Jump to content
EquisDeXD

What can cause an atomic blast in nature?

Recommended Posts

"I'm pretty sure I never said that, " Not in so many words, but your claim of a natural atom bomb requires that to have happened (and quickly too).

 

Yes, there's the tectonic compression which you somehow believe happened at an altitude of several thousand feet. :lol:

 

"so there's a justification for stating it's possible to have happened since it isn't proven it's impossible to happen. "

Except that it has been proven to be impossible.

 

 

" I still suggested it could have been a normal meteor in a way no one else even bothered to research, i.e. the fireball. "

Actually someone else suggested that and you sought to deny it- remember that stuff about craters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm pretty sure I never said that, " Not in so many words, but your claim of a natural atom bomb requires that to have happened (and quickly too).

And how exactly does what I said mean that uranium needs to that? Your a chemistry expert, you should know what entropy is, and since you probably do, that means you just aren't paying attention to my posts well enough if you suggested that I said such a thing.

 

Yes, there's the tectonic compression which you somehow believe happened at an altitude of several thousand feet. :lol:

Show me the proof that I said that. I read every post and I can't seem to find it.

 

 

 

" I still suggested it could have been a normal meteor in a way no one else even bothered to research, i.e. the fireball. "

Actually someone else suggested that and you sought to deny it- remember that stuff about craters?

You suggested it after I had already laid down the basis for how it worked.

Edited by EquisDeXD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 And how exactly does what I said mean that uranium needs to that? Your a chemistry expert, you should know what entropy is, and since you probably do, that means you just aren't paying attention to my posts well enough if you suggested that I said such a thing.

 

2 Show me the proof that I said that. I read every post and I can't seem to find it.

 

3 You suggested it after I had already laid down the basis for how it worked.

1

to get an atomic explosion you need to get the right uranium isotope to a high degree of purity.

That's a low entropy state and will not arise spontaneously. If you think the concept of entropy is on your side then you have not understood it.

2

What, you want me to tell you again?

OK, but this is the last time.

You say there's no crater.

In order not to leave a crater, the explosion needs to take place at altitude.

You keep saying it's possibly due to tectonic action.

Practically speaking that means you need an earthquake thousands of feet above the ground.

3

I didn't really suggest it.

 

Ophiolite suggested it here

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69624-radioactivity-in-the-past/

post number 4 October 10th.

 

That was after you had said this, and only this, on the subject.

"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. "

 

Afterwards you sought to dispute it by saying "Could have been a normal meteor in some cases too, not saying it's impossible, but there's no impact crater. "

in post 33 of that thread. October 14th

 

Why are you trying to make assertions like that which go against the documented facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1

to get an atomic explosion you need to get the right uranium isotope to a high degree of purity.

"High degree of purity" so we've established pure doesn't mean 100% 235.

 

 

That's a low entropy state and will not arise spontaneously. If you think the concept of entropy is on your side then you have not understood it.

But your not even understanding that that's what the problem with your point is, the point is that density isn't entropy and doesn't have anything to do with it in this situation, just because heat likes to spread out doesn't mean it's impossible for matter to go from higher disorder to lower disorder.

 

 

What, you want me to tell you again?

OK, but this is the last time.

You say there's no crater.

In order not to leave a crater, the explosion needs to take place at altitude.

Yep, in order to leave a "crater", there was no crater, but that doesn't mean an event couldn't have happened becvause A, there's rough terrain, so essentially anything that doesn't look like a nearly perfect semi-sphere that a meteor would leave wouldn't necessarily be distinguishable from the landscape. There is no reason to expect a naturally occurring nuclear blast would create a distinguishable hole, unless it was on very flat land.

 

 

You keep saying it's possibly due to tectonic action.

Practically speaking that means you need an earthquake thousands of feet above the ground.

No, it means tectonic movement can compress the ore, it doesn't mean an Earthquake can occur in the air, I don't see how it does, it doesn't in any way imply that an earthquake can happen in mid-air.

 

I didn't really suggest it.

That's weird, because you sure like to bring it up.

 

Ophiolite suggested it here

http://www.sciencefo...ty-in-the-past/

post number 4 October 10th.

 

Why are you trying to make assertions like that which go against the documented facts?

It what manner am I going against documented facts?

 

Ophiolite brings up a good point, what he's saying matches up with the fireball theory, and if that's what he was referring to, then I apologize to him, though I'm still not clear on his mention of the impact crater. There's no impact crater, no basin, the Indus valley isn't a very flat place, so if there was a naturally occurring explosion, we shouldn't expect it's shockwaves and thermal energy to be directed in a a perfect circle that would create a distinguish-ably perfect semi-sphere. As far as the radiation goes, what he's saying makes sense too.

Edited by EquisDeXD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

""High degree of purity" so we've established pure doesn't mean 100% 235."

Nobody said it did. What was said was a high degree of purity or " pure enough to fission" (by Moontanman)

 

"the point is that density isn't entropy and doesn't have anything to do with it in this situation,"

Nobody said it was.

What point did you think you were making there?

"just because heat likes to spread out doesn't mean it's impossible for matter to go from higher disorder to lower disorder. "

 

No, but for isolated systems that is impossible. What are you saying provides the coupling?

Plants grow- in doing so they take very disordered CO2 and make very ordered cellulose, but they take a lot of energy from the sun to do it.

What are you proposing as the mechanism for isotopic enrichment?

 

I already said it was the last time I'd explain the fact that you can't get an earthquake above ground, and if it's not above ground you get a crater.

 

I like to bring up the issue of the crater because it's not there.

That's what proves that it isn't tectonic activity (along with the impossibility of isotope separation and the fact that it's too slow...)

 

And, finally...

"It what manner am I going against documented facts? "

You said

"You suggested it after I had already laid down the basis for how it worked."

Well, I didn't suggest it and it was not suggested after you had said anything about it.

So, what you said is different from what is documented here on this site.

Did you not realise that?

 

About the only thing you have got right is that Ophiolite makes sense. And as far as I can see, he disagrees with your ideas.

 

Do you understand that not all crates can be described as "a distinguish-ably perfect semi-sphere. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

""High degree of purity" so we've established pure doesn't mean 100% 235."

No, but for isolated systems that is impossible. What are you saying provides the coupling?

 

Tectonic compression isn't part of the ore deposite. You have crystals that form, like diamonds in a volcanic eruption, or from when gas cools, and in those situations, there's higher disorder to lower disorder. Are those isolated systems?

 

Plants grow- in doing so they take very disordered CO2 and make very ordered cellulose, but they take a lot of energy from the sun to do it.

What are you proposing as the mechanism for isotopic enrichment?

A proposed mechanism is the compress from kinetic energy outside the ore deposit, or in the case of the meteor, from out space.

 

I already said it was the last time I'd explain the fact that you can't get an earthquake above ground, and if it's not above ground you get a crater.

You can get a changed landscape, but you don't automatically get some nice circular hole that seems to exactly fit some kind of semi-sphere when the shockwave wouldn't necessarily be transferred to create such a formation.

 

 

That's what proves that it isn't tectonic activity (along with the impossibility of isotope separation and the fact that it's too slow...)

If the ore compresses enough, the isotope doesn't need to be "filtered", the 235 isotopes are in close enough proximity for a neutron to happen to strike a 235 isotope which is close enough to other isotopes that are close enough to others for the reaction to continue.

 

And, finally...

"It what manner am I going against documented facts? "

You said

"You suggested it after I had already laid down the basis for how it worked."

Well, I didn't suggest it and it was not suggested after you had said anything about it.

So, what you said is different from what is documented here on this site.

Did you not realise that?

The site documented it? The site got footage showing it was a fireball? The site sent a team of scientists to analyze the area? The scientist conducted experiments with meteors and compression showing it was impossible? What is documented on the site about it being impossible?

 

About the only thing you have got right is that Ophiolite makes sense. And as far as I can see, he disagrees with your ideas.

He may think they are impossible, but his evidence only shows the event is improbable.

 

Do you understand that not all crates can be described as "a distinguish-ably perfect semi-sphere. "

And the ones that can't still have distinguishable characteristics of a crater, such as some kind of basin, and there would be lines running down from the lip to the center from the shock wave spreading outward and the rock resisting the shock wave and buckling after a certain point to create those little "streams". There's craters that look like lakes now, but they look like lakes because of hundreds of thousands of years, not because of 14,000.

You can say it's improbable all you want, and I'll agree with you, but not that it's impossible without some kind of concrete evidence that shows physics needs to be violated.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the ore compresses enough, the isotope doesn't need to be "filtered", the 235 isotopes are in close enough proximity for a neutron to happen to strike a 235 isotope which is close enough to other isotopes that are close enough to others for the reaction to continue.

 

 

Completely incorrect.

 

Any impurities in the fissionable material will act as a neutron damper, and a fission reaction will never be able to sustain itself.

 

Given that we've been building atomic bombs for over 65 years, this is not a matter of conjecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to wonder if I should give up. It seems that part of the problem is that you can't, or won't, read.

"Are those isolated systems?"

No, please see the laws of thermodynamics.

 

"A proposed mechanism is the compress from kinetic energy outside the ore deposit, or in the case of the meteor, from out space."

That won't separate isotopes will it?

So why did you waste time and bandwidth on it?

 

..."but you don't automatically get some nice circular hole that seems to exactly fit some kind of semi-sphere..."

You are the only one who seems to think it might.

 

"If the ore compresses enough, the isotope doesn't need to be "filtered", the 235 isotopes are in close enough proximity for a neutron to happen to strike a 235 isotope which is close enough to other isotopes that are close enough to others for the reaction to continue. "

No, for two reasons

Firstly the other isotopes and any impurities absorb neutrons so they quench the reaction.

Secondly that the pressures involved even for pure U235 oxide would be too high to be present anywhere near the surface. If it happened, it would be so deep that it wouldn't be observable from the surface. However, at that depth, the temperature would be high enough to melt the stuff so there would be mixing and ...

 

The site documented

1 what I said and

2 what you said that I said and

3 that the two are not the same.

Why did you waste time on that rubbish about a team of scientists and whatever?

 

So, you accept that we can recognise craters, even when they don't look like the "classic" and you said that there isn't one at the site concerned.

OK, but you are arguing against yourself.

No crater: no blast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely incorrect.

 

Any impurities in the fissionable material will act as a neutron damper, and a fission reaction will never be able to sustain itself.

 

Given that we've been building atomic bombs for over 65 years, this is not a matter of conjecture.

 

I've thought about that, the neutrons would end up hitting extra oxygen molecules from air pockets or that they would hit non-235 isotopes, but that's when there isn't the critical density, you don't need 100% pure 235 for a reaction to occur, and I was actually researching this myself before I mentioned compression, you don't need 100% 235.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought about that, the neutrons would end up hitting extra oxygen molecules from air pockets or that they would hit non-235 isotopes, but that's when there isn't the critical density, you don't need 100% pure 235 for a reaction to occur, and I was actually researching this myself before I mentioned compression, you don't need 100% 235.

Just as well that nobody said you did need 100% then isn't it (or was that another attempt at a strawman)?

What you need is a high degree of purity.

How do you propose to get that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as well that nobody said you did need 100% then isn't it (or was that another attempt at a strawman)?

"Any impurities in the fissionable material will act as a neutron damper". "Any impurities" implies you need 100% 235.

 

 

How do you propose to get that?

 

The critical mass can exist well before the event, 235 has a half life of over 703 million years, but the critical density necessary to sustain the reaction could in theory be formed by chance through compression if enough 235 isotopes were in close enough proximity to each other for the reaction to sustain. Perhaps there's more ways, but I theorized such compression could happen in a meteor or through tectonic movement.

Edited by EquisDeXD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Any impurities in the fissionable material will act as a neutron damper". "Any impurities" implies you need 100% 235.

Not if there are excess neutrons emitted in the fission, and there are. Thermal fission of U-235 produces 2.43 neutrons, on average. To sustain criticality you can lose 1.43 neutrons (via capture reactions, mostly to these impurities, or to leakage). For a supercritical mass as in a bomb, you can tolerate fewer losses, but they will never be zero. The finite size alone dictates that there will be losses.

 

 

The critical mass can exist well before the event, 235 has a half life of over 703 million years, but the critical density necessary to sustain the reaction could in theory be formed by chance through compression if enough 235 isotopes were in close enough proximity to each other for the reaction to sustain. Perhaps there's more ways, but I theorized such compression could happen in a meteor or through tectonic movement.

You will have spontaneous fissions even before you get the critical mass assembled, so don't wait too long. Which is why moving the subcritical masses slowly together will cause a fizzle rather than an explosion. But in order to get those neutrons, you have to have U-238 present, or use an initiator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Any impurities in the fissionable material will act as a neutron damper". "Any impurities" implies you need 100% 235.

 

 

 

 

The critical mass can exist well before the event, 235 has a half life of over 703 million years, but the critical density necessary to sustain the reaction could in theory be formed by chance through compression if enough 235 isotopes were in close enough proximity to each other for the reaction to sustain. Perhaps there's more ways, but I theorized such compression could happen in a meteor or through tectonic movement.

They do act as a damper. The question is how strongly. Since the only plausible source would be rocks which are nothing like pure uranium your being silly.

The real bombs have been made with rather high purity uranium, but it would not (and could not) have been 100%. That's why I never specified 100% .

You made that up as a way to make my argument look invalid. But it's a strawman so it hasn't worked

 

"The critical mass can exist well before the even..."

I didn't ask when, I asked how?

Would you like me to ask again?

OK

What you need is a high degree of purity.

How do you propose to get that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do act as a damper. The question is how strongly. Since the only plausible source would be rocks which are nothing like pure uranium your being silly.

The real bombs have been made with rather high purity uranium, but it would not (and could not) have been 100%. That's why I never specified 100% .

You made that up as a way to make my argument look invalid. But it's a strawman so it hasn't worked

 

"The critical mass can exist well before the even..."

I didn't ask when, I asked how?

Would you like me to ask again?

OK

What you need is a high degree of purity.

How do you propose to get that?

 

John... are you sure your last name isn't McClane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I believe that a quasar can case an atomic blast. A quasar (quasi stellar radio source) is a source that possesses extremely high amounts of energy. Quasars tend to eject streams of light that take the form of a beam.

Cancer

325_quasara2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that a quasar can case an atomic blast. A quasar (quasi stellar radio source) is a source that possesses extremely high amounts of energy. Quasars tend to eject streams of light that take the form of a beam.

Cancer

325_quasara2.jpg

Quasars tend not to be found on, or gently collide with, planets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quasars tend not to be found on, or gently collide with, planets.

 

My apologies, it has just come to my attention that this subject of atomic blasts in nature strictly focuses on blasts that occur on Earth/other planets. I was speaking for atomic blasts in nature in general. However, do you believe that the rest of the universe is not part of nature? In other words, nature stops at the atmosphere of Earth?

 

Cancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should also be noted that Quasar jets cannot cause atomic blasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies, it has just come to my attention that this subject of atomic blasts in nature strictly focuses on blasts that occur on Earth/other planets. I was speaking for atomic blasts in nature in general. However, do you believe that the rest of the universe is not part of nature? In other words, nature stops at the atmosphere of Earth?

 

Cancer

Fair enough — you're not aware of some context given in another thread, which spawned this one.

 

Quasars arguably fall unders the "stars can" gravity-induced fusion umbrella.

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.