Nuclear Weapons Doomsday

You didn't understand nothin about nothin, did you?
a reply to: joelr

a reply to: Nochzwei
First, you're getting off the topic of "Nuclear Weapons Doomsday"

Second the lack of understanding is on the part of your source, not Joel. Take this for example:

"E = mc^2, when simplified into its Time(t) component yields, sq.rt m is directly proportional to t"

E = mc^2 expresses a relationship between mass and energy and doesn't say anything about time. Time is one component of the speed of light c, but that is a constant as far as we can tell, so to infer that equation infers anything about any time relationship would need to infer that c is not constant. The fact that Angelic Resurrection found that two tomatoes don't have exactly the same pH doesn't prove that c isn't constant. c is not variable thus sq.rt m doesn't have any relationship to t inferred by that equation. Your link has gibberish written by someone who doesn't understand math or physics.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

equation has to be true in all settings under the sun. so sqrt m is always proportional to ambient time t. change the ambient time and voila everything changes.
the equation does generate a dynamic constant tho.

I've actually spoken with a former nuclear submarine captain about this. The conversation had more to do with ending civilization, than it did destroying all life. The number of very large warheads (yes, we were talking about the largest ones available) required to destroy civilization was incredibly small. And it wasn't a matter of retaliation--although massive retaliation would do it, too.

Essentially, human civilizations can't survive if particular targets are hit--which is widely known. The main destructive force is contamination (and, maybe, eventually human competition). If you destroy food (crops/cattle/fisheries, or the food supply for the food supply) and fresh water supplies (lakes/rivers/land area that feeds ground water storage), the majority of humanity can't go on. Also, while not completely known, at some point the atmosphere itself will become contaminated enough that it will affect everything to some degree (this is not very specific, I know). Society would have to restructure itself and many plots of land would be completely unusable. It would take between dozens and thousands of years for the land and water supplies to be usable again. Sure, some areas would remain unaffected, but few people would live in these areas. The TV show "Jericho" explored this idea, a bit.

Farmland: nelson.wisc.edu...
Fresh water: www.grida.no...
Fisheries: cdn2.vox-cdn.com...

Even robots can't survive high levels of radiation (which is pretty funny in this instance): Fukushima Robot FAIL

Sure, the main blast can destroy a targeted population, but you don't even have to target a population. Now, remember, there is no advantage to doing this. Nuclear weapons are atrocity weapons--they have almost no real use on a large scale. Remember, 2 small warheads ended a WORLD war. And, for the most part, they weren't even needed.

Just as an FYI: For all of the problems you could cause with a nuclear warhead, one thing it probably wouldn't do is melt the ice caps--due to the Leidenfrost Effect. Carbon dioxide and methane are doing a fine job of that--no need for nukes.

Leidenfrost effect
McDonalds Big Mac vs Molten Cooper
Red Hot Nickle Ball vs Ice Block

Remember, most people would never risk killing off a large population of fertile counterparts (men and women of desirable genetic diversity). Only the insane believe world-wide nuclear war is a viable option. It's just ridiculous on every level. You lose everything. You lose your political power. Your religious power. Your community power. Your family. Yourself. You lose everything to nuclear weapons. That's why they are completely stupid.

Mini-nukes might be used some day, but they're pretty stupid, too. If the wind turns your direction, your troops get radiated. Oops.


Having thousands of nuclear weapons is a penis measuring contest. Nothing else. The upside is that old weapon fuel is used in power plants, which is of real practical use to everyone.
www.world-nuclear.org...

The sad part is that in 50 years, we'll probably have stable sources of anti-matter. Then someone will make an even bigger, stupider bomb... also with no practical use. But then people will say "Nuclear weapons? Those old things? Why would you bother with those?"

Here are some other estimates:

gizmodo

i.kinja-img.com...

globalzero.org

A 2014 report published in the journal Earth's Future found that even a regional war of 100 nuclear detonations would produce 5 telegrams of black soot (that's 5,000,000,000 kg!) that would rise up to Earth's stratosphere and block sunlight. This would produce a sudden drop in global temperatures that could last longer than 25 years and temporarily destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer. This could also cause as much as an 80% increase in UV radiation on Earth's surface and destroy both land and sea-based ecosystems, potentially leading to global nuclear famine.

Your 10-100 estimate is probably from this article:
businessinsider.com

A recently declassified document shared by nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein gives the verdict that scientists at the Los Alamos laboratory and test site reached in 1945. They found that "it would require only in the neighborhood of 10 to 100 Supers of this type" to put the human race in peril.

Note: This was a very early estimate, before we had accumulated much data on the subject. This was around the time they thought the bomb might set the atmosphere on fire.

Richard Hamming and the Manhattan Project

I hope this answers your question.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Arbitrageur

equation has to be true in all settings under the sun.

No, it's not the right equation.

a reply to: Protector
There's no shortage of bad science in many sources but as physicist Freeman Dyson said: the TTAPS study (from the initials of the last names of its authors, R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan) is "an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight... Who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?"

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Not necessarily in favor but leaning to the idea that it some substantive amount of people would survive.



Why?

I mean we could ignite every oil field on the planet and that is nothing compared to a full scale nuclear attack

Then might you suggest the right equation mate
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Nochzwei

Arbitrageur's opinion in relation to what you have contributed to this thread at this forum is not actually wrong.

So what is the right equation? Not to mention all that you have contributed
a reply to: Kashai

a reply to: Nochzwei


The equation to what? And can you be a lot more specific than you have been until now?

You have not grasped the essence of this thread have you? Read all my posts in this thread again.
a reply to: Kashai

a reply to: Nochzwei


Actually I did and it still does not make any sense.

do you have an article from "Nature" or "Science" to support your position?

Those are actually research Periodicals.


Are there any articles that present a consensus among scientists that you can provide that offer why these articles warrant merit?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Then might you suggest the right equation mate
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't suppose you tried clicking the link or you would have seen the correct equation.

a reply to: Kashai

Go back to school is my advise. when you have a video nature and science periodicals are not required. besides they both said we have limited space and cannot accept articles on anti gravity or perpetual motion

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Then might you suggest the right equation mate
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't suppose you tried clicking the link or you would have seen the correct equation.

Yes i know that thread. but my point is what is the right equation to show relationship between ambient time and mass?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Not necessarily in favor but leaning to the idea that it some substantive amount of people would survive. Why?

Why what? Why the bad science? Because I think they're trying to scare people so they're afraid to use nukes which is probably a good thing to be scared of using them. But there's some exaggeration in much of the science like TTAPS and other studies.

I think humans would survive in at least the millions, but since there are billions now that could still mean a huge loss of life, and they could destroy civilization so the survivors might be living like barbarians. Just ask the "preppers" who are ready for big disasters and post-apocalyptic life. I'm only ready for a small disaster like solar flare, earthquake or flood, but nothing as major as Yellowstone eruption, which might kill as many people as a nuclear arsenal, maybe more.

a reply to: Nochzwei
That formula is here:
Gravitational time dilation

Resolving those still give sqrtm directly prop to ambient time t, in broad terms. Besides i don't subscribe to Einstein GR
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Arbitrageur

We'll probably have a lot of forewarning with Yellowstone--as a specific use case. There is a team of scientists watching Yellowstone. There are sensors everywhere. We've gathered a lot of baseline data. We can compare what we see to other volcanic events. We know it is currently venting at a good rate. In short, we will, with a very high probability, get plenty of warning before Yellowstone blows up. People will be able to move their families. However, the medium-term consequences are the hard part. How many homes will be abandoned? How many businesses? How much ash will remain in the air? How much ash will fall on cities to the east/northeast/southeast?

As a bit of a cop-out, in the long-term, the U.S. economy will compensate for the disaster and will probably receive some generous assistance from the world. People tend to come together to help with natural disasters. There is always a fear that you'll get a FEMA crippling disaster like what happened in New Orleans--which is also a very real possibility, depending on what cities (and how many) are effected.

Yellowstone National Park Volcano FAQ

Will the Yellowstone volcano erupt soon?
Current geologic activity at Yellowstone has remained relatively constant since scientists first started monitoring more than 30 years ago. Another caldera-forming eruption is theoretically possible, but it is very unlikely in the next thousand or even 10,000 years. Scientists have also found no indication of an imminent smaller eruption of lava.

How do scientists know the Yellowstone volcano won't erupt?
Scientists from the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO) watch an array of monitors in place throughout the region. These monitors would detect sudden or strong movements or shifts in heat that would indicate increasing activity. No such evidence exists at this time.

In addition, YVO scientists collaborate with scientists from all over the world to study the hazards of the Yellowstone volcano. To view current data about earthquakes, ground movement, and stream flow visit the YVO website.

How much advance notice would there be of an eruption?
The science of forecasting a volcanic eruption has significantly advanced over the past 25 years. Most scientists think that the buildup preceding a catastrophic eruption would be detectable for weeks and perhaps months to years. Precursors to volcanic eruptions include strong earthquake swarms and rapid ground deformation and typically take place days to weeks before an actual eruption. Scientists at the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO) closely monitor the Yellowstone region for such precursors. They expect that the buildup to larger eruptions would include intense precursory activity (far exceeding background levels) at multiple spots within the Yellowstone volcano. As at many caldera systems around the world, small earthquakes, ground uplift and subsidence, and gas releases at Yellowstone are commonplace events and do not reflect impending eruptions.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


As we discussed earlier a full scale nuclear war would target the entire surface of the planet. And in response you mentioned that you did not think that would happen.

As far as I know of the subject what I have offered is exactly the intent of such a large nuclear arsenal. As expressed in the documentation I have offered, the US can destroy the world four times over with there nuclear arsenal.

In relation millions surviving that's pretty much a grey area as also offered in a link I provided. Like many things in science its a matter of actually observing such an event which either way no one really wants.