Phi for All

You gotta love it when the nuclear conspiracy theorist takes on Jakiri, a professional physicist, and yourdadonapogos, a Navy nuclear technician, and tells them they don't know what they're talking about.

Chuck believes the atom bomb detonations in WWII were faked, and there is no such thing as nuclear power.

Chuck keeps repeating that any blast that could rock a plane "violently" at 28,000 feet would have to leave a crater on the ground 1800 feet below. Forgetting the fact that "violently" is a pretty subjective description that changes with the observer, it seems pretty obvious he believes air = vacuum, and that it would have been the bomb explosion that reached the Enola Gay, lessened by distance. Air compresses but not as much as he probably thinks. What the crew would have felt was the air under the plane being compressed upward to cause the "violent" buffeting. There was 26,000 feet of air being pushed *over* the bomb, but only 1800 feet of air *under* it. The descriptions get exaggerated over the course of this thread as well; first it was oleanders that started to grow after the blast, then later it becomes "plant growth everywhere in Hirosdhima [sic] after the bombings".

I think Chuck was looking for an A-bomb to vaporize everything even beyond the 1800 feet of detonation. While the expanding shockwave is devastating, I don't think Little Boy's vaporizing effect extended that far. Total blast radius was about a mile, so why would you expect it to leave a crater after the energy had already traveled a third of the way? Also, it's much easier to affect a plane flying on a cushion of air, so the shockwaves at 28,000 feet are a no-brainer. Oh, and the trees directly below the blast would have been exposed to a direct downward blast, not a sideways blast that would have knocked them over.

I remember reading about this somewhere (I'll try to find it but this was from a pre-internet book). IIRC, by detonating well above the city the blast was spread out over a much greater area, lessening the total impact on denser material like the ground surfaces (bare ground, asphalt and concrete). A ground detonation would have left a crater but the aerial detonation just spread to a much greater degree and spent it's energy knocking most everything flat. The double shock the plane felt was probably the oscillation effect any explosion would have. I'm kind of curious what alternatives this particular conspiracy theory is proposing. Kind of.

Fascinating?! Not by a long shot. Extremism and hate should have no place in any progressive movement. Unless you're the KKK or something.

No, I think you're exactly right. Intolerance for the opinions of others (and since there are no facts, it's *all* opinion) is nowhere more prevalent than in religious discussions. And both sides are to blame. I've said it before: science and religion can get along as long as one isn't used against the other. Scientists: stop asking for proof, there is none. Believers: stop trying to argue that science is misinterpreting the facts, they aren't. 'kay? Anything after this could actually be pretty interesting.

Ah! Right then, carry on.

ghstofmaxwll, I think you suffer from an extreme case of egocentrism. Psychologically, egocentrics regard everything as revolving around themselves. This isn't the first time you've jumped on something I said that wasn't aimed at you and made it personal. You respond with personal attacks (Are you retarded?) [ummm, that was what *you* said, it wasn't a question aimed at you. I wanted to be perfectly clear on that]. Perhaps this egocentrism affects your opinion of "religions" as a whole. I would imagine many religious people (well, Christians mostly) would claim they have abandoned an egocentric approach in favor of a life dedicated to helping others and trying to achieve a more humble demeanor. I would say that a lot of the "good" you mention in your OP does seem to stem from a more selfless approach to life. I hope I put enough spacing between this paragraph and the last so that ghstofmaxwll doesn't think the rest of this is aimed solely at him/her. Did I? Hope so. I find it hard to dislike (I don't really *hate* anyone) religious people who are basically kind-hearted. Extremism is to be avoided no matter what you're talking about and religion does have it's share, but I think the majority are fairly decent. Only creationists disregard established science that I've seen, and most of that is the stubborn refusal to accept that the Hebrew word for "day" has multiple meanings. Take away that and their insistence that the world is only 6000 years old and I could be roommates with one (for a semester, maybe). As with anything in this world, there are always good and bad involved (and even that changes with your POV). The rigidity of religion has always turned me off even though I have my spiritual beliefs. That's really the point though; they're *my* spiritual beliefs and I don't require anyone else to follow along in order to be acceptable. Perhaps that's where organized religion and egocentrism collide; people who don't want to follow often find themselves leading a congregation of one. That sure doesn't bug me at all but an egocentric would probably hate those who were trying to urge them to get in line. I appreciate the attempt to calm troubled waters, but my earlier point (you know, the completely misinterpreted one?) was that we don't discuss religion here because of problems in the past. Discussing a psychological aspect of how people view religion is perfectly acceptable in *this* subforum, however. My admonition was aimed at those I knew were going to post after me and I wanted to avoid the typical religion-bashing devolution we've come to expect from religious discussions.

I think anyone who would make a blanket hate-statement about something as broad as "religions" is automatically wrong. While I can understand someone having a bone to pick with a certain religion, condemning "religions" is fallacious in the extreme. We will need a psychological "hook" to allow this thread to remain open. Practical experience has led us to disallow threads that simply bash religion.

Saint Nick on the scene, ho-ho-hobo in red drag. Psycho-babble-fest!

Hey, watch the Flaming, ATOMIKPSYCHO! Your gayness does not go unnoticed!

If elas would like to apologize for his sad attempt to use my profession to belittle me, I will apologize for wanting to offer him a prize, otherwise my personal advice to elas is, when your IQ reaches 6, sell.

Science Forums' date=' The Original > Physics > Classical Physics>Particle structure[/quote']I see no openness to correction there. I see elas trying to push shoddy goods on customers who aren't buying. Take the above reply, are you referring to my submissions to this forum or to the forum on my work?Please try to follow along here. I was referring to the thread you pointed out (if you copy the URL of the thread, then insert a hyperlink, you can paste in the url and even type in the name of the thread so it appears like this: Particle Structure). In that thread, you state several times that you are open to correction but then proceed to argue with several experts in the field who try to offer those corrections. My personal favorite line, versions of which we get from so many people attempting to offer alternatives to concepts they find non-intuitive, was this one: You are eligible for some kind of prize for *that* sentence {unfortunately the wizard already gave the brain to the scarecrow). Now I'm very impressed that you have managed to cobble this concept together (I certainly wouldn't have been capable), given that you seem unable to learn the forum quote system, but that doesn't change the fact that you are not listening to the advice that's being given to you. You are essentially stating your concept and then plugging your ears when the criticism threatens to topple it. I've been told that this is not the only forum where you do this. I will try to get hold of the folks over at PhysicsForum today to see what they have to say about your track record there, but I have to tell you, people who aren't interested in learning from their mistakes are inconsistent with our purposes.

Like pimples? Welcome.

I like it, I like it a lot. I've felt this way ever since visiting a cousin in Germany who works for a maglev train company. I saw a video of what these trains are capable of and I think all trains should be converted ASAP. Energy efficient, no contact with car traffic, retrofits alongside highways with 15' of right of way, smooth, fast, no air pollution and the only noise it makes is the wooooooosh as it goes by. Bright green indeed.

I see no openness to correction there. I see elas trying to push shoddy goods on customers who aren't buying (to use a lowly salesman's terminology). But now I know that SM stands for Snakeoil Medicine.

As a sales professional, I understand when someone is being sarcastic. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word. There was no sarcasm in my remark. When have you demonstrated this openness to correction? Certainly not in this thread. It must be on one of the other (non-SM) forums where you express your views on the conservation laws.

Being elusive and vague is inconsistent with our purpose. If you are asking if science is closer to discovering an actual fourth spatial dimension, please say so.

There is SO much to be thankful for today.

What idea? Who are you again?

God, that's an incredible idea for an area rug, insane_alien! I'm going to start sewing all my old socks together (after washing them) and sell it on E-bay! What a hoot! It's the perfect thing for every teenager to torture their moms with!

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I'm thankful my computer works well and lets me reach out to people around the world. I'm very thankful I don't have to feed you all today (but please stop by for some pie).

Actually, the guys who did the "martial arts" in the helmeted suits and the guys who did the cheesy dialogue were completely different people. They weren't even in the same country, so the tree will have to choose between having a famous face (but being laughed at for his dialogue) or sweating in a plastic costume (but looking good). Mom and Dad haven't told you about Nick Enterprises yet, have they? When they do, don't celebrate by taking them to the opera.

Yeah, he could be devoutly practicing P.T. Barnumism.