, very dense "ether". Photons are compressed (created) near nucleus because of electron's movement.

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?

Tunguska come to mind.... The Earth has natural radioactivity, dinosaur bones, for instance, are often radioactive and this has been used to assert that dinosaurs attained intelligence just before their extinction and a nuclear war was the end game of the dinosaurs. But it can also be shown that groundwater containing uranium concentrates in bones and accounts for the radiation. Now which is more likely, a dinosaur nuclear war or ground water depositing uranium in bones?

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.

 

BTW the reason you can't find a reference to the "glass" in india is because the site is in north Africa not India and the site is indeed covered by yellowish glass and the consensus is that a meteor exploded before impact the melted a section of the desert.

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.

 

 

 

Your discovery channel show is confusing an old Indian myth and the reality of glass caused by meteorite impacts in North Africa...

 

Glass associated with a crater...

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Darwin_glass

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.

 

Buncha, T.E. et al "Very high-temperature impact melt products as evidence for cosmic airbursts and impacts 12,900 years ago" PNAS July 10, 2012 vol. 109

 

Abstract

It has been proposed that fragments of an asteroid or comet impacted Earth, deposited silica-and iron-rich microspherules and other proxies across several continents, and triggered the Younger Dryas cooling episode 12,900 years ago. Although many independent groups have confirmed the impact evidence, the hypothesis remains controversial because some groups have failed to do so. We examined sediment sequences from 18 dated Younger Dryas boundary (YDB) sites across three continents (North America, Europe, and Asia), spanning 12,000 km around nearly one-third of the planet. All sites display abundant microspherules in the YDB with none or few above and below. In addition, three sites (Abu Hureyra, Syria; Melrose, Pennsylvania; and Blackville, South Carolina) display vesicular, high-temperature, siliceous scoria-like objects, or SLOs, that match the spherules geochemically. We compared YDB objects with melt products from a known cosmic impact (Meteor Crater, Arizona) and from the 1945 Trinity nuclear airburst in Socorro, New Mexico, and found that all of these high-energy events produced material that is geochemically and morphologically comparable, including: (i) high-temperature, rapidly quenched microspherules and SLOs; (ii) corundum, mullite, and suessite (Fe3Si), a rare meteoritic mineral that forms under high temperatures; (iii) melted SiO2 glass, or lechatelierite, with flow textures (or schlieren) that form at > 2,200 °C; and (iv) particles with features indicative of high-energy interparticle collisions. These results are inconsistent with anthropogenic, volcanic, authigenic, and cosmic materials, yet consistent with cosmic ejecta, supporting the hypothesis of extraterrestrial airbursts/impacts 12,900 years ago. The wide geographic distribution of SLOs is consistent with multiple impactors.

 

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.

You do realize that meteors do not necessarily leave craters don't you? They can detonate above ground and the results are very much like a nuclear explosion...

 

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?

No, it wouldn't. EDIT: And in addition, Higgs Boson also don't explain anything about gravity.

 

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.

I have been watching and reading up on the Higgs Boson, and I was wondering; if the Higgs Boson were to be discovered(it was supposedly found, but not confirmed yet), would it explain why on the quantum level electrons appear to be in two places at once while in the general physical world everything seems to have a specific location that it is located at? (I hope I posted this in the right section).

 

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.

When photon approaches the event horizon of black hole it will gain energy (blue shifting).

 

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?

Just for the record, it is known (and reasonably well documented) that bones, because of their high phosphate content are good at scavenging uranium from the soil they are buried in. The same phenomenon is a problem for the phosphate fertiliser industry where they have to strip uranium from the phosphoric acid they make.

 

Radioactive skeletons are not evidence of anything apart from the insolubility of uranium phosphate.

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.

 

Re Icke's smarttness, the discussion reminded me of this exchange from the comedy sho Blackadder

"Percy: You know, they do say that the Infanta's eyes are more beautiful than the famous Stone of Galveston.

Edmund: Mm! ... What?

Percy: The famous Stone of Galveston, My Lord.

Edmund: And what's that, exactly?

Percy: Well, it's a famous blue stone, and it comes ... from Galveston.

Edmund: I see. And what about it?

Percy: Well, My Lord, the Infanta's eyes are bluer than it, for a start.

Edmund: I see. And have you ever seen this stone?

Percy: (nods) No, not as such, My Lord, but I know a couple of people who have, and they say it's very very blue indeed.

Edmund: And have these people seen the Infanta's eyes?

Percy: No, I shouldn't think so, My Lord.

Edmund: And neither have you, presumably.

Percy: No, My Lord.

Edmund: So, what you're telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen.

Percy: (finally begins to grasp) Yes, My Lord."

Again, I don't care about whatever religion he has.

 

Or not, since there is (as I explained) no credible explanation of an atomic blast.

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.

 

 

 

 

Now, just as soon as you show us something like that for the glass in India, you will have some evidence of nuclear fission.

Until then you have no evidence.

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.