Destruction of the world

[one_raven]

I know there is evidence of this meteor you referenced, but what is the evidence that the flood happened?
The Mahabharata says nothing about any flood (and frankly the whole "nuclear weapon" interpretation is a stretch).
In fact, there is nothing in the Vedas or any of the Indian texts that I am aware of that talks about a flood.
If people remained after the blast (washing themselves in streams and such) to tell the story, don't you think they would have mentioned the cataclysmic flood that resulted and wiped out the majority of life on earth?

Also, you failed to acknowledge and respond to:

Except that there is more than 5,000 years of ice in Antarctica, more like 420,000 years.

 

[spiritual_spy]

You arent hearing me. THERE IS NOT enough water on this planet wether it be on the surface, in the atmosphere or underground to cuase the bibical flood.

 

[TheVisitor]

I know there is evidence of this meteor you referenced, but what is the evidence that the flood happened?
The Mahabharata says nothing about any flood (and frankly the whole "nuclear weapon" interpretation is a stretch).
In fact, there is nothing in the Vedas or any of the Indian texts that I am aware of that talks about a flood.
If people remained after the blast (washing themselves in streams and such) to tell the story, don't you think they would have mentioned the cataclysmic flood that resulted and wiped out the majority of life on earth?

Also, you failed to acknowledge and respond to:

Good point. My quoting the Vedas wasn't to say "that" was the war that caused the flood, just that nuclear weapons were developed by ancient civilizations in general.
For that there is a lot of evidence and historical writings.
The blast that caused the flood wasn't a war with many explosions spread out over a large area.
It was one explosion large enough to affect the orbit of the Earth, and it was detonated by some "fanatic" regime.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

The Marshall Island still exist they wer not obliterated, they are still being use in scientific observation on the long term effects of a nuclear blast.

Mike" was also incredibly large. In 1952, the smallest atomic bomb with enough explosive force to set off a fusion reaction was almost four feet in diameterThe

The American Experience | Race for the Superbomb | "Mike" Test
In 1952, the smallest atomic bomb with enough explosive force to set off a fusion ... which is in the Marshall Islands about 3000 miles west of Hawaii. ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/peopleevents/pandeAMEX63.html


The design process was complicated by the sort of hydrogen fuel the team decided to use. One option would have been lithium deuteride, which has the advantage of being a solid at room temperature. But the scientists had limited information on how well it would work. They chose instead to use liquid deuterium, which needed to be kept below it's boiling point of -417.37 fahrenheit. That meant the device would require a very complex insulation and cooling system.

Mike" was also incredibly large. In 1952, the smallest atomic bomb with enough explosive force to set off a fusion reaction was almost four feet in diameterThe actual casing for the "Mike" gadget would end up being 20 feet long. According to one of the scientists who worked on the project, a full-scale drawing of the device became essential for everyone on the team to communicate effectively with each other. The drawing was so big, that a balcony had to be built from which to view it.

 

[TheVisitor]

Your talking about the first hydrogen bombs in the 50's.
The pictures of "Mike" are incredible, with the mushroom cloud and ice rings circling it extending up to the statoshere.
Everything is larger at first, and then miniaturized.
They still use the deuterium, but today the American bomb also uses tritium, which enhances the initial blast enabling the bombs to be built much smaller with large yield.
We can put 10 two megaton w-88's on the tip of a missile with IRV's targeting different locations and 40 dummy warheads to confuse anti-missile systems.
Nukes are small enough to fit in artillery shells.
A good size hydrogen nuke makes a crater over a half mile wide.
The U.S. and Russia at one time had 30,000 each.
That number is still at about 10,000 warheads apiece.
The size of yield is only limited by the amount of fuel provided for fusion.
They devised a doomsday device in the 1950's by the same scientist that made the "second generation" weapons called the Cobalt bomb.
It would destroy with fallout more than the blast.
All life on Earth would be destroyed by the fallout of one bomb.
They claim they never built it. Who knows for sure.
A planet killer size weapon would not be imposible to build, especially if constucted on the site of detonation.
Why would anyone want to?
Thats the question you need to ask.
Any group considering such a weapon must have plans to survive it either off-world or underground.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

What I was pointing out in my last post was even the 50 meg. bomb had not destroyed the atoll, let alone the Marshall Islands, and that the size of the bomb dose not correlat with with the size of the crater it would create, the soviets had exploded bombs in the 200 mt. class in under ground test and these didn't crate craters any were near a 1/4 mile wide. So a 20 mgt. bomb dose not make a 20 mile crater and a 300mgt. dose not make a 300 mile crater.

 

[Darth Terent 666]

The destruction of the world might be caused by us. We might have a nuclear war soon and be our own undoing. That just shows how arrogant we are.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

A small insight into Darth Terent 666, mind:Location:
United States of America
Interests:
I like Ufology, and in my spare time, I enjoy video games.

 

[TheVisitor]

the soviets had exploded bombs in the 200 mt. class in under ground test and these didn't crate craters any were near a 1/4 mile wide.

I got your point you tried to make the first time, but I don't believe thats entirely accurate.
Saying that a 200 megaton bomb won't make a 1/4 mile crater is not the general rule.
Crater size may depend on the soil....rock, sand ect.....or where the bomb is detonated...on the ground, in the air, underground ect....
We were talking about an ancient weapon that caused the Earth's axis to change.
Modern scientists have envisioned a method to do the same thing today as a doomsday weapon.

 

[spiritual_spy]

Your assuming a weapon cuased the axis to shift. The most likely cuase of the tip of the axis is the impact that formed the moon. Or one of the other killer impacts the planet has suffered. Besides do you know how large of a weapon you would need to move the axis?

 

[TheVisitor]

When you talk about "the impact that created the moon" you realize that is just a theory.
There is another theory, one which I find more plausible and fits into the the model of what I am talking about here.
Advanced civilizations from the past with nuclear technology.
Our moon, and all the moons in the solar system, the asteroid belt, the rings of Saturn, and the smaller planet moons like Pluto and beyond were not created at the same time as the rest of the solar system.
They were all once a planet on the other side of Mars....that exploded.
Asteroid belt trajectories have been plotted to one common origin by computers.
This also explains comets with ice cores trapped in orbits around our Sun.
Ice can't form in space, the comets are the water from the oceans of this exploded planet.
You say it takes a pretty large explosion to knock the Earth off its original axis?
It takes a lot more to blow one up.
The Sun and stars are nuclear furnaces set into place in perfect balance.
The element in a light bulb doesn't burn up immediately because its set in a vacuum.
The same knowledge of nuclear physics can be used to make weapons, and there is no limit on how large they can be.
Singularities, anti-mater and zero-point energy could make bombs that would cause gigaton fusion weapons to look like a firecracker.
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, right?
Man didn't just crawl out of caves as primatives....
But caves do make good bomb shelters.
Think about it. Our past hides more than western science would have you believe.
Why do you think that is?
Aren't we about to "do it again"?

 

[Communist Hamster]

Asteroid belt trajectories have been plotted to one common origin by computers.

Do you have a source for this, or indeed any of your claims?

 

[Darth Terent 666]

Our destruction will be caused by either Nuclear War or Israel.

We must fight those off.
We must unite.



And as for the moon, it was created during an impact of the planetoid Theia. Theia hit Earth about 4 billion years ago, then releasing rocks and other material into space. The material orbited Earth for some time, slowly drawing together due to gravity.

 

[spiritual_spy]

More pluasible my ass. The total mass of all asteroids are the same as half of our moon. And even if you added all the moons you would still get an extremly small planet. The asteroids are simply letovers from the formation of the solar system. And you assume that a super-intelligent civilization made megaweapons capable of destroying entire planets existed? Yet surely these super inteligent humans in all there wisdom could have survived a flood? I mean if they built a bomb they knew would destroy the world than they wouldnt have been stupid enough to use it. I mean even hitler was sane enough to know what would happen with that kind of power.

 

[TheVisitor]

And as for the moon, it was created during an impact of the planetoid Theia. .

That is the impact theory we were talking about.
There is no evidence for that, but to the contrary there is evidence against it. If that were true, there would be certain indicators present we do not find.

The Exploded Planet theory would be a closer explanation of ice comets, the asteroid belts, moons, and the planet moons like Pluto and the dozen or so others just now being sited at the edge of our system.
Many events touched on in religious writings and Earth history can be attributed to this event and bring science and religion a little closer together.
And there is plenty of mass...for a planet many times larger than Earth.
I don't just subscribe to everything that this theory lays out, parts of it sound plausible.

Because it embraces God and science explaining a connection to both, other more atheist elements in the scientific community have aligned themselves to an alternate theory that if a planet exploded where the asteroid belt now is, it exploded in a flawed effort at formation.
There is a site you can find if you want some kind of "proof" that show NASA computers, or was it Jet propulsion (I forget) that traced the trajectories of the major components in the asteroid belt back to a single source.

The Earth was destroyed about 5,000 years ago by a nuclear weapon, tilting its axis, not an asteroid impact.
It was science, not nature that brought about that destruction.
This is not a "presumption" on my part.

 

[spiritual_spy]

This is not a "presumption" on my part

yes it is. Also please tell me some of the indicators? Here is one. The moon is slowly moving away from the earth and if you rewind that motion what do you get? It comes from the earth. That is why the samples they brought back say it is from the earth. And no. Asteroids would only make half of our moon and all the moons of the solar system would only make an extremly small planet.

 

[TheVisitor]

Your forgetting I mentioned the outer asteroid belt....the "Kuniper belt" and the outer planet-moons including Pluto and about a dozen other objects just discovered recently.
Like I said....there is plenty of mass.
But this is not quite staying on the subject.
As I said, that is just a theory.
This is not.....
"The Earth is in its present condition because of a destruction 5,000 years ago brought about by a nuclear weapon large enough to tilt its axis."

 

[spiritual_spy]

Sure it is. The Earth's present form is the result of various natural processes and events. Humanity has never had Super-technology. And the kuniper belt still wouldnt provide enough mass to make a planet on the scale of which you are suggesting.

 

[Communist Hamster]

Your forgetting I mentioned the outer asteroid belt....the "Kuniper belt" and the outer planet-moons including Pluto and about a dozen other objects just discovered recently.

First of all, it's the Kuiper belt, and secondly they are not asteroids, they are comets

Like I said....there is plenty of mass.

So how come this mass is distributed in two groups roughly 2 billion miles apart?

But this is not quite staying on the subject.
As I said, that is just a theory.
This is not.....
"The Earth is in its present condition because of a destruction 5,000 years ago brought about by a nuclear weapon large enough to tilt its axis."

You are right. That statement is not a theory. It is unsubstantaited drivel.

 

[TheVisitor]

Substantiation is all realitive.
This statement I've made...."The Earth is in its present condition because of a destruction 5,000 years ago brought about by a nuclear weapon large enough to tilt its axis." is a fact.
Try investigating it for yourself.
If I do all the work for you it just wouldn't have the same effect.
You know what they say: "It's not the destination, but the journey to get there thats important."
Enjoy the ride.