Man-made nuclear bomb: ONE best evidence of Big Bang.
(In 1964, radio astronomers Amo Penzias and Robert Wilson detected cosmic
microwave background radiation covering entire outer space, believed remnant
of Big Bang, below another d iscovery appears exceptionally good)
.
Atom is 99.999999999999% space., meaning its components, re-electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, are all that spacious. If atom is the size of 20 basketballs rolled into one, the size of its nucleus is like a grain of sand, and if the size of the nucleus is 20 basketballs rolled into one, the size of the innermost quark is like a grain of sand. From such hollow nucleus, particularly, its innermost hollow quarks, originates the mind-boggling nuclear bomb explosion, unbelievable several million times greater than conventional bomb. Such nuclear bomb release uncannily is similar to the first and biggest nuclear explosion of all time, the Big Bang. Big Bang originated from incredible proton-size ( roughly, size 10-18 meters or miles?, but, naturally, no one knows) that exploded into the biggest nuclear explosion of all time and made up the whole universe, re- the stars, planets, galaxies. Two formidable evidences support Big Bang , re-. the detected CMBR or comic microwave background radiation all over outer space, and the red-shifting of all galaxies, indicating expansion of the universe.. There is now another evidence, right here on earth, before our very eyes . The man-made nuclear bomb explosion, fusion or fission, is uncanny a likeness, a reminder, of the mother Big Bang.. Where does such unconceivable point mass of nucleus (.mass of .000000000001%, more or less, of total area of nucleus) get its mind-boggling energy release? Nuclear release is E=MC2 but how and why such incredible micro-micro point mass of nucleus (pre-Designed) account for massive destructions unless it is like Big Bang.. As a matter of fact, all nuclear explosions/generations, re- supernova explosion, meteor nuclear collision, nuclear generating plant, nuclear generated sun, stars, all nuclears inherent of Big Bang, in keeping with law of conservation that nothing is lost nor destroyed.
From proton-sized mass, Big Bang incredibly exploded and made up the total matters of the universe, such Big Bang expanded by itself, inflating by itself, infinitely, yet nothing added, nothing reduced, than its original proton-size... Like Big Bang, from a 99.999999999999% vacuum atom, a modern nuclear bomb, with gross weight of a THOUSAND kilograms can produce a mind-boggling BILLION kilograms of conventional explosive, the nuclear release expands by itself, inflates by itself, unlimitedly, nothing added, nothing reduced, than its net weight.. Man-made nuclear bomb is the best evidence that nuclear Big Bang did occur... .
Why man-made nuclear bomb is best evidence?: As we see, before our very eyes, how man-made nuclear bomb is, before and after explosion, …. we are seeing, too,, the making of nuclear Big Bang, before and after.
Jose s. Aldea
Chairman – Capiz Scientists & Inventors Society
Philippine Copyright 2009
By: jose s. aldea
Cc: DOST, CSIS
6.26.09
You are simply showing that you don't understand how a nuclear bomb works at all.
Seriously... have you ever actually tried to study any of this stuff?
A nuclear bomb can be either fission or fusion. Here's a hint... the name indicates where the power of the explosion is coming from.
The Big Bang is something completely different.
Here's a question for you. Was the Big Bang a fusion or fission explosion... since you avow that they are the same process.
Seriously... have you ever actually tried to study any of this stuff?
A nuclear bomb can be either fission or fusion. Here's a hint... the name indicates where the power of the explosion is coming from.
The Big Bang is something completely different.
Here's a question for you. Was the Big Bang a fusion or fission explosion... since you avow that they are the same process.
He just keeps repeating the same posts, opening new threads for them.
Typical crackpot.
Typical crackpot.
Principle of making nuclear bomb is same principle in a bullet, with powder and shell, only it is not powder, it is uranium, packed inside a closed thick, hard inner metallic shell which is inside a more thick hard outer shell, packed with powder with remote control trigger, the inner and outer shell totally enclosed (in case of fission bomb). A fusion bomb requires a fission bomb inside as trigger. Perhaps this triggered fission maybe the first trillion seconds of Big Bang, that triggered fusion….Maybe you have a better concept, ...BUT WE WERE NOT THERE AT MOMENT OF BIG BANG.. But one thing I am sure: these nuclear explosions, nuclear generations in the sun, stars, in nuclear plants, all are inherent of the first nuclear Big Bang, for where else would all these nuclear come from except from the source, principle of conservation, nothing is destroyed nor lost. Regards.
Jsaldea12
6.26.09 ...
Jsaldea12
6.26.09 ...
You didn't answer the actual query. You just looked up atomic bomb on wiki or something.
In a fission bomb.... where does the energy come from?
How is it different from a fusion bomb?
Answer that and see if your crackpot theories fit.
In a fission bomb.... where does the energy come from?
How is it different from a fusion bomb?
Answer that and see if your crackpot theories fit.
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Jun 26 2009, 03:34 AM)
Principle of making nuclear bomb is same principle in a bullet, with powder and shell, only it is not powder, it is uranium, packed inside a closed thick, hard inner metallic shell which is inside a more thick hard outer shell, packed with powder with remote control trigger, the inner and outer shell totally enclosed (in case of fission bomb).
1. No powder is used. High explosives are needed, and powder is not a high explosive, it has a very low brisance.
2. Implosion types tend to use plutonium (Pu-239) as their primary fuel, not uranium for reasons expounded on below, as well as because plutonium cores can be made smaller than mixed plutonium/uranium cores or pure uranium cores.
3. The 'hard metallic shell' is actually comprised of uranium (U-238). The reason for this is that uranium reflects neutrons, bringing the plutonium closer to criticality, and thus allowing the weapon to be imploded by the use of conventional explosives.
4. The "more thick hard outer shell" is generally comprised of aluminum, a softer metal. The reason for this is to keep it from fracturing during the implosion.
And of course, there's always point 5: You don't know jack about fission or fusion. In fact, Rob was being generous when he suggested you merely looked it up on wikipedia, as when I checked wiki, it had accurate information.
1. No powder is used. High explosives are needed, and powder is not a high explosive, it has a very low brisance.
2. Implosion types tend to use plutonium (Pu-239) as their primary fuel, not uranium for reasons expounded on below, as well as because plutonium cores can be made smaller than mixed plutonium/uranium cores or pure uranium cores.
3. The 'hard metallic shell' is actually comprised of uranium (U-238). The reason for this is that uranium reflects neutrons, bringing the plutonium closer to criticality, and thus allowing the weapon to be imploded by the use of conventional explosives.
4. The "more thick hard outer shell" is generally comprised of aluminum, a softer metal. The reason for this is to keep it from fracturing during the implosion.
And of course, there's always point 5: You don't know jack about fission or fusion. In fact, Rob was being generous when he suggested you merely looked it up on wikipedia, as when I checked wiki, it had accurate information.
Principle of making of nuclear bomb is not difficult, any good physicists can understand..... Fission is split of nucleus, fusion is fusion of nucleus.. You said Wiki? But the principle is the same. But thank you both for enlightening deeper,…that the outer shell is made of aluminum, could be very durable. though, for stronger implosion,and at same time, light. Could also be powder high explosive, or liquid
i
But the point is, do you believe that the several nuclear explosions/generations that prop up now are inherent of nuclear Big Bang? Even that Tungaska was nuclear, and comet rains in Jupiter.. And here is the most important point: where would such nuclears came from if not INHERITED from the original source, Big Bang? Law of conservation, that nothing is destroyed nor lost.
Jsaldea12
6.27.09
.
.
i
But the point is, do you believe that the several nuclear explosions/generations that prop up now are inherent of nuclear Big Bang? Even that Tungaska was nuclear, and comet rains in Jupiter.. And here is the most important point: where would such nuclears came from if not INHERITED from the original source, Big Bang? Law of conservation, that nothing is destroyed nor lost.
Jsaldea12
6.27.09
.
.
QUOTE
But the point is, do you believe that the several nuclear explosions/generations that prop up now are inherent of nuclear Big Bang?
I don't know how that sentence reads in Tagalog but in English it doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But the point is, do you believe that the several nuclear explosions/generations that prop up now are inherent of nuclear Big Bang? |
I don't know how that sentence reads in Tagalog but in English it doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say?
Even that Tungaska was nuclear, and comet rains in Jupiter..
Tunguska... not Tungaska
Though there is a lot of controversy about the Tunguska event... with most being in either the geophysical or the astrophysical camps... no one is seriously proposing that the event was nuclear anymore.
Comet rains in Jupiter?
No idea what you are talking about.
QUOTE
And here is the most important point: where would such nuclears came from if not INHERITED from the original source, Big Bang? Law of conservation, that nothing is destroyed nor lost.
Again you are not making any kind of linear sense whatsoever.
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Jun 26 2009, 07:12 PM)
Could also be powder high explosive, or liquid
No, it couldn't, for technical reasons.
The big bang was not a nuclear explosion, so no.
The big bang was not a nuclear explosion, so no.
Even that Tungaska was nuclear, and comet rains in Jupiter..
Wrong and wrong.
Gibberish and nonsensical.
Gibberish and nonsensical.
Law of conservation, that nothing is destroyed nor lost.
Inapplicable, and very poorly stated to boot.
Dude, do you know why we're disagreeing with you? For the same reason made clear by my last post here:
YOU DON'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
It was not nuclear.
It was not nuclear.
But my point has not been answered
We will answer your question when it becomes legible.
What the heck does that sentence even mean? Are you trying to say that all nuclear explosions are just like the Big Bang? If so... you are completely wrong. Other than that.. I have no idea what you are babbling about.
Size matters. Big Bang has size. Regards.
jsaldea12
6.28.09
You are right, it is mass that matter.
There are only two kinds of energy release on atom: release of energy in outer shell of electrons and release of energy in harder inner shell of nucleus. But Big Bang could involve different energy release mechanism. You are looking for something deeper.
But one thing sure, it involved pre-Designed.
jsaldea12
6.28.09
No, it couldn't, for technical reasons.
QUOTE
But the point is, do you believe that the several nuclear explosions/generations that prop up now are inherent of nuclear Big Bang?
The big bang was not a nuclear explosion, so no.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But the point is, do you believe that the several nuclear explosions/generations that prop up now are inherent of nuclear Big Bang? |
The big bang was not a nuclear explosion, so no.
Even that Tungaska was nuclear, and comet rains in Jupiter..
Wrong and wrong.
QUOTE
And here is the most important point: where would such nuclears came from if not INHERITED from the original source, Big Bang?
Gibberish and nonsensical.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And here is the most important point: where would such nuclears came from if not INHERITED from the original source, Big Bang? |
Gibberish and nonsensical.
Law of conservation, that nothing is destroyed nor lost.
Inapplicable, and very poorly stated to boot.
Dude, do you know why we're disagreeing with you? For the same reason made clear by my last post here:
YOU DON'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Jun 27 2009, 12:12 AM)
Law of conservation, that nothing is destroyed nor lost.
But mass can be converted to engergy.
My favourite Tunguska theory is that it was done by a weapon built by Tesla.
I'm not saying I believe it, I simply find it the most creative and interesting.
But mass can be converted to engergy.
My favourite Tunguska theory is that it was done by a weapon built by Tesla.
I'm not saying I believe it, I simply find it the most creative and interesting.
Yes, it was Tunguska, and it was nuclear,..some 600 square miles were flattened,.. radioactive.. Yes, too, procession of five to eight comets hit Jupiter, most hit had nuclear explosions larger than earth. Was it Shoemaker who discovered.
.But my point has not been answered: Do you believe that all nuclear explosions/generations at the present are inherent of the source, Big Bang. As stated, in keeping with law of conservation, that nothing is lost nor destroyed. Does proton decay? But please answer the POINT?
There is an answer no. It is not nuclear. CAN YOU JUSTIFY THE PRESENCE OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS, GENERATIONS. WHERE DO THESE NUCLEAR CAME FROM? BECAUSE THE NUCLEAR PROLIFERTIONS CANNOT JUST EXIST FROM NOTHING. PLEASE ANSWER?
Jsaldea12
6.27.09
.But my point has not been answered: Do you believe that all nuclear explosions/generations at the present are inherent of the source, Big Bang. As stated, in keeping with law of conservation, that nothing is lost nor destroyed. Does proton decay? But please answer the POINT?
There is an answer no. It is not nuclear. CAN YOU JUSTIFY THE PRESENCE OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS, GENERATIONS. WHERE DO THESE NUCLEAR CAME FROM? BECAUSE THE NUCLEAR PROLIFERTIONS CANNOT JUST EXIST FROM NOTHING. PLEASE ANSWER?
Jsaldea12
6.27.09
QUOTE
In 1989, Serge J.D. D'Alessio and Archie A. Harms suggested that some of the deuterium in a comet entering the Earth's atmosphere may have undergone a nuclear fusion reaction,[37] leaving a distinctive signature in the form of carbon-14. They concluded that any release of nuclear energy would have been almost negligible. Independently, in 1990, César Sirvent proposed that a deuterium comet, i.e., a comet with an anomalous high concentration of deuterium in its composition, could have exploded as a natural hydrogen bomb, generating most of the energy released. The sequence would be first a mechanical or kinetic explosion, triggering a thermonuclear reaction. These proposals are inconsistent with knowledge both of the composition of comets and of the temperature and pressure conditions necessary for initiating a nuclear fusion reaction.[38] Studies have found the concentration of radioactive isotopes in the blast region to be inconsistent with those expected following a nuclear explosion, fusion or otherwise.[20]
It was not nuclear.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In 1989, Serge J.D. D'Alessio and Archie A. Harms suggested that some of the deuterium in a comet entering the Earth's atmosphere may have undergone a nuclear fusion reaction,[37] leaving a distinctive signature in the form of carbon-14. They concluded that any release of nuclear energy would have been almost negligible. Independently, in 1990, César Sirvent proposed that a deuterium comet, i.e., a comet with an anomalous high concentration of deuterium in its composition, could have exploded as a natural hydrogen bomb, generating most of the energy released. The sequence would be first a mechanical or kinetic explosion, triggering a thermonuclear reaction. These proposals are inconsistent with knowledge both of the composition of comets and of the temperature and pressure conditions necessary for initiating a nuclear fusion reaction.[38] Studies have found the concentration of radioactive isotopes in the blast region to be inconsistent with those expected following a nuclear explosion, fusion or otherwise.[20] |
It was not nuclear.
But my point has not been answered
We will answer your question when it becomes legible.
QUOTE
Do you believe that all nuclear explosions/generations at the present are inherent of the source, Big Bang. As stated, in keeping with law of conservation, that nothing is lost nor destroyed. Does proton decay? But please answer the POINT?
What the heck does that sentence even mean? Are you trying to say that all nuclear explosions are just like the Big Bang? If so... you are completely wrong. Other than that.. I have no idea what you are babbling about.
Big Bang exploded, that first moment, it expanded faster than light. All other
explosions, not involving the nucleus cannot do that.
Jsaldea12
6.27.09
explosions, not involving the nucleus cannot do that.
Jsaldea12
6.27.09
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Jun 27 2009, 02:44 AM)
Big Bang exploded, that first moment, it expanded faster than light. All other
explosions, not involving the nucleus cannot do that.
nuclear explosions do not have any component which travels faster than light.
explosions, not involving the nucleus cannot do that.
nuclear explosions do not have any component which travels faster than light.
Size matters. Big Bang has size. Regards.
jsaldea12
6.28.09
Not size... mass.
You seriously do not get the point though. Neither fission nor fusion could have occurred to perpetrate the Big Bang. Fission would have been impossible given that the mass was compressed to a singularity and fusion would have been pointless... for obvious reasons.
Therefore the mechanisms of the different explosions are just that.. different.
You seriously do not get the point though. Neither fission nor fusion could have occurred to perpetrate the Big Bang. Fission would have been impossible given that the mass was compressed to a singularity and fusion would have been pointless... for obvious reasons.
Therefore the mechanisms of the different explosions are just that.. different.
You are right, it is mass that matter.
There are only two kinds of energy release on atom: release of energy in outer shell of electrons and release of energy in harder inner shell of nucleus. But Big Bang could involve different energy release mechanism. You are looking for something deeper.
But one thing sure, it involved pre-Designed.
jsaldea12
6.28.09
I have to add: The fact that there is now fission and fusion shows both could have existed as one in that singularity of pre- Big Bang. That is how both originated, re-pre-Designed. .A human-designed nuclear bomb could consist of fission, fusion, fission nuclear bomb.
Jsaldea12
6.28.09
Jsaldea12
6.28.09
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.