Ancient Giants Had Atomic Bombs? WTH?

[Repellant]

Big Limit

The Giants still exist... It's all underground. They also exist outside of our planet.

A theory, not a fact. But fact is, they've been on earth. Theory is, they still exist.

Edit: I haven't studied much of them... Just Nephilm I've studied as they're the higher ranking giants. I've mainly studied Grays and Reptilians (not saying reptilian is real... but it's a possibility)

You're enlightend batshit insane aren't you.

Fixed. Also, source for said facts.

[Athavulf]

Beyond_Oblivion

Athavulf

Gabon mine at Oklo

What indicates that these apparently naturally occurring reactors were built by a prehistoric civilization? Spontaneous fission would provide the neutron source to cause a sustained reaction, but they would be too energetic to cause such a reaction to occur. The addition of water provides a medium which can absorb some the neutrons energy through scattering, thus allowing it to cause sustained fission.

Now, as to your argument that it would explode if it were not carefully controlled, this is false. Even a modern nuclear reactor will not cause a nuclear explosion (it can indirectly cause explosions through the heat generated) as the stuff in reactor fuel rods is not of a high enough..."quality" to be used to produce a nuclear blast. That is why for weapons, further enrichment of the uranium occurs to even further increase the ratio of U238 to U235.

Neither you nor I are qualified to debate over this, unless you are a nuclear field technician. I am not, so I do what I can and I pay attention to things that have plausibility, if not immediately confirmatory evidence. Keep in mind that it would be faulty to assume that if a previous race understood the workings of nature as little as or more than we do, that their technology would have no cause to resemble our own. Technically, the most efficient way of capturing energy from nature would be to utilize nature's already existing tools. Think of the principles on which nature works, such as adaptation to environment. I imagine a superior race to us simply as thinking beings that exist with nature instead of opposed to it. Human cannot fathom an intelligent race, so it looks for signs of itself throughout history, cannot see any garbage lying about, so gives up and begins to groom its mate. All I was intending by posting this is to note that this may have been or may not have been. For consideration purposes only.

Beyond_Oblivion

Athavulf

Mohenjo-Daro

The only thing relating to skeletons being found that I have been able to find is the un-cited quote that you provide that is on a whole lot of websites which also do not provide a source for where it comes form. They also make references to something an archeologist that no one can find evidence of having ever existed supposedly said. Researching on the city itself, they say that the most interesting find there was a figurine of a dancing girl.

Like it or not, active archaeological information seldom trickles down into the public due to the potential of gaining the attention of looters. For instance, when you hear the reports of a new temple being found, it is because it is already fully excavated and/or restored. There is a site in Guatemala near Tikal that is being worked on right now which exceeds the size of any known man-made structure, including the temple of Khufu, many times over. This discovery moves the current concept of Tikal as the center of Maya activity 28 km away to what used to be thought "just a mountain". This just wont be published outside of top archaeological circles until it is safe to allow public attention. It is better for historical artifacts to wind up in museums instead of the black market and personal collections.

Beyond_Oblivion

Athavulf

Quote:

Well, yes, in modern history.

This is the only place that I could find a mention of Oppenheimer saying such a thing: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=12047&view=next&sid=c7c97529db5b4085b842aa905a073973. Could you provide information on where you got this from?

I have never seen that site before, nor would I quote from it. I got that quote from the .gov site on atomic bomb history. (Where they were boasting about it) After I spent a whole morning looking through the several hundreds of atomic bombs having been "tested" over pristine atolls and such, I felt rather down for the rest of the day thinking "Gods, man! We are totally ****ing insane!! What is wrong with us?" I later realized it's simply because we let people we don't know run our lives, so they then run our lives in ways we don't know.

[Nityananda-rama dasa]

I would just liek to point out that the Mahabharata happened 5000 years ago, and teh Brahmastra (unless this is a different passage, a verse number or chapter would be nice) is a spiritual weapon that is controled using mantras. I am not sure that calling it an "atomic weapon" is quite right (though my guru's guru did use that term). There are also many giants spread through out the Mahabharata

I believe it has been pointed out, but Aryan just means good, righteous or usptanding (for example, in the second chapter of Bhagavad Gita, Krishna calls Arjun un-aryan due to his arguments that are foolish and adharmic)

[Athavulf]

Big Limit

The Giants still exist... It's all underground. They also exist outside of our planet.

A theory, not a fact. But fact is, they've been on earth. Theory is, they still exist.

Edit: I haven't studied much of them... Just Nephilm I've studied as they're the higher ranking giants. I've mainly studied Grays and Reptilians (not saying reptilian is real... but it's a possibility)

You're enlightend aren't you.

I don't dismiss the underground notion, nor do I dismiss lower and higher frequency potential for hosting entities.. we are just 5% of the scale between ELF and UHF. ( In other words, it is possible. )

However, I denounce any knowledge of it all. I consider the plausibility of the entire alien master plan, but I do not base any of my decisions around it, nor will I go and spout it out to others. No normal person's mind is ready to accept how absurdly devious a manner in which other minds can think, so why bother? If it is even 10% true, we are all in deep poo.

No, I am not enlightend!

[Vixianna]

Athavulf

Vixianna

Athavulf

Lieutenant_Charon

A billion years ago the most advanced life on this planet was a clump of cells that cooperated with each other as one creature. Even the simplest animals, in the proper sense of the word, didn't exist yet.

This is at best a supposition. No one knows what was going on a billion years ago. We are still looking for any scant clues to help us understand more about the physical (not written/spoken) history of the planet. Look at what a poor excuse we have for the "beginning": The big bang event has been labeled as "The limit test for credulity" by Terrence McKenna, who explained that if you can make someone believe that everything in existence, for no apparent reason, suddenly exploded from nothing, then you can make them believe anything.. There is no reason to assume that there even was a beginning. This is the cause of the Eschaton syndrome people have created because we have our mortal beginnings and ends, we want to familiarize the earth to ourselves.

Your science fail God your science fail. If the universe was infinite there would be no night. All the light from every star that had ever existed would shine down upon us, as the light traveled from where ever it was to us. There is night, therefore the universe stated at one point.

Gods, person! What are you talking about? Night is caused by the earth's shadow in relation to the sun.. The sun is, incidentally, a star. The sun is a rather small and unremarkable star in our galaxy, when contrasted to the others. If we were in the same proximity to 9 other suns like it, (apart from totally distorting our orbit pattern,) our little planet would sizzle like a struck match tip. Have you even heard of the Hubble Deep Field photo? It shows that when you peer closely into the "black nothingness" between stars, you find that it is teeming with galaxies. The light from nearer stars deter the view of distant galaxies, but they are there. There is also less of a reason to assume there is an "end" to the universe than there is no end. If there was an end it would likely just mean that there are the workings of an even more vastly complex system outside and probabilistically many other universes that together create an even greater thing within an even greater thing within an even greater thing within... ad infinitum (or unless it pops back into our world in the form of an atom)

This chicanery about night proving a limited universe still befuddles me. Your teachers should be given 1000 lashings and have their teaching license suspended permanently.

That there is "blackness" between the stars that can be seen proves the universe either isn't infinitely old OR isn't infinitely large. in either case, we have a fair amount of proof it is infinitely large, and therefore it isn't infinitely old. Which follows it started at some point.

I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make, that the Nighttime is dark at ALL proves the above.

[Vixianna]

Athavulf

Vixianna

This is a debate arena, and if you can't even give an interested party, like myself, something to work with, then GTFO.

Correction, this is Extended Discussion forum for debate, but it is not an arena. Take your frustrated attacks and you GTFO. It pisses me off how everyone who wants citations never ever offers any citations to counter-points. They are always sitting on a self-made pedestal of "knowledge" they got from high school and college teachers. If your teachers knew the secrets of life, you think they would be teachers? It is more than important that everyone learns to do their own research.

You want me to come here with counters to claims you can't even support that go counter to the accepted wisdom of anthropology? Fine I'll be back fool, but you don't know me. I'm the EDer's biggest citer, so When I ask nicely for cites, b***h better bring them when I get back with mine.

[Vixianna]

Athavulf

I call bullshit on this whole concept. Two groups got opposite results? Aww that is most likely because neither group has any concept of WTF they are doing. The best we can do is speculate and observe. When we observe, we find no end. Only when we speculate can we find an end. I would like to refer to Nassim Haramein's note that the universe is both expanding and contracting to form a sort of equilibrium. This observation adheres to the first law of physics, unlike all the big bang idjits' expanding universe concept. I keep getting reminded of how we all thought the world was flat... or being held on the shoulders of a giant man... or propped atop four space elephants riding the back of a celestial sea turtle.......

Let me get this straight, you have a problem with the big bang? Even as the Hubble constant grows, and the red-shift from other galaxies increase? You're so full of s**t man. Come one, and the universe can't simultaneously expand and contract? Are you nuts, if you mean over the course of the entire universe then yes, but the steady-state model has been out of use for YEARS because it doesn't work. The universe isn't static.

[Vice Admiral Romeo Mike]

ALIENS WIPED OUT HUMANITY BUT WE CAME BACK, SOURCE NOT REQUIRED

[Athavulf]

Vixianna

Athavulf

Vixianna

Athavulf

Lieutenant_Charon

A billion years ago the most advanced life on this planet was a clump of cells that cooperated with each other as one creature. Even the simplest animals, in the proper sense of the word, didn't exist yet.

This is at best a supposition. No one knows what was going on a billion years ago. We are still looking for any scant clues to help us understand more about the physical (not written/spoken) history of the planet. Look at what a poor excuse we have for the "beginning": The big bang event has been labeled as "The limit test for credulity" by Terrence McKenna, who explained that if you can make someone believe that everything in existence, for no apparent reason, suddenly exploded from nothing, then you can make them believe anything.. There is no reason to assume that there even was a beginning. This is the cause of the Eschaton syndrome people have created because we have our mortal beginnings and ends, we want to familiarize the earth to ourselves.

Your science fail God your science fail. If the universe was infinite there would be no night. All the light from every star that had ever existed would shine down upon us, as the light traveled from where ever it was to us. There is night, therefore the universe stated at one point.

Gods, person! What are you talking about? Night is caused by the earth's shadow in relation to the sun.. The sun is, incidentally, a star. The sun is a rather small and unremarkable star in our galaxy, when contrasted to the others. If we were in the same proximity to 9 other suns like it, (apart from totally distorting our orbit pattern,) our little planet would sizzle like a struck match tip. Have you even heard of the Hubble Deep Field photo? It shows that when you peer closely into the "black nothingness" between stars, you find that it is teeming with galaxies. The light from nearer stars deter the view of distant galaxies, but they are there. There is also less of a reason to assume there is an "end" to the universe than there is no end. If there was an end it would likely just mean that there are the workings of an even more vastly complex system outside and probabilistically many other universes that together create an even greater thing within an even greater thing within an even greater thing within... ad infinitum (or unless it pops back into our world in the form of an atom)

This chicanery about night proving a limited universe still befuddles me. Your teachers should be given 1000 lashings and have their teaching license suspended permanently.

That there is "blackness" between the stars that can be seen proves the universe either isn't infinitely old OR isn't infinitely large. in either case, we have a fair amount of proof it is infinitely large, and therefore it isn't infinitely old. Which follows it started at some point.

I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make, that the Nighttime is dark at ALL proves the above.

Lol.. "blackness"? Don't you realize there is no such thing as nighttime except for within our little Hominid brains while we waste away our years stuck on this planet. The real deal is that space is full, not empty. There is no such thing as nothing. What you are suggesting somehow about night making the universe limited is almost as absurd as me saying there may have been giants with advanced technology over 14,000 years ago... -_-

[Athavulf]

Vixianna

Athavulf

I call bullshit on this whole concept. Two groups got opposite results? Aww that is most likely because neither group has any concept of WTF they are doing. The best we can do is speculate and observe. When we observe, we find no end. Only when we speculate can we find an end. I would like to refer to Nassim Haramein's note that the universe is both expanding and contracting to form a sort of equilibrium. This observation adheres to the first law of physics, unlike all the big bang idjits' expanding universe concept. I keep getting reminded of how we all thought the world was flat... or being held on the shoulders of a giant man... or propped atop four space elephants riding the back of a celestial sea turtle.......

Let me get this straight, you have a problem with the big bang? Even as the Hubble constant grows, and the red-shift from other galaxies increase? You're so full of s**t man. Come one, and the universe can't simultaneously expand and contract? Are you nuts, if you mean over the course of the entire universe then yes, but the steady-state model has been out of use for YEARS because it doesn't work. The universe isn't static.

Static Equilibrium. Space is a vacuum, no? Vacuums suck. We look out into the vacuum and see explosions, so we used our monkey brains to try to imagine the biggest "bang" that could ever be... The big bang is the limit test for credulity. It's science's one free miracle they had so they could "roll from there".. What an insane, asinine concept that everything just pooped from "nothing", but then even if this were so, "nothing", would have to have been "something", for something cannot come from nothing. I'd rather just believe the Gnostics that "Demiurge", a blind fool created the universe by accident. lol There are many theories but none of them are "correct" in that we cannot currently assess the nature of the universe nor do we fully comprehend the concept of reality that holds it all in a 3D form.

[Athavulf]

Vixianna

Athavulf

Vixianna

This is a debate arena, and if you can't even give an interested party, like myself, something to work with, then GTFO.

Correction, this is Extended Discussion forum for debate, but it is not an arena. Take your frustrated attacks and you GTFO. It pisses me off how everyone who wants citations never ever offers any citations to counter-points. They are always sitting on a self-made pedestal of "knowledge" they got from high school and college teachers. If your teachers knew the secrets of life, you think they would be teachers? It is more than important that everyone learns to do their own research.

You want me to come here with counters to claims you can't even support that go counter to the accepted wisdom of anthropology? Fine I'll be back Captain Awesome, but you don't know me. I'm the EDer's biggest fool, so When I ask nicely for cites, b***h better bring them when I get back with mine.

The accepted wisdom of Anthropology is constantly evolving... You need to take a chill pill. Calling people names is rather immature, don't you think? Don't you THINK??? Anyway, this whole thread is meant for light debate and expanding/sharing perspectives, not for Mortal Kombat! I can't prove any of this any more than I can prove to you that Jupiter is real. Most of the strange Archaeological sites are their own source of info. Whatever someone publishes in a science journal is simply their limited scope of what they came to understand about said site. If you want proof, go buy an airplane ticket. (Make sure to leave your pet some food before you head out) [edit] ..also, some water. [/edit]

[Vixianna]

Athavulf

Vixianna

Athavulf

Vixianna

This is a debate arena, and if you can't even give an interested party, like myself, something to work with, then GTFO.

Correction, this is Extended Discussion forum for debate, but it is not an arena. Take your frustrated attacks and you GTFO. It pisses me off how everyone who wants citations never ever offers any citations to counter-points. They are always sitting on a self-made pedestal of "knowledge" they got from high school and college teachers. If your teachers knew the secrets of life, you think they would be teachers? It is more than important that everyone learns to do their own research.

You want me to come here with counters to claims you can't even support that go counter to the accepted wisdom of anthropology? Fine I'll be back Captain Awesome, but you don't know me. I'm the EDer's biggest fool, so When I ask nicely for cites, b***h better bring them when I get back with mine.

The accepted wisdom of Anthropology is constantly evolving... You need to take a chill pill. Calling people names is rather immature, don't you think? Don't you THINK??? Anyway, this whole thread is meant for light debate and expanding/sharing perspectives, not for Mortal Kombat! I can't prove any of this any more than I can prove to you that Jupiter is real. Most of the strange Archaeological sites are their own source of info. Whatever someone publishes in a science journal is simply their limited scope of what they came to understand about said site. If you want proof, go buy an airplane ticket. (Make sure to leave your pet some food before you head out)

And changing someone's posters is both intellectually dishonest, and immature. Don't do that, it makes you look like a bigger douche than me.

Also: Here's something for your ancient bomb bullshit: No the Indian texts DO NOT support the bomb theory

I've brought a source to the table so get with it.

[Athavulf]

Vixianna

Athavulf

Vixianna

Athavulf

Vixianna

This is a debate arena, and if you can't even give an interested party, like myself, something to work with, then GTFO.

Correction, this is Extended Discussion forum for debate, but it is not an arena. Take your frustrated attacks and you GTFO. It pisses me off how everyone who wants citations never ever offers any citations to counter-points. They are always sitting on a self-made pedestal of "knowledge" they got from high school and college teachers. If your teachers knew the secrets of life, you think they would be teachers? It is more than important that everyone learns to do their own research.

You want me to come here with counters to claims you can't even support that go counter to the accepted wisdom of anthropology? Fine I'll be back Captain Awesome, but you don't know me. I'm the EDer's biggest fool, so When I ask nicely for cites, b***h better bring them when I get back with mine.

The accepted wisdom of Anthropology is constantly evolving... You need to take a chill pill. Calling people names is rather immature, don't you think? Don't you THINK??? Anyway, this whole thread is meant for light debate and expanding/sharing perspectives, not for Mortal Kombat! I can't prove any of this any more than I can prove to you that Jupiter is real. Most of the strange Archaeological sites are their own source of info. Whatever someone publishes in a science journal is simply their limited scope of what they came to understand about said site. If you want proof, go buy an airplane ticket. (Make sure to leave your pet some food before you head out)

And changing someone's posters is both intellectually dishonest, and immature. Don't do that, it makes you look like a bigger douche than me.

Also: Here's something for your ancient bomb bullshit: No the Indian texts DO NOT support the bomb theory

I've brought a source to the table so get with it.

I *fixed* what you had apparently mistyped. Can you verify the validity of this site-cite? No? Hmm.. Looks like it's just another opinion-based resource. Aw shucks. I'll read into it at my own pace, in any case.

[edit] Did you read through the entire page? Did you read the readers' comments? rofl [/edit]

[Vixianna]

Athavulf

Lol.. "blackness"? Don't you realize there is no such thing as nighttime except for within our little Hominid brains while we waste away our years stuck on this planet. The real deal is that space is full, not empty. There is no such thing as nothing. What you are suggesting somehow about night making the universe limited is almost as absurd as me saying there may have been giants with advanced technology over 14,000 years ago... -_-

I'm beginning to believe you accept such theories because you don't understand physics in the slightest. I'm going to have to go slow, tell me if I go too fast.

Think of the Earth Floating through space, all around it is Space. The density of the space around it is much less dense than either the atmosphere of the planet itself or the star it orbits.(unless you believe in the ether.) This is what is meant by space being "empty". Not that nothing is inside of it, but that it is supremely less dense than the Earth's atmosphere or crust, mantle, ect.

Stand on the Planet's surface, and look up. Right now it's noon, and the sun is high above your head, you can't see it, but light from stars all over the universe, and our own galaxy, is shinning down on you. But why isn't it visible? The light from our own star outshines them, so they aren't visible to the naked eye. The planet rotates, and now you are on the side facing away from the star. I'd like to take this time to say that night ISN'T caused by the Earth's Shadow. (Lunar Eclipses are though.) It is caused by the Earth's rotation taking it away from the light source. Think of a light bulb in the middle of the room. the side of you not facing the light bulb is dark.Source Back to the main point, the sun had now set. Now all of the light from the universe rains down on you and to your eyes. Some of it is blocked by our cushy atmosphere, but you can still see plenty of stars. But wait, there is the "darkness" of space inbetween those star points? Why is that so?

The better question is, why is the night dark? Sounds silly, but it's more profound than it seems.

To explain this, I'll need to make sure you understand some concepts. Light is like a time capsule. It continues on from the point of it's creation forever. Any light ever created is heading towards us, as long as it's pointed in our direction. When we look at stars. we are seeing them as they were when the light was created. What I mean is, if the star is 1 light year away, it took one year for the light to get here, and the light that's getting to us now, is how the star looked when the light was created 1 year ago. Get it?

Now we get to the problem of the blackness. Since light from any star that has ever existed will shine towards us (as stars radiate in 360 degrees) All of this light should get to us, even when the main light source of the sun is no longer visible. But there is no light? Why? Why is the "blackness" inbetween stars not light like the stars themselves? To make an example, so I am perfectly clear, once again imagine light bulbs. A whole room full of them. All of these are all the stars the ever existed, so even when you turn off the light from the one in the middle of the room, there is still plenty of light around. So the nighttime wouldn't be dark, in fact there would be no "night time" as we know it. But there is darkness so why is it so? If the universe is infinitely old, then all of this light would be around, because all of these stars would have existed. But there isn't. Maybe the universe is infinitely large? If so then the light just hasn't gotten to us yet, that's why we can't see it. But if it IS infinitely large, why does it "act" like it has an beginning?

To be succinct, where does the background radiation come from? The buzz of microwaves that permeates all of space, in between you and me, and entire galaxies. It must come from somewhere, and more importantly we still can't figure out why the night is dark. To explain this conundrum, we do something scientists do, we make a hypothesis and see whether it fits observations. Let's go with the Big Bang, a misnomer, but a good enough name. All of the universe exists as a infinitesimally small and dense ball of, well everything. Energy pure energy. All of a sudden, this ball expands, and extremely quickly. This expansion would leave a "print" on the larger version of the universe, as the ambient energy in the ball would have been "stretched" and gone from extremely high energy to lower energy. If we were to look at this universe, not only would we see this low energy "imprint" all over the place, BUT there would be blackness.

All matter didn't "explode" into a waiting universal void, the WHOLE universe time, space(the three dimensions), and matter all expanded at once into existence. Do you understand?

To finish this explanation, we look at our own universe. The big bang not only explains the background "buzz" of microwave radiation, but it's existence also explains why the night is dark.

I hope you get what 'm talking about, cause this is about as watered down as I can make it...I guess I can try again if you need me too.

[Vixianna]

Athavulf

Static Equilibrium. Space is a vacuum, no? Vacuums suck. We look out into the vacuum and see explosions, so we used our monkey brains to try to imagine the biggest "bang" that could ever be... The big bang is the limit test for credulity. It's science's one free miracle they had so they could "roll from there".. What an insane, asinine concept that everything just pooped from "nothing", but then even if this were so, "nothing", would have to have been "something", for something cannot come from nothing. I'd rather just believe the Gnostics that "Demiurge", a blind fool created the universe by accident. lol There are many theories but none of them are "correct" in that we cannot currently assess the nature of the universe nor do we fully comprehend the concept of reality that holds it all in a 3D form.

When they say Vacuum, they mean empty as in very little material, there is no air, and so no negative pressure, like the vacuums on Earth. Your understanding of space science is poor.

Why are you insulting humans, there really isn't a reason for it, but what do you mean by us seeing bangs?

You do not understand the "Big Bang" and so you insult it, and claim it is invalid. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it not true... I've explained the Big Bang in my last post, so maybe you could address it there if you still don't understand.

I'll try something else. Imagine a balloon. You live inside of it. It's not inflated now, so it's small. All of a sudden, something destabilizes it. Your little space expands rapidly. There is nothing outside of the balloon, but from your perspective there must be "something" or else how could it expand? This is how you are seeing the universe. Just as a material thing, when it's not. It's material, energy, and dimensions. When the Balloon expands, it takes it dimensions with it. You now have more space to move in...This is how the universe expanded and how it now has more space.

I now have to ask, how you think the universe is in equilibrium.(which is the SAME THING as being static)