Jump to content

Radioactivity in the past


Recommended Posts

I know it's bull, but there's still no other explanation for it that I found. Essentially on the history channel they were exploring possibilities that aliens were involved in the past, and a lot of evidence was subject to interpretation, but there was a particular one that got me, which is that in India, there is a field of glass that nearly perfectly matches the type of glass that was produced in deserts in the US where nuclear bomb testing was done, in fact atomic bombs specifically melt rock as to have formed that type glass, so my question is: is it plausible that a meteor with high uranium content struck the Earth and become compressed enough to cause an explosion? Or is it plausible from tectonic activity that enough uranium ore could have been compressed to trigger the reaction? Because there was scanning of the radiation in the area, and it was higher than usual, and on top of that it was recorded in ancient Indian hieroglyphics that there was a create explosion-like scene that injured and killed many people that was found near that region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's bull, but there's still no other explanation for it that I found. Essentially on the history channel they were exploring possibilities that aliens were involved in the past, and a lot of evidence was subject to interpretation, but there was a particular one that got me, which is that in India, there is a field of glass that nearly perfectly matches the type of glass that was produced in deserts in the US where nuclear bomb testing was done, in fact atomic bombs specifically melt rock as to have formed that type glass, so my question is: is it plausible that a meteor with high uranium content struck the Earth and become compressed enough to cause an explosion? Or is it plausible from tectonic activity that enough uranium ore could have been compressed to trigger the reaction? Because there was scanning of the radiation in the area, and it was higher than usual, and on top of that it was recorded in ancient Indian hieroglyphics that there was a create explosion-like scene that injured and killed many people that was found near that region.

 

 

Can you give us a link to that? I've never heard of it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naturally-ocurring uranium does not have sufficient fissile material to sustain a fission reaction, and that's been the case for all of recorded history. A billion years or so ago that was not the case — there is evidence of a natural reactor in Gabon (Oklo) about 1.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of U-235/U-238 was higher (U-235 having a shorter half-life). So it was not from geologic activity.

 

Did they measure a spectrum, which would tell you what isotopes were responsible for the radiation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you measure the radiation in Aberdeen it is higher usual, yet no aliens have visited Aberdeen. (I take this as evidence of the superior intelligence of aliens.)

 

An air burst of an incoming bolide very close to ground level could be the explanation for the fused sand. If it was over, for example, a granite pluton then radioactivity would be higher than usual. The impactor would tie in with the stories of a vast explosion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you measure the radiation in Aberdeen it is higher usual, yet no aliens have visited Aberdeen. (I take this as evidence of the superior intelligence of aliens.)

 

 

I think the problem isn't that aliens didn't visit Aberdeen - it's that they never left!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naturally-ocurring uranium does not have sufficient fissile material to sustain a fission reaction, and that's been the case for all of recorded history. A billion years or so ago that was not the case — there is evidence of a natural reactor in Gabon (Oklo) about 1.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of U-235/U-238 was higher (U-235 having a shorter half-life). So it was not from geologic activity.

 

Did they measure a spectrum, which would tell you what isotopes were responsible for the radiation?

 

So on Earth, there wasn't a chance of it, but what about a meteor, meteors have been around for billions of years, if there was a high enough energy could the reaction be triggered? I'm not talking about weaponizing uranium and making it efficient, the kinetic energy that the meteor delivers can be well over whatever energy the atomic explosion itself releases, so given that, can an exceptionally large amount energy such as from a meteor trigger a reaction with uranium isotopes from space?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So on Earth, there wasn't a chance of it, but what about a meteor, meteors have been around for billions of years, if there was a high enough energy could the reaction be triggered? I'm not talking about weaponizing uranium and making it efficient, the kinetic energy that the meteor delivers can be well over whatever energy the atomic explosion itself releases, so given that, can an exceptionally large amount energy such as from a meteor trigger a reaction with uranium isotopes from space?

I can't see why a meteor would have a different isotopic distribution. This isn't being about weapons-grade. This is a minimum amount for critical density, and even then you need to have thermal neutrons around. If there is a way around that, I'm not aware of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see why a meteor would have a different isotopic distribution.

Well, of course they do have different isotopic compositions. Exploring these differences has been key to working out the early history of the solar system. However, the differences are subtle and not at all of the magnitude required for Euqis's speculation to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see why a meteor would have a different isotopic distribution. This isn't being about weapons-grade. This is a minimum amount for critical density, and even then you need to have thermal neutrons around. If there is a way around that, I'm not aware of it.

 

Well, of course they do have different isotopic compositions. Exploring these differences has been key to working out the early history of the solar system. However, the differences are subtle and not at all of the magnitude required for Euqis's speculation to work.

 

Well, if there isn't enough of that uranium isotope to occur in nature, how else could an atomic explosion appear to have happened? Are there any other substances capable of making that kind of explosion? Or what about uranium in an ore? There's definitively tectonic activity in India, couldn't a uranium ore deposit have been compressed so much that there existed the critical density of that uranium isotope to cause that explosion?

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already answered this. An air burst from an incoming bolide could generate temperatures comparable with a nuclear explosion. Natural radioactivity could account for the above normal radiation levels. It doesn't seem difficult to explain. You don't need to invoke an implausible mehcanism when a perfectly satisfactory one already exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if there isn't enough of that uranium isotope to occur in nature, how else could an atomic explosion appear to have happened? Are there any other substances capable of making that kind of explosion? Or what about uranium in an ore? There's definitively tectonic activity in India, couldn't a uranium ore deposit have been compressed so much that there existed the critical density of that uranium isotope to cause that explosion?

You haven't established that that type of an explosion occurred. I refer you to Ophiolite's answer, twice given, and my own inquiry about the spectrum of the radiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't established that that type of an explosion occurred. I refer you to Ophiolite's answer, twice given, and my own inquiry about the spectrum of the radiation.

 

Well it didn't give specifically what type of radiation there was, scientists and camera men investigated it on foot without any suits so I would expect it was mostly alpha decay, but assuming it was that type of explosion because there was higher levels of radiation as well as the same type of byproduct as an atomic explosion, what other explanations?

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... what other explanations?

What are you not understanding? I'll do my best to explain, but I can't help you if you just ignore what I am telling you.

 

Firstly, you say there were elevated radiation levels. I have explained to you that there are many places around the world with radiation levels that are unusual, high, above average, call it what you will. You have offered absolutely no evidence to suggest that the levels were dramatically above normal, therefore the radiation levels are likely not important to this situation.

 

I now explain for the third time that if a comet or asteroid penetrates the atmosphere then explodes in the air - a mechanism that is well known and commonplace over geologic time - it generates very high temperatures. These temperatures are certainly high enough to fuse rock to glass. If the airburst is close to the ground this is exactly what would happen.

 

There is nothing to explain here that is in any way unusual. What is it that you do not understand about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should point out that "elevated radiation levels" is a very unspecific descriptor; my dorm room has gamma radiation levels three times higher than levels I've measured elsewhere, simply because the building is made of concrete. Background radiation varies by a great deal naturally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it didn't give specifically what type of radiation there was, scientists and camera men investigated it on foot without any suits so I would expect it was mostly alpha decay, but assuming it was that type of explosion because there was higher levels of radiation as well as the same type of byproduct as an atomic explosion, what other explanations?

Alpha decay indicates it was not a fission reaction. If it were, you'd be worried about gamma and beta. Alpha indicates it's naturally occurring background from heavy elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you guys are getting it, I'm not asking for the evidence of the atomic explosion, I already know there's a chance it could possibly be something else, but I want to know is that if it was, what could have caused it, because it definitely wasn't a nuclear weapon.

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are the one who is not getting it. It was not an atomic explosion. There is no good reason to think it could have been an atomic explosion of any kind: natural, human induced or alien.

 

You might as well say, "You guys are not getting it. Suppose it was caused by the friction generated by a fight between a giant armadillo and a canary, how could that have happened."

 

Well, it couldn't and didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are the one who is not getting it. It was not an atomic explosion. There is no good reason to think it could have been an atomic explosion of any kind: natural, human induced or alien.

 

You might as well say, "You guys are not getting it. Suppose it was caused by the friction generated by a fight between a giant armadillo and a canary, how could that have happened."

 

Well, it couldn't and didn't.

 

You downgraded mine and upped your own because I think I'm being mis-interpreted? How childishly despicable. I already stated in the first post that the use of a nuclear weapon is BS. But regardless of that, there is still evidence that a nuclear explosion happened whether you want to go into denial about it or not, I'm not asking about evidence for it, I already know there's some evidence for it that could be somewhat shaky, so given the undismissable fact that there is some evidence as well as NO scientific proof that it wasn't or couldn't have been an atomic explosion of some sort, there is plenty of room to investigate possibilities.

Alpha decay indicates it was not a fission reaction. If it were, you'd be worried about gamma and beta. Alpha indicates it's naturally occurring background from heavy elements.

 

I don't know for sure if it was alpha decay, but this was the same substance found at the site in India, but as an entire field of that substance covering an entire layer of rock and dirt, like where the nuclear bomb testing was done.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite

Also can't a large amount of alpha decay be the result of the decay or uranium isotopes? I know that's for uranium in it's natural state, but it would give a little more evidence to the compression of a uranium ore deposit as well as the fact that there is a fair amount of tectonic activity in India. Normally natural glass is found near volcanoes or hot spots, but I think it could also be a meteor impact as well. I don't know for sure if it was an atomic explosion or not, but more field of non-volcanic glass with high radiation isn't really a typical phenomena and there's no reason to think it's impossible for ancient civilizations to come into contact with highly radioactive materials, if you just look at the ancient biblical accounts, the Ark gave people who opened it or were near it all the symptoms of radiation poisoning.

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You downgraded mine and upped your own because I think I'm being mis-interpreted?

I have downgraded your explanation because so far you have provided zero evidence to support your assertion. Please now list, with appropriate citations, the precise evidence you believe exists for a nuclear explosion.

 

there is still evidence that a nuclear explosion happened whether you want to go into denial about it or not,
I am not going into denial, because so far you have provided nothing to deny. Produce this evidence, not as word of mouth, third hand, suspect web-site evidence, but properly documented evidence - you know, the kind that would be appropriate and expected on a science forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You downgraded mine and upped your own because I think I'm being mis-interpreted? How childishly despicable. I already stated in the first post that the use of a nuclear weapon is BS. But regardless of that, there is still evidence that a nuclear explosion happened whether you want to go into denial about it or not, I'm not asking about evidence for it, I already know there's some evidence for it that could be somewhat shaky, so given the undismissable fact that there is some evidence as well as NO scientific proof that it wasn't or couldn't have been an atomic explosion of some sort, there is plenty of room to investigate possibilities.

It seems this is the only argument that people give when they can't argue against the opposing argument because they know they lost, but back on topic.

 

It seems you are ignoring the evidence that is being given to you and continue to ask for evidence that you want to prove your point, but the fact is there isn't or very little of it. And if this is not the case, what specific evidence do you want?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you said in the OP was

" so my question is: is it plausible that a meteor with high uranium content struck the Earth and become compressed enough to cause an explosion? Or is it plausible from tectonic activity that enough uranium ore could have been compressed to trigger the reaction? "

And those to questions have been answered.

No it is not plausible and no it could not.

Yet you keep going about it as if it still real possibility.

Why is that?

 

BTW, what do you mean by "You downgraded mine and upped your own"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He means that I rated the probability of a bolide impact airburst being very high and the probability of a naturally induced nuclear explosion being very low. Apparently this objective assessments of the facts as currently available was "despicably childish". If so I should like 14, 827 other such instances to be taken into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might as well say, "You guys are not getting it. Suppose it was caused by the friction generated by a fight between a giant armadillo and a canary, how could that have happened."

 

Well, it couldn't and didn't.

Derr... Scientists are always so closed minded. Why are you trying to cover up the obvious political tensions between armadillos and canaries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you said in the OP was

" so my question is: is it plausible that a meteor with high uranium content struck the Earth and become compressed enough to cause an explosion? Or is it plausible from tectonic activity that enough uranium ore could have been compressed to trigger the reaction? "

And those to questions have been answered.

No it is not plausible and no it could not.

Yet you keep going about it as if it still real possibility.

Why is that?

 

BTW, what do you mean by "You downgraded mine and upped your own"?

 

Where is it shown that those possibilities aren't plausible? I asked if it could be a meteor, and some people argued with good reasoning that it may not of been, but didn't rule it out for some reason, then then when I asked about tectonic compress people for some reason started debating the existence of the atomic explosion rather than if tectonic compression could have compressed an ore deposit to a critical enough density, no one said no to that, and on top of all that, there's still some evidence that suggests there was some kind of atomic explosion.

 

I have downgraded your explanation because so far you have provided zero evidence to support your assertion.

I'm not debating the legitimacy of the existence of the atomic explosion, I want to know what could have caused an atomic explosion on Earth besides nuclear weapons whether a nuclear explosion actually occurred 12,000 years ago or not, this isn't just about that particular instance necessarily.

 

 

Please now list, with appropriate citations, the precise evidence you believe exists for a nuclear explosion.

 

If you can find a legal site where the history channel has licensed all of it's episodes to the public to view for free, I'd be more than happy to bring it up. Other than that,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite

Trinitite, capable of being produced in atomic explosions, a large field of it was found where nuclear bomb testing was done in the US, and that same type of physical formation was found in Rajasthan, India

High levels of radiation

http://www.forbidden...nfo/?q=node/130

 

 

I am not going into denial, because so far you have provided nothing to deny.
So your disagreeing with me...because I haven't put anything up to deny? Seems rather contradictory.

 

 

It seems this is the only argument that people give when they can't argue against the opposing argument because they know they lost, but back on topic.

The topic isn't "did an atomic explosion happen?", the topic is "what can cause an atomic explosion on Earth besides nuclear weapons?". Do people just not like reading these days or what? This whole argument could have been avoided if people just actually put some effort into reading what I said. I asked if the causes I stated were plausible causes, not if an atomic explosion ever actually happened, because as it turns out, this formation has occurred in more places in the world than just India without documented cases of nuclear testing, and those formations didn't appear out of thin air, there has to be some kind of natural event that can cause those formations, and since there's evidence to support those formations can be caused by atomic explosions, then that means atomic explosions could potentially be a plausible explanation, but if they are, then there has to be some mechanism for how they can happen.

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"and on top of all that, there's still some evidence that suggests there was some kind of atomic explosion."

No there isn't.

Anyway, I thought it was obvious why it was impossible.

Stellar nucleogenesis doesn't give a good mix of isotopes of uranium for an explosion.

Geological processes can't do isotope fractionation.

They also can't reduce the uranium to the metal and remove all the impurities that would stop an explosion- not least because some of those impurities are produced by nuclear decay and so geological processes are too slow to clean up the uranium before it makes itself impure again by decay.

Any meteor made of uranium with a high enough isotope ratio to cause an explosion when it crashed would probably cause one when it was launched.

 

"the topic is "what can cause an atomic explosion on Earth besides nuclear weapons?". Do people just not like reading these days or what? "

Nope it is not. The topic is clearly written at the top of the page. It says "Radioactivity in the past" and I already quoted the OP.

The answer to the new question is "nothing: that's why there's no evidence of one having happened."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.