John Cuthber

I think it would be better if you actually went away and found out about the subject. You can, in principle, have an arbitrarily small explosion, but the conditions required (sudden compression to very high density) are impossible.

In the mean time, you could answer the question.

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.

You have another thread about pretty much the same subject and there are 4 pages of postings there. They cite evidence why the simple answer to the question posed in the thread title is "nothing". This thread does not seem to serve any purpose. If you want to discuss the question I think you should do so in the previous thread on the subject.

Lets face it, Rigney isn't going to back up his claims, and there's a very simple reason: he can't. It's the usual Right wing ploy- say something vague but insulting about the opposition and bluster and try to distract attention if you are called to account for it. I wonder which version of distraction he's going to try this time.

"What is the expected proportion of brown cows to total cows? " Where?

So, I was right about the non-answer then. Try again 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)?

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?

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.

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.

If you think the data is a parabola then you plot the log of it . If it comes out with a slope of 2 (as determined by calculating the best line through the data) then you have shown that it is a parabola. You needed a better professor. If you think the data is a parabola then you plot the log of it . If it comes out with a slope of 2 (as determined by calculating the best line through the data) then you have shown that it is a parabola. You needed a better professor. If you think the data is a parabola then you plot the log of it . If it comes out with a slope of 2 (as determined by calculating the best line through the data) then you have shown that it is a parabola. You needed a better professor. If you think the data is a parabola then you plot the log of it . If it comes out with a slope of 2 (as determined by calculating the best line through the data) then you have shown that it is a parabola. You needed a better professor. Has the site got a stutter?

If you think the data is a parabola then you plot the log of it . If it comes out with a slope of 2 (as determined by calculating the best line through the data) then you have shown that it is a parabola. You needed a better professor.

How do you think they make the percarbonate?

What?

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?

It's not fear. It's just that most people who want to "change the paradigm" are wrong, but don't realise how much evidence there is for the current model and how well it works. "Sometimes they are even killed. " Who (in modern times)?

A fairly plausible answer is that if he hadn't done it, someone else would. It was steam engine time.

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.

A solution of aluminium chloride and its hydrates. Probably similar in nature (if not concentration) to the stuff in many deodorants. Another alternative would be to precipitate copper carbonate from the original solution with washing soda, give it a good wash with water , redissolve it in sulphuric acid, crystallise it out, mix it with lime and sell it to the organic food lobby to spray on corps as a fungicide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordeaux_mixture OK, I don't imagine you are really going to do that, but the use of copper based biocides puts the issue in context. If you just flush the stuff down the drains with lots of water it's not going to do much harm. [

According to this http://www.livestrong.com/article/503814-the-recommended-dietary-allowance-of-carbohydrates/ the RDA of carbohydrates is 130g So at 11mg i.e 0.011 grams per ejaculation the daily intake needs about about 12000 ejaculations. Even very rude comments don't do justice to how ridiculous that idea is. "150 mg of protein is a lot of protein" Not really. The RDA is about 50g according to this http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html you would need a (slightly) more manageable 330 ejaculations per day. However that would get you about 330*3 i.e. about 1000 mg of cholesterol. That's about three times the RDA.

"How can the logic of an argument be judged when the judge is ignorant of the subject? " Quite easily. For example, I don't know know a lot about knitting patterns, but if someone tells me "Jack is a good knitter because he produced a good pattern and I know it's a good pattern because Jack produced it" then I can recognise a circular argument. In much the same way I can recognise other logical fallacies even if I don't know what they apply to. So the answer to the question "If you knew nothing of physics, would you enter a discussion of physics and start attacking the logic of someone well educated in physics? " is yes, I would. Inow, if we ban someone they can claim they have been censored- though giving them 5 pages of leeway first suggests we are fairly keen on free speech.

which I explained earlier in post 38. Did you not read it or not understand it? Re. "When did I say anyone is smarter than anyone else? I specifically said that they didn't have enough scientific evidence to support either subject was smarter." Sorry, I'm getting muddled. That referred to Ophiolite's comment reminding me of a comedy sketch. How clear can I make this I don't care if the skeletons are so radioactive that they glow in the dark. For a start it's easy enough to explain. For an finish, it's not evidence of a nuclear reaction of any sort. That's why I asked about fission products; they would really be the "smoking gun". So far the best you have is nothing. "but at least we have evidence that states nuclear reactions can occur naturally. " Exactly: we have evidence. Specifically we have distorted isotope ratios in the uranium and we have fission products at Oklo. But, I'm willing to bet we don't have them in your glassy field. Not just because we have not looked. I guess someone will have looked- it's not a very difficult assay. Someone may well have done the test found that there wasn't anything interesting and not bothered to report it (or reported it somewhere obscure). It's difficult to check when the location flips between Africa and India. If I was making a video and I wanted to make people think the skeletons were strangely radioactive I'd compare them to something that isn't nearly as radioactive as you would expect. I might well choose the skeletons of the poor souls who died at Hiroshima. Everybody knows they died as the result of an atom bomb so everyone will "know" that the bodies are very radioactive. Everybody would be wrong. Those people mainly died from fires and blast damage. Those don't give you a radioactive skeleton. A few of them were killed by radiation sickness. But uranium doesn't do that- sure it's toxic like mercury or lead, but it's not actually very radioactive. Most of the radiation is in the form of beta and gamma rays. But, since the beta particles have a range of a metre at most in air, they don't kill many people. The gammas don't give you a radioactive skeleton. There are a few of the fission products that do, but those are not actually produced in very large quantities. Also they are slowly flushed from the body. So, after a while, your skeleton isn't much more radioactive than anyone else's. Of course, the bomb will have spread a fair bit of uranium across the city. It held about 64 kilos of uranium and it's fair to assume that most of it was spread across the city. But 64 kilos isn't as much as you might think. Uranium isn't that rare. The average concentration in the earth's crust is about 2.7 ppm m/m so a tonne of soil contains about 2.7 grams of uranium 64Kg corresponds to about 24000 tons of dirt. Hiroshima is about 800 square kilometres. A ton of dirt is about a cubic metre. the top metre of dirt would weigh about 800,000,000 tons So the uranium dropped by the bomb is roughly that present in the top 0.000003 of a metre of dirt. How radioactive do you now think the skeletons were? You seem to have fallen for a screenwriter's trick.

He's back and I'm as jealous as anything.

So you know that there are places with high background radiation. that's a start. Nobody asked about religion. I was making the point that, based on very little evidence, you were asserting that one person whom you have never met is smarter than another person whom you have never met. that's dumb enough to be part of a comedy sketch. Please show me the film footage of the work done on the isotope ratios and the presence or absence of fission products: it sounds fascinating and it would be strong evidence. Alternatively, accept that there isn't really any evidence that the skeletons were anything special..

Well, if you really don't know where to start, try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengue_fever