/sci/ - Science & Math

While i do find the nuke resemblance of the indian verses interesting, it is quite likely not a nuked city.

Consider that people live in nagasaki and hiroshima today, less than 100 years after the bombing. For that indian city to be super radioactive after 8000 years is extremely unlikely.

>>1867777

I read this on /x/, actually. Or, something pertaining to it. No one believed it/gave it any credibility.

Has any other news website talked about this? Any other website at all? A legitimate one, that is.

>>1867793
Unless it was a salted bomb

Good luck getting close minded people to see reason. Von daniken brought lots of this stuff to light then fuck up with his misunderstand of basic science, now people dismiss it out of hand even though there is lots of evidence

>>1867790
/x/ the faggot who believe in demons, slenderman and the lucifer project don't believe in this?

>>1867813

Yep. The thread on /x/ was saged and bullshitted significantly. Trolls ran in, and the thread went down in about two hours.

I've been interested in this for a while, personally. I never really got into it heavy, but it was always intriguing to me. I know India has a habit of making some false statements, though(i.e., no real evidence of the guy who is supposedly subsisting on nothing; some of them talking up a shitstorm about their NASA program, etc).

What I don't see possible about this is ancient humanity developing atomic bombs and then forgetting it.

Hell, even just developing them... you need some pretty significant infrastructure to do it, nevermind deployment of such a weapon on a battlefield. It's not like they'd have been able to launch projectiles weighing hundreds of kilograms over large distances.

This leads to a few logical conclusions:

1. The detonations are extraterrestrial in origin
2. The detonations are spiritual in origin
3. It's all a hoax

From this

>
"A single projectile charged with all the power in the Universe…An incandescent column of smoke and flame as bright as 10,000 suns, rose in all its splendor…it was an unknown weapon, an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashes an entire race.

I get the feeling that it was a cosmic event, likely a small asteroid

>>1867837

There are more explanations than those three.

Stop being a paranormalist.

>>1867837

4. suicide bombers with the bomb in a cart/wagon of some kind.

>>1867852
Alright, I'm open to other explanations.

>>1867867
That still requires humanity having the infrastructure and knowledge to create nuclear bombs thousands of years ago.

I find this very difficult to believe.

http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/3/207.abstract
These are the only figures I could find with a quick search. All evidence points to it being entirely fabricated

http://www.amazon.com/review/R328QZIIZO98U1

So much butthurt

>>1867843
>an iron thunderbolt
>asteroid

Nope.avi

These guys worked with meteoric iron quite a bit

>>1867837

When people survive disasters the first thing they do is attempt to set up a stable environment with a sustainable food and water source.
Imagine there are only a few cities and they are all destroyed and the populations scattered. Things like advanced mathematical knowledge would be next to useless while things like husbandry and hunting would be important. If they lacked the ability to recover in acouple of generations the advanced knowledge would be lost

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ancientatomicwar/esp_ancient_atomic_12.htm

A Nuclear Catastrophe in Paleoindian Times?
by Richard B.Firestone and William Topping
Terrestrial Evidence of a Nuclear Catastrophe in Paleoindian Times
The Mammoth Trumpet, 16:9, March 2001. Cr. C. Davant III.
This off-mainstream journal is published by the Center for the Study of the First Americans, 355 Weniger Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-6510.

The claims
In the authors' words: Our research indicates that the entire Great Lakes region (and beyond) was subjected to particle bombardment and a catastrophic nuclear irradiation that produced secondary thermal neutrons from cosmic ray interactions. The neutrons produced unusually large quantities of ^239 Pu and substantially altered the natural uranium abundances (^235 U/^238 U) in artifacts and in other exposed materials including cherts, sediments, and the entire landscape.

These neutrons necessarily transmuted residual nitrogen (^ N) in the dated charcoals to radiocarbon, thus explaining anomalous dates. Some North American dates may in consequence be as much as 10,000 years too young. So, we are not dealing with a trivial phenomenon!

Too long for field, searching for full papers now

>>1867877

nuclear power stations are hard to make. nuclear bombs not so much. given that the world was so much more resource rich than it is now i don't think it's inconceivable they could have amassed large quantities of fissile material with relative ease. as for mathematical knowledge we do know that indian mathematics was extremely advanced. and as for the theory... einstein made a suggestion in 1905 that it could be possible, the specific idea of a nuclear bomb was patented in 1934 and just over 10 years later the world had fully functional nuclear weapons. this isn't a staggeringly impossible thing to acheive.

sounds like an underground atomic bomb testing range, tbh

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ancientatomicwar/esp_ancient_atomic_11.htm

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=E6E1403DDF824D29180D141EEBE6B7CB?purl=/824625-S
DEW6e/

A response to a response of the paper

>>1867915
>given that the world was so much more resource rich than it is now

We're talking about 8k-12k years dude, not millions. There would not have been much uranium decay in that time.

>nuclear power stations are hard to make. nuclear bombs not so much.

Err, what? Nuclear bombs are definitely difficult to make. You can't just dig up chunks of uranium out of the ground and then smash them together with your two hands and create a giant nuclear explosion.

To even discover the possibility of nuclear power would have required significantly advanced understanding of physics and mathematics. You need to dig up the uranium, purify it, and then use explosives to propel two uranium chunks together.

I find it very very hard to believe that we had this kind of technology 8-12k years ago.

>>1867907
>>1867924
>>1867929
Certainly can't fault that guys publication history
http://ie.lbl.gov/rbf/publist.htm

>>1867932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo

>>1867961
Yeah, I think this just confirms that you don't know anything about what is required to make nuclear bombs. Even simple Uranium gun-type bombs.

Just because, two billion years ago, natural uranium deposits were able to go critical, does not logically mean that ancient humanity could dig up uranium and smash them together, or that the process of making nuclear bombs would have been dramatically easier 8-12k years ago [less than the blink of the eye in geological terms] than it is today.