John Cuthber

"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

Maybe it's just me, but, as far as I recall, the group that I hung out with at primary school was largely male. If I had been looking for a "different" group to join, an obvious one would have been the girls. Now encouraging boys to go and talk to girls is not, as far as I can see, part of a homosexual agenda.

Recycling is a good idea. That heatsink is for an 80 watt array This http://www.ledhut.co.uk/led-bulbs/new-e27-led-standard-shape-bulb-7-watt-smd-600-lumens-80-watt-equiv.html is a 7 watt array and it's "equivalent" to an 80W bulb. So, that heatsink is for the equivalent of nearly a kilowatt of conventional lighting. That's important for stage lighting and maybe some industrial lighting, but it's not really got anything to do with normal domestic use. You are talking about this sort of application http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-VPLFH500L/ Had you not noticed that?

That's an easy one to answer. If the 10 words point out why your 2 paragraph post is simply wrong then they do clearly contribute more to the site. Incidentally, that's also part of the reason behind the reputation system. It gives newcomers some chance to judge the quality of a post, based on others' past experience of the poster.

"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. "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?

"You accuse Republicans of being intolerant and close-minded. " I can't speak for anyone else but I'm accusing them of flat out dishonesty. They say they believe one thing then they say they believe the exact opposite. Either they have no idea what they believe or they are deliberately lying. And I don't think they are too dumb to know what they are saying so that leaves one option. They are liars. Do you think the US president should be elected on the basis of telling lies? How would you know what he will actually do if he were in power? "If some parents feel so strongly about creationism, what is the big deal about having the teacher quickly mention that "Some people believe that God created all the plants and animals in seven days" ? " Nothing. But that's not what they are saying is it? This is what they are saying http://io9.com/5921074/christian-fundamentalist-textbooks-touting-the-loch-ness-monster-as-proof-of-creationism Now, there's a massive difference "Some people believe that God created all the plants and animals in seven days" is true- some people believe that. On the other hand "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. " is a lie because scientists are not doing that. Now do you really think it's good to tell lies to schoolchildren and present them as truth? Also, strawman arguments are a logical fallacy and, as such, not permitted on this site.

"What exactly does "pay equality" mean?" Erm, how about paying people the same money for the same job? If paying women less gets you sued, then you can avoid "pointless and expensive lawsuits" by not paying them less. "If I, as a private business owner, want to give a cash gift to one of my male friends, but not a female friend, is that wrong too?" It is if you want them to stay friends with you. "Take a look in the government sector and the schools. There is plenty of unfairness there. People at the top giving themselves all the pay raises and funding for new buildings and office equipment. A hierarchy of seniority, with little mobility, while those on the bottom must endure much smaller salaries and lack of benefits. " So, it's exactly the same as the private sector then? As far as I can tell that's two breaches of our rules in one post.

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.

There are ways to get some degree of separation, but the purity needed for uranium to explode is not on the cards.

Try the second law of thermodynamics for a start. Things don't spontaneously "unmix" to give nice clean uranium.

OK, fair enough, from my point of view animal fat is a waste product that I have to get rid of, your point of view differs. The problem is that plants generally make unsaturated fats rather than saturated ones. Palm oil and coconut oil have relatively high levels of saturated fats but they are predominantly shorter chain than stearic. Why do you want stearic acid in particular?

WTF? As far as I'm aware there is no mystery. Homosexual people engage in homosexual activity because they enjoy it. Oddly that looks just the same as heterosexual behaviour. Obviously, only one group worry about contraception. Is it viewed as a mystery that straight people don't suddenly stop having sex because they know that he's had a vasectomy of she's on the pill? For most people, sex has little to do with procreation.

Rigney, in my humble opinion you should start the day by answering the questions posed to you. Only after you have demonstrated your commitment to proper democratic debate should you launch any new points. As far as I can tell that's what you signed up to as part of the rules here.

"If you only get slightly more from animal fat, I would prefer to use vegi oil. " if the difference was slight I'd not have mentioned it.

"The circumstances that would allow a natural atomic explosion to happen are merely dependent on the locations of matter at certain times," Nope, they are subordinate to the laws of the universe. The laws of physics show that you are simply wrong. I have been out for a beer. I will get back to your assertions if they are still there.

You would do better to start from an animal fat, rather than a vegetable oil as the saturated fat content is generally higher. If you add a dilute acid to an ordinary soap you will get a mixture of fatty acids. fractional crystallisation can get a reasonable yield of a product that, while not pure, will raise the viscosity of oleic acid.

What I really don't see is evidence for the bit I have highlighted. Don't get me wrong, I accept that the evidence might exists, it's just that I'd like you to cite it if you are going to rely on it. Now, if we can just get Rigney to answer the question, we will be making progress.

Imagine that you had asked for two numbers A and B with no common factor and such that A^2/B^2 was exactly 2. Any number of people could reply and say "I don't know". Any number of people could supply two candidate numbers for you to try. The only person who would progress the discussion is the one who pointed out that it can be proved to be impossible. (It's the proof of the irrationality of the square root of two) It's not that I don't know of a way that it's possible to get an atomic explosion. It's that I know it is impossible. And the reasons are given in the other thread where you also ignored them repeatedly.

Is the answer you are looking for (1+ 99/2) /100 ?

Rather than being sorry about the ambiguity, try clearing it up. Answer my earlier question. When you say "What is the expected proportion of brown cows to total cows?" which cows are you referring to? All cows on the island, those in the barn or those outside the barn? Also, cows are not blue unless you paint them. If the vendor supplies blue cows it's possible that the paint washes off in the rain. After a while all cows will be brown (or white or whatever). Is it reasonable to assume that cows do not change colour? "During your daily contact with your cattle, always be on the lookout for any physical or behavioral changes. Symptoms indicating illness include listlessness, pale coloring, limping, loss of appetite, teeth grinding, coughing, and abnormal temperature" from http://www.farmsanctuary.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Animal-Care-Cattle.pdf

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.

There are two uses of the phrase. One is a bomb that doesn't do what it should. The other is what you get if you assemble a supercritical mass, but slowly. You don't get an explosion but you do get a criticality incident. It was portrayed in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_Darkness#.22Fusion.22 Also using the word "improbable" as in "It's improbable for the 235 to naturally have the critical density in a sample to trigger a reaction" is a bit like saying it's "improbable" that aliens will land in Trafalgar square and that Elvis will ride down the exit ramp on Shergar.

Well, here's a copy of the speech we can look at while Rigney fails to answer the question again And, if someone is going to point out any lies in it they might find this transcript helpful http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya but I'd still like an answer to this OK Rigney, I will try again Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there? That's my point. You are contradicting yourself. So, lets get this straight Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)? I predict a non-answer- go on- be a devil- prove me wrong and actually answer the questions.

OK Rigney, I will try again Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there? That's my point. You are contradicting yourself. So, lets get this straight Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)? I predict a non-answer- go on- be a devil- prove me wrong and actually answer the questions.

No, don't be silly. That isn't the question at all. It's you trying (as predicted) to distract attention from the issue of your false accusation. The question I have already asked you twice and which you have failed to answer. the one where I said that I felt that it was impossible for you to answer it, so you would just keep flannelling. The one you are trying to ignore because you know you have absolutely no way of answering it without contradicting yourself, lying or admitting that you were, at best, hopelessly wrong. For Rigney's benefit (in case he claims he can't remember it from yesterday) here's my question again , for the third time. OK Rigney, I will try again Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there? That's my point. You are contradicting yourself. So, lets get this straight Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)? I predict a non-answer- go on- be a devil- prove me wrong and actually answer the questions.