A number of issues in this thread have been discussed before and relevant to that particular item under discussion. However, I would like to concentrate on ‘nuclear’ power itself.
Just about everything we are lead to believe is a fabrication of sorts, however manufactured.
A belief is something that one has, that makes what we call 'common-sense' but only if we can verify it.
In my view, at least, ‘Truths’ are the products of beliefs.
A truth cannot be defined because it depends upon verification, which is often difficult because we are reliant upon 'technologies' and skills developed by others which we cannot always access.
I call this engineering. Engineering is a deliberate attempt to modify an initial 'thought' and produce either a physical product or a ‘theory’. A pile of sand made into a brick, for example, in the first instance, or a ‘theory’ which will always be that, however modified. A theory, as such, however, cannot be made into a physical object.
So-called ‘Nuclear power’, in whatever form it is portrayed, relies upon the ‘atomic’ theory.
If the atom theory is incorrect then ‘nuclear power’ (of any description) does not and cannot exist.
Even if the theory was correct it cannot work in the manner expounded by those who believe in its apparent explosive properties such a ‘nuclear/atom’ bomb events or even ‘fuel rods’ for alleged ‘nuclear’ power stations.
Any so-called ‘energy’ produced (whatever that is) cannot be explosive it would be something we could not explain by other means since it would be a release of ‘raw’ energy and would certainly not be controllable. How do you control an explosion? Answer: you invent ‘radioactivity’! With suitable equipment you can apparently measure this ’radioactivity’ and by a process of engineering and clever conjuring tricks, convince the ignorati (or gullible through no fault of their own) that it is possible to harness this ‘energy’ produced to make ‘electricity’! (or even heat water for the turbines that produce it).
I repeat: explosive mixtures (however contrived) cannot be controlled, they happen instantaneously.
For example, explosives may propel a small device (firework rocket) into the atmosphere but not an (apparently) huge beast that lumbers into the sky and appears to accelerate, whatever the ‘science’ to the contrary.
According to this piece:
http://www.abcte.org/files/previews/che ... s1_p2.html
‘Atomic theory is derived from Dalton's atomic theory and contains five basic assumptions.’
Here, we already run into a problem. The theory relies upon assumptions!
Assuming something is correct (or becomes a ‘truth’) is in no way related to any reality as we can personally perceive it, unless it can be verified without the possibility of it being incorrect. If this is possible, then I stand to be corrected.
Thus, if what we call ‘matter’ cannot be reduced to individual (or self-contained) ‘particles’ then the notion of atomic theory is surely a no-no. If these so-called particles exist as separate ‘objects’ (proton, neutrons or bosons, for example) then how can they react with each other? There must be some connection.
Surely, nothing can react with something else unless there is a connection!
The Universe is a ‘medium’ from which, apparently discreet formations (planets, stars, and so forth) we are here at all. Trying to explain it in terms of discreet ‘particles’ is surely not possible since there is no way that these ‘particles’ can be examined since any examination would be part of the examining process, that is, the examining process would be examining itself. Thus, everything must be connected to everything else without interruption.
The ‘universe’, therefore, must be a continuous medium with neither beginning nor end, however that may be difficult to digest.
I submit that the substance which we know as ‘water’ is the best example of a medium. It is a medium from which all ‘life’ (animated objects) comes about with its interaction between what we might call a ‘solid’.
Water can be ‘seen’ of ‘felt’ as a mist or a raging torrent depending upon the conditions of the ‘universe’-as-a-whole at a particular moment of what we call ‘time’. (The universe does not know time, it merely is however we pretend otherwise by mechanical or digital means.) Even on supposedly ‘solid’ objects, water still has a presence (for example rust). It is true that Man is able to produce substances such as what we call ‘plastics’ which are apparently impermeable to water and there are substances like glass (natural or otherwise) but they may still be able to ‘get wet’ and the water would eventually evaporate into the atmosphere.
Chemistry is the addition or subtraction (however accomplished) that allows both Nature and Man to create other products. In its original form it was known as alchemy. Nature apparently does this in some fashion probably by a process of iteration and I am not sure if this can be explained in ‘real’ terms without the notion of ‘particulate matter’. However, we can know that Man can do this deliberately (as in making pastry, for example).
I understand that we can invent formulæ for chemical purposes using the atom theory but I have to ask, what does it really mean?
Just what, one may ask is radiation? I am not talking about electric fires radiating heat, I am asking just what is radiation if atomic theory is incorrect? Just what are we ‘measuring’ and with what do we measure?
According to this site:
‘Energy that moves through space and matter both in the form of magnetic and electric waves and in the form of a stream of particles called photons.’
Here we are confronted with three problems: ‘Energy’, ‘Waves’ and ‘photons’.
What, I ask is energy? I can only describe this as something which can be shown in reality. I can show you energy by pushing you and the effect is that you feel the push and are moved by it. However, I cannot tell you what that energy was (or perhaps even where it came from).
O.K. We can view a wave on an oscilloscope (for example) but what is it really?
‘Photons’ are described as particles travelling at the speed of light (186,282 miles per second).
If there are no ‘particles’ (of what?) then they can’t do anything, let alone travel at speeds which beggar belief, however calculated.
The convenience of nouns, which name verifiable objects, are redundant if they cannot identify objects but can only show reactions (e.g. on an oscilloscope). So what are we looking at? A real, verifiable object or objects or just the result of an interaction we cannot explain?
1. (Mathematics) (functioning as singular) a group of related sciences, including algebra, geometry, and calculus, concerned with the study of number, quantity, shape, and space and their interrelationships by using a specialized notation.
2. (Mathematics) (functioning as singular or plural) mathematical operations and processes involved in the solution of a problem or study of some scientific field.
I am not sure that mathematics, (of which I fail to have very little knowledge nor their use in a ‘real’ world of trying to understand objects) can help me very much. Blackboards full of hieroglyphics do not help me understand what the world is or any part of it. Mathematics may be a useful part of theories but do they really explain anything upon which I can put my finger?
Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.