It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Nukes dead ?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR


SO this False Vacuum bomb. You realize this makes little sense. Hows it supposed to work. Drop the universe from some false vacuum to it's true vacuum or something. Or take it out of a true vacuum (if it exists) and put it in a false vacuum to dump it back down to it's original state? Either way. Your False Vacuum bomb would destroy the entire known universe at the speed of light. Just an ever expanding bubble of death. Pretty sure the aliens are going to be pissed were building something like that. Maybe thats why they abduct people every night and probe them.
False Vacuum Bomb isn't one of them. But I'm not going to shine any light on that one.


And again, they're really easy to make. Because it can grow infinitely, you don't have to start with a BIG one, so generally you just need a quantum computer and a small amount of energy. I'm not really sure how to go about the response further though, because you're telling me it makes no sense, but then describing it exactly. You create a bubble, and within it, you create a false vacuum. It will expand infinitely and definitely cause a 'cosmic earthquake' to say the least. It does not destroy the universe, it destroys the stuff in it, and it's speculated they've happened before.


originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: imjack

You realise how stupid this is right, even if that was the case you'd have other atom in your lab spinning creating the same condition.

Secondly without getting right into it you can't just spin an atom and create a nuclear bomb..


They're able to manipulate the position of the particles. Not the atom. If the particles split the atom, the same effect happens at two locations. However...Obviously they can contain an atom being split in a lab easier, verses, just generally outside somewhere. Also spiting an atom with it's own particles is no easy task.
edit on 3-3-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

You want me to do the math on how much energy would be released splitting one atom?



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: Bedlam

as you would already know the U.s can monitor the telltale signs of a nuke from a satellite, wouldn't Russia have the same sort of things regarding depositing them into cities?


We've got nuke detonation detectors all over. Some are in the GPS sats.

They pick up gamma bursts, x-rays and the characteristic double flash of a nuke. But they can't find a nuke that's just sitting there.

Well designed nukes don't emit a lot of radiation. You won't find them easily. The Hollywood meme that they're just crawling with radiation is a script-writer's mistake.
mehbeh. or mehbeh the govt has high res neutrino detectors that can spot a smoke detector at a range of 10 light years. (through planets...)
edit on 4-3-2016 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: B2StealthBomber

No, I just want you to accept, that the placement of the second one isn't as important. They've talked about creating underground areas that can contain nuclear explosions as far back as 1956. That being aside, the 'second one' doesn't have to directly be where the people manipulating it are EITHER. It could be in Space, still controlled by computers. That's essentially completely irrelevant. This is also assuming they don't know how to stop or just contain the reaction. They might.

What is relevant is the way they split an atom is by bombarding it with particles. If they can manage to use the atoms own particles to split itself, and not need an outside source to bomb it, you can create the reaction with just the atom and it's own particles, and then mirror that behavior over a distance.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Ok mate. I don't think you know what your talking about so I'll just leave it.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: B2StealthBomber

No don't leave he's just about to explain theoretical Neutron entanglement weaponry.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: Bedlam

as you would already know the U.s can monitor the telltale signs of a nuke from a satellite, wouldn't Russia have the same sort of things regarding depositing them into cities?


We've got nuke detonation detectors all over. Some are in the GPS sats.

They pick up gamma bursts, x-rays and the characteristic double flash of a nuke. But they can't find a nuke that's just sitting there.

Well designed nukes don't emit a lot of radiation. You won't find them easily. The Hollywood meme that they're just crawling with radiation is a script-writer's mistake.
mehbeh. or mehbeh the govt has high res neutrino detectors that can spot a smoke detector at a range of 10 light years. (through planets...)



Don't pick on Bedlam. Thats not fair. Bedlams just a kid who knows nothing about anything having to do with the OP's topic. Don't bury him with facts and heavy science, just because you're more read and educated and experienced than him with this sorta stuff. Have some mercy on the guy.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

No they aren't, but if they are used you will be.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

No you IDIOT its Varidium,GAAAAH.
It's really only 2 but I thought it was classified...it's NOT of course....is it?



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Stop playing in our sandpit..

Australian Blast



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

You know those huge Gamma Ray Bursts?

en.wikipedia.org...

powerful:


a typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime


rare:

a few per galaxy per million years


Civilization-Extinguishing industrial accidents.

As it were, Alien Scientist Stimpy pressed the you know what on that free-energy-from-the-vacuum experiment. Yeah, that secret science that the Big Bad Government was assassinating people about.

timedotcom.files.wordpress.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

so you're saying there's a major, major difference between detecting the radiation emitted from a lump of plutonium hiding in a shielded submarine 1000 feet below sea water, and detecting high energy gamma rays emitted from hellacious astronomical cataclysms?

Damn!!! I got smacked down again. See ATS members. Learn from old bassplyr here. Never try to outwit a world class physicist on the internet or you'll look foolish like me.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
This is a 48 magnum t factor meson gun. I had it made special. It shoots through planets.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I'll stick with my trusty .308 thanks.

although have you seen the nemo Omen 300 win mag. semi auto. buddy won one in a raffle cause since nobody ever believes they'll be the winner only 5 people entered. it's a $3-5 k rifle. recoil feels like a .308 with some sorta axiom stock. whoooo boy it's fun.
edit on 4-3-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

You can contain it somewhat but you'll still feel the earth quakes it produces, see what happened in North Korea?



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
mehbeh. or mehbeh the govt has high res neutrino detectors that can spot a smoke detector at a range of 10 light years. (through planets...)


Oh, were you actually serious here?

U-235 occurs naturally. So if you sit back and look at the world from geosynchronous orbit, you're going to see an endless amount. Also, neutrino detectors aren't real big on directionality. And you can't put one in space. Unless you're building a Really Big geosynchronous detector.

Same thing with using something more prosaic, like a gamma ray spectrometer. Just a gamma ray detector won't do - there are so many things that produce gammas that you just can't say much with a super sensitive detector other than 'yep, there's a flux of so many rays per second per area". A gamma ray spectrometer, properly maintained (an issue!) can tell you 'hey, that one might have come from a plutonium decay', if, that is, that gamma ray hasn't interacted with something and been re-radiated a bit different than it came in. But again, there's plutonium all over. So what you can tell is 'look, we caught a unicorn gamma ray from some plutonium somewhere down on the ground' and that's all you'll know.

The awful truth is, these instruments are not very (at all) directional. And plutonium, as scary as it is, does not decay all that quickly. And the bomb casing/tamper/other bits tend to contain it anyway. Assuming that it sends out gamma rays in a sphere, statistically, most of the rays will not depart in a way that intersects the detector of a satellite. By most, I mean 'effectively all'. So your very low flux at the bomb will become nil at the bird.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam



Funny you should mention that, if you take Embassies then its a fair bet with regards to their placings and diplomatic bag protocols, all a potential enemy would have to do is, bring one in in bits and assemble it right at the heart of the foreign countries infra structure. When the Embassy closes as a prelude to war, and the staff leave, the thing could be remotely activated, at any time taking a capital city with it.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Countries got lots of unguarded border and/or sea coastlines. Not that tough to bring in some here, some there.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: anonentity

Countries got lots of unguarded border and/or sea coastlines. Not that tough to bring in some here, some there.


So if you're wondering why all the ICBM's are 40 years old, instead of recapitalizing them, there's that...

If only there was some nifty way of inserting people/things here and there



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam


Oh, were you actually serious here?

U-235 occurs naturally. So if you sit back and look at the world from geosynchronous orbit, you're going to see an endless amount. Also, neutrino detectors aren't real big on directionality. And you can't put one in space. Unless you're building a Really Big geosynchronous detector.

Same thing with using something more prosaic, like a gamma ray spectrometer. Just a gamma ray detector won't do - there are so many things that produce gammas that you just can't say much with a super sensitive detector other than 'yep, there's a flux of so many rays per second per area". A gamma ray spectrometer, properly maintained (an issue!) can tell you 'hey, that one might have come from a plutonium decay', if, that is, that gamma ray hasn't interacted with something and been re-radiated a bit different than it came in. But again, there's plutonium all over. So what you can tell is 'look, we caught a unicorn gamma ray from some plutonium somewhere down on the ground' and that's all you'll know.

The awful truth is, these instruments are not very (at all) directional. And plutonium, as scary as it is, does not decay all that quickly. And the bomb casing/tamper/other bits tend to contain it anyway. Assuming that it sends out gamma rays in a sphere, statistically, most of the rays will not depart in a way that intersects the detector of a satellite. By most, I mean 'effectively all'. So your very low flux at the bomb will become nil at the bird.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.


that's just want "THEY" want you to believe. J/K. anyway if you had sufficient resolution i think signal processing routines could find all sorts of ways to filter out noise like background and cosmic sources. by some analytical magic you might be able to tease out isotopic information density and other information from sufficient data. perhaps oscillation effects, some sort of phase, polarization, or doppler shift/relativistic aberation analog.

and think about this. yeah as far as we know neutrino detectors are and have to be gigantic. but since neutrinos go through everything (including the planet and lead shielding) your detector has no need to be portable. all you need is lots and lots of neutrino pixels and prodigious signal processing power. with just two such detector facilities you can get direction and distance and overlay that on a terrain or tactical map.
edit on 5-3-2016 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join