Search results for nuclear evolution
Results 1-15 of about 767 (Found in 0.208s)
9,
08:09,
2007-03-11 05:29:17
Description: INDIAS NUCLEAR EVOLUTION.HOW THEY MADE THEIR FIRST NUCLEAR BOMB AND THEN SHOOK THE WORLD WITH THEIR SECOND NUCLEAR TEST IN POKHRAN AND THEN THE DECLARATION OF INDIA AS A NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER.
THEN THE (More) INDIAS NUCLEAR EVOLUTION.HOW THEY MADE THEIR FIRST NUCLEAR BOMB AND THEN SHOOK THE WORLD WITH THEIR SECOND NUCLEAR TEST IN POKHRAN AND THEN THE DECLARATION OF INDIA AS A NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER.
THEN THE INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL AND ITS ADVANTAGES TO INDIA.THEN THE PROBLEMS LIKE NUCLEAR WASTE, TERRORIST ATTACKS,ETC. ARE EXPLAINED.THEN FINALLY MUMBAI CITY IS SHOWN HAVING A NUCLEAR BURST OUT THREAT DUE TO APSARA REACTOR SITUATED IN TROMBAY... (Less) Channel: youtube
8,
03:44,
2008-04-21 19:10:55
Description: MY FIRST PROJECT MOVIE IN F.Y.B.M.S.THE TOPIC IS "NUCLEAR PROGRAMMES PROS AND CONS".IT SHOWS YOU THE TIMELINE OF NUCLEAR EVOLUTION. IT STARTS OFF WITH THE PEARL HARBOUR ATTACK ON USA AND (More) MY FIRST PROJECT MOVIE IN F.Y.B.M.S.THE TOPIC IS "NUCLEAR PROGRAMMES PROS AND CONS".IT SHOWS YOU THE TIMELINE OF NUCLEAR EVOLUTION. IT STARTS OFF WITH THE PEARL HARBOUR ATTACK ON USA AND THEN THE TWO NUCLEAR BOMB ATTACKS ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI CITIES OF JAPAN.THEN THE VICTIMS AND THEIR TRAGEDY IS SHOWN.THEN WE GET INTO INDIAS NUCLEAR EVOLUTION.HOW THEY MADE THEIR FIRST NUCLEAR BOMB AND THEN SHOOK THE WORLD WITH THEIR SECOND NUCLEAR TEST IN POKHRAN AND THEN THE DECLARATION OF INDIA AS A NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER. THEN THE INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL AND ITS ADVANTAGES TO INDIA.THEN THE PROBLEMS LIKE NUCLEAR WASTE, TERRORIST ATTACKS,ETC. ARE EXPLAINED.THEN FINALLY MUMBAI CITY IS SHOWN HAVING A NUCLEAR BURST OUT THREAT DUE TO APSARA REACTOR SITUATED IN TROMBAY...AND THEN THE CONCLUSION.... (Less) Channel: youtube
6,
03:44,
2007-03-10 11:30:30
Description: MY FIRST PROJECT MOVIE IN F.Y.B.M.S.THE TOPIC IS "NUCLEAR PROGRAMMES PROS AND CONS".IT SHOWS YOU THE TIMELINE OF NUCLEAR EVOLUTION.
IT STARTS OFF WITH THE PEARL HARBOUR ATTACK ON USA AND (More) MY FIRST PROJECT MOVIE IN F.Y.B.M.S.THE TOPIC IS "NUCLEAR PROGRAMMES PROS AND CONS".IT SHOWS YOU THE TIMELINE OF NUCLEAR EVOLUTION.
IT STARTS OFF WITH THE PEARL HARBOUR ATTACK ON USA AND THEN THE TWO NUCLEAR BOMB ATTACKS ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI CITIES OF JAPAN.THEN THE VICTIMS AND THEIR TRAGEDY IS SHOWN.THEN WE GET INTO INDIAS NUCLEAR EVOLUTION.HOW THEY MADE THEIR FIRST NUCLEAR BOMB AND THEN SHOOK THE WORLD WITH THEIR SECOND NUCLEAR TEST IN POKHRAN AND THEN THE DECLARATION OF INDIA AS A NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER.
THEN THE INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL AND ITS ADVANTAGES TO INDIA.THEN THE PROBLEMS LIKE NUCLEAR WASTE, TERRORIST ATTACKS,ETC. ARE EXPLAINED.THEN FINALLY MUMBAI CITY IS SHOWN HAVING A NUCLEAR BURST OUT THREAT DUE TO APSARA REACTOR SITUATED IN TROMBAY...AND THEN THE CONCLUSION.... (Less) Channel: youtube
10,
03:48,
2009-08-24 16:00:09
Description: Off "Nuclear Evolution: The Age of Love", The Bone Song is a not-so-subtle message over a heavily eclectic track. For more information about the group, please visit illvibes-dmv.com. To (More) Off "Nuclear Evolution: The Age of Love", The Bone Song is a not-so-subtle message over a heavily eclectic track. For more information about the group, please visit illvibes-dmv.com. To download the track, go here: usershare.net/mgs3et5v410r. (Less) Channel: vimeo
14,
08:54,
2008-05-04 14:43:28
Description: DesteniProductions DesteniProduction Desteni join the forum at http://www.desteni.co.za for discussions on love emotion feelings mind future past lives slutions endtimes tree of life tree of knowledge (More) DesteniProductions DesteniProduction Desteni join the forum at http://www.desteni.co.za for discussions on love emotion feelings mind future past lives slutions endtimes tree of life tree of knowledge lightworkers
channels channel channeling tibetan money fed reserve 911 life live winged bernard poolman sunette africa north america weather tesla jung blog blogs blogspot drugs, marijuana, cocoaine, poppies, addictions, addicts, rehabilitation, rehab, facing self, substance abuse, substituting self, terence mckenna, joints, boom, smoke, life, transcendence , transcendental, feelings, emotions, mind, mind consciousness system, systems, MCS, truth, desteni, self forgiveness, self honesty, oneness, equality, portal, unified field, interdimensional portal, drugtrade, addicted, common sense, sloshed, high, enlightened self interest, enlightenenment, soul, now, power, lost, vioces, geometry, sacred, indigo, ritilin, kryon, pain, silence, gold, golden age, golden era, endtimes, endgame, game of life, searching, seeking, questions, yahoo, google, you tube, veoh , videos, video, blog, vlog, winged, channel, psychic, prophecy, prophetic, attainment, deception, delusion, love, god, spiritual, hell, armageddon, nuclear, war, revelations, bible, junkie, sex, sexual, excuse , guidance, help, nwo, new world order, national, psyche, secret, the secret, key, homeless, children, prostitute, jesus camps, hand shake, agreement, contract, divine, divinity, ron paul, george bush maturbate masturbation system abusers I eye governments lightworkers elite lite atheist satan christianity fascism 911 regime mind consciousness system mcs water movie success fame movies famous research sumeria reptilian annunaki reptiles sirian pleiadians andromedans new agers meditation time timetravel , demons , jinn, ghosts , demonic possession atomic atom split flame ignite recognized signature danger entry singularity unification galaxy universe universal point human being presence present power of now DesteniProductions Desteni Productions destiny destini destani destanian destenian speak angels archangels psychic psychics psychidelic drugs marijuana weed salvia salvation army troops war foodcrises cnn bbc fox news journalist abduction alien invasion ufo ufo's plane crash comedy press release unification now youtube slavery sheep sheeple nwo own chains tool celebrity movies anime animals genocide displacement people video videos show share self realization unconditionally breathing right wrong give giving proclaim guilt regret music musical hero one and equal responsible activism christ energy christ consciousness robot code coded friends family (Less) Channel: youtube
17,
09:41,
2007-07-14 12:24:03
Description: Part one of two!
Background music by Jonathan Coulton
Part two coming soon!
Transcript:
Of Evolution, The Big Bang, And Star Trek: Why Creationism Is Unnecessary
The majority of the (More) Part one of two!
Background music by Jonathan Coulton
Part two coming soon!
Transcript:
Of Evolution, The Big Bang, And Star Trek: Why Creationism Is Unnecessary
The majority of the "refutation" of scientific argument that comes from religious fundamentalists is based on ignorance and the misrepresentation of the science they are attacking.
Now, whether these people are genuinely ignorant, or they are intentionally misrepresenting the science in order to set up straw men to attack is irrelevant - the result is the same; the argument made against the science is based on a faulty premise which is then easy to refute, but not truly the position they claim to be arguing against.
Let's take, for example, evolution. I once heard a comedian tell a "joke" that went like this: "If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes?"
Now, clearly, to any scientist, any student of science, and indeed anyone who understands even the fundamental workings of evolution and natural selection, this is funny, but only because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In order for this "joke" to be funny in the sense it was intended, it requires the listener to actually believe that evolution refers to a magical event that causes species to spontaneously transform into a completely different species. It is indeed difficult to believe that there are people on this earth, especially in first world countries where education should be a universal right, that there are people who actually believe this. But believe it they do, or at least they want other people to believe it, so they will then buy the mystical alternative that these charlatans are selling.
It's very strange for atheists and scientists - even religious scientists, to comprehend this level of ignorance, but it is very real, and very frightening. This is why we must work hard to ensure that proper science is being taught to all children. No child should be forced to BELIEVE anything they are taught - indeed, science should teach skepticism and independent thought - and I include religion in this, but I digress. No child should be forced to BELIEVE in evolution, but we should at least do them the favour of teaching them science so they can decide for themselves what they believe.
Of course, evolution does not consist of creatures changing in a puff of smoke, we have observed evolution happening in our lifetimes within germ cultures, mayflies and other short lived forms of life - evolution, of course, moves within generations, not days, months, years, decades, or any other set measurement of time. Time is meaningless to evolution, evolution only cares about generations, because it is the steady processes of mutation and natural selection that govern how species change. We know that evolution can occur and favour certain mutations, and then these favourable mutations can lead species down separate evolutionary paths, causing schisms or "branches in the evolutionary tree" - this does not necessitate that ancestor life forms die out. We have species living on this earth today, such as certain strands of cyanobacteria, that have remained virtually unchanged for billions of years. But just because life has come a long way since single celled organisms, that doesn't mean we shouldn't still have them - when a new branch in the evolutionary tree springs up, it doesn't require that the branch it shot off from dies out. That does happen sometimes, but it is by no means necessary!
As far as the Big Bang goes... the "argument" I hear quite consistently from religious people is "Well, if you are going to believe that the universe was just created out of nothing, why not believe it was created by God?" Apart from being a lousy argument FOR creationism, it is a poor argument AGAINST science - again; this is a misrepresentation of the science they are supposedly attacking.
First and foremost; as Richard Dawkins observed, if there is a God, and he or she or it is a creator, it is then a life form. As we have noticed, complex life forms occur later on time, as a necessity. Life begins as single-celled organisms and THEN works it way up to democrats and republicans, not vice versa. Surely a creator deity would be the most complex life form possible -- able to shape, nay, create the world, the universe?
Even if you want to completely ignore that aspect and use the "well, God exists outside of science" defense - and a flimsy one it is, I will concede that it is impossible to prove the nonexistance of God (although the I would stand by Occham's Razor and argue that the burden of proof lies on the side making a positive assertion - because, if we say the burden of proof lies on the side saying "I will not believe without proof", suddenly everything is backwards - imagine if court worked that way - I accuse you of, say, witchcraft, and instead of me having to PROVE you are a witch, you have to prove that you are NOT a witch, or you burn. We've seen this before, and it's not pretty, it's not justice, and it's not rational.
I digress, again.
"If we believe that the universe was created out of nothing..." well, that's not really what the Big Bang is about at all. We know that matter and energy - particles and waves - share more similarity on the quantum level than traditional physics had ever thought, and under extreme pressure and temperature, like a diamond produced from coal, under the right conditions, energy and matter can be in a state of flux - consider plasma and then think about even greater temperatures than are produced by the fusion reactions of stars - indeed, it is theorized that, when the universe as we know it was just born, electromagnetism, gravity, and the weak and strong nuclear forces were all fused in one unified force.
So, O.K., big deal, you might say, so under extreme conditions, it may be possible for energy to be converted to matter, what does that prove? There was no ENERGY, right? Wrong. We don't know for sure where it came from, but there was energy in the universe before the big bang. Brane theory and the cyclic universe model hypothesize that perhaps we are living on a thin slice of existance - that our universe is but one of many extraordinarily thin membranes in a four (or more) dimensional multiverse, and the big bang was only the most recent of cataclysmic collisions of these membranes that triggered a "reset" of sorts.
Now, we don't know for sure that this happened, it's merely conjecture, but it has a certain elegance and simplicity to it. For people who fail to grasp the idea, it may seem that it's just as likely that there was an intelligent force at work, but if all we really need to get this whole thing started is a little energy, why is a God even necessary? If all God did was light a match, can you really give him credit for life in all it's form and splendor?
So there is, at least a bit better of a model of the Big Bang then merely saying "Well, it just happened". I am by no means an expert on the subject - I am not a theoretical physicist. If you would like to learn more about the origins of the universe, I highly recommend A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking. If you would like to learn more about evolutionary biology, I highly recommend that you read Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, and Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life. If you would like to know more about String Theory and Brane Theory, I wholeheartedly urge you to read "The Elegant Universe", by Brian Greene, or to watch the NOVA television miniseries based on the book, presented by the author. Indeed if you don't wish to take the time to read any of the aforementioned books, at least do yourself the favour of watching this program, it is entertaining and simplistic enough not to bore or confuse those not as well versed in science as they might like to be, and informative and intriguing enough to whet the appetite of all but the most anti-scientific amongst us.
Now, to tie everything together. Things like the evolution of complex life, and even more the big bang, seem impossible to our human minds because of their grand scale. But the largest factor in all of these things has been that which we don't take the time to think about most of the time: and that is time.
What I mean is this: it is simply not possible to truly comprehend the vast quantities of time that have passed, so that all this: computers, the internet, youtube, could be here.
Cosmic microwave background radiation tells us that the universe as we know it is approximately 13 billion, 7 hundred million years old, give or take two hundred million.
Now, some fundamentalists actually believe that the Earth (and the universe) is only around SIX THOUSAND years old.
I'm going to pause for a second to let that sink in.
The margin of error for the actual age of the universe is thirty-three-thousand-three-hundred-and-thirty-three TIMES what some people believe is the actual age of the universe! JUST THE MARGIN OF ERROR! When you compare the actual age of the universe to the paltry 6,000 years some people still claim to believe to be the age of the universe, it is actually two-million-two-hundred-eighty-three-thousand-three-hundred-thirty-three TIMES the age that fundamentalists believe it to be. 13.7 BILLION years. That's a lot of time, to say the least.
The earth itself is a scant 4.6 billion years old, still seven-hundred-sixty-six-thousand-six-hundred-sixty-six times the 6000 measly, puny years claimed by fundamentalists. Still a LOT of time. 4.6 BILLION years. (Less) Channel: youtube
7,
09:41,
2008-04-21 16:38:43
Description: Part one of two! Background music by Jonathan Coulton Part two coming soon! Transcript: Of Evolution, The Big Bang, And Star Trek: Why Creationism Is Unnecessary The majority of the (More) Part one of two! Background music by Jonathan Coulton Part two coming soon! Transcript: Of Evolution, The Big Bang, And Star Trek: Why Creationism Is Unnecessary The majority of the "refutation" of scientific argument that comes from religious fundamentalists is based on ignorance and the misrepresentation of the science they are attacking. Now, whether these people are genuinely ignorant, or they are intentionally misrepresenting the science in order to set up straw men to attack is irrelevant - the result is the same; the argument made against the science is based on a faulty premise which is then easy to refute, but not truly the position they claim to be arguing against. Let's take, for example, evolution. I once heard a comedian tell a "joke" that went like this: "If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes?" Now, clearly, to any scientist, any student of science, and indeed anyone who understands even the fundamental workings of evolution and natural selection, this is funny, but only because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In order for this "joke" to be funny in the sense it was intended, it requires the listener to actually believe that evolution refers to a magical event that causes species to spontaneously transform into a completely different species. It is indeed difficult to believe that there are people on this earth, especially in first world countries where education should be a universal right, that there are people who actually believe this. But believe it they do, or at least they want other people to believe it, so they will then buy the mystical alternative that these charlatans are selling. It's very strange for atheists and scientists - even religious scientists, to comprehend this level of ignorance, but it is very real, and very frightening. This is why we must work hard to ensure that proper science is being taught to all children. No child should be forced to BELIEVE anything they are taught - indeed, science should teach skepticism and independent thought - and I include religion in this, but I digress. No child should be forced to BELIEVE in evolution, but we should at least do them the favour of teaching them science so they can decide for themselves what they believe. Of course, evolution does not consist of creatures changing in a puff of smoke, we have observed evolution happening in our lifetimes within germ cultures, mayflies and other short lived forms of life - evolution, of course, moves within generations, not days, months, years, decades, or any other set measurement of time. Time is meaningless to evolution, evolution only cares about generations, because it is the steady processes of mutation and natural selection that govern how species change. We know that evolution can occur and favour certain mutations, and then these favourable mutations can lead species down separate evolutionary paths, causing schisms or "branches in the evolutionary tree" - this does not necessitate that ancestor life forms die out. We have species living on this earth today, such as certain strands of cyanobacteria, that have remained virtually unchanged for billions of years. But just because life has come a long way since single celled organisms, that doesn't mean we shouldn't still have them - when a new branch in the evolutionary tree springs up, it doesn't require that the branch it shot off from dies out. That does happen sometimes, but it is by no means necessary! As far as the Big Bang goes... the "argument" I hear quite consistently from religious people is "Well, if you are going to believe that the universe was just created out of nothing, why not believe it was created by God?" Apart from being a lousy argument FOR creationism, it is a poor argument AGAINST science - again; this is a misrepresentation of the science they are supposedly attacking. First and foremost; as Richard Dawkins observed, if there is a God, and he or she or it is a creator, it is then a life form. As we have noticed, complex life forms occur later on time, as a necessity. Life begins as single-celled organisms and THEN works it way up to democrats and republicans, not vice versa. Surely a creator deity would be the most complex life form possible -- able to shape, nay, create the world, the universe? Even if you want to completely ignore that aspect and use the "well, God exists outside of science" defense - and a flimsy one it is, I will concede that it is impossible to prove the nonexistance of God (although the I would stand by Occham's Razor and argue that the burden of proof lies on the side making a positive assertion - because, if we say the burden of proof lies on the side saying "I will not believe without proof", suddenly everything is backwards - imagine if court worked that way - I accuse you of, say, witchcraft, and instead of me having to PROVE you are a witch, you have to prove that you are NOT a witch, or you burn. We've seen this before, and it's not pretty, it's not justice, and it's not rational. I digress, again. "If we believe that the universe was created out of nothing..." well, that's not really what the Big Bang is about at all. We know that matter and energy - particles and waves - share more similarity on the quantum level than traditional physics had ever thought, and under extreme pressure and temperature, like a diamond produced from coal, under the right conditions, energy and matter can be in a state of flux - consider plasma and then think about even greater temperatures than are produced by the fusion reactions of stars - indeed, it is theorized that, when the universe as we know it was just born, electromagnetism, gravity, and the weak and strong nuclear forces were all fused in one unified force. So, O.K., big deal, you might say, so under extreme conditions, it may be possible for energy to be converted to matter, what does that prove? There was no ENERGY, right? Wrong. We don't know for sure where it came from, but there was energy in the universe before the big bang. Brane theory and the cyclic universe model hypothesize that perhaps we are living on a thin slice of existance - that our universe is but one of many extraordinarily thin membranes in a four (or more) dimensional multiverse, and the big bang was only the most recent of cataclysmic collisions of these membranes that triggered a "reset" of sorts. Now, we don't know for sure that this happened, it's merely conjecture, but it has a certain elegance and simplicity to it. For people who fail to grasp the idea, it may seem that it's just as likely that there was an intelligent force at work, but if all we really need to get this whole thing started is a little energy, why is a God even necessary? If all God did was light a match, can you really give him credit for life in all it's form and splendor? So there is, at least a bit better of a model of the Big Bang then merely saying "Well, it just happened". I am by no means an expert on the subject - I am not a theoretical physicist. If you would like to learn more about the origins of the universe, I highly recommend A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking. If you would like to learn more about evolutionary biology, I highly recommend that you read Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, and Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life. If you would like to know more about String Theory and Brane Theory, I wholeheartedly urge you to read "The Elegant Universe", by Brian Greene, or to watch the NOVA television miniseries based on the book, presented by the author. Indeed if you don't wish to take the time to read any of the aforementioned books, at least do yourself the favour of watching this program, it is entertaining and simplistic enough not to bore or confuse those not as well versed in science as they might like to be, and informative and intriguing enough to whet the appetite of all but the most anti-scientific amongst us. Now, to tie everything together. Things like the evolution of complex life, and even more the big bang, seem impossible to our human minds because of their grand scale. But the largest factor in all of these things has been that which we don't take the time to think about most of the time: and that is time. What I mean is this: it is simply not possible to truly comprehend the vast quantities of time that have passed, so that all this: computers, the internet, youtube, could be here. Cosmic microwave background radiation tells us that the universe as we know it is approximately 13 billion, 7 hundred million years old, give or take two hundred million. Now, some fundamentalists actually believe that the Earth (and the universe) is only around SIX THOUSAND years old. I'm going to pause for a second to let that sink in. The margin of error for the actual age of the universe is thirty-three-thousand-three-hundred-and-thirty-three TIMES what some people believe is the actual age of the universe! JUST THE MARGIN OF ERROR! When you compare the actual age of the universe to the paltry 6,000 years some people still claim to believe to be the age of the universe, it is actually two-million-two-hundred-eighty-three-thousand-three-hundred-thirty-three TIMES the age that fundamentalists believe it to be. 13.7 BILLION years. That's a lot of time, to say the least. The earth itself is a scant 4.6 billion years old, still seven-hundred-sixty-six-thousand-six-hundred-sixty-six times the 6000 measly, puny years claimed by fundamentalists. Still a LOT of time. 4.6 BILLION years. (Less) Channel: youtube
5,
09:21,
2008-04-21 17:47:35
Description: Dr. Heinz Lycklama earned a Ph. D. degree in experimental Nuclear Physics from McMaster University in Canada. Ideas are often reinforced by means of the frequent use and display of memorable icons. (More) Dr. Heinz Lycklama earned a Ph. D. degree in experimental Nuclear Physics from McMaster University in Canada. Ideas are often reinforced by means of the frequent use and display of memorable icons. There is no better known icon for the theory of evolution than the picture that demonstrates an ape walking on four limbs and then through a series of transitions to a human being walking on two legs. Every school science textbook shows this icon. But there are other icons that are often used to demonstrate the theory of evolution despite the fact that the principles and concepts conveyed by the icons have long since been proven to be false, even by scientists who claim to be evolutionists. And yet these icons still appear in many of the popular text books used in our public schools today. If you have children or grandchildren in public schools, you need to know what these icons are and how they are being used to support the theory of evolution. Seattle Creation Conference, 2006. I invite you to visit the Christian Apologetics group. http://www.youtube.com/group/ChristianApologetics (Less) Channel: youtube
1,
01:12,
2009-05-29 00:32:09
Description: Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Evolution, Missing Links, Breaking News, Nuclear Missiles,Ufo Footage, Ufo Videos, Videos of Ufo's, ufos Caught on Videotape, Alien, Aliens, Ufo Researchers, Ufo (More) Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Evolution, Missing Links, Breaking News, Nuclear Missiles,Ufo Footage, Ufo Videos, Videos of Ufo's, ufos Caught on Videotape, Alien, Aliens, Ufo Researchers, Ufo Investigators, Ufo hotspots, Stephenville, Texas, Alien Invasion, Visitors from other Planets, Star Trek, Space Invaders, ufovideo.Net, Skynet, Skywatchers, Alien Hunters, Ufo Hunters, Alien Probed, Ufo Flaps, Ed Walters, Billy Mieir, Billy Meir, Best Ufo Footage Caught on Tape, Greatest Ufo Videos, Proof of ... (Less) Channel: youtube
21,
31:25,
2008-04-18 14:50:31
Description: Dr. Gerald Schroeder sets forth a powerful argument for Intelligent Design. Dr. Gerald Schroeder holds a dual doctorate in Nuclear Physics and Oceanography from MIT along with high-level research in (More) Dr. Gerald Schroeder sets forth a powerful argument for Intelligent Design. Dr. Gerald Schroeder holds a dual doctorate in Nuclear Physics and Oceanography from MIT along with high-level research in chemistry and planetary sciences. Dr. Schroeder's (Less) Channel: myspace
15,
05:58,
2008-04-02 02:52:16
Description: "Cynthia Witthoft" - Song - "Dream Implosion" -
One of the earliest documented attempts at building implosion was the 1773 razing of Holy Trinity Cathedral in Waterford, (More) "Cynthia Witthoft" - Song - "Dream Implosion" -
One of the earliest documented attempts at building implosion was the 1773 razing of Holy Trinity Cathedral in Waterford, Ireland with 150 pounds of gunpowder, a huge amount of explosives at the time. The use of low velocity explosive produced a deafening explosion that instantly reduced the the building to rubble.
The 1900s saw the erection ofand ultimately the need to demolishthe first skyscrapers. This led to other considerations in the explosive demolition of buildings, such as worker and spectator safety and limiting collateral damage. Benefiting from the availability of dynamite, a high-velocity explosive based on a stabilized form of nitroglycerine, and borrowing from techniques used in rock-blasting, such as staggered detonation of several small charges, building demolition edged toward efficient building implosion.
Following World War II, European demolition experts faced with massive reconstruction projects in dense urban areas gathered practical knowledge and experience for bringing down large structures without harming adjacent properties. This led to the emergence of a demolition industry that grew and matured during the latter half of the twentieth century. At the same time, the development of more efficient high-velocity explosives such as RDX and non-electrical firing systems combined to make this a period of time in which the building implosion technique was extensively used.
Meanwhile, public interest in the spectacle of controlled building explosion also grew. The October 1994 demolition of the Sears Merchandise Center in Philadelphia, PA drew a cheering crowd of 50,000, as well as protesters, bands, and street vendors hawking building implosion memorabilia. Evolution in the mastery of controlled demolition led to the world record demolition of the Seattle Kingdome on March 26, 2000.
In 1997, a building implosion in Canberra, Australia experienced disaster. The main building did not fully disintegrate and had to be manually demolished. Far worse, the explosion was not contained on the site and large pieces of debris were projected towards spectators 500 metres away, in a location considered safe for viewing. A twelve-year old girl was killed instantly, and nine others were injured. Large fragments of masonry and metal were found 650 metres from the demolition site. (Less) Channel: metacafe
0,
07:39,
2008-04-21 21:16:05
Description: Carl Sagan discusses nuclear self-destruction. This clip is from Carl Sagan's Cosmos episode 13, "Who Speaks For Earth?"
Channel: youtube
2,
01:31,
2009-05-28 23:23:29
Description: god-for-dummies.com creation vs evolution late great israel war syria Iran nuclear
Channel: youtube
1,
00:05,
2009-05-29 19:10:37
Description: www.god-for-dummies.com creation vs evolution the late great Israel nuclear war Jesus Christ God
Channel: youtube
2,
01:23,
2008-04-02 20:32:41
Description: Forces of attraction characterize our cosmos made of light and other star stuff. Science's strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity hold the universe together in an (More) Forces of attraction characterize our cosmos made of light and other star stuff. Science's strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity hold the universe together in an exquisitely bal (Less) Channel: youtube
Recent searches
Recently watched videos
Quicklist (0)
