View Full Version : explosion

I am the lightning rod
08-27-2005, 10:12 PM


08-27-2005, 11:53 PM
stop making threads

08-28-2005, 12:48 AM
it's beautiful, isn't it?

08-28-2005, 01:42 AM
"After my radiation treatment, my skin just glowed! I've never felt such warmth!"

- Jenny Mcarther following her mandatory day at He Chung beauty spa, Hiroshima.

offspring fan
08-28-2005, 01:45 AM
WOW! that is cool. :D

I am the lightning rod
08-28-2005, 05:28 AM
"After my radiation treatment, my skin just glowed! I've never felt such warmth!"

- Jenny Mcarther following her mandatory day at He Chung beauty spa, Hiroshima.
haha that was awesome

08-28-2005, 07:39 AM
Sorry. That happend when I tried to think.

08-28-2005, 10:58 AM
Beautiful indeed. I have a new wallpaper now.

The Darkside Has Cookies
08-28-2005, 11:02 AM
Oh God hes gone and done it. Ruben Studdard farted in the candle factory.

08-28-2005, 11:14 AM
Oh God hes gone and done it. Ruben Studdard farted in the candle factory.


08-28-2005, 11:16 AM
Cool .

08-28-2005, 11:25 AM
250 meters across after .025 seconds. that's 1/40th of a second.

08-28-2005, 11:28 AM
Do you think there's anything alive after being caught throught that bubble?

08-28-2005, 11:44 AM
bubble? that's the trinity test... nothing survives a direct nuclear attack. and that bomb was *weak* compared to modern standards of about 1000 times stronger. the most powreful bomb build was around 3000 times more powerful (built by the ussr).

08-28-2005, 11:46 AM
Anymore powerful and they would have fucked up the polar system and the ozone.

08-28-2005, 11:56 AM
http://www.zvis.com/images/nuks/baker1.jpgTalk about feeling all mighty with a toy... Looking at these pictures, these tests seem to be the product of fucked up minds but, still, i would find it alot easier to throw one of these in a city than shooting someone in the face.

08-28-2005, 11:57 AM
god, i don't even know. the russian bomb gave people THIRD DEGREE BURNS at over 100km / 62 miles away! it had a power output of over 1% that of the fucking sun.

08-28-2005, 12:00 PM
How many megatons was it? There isn't an actual limit on the size is there? It's just the amount of fissionable material they have right? Or whatever it's called.

08-28-2005, 12:04 PM
it's all about design.

the design that bomb used was initially to be TWICE as powerful, 100 megatons. the one they actually detonated was in the 50 megaton range. the typial US h-bomb is around 10 megatons

08-28-2005, 12:28 PM
In Steven Hawking's book, The universe in a nutshell, there's parf of this Einstein's letter written to Roosevelt in 1939 where he says "Now it seems almost certain that one could achieve that (reffering to the physician researches about nuclear reaction, wich i can't translate) in the near future. This new phonenon would take it, also, to the construction of bombs, and it is concievable - although far less certain - that a new kind of mighty bombs could so be built". (my translation)
According to Sten Hawking, Einsten didn't take part in the Manhattan project (on wich they built the first bombs) and was horrified with the drop of the bomb.

Now, i wish i could know what Einstein's thoughts were when he wrote that letter.

I mean, let's say you're a physician or a mathematician, and your researches lead you to the knowledge that your theory could be used for the evolution of the whole technology known as well as that includes new, once unconceivable, destruction material. What would you do with your research?

There's people who say " They did have(and still have) their place and served their purpose well in preventing WW III. " -regarding nuclear bombs, like this site :http://www.zvis.com/nuclear/gatornuk.shtml

But i say that is simply a proof that mankind can only learn with it's own experience and, being aware of a destruction mechanism will never be enough to stop us from accepting that without actually empirically testing it.

08-28-2005, 12:38 PM
Mutually assured distruction kept the cold war cold and millions if not billions from dying.

Einstein did the math but I forget who now he took it on further. Gah I hate forgetting things. There was this brilliant Horizon on Einstein's life.

08-28-2005, 12:42 PM
first off, it's physicist, not physician. a physician is a medical doctor. einstein was an avid socialist and pacifist, his only part in the manhattan project was asking fdr to start it. most of the scientists that worked on the bomb said they never really thought about the end result, they just loved the atmosphere of research and got swept away in that and the mild patriotism of "doing something for the country". but knowing scientists, it was mostly the research that kept them at it. many of them also never thought the bomb would actually be used, thinking it would only be a deterrent. others are totally fine with having helped build something that destructive. feynman talks about how initially after the war he became very depressed and thought that the world was going to end. figured it was only a matter of a few years before all major cities in the world were nuked. he got over it.

08-28-2005, 01:00 PM
Thanks for the physicist correction. But the question remains. What would you do with the research, knowing that even if your findings could be used for destruction and the result of that was a relative pacific era, due to the fear of repeating such an atrocious act agains human rights, it would cost thousands of lifes?

I understand the scientific research atmosphere, as i bump into that when i'm researching in the psychology field, but letting yourself to be immerse on that can simply outstand the fact that you're in a gullable scientific position of ignoring ethic questions regarding the further use of your research.

08-28-2005, 01:17 PM
A friend of mine told me the anecdote that had the bomb been its original size, the consequances for the earth could have been rather grave. Soemthing about sparking a nuclear winter almost. I forget the details and don't have the time here to google/wikipedia it up.

08-28-2005, 01:21 PM
i don't believe research should ever be restricted, no matter what evil its results might be used for.

and RXP's pretty much right. even without the US nuclear research, the USSR would have had nukes by 1950. what would have stopped them from using them?

i don't particularly agree with the sentiment that using the nukes in japan to prematurely end the pacific war is just cause. regardless of that, i'm of the mind that all's fair in love and war.

08-28-2005, 01:26 PM
i don't believe research should ever be restricted, no matter what evil its results might be used for.

A bold statement, and easily justified in an imperative tone. But now imagine the structure of the sentance was : "I don't believe research should ever be restricted, even at the cost of my own life". (i.e. if someone was inventing a machine to kill all people named Endymions)

Not nitpicking. Just sayin'.