Soft Particle Physics

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spruk
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


Oh there is a number of articles/videos showing him eating/drinking plutonium. I seem to be having issues today converying my points, so please bear with me. My major issue with that is the video looks like its from a camera around 70s-80s origin, so there is no way except for taking someones word for it.

And i know this isnt the crux of your discussion points it is from my standpoint wrong that running around with radioactive U235 is an awesome idea, even in small doses (Again medically speaking)


I'm not going to get into all the details, but from a medical standpoint it is not all that harmful. Only because he ate it in chunks, meaning very little surface area (if it was ground into a powder he would die from eating the same amount), and it doesn't stay in the body long enough. So very little material with a short exposure time, it is not harmful. Longer exposure time would definitely be a terrible idea. Yes he also claims to have swam in the reactor water which there is no evidence for, and I am highly doubtful of due to the temperature the water is.

As to the OP, he can't defend his position at all yet calls others out for only following what they are told. His ideas have no basis in fact, he will not accept all the evidence in the world and will never need to provide any of his own. I would recommend no longer responding as he is beyond reason. Proof his ideas are wrong have been given along with the means to experimentally show it. He made his choice.
edit on 23-8-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Erm, kinda what i was saying, the entire discussion was that nuclear material is "safe" to be handled by hand, inferring that you could do this daily with no ill effects. The whole eating thing, again infers its completely safe to do long term.

Both of which it sure as hell isnt :/.

As for the swimming part, not going to get into that, as i only have a limited understanding of a fission reactor, but i can only assume the cooling pools would be freaking hot.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Spruk
 


I assure you he did eat it. Sigh I really didn't want to find links, but here goes.

Although the data on which to establish oral and inhalation acute LD50 for uranium in humans are sparse, they are adequate to conclude that the LD50 for oral intake of soluble uranium compounds exceeds several grams of uranium


It is suggested that 5 g be provisionally considered the acute oral LD50 for uranium in humans.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

If you don't know, LD50 is the amount needed for a lethal dose.

Fun fact, LD50 of caffeine is about 3g, so one could technically say caffeine is more lethal than uranium.
ETA: The swimming in reactor water I am hesitant to accept, as you are correct, freaking hot would be one way to put it.
edit on 23-8-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spruk
As for the swimming part, not going to get into that, as i only have a limited understanding of a fission reactor, but i can only assume the cooling pools would be freaking hot.
The water he went swimming in apparently wasn't that hot.

I found a source that said he died of leukemia which might be linked to radiation exposure, though I'm not sure how good the source was. He died in 2008 at age 82 but for all I know he might have lived to 92 had he not done this stuff. In any case, nobody ever said this kind of activity will kill you instantly, just that it increases your risk.

Just like some 2-pack a day smokers can live to be 100, some people can live through higher radiation exposures than others, but this doesn't mean smoking or radiation is safe. Both types of risk are evaluated statistically like how many people out of a million will die or get cancer, which seems to be a concept which escapes Winsor. It's a complicated topic, and some of what he says is true, and some isn't. Also I don't think he was actually a nuclear physicist, that's apparently an exaggerated claim on the youtube video.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Winsor: Oh, I did things like work on a Ph.D. in soil chemistry, at the University of Wisconsin, and never finished it, under Dr. Emil Truog.
I’m an expert in plutonium chemistry. I was “Mister Plutonium” for the General Electric Company.
But no—you don’t put any fancy letters after my name.
Martin: That’s fine with me. I understand that philosophy.
Winsor: I’m a plutonium chemist. I learned it through the school of hard knocks.
There’s not a university in the country that would even recognize the work that I’ve done. ...
I used to be the uranium ore buying manager for General Electric, at Naturita, Colorado, 25 years ago. My business was to buy uranium “yellow-cake” from the miners.
I don't think the PhD he never got in soil chemistry qualifies him as a nuclear physicist, nor does being a buyer of yellow cake.

And besides, he only claims radiation isn't harmful. Ann Coulter claims it's good for you:

Coulter: Radiation is 'Actually Good For You'

So why stop at saying radiation isn't harmful? Why not make your house radioactive to make you live longer if radiation is good for you, as Coulter suggests (or claims others suggest though she's distorted some facts, just as Winsor has)?

It's only though being well informed and applying critical thinking skills that we can determine which claims we hear are true and which are false. Of course, those things seem to be somewhat lacking in the choices some people make about what to believe.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


Okay, I actually find that fun thinking about it, it makes me think alot. Let's shed everything we didn't observed and start from scratch. It'll be a great exercise for my brain, and your theory needs to be able to answer these questions anyway to be validated.
First of all, let's start at the beginning. I am here forgetting everything about quantum and un-observed particles.
So, you say, protons and electrons are the two and ONLY elementary particles that exists in the whole world. You have the choice of three answers:
a)No, I didn't say that, Swan.
b)Yes, precisely.
c)Yes, elementary, my dear Swa-tson.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Sorry I don't choose any of those answers.

But I can understand that it is immensely annoying to have a good structure of education to be taken down by someone who is trying to learn the truth. I mean, it was annoying to me when I had to think a different way.

I thought I knew everything, quarks, neutrinos, the whole lot, that was until I began to read some free energy generator books for the heck of it.

A name popped up with information on his views of science, so I thought, "Hmm, let's see what he has to say." I don't regret ever reading such material, because we are already at war.

In truth, I learned what makes one of the deadliest, yet best hidden, weapons work.

I learned how to stop a gun from firing from over a mile away and w/o touching the gun or any ballistic/explosive weaponry.

I learned what makes light, protons, electrons, and neutrons.

I learned why are the elite so desperate to control the people.

I learned what is really nuclear materials and how to make them not active ever again without the use moving or explosions of any kind.

I have learned the hoaxes that were done such as the lunar landing, four color theorem, and why some people have a opposition towards astrology.

I have learned what the planet's structure really is and that if it was a solid ball, we wouldn't be here, the compass wouldn't work, and there will be no land formations.

The making of lava/magma.

Where most of our hard-earned tax dollars go to.

And all I have to say is thanks, to soft particle physics for at least showing me some of the truth. (May sound dogmatic, but at least I had the chance to go mainstream. I was but now can't.)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
What about neutrons? You keep saying there;s only protons and electrons but what about neutrons.....

Also quarks and gluons and etc are much smaller than protons and neutrons so they couldn't possibly be as you say.

NOt to mention you still have not explained where this information is coming from or how it all fits together or what the end game is. Even if you are right what does it all mean?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
The world isn't messed up because people in power are lying about science and nature, it's messed up because we're still learning and nature is inside us and nature is itself a violent thing.

I mean, look at natural selection. Nature doesn't KNOW what works and what doesn't. Nature is blind. It tries something and the only test of its fitness is time. As time passes, past failures are erased and the "successful" ones linger. If Nature is a creator, it's also a destroyer.

We operate in much the same way. When we venture into the unknown, we're as blind as Nature is and have to use trial and error to work it out. What works tends to survive. What doesn't dies.

500 years ago our science seemed good, but now it's clearly insufficient.

Same thing can be said about our knowledge 2500 years and 30,000 years ago.

Our science will someday be insufficient just as it was in the past.

This is because we're always learning and expanding our awareness of nature and its ways.
edit on 23-8-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I'm going to highlight the important parts.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by swan001
 

I thought I knew everything, quarks, neutrinos, the whole lot, that was until I began to read some free energy generator books for the heck of it.

I learned how to stop a gun from firing from over a mile away and w/o touching the gun or any ballistic/explosive weaponry.

I have learned what the planet's structure really is and that if it was a solid ball, we wouldn't be here, the compass wouldn't work, and there will be no land formations.


I think we have seen enough folks, can we move along. The man probably needs psychiatric help. And I do not mean that to be an attack in any way.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
freedom Commander denying the existence if neutrons: What about neutron stars? How about this model: When a star gets tired and dies, the violence of this is so great, atomic signatures are erased, producing free protonics, neutronics and electronics (not "protons" neutrons" etc., if one believes in ether scale units). Then the neutrons aggregate due to like-to-like magnetic resonance, forming a neutron star. The protonics aggregate similarly producing the Nova star. The electronics aggregate producing gamma and other space rays. A much simpler model than all the stuff about neutrinos, quarks, etc.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


OK, you and me gonna have a little chat by U2U, somewhere more private than here, I am deeply interrested by your theory, and you are giving me the impression that your theory actually have some solid roots. I need to know more about it.
I'll send you a message later, I don't have enough time now.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
you are giving me the impression that your theory actually have some solid roots.
I would be interested to know what gave you that impression, because statements like this, and many others, give me exactly the opposite impression:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


But if your looking for a experiment, sorry I don't have one like that to prove that the proton has at least 1836 electrons to cover it."


So, what did I miss? What gave you the impression there were any roots at all?

edit on 24-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


I can respect your views of this, but there are somethings that to other people that don't add up.

For example, Aristotle, a ancient Greek that had more brain than brawn, one that already had calculus before it was even founded by Newton. He was able to make what is called "Burning Mirrors," helped build some complex structures.

This is the result of destroying history, however there is some history that is impossible to destroy.

Don't believe me? There is a book, anyone can read it online, called "Dead Man Secrets" it's a collections of writings about known artifacts around the world and puts them into the perspective of the person on how they got there.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Not as a defense or an attack in any way, how am I psychotic? Have I hurt anyone?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 



I have learned the hoaxes that were done such as the lunar landing, four color theorem, and why some people have a opposition towards astrology.


Okay, you've finally hooked me. Why is the Four Color Theorem a hoax? (This I gotta see.)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelanteski
 


hard to take in yes.

There are some laws that are not taught in everyday school, one of them is the Law of redistribution of energy.

When light interacts with matter, new light results with a lower average frequency than the original light.

But let's think for a moment here, how much can we trust astrophysicists? As well what can cause a nova?

Let's focus on the Earth for a while, when it's gather so much comic rays, what does it do with it? There are two egresses, located near the North and South imaginary poles. When those are not enough, you got volcanoes.

Same with the sun, those sunspots act like release valves. I mean if we take in what a few cubic inches of plutonium is equal to what 2.5 million miles in diameter of ordinary matter can do.

What can cause a nova from what I have gathered so far is when the planet has gathered a lot of energy and has run out of release valves to get rid of it. As a consequence, heat builds up, changing the materials inside the planets to that of radioactive materials. It explodes, throwing all kinds of radiation out, but leaves a remnant of itself.

There how only been a few novas and supernovas in the time we had that we have seen them in human vision distance, so not every planet is doomed for it.

And to answer the one of your other questions, a neutron is made when you combine a proton with electrons. This is all theoretical in the field of particles since no one has seen it up close, we can only study the effects.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Do you believe it?

The four color theorem is a theory that you can color a map without using the same color next to each other.

This was done and was disproven, you need at least 6 colors to make a map. Two college students did it and they had only the help of a computer and spent over 1000 hours on it. They must of been so angry when they found that they couldn't prove the theory as a fact.

I mean, I don't accept theory as law, yet they did. In fact, the entire scientific community did. They must of denied it to save face.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 



This was done and was disproven, you need at least 6 colors to make a map. Two college students did it and they had only the help of a computer and spent over 1000 hours on it. They must of been so angry when they found that they couldn't prove the theory as a fact.

I mean, I don't accept theory as law, yet they did. In fact, the entire scientific community did. They must of denied it to save face.


You have it exactly backwards. Some people have suspected a flaw somewhere in Appel and Hakens' work, but the theorem has generally been accepted as proven. It was the first instance of a computer algorithm being used to prove a mathematical theorem:

en.wikipedia.org...

I am not surprised that you offered a vague appeal to authority to support your claim that the theorem is a "hoax." There is a difference between something not being proven to your satisfaction, and something being a hoax.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well, his theory's name includes an "i", as in "right".



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Ok the full story.




A mathematician, A.L. Kitselman published a pamphlet about two decades ago entitled, "Hello Stupid". He ridicules nineteenth century mathematician George Cantor for some of the outrageous conclusions derived from his theory of transfinite numbers. This same booklet describes a phenomenon known as the Biefeld-Brown effect which physicists continue to ignore, since it is damaging to current theories and they are at a loss to explain it.

There is a mathematical blooper that centers around the famous four-color theorem which has been stumping mathematicians for the past 140 years.

This theorem states that four colors are sufficient to color any map on a plane surface, so that no two adjacent regions are the same color. The opinion among mathematicians is that this conjecture is valid, since no one has ever been able to disprove it by devising a map that requires more than four colors. It has been disturbing to the mathematical world that no one has come forward with acceptable proof of that theory until recently.

A simple proof did emerge: let a map be drawn so that, by necessity, four different colors lie along a common border, and the problem is easily solved. It is then only necessary to surround this border with another region which obviously requires the fifth color. This is the approach that was employed. Any complex map with a myriad of regions requires four colors, and in fact, each of the four colors will appear many times.

Now consider a map with an infinitude of regions of all sizes and shapes, and that this map is colored in the most efficient manner possible. Also assume that by some miracle, only four colors were used. This means that each of the four different colors will appear a near infinite number of times. A line is now drawn through this map separating it into two parts. It can be drawn in any number of ways and can even be a closed curve. This line will necessarily cut through regions of four different colors. Now there are two different maps, each of which has been colored in the most efficient manner, with four different colors along a common border. Either one of these maps can be surrounded with another region requiring the fifth color.

One might argue that the map can be recolored by first coloring the regions along the border, using only three colors in this process. The regions along the border can indeed be three colored, but this immediately creates a new problem. This has so restricted the coloring of the inner regions that a fifth color soon becomes mandatory and possibly even a sixth color. By the recoloring process, the map as a whole cannot be colored in a more economical manner than it was before.

Two mathematicians, Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken, at the University of Illinois were striving to prove this theorem. Their work was considered to be of sufficient importance and so they were granted unlimited use of one of the most sophisticated computers in the country. After years of hard work and 1600 hours of computer use, they finally announced a successful conclusion to the project. The October 1977 issue of Scientific American featured an article about this milestone in the history of mathematics. This article included a complex map of hundreds of regions successfully four-colored to illustrate the validity of the theorem. Each of four different colors appeared along the outline of the map a minimum of 12 times, thereby making it a five-color map with the addition of the surrounding region.


Exert from a book that goes into a whole bunch of details. And if your really interested in the proof, here is the article.



Appel, Kenneth; Wolfgang, Haken. "The solution of the FourColor map Problem," Scientific American, October 1977, pp. 108-121.


Exert and detailed explaination of the author's quote views (Not mine)
edit on 24-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join