Jump to content

Radioactivity in the past


Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a very simple reason why I chose to point out the lack of radioactivity expected among the skeletal remains of those killed at Hiroshima.

It was a direct response to this

"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

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

No it does not.

If it did then I'd not have mentioned it would I.

The skeletons end up rather more radioactive than 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,"

Yes, and as I already pointed out (and you didn't understand) they were largely irradiated by gamma rays. That won't make them radioactive.

 

 

"I'm not concerned with the non-atomic blast possibilities"

Then this isn't a discussion is it?

However it does make one thing clear. You are only interested if there was an atomic blast (there was clearly some sort of cause, and if you ignore the non nuclear ones, you are only left with nuclear ones.

OK, fair enough - it's not a debate but...

If you are interested in nuclear events then you are (by the nature of atomic explosions) only interested in events that leave an isotopic signature where the ratio of the two uranium isotopes is disturbed and there are fission products and their daughters left behind.

 

But there's no evidence of that having happened here and it's not unreasonable to assume that people would have looked, and if they had found such evidence it would have been presented ( it really would be the smoking gun).

 

So you are not interested in this event.

 

We can all stop now.

 

If you started a thread saying "Hi I'd like to talk about the idea that rainbows are made by pixies and I'm not going to listen to any other explanation", how far would you get before someone pointed out that it was a breach of the rules?

 

"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"."

No, I wouldn't think that at all. Good news doesn't sell papers.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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...

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 only skimmed the thread so someone might already have mentioned it, but it seem to be in very close proximity to India's nuclear test site.

 

Smiling Buddha, formally designated as Pokhran-I, was the codename given to the Republic of India's first nuclear test explosion that took place at the long-constructed Indian Army base, Pokhran Test Range at Pokhran municipality, Rajasthan state on 18 May 1974 at 8:05 a.m. (IST).

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

 

Pokhran (also spelled Pokaran) is a city and a municipality located in Jaisalmer district in the Indian state of Rajasthan. It is a remote location in the Thar Desert region and served as the test site for India's first underground nuclear weapon detonation.

 

Pokhran located at 26.92°N 71.92°E. It has an average elevation of 233 metres (764 feet).

 

Surrounded by rocky, sandy and five salt ranges, Pokaran means "the place of five mirages". It is en route both from Jodhpur to Jaisalmer and Bikaner to Jaisalmer.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only skimmed the thread so someone might already have mentioned it, but it seem to be in very close proximity to India's nuclear test site.

 

Smiling Buddha, formally designated as Pokhran-I, was the codename given to the Republic of India's first nuclear test explosion that took place at the long-constructed Indian Army base, Pokhran Test Range at Pokhran municipality, Rajasthan state on 18 May 1974 at 8:05 a.m. (IST).

http://en.wikipedia..../Smiling_Buddha

 

Pokhran (also spelled Pokaran) is a city and a municipality located in Jaisalmer district in the Indian state of Rajasthan. It is a remote location in the Thar Desert region and served as the test site for India's first underground nuclear weapon detonation.

 

Pokhran located at 26.92°N 71.92°E. It has an average elevation of 233 metres (764 feet).

 

Surrounded by rocky, sandy and five salt ranges, Pokaran means "the place of five mirages". It is en route both from Jodhpur to Jaisalmer and Bikaner to Jaisalmer.

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

 

Yeah, I saw that in my research too, but I'm talking about near the Indus Valley in Rajasthan where dating predates the construction of the test site. The evidence for either case is really all over the place, but usually in an atomic blast there's red trinitite from the copper used, and there seems to be evidence that it wasn't a typical nuclear blast with the same levels of radiation if there was one.

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 will that achieve?

You can't prove a negative anyway.

Will you be able to cite some new evidence in the new thread?

If not why will it help?

If you do have some evidence, why not post it here?

 

Anyway, for the record, here's the evidence (once again) that it wasn't an atomic blast.

1 There's no plausible mechanism for the isotope separation required to produce a bomb.

2 if you have the right isotope then bringing two sub-critical pieces together slowly will generate a nuclear fizzle rather than an explosion.

Geology doesn't do things fast so it's not a possible mechanism for initiating a nuclear reaction.

3 If there had been an atomic blast then the signature of the fission products would be present in the debris. It is easy enough to find so someone would have spotted it.

 

Now, there is no reason to think this was a nuclear blast and it's not possible that it was a nuclear blast and there's a reasonable , evinced, alternative to a nuclear blast.

 

Why on earth do you think there would be a point to a thread discussing the impossible possibility that it was one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area.

 

 

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.

 

I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air?

 

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.

 

No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area.

 

 

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.

 

I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air?

 

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.

 

No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area.

 

 

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.

 

I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air?

 

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.

 

No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area.

 

 

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.

 

I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air?

 

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.

 

No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area.

 

 

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.

 

I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air?

 

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.

 

No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area.

 

 

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.

 

I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area.

But as others pointed out, radioactivity can occur from radioactive materials seeping into bones and dinosaur bones, and dinosaur bones have been in the soil for longer than a few thousand years unlike those skeletons, and there isn't enough information to determine that that was the cause for the radioactivity, because nuclear reactions break apart uranium in different smaller nuclei as well as into neutrons, but of course the explosion doesn't only effect uranium, the particle bombardment can irradiate other materials as well which get vaporized and pushed by the shockwave or travel into the air. I suppose if it could be proven that most of the radioactivity was in fact natural uranium as well as a more logical explanation for the field of glass, it would be enough for be to drop it.

 

 

 

Then why have you so far failed to provide any links that detail the evidence that you keep asserting exists. (And that are not associated with discredited nutters.)

No, I provided at least detailed link that was credible, didn't mention any conspiracy about anything, but showed natural nuclear reactors can form, and that they can potentially overheat if there isn't enough water filtering through.

 

 

 

I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched?

Because fields of glass can be caused by the heat of a meteor impact, but there's no crater at the sites, and if it was eroded away, the field of glass would also have had to of been eroded away because it's in the same area as the crater.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist.

Well, it doesn't have to be the largest or most powerful atomic explosion, but nuclear reactions can at least occur in stars and theoretically occur in naturally occurring reactors, though it hasn't been observed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air?

There's a link I posted somewhere in here and on my other thread someone posted a link.

 

 

 

 

 

What will that achieve?

For one, there's no debate on if they actually happened, its about what can cause them.

You can't prove a negative anyway.

But you can come pretty close.

Will you be able to cite some new evidence in the new thread?

I'm asking the members if they have evidence on the other thread, not the other way around.

If you do have some evidence, why not post it here?

I posted a few links and cited the program which as documented footage of the area. I don't remember specifically if it had any more evidence.

 

 

1 There's no plausible mechanism for the isotope separation required to produce a bomb.

The two hypothesized mechanisms are imporbable, though possible. It is improbable for there to be a naturally high occurance of uranium 235, which doesn't mean it's impossible.

 

 

2 if you have the right isotope then bringing two sub-critical pieces together slowly will generate a nuclear fizzle rather than an explosion.

Well, we don't have enough information to determine what the mass would have been, though for a meteor (however improbable it may be that it had the critical amount of 235) has to be pretty heavy to survive the whole trip through Earth's atmosphere.

 

Geology doesn't do things fast so it's not a possible mechanism for initiating a nuclear reaction.

I don't know how you can determine that about the nuclear reactions, but Earth quakes? Volcanic Eruptions? They aren't necessarily the fastest things, but they are definitely faster than the average amount of transformation of crust, most crust only transforms form its original position by a few inches.

 

 

3 If there had been an atomic blast then the signature of the fission products would be present in the debris. It is easy enough to find so someone would have spotted it.

Perhaps they did, fused into the glass left over.

 

Now, there is no reason to think this was a nuclear blast and it's not possible that it was a nuclear blast and there's a reasonable , evinced, alternative to a nuclear blast.

There's the reason that many people in the area died, there's ancient documents from people who lived in the area who painted a depiction of a large explosion in the same area with survivors getting sick, many many dead bodies, and no impact crater.

 

Why on earth do you think there would be a point to a thread discussing the impossible possibility that it was one?

Because so far every intuitive theory lacks enough evidence or had been overturned, and of course the intuitive answer isn't always the right one, and that's not what the history channel said that's just what I found while I was researching non conspiracy links, so far the only other leading theory is somehow the meteor exploded just before hitting the ground, heating up the surrounding air enough to melt glass. Further analysis still has to be done on whether a meteor can explode in such a way to heat up such a large surface of air as well as a being large enough to make it through all the atmosphere and still have enough mass to create such an explosion while somehow all that leftover mass that was able to create a large field of glass also completely vaporized leaving no crater or apparent meteor debris. This field of glass thing isn't an easily solved phenomena which is probably why there's so many conspiracy sites surrounding it.

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But as others pointed out, radioactivity can occur from radioactive materials seeping into bones and dinosaur bones, and dinosaur bones have been in the soil for longer than a few thousand years unlike those skeletons, and there isn't enough information to determine that that was the cause for the radioactivity, because nuclear reactions break apart uranium in different smaller nuclei as well as into neutrons, but of course the explosion doesn't only effect uranium, the particle bombardment can irradiate other materials as well which get vaporized and pushed by the shockwave or travel into the air. I suppose if it could be proven that most of the radioactivity was in fact natural uranium as well as a more logical explanation for the field of glass, it would be enough for be to drop it.

 

Show us some evidence that there were radioactive human skeletons.... any place.... you do not understand the process of ground water depositing minerals nor do you have an understanding of radioactive decay and does critical mass ring a bell?

 

No, I provided at least detailed link that was credible, didn't mention any conspiracy about anything, but showed natural nuclear reactors can form, and that they can potentially overheat if there isn't enough water filtering through.

 

In no way is that evidence supporting a nuclear explosion.... in fact you are mistaken in your description of a melt down in that case, in fact it was water flowing through the rocks that allowed the reaction to take place, remove the water and the reaction would stop, the water had nothing to do with cooling, it acted as a moderator.

 

Because fields of glass can be caused by the heat of a meteor impact, but there's no crater at the sites, and if it was eroded away, the field of glass would also have had to of been eroded away because it's in the same area as the crater.

 

Again, such an explosion of a meteorite would not leave a crater...

 

 

Well, it doesn't have to be the largest or most powerful atomic explosion, but nuclear reactions can at least occur in stars and theoretically occur in naturally occurring reactors, though it hasn't been observed.

 

Neither of these things has anything to do with a natural nuclear explosion being possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show us some evidence that there were radioactive human skeletons.... any place.... you do not understand the process of ground water depositing minerals nor do you have an understanding of radioactive decay and does critical mass ring a bell?

I'm not sure what your saying, I said that it wasn't confirmed what the source of the radioactivity was either way, but it was also stated that it's common for bones to become radioactive through absorbing uranium, yet your asking for evidence of radioactive skeletons?

 

 

 

In no way is that evidence supporting a nuclear explosion.... in fact you are mistaken in your description of a melt down in that case, in fact it was water flowing through the rocks that allowed the reaction to take place, remove the water and the reaction would stop, the water had nothing to do with cooling, it acted as a moderator.

Yeah, cooling was the wrong term, moderating was the one used in the link.

 

 

 

Again, such an explosion of a meteorite would not leave a crater...

Can you be more specific? I was the only one who mentioned the fireball theory, and a normal meteor would either leave a crater, or it would explode above the ground too high or completely disintegrate in the atmosphere and/or not so perfectly disperse heat.

 

 

 

 

Neither of these things has anything to do with a natural nuclear explosion being possible.

In naturally occurring nuclear reactors or even in just random pockets, there exists a larger concentration of the 235 isotope, which is the principal isotope in triggering large nuclear reactions in nuclear devices. Given that, it seems very irrational to say that a natural nuclear reactor couldn't in any way shape or form have something to do with a natural nuclear explosion.

 

I think we should just stick with the other topic, I don't think anyone has the evidence necessary to convince me that it was impossible for a nuclear explosion to happen naturally, and it appears I don't have the evidence necessary to convince you and a few others that there is a relatively fair likelihood.

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EquisDeXD, it is your responsibility to support your ideas, I do not have to disprove them, so far you have offered no support for the idea that a nuclear explosion could result from natural processes. In fact I suggest you google nuclear weapons to find out why your idea is indeed impossible.

 

That leaves you with few choices to explain the reality of a nuclear explosion. I would actually be willing to think that

aliens did it
is better than the assertion that a nuclear explosion occurred naturally.... Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EquisDeXD, it is your responsibility to support your ideas,

Which I did to the best of my ability.

 

 

I do not have to disprove them,

You don't have to disprove anything really, you don't even have to post, in fact, no one really "has" to to anything at all, literally.

 

 

so far you have offered no support

Which is wrong,

 

 

 

In fact I suggest you google nuclear weapons to find out why your idea is indeed impossible.

Which I did at one point, which is why I think it's possible.

 

That leaves you with few choices to explain the reality of a nuclear explosion. I would actually be willing to think that is better than the assertion that a nuclear explosion occurred naturally....

And this is why I said to drop it, because this isn't going to go anywhere.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not "assuming" that it was an atomic blast, but I'm not assuming it was any other particular thing either, and I just don't see enough evidence to suggest it's impossible..

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This

"In naturally occurring nuclear reactors or even in just random pockets, there exists a larger concentration of the 235 isotope"

is observably false.

Uranium isotope ratios are remarkably constant.

That's why the Oklo reactor was spotted.

 

"Don't get me wrong, I'm not "assuming" that it was an atomic blast"

Yes you are.

You said you were not interested in any other explanation.

 

And you really have given no valid support to the idea that it was nuclear.

Go back , look at the points I posted and rebut them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This

"In naturally occurring nuclear reactors or even in just random pockets, there exists a larger concentration of the 235 isotope"

is observably false.

Uranium isotope ratios are remarkably constant.

At least, in this solar system we have evidence for that, but what if a meteor came from a different star?

 

"Don't get me wrong, I'm not "assuming" that it was an atomic blast"

Yes you are.

You said you were not interested in any other explanation.

So your telling ME what I think when I just told you that's not what I think? And your a scientist? I said specifically that I'm not interested in the other ones because I already know what they are and their faults.

 

And you really have given no valid support to the idea that it was nuclear.

Go back , look at the points I posted and rebut them.

I'll give you the conspiracy sites, but I don't know how you can determine any other site was invalid. At any rate, I said it's best to not keep posting due to the lack of evidence for either argument.

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least, in this solar system we have evidence for that, but what if a meteor came from a different star?

 

So you are saying that another star system would have significantly more uranium 235? Also the meteor would have to travel at speeds much higher than ever observed to get here before the uranium 235 decayed. Seems like a lot of ifs on that.

 

 

So your telling ME what I think when I just told you that's not what I think? And your a scientist? I said specifically that I'm not interested in the other ones because I already know what they are and their faults.

 

So you are saying you are not interested in the extreme faults in your idea? Ignore your ideas faults but hey even if an atomic explosion is impossible naturally it appears to have happened? If you really think that then there is really only one choice...

 

 

I'll give you the conspiracy sites, but I don't know how you can determine any other site was invalid. At any rate, I said it's best to not keep posting due to the lack of evidence for either argument.

 

Quite the contrary, the evidence that a natural nuclear is impossible is overwhelming in the extreme. The evidence for a natural nuclear explosion is underwhelming in the extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 At least, in this solar system we have evidence for that, but what if a meteor came from a different star?

 

 

2 So your telling ME what I think when I just told you that's not what I think? And your a scientist? I said specifically that I'm not interested in the other ones because I already know what they are and their faults.

 

 

3 I'll give you the conspiracy sites, but I don't know how you can determine any other site was invalid. At any rate, I said it's best to not keep posting due to the lack of evidence for either argument.

1

You are probably ignorant of this but we can analyse other stars by spectroscopic means. We know how much uranium is there (though isotopic analysis might be pushing it) and the rest of the universe looks pretty much like our bit.

We also know how the elements are formed and there simply isn't a pathway to the outcome you want.

And, as has been pointed out, they wouldn't survive the journey.

2

not exactly, I am trying to judge what you think by looking at what you write. Unfortunately you are so inconsistent that it's not clear.

I don't understand how you could know so much about the non nuclear pathways to glass but not know anything about the nuclear ones.

In particular you seem to be repeatedly ignoring the evidence that shows that the nuclear scenario is absolutely impossible.

For example, after I point out that geology is , by a lot of orders of magnitude, too slow to start a nuclear reaction, you simpy ignore this and start assuming that the laws of physics don't apply outside our solar system.

Have you evidence for that or are you just hoping that we won't notice?

 

3 No. Just plain wrong.

there is plenty of evidence.

It all shows that there's no way the cause of the explosion could be nuclear.

You just keep ignoring it.

Please answer a few of the points I already raised before you go any further.

Specifically, please explain the isotope separation and also explain how the sub critical things came together shoved by geology,?

There's the other fly in the ointment. If there's no crater then it must have been a fairly high altitude air burst.

What lifted the " explosive" several thousand feet above the ground?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1

You are probably ignorant of this but we can analyse other stars by spectroscopic means. We know how much uranium is there (though isotopic analysis might be pushing it) and the rest of the universe looks pretty much like our bit.

We also know how the elements are formed and there simply isn't a pathway to the outcome you want.

And, as has been pointed out, they wouldn't survive the journey.

2

not exactly, I am trying to judge what you think by looking at what you write. Unfortunately you are so inconsistent that it's not clear.

I don't understand how you could know so much about the non nuclear pathways to glass but not know anything about the nuclear ones.

In particular you seem to be repeatedly ignoring the evidence that shows that the nuclear scenario is absolutely impossible.

For example, after I point out that geology is , by a lot of orders of magnitude, too slow to start a nuclear reaction, you simpy ignore this and start assuming that the laws of physics don't apply outside our solar system.

Have you evidence for that or are you just hoping that we won't notice?

 

3 No. Just plain wrong.

there is plenty of evidence.

It all shows that there's no way the cause of the explosion could be nuclear.

You just keep ignoring it.

Please answer a few of the points I already raised before you go any further.

Specifically, please explain the isotope separation and also explain how the sub critical things came together shoved by geology,?

There's the other fly in the ointment. If there's no crater then it must have been a fairly high altitude air burst.

What lifted the " explosive" several thousand feet above the ground?

 

I didn't even read your post, I'm just going to say "stick to the other thread". You don't have enough evidence to say its impossible, I don't have enough evidence to say there's a good chance. I have definitely presented at least some evidence, but it doesn't seem to be enough, so I'm leaving it at that.

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't even read your post, I'm just going to say "stick to the other thread". You don't have enough evidence to say its impossible, I don't have enough evidence to say there's a good chance. I have definitely presented at least some evidence, but it doesn't seem to be enough, so I'm leaving it at that.

 

 

You don't have enough evidence to prove it's impossible for me to have assassinated JFK but does that mean I'm a viable suspect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't mean your viable, it just means it's not impossible.

 

 

Then aliens did it is a viable possibility, in fact since aliens are clearly not impossible and a natural nuclear explosion has no known possible cause aliens did it is the more viable option... :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then aliens did it is a viable possibility,

Where are you pulling this word "viable" from? There's obviously evidence that it wasn't an atomic blast, I obviously don't consider it "viable", I just don't consider it improbable enough to throw it away.

 

 

 

in fact since aliens are clearly not impossible and a natural nuclear explosion has no known possible cause aliens did it is the more viable option... :o

 

It's certainly a possibility aliens were involved, I'm not denying that, and if aliens are a more probable maybe that's why there's so many conspiracy cites about it, but for me personally I don't see enough evidence, it's already more likely it was a meteor, and then after that level of hypothesizing its already more likely that it was some kind of natural phenomena, based on what I know.

Edited by EquisDeXD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't put this point in the other thread because it only applies to this one.

There's the other fly in the ointment. If there's no crater then it must have been a fairly high altitude air burst.

What lifted the " explosive" several thousand feet above the ground?

 

Please answer it, or accept that your scenario is impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's no crater then it must have been a fairly high altitude air burst.

What lifted the " explosive" several thousand feet above the ground?

I'm not sure what your saying at all, if your talking about the fireball theory scientists are still working on it.

 

Please answer it, or accept that your scenario is impossible.

 

You don't have the evidence to prove it's impossible, I've stated evidence for it, and no one has actually stated direct evidence against it, people merely point out that the evidence could also match that of other non-atomic scenarios. Maybe there could have been an atomic fizzle, maybe there could have been aliens, maybe there could have been tectonic movement, maybe there could have been a uranium meteor or non uranium meteor, maybe it was aliens.

Edited by EquisDeXD
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.