Nuclear Power Exaggerated

As always you up the ante

As always you up the ante

I lold IRL just now

Stay tuned next week when 17 November will be explaining that AIDS, Cancer, Jews, Legs, the Japanese, Gay People, Copper, and Barbara Bush don't exist. All in one post...wow.

17 November…..isn’t that the name of some Greek Marxist outfit?    Then again it’s also my sister’s birthday but I doubt it was chosen for that somewhat obscure event.

it's my cousin's birthday. Small world.

I doubt he will come back.  He was owned so he left. 

17 November…..isn’t that the name of some Greek Marxist outfit?    Then again it’s also my sister’s birthday but I doubt it was chosen for that somewhat obscure event.

Yes, the organization is named for 17 November 1974 when the israeli and american backed fascist Greek junta fell from power.   

Ok. So a Frenchman decided he did not believe in the atom.
Fair enough since it had not been observed yet.

I want to thank both "Matrixfart" and "beast" for their interest as they have been my two principle opponents, but "Matrixfart's" acknowledgment of the learned early twentieth century French chemist Pierre Duhem's disbelief in atoms has disreguarded and overlooked my other reference to the much more recent american scientist Dewey Larson who refuted the existence of nuclear atoms in his book 'The Case Against the Nuclear Atom':
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm

I doubt he will come back.  He was owned so he left. 

you were saying?

Just because someone writes a book...
Doesn't make everything they say true...
And yes I know that argument can be used both ways...

Just because someone writes a book...
Doesn't make everything they say true...
And yes I know that argument can be used both ways...

We are already aware of that.  Thank you very much.

Incidentally, did you read the book?  Isaac Asimov has praised Larson's book for its profound reexamination of basic principles - a very rare characteristic of twentieth century "science."

"History shows clearly that the advances of science have always been frustrated by the tyrannical influences of certain preconceived notions which were turned into unassailable dogmas. For that reason alone, every serious scientist should periodically make a profound reexamination of his basic principles."
—Louis de Broglie in 'New Perspectives in Physics' (1962)


Anyway, the following quote from Larson throws some perspective on the subject:

"The primary basis for the present acceptance of the theory of the nuclear atom is the practically universal belief that the existence of an atomic nucleus was definitely proved by the experiments of Rutherford in 1911 and subsequent years. Prior to that time it had been believed that a solid material was just what the name implies in common parlance: a continuous and essentially impenetrable substance. But when Rutherford directed alpha particles against a thin metallic plate, he found, contrary to all expectation, that most of these particles passed directly through the plate just as if there were no obstacle in the way at all, and that the majority of those which were deflected changed their direction by only a relatively small angle."

"Rutherford's experiments have been repeated with additional precision by other investigators, and it appears safe to say that the experimental facts have been firmly established. It must therefore be conceded that Rutherford's first conclusion, as expressed in the foregoing paragraph, is entirely consistent with the observed facts. But here we encounter an example of a SURPRISINGLY PREVALENT FEATURE OF PRESENT-DAY PHYSICAL SCIENCE: A CURIOUS FAILURE TO EXPLORE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES.  Time and again in the course of the investigation from which this present discussion originated, critical examination of a commonly accepted idea or conclusion has disclosed that it is only one of the possible explanations of the observed facts, and that there are other, sometimes many other, explanations which have an equally good, if not better, claim to acceptance, but which, so far as the records reveal, have never been explored."
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana02.htm

Quote from: Mrs. Gore

17 November…..isn’t that the name of some Greek Marxist outfit?    Then again it’s also my sister’s birthday but I doubt it was chosen for that somewhat obscure event.

Yes, the organization is named for 17 November 1974 when the israeli and american backed fascist Greek junta fell from power.   

Quote from: Matrixfart

Ok. So a Frenchman decided he did not believe in the atom.
Fair enough since it had not been observed yet.

I want to thank both "Matrixfart" and "beast" for their interest as they have been my two principle opponents, but "Matrixfart's" acknowledgment of the learned early twentieth century French chemist Pierre Duhem's disbelief in atoms has disreguarded and overlooked my other reference to the much more recent american scientist Dewey Larson who refuted the existence of nuclear atoms in his book 'The Case Against the Nuclear Atom':
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm

You already posted that book.  Did you bother to read the references?  Go look at them.  He takes infro from sigle pages of books.  He doesnt actually read the whole book.  Not to mention all the reviews are from the 60's.

You already posted that book.

Yes, but it contains information very pertinent to this discussion, and I have correspondingly quoted very relevant material from it.  You evidently want to ignore this book.  'The Case Against the Nuclear Atom' by Dewey Larson hit a raw nerve.  The book has been deliberately ignored by professional scientists with vested interests who do not want their philosophy and their profession seriously questioned because the knowledge contained within it clearly destroys the foundation of both quantum and nuclear physics.

He takes infro from sigle pages of books.  He doesnt actually read the whole book.

Are you referring to Dewey Larson or myself?
Did I quote too much for you to read at a single sitting?

If you are saying that I do not read the books which I post references to, then I obviously need to quote a lot more from this particular book because the basic underlying assumptions of both quantum and nuclear physics were formed during the early twentieth century and this book contains a history precisely of the period in which those doctrines were
promulgated and spread.   

Not to mention all the reviews are from the 60's.

So what?  That is nothing unusual, especially in view of the fact that the book was published in the 1960's.

Did the essence of matter change since the 1960's?

Or do you rather assume that something somehow occurred since the 1960's which changed everything throughout previous history so that any and all evidence and knowledge that atoms are a false explanation of matter should be unthinkingly discarded?  If that is the case, then you are the one asking for blind faith.

As a matter of fact, the prevailing popular theories within university physical "science" today are essentially those of Max Planck.  And Max Planck's theories of Quantum Physics are a good bit older than Dewey Larson.

Yes, but it contains information very pertinent to this discussion, and I have correspondingly quoted very relevant material from it.  You evidently want to ignore this book.

I will ignore it, just like the rest of the science field.  Why? Because its wrong.  Reactions are preformed every day.  They are can be written down and then followed with the desired results.  They wouldn't work if there were no such thing as an atom.

Are you referring to Dewey Larson or myself?
Did I quote too much for you to read at a single sitting?

Do you know what a source is?  Its where that guy got his info.  Go look at them.
Here is one. 

Kaplan, Irving, Nuclear Physics, Addison Wesley Publishing Co., Cambridge, Mass., 1955, page 154

One whole page.  Probably because the rest of the book proves him wrong. 


   

So what?  That is nothing unusual, especially in view of the fact that the book was published in the 1960's.

Did the essence of matter change since the 1960's?

Or do you rather assume that something somehow occurred since the 1960's which changed everything throughout previous history so that any and all evidence and knowledge that atoms are a false explanation of matter should be unthinkingly discarded?  If that is the case, then you are the one asking for blind faith.

As a matter of fact, the prevailing popular theories within university physical "science" today are essentially those of Max Planck.  And Max Planck's theories of Quantum Physics are a good bit older than Dewey Larson.

There are reasons why there are no books published in 2007 called "The earth is flat" or "there is no such thing as an atom".

You claim im going to ignore the book yet you ignored the picture I posted of atoms and all the other pictures of them.  One little book and your opinion isn’t going to disprove all of science.

Okay, so you were referring to Larson.  Did you read the book he quoted so you know for a fact that it disagrees with him or are you merely throwing dirt without any knowledge of what you are saying?  I say that is exactly what you are doing.  If I am wrong, then tell me exactly how Kaplan disagrees with Larson. 

JUst what I thought...You don't have a clue.

As far as books published in 2007 goes, I do not recall the exact date, but the book by Nathan Gwynne which I earlier posted a link to shows that atoms do not exist at all which is going farther than Larson who merely refuted the "nuclear" atom as opposed to the whole concept of atoms altogether which is what Gwynne has done, and Gwynne's book is less than ten years old. 

You are merely claiming that all of science agrees with your opinion without citing anything, and I honestly have not really researched this so much.  If I did, I could easily find other contemporary sources which refute atoms.

The half life of U-235. which was used in the Little Boy bomb for Hiroshima, is 704 million years. You can find traces of that in Hiroshima still. Now stfu.

i think novmber you are pretty much right with the atomic weapon non existence. the movies they show us, why and especially what burns for many seconds? it looks more like gasoline is vaporized and then ignited. any kind of explosive would burn within fractions of a second. yo dont realy see a fireball, maybe some sort of flash.

but to my understanding if you put uranium together it heats up. if you put highly concentrated uranium together it heats up fast and fast heating means fast expansion and thus an explosion. critical mass is about 122 gramm to my knowledge. but to put so much radioactive material together that you could erase a city will not work. because you can not hold it long enough tightly together. so a big atomic bomb does not exist. but you can make radioactive material explode. but i cant say for sure cause i havent tried it   

Okay, so you were referring to Larson.  Did you read the book he quoted so you know for a fact that it disagrees with him or are you merely throwing dirt without any knowledge of what you are saying?  I say that is exactly what you are doing.  If I am wrong, then tell me exactly how Kaplan disagrees with Larson. 

JUst what I thought...You don't have a clue.

As far as books published in 2007 goes, I do not recall the exact date, but the book by Nathan Gwynne which I earlier posted a link to shows that atoms do not exist at all which is going farther than Larson who merely refuted the "nuclear" atom as opposed to the whole concept of atoms altogether which is what Gwynne has done, and Gwynne's book is less than ten years old. 

You are merely claiming that all of science agrees with your opinion without citing anything, and I honestly have not really researched this so much.  If I did, I could easily find other contemporary sources which refute atoms.

I don’t have a clue?  Why does the periodic table of elements work perfectly?  Why can people predict what will happen in experiments? 
You don't know shit.  You think that because there is one book by some unknown person, they are automatically right.  You said yourself you didn’t research.  You found one book and made it your bible.   
Wake up.  You are trying to disprove all of chemistry.  There are reasons why people didn’t stop believing in atoms from that old ass book.  The atom model works perfectly.   

i think novmber you are pretty much right with the atomic weapon non existence. the movies they show us, why and especially what burns for many seconds? it looks more like gasoline is vaporized and then ignited. any kind of explosive would burn within fractions of a second. yo dont realy see a fireball, maybe some sort of flash.

but to my understanding if you put uranium together it heats up. if you put highly concentrated uranium together it heats up fast and fast heating means fast expansion and thus an explosion. critical mass is about 122 gramm to my knowledge. but to put so much radioactive material together that you could erase a city will not work. because you can not hold it long enough tightly together. so a big atomic bomb does not exist. but you can make radioactive material explode. but i cant say for sure cause i havent tried it   

When the atoms reach about the density of TNT, it blows up. But the doubling of fission causes the explosion to double over and over in an instant. So, for example, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, bomb blows up, lets say here, but the explosion keeps on expanding as it explodes, 4096, etc. Thats the magic of the atomic bomb. It never stops until all of the energy is released from all of the particles.

Saying that atomic bombs do not exist is a ridiculous conclusion to come to...

i didnt say i dont believe, that if you put radioactive material together it doesnt heat up. but as you say it does it in an instant. so what burns in the so called atomic bomb explosion movies forever? with any high explosives you actually see nothing, maybe some sort of flash, but not seconds and seconds of expanding and burning material.

look at this, it is fuel burning, it is the continously burning mushroom cloud. except it already ignited at the bottom:

you guys dont understand nuclear bomb.  They convert mass into pure energy.   Thats why they have the name 20 megatons as in you need 20 megatons of TNT to be as strong as them.  Feel free to build a plane that can hold that much weight.

i didnt say i dont believe, that if you put radioactive material together it doesnt heat up. but as you say it does it in an instant. so what burns in the so called atomic bomb explosion movies forever? with any high explosives you actually see nothing, maybe some sort of flash, but not seconds and seconds of expanding and burning material.

look at this, it is fuel burning, it is the continously burning mushroom cloud. except it already ignited at the bottom:

Well to launch that one half of U-235 to the other half of U-235 you need some sort of high explosive to bring them together to reach critical mass.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3893232447213614208&q=berkeley+nukes

watch, and learn...he may not be completely accurate, but he is a damn good professor. bout an hour, 15 min lecture.

i know the standard physics behind the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors, i dont have to learn them.  i am here to discuss alternatives to that, because as november pointed out the atomic model is a model and it is bogus.

the other thing is that the movies and photographs everybody refers too, do not show atomic explosions. thats why i am asking how could you explain, if you think they are genuie that they look and behave as fuel or gas explosions??? there is no instant conversion into energy in these movies, not even remotly.

do you know how to simulate atomic explosion without radioactive material? you do use gas. it is a patended technology. you can look it up in the US patent database. you can create hugh explosion of high magnitude with gas. 

if all the material is converted into energy, why do you supposedly still find it than in japan? it should not be there, if the conversion theorie holds.

This thread is hilarious.

i think novmber you are pretty much right with the atomic weapon non existence. the movies they show us, why and especially what burns for many seconds? it looks more like gasoline is vaporized and then ignited. any kind of explosive would burn within fractions of a second. yo dont realy see a fireball, maybe some sort of flash.

The fireball isn't from the atomic weapon itself. The actual bomb does explode in a flash. Said flash ignites any flammable material nearby, and with the heat created by the fission, almost anything will burn. Hence the fireball.

but to my understanding if you put uranium together it heats up. if you put highly concentrated uranium together it heats up fast and fast heating means fast expansion and thus an explosion. critical mass is about 122 gramm to my knowledge. but to put so much radioactive material together that you could erase a city will not work. because you can not hold it long enough tightly together. so a big atomic bomb does not exist. but you can make radioactive material explode. but i cant say for sure cause i havent tried it   

I think this was already refuted by another poster, so I won't argue about it here.

i know the standard physics behind the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors, i dont have to learn them.  i am here to discuss alternatives to that, because as november pointed out the atomic model is a model and it is bogus.

All right, then post your model here and tell us how it works. Never mind the fact that everything posted so far about the atom fits real world observations, go ahead and post your ideas like the FEers do. Just make sure your model has less holes than a Flat Earth theory.

the other thing is that the movies and photographs everybody refers too, do not show atomic explosions. thats why i am asking how could you explain, if you think they are genuie that they look and behave as fuel or gas explosions??? there is no instant conversion into energy in these movies, not even remotly.

My answer depends on what movies you are talking about. If you mean actual atomic bomb footage, then I've already explained this. If you're talking about movies as in Hollywood, then that is because they are fuel and gas explosions.

if all the material is converted into energy, why do you supposedly still find it than in japan? it should not be there, if the conversion theorie holds.

Quite simply, because it's not completely converted into energy. No human device was, is, or ever will be, completely efficient. There is always waste. Also, you said:

do you know how to simulate atomic explosion without radioactive material? you do use gas. it is a patended technology. you can look it up in the US patent database. you can create hugh explosion of high magnitude with gas.

If this was the case and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were not nuclear weapons, then why would there even be radioactive material in Japan?

To the OP:
If you discount the existence of nuclear weapons and the atom, then you discount nuclear power as well. Are you saying that there was never really an incident at Chernobyl, or at Lake Erie, or at Three Mile Island? What about plans to build more nuclear reactors? Where do countries that rely on "nuclear power" actually get their power from? What really goes on inside a reactor?

{EDIT: Fixed the quotes}

What? No answers 24 hours later? I'm not surprised. This thread passed the three-page event horizon long ago, and apparently I'm the last to bail out.

I'm surprised it's gone on this long.

you guys dont understand nuclear bomb.

i know the standard physics behind the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors, i dont have to learn them.  i am here to discuss alternatives to that

Here, here.  Merely because one argues and even believes a view does not imply ignorance of the opponent's learning.  Nor does that even imply that think and myself will necessarily be in lock step agrement on every single detail, but after all this is the ALTERNATIVE science category. 

They convert mass into pure energy.

This assumption of Einstein's is something which I do not even find credible.  Energy does NOT equal mass times the alleged speed of light squared.  E does not = mc2 any more than E=mc3 or E=mc10.  Many of you are swayed by numbers as they SOUND authoritative, but your science is full of holes on closer inspection.

The half life of U-235. which was used in the Little Boy bomb for Hiroshima, is 704 million years. You can find traces of that in Hiroshima still. Now stfu.

Wasn't it 7.04 billion years?  Heck, what's the difference as long as the number used silences the gainsayers, right?