I posted the following information to end my role in the sixty-nine year reign of rule-by-deceit:
We – like admirers of the Emperor’s suit of imaginary cloth – produced world tyrants by our own mental laziness and willingness to accept nonsense as consensus science that we understand (because we don’t want to appear stupid).
The Big Bang, Black Holes, Dark Energy, Hydrogen-Filled Stars, Quarks, Gluons, Oscillating Solar Neutrinos, AGW, etc. are all threads of deceit that arrogant but foolish world tyrants wove into fabric of consensus science to control the public worldwide.
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
P 3 of “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy exposes their deceit:
Specifically, the weakest nuclear force – neutron-repulsion – is the most important nuclear force in heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars and galaxies.
1. Because neutron repulsion is the weakest nuclear force
2. That is why the nuclear structure changes at ~150 amu
3. Alpha-decay occurs above ~150 amu (atomic mass units), because alpha particles (i.e., He-4 nuclei, or pairs of n-p pairs) are on the nuclear surface and neutrons are confined to the core when the mass number is greater than 150 amu, A > 150 amu
4. Spontaneous fission begins when the nuclear core has 52 neutrons surrounded by 45 alpha particles in Th-232, or 46 alpha particles in U-236, or 47 alpha particles in Pu-240.
5. Neutron-induced fission is possible when one additional neutron is added to the 51-neutron core surrounded by 46 alpha particles in U-235 or 47 alpha particles in Pu-239 or 48 alpha particles Cm-243.
6. Spontaneous fission is the dominant decay mode when the nuclear core has 58 neutrons surrounded by 48 alpha particles in Cm-250 or 49 alpha particles in Cf-254 or 50 alpha particles in Fm-258
Thus, neutron-repulsion usually determines the stability and decay mode for every physical structure composed of neutrons and protons more massive than 150 amu (atomic mass units) – no matter whether the structure is a heavy atom, planet, star, galaxy, or the entire universe !
These truths leave absolutely no room for world tyrants to rule the world with deceitful, consensus “science.”
We – like admirers of the Emperor’s suit of imaginary cloth – produced world tyrants by our own mental laziness and willingness to accept nonsense as consensus science that we understand (because we don’t want to appear stupid).
Truer words are rarely spoken by men.
In an effort to become slightly less stupid about nuclear physics, I have a question for you. How, if at all, do your points 1-6 above (which seem important to me) affect the critical mass of fissile materials? In other words, how, if at all, does physicists’ understanding of critical mass differ from your understanding?
And besides giving your answer here, can you point me to any references (including your own) that address this question?
The information I posted concerns a more recent issue of climate and the source of heat for planets. How? The cores of the Sun, Jupiter, the Milky Way, perhaps the Earth, and the Universe are heated by the source of energy as that in nuclear reactors and atomic bombs – NEUTRON REPULSION!
The information you request was published fifty-eight years ago by a highly regarded former member of Japan’s Imperial University of Tokyo. This nuclear geo-chemist Paul Kazuo Kuroda – used information published in US text-books of nuclear reactor engineering to show that “nuclear fires” burned spontaneously on Earth as recently as two billion years ago.
Kuroda’s report was denounced at the 1956 AGU meeting and publication of his calculations was limited to a single page document in the Journal of Chemical Physics25, p. 781 (Oct 1956):
Sixteen years later in 1972, the French Atomic Energy Commission confirmed Kuroda’s calculations. The French scientists discovered fossil remains of natural nuclear reactors that had burned spontaneously in the uranium ore at the Oklo Mine, near Franceville, in the Republic of Gabon.
Kuroda’s academic grandson that later discovered evidence of natural nuclear reactors in cores on planets – Dr. J. Marvin Herndon – tells the story:
Dr. Manuel, I recall reading the web page on Kuroda’s reactor work some time ago, about four years ago. I’m glad you posted it here again, because I’d lost track of it.
I’ve now reread that page, and I’ve gone and read the one-page paper you linked to (also by Prof. Kuroda). While I agree they are both very significant, and probably critical pieces of the puzzle, I’m still kind of struggling because I didn’t see anything on the web page that (at least to my novice eyes) called mainstream nuclear physics into question. As for the paper, I really can’t follow the science of it in detail, other than to note that Kuroda references a pre-existing nuclear reactor theory which he seeks to apply to naturally occurring radioactive deposits.
Is it possible for you to point me more specifically in the direction you want me to look? Because otherwise I regret I will not be any closer to understanding this than I already was.
N.B. I see quite clearly how Kuroda’s work leads in the direction of invalidating conservation of energy, and I don’t mean to take away from the significance of that. But that general concept is nothing new. Many have written about it, myself included. But this has usually focused on gravitation and electromagnetism, rather than nuclear forces. Therefore, this previous work doesn’t say exactly what you and Kuroda are apparently saying, i.e. that there’s another method of harnessing nuclear power which is either more potent and/or more sustainable and/or more affordable.
“N.B. I see quite clearly how Kuroda’s work leads in the direction of invalidating conservation of energy, and I don’t mean to take away from the significance of that.”
Why? After fission, you have core fragments that are somewhat lighter, the disappearing mass converted into energy, according to E = MC^2. Conservation of mass plus energy holds – whether you go with mainstream physics, which as far as I can tell explains fission with proton-proton repulsion alone, or whether you accept Oliver’s idea of neutron repulsion.
Dirk, Oliver has stated before that new elements are assembled using newly created energy, and I find that quite plausible (though it is far from being a new idea).
But finding it plausible is not enough for me. I seek to understand the details of his/Kuroda’s conclusions, which is inherently difficult for me given my relative lack of background on the subject of nuclear physics and chemistry.
As I understand Oliver, he talks about a balance, between expansion and contraction, which might swing in one direction or in the other, but works cyclically in the long term.
CAMP ZAMA, Japan – The Army is ordering its hardened combat veterans to wear fake breasts and empathy bellies so they can better understand how pregnant soldiers feel during physical training.
No its not the Onion, its from Stars and Stripes a couple years ago when Obama was supreme lord of all he surveyed.
(Btw we celebrate veterans on 25 April – ANZAC day, which is special next year: the centenary of the landings on the Gallipoli peninsula 25 April 1915.)
It seems you don’t want to discuss the fact that new energy is created by the action of physical forces on matter … even though this is implied by your own theory!
suyts space 
I posted the following information to end my role in the sixty-nine year reign of rule-by-deceit:
We – like admirers of the Emperor’s suit of imaginary cloth – produced world tyrants by our own mental laziness and willingness to accept nonsense as consensus science that we understand (because we don’t want to appear stupid).
The Big Bang, Black Holes, Dark Energy, Hydrogen-Filled Stars, Quarks, Gluons, Oscillating Solar Neutrinos, AGW, etc. are all threads of deceit that arrogant but foolish world tyrants wove into fabric of consensus science to control the public worldwide.
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
P 3 of “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy exposes their deceit:
Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf
Specifically, the weakest nuclear force – neutron-repulsion – is the most important nuclear force in heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars and galaxies.
1. Because neutron repulsion is the weakest nuclear force
2. That is why the nuclear structure changes at ~150 amu
3. Alpha-decay occurs above ~150 amu (atomic mass units), because alpha particles (i.e., He-4 nuclei, or pairs of n-p pairs) are on the nuclear surface and neutrons are confined to the core when the mass number is greater than 150 amu, A > 150 amu
4. Spontaneous fission begins when the nuclear core has 52 neutrons surrounded by 45 alpha particles in Th-232, or 46 alpha particles in U-236, or 47 alpha particles in Pu-240.
5. Neutron-induced fission is possible when one additional neutron is added to the 51-neutron core surrounded by 46 alpha particles in U-235 or 47 alpha particles in Pu-239 or 48 alpha particles Cm-243.
6. Spontaneous fission is the dominant decay mode when the nuclear core has 58 neutrons surrounded by 48 alpha particles in Cm-250 or 49 alpha particles in Cf-254 or 50 alpha particles in Fm-258
Thus, neutron-repulsion usually determines the stability and decay mode for every physical structure composed of neutrons and protons more massive than 150 amu (atomic mass units) – no matter whether the structure is a heavy atom, planet, star, galaxy, or the entire universe !
These truths leave absolutely no room for world tyrants to rule the world with deceitful, consensus “science.”
Truer words are rarely spoken by men.
In an effort to become slightly less stupid about nuclear physics, I have a question for you. How, if at all, do your points 1-6 above (which seem important to me) affect the critical mass of fissile materials? In other words, how, if at all, does physicists’ understanding of critical mass differ from your understanding?
And besides giving your answer here, can you point me to any references (including your own) that address this question?
Thank you.
Richard
Richard,
Your reading is behind schedule !
The information I posted concerns a more recent issue of climate and the source of heat for planets. How? The cores of the Sun, Jupiter, the Milky Way, perhaps the Earth, and the Universe are heated by the source of energy as that in nuclear reactors and atomic bombs – NEUTRON REPULSION!
The information you request was published fifty-eight years ago by a highly regarded former member of Japan’s Imperial University of Tokyo. This nuclear geo-chemist Paul Kazuo Kuroda – used information published in US text-books of nuclear reactor engineering to show that “nuclear fires” burned spontaneously on Earth as recently as two billion years ago.
Kuroda’s report was denounced at the 1956 AGU meeting and publication of his calculations was limited to a single page document in the Journal of Chemical Physics 25, p. 781 (Oct 1956):
Click to access Kuroda%201956.pdf
Sixteen years later in 1972, the French Atomic Energy Commission confirmed Kuroda’s calculations. The French scientists discovered fossil remains of natural nuclear reactors that had burned spontaneously in the uranium ore at the Oklo Mine, near Franceville, in the Republic of Gabon.
Kuroda’s academic grandson that later discovered evidence of natural nuclear reactors in cores on planets – Dr. J. Marvin Herndon – tells the story:
http://nuclearplanet.com/Kuroda.html
“Your reading is behind schedule”
You have no idea!
Thank you.
RTF
Dr. Manuel, I recall reading the web page on Kuroda’s reactor work some time ago, about four years ago. I’m glad you posted it here again, because I’d lost track of it.
I’ve now reread that page, and I’ve gone and read the one-page paper you linked to (also by Prof. Kuroda). While I agree they are both very significant, and probably critical pieces of the puzzle, I’m still kind of struggling because I didn’t see anything on the web page that (at least to my novice eyes) called mainstream nuclear physics into question. As for the paper, I really can’t follow the science of it in detail, other than to note that Kuroda references a pre-existing nuclear reactor theory which he seeks to apply to naturally occurring radioactive deposits.
Is it possible for you to point me more specifically in the direction you want me to look? Because otherwise I regret I will not be any closer to understanding this than I already was.
N.B. I see quite clearly how Kuroda’s work leads in the direction of invalidating conservation of energy, and I don’t mean to take away from the significance of that. But that general concept is nothing new. Many have written about it, myself included. But this has usually focused on gravitation and electromagnetism, rather than nuclear forces. Therefore, this previous work doesn’t say exactly what you and Kuroda are apparently saying, i.e. that there’s another method of harnessing nuclear power which is either more potent and/or more sustainable and/or more affordable.
Richard
“N.B. I see quite clearly how Kuroda’s work leads in the direction of invalidating conservation of energy, and I don’t mean to take away from the significance of that.”
Why? After fission, you have core fragments that are somewhat lighter, the disappearing mass converted into energy, according to E = MC^2. Conservation of mass plus energy holds – whether you go with mainstream physics, which as far as I can tell explains fission with proton-proton repulsion alone, or whether you accept Oliver’s idea of neutron repulsion.
Dirk, Oliver has stated before that new elements are assembled using newly created energy, and I find that quite plausible (though it is far from being a new idea).
But finding it plausible is not enough for me. I seek to understand the details of his/Kuroda’s conclusions, which is inherently difficult for me given my relative lack of background on the subject of nuclear physics and chemistry.
RTF
As I understand Oliver, he talks about a balance, between expansion and contraction, which might swing in one direction or in the other, but works cyclically in the long term.
Well, then you understand him wrong!
E != MC^2 . This is a known fabrication, which has been admitted to by the fabricator.
I can’t stop laughing!
🙂
A politician who robs Peter to pay Paul can always rely on the support of Paul.
As long as there are more Pauls than Peters then there is no problem at elections. Down the line they would do well to study history.
How do you fool a liberal? Let them be themselves.
You can’t fool all of the people all of the time, but you can always fool people by telling them what they want to hear.
Guy on the right doesn’t look enough like a hipster.
Its nearly OT but I decided I really didn’t want to post this on the 11/11 thread:
Soldiers don fake belly, breasts to better understand pregnant troops’ exercise concerns
No its not the Onion, its from Stars and Stripes a couple years ago when Obama was supreme lord of all he surveyed.
(Btw we celebrate veterans on 25 April – ANZAC day, which is special next year: the centenary of the landings on the Gallipoli peninsula 25 April 1915.)
I appreciate your understanding in not posting that on 11/11.
Be sure to remind me when ANZAC day rolls around. I too often miss opportunities to salute allied warriors.
Agreed!
Mass is converted into the kinetic energy that drives expansion of the universe as entropy increases , . . .
Then potential gravitational energy is converted into mass as the universe collapses and entropy decreases.
All right, you say kinetic energy drives expansion of the universe, and the kinetic energy comes from “mass”, I assume you mean “matter”.
The matter you’re referring to is neutrons, correct?
All right, next question, don’t the neutrons have their own kinetic energy, even before they’re “converted”?
RTF
It seems you don’t want to discuss the fact that new energy is created by the action of physical forces on matter … even though this is implied by your own theory!