[TVOW]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[rerevisionist]

With respect, you've got this completely wrong! Hydrogen is an inflammable gas, and can burn explosively to give water vapour.

But H-bombs are supposed to use a completely different mechanism; they are supposed to convert hydrogen into helium, a process supposed to give out a lot of heat. This is 'fusion' as opposed to 'fission'. Hydrogen has an atomic mass just over 1; helium just over 4. The idea is that the sun's energy comes from conversion of its hydrogen into helium - also that the sun is all gas. The reason a nuclear reaction is hypothesised is that the sun gives of a lot of energy, and around 1900 people wondered how it could keep doing this - it can't be an ordinary fire.

Most hydrogen has one proton and one electron, but some has a neutron too; deuterium, or heavy hydrogen. This appears to be quite easy to get hold off - electrolysing water (i.e. sticking a pos and neg terminal in it) gives off oxygen and hydrogen; deuterium oxide ('heavy water') is more slow moving, so it gets left behind, and the water slowly gets more dense. Two deuteriums can, or are hoped to, or may, convert to helium - but only at high temperatures.

Basically the theory is that an atom bomb gives off a vast amount of heat; if it's surrounded by e.g. lithium hydride, or lithium deuteride (which are solid), or maybe just deuterium oxide (heavy water), the hydrogen converts to lithium and there's a second intense blast of heat. It's supposed to be a small version of a star.

Once scepticism is started, it's necessary to check out all these ideas, beliefs, theories, etc.

[TVOW]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[rerevisionist]

What's wrong?? Well, that's the whole point, isn't it. The edifice may be correct - but if it is, why bother to fake films of tests, in fact why have tests at all? How come nobody has managed to get fusion to work in 65 years since 1945? Does the sun in fact work in the way that's generally believed?

[TVOW]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[TVOW]

I agree with all of those questions and don’t have answers to any of these question except to say they needed to massively exaggerate the destructive power of these things to convince the public to be scared of them and that they were indeed nuclear rather than tnt or just hydrogen explosions ,

is there anything else wrong with the theory of them using hydrogen , instead of tnt ? You seem to know science

[rerevisionist]

You haven't understood the model of the atom that is generally accepted,

An atom is (probably) a nucleus, which is positively charged, and electrons, which are negative, giving a net charge of zero. The nucleus usually contains neutrons too, which make the atoms heavier, without altering the electric charge. The nucleus is believed to be incredibly tiny, so that all atoms are mostly empty space.

Normal chemical processes only involve the electrons - burning for example causes carbon and oxygen to combine, typically with three atoms held together by their electrons as a huge collection of CO2 molecules. But the nuclei are supposed to remain the same. Heat is given off - thermodynamics is the study of the properties of reactions and heat (so e.g. to convert CO2 back into carbon and oxygen takes energy).

However nuclear reactions involve the nuclei - something that only became possible after the atom had been 'split' - experiments with neutrons showed heavy elements, with large atomic masses (lots of protons, neutrons, and electrons) could be split into lighter ones. Or at least that's the story. Energy was supposed to be given off - that's another story. Because the nucleus is so intimate a part of the atom, and the forces holding it together appeared to be huge, the emount of energy in principle obtainable was believed to be enormous.

Here's a possible conspiracy theory. The energy obtainable might be huge - everyone had heard of e=mc squared and most people said they believed it. Everyone knew, from radium, that atoms could do weird things. Everyone knew that isotopes existed - i.e. chemically identical atoms but with differing numbers of neutrons (as in carbon 14, different from normal carbon 12). It appeared to be possible to split atoms. Why not make up a story that vast energy is obtainable? It might work. Maybe the experiments failed (as with cold fusion). The heavier the element probably the more likely it would be to split - and also helpfully these elements are quite rare. (There's no obvious reason why you couldn't have nuclear reactions with, say, iron, but if so you'd have problems). So they might have cooked up an entire mythology involving fission, and had a fake pair of bombs for Japan, and a fake test (Trinity) simulated probably by a pile of explosives - in fact there were two test towers; one, laden with explosives, blew up, possibly as a result of a lightning strike. There was huge money involved (Goldmann Sachs were called in, I think by Oppenheimer, in the 1930s!) They could liase with Jewish scientists in Russia. The whole idea of world government would be compatible with all this. The general idea of very dangerous radioactivity - invisible and maybe long-lasting - could keep people away; and obviously any amount of security could be stated to be needed. As with the 'moon landings' there could be staged publicity stunts with carefully controlled media comment. I suspect the 'Lucky Dragon' incident was some sort of fake to promote fear of radiation - as the supposedly radiation-covered Japanese fisherman mostly lived long lives. Of course this would mean that military men around the world would be pretty stupid - and there is a little bit of evidence that this is the case....

[TVOW]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Yes I know all of this

If you have created the myth of the atom bomb why create the myth of the hydrogen bomb? would it not be easier to create the myth of the bigger atom bomb . Why not call it the fusion bomb, if that is what it is or is meant to be.
Perhaps they are just mocking because the first H bomb test were just plain large Hydrogen explosions.

The atomic bomb claimed to be used at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Bikini Atholl wasn't really all that impressive. Major DeSeversky said that ten tons of TNT would do more damage to New York City than the atomic bomb used on Hiroshima. Crawford Sams said that the bomb initially only killed about 2000 people in Hiroshima; the rest died of fires and such later, over a 36 hour period. So the hydrogen bomb was a souped up version of the fission bomb.

You have to keep the size of your mythical bomb small enough and light enough to be carried on a bomber plane, which is indeed real enough. You have to make your mythical bomb believable to critically thinking scientists and technical types who like to sit around and play with numbers and formulas. Of course, the formulas they are using were given to them by the very ones running the deception, so the formulas will work out, seemingly. Still, it has to have that believableness about it.

Also, it fits in with their desire to have the sun to be very, very massive, which they need to make their gravitational formulas work out. Their theory is that the sun is a ball of fuel, which is being used up, and getting smaller every day. The sun spinning, threw out globs that became planets. What if the sun is hollow? What if it isn't nearly as massive as they believe? What if energy is flowing INTO the sun rather than being created by the fussion of hydrogen within the sun?

The amount of energy produced by the sun by fussion of hydrogen can be made to work out in a formula IF you put the amount of energy created by nuclear fussion high enough. And if you start out with a sun big enough. Could it be that the hydrogen bomb myth was created primarily to support their massive sun theories? I don't know; just a thought.

[NUKELIES]

From FirstClassSkeptic:

Could it be that the hydrogen bomb myth was created primarily to support their massive sun theories? I don't know; just a thought.

What if it isn't nearly as massive as they believe? What if energy is flowing INTO the sun

Skeptic- That is a profound example of critical thinking. The Sun is so much bigger than them - at least they would like to believe.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

If you have created the myth of the atom bomb why create the myth of the hydrogen bomb?

The more I think about this question, the more interesting it becomes.

The scientists claim that Little Boy only converted about one or two percent of the Uranium to energy. On later bombs, why couldn't they just say, "Well now we got five percent." "Now we got fifty percent." and so on, thus increasing the yield of the bomb without growing it much in size?

I stated in the previous post that they wanted a bomb that would fit on a bomber plane. But then I looked up Ivy Mike, which someone mentioned here, and the article said it weighed 65 tons! Did I read that right? That's a big load for a plane. That doesn't look like they shrunk it much by making it a fusion instead of a fission. That's over twelve times bigger than Little Boy.

[TVOW]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA