Jump to content
EquisDeXD

Radioactivity in the past

Recommended Posts

Have you forgotten what you said earlier?

Post 39 you point out that you don't understand meteors by saying

" Meteor? No impact crater. "

In doing so you imply that, at the site you are talking about, there is no crater.

Well, guess what, that works both ways.

If there had been a nuclear explosion there would have been a crater (unless the blast happened at a great height.)

 

So, you have supplied the evidence that proves (as far as you can get proof in this sort of thing) that it wasn't an atomic blast.

There is no hole.

 

"You don't have the evidence to prove it's impossible"

Oh yes I have, and I have cited it too. It's just that you won't accept it. (in many cases that's possibly because you don't understand it).

But, just to reiterate, here are the highlights again

Geology can't do isotope separations

Geology is too slow to start a nuclear explosion.

Geology doesn't create materials of high enough purity to produce an atomic explosion.

You don't even seem to accept the evidence that you supplied (ie there isn't a F***ing great hole).

 

" I've stated evidence for it,"

Nope, you have said that a film crew making an entertainment show put it forward as an idea.

The "Jurassic Park" films are not evidence of men coexisting with dinosaurs and your"evidence" is no better.

 

"people merely point out that the evidence could also match that of other non-atomic scenarios."

No.

several of us have pointed to plausible alternatives, but that's not all we have done. We have repeatedly pointed out the reasons why your suggestion is impossible.

 

"Maybe there could have been an atomic fizzle"

Quite possibly- with some definitions, Oklo was a fizzle but that wouldn't have created the fields of glass you are on about.

Nor, for the record, would it have given rise to particularly radioactive skeletons.

 

"maybe there could have been tectonic movement"

There was. But it doesn't make trinitite so it's not important. It's certainly far to slow to start a nuclear explosion.

 

" maybe there could have been a uranium meteor"

Maybe, but there's no plausible explanation for it. Nature tends to mix things up so how could you get a uranium meteor. If there were one then, in transit from wherever it started, it would, to some extent, decay. The decay products over any plausible journey time would have built up to a point where they would stop an explosion. Also, it would need to be exactly the right size- not big enough to go critical on the way, but big enough to be made critical by compression when it hit the ground.

That's already practically impossible, but remember that the stuff is constantly decaying.

If it was small enough not to go critical when it set out then it would be too small when it arrived.

It really is impossible you see.

 

Oh, also uranium is quite flammable in air. It would burn up as it came through the atmosphere.

If it was big enough for a critical sized lump to reach (near) the ground then it would have been vastly supercritical before lots of it was burned off.

It really is impossible you see.

 

"or non uranium meteor"

Yes, it seem s you have finally accepted that the mindbogglingly obvious answer is, at least possible.

 

"maybe it was aliens. "

Could be, but there's no evidence for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"maybe it was aliens. "

Could be, but there's no evidence for that.

This isn't entirely true. The 'evidence' for this appeared on the History channel and there have been a lot of aliens on the history channel.

Ancient Aliens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you forgotten what you said earlier?

Post 39 you point out that you don't understand meteors by saying

" Meteor? No impact crater. "

In doing so you imply that, at the site you are talking about, there is no crater.

Well, guess what, that works both ways.

If there had been a nuclear explosion there would have been a crater (unless the blast happened at a great height.)

 

In the event of a naturally occurring and uncontrolled atomic blast, I wouldn't expect the angle of the shockwaves to spread out so predictably or the transfer of the thermal energy to be directed in a perfect circle as it would be in a nuclear device, and as people have pointed out, a naturally occurring atomic blast could be somewhat weaker than in a full nuclear device.

 

 

"You don't have the evidence to prove it's impossible"

Oh yes I have, and I have cited it too. It's just that you won't accept it. (in many cases that's possibly because you don't understand it).

I don't see anywhere where it was proven impossible.

 

 

Geology can't do isotope separations

I don't know if that's true, but I never suggested that, I suggested that the critical density was formed in a tectonic event or possibly in a meteor or even from the meteor collision itself, I think maybe I suggested once that there could have been filtering naturally but even I doubted that, and that's when I was on a tangent from my main point.

 

 

Geology is too slow to start a nuclear explosion.

Geology doesn't create materials of high enough purity to produce an atomic explosion.

It's certainly unlikely, but stop telling geology what it can and can't do. And besides, there's Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions and fissures and mudslides, gysers bursts, all of which seem relatively sudden to us.

 

You don't even seem to accept the evidence that you supplied (ie there isn't a F***ing great hole).

An uncontrolled atom explosion doesn't have to create a nice circular hole, or a hole at all, it could have happened in a raised level of rock so that when it happened it evaporated that rock, thus leveling the field, the same could possibly be true for a meteor, in fact I don't know why that's not a theory yet, perhaps there would be a different layering of rock where it crashed if that were true.

 

" I've stated evidence for it,"

Nope, you have said that a film crew making an entertainment show put it forward as an idea.

The "Jurassic Park" films are not evidence of men coexisting with dinosaurs and your"evidence" is no better.

Jurassic park is classified as a fictional movie, and besides, PBS tries to get money, and physicists who hold lectures also get paid quite a big sum just to talk for a little while, yet that doesn't automatically mean they were wrong. And the emphasis of the episode wasn't "did and atomic event happen" it was "aliens could have been here", it wasn't as much evidence for them as all sorts of paintings and ancient depictions and documents from the past where people seemed to have symptoms of radiation poisoning.

 

 

several of us have pointed to plausible alternatives, but that's not all we have done. We have repeatedly pointed out the reasons why your suggestion is impossible.

I can see how its unlikely, but not how its impossible.

 

"Maybe there could have been an atomic fizzle"

Quite possibly- with some definitions, Oklo was a fizzle but that wouldn't have created the fields of glass you are on about.

Nor, for the record, would it have given rise to particularly radioactive skeletons.

And I wouldn't expect a fizzle to do those things.

 

"maybe there could have been tectonic movement"

There was. But it doesn't make trinitite so it's not important. It's certainly far to slow to start a nuclear explosion.

Actually, some forms of trinite can be made naturally (most commonly black trinitite), but I didn't mean some kind of volcanic eruption, I meant that the tectonic plates shifting compressed enough of uranium ore to create the critical density of 235.

 

" maybe there could have been a uranium meteor"

Maybe, but there's no plausible explanation for it. Nature tends to mix things up so how could you get a uranium meteor.

Nature certainly likes chaos, but that doesn't mean order never occurs, even when you mix metal together you can see under powerful microscopes that in the shiny looking material are actually distinguishable pockets of different concentrations of the materials.

 

 

Also, it would need to be exactly the right size- not big enough to go critical on the way, but big enough to be made critical by compression when it hit the ground.

That's already practically impossible,

The fireball theory predicts that there was a meteor not only of exactly the right size, but that also exploded just before hitting the ground, and that's supposedly more plausible than an atomic blast, so the exact size shouldn't be too much of an issue.

 

Oh, also uranium is quite flammable in air. It would burn up as it came through the atmosphere.

If it was big enough for a critical sized lump to reach (near) the ground then it would have been vastly supercritical before lots of it was burned off.

It really is impossible you see.

I need more analysis on that, Uranium is flamable, but if it's inside the meteorite it's not effected as much or right away, and the meteor doesn't have to be pure uranium either. There's also the compression upon impact. If the uranium meteor struck and got compressed 235 enough to a critical point, there wouldn't necessarily be a crater because after the initial impact that created what could have been some kind of crater, the explosion itself could have then leveled the surrounding land more.

"or non uranium meteor"

Yes, it seem s you have finally accepted that the mindbogglingly obvious answer is, at least possible.

I almost called this proof of trolling, because I've been saying its possible the for quite a while.

 

"maybe it was aliens. "

Could be, but there's no evidence for that.

Which is what I agreed with in the first post...

 

I really don't see how out of all the matter in the entire universe that could ever encounter earth at any time past or present in the last 14,000 years that none of it could have possibly had the right circumstances, which are essentially just happening to have a little more of the right material, it literally just doesn't make no logical sense that it "can't" happen just as it makes no logical sense to say that it's impossible to make a basket from 10 miles away, even though scientists at NASA do things way more improbable than that like exploring an asteroid by swinging around a planet from some multiple of a trillion miles away.

I also find it ironic that my posts are being marked down for integrally sticking with the completely in every way logical notion that improbable doesn't equal impossible as well it being ironic for the fact that I never mark anyone's post to a negative number.

Edited by EquisDeXD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 In the event of a naturally occurring and uncontrolled atomic blast, I wouldn't expect the angle of the shockwaves to spread out so predictably or the transfer of the thermal energy to be directed in a perfect circle as it would be in a nuclear device, and as people have pointed out, a naturally occurring atomic blast could be somewhat weaker than in a full nuclear device.

2 I don't see anywhere where it was proven impossible.

3 I don't know if that's true, but I never suggested that, I suggested that the critical density was formed in a tectonic event or possibly in a meteor or even from the meteor collision itself, I think maybe I suggested once that there could have been filtering naturally but even I doubted that, and that's when I was on a tangent from my main point.

 

4 It's certainly unlikely, but stop telling geology what it can and can't do. And besides, there's Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions and fissures and mudslides, gysers bursts, all of which seem relatively sudden to us.

 

5 An uncontrolled atom explosion doesn't have to create a nice circular hole, or a hole at all, it could have happened in a raised level of rock so that when it happened it evaporated that rock, thus leveling the field, the same could possibly be true for a meteor, in fact I don't know why that's not a theory yet, perhaps there would be a different layering of rock where it crashed if that were true.

 

6 Jurassic park is classified as a fictional movie, and besides, PBS tries to get money, and physicists who hold lectures also get paid quite a big sum just to talk for a little while, yet that doesn't automatically mean they were wrong. And the emphasis of the episode wasn't "did and atomic event happen" it was "aliens could have been here", it wasn't as much evidence for them as all sorts of paintings and ancient depictions and documents from the past where people seemed to have symptoms of radiation poisoning.

 

7 I can see how its unlikely, but not how its impossible.

 

8 And I wouldn't expect a fizzle to do those things.

9Actually, some forms of trinite can be made naturally (most commonly black trinitite), but I didn't mean some kind of volcanic eruption, I meant that the tectonic plates shifting compressed enough of uranium ore to create the critical density of 235.

 

10 Nature certainly likes chaos, but that doesn't mean order never occurs, even when you mix metal together you can see under powerful microscopes that in the shiny looking material are actually distinguishable pockets of different concentrations of the materials.

 

11 The fireball theory predicts that there was a meteor not only of exactly the right size, but that also exploded just before hitting the ground, and that's supposedly more plausible than an atomic blast, so the exact size shouldn't be too much of an issue.

 

12 I need more analysis on that, Uranium is flamable, but if it's inside the meteorite it's not effected as much or right away, and the meteor doesn't have to be pure uranium either. There's also the compression upon impact. If the uranium meteor struck and got compressed 235 enough to a critical point, there wouldn't necessarily be a crater because after the initial impact that created what could have been some kind of crater, the explosion itself could have then leveled the surrounding land more.

 

13 I almost called this proof of trolling, because I've been saying its possible the for quite a while.

 

14 Which is what I agreed with in the first post...

 

15 I really don't see how out of all the matter in the entire universe that could ever encounter earth at any time past or present in the last 14,000 years that none of it could have possibly had the right circumstances, which are essentially just happening to have a little more of the right material, it literally just doesn't make no logical sense that it "can't" happen just as it makes no logical sense to say that it's impossible to make a basket from 10 miles away, even though scientists at NASA do things way more improbable than that like exploring an asteroid by swinging around a planet from some multiple of a trillion miles away.

16 I also find it ironic that my posts are being marked down for integrally sticking with the completely in every way logical notion that improbable doesn't equal impossible as well it being ironic for the fact that I never mark anyone's post to a negative number.

 

1 whatever, it would still leave a hole, and there isn't one (you said so).

2 I showed this in my previous post. Others have done so to. Please learn to read.

3, that's OK, I do.

4 you really need to understand that the assembly of a supercritical mass has to be done quickly or you just get a fizzle.

Geology isn't fast enough.

5 explosions leaver characteristic blast patterns. There isn't one. That means the blast happened far away i.e. at altitude. You are proposing an earthquake that happens thousands of feet in the air. Do you not realise that such a suggestion is silly?

6 so you think that a TV show trying to suggest that aliens were here and set off a nuke is science journalism?

7 read the evidence again, and keep reading it until you understand it.

8 then why did you mention it. It's like saying "There could have been a dinner party" it's true but it doesn't add to the discussion.

9 according to the wiki page "trinitite and similar materials are anthropogenic"

More importantly, the oxygen in the ore would be enough to stop the nuclear reaction.

10 not always, there are metals that form so called solid solutions. But anyway, the reality is that nature doesn't generally make pure things. Add to that the great reactivity of uranium (it will catch fire in air in some circumstances) and you are not going to make it in a pure form.

11 not really. A slightly bigger meteor would have made a bigger field of glass. However there is a critical mass for uranium. Too small and it won't go bang, too big and it goes bang (or fizz) immediately. That constraint just doesn't apply to the meteor theory.

12 explosions dig craters- they don't fill them in.

13 I'd be happy to set up a poll to see who thinks which of us is trolling. Would you like me to?

14 then why did you suggest it again?

15 the people at NASA have brains and intention. Nature doesn't. Also there are things that get in the way of your idea which I have pointed out before. Notably, uranium "goes off" in transit because it's radioactive. In order to be a critical mass when it got here it would have needed to be supercritical when it set out- but if it was then it would have gone off then.

16 You seem not to understand that people mark your posts down because they detract from the purpose of this site which is to spread information, not nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 whatever, it would still leave a hole, and there isn't one (you said so).

Yep, I said there was no hole, and the only problem with that your saying is there's absolutely no reason to expect one in an uncontrolled nuclear event where the shockwave and thermal energy would not travel in a perfect circle nor would it only travel mainly downward and upward. What causes the specific pattern in nuclear devices is that there are special plates which deflect the shockwave outward. And in a relatively rough terrain, a not too steep drop wouldn't be very distinguishable A meteor however leaves an impact crater, usually with a basin, though I'm still not ruling it out.

 

4 you really need to understand that the assembly of a supercritical mass has to be done quickly or you just get a fizzle.

Which is still just a matter of location and time, it doesn't require physics to be violated.

Geology isn't fast enough.

5 explosions leaver characteristic blast patterns. There isn't one. That means the blast happened far away i.e. at altitude.

Not all explosions happen the same.

 

You are proposing an earthquake that happens thousands of feet in the air.

I never suggested such a ridiculous thing. Show me exactly where I said "an earthquake occurred in the air". You can't, can you?

 

6 so you think that a TV show trying to suggest that aliens were here and set off a nuke is science journalism?

I don't think that just because it's entertaining that it means it's false. Physics lectures are entertaining on certain subjects, does that mean the physicists are lying?

 

7 read the evidence again, and keep reading it until you understand it.

There's only evidence that it's improbable, not that it's impossible.

 

More importantly, the oxygen in the ore would be enough to stop the nuclear reaction.

I don't know if that's true, but compression should force a lot of air out of the area that's being compressed. And besides, there's still a meteor that can contain critical amounts of 235 by random chance, and there's different types of ore.

 

10 not always, there are metals that form so called solid solutions. But anyway, the reality is that nature doesn't generally make pure things.

It doesn't need to be pure, we're not building a nuclear device, it's that rare circumstances happened, but even so, it is mathematically possible for multiple uranium isotopes to happen occupy a specific volume of space. I agree that nature doesn't generally make reactive materials pure.

 

 

11 not really. A slightly bigger meteor would have made a bigger field of glass. However there is a critical mass for uranium. Too small and it won't go bang, too big and it goes bang (or fizz) immediately. That constraint just doesn't apply to the meteor theory.

That contsraint exactly applies to the meteor theory, because the meteor theory says there has to be a meteor of a high enough mass to not completely evaporate, but also have a low enough mass to be able to completely explode. Obviously a meteor the size of Mt. Everest isn't going to completely evaporate and even if it explodes, like the meteor that hit Jupiter and left visible scars, it would still break into chunks large enough to leave a distinguishable mark.

 

 

12 explosions dig craters- they don't fill them in.

But if the thermal energy isn't directed perfectly radially and shock waves aren't directed in a perfect circle like in a nuclear device, then you shouldn't expect the explosion to leave a perfectly recognizable hole. If it was a completely flat field of glass in a flat plain, I'd consider that point more.

13 I'd be happy to set up a poll to see who thinks which of us is trolling. Would you like me to?

Public opinion doesn't matter, what matters is evidence. I've let you come at me all you want with all sorts of ridiculous arguments like that I said an earthquake occurred in midair which is a completely inaccurate statement, while I've merely been arguing improbable =/= impossible, the evidence is circumstantial, but all it requires is special circumstances created by there happening by chance to be a little more of some matter at a given time, which means it is possible, however improbable.

 

115 the people at NASA have brains and intention. Nature doesn't. Also there are things that get in the way of your idea which I have pointed out before. Notably, uranium "goes off" in transit because it's radioactive. In order to be a critical mass when it got here it would have needed to be supercritical when it set out- but if it was then it would have gone off then.

If it's in the center of a meteor, it won't necessarily combine with oxygen and evaporate. 235 has a half life of 703 million years, and radioactivity itself doesn't guarantee the reaction to start. I get what your saying that a neutron from a nuclei can strike another one and potentially create a critical reaction, and that if it had that critical mass there's a chance it could have done that before. But this is why compression is important, because the critical density for neutrons to effectively strike nuclei which then can break apart other nuclear could be formed after compression. So you have the critical mass in the ore or a meteor or whatever form it naturally comes in, then after compression you have the critical density required for the neutrons to more often than not, strike the nuclei of other 235 isotopes.

 

You seem not to understand that people mark your posts down because they detract from the purpose of this site which is to spread information, not nonsense.

But your spreading the wrong information that it's impossible, not improbable, yet your posts aren't marked down. The marking system is purely emotionally driven which is why I don't ever mark anyone's posts to below 0 and rarely mark as something in any other case anyway.

Edited by EquisDeXD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yep, I said there was no hole, and the only problem with that your saying is there's absolutely no reason to expect one in an uncontrolled nuclear event "

So, what you are saying is that there's a nuclear explosion, severe enough to melt the surface of a fairly large area but that it doesn't leave a crater.

Most people will recognise that as absurdly unlikely.

There is a way to do it. If you have the explosion take place at altitude.

Now, since you say it happened, as a result of an earthquake and the only way it could happen is as an "air burst" then that answers this

" Show me exactly where I said "an earthquake occurred in the air". You can't, can you?"

You didn't say it in so many words, but it is the logical conclusion of what you did say.

 

"Not all explosions happen the same."

Nobody said they did.

"I don't know if that's true, but compression should force a lot of air out of the area that's being compressed. And besides, there's still a meteor that can contain critical amounts of 235 by random chance, and there's different types of ore."

There's clearly a lot you don'y know

The oxygen in the ore (which is what I actually wrote) has nothing to do with the oxygen in the local air.

There are different types of uranium ore, but they all have other things in them which would stop the material exploding, in particular, they all contain oxygen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_ore#Uranium_minerals

though there's nothing special about oxygen - anything would do.

 

"I don't think that just because it's entertaining that it means it's false."

No, but the fact that it's plainly wrong means it's false.

 

"There's only evidence that it's improbable, not that it's impossible."

in your other thread someone made the point that surviving a 25000 foot fall is improbable, but swimming across molten lava is impossible.

You need to understand that the idea you are talking about falls firmly into the latter category.

 

"It doesn't need to be pure, we're not building a nuclear device"

Yes it does, because, yes we are.

 

 

"That contsraint exactly applies to the meteor theory, because the meteor theory says there has to be a meteor of a high enough mass to not completely evaporate, but also have a low enough mass to be able to completely explode. "

 

You might want to look at that again. But anyway, the constraint for uranium is much, much stronger. The mass needs to be 15Kg.

 

 

"But if the thermal energy isn't directed perfectly radially and shock waves aren't directed in a perfect circle like in a nuclear device, then you shouldn't expect the explosion to leave a perfectly recognizable hole"

It didn't leave any hole of any shape. that's the problem. It only makes sense if it went bang a long way up and you have yet to explain how your earthquake did that.

 

"Public opinion doesn't matter"

Not about science, but it does about trolling.

 

"But your spreading the wrong information that it's impossible, not improbable, yet your posts aren't marked down."

Trust me, if I was spreading false information, not only would I get marked down but lots of people would leap in and correct me.

Have you noticed how it is your ideas that they seek to correct?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yep, I said there was no hole, and the only problem with that your saying is there's absolutely no reason to expect one in an uncontrolled nuclear event "

So, what you are saying is that there's a nuclear explosion, severe enough to melt the surface of a fairly large area but that it doesn't leave a crater.

Well, it doesn't leave a very recognizable one unless it happened maybe in a completely flat area.

Most people will recognise that as absurdly unlikely.

There is a way to do it. If you have the explosion take place at altitude.

Most people probably read more slowly so they can accurately analyze.

 

 

"Not all explosions happen the same."

Nobody said they did.

So why are you trying to say that just because one explosion makes a perfect circle at a predicable angle that all explosions do that?

 

The oxygen in the ore (which is what I actually wrote) has nothing to do with the oxygen in the local air.

There are different types of uranium ore, but they all have other things in them which would stop the material exploding, in particular, they all contain oxygen.

http://en.wikipedia....ranium_minerals

though there's nothing special about oxygen - anything would do.

But the oxygen is merely what inhibits critical density. If critical density of the isotope was achieved, there is a chance for the reaction to occur.

 

"I don't think that just because it's entertaining that it means it's false."

No, but the fact that it's plainly wrong means it's false.

You can't say they're wrong even about the aliens, you can only say that aliens are improbable, you seem to not like the word "improbable".

 

"There's only evidence that it's improbable, not that it's impossible."

in your other thread someone made the point that surviving a 25000 foot fall is improbable, but swimming across molten lava is impossible.

You need to understand that the idea you are talking about falls firmly into the latter category.

 

"It doesn't need to be pure, we're not building a nuclear device"

Yes it does, because, yes we are.

No,we're definitively not, a nuclear device has several processes to make it which I don't know if they can even occur in nature.

 

 

You might want to look at that again.

I looked at it again. What of it?

 

But anyway, the constraint for uranium is much, much stronger. The mass needs to be 15Kg.

Yeah, I keep saying I know it's improbable.

 

 

It didn't leave any hole of any shape. that's the problem. It only makes sense if it went bang a long way up and you have yet to explain how your earthquake did that.

I don't know if it didn't leave any hole, it's a rough terrain, but it didn't leave an apparent impact crater because there's no lowered level of landscape in a circular fashion that has a basin.

 

"Public opinion doesn't matter"

Not about science, but it does about trolling.

I'm not the one who's going around saying things like "there's a lot you don't know...", that's all you.

 

"But your spreading the wrong information that it's impossible, not improbable, yet your posts aren't marked down."

Trust me, if I was spreading false information, not only would I get marked down but lots of people would leap in and correct me.

Swan actually is credited with physics and not even he could definitively say it's impossible, you wouldn't get marked down because no one actually knows if it's impossible or not so no one could correct you, which defeats the purpose of your arguing because your not proving it either way and no one can back you up because there's no evidence to support that it would actually break physics.

 

Have you noticed how it is your ideas that they seek to correct?

http://en.wikipedia....93Kruger_effect

Such as...when I'm debating that science isn't a complete fraud? When I"m debating that beliefs don't constitute science? When I'm debating that in modern physics that particles don't have classical trajectories? You mean those ideas where the OP believes science is wrong? Topics where I'm discussing matters and concepts that only the smartest people in the world could hope to fully understand? Yeah, I have noticed.

Edited by EquisDeXD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's just too much rubbish to respond to all of it.

Here are the edited lo lights

"So why are you trying to say that just because one explosion makes a perfect circle at a predicable angle that all explosions do that?"

I didn't say that.

Straw manning is banned by the site rules and you have been warned before.

 

"But the oxygen is merely what inhibits critical density. If critical density of the isotope was achieved, there is a chance for the reaction to occur."

No, there's neutron absorption to take into account too. Oxygen isn't bad on that score but the other isotopes of uranium and it's decay products are.

 

You say the incoming meteor has to be massive enough not to completely disintegrate, but light enough that it can completely disintegrate.

That's absurd but in any event, it's nothing like as serious a constraint as the fact that the uranium needs to be 15Kg.

 

"I don't know if it didn't leave any hole, "

So it didn't happen at ground level.

That kills the idea of tectonics and it also leads to the question of what might have triggered some insanely improbably 15Kg lump of uranium to cross the cosmos and get part way through our atmosphere then blow up before it hit the ground.

 

If I claimed that baked beans are impossible I would get corrected.

If I claimed that Russel's teapot was impossible I'd get corrected.

 

What wrong information do you think I could give that would go unchallenged?

 

"I'm not the one who's going around saying things like "there's a lot you don't know..."" A straight statement of fact. Would you like to argue that it is false?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's just too much rubbish to respond to all of it.

Here are the edited lo lights

"So why are you trying to say that just because one explosion makes a perfect circle at a predicable angle that all explosions do that?"

I didn't say that.

Straw manning is banned by the site rules and you have been warned before.

Saying I'm starmanning is strawmanning, no staff member asserted I was doing such, your basing your claims that it can't be an explosion in the ground on the basis that there all explosions have to generate some deep circular hole, like ones you see in completely flat terrain.

 

"But the oxygen is merely what inhibits critical density. If critical density of the isotope was achieved, there is a chance for the reaction to occur."

No, there's neutron absorption to take into account too. Oxygen isn't bad on that score but the other isotopes of uranium and it's decay products are.

That's already a given, if the oxygen wasn't a problem the critical density would already exist and there' be no point discussing it.

 

You say the incoming meteor has to be massive enough not to completely disintegrate, but light enough that it can completely disintegrate.

That's absurd but in any event, it's nothing like as serious a constraint as the fact that the uranium needs to be 15Kg.

Well if you support the fireball theory, then you need to accept that a meteor can have just the right mass.

 

"I don't know if it didn't leave any hole, "

So it didn't happen at ground level.

How do you get "it definitively happened at location x" when I said "I don't know"?

 

That kills the idea of tectonics and it also leads to the question of what might have triggered some insanely improbably 15Kg lump of uranium to cross the cosmos and get part way through our atmosphere then blow up before it hit the ground.

You can have 15kg of 235, but it doesn't have to all be in one chunk, the critical density can theoretically be formed after compression which allows the super-critical mass to travel for quite a bit, and there not being a hole like typical meteors or nuclear devices in flat terrains in no way kills the idea.

 

 

 

 

"I'm not the one who's going around saying things like "there's a lot you don't know..."" A straight statement of fact. Would you like to argue that it is false?

If you can base from my knowledge from what your perspective is a lack of info specifically on nuclear physics, I should logically be able to say there's a lot you don't know because it doesn't seem like you have much knowledge of computer science or graphic design and so I could say there's a lot you don't know by the same exact standards. Either everyone knows a bit because there's always something that someone else knows that you don't, or no one knows a lot because there's practically infinite information, and no one could ever attain that amount of knowledge.

Edited by EquisDeXD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying I'm starmanning is strawmanning, no staff member asserted I was doing such, your basing your claims that it can't be an explosion in the ground on the basis that there all explosions have to generate some deep circular hole, like ones you see in completely flat terrain.

 

Might be worthy of note that though he is not a moderator, John Cuthber is in fact a staff member (denoted by the two stars inside the blue bar).

 

By the way, "starmanning" is that thing you do in Mario games where you become invincible for a few seconds ;) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be worthy of note that though he is not a moderator, John Cuthber is in fact a staff member (denoted by the two stars inside the blue bar).

 

By the way, "starmanning" is that thing you do in Mario games where you become invincible for a few seconds ;) .

 

Well, I didn't see a mod-warning, it's it's probably because no staff with the ability to put a warning has a strong enough case for it, and if he however doesn't have that ability, then he didn't fit under the definition of who I thought a staff member was. I thought staff members and people who had experience in a particular area were separate, but I guess there's the term "moderator".

Edited by EquisDeXD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't see a mod-warning, it's it's probably because no staff with the ability to put a warning has a strong enough case for it, and if he however doesn't have that ability, then he didn't fit under the definition of who I thought a staff member was. I thought staff members and people who had experience in a particular area were separate, but I guess there's the term "moderator".

 

I don't know if you are guilty of a strawman or not. I haven't looked over the recent posts in detail. I was just clearing up the fact that "resident experts" are in fact staff members even if we don't lay down modnotes or ban.

 

Carry on. Don't let me get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking at all the posts and after weighing all the evidence at points at once, I still stand by that it's not impossible, but it seems improbable to the point where I might as well be defending that aliens did it, so I'll drop the case.

Edited by EquisDeXD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" your basing your claims that it can't be an explosion in the ground on the basis that there all explosions have to generate some deep circular hole, like ones you see in completely flat terrain."

No.

I never said that, it's a figment of your imagination. So it's another strawman.

Which makes "Saying I'm starmanning is strawmanning, no staff member asserted I was doing such," a bit of a farce.

Just because you were not caught doesn't mean you were not guilty.

 

"That's already a given, if the oxygen wasn't a problem the critical density would already exist and there' be no point discussing it."

Still no. You would need the critical mass.

 

"Well if you support the fireball theory, then you need to accept that a meteor can have just the right mass."

Any mass in quite a large range as opposed to exactly 15Kg

 

"How do you get "it definitively happened at location x" when I said "I don't know"?"

I never said anything like that though, did I? So, guess what? Yes, it's another strawman.

 

" I should logically be able to say there's a lot you don't know because it doesn't seem like you have much knowledge of computer science or graphic design and so I could say there's a lot you don't know by the same exact standards."

Indeed,

but I don't post bollocks about computer science on the web.

(Anyway, I'm off to work now , where I have some software development + programming to do)

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
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

×
×
  • 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.