subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured"

 could actually keep secret a project that was on the order of a few tens
of billions of dollars -- but there are reasons to believe this level of
secrecy is within the capability of the military.

Right, your theory is locked within secret government documents.  Mine is
open to falsify, with some fairly outrageous claims.

Label it trolling or whatever you would like.  Many on vortex are making
non-peer reviewed claims, many with merit.


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Clearly the generator at the back end is meant to carry clubs.
 http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/msl.jpg



 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy.
 
  On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

The science, technology and even economics are all published in AIAA peer
reviewed journals in papers whose arithmetic has withstood the test of
decades.  Limited by intellectual property rights, they are now openly
advertised in the prospectus for Planetary Resources.

What I'm talking about isn't even as secret as was the Manhattan project,
where significant technical problems involving isotope separation, critical
mass and implosion systems had to be developed in secret.  The military
value of asteroid husbandry is at least as great as the military value of
nuclear weaponry.

You, on the other hand, have shown no homework.  Only oracular rhetoric
regarding everything from hurricanes to sinkholes -- and let us not forget
that you intersperse these comments with joking asides regarding a
variety of other phenomena that are as substantiated as your serious
claims, so that it appears your entire presence here may be one big joke on
vortex-l.

Is it?

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:16 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

  could actually keep secret a project that was on the order of a few
 tens of billions of dollars -- but there are reasons to believe this level
 of secrecy is within the capability of the military.

 Right, your theory is locked within secret government documents.  Mine is
 open to falsify, with some fairly outrageous claims.

 Label it trolling or whatever you would like.  Many on vortex are making
 non-peer reviewed claims, many with merit.


 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:

 Clearly the generator at the back end is meant to carry clubs.
 http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/msl.jpg



 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy.
 
  On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Actually I have 300 pages of homework and research on my blog, I just did
not submit it to you.  I am actually beginning to like your theory though,
unfortunately the evidence is locked deep within the government vaults
along with other evidenced files such as:

The government killed Kennedy
Obama's Real Birth Certificate
Chemtrails
HAARP induced weather

and many others which can be found at this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

So it is very hard for me to falsify your theory and as far as I can tell
the only predictive use for it is to predict more government conspiracy
theories.

Love your creativity though man.



On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 The science, technology and even economics are all published in AIAA peer
 reviewed journals in papers whose arithmetic has withstood the test of
 decades.  Limited by intellectual property rights, they are now openly
 advertised in the prospectus for Planetary Resources.

 What I'm talking about isn't even as secret as was the Manhattan project,
 where significant technical problems involving isotope separation, critical
 mass and implosion systems had to be developed in secret.  The military
 value of asteroid husbandry is at least as great as the military value of
 nuclear weaponry.

 You, on the other hand, have shown no homework.  Only oracular rhetoric
 regarding everything from hurricanes to sinkholes -- and let us not forget
 that you intersperse these comments with joking asides regarding a
 variety of other phenomena that are as substantiated as your serious
 claims, so that it appears your entire presence here may be one big joke on
 vortex-l.

 Is it?


 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:16 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

  could actually keep secret a project that was on the order of a few
 tens of billions of dollars -- but there are reasons to believe this level
 of secrecy is within the capability of the military.

 Right, your theory is locked within secret government documents.  Mine is
 open to falsify, with some fairly outrageous claims.

 Label it trolling or whatever you would like.  Many on vortex are making
 non-peer reviewed claims, many with merit.


 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:

 Clearly the generator at the back end is meant to carry clubs.
 http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/msl.jpg



 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy.
 
  On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Oh now this is highly amusing.

In response to my request for a single URL to an internet government
conspiracy theory that was more plausible than my theory of a classified
military program based on widely acknowledged science, technology and
economics, ChemE provided a link to a Popular Science blog.  Unfortunately,
that link was not to one theory, but to several including such plausible
theories as Mayan prophecies.

However, one of the links was to internet kook Rense.com where someone
mentioned a space-based kinetic energy weapon called God's Rods --
however, in addition to providing no cites for the referenced weapon
system, there was no mention of the asteroid fly-by coincidence in the
Rense.com internet government conspiracy theory.  You can track it down
if you like.  Prima facia, it isn't interesting if for no other reason than
they didn't account for the asteroidal coincidence.

The plausibility of a space-based kinetic energy weapon, itself, didn't
seem outlandish so I set about searching for mainstream press sources on
God's Rods prior to recent events.

Lo and behold, Popular Science, source of ChemE's debunking article was,
itself the first source I found dating back to 2004!

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god

If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable
origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching
heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket
technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to
making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the
rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the
rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the
fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at
any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A
better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the
rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough
during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact.
ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth,
would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem
to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high
costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But
I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right
now.”




On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:35 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 We await with bated breath your homework.

 I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
 various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
 typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.

 The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is
 this uncited sentence: Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
 evidence of a new weapon.  and the only possible backup for this sentence
 is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
 meteor.

 Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
 trolls.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.

 Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
 with the Mayans based on its merits.


 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.

 A scattershot of a bunch conspiracy theories starting with a Mayan
 prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with a
 (singular) URL to a (singular) conspiracy theory more plausible than my
 theory, which is not conspiratorial unless you include routine government
 classified work as conspiratorial.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Ok,

 The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site

 The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
 nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
 Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
 it, although they found fragments around the hole.

 The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
 tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.

 Your answer:

 http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories



 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the
 URL to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):

 http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/

 But you must then search for the subheading:

 Typical Particle Orbit Calculations

 The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application
 of these equations to the

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Wow, I guess I proved your theory and my homework is done!


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Oh now this is highly amusing.

 In response to my request for a single URL to an internet government
 conspiracy theory that was more plausible than my theory of a classified
 military program based on widely acknowledged science, technology and
 economics, ChemE provided a link to a Popular Science blog.  Unfortunately,
 that link was not to one theory, but to several including such plausible
 theories as Mayan prophecies.

 However, one of the links was to internet kook Rense.com where someone
 mentioned a space-based kinetic energy weapon called God's Rods --
 however, in addition to providing no cites for the referenced weapon
 system, there was no mention of the asteroid fly-by coincidence in the
 Rense.com internet government conspiracy theory.  You can track it down
 if you like.  Prima facia, it isn't interesting if for no other reason than
 they didn't account for the asteroidal coincidence.

 The plausibility of a space-based kinetic energy weapon, itself, didn't
 seem outlandish so I set about searching for mainstream press sources on
 God's Rods prior to recent events.

 Lo and behold, Popular Science, source of ChemE's debunking article was,
 itself the first source I found dating back to 2004!

 http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god

 If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable
 origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching
 heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket
 technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to
 making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the
 rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the
 rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the
 fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at
 any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A
 better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the
 rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough
 during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact.
 ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth,
 would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem
 to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high
 costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But
 I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right
 now.”




 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:35 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 We await with bated breath your homework.

 I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
 various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
 typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.

 The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory
 is this uncited sentence: Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
 evidence of a new weapon.  and the only possible backup for this sentence
 is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
 meteor.

 Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
 trolls.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.

 Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
 with the Mayans based on its merits.


 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.

 A scattershot of a bunch conspiracy theories starting with a Mayan
 prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with a
 (singular) URL to a (singular) conspiracy theory more plausible than my
 theory, which is not conspiratorial unless you include routine government
 classified work as conspiratorial.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Ok,

 The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site

 The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
 nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
 Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
 it, although they found fragments around the hole.

 The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
 tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.

 Your answer:

 http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories



 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the
 URL to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):

 http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/

 But you must

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Actually, no, my theory is still that the mass for the kinetic energy
weapon we saw over Russia was of non-terrestrial origin and this is
consistent with Pike's claim that launch costs for God's Rods are too
high.

The economics of space-based civil engineering and industrialization, such
as solar power satellites, have been known to be launch cost limited since
the early 70s.  The solution was also worked out then:  use non-terrestrial
materials.

During the subsequent energy crisis under Carter and then on to the Reagan
administration there were multiple studies of solar power satellites that
proceeded to proclaim them uneconomic for the same reason that Pike
declared God's Rods uneconomic:  launch costs.  However, every one of
these studies failed to provide any damning critique of the studies that
had shown non-terrestrial materials was an economic end-run.  Why the
persistent stupidity in the face of obvious needs for energy and, more
generally, environmental pressures on the biosphere of an expanding
technological civilization.

Certainly, we may invoke stupidity as adequate explanation.  On the other
hand they may have been dumb like a fox during a period when Reagan's
Star Wars project was investing huge amounts of money in space-based
weapons systems.

It is worth noting that during Star Wars I was working a the company most
likely to be involved in the development of space-based kinetic energy
weapons:  Science Applications International Corporation.  I frequently
received in my mail box there mail addressed to the prior occupant of my
office, Peter 
Vajkhttp://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-been-cancelled-Peter-Vajk/dp/0915238241.
 Click through his name for a delightful coincidence.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:59 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Wow, I guess I proved your theory and my homework is done!


 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Oh now this is highly amusing.

 In response to my request for a single URL to an internet government
 conspiracy theory that was more plausible than my theory of a classified
 military program based on widely acknowledged science, technology and
 economics, ChemE provided a link to a Popular Science blog.  Unfortunately,
 that link was not to one theory, but to several including such plausible
 theories as Mayan prophecies.

 However, one of the links was to internet kook Rense.com where someone
 mentioned a space-based kinetic energy weapon called God's Rods --
 however, in addition to providing no cites for the referenced weapon
 system, there was no mention of the asteroid fly-by coincidence in the
 Rense.com internet government conspiracy theory.  You can track it down
 if you like.  Prima facia, it isn't interesting if for no other reason than
 they didn't account for the asteroidal coincidence.

 The plausibility of a space-based kinetic energy weapon, itself, didn't
 seem outlandish so I set about searching for mainstream press sources on
 God's Rods prior to recent events.

 Lo and behold, Popular Science, source of ChemE's debunking article
 was, itself the first source I found dating back to 2004!

 http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god

 If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable
 origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching
 heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket
 technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to
 making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the
 rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the
 rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the
 fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at
 any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A
 better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the
 rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough
 during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact.
 ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth,
 would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem
 to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high
 costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But
 I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right
 now.”




 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:35 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 We await with bated breath your homework.

 I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
 various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
 typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.

 The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory
 is this uncited sentence: Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
 evidence of a new weapon.  and

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

The message is simply this:  We have sufficient control of the asteroid's
little brother that you might be wise to consider the possibility that we
have control of the asteroid.

I would like our governments first to get a handle on identifying, tracking
and redirecting/destroying them before they do damage to the Earth and
injure, kill and destroy.  Then I guess weaponizing them as you theorize,
like we do everything else could be considered...


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:24 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Actually, no, my theory is still that the mass for the kinetic energy
 weapon we saw over Russia was of non-terrestrial origin and this is
 consistent with Pike's claim that launch costs for God's Rods are too
 high.

 The economics of space-based civil engineering and industrialization, such
 as solar power satellites, have been known to be launch cost limited since
 the early 70s.  The solution was also worked out then:  use non-terrestrial
 materials.

 During the subsequent energy crisis under Carter and then on to the Reagan
 administration there were multiple studies of solar power satellites that
 proceeded to proclaim them uneconomic for the same reason that Pike
 declared God's Rods uneconomic:  launch costs.  However, every one of
 these studies failed to provide any damning critique of the studies that
 had shown non-terrestrial materials was an economic end-run.  Why the
 persistent stupidity in the face of obvious needs for energy and, more
 generally, environmental pressures on the biosphere of an expanding
 technological civilization.

 Certainly, we may invoke stupidity as adequate explanation.  On the other
 hand they may have been dumb like a fox during a period when Reagan's
 Star Wars project was investing huge amounts of money in space-based
 weapons systems.

 It is worth noting that during Star Wars I was working a the company
 most likely to be involved in the development of space-based kinetic energy
 weapons:  Science Applications International Corporation.  I frequently
 received in my mail box there mail addressed to the prior occupant of my
 office, Peter 
 Vajkhttp://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-been-cancelled-Peter-Vajk/dp/0915238241.
  Click through his name for a delightful coincidence.

 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:59 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Wow, I guess I proved your theory and my homework is done!


 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

 Oh now this is highly amusing.

 In response to my request for a single URL to an internet government
 conspiracy theory that was more plausible than my theory of a classified
 military program based on widely acknowledged science, technology and
 economics, ChemE provided a link to a Popular Science blog.  Unfortunately,
 that link was not to one theory, but to several including such plausible
 theories as Mayan prophecies.

 However, one of the links was to internet kook Rense.com where someone
 mentioned a space-based kinetic energy weapon called God's Rods --
 however, in addition to providing no cites for the referenced weapon
 system, there was no mention of the asteroid fly-by coincidence in the
 Rense.com internet government conspiracy theory.  You can track it down
 if you like.  Prima facia, it isn't interesting if for no other reason than
 they didn't account for the asteroidal coincidence.

 The plausibility of a space-based kinetic energy weapon, itself, didn't
 seem outlandish so I set about searching for mainstream press sources on
 God's Rods prior to recent events.

 Lo and behold, Popular Science, source of ChemE's debunking article
 was, itself the first source I found dating back to 2004!

 http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god

 If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable
 origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching
 heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket
 technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to
 making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the
 rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the
 rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the
 fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at
 any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A
 better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the
 rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough
 during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact.
 ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth,
 would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem
 to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high
 costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But
 I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-22 Thread Terry Blanton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with
precise targeting, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein.

In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over Gen
Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and
Vajk.  He had written the foreword to Graham's book High Frontier about
weaponizing nonterrestrial resources.

Graham was a key figure in Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense
Initiative.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Terry, thanks for clearing it up.  Whatever was steering that last
meteoroid was a very bad driver.


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with
 precise targeting, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein.

 In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over Gen
 Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and
 Vajk.  He had written the foreword to Graham's book High Frontier about
 weaponizing nonterrestrial resources.

 Graham was a key figure in Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense
 Initiative.

 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-22 Thread Harry Veeder

So is it your thesis that the russian meteor was a fragment blown off
the larger meteor?

Harry

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
 Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with
 precise targeting, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein.

 In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over Gen
 Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and
 Vajk.  He had written the foreword to Graham's book High Frontier about
 weaponizing nonterrestrial resources.

 Graham was a key figure in Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense
 Initiative.

 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Your interpretation of what I've written renders me speechless.


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 So is it your thesis that the russian meteor was a fragment blown off
 the larger meteor?

 Harry

 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
  Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons
 with
  precise targeting, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein.
 
  In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over
 Gen
  Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and
  Vajk.  He had written the foreword to Graham's book High Frontier about
  weaponizing nonterrestrial resources.
 
  Graham was a key figure in Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense
  Initiative.
 
  On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-22 Thread Terry Blanton

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
 Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with
 precise targeting, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein.

Yeah, but they didn't call it the foot.  :-)

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-22 Thread Harry Veeder

Sorry, I've only been skimming the posts in the thread. In the back of
my mind I've been wondering how the two space rocks
could be related even though they were headed in almost in opposite
directions. Your talk of spacebased kinetic energy weapons got me
thinkingIf a space rock fragments from an explosion it could
result in two rocks moving in opposite directions. Alternatively, the
two space rocks and their trajectories could be the result of an
improbable collision in recent years.

Harry


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
 Your interpretation of what I've written renders me speechless.


 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 So is it your thesis that the russian meteor was a fragment blown off
 the larger meteor?

 Harry

 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
  Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons
  with
  precise targeting, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein.
 
  In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over
  Gen
  Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and
  Vajk.  He had written the foreword to Graham's book High Frontier
  about
  weaponizing nonterrestrial resources.
 
  Graham was a key figure in Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense
  Initiative.
 
  On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

All this talk about Pi and monkeys seems not to be really taking hold of
some minds here at vortex.  Let me suggest if you are going to founder on
the rocks of algorithmic randomness/information/probability theory, you go
for guidance to the world's  foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and
read his relatively accessible A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be
Subjective) http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/3/4/329.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal all
 of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.  Of
 course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of
 predictions that are utter non sense.

  Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they
 happen because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every
 historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them
 as far as I know.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

   If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
 works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
 different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
 natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?

 Harry



 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
  I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are 
  making
 when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
 typing
 monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
 can
 be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is
 already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an
 impossibility.
 
  I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive
 means.
  If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
  the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
  if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
  And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.
 
  What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
  lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
  which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
  Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
  the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
  of the universe.
 
  And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
  first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
  up also.
 
  Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
  will need to go through Pi.
 
  Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
  it might never occur.
  I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
  100 digits?
  For that matter does it show up at all?
  There is nothing meaning it must, ever.
 
  But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
  further you search.
 
  3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286
 
  Ah, didn't take long.
 
  Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U
 
  Fun video.
 
 
 
  I have not seen the video,
  You should.
 
  But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
  do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out.
  Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could
  check the validity of what the other version shows.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

A particularly relevant passage for those who get stuck on clustering of
random events (ToE: Theory of Everything):

(R) Random universe. Actually there is a much simpler way of obtaining a
ToE. Consider an infinite
sequence of random bits (fair coin tosses). It is easy to see that any
finite pattern, i.e., any finite
binary sequence, occurs (actually infinitely often) in this string. Now
consider our observable universe
quantized at e.g. Planck level, and code the whole space-time universe into
a huge bit string. If the
universe ends in a big crunch, this string is finite. (Think of a digital
high resolution 3D movie of the
universe from the big bang to the big crunch). This big string also appears
somewhere in our random
string, hence our random string is a perfect ToE. This is reminiscent of
the Boltzmann brain idea that
in a sufficiently large random universe, *there exist low entropy
regions*that resemble our own universe
and/or brain (observer) [17, Sec.3.8].


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 All this talk about Pi and monkeys seems not to be really taking hold of
 some minds here at vortex.  Let me suggest if you are going to founder on
 the rocks of algorithmic randomness/information/probability theory, you go
 for guidance to the world's  foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and
 read his relatively accessible A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be
 Subjective) http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/3/4/329.


 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal
 all of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.
  Of course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of
 predictions that are utter non sense.

  Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they
 happen because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every
 historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them
 as far as I know.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

   If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
 works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
 different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
 natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?

 Harry



 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
  I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are 
  making
 when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
 typing
 monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
 can
 be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is
 already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an
 impossibility.
 
  I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive
 means.
  If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
  the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
  if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
  And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.
 
  What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
  lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
  which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
  Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
  the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
  of the universe.
 
  And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
  first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
  up also.
 
  Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
  will need to go through Pi.
 
  Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
  it might never occur.
  I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
  100 digits?
  For that matter does it show up at all?
  There is nothing meaning it must, ever.
 
  But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
  further you search.
 
  3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286
 
  Ah, didn't take long.
 
  Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U
 
  Fun video.
 
 
 
  I have not seen the video,
  You should.
 
  But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
  do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out.
  Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could
  check the validity of what

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

 event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them
 as far as I know.

  Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

   If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
 works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
 different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
 natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?

 Harry

 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com 
  wrote:
  I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are 
  making
 when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
 typing
 monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the 
 folio can
 be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there 
 is
 already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an
 impossibility.

  I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive
 means.
  If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
  the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
  if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
  And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.

  What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
  lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
  which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
  Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
  the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
  of the universe.

  And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
  first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
  up also.

  Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
  will need to go through Pi.

  Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
  it might never occur.
  I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
  100 digits?
  For that matter does it show up at all?
  There is nothing meaning it must, ever.

  But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
  further you search.

  3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286

  Ah, didn't take long.

  Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U

  Fun video.

  I have not seen the video,
  You should.

  But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
  do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out.
  Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could
  check the validity of what the other version shows.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

, it will reveal all
 of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.  Of
 course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of
 predictions that are utter non sense.

  Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they
 happen because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every
 historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them
 as far as I know.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

   If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
 works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
 different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
 natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?

 Harry



 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
  I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are 
  making
 when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
 typing
 monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
 can
 be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is
 already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an
 impossibility.
 
  I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive
 means.
  If it never can end and d

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

 to the world's  foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and
 read his relatively accessible A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be
 Subjective) http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/3/4/329.


 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal
 all of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.
  Of course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of
 predictions that are utter non sense.

  Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they
 happen because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every
 historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them
 as far as I know.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

   If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
 works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
 different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
 natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?

 Harry



 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
  I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are 
  making
 when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
 typing
 monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
 can
 be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is
 already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an
 impossibility.
 
  I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive
 means.
  If it never can end and d

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site. I also show multi-body
problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth. I have also
been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems. I
am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
two Hurricane tracks from 2012. Also have a provisional patent filed.

All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
all over the Internet.

I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark band
are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

Your don't have a theory, ChemE. You have a lot of words and pictures at
a blog. No arithmetic. I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
refuse to be forthcoming.

Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks. We have
civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
governments.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
for the coincidence:

It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons. The fact
that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
picturehttp://singularityhub.com/2013/02/19/interview-diamandis-planetary-resources-to-claim-high-value-asteroids-with-robotic-beacons/
should
not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
decades -- including the military.

We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
black project existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
a decades-long maturation period. The technologies existed, in
unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program. This is all that is
necessary to posit the means and opportunity (not the motive) for an
artificial coincidence between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
artificially controlled meteor:

If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the black than
is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources. This
provides the opportunity in that it may have been known many years,
possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within
GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013.

As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were placed
on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing chunks of
rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could provide
sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter earth's
atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no substantial
serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry would
approximately coincide with the near pass of the asteroid.

Now for the motive:

In intelligence agencies (yes I have had dealings including working in a
SCIF for months under daily review by the Joint Chiefs and Jasons on an
'imminent nuclear war' priority project, so I do know a little) there is
something called a signature which provides a plausible deniability
cover to the mundanes while ensuring the message gets through to the
opposing side's intelligence agencies. Such a statistical anomaly
involving potential weaponry fits the bill of a signature. The message
is simply this: We have sufficient control of the asteroid's little
brother that you might be wise to consider the possibility that we have
control of the asteroid.

Remaining questions regarding the motive (as in means, motive and
opportunity) are:

Why Russia?

Why now?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

A particularly relevant passage for those who get stuck on clustering of
random events (ToE: Theory of Everything):

(R) Random universe. Actually there is a much simpler way of obtaining a
ToE. Consider an infinite
sequence of random bits (fair coin tosses). It is easy to see that any
finite pattern, i.e., any finite
binary sequence, occurs (actually infinitely often) in this string. Now
consider our observable universe
quantized at e.g. Planck level, and code the whole space-time universe
into a huge bit string. If the
universe ends in a big crunch, this string is finite. (Think of a digital
high resolution 3D movie of the

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

The typical internet government conspiracy theory has to refer
technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
widely acknowledged as being legitimate. I've made no such assumptions and
I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.

On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
explanation of the observe phenomena.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
all over the Internet.

I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

Your don't have a theory, ChemE. You have a lot of words and pictures at
a blog. No arithmetic. I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
refuse to be forthcoming.

Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
for the coincidence:

As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were
placed on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing
chunks of rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could
provide sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter
earth's atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no
substantial serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry
would approximately coincide with the near pass of the asteroid.

Now for the motive:

Remaining questions regarding the motive (as in means, motive and
opportunity) are:

Why Russia?

Why now?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM,

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Darkmattersalot.com
on the menu

My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
all over the Internet.

I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

Your don't have a theory, ChemE. You have a lot of words and pictures at
a blog. No arithmetic. I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
refuse to be forthcoming.

Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
for the coincidence:

Now for the motive:

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):

http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/

But you must then search for the subheading:

Typical Particle Orbit Calculations

The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.

My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
internet government conspiracy theory that is more plausible than mine
remains unanswered even in part.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Darkmattersalot.com
on the menu

My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
all over the Internet.

I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

Your don't have a theory, ChemE. You have a lot of words and pictures at
a blog. No arithmetic. I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
refuse to be forthcoming.

Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
for the coincidence:

As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were
placed on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing
chunks of rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could
provide sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter
earth's atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no
substantial serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry
would approximately coincide with the near pass

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Ok,

The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site

The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
it, although they found fragments around the hole.

The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons.
Without knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.

Your answer:
http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):

http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/

But you must then search for the subheading:

Typical Particle Orbit Calculations

The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.

My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
internet government conspiracy theory that is more plausible than mine
remains unanswered even in part.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Darkmattersalot.com
on the menu

My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
all over the Internet.

I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

Your don't have a theory, ChemE. You have a lot of words and pictures at
a blog. No arithmetic. I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
refuse to be forthcoming.

Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
for the coincidence:

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.

A scattershot of a bunch conspiracy theories starting with a Mayan
prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with a
(singular) URL to a (singular) conspiracy theory more plausible than my
theory, which is not conspiratorial unless you include routine government
classified work as conspiratorial.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Ok,

The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site

The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons.
Without knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.

Your answer:

http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):

http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/

But you must then search for the subheading:

Typical Particle Orbit Calculations

The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.

My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
internet government conspiracy theory that is more plausible than mine
remains unanswered even in part.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

Darkmattersalot.com
on the menu

My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
all over the Internet.

I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

Your don't have a theory, ChemE. You have a lot of words and pictures at
a blog. No arithmetic. I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
refuse to be forthcoming.

Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
for the coincidence:

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.

Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
with the Mayans based on its merits.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.

 A scattershot of a bunch conspiracy theories starting with a Mayan
 prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with a
 (singular) URL to a (singular) conspiracy theory more plausible than my
 theory, which is not conspiratorial unless you include routine government
 classified work as conspiratorial.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ok,

 The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site

 The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
 nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
 Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
 it, although they found fragments around the hole.

 The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons.
   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.

 Your answer:

 http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories



 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
 to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):

 http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/

 But you must then search for the subheading:

 Typical Particle Orbit Calculations

 The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
 these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.

 My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
 internet government conspiracy theory that is more plausible than mine
 remains unanswered even in part.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Darkmattersalot.com
 on the menu

 My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
 through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.

 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 The typical internet government conspiracy theory has to refer
 technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
 science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
 widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
 I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.

 On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
 arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
 referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
 explanation of the observe phenomena.


 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
 problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
 been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
 am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
 two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.

 All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
 all over the Internet.

 I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
 band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.


 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
 a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
 refuse to be forthcoming.

 Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.



 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Wow, I

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-21 Thread Terry Blanton

Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

We await with bated breath your homework.

I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.

The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is
this uncited sentence: Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
evidence of a new weapon.  and the only possible backup for this sentence
is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
meteor.

Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
trolls.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.

 Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
 with the Mayans based on its merits.


 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.

 A scattershot of a bunch conspiracy theories starting with a Mayan
 prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with a
 (singular) URL to a (singular) conspiracy theory more plausible than my
 theory, which is not conspiratorial unless you include routine government
 classified work as conspiratorial.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Ok,

 The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site

 The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
 nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
 Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
 it, although they found fragments around the hole.

 The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
 tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.

 Your answer:

 http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories



 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
 to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):

 http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/

 But you must then search for the subheading:

 Typical Particle Orbit Calculations

 The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
 these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.

 My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
 internet government conspiracy theory that is more plausible than mine
 remains unanswered even in part.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Darkmattersalot.com
 on the menu

 My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
 through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.

 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 The typical internet government conspiracy theory has to refer
 technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
 science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
 widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
 I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.

 On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
 arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
 referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
 explanation of the observe phenomena.


 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
 problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
 been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
 am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
 two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.

 All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
 all over the Internet.

 I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
 band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.


 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
 a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
 refuse to be forthcoming.

 Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.



 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Wow, I

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Don't speak for everyone, you are the only unaccredited Bowery U professor
requesting homework while you advance more government conspiracy theories.

Dark energy/vacuum energy/ZPE whatever you want to call it makes up 95% of
the universe, it is about time we figure out where it is.  Where do you
think it is? I think it is creating severe low pressure systems in our
atmosphere through vacuum and the Earth is orbiting into higher energy
particles all of the time.  These high energy quantum particles also help
explain quantum gravity.

I don't think we live in a nice smooth constant entropy universe, plenty of
ripples right here on Earth.

What is the evidence for your theory?  I am open to evidence.  Do you have
secret government documents?




On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 We await with bated breath your homework.

 I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
 various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
 typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.

 The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is
 this uncited sentence: Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
 evidence of a new weapon.  and the only possible backup for this sentence
 is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
 meteor.

 Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
 trolls.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart 
 cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');
  wrote:

 Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.

 Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
 with the Mayans based on its merits.


 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.

 A scattershot of a bunch conspiracy theories starting with a Mayan
 prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with a
 (singular) URL to a (singular) conspiracy theory more plausible than my
 theory, which is not conspiratorial unless you include routine government
 classified work as conspiratorial.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Ok,

 The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site

 The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
 nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
 Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
 it, although they found fragments around the hole.

 The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
 tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.

 Your answer:

 http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories



 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the
 URL to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):

 http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/

 But you must then search for the subheading:

 Typical Particle Orbit Calculations

 The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application
 of these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.

 My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
 internet government conspiracy theory that is more plausible than mine
 remains unanswered even in part.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Darkmattersalot.com
 on the menu

 My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
 through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.

 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 The typical internet government conspiracy theory has to refer
 technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
 science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
 widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
 I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.

 On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
 arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
 referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
 explanation of the observe phenomena.


 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show
 multi-body problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I
 have also been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure
 systems.  I am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and
 fitting it to two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional
 patent filed.

 All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find
 plastered all over the Internet.

 I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
 band are

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

You've been trolling vortex-l with our dark matter rhetoric, shoehorning
just about anything of mild interest without so much as a single
calculation that could be peer reviewed that even in a post-hoc analysis
could be seen as validating your rhetoric.

While its true I don't speak for everyone, I'm certain that among the many
who have fallen silent in response to your constant trolls there are a few
who actually are open minded enough to look at something resembling real
work from you.  I'm among them actually, which is why I'm not simply silent.

As far as my theory goes, I've already stated but to elaborate:

The sources for asteroid mining are numerous, well established AIAA
publications spanning decades and including current business plans by a
company backed by major silicon valley venture financiers:  Planetary
Resources.  The sensor technologies are likewise very old and mature
although the specific technologies cited by Planetary Resources have been
under deep black cover for decades with occasional glimpses leaked.  The
least plausible aspect of my theory is that anyone could actually keep
secret a project that was on the order of a few tens of billions of dollars
-- but there are reasons to believe this level of secrecy is within the
capability of the military.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:32 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks for keeping me awake I drove 10 hours today.  Stalemate is OK with
 me.


 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:

 Don't speak for everyone, you are the only unaccredited Bowery U
 professor requesting homework while you advance more government conspiracy
 theories.

 Dark energy/vacuum energy/ZPE whatever you want to call it makes up 95%
 of the universe, it is about time we figure out where it is.  Where do you
 think it is? I think it is creating severe low pressure systems in our
 atmosphere through vacuum and the Earth is orbiting into higher energy
 particles all of the time.  These high energy quantum particles also help
 explain quantum gravity.

 I don't think we live in a nice smooth constant entropy universe, plenty
 of ripples right here on Earth.

 What is the evidence for your theory?  I am open to evidence.  Do you
 have secret government documents?




 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 We await with bated breath your homework.

 I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
 various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
 typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.

 The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory
 is this uncited sentence: Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
 evidence of a new weapon.  and the only possible backup for this sentence
 is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
 meteor.

 Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
 trolls.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.

 Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
 with the Mayans based on its merits.


 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.

 A scattershot of a bunch conspiracy theories starting with a Mayan
 prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with a
 (singular) URL to a (singular) conspiracy theory more plausible than my
 theory, which is not conspiratorial unless you include routine government
 classified work as conspiratorial.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Ok,

 The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site

 The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
 nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
 Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
 it, although they found fragments around the hole.

 The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
 tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.

 Your answer:

 http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories



 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
 to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):

 http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/

 But you must then search for the subheading:

 Typical Particle Orbit Calculations

 The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
 these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.

 My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
 internet government conspiracy theory that is more plausible than mine
 remains unanswered even in part.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-21 Thread Harry Veeder

Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-21 Thread Harry Veeder

Clearly the generator at the back end is meant to carry clubs.
http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/msl.jpg



On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
 Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy.

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-20 Thread Eric Walker

On Feb 17, 2013, at 15:04, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 I suspect these events only seem infrequent
  
 Careful, Eric.  We're actually getting, just in the last few years, enough 
 data to falsify claims like yours now.

I'm not claiming, I'm suspecting. ;)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-20 Thread Eric Walker

On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:49, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
 also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
 repetitive

I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are making 
when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally typing 
monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
can be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there 
is already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an 
impossibility.

I have not seen the video, but what has been described could possibly be due to 
parallax with the frame of reference of the camera and arising in connection 
with a piece of the meteor that split off at some point during entry.

I doubt the gravitational field of a ten ton meteor is strong enough to keep 
much in an orbit of any kind.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

Of course maybe it was just diffuse plasma.

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Eric Walker wrote:

 On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:49, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comjavascript:;
 wrote:

  It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
  also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
  repetitive

 I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are
 making when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of
 eternally typing monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or
 imagining that the folio can be found at some point transcoded in the
 decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is already a mathematical proof out there
 to the effect that the latter is an impossibility.

 I have not seen the video, but what has been described could possibly be
 due to parallax with the frame of reference of the camera and arising in
 connection with a piece of the meteor that split off at some point during
 entry.

 I doubt the gravitational field of a ten ton meteor is strong enough to
 keep much in an orbit of any kind.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-20 Thread Daniel Rocha

It was just a horrible blunder. Even I got the number and the yield of the
explosion right. Just look at the beginning of this thread.

2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com

You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

Of course maybe it was just diffuse plasma.

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Eric Walker wrote:

On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:49, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
repetitive

I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are
making when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of
eternally typing monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or
imagining that the folio can be found at some point transcoded in the
decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is already a mathematical proof out there
to the effect that the latter is an impossibility.

I have not seen the video, but what has been described could possibly be
due to parallax with the frame of reference of the camera and arising in
connection with a piece of the meteor that split off at some point during
entry.

I doubt the gravitational field of a ten ton meteor is strong enough to
keep much in an orbit of any kind.

Eric

--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

The biggest blunder is having an object hurdling at you @ 60,000 mph with
the ability to take out a city and not even realizing it.

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:

It was just a horrible blunder. Even I got the number and the yield of the
explosion right. Just look at the beginning of this thread.

2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com');

You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

Of course maybe it was just diffuse plasma.

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Eric Walker wrote:

On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:49, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
repetitive

I doubt the gravitational field of a ten ton meteor is strong enough to
keep much in an orbit of any kind.

Eric

--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'danieldi...@gmail.com');

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-20 Thread Terry Blanton

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
 You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...

 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
 Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.

sigh

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)

I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.

I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
diameter hole in the ice.  So far nada...

Should be worth a lot if it exists.


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
  You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
 
 
 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

 That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
 released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
  Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
 have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.

 sigh

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-20 Thread Daniel Rocha

There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic energy
of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical density of
7g/cm^3. The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt and its
weight around 10ktons.


2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com

 Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)

 I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.

 I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
 diameter hole in the ice.  So far nada...

 Should be worth a lot if it exists.


 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
 
 
 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

 That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
 released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
  Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
 have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.

 sigh





-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Where is it?

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic energy
 of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical density of
 7g/cm^3. The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt and its
 weight around 10ktons.


 2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'cheme...@gmail.com');

 Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)

 I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.

 I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
 diameter hole in the ice.  So far nada...

 Should be worth a lot if it exists.


 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton 
 hohlr...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'hohlr...@gmail.com');
  wrote:

 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart 
 cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');
 wrote:
  You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
 
 
 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

 That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
 released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
  Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
 have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.

 sigh





 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'danieldi...@gmail.com');

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

10,000 tons is A LOT OF STUFF


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Where is it?


 On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic
 energy of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical
 density of 7g/cm^3. The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt
 and its weight around 10ktons.


 2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com

 Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)

 I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.

 I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
 diameter hole in the ice.  So far nada...

 Should be worth a lot if it exists.


 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
 
 
 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

 That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
 released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
  Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
 have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.

 sigh





 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-20 Thread Daniel Rocha

1m3 of an asteroid weights 7tons, usually. If its radius is 7.5m, then we
have a volume of 4/3*pi*(7.5) ~ 1800m^3. The total weight is around
12thousand tons. Not much, really.


2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com

 10,000 tons is A LOT OF STUFF


 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Where is it?


 On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic
 energy of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical
 density of 7g/cm^3. The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt
 and its weight around 10ktons.


 2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com

 Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)

 I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.

 I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
 diameter hole in the ice.  So far nada...

 Should be worth a lot if it exists.


 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
 
 
 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

 That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
 released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
  Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
 have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.

 sigh





 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com





-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Should be easy to find then, especially the 20' dia hole in the lake
object.  I would be dawning my scuba gear and metal detector.  40 x the
price of gold...

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 1m3 of an asteroid weights 7tons, usually. If its radius is 7.5m, then we
 have a volume of 4/3*pi*(7.5) ~ 1800m^3. The total weight is around
 12thousand tons. Not much, really.


 2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'cheme...@gmail.com');

 10,000 tons is A LOT OF STUFF


 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM, ChemE Stewart 
 cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');
  wrote:

 Where is it?


 On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic
 energy of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical
 density of 7g/cm^3. The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt
 and its weight around 10ktons.


 2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com

 Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)

 I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.

 I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
 diameter hole in the ice.  So far nada...

 Should be worth a lot if it exists.


 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
 
 
 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

 That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
 released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
  Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
 have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.

 sigh





 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com





 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'danieldi...@gmail.com');

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-20 Thread Harvey Norris

--- On Wed, 2/20/13, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013, 12:15 PM

1m3 of an asteroid weights 7tons, usually. If its radius is 7.5m, then we have 
a volume of 4/3*pi*(7.5) ~ 1800m^3. The total weight is around 12thousand tons. 
Not much, really.

2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com

10,000 tons is A LOT OF STUFF

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Where is it?

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic energy of a 
sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical density of 7g/cm^3. 
The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt and its weight around 
10ktons.

2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com

Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)
I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.
I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30' diameter 
hole in the ice.  So far nada...

Should be worth a lot if it exists.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...

 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy

released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.

 Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must

have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.

sigh
duh, dark matter nuclei??? I wouldnt take theorists too seriously when it comes 
to reality, so I'm hoping youre spoofing us.

-- 
Daniel Rocha - rjdanieldi...@gmail.com

-- 
Daniel Rocha - rjdanieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-20 Thread John Berry

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
 I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are making 
 when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
 typing monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the 
 folio can be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder 
 if there is already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the 
 latter is an impossibility.

I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive means.
If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.

What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
of the universe.

And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
up also.

Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
will need to go through Pi.

Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
it might never occur.
I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
100 digits?
For that matter does it show up at all?
There is nothing meaning it must, ever.

But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
further you search.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286

Ah, didn't take long.

Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U

Fun video.



 I have not seen the video,
You should.

But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out.
Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could
check the validity of what the other version shows.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-20 Thread David Roberson

Terry, I laughed when I heard the first estimates that it only weighed 10 tons. 
 Have you looked at the mass of big boulders lately?  A ton is tiny.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 10:49 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
 You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...

 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
 Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.

sigh

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-20 Thread Harry Veeder

 If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?

Harry



On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
 I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are making 
 when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
 typing monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that 
 the folio can be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I 
 wonder if there is already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that 
 the latter is an impossibility.

 I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive 
 means.
 If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
 the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
 if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
 And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.

 What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
 lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
 which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
 Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
 the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
 of the universe.

 And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
 first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
 up also.

 Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
 will need to go through Pi.

 Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
 it might never occur.
 I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
 100 digits?
 For that matter does it show up at all?
 There is nothing meaning it must, ever.

 But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
 further you search.

 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286

 Ah, didn't take long.

 Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U

 Fun video.



 I have not seen the video,
 You should.

 But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
 do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out.
 Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could
 check the validity of what the other version shows.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-20 Thread David Roberson

Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal all of 
the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.  Of course, 
you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of predictions that 
are utter non sense.


Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they happen 
because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every historical 
event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them as far as I 
know.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured


 If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?

Harry



On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
 I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are making 
when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally typing 
monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
can 
be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is 
already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an 
impossibility.

 I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive 
means.
 If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
 the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
 if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
 And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.

 What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
 lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
 which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
 Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
 the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
 of the universe.

 And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
 first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
 up also.

 Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
 will need to go through Pi.

 Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
 it might never occur.
 I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
 100 digits?
 For that matter does it show up at all?
 There is nothing meaning it must, ever.

 But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
 further you search.

 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286

 Ah, didn't take long.

 Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U

 Fun video.



 I have not seen the video,
 You should.

 But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
 do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out.
 Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could
 check the validity of what the other version shows.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a million.
The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object approaching
from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the
ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass. Yes,
we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology. Ignoring the
out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with for
this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage. An
optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical artifact
that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events --
which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems
to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become
advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of
geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
approach on Feb 15, 2012.

2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause
widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves
correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades.

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're
potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the
mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon of
public announcement.

It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard
for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over land,
and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is land we
can increase the expected frequency only a few fold at best.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows.
As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere,
where is the common sense?

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s**
**
** **
** **
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
this Russian video, in slo-mo.
** **
The video could have been altered - with the addition of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at about
27 seconds).
** **
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
military, why not give it some credence?
** **
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
** **
** **
** **
** **
NASA's blog
stateshttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments
:

Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

** **
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
** **
What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread leaking pen

flip a coin 99 times, if it comes up heads 99 times, what is the
probability that it will come up heads the 100th time? And not sure where
Fox got their 10 tons, but the volume, 15 meters across, is pretty much
been the estimate since the beginning. perhaps someone mis estimated what
15 cubic feet of stone weighs?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events --
which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems
to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s*
***
** **
** **
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
this Russian video, in slo-mo.
** **
The video could have been altered - with the addition of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at
about 27 seconds).
** **
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
military, why not give it some credence?
** **
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
** **
** **
** **
** **
NASA's blog
stateshttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments
:

Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

** **
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
** **
What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

You provide no arithmetic and your argument is consistent with my
arithmetic.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:48 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
-- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s

** **
** **
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
this Russian video, in slo-mo.
** **
The video could have been altered - with the addition of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at
about 27 seconds).
** **
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
military, why not give it some credence?
** **
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
** **
** **
** **
** **
NASA's blog
stateshttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments
:

Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

** **
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
** **
What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model says
that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and the
event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs revision.
The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that model? If
the events modeled are of no particular economic importance -- if the
damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one might
not invest all that much money in revising the model.

However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of nuclear
attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction events;
one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the model so
that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out of line
with reality.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events --
which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems
to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s*
***
** **
** **
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
this Russian video, in slo-mo.
** **
The video could have been altered - with the addition of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at
about 27 seconds).
** **
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
military, why not give it some credence?
** **
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
** **
** **
** **
** **
NASA's blog
stateshttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments
:

Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

** **
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
** **
What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread Alexander Hollins

Are you familiar with clustering? just because a rare event happens
twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
just happened to hit the probability twice.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model
says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
revision. The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
model? If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
might not invest all that much money in revising the model.

However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
of line with reality.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
-- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Of course we're all familiar with the clustering phenomenon that occurs
when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
during their lifespan type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.

So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

An actuary, being fully aware of such clustering proceeds to purchase a
thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare
in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them. The actuary cries
Eureka! and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research
program to get to the bottom of this improbable event.

The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary. In the termination letter written by
the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:

1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
demonstrates you have not understood clustering.

2) You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins
alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

Are you familiar with clustering? just because a rare event happens
twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
just happened to hit the probability twice.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model
says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
revision. The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
model? If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
might not invest all that much money in revising the model.

However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
of line with reality.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
-- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently
become advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside
of geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
approach on Feb 15, 2012.

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

It is difficult to assign an independent

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

PS: Why do I bother?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary. In the termination letter written
by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:

1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
demonstrates you have not understood clustering.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins
alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

Are you familiar with clustering? just because a rare event happens
twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
just happened to hit the probability twice.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model
says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
revision. The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
model? If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
might not invest all that much money in revising the model.

However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
of line with reality.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand
for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a
factor of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the
main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion
technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up
with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
-- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently
become advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside
of geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
approach on Feb 15, 2012.

2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to
cause widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense
shockwaves correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for
decades.

3) The vectors of these

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread Edmund Storms

Rather that debate the probability of the two events being coupled  
through random chance, why not assume the two events did not occur at  
the same time by random change and explore the reason why they  
occurred at the same time?  Why not explore the probability that an  
asteroid has rocks that orbit it as the system moves through space?   
This planetary system would be invisible and not have any effect if  
the main body passed far enough from the earth or another planet.   
Suppose the meteor that hit Russia was in obit and its position at the  
time the system approached the earth caused it to approach the earth  
from a direction opposite to the direction the asteroid approached the  
earth.  Why not calculate the probability of this event since it makes  
more sense than the present discussion?


Ed
On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:28 PM, James Bowery wrote:

Of course we're all familiar with the clustering phenomenon that  
occurs when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters,  
at some point during their lifespan type type out the complete  
works of Shakespeare in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.


So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

An actuary, being fully aware of such clustering proceeds to  
purchase a thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer  
keyboards (you will have a hard time getting your mitts on a  
thousand working typewriters nowadays), and they proceed to type out  
the complete works of Shakespeare in the precise order that  
Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries Eureka! and runs to his  
CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get to the  
bottom of this improbable event.


The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter  
written by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to  
say:


1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event  
demonstrates you have not understood clustering.


2) You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that  
time and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word  
processors, but your failure to understand that monkeys typing out  
the complete works of Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears  
no reasonable relationship to an event that we might underwrite as  
an insurance company.


?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
Are you familiar with clustering?  just because a rare event  
happens twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on  
previous data. You just happened to hit the probability twice.



On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com  
wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your  
model says that an event should occur only less than once in a  
million years and the event occurred a few days ago, you might think  
your model needs revision.  The question then becomes how much to  
invest in revising that model?  If the events modeled are of no  
particular economic importance -- if the damages underwritten are  
likely to be mundane in scale -- then one might not invest all that  
much money in revising the model.


However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of  
nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse --  
extinction events; one might want to invest substantial resources in  
revising the model so that the probability of the observed events  
aren't so wildly out of line with reality.


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com  
wrote:
The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a  
million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial  
events that independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on  
the same day:


1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand  
for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.


This is not a coincidence.

PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a  
factor of 1000.



On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com  
wrote:
I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object  
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and  
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into  
the main mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside  
of plausible explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known  
propulsion technology.  Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most  
plausible explanation I can come up with for this approach-from- 
behind object is modification of the source footage.  An optical  
artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the  
expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical  
artifact that would also explain those fragments.


There are a few statistical anomalies

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread John Berry

It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
repetitive)
But because you would have to convert the numbers to letters, you
would need to group them and since you would get many numbers over 26
it would take a very long while to find a string that had the works
without some numbers higher than 26 plus any numbers assigned to
punctuation.

So if you instead used a 26 (or maybe 30ish for punctuation) based
counting system where each number had a corresponding letter then you
would find the complete works of Shakespeare much much sooner in the
series.

The accountant would appreciate this considering the saving in monkeys
and typewriters.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
 PS:  Why do I bother?


 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Of course we're all familiar with the clustering phenomenon that occurs
 when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
 during their lifespan type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
 the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.

 So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

 An actuary, being fully aware of such clustering proceeds to purchase a
 thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
 have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
 nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
 the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries Eureka!
 and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get
 to the bottom of this improbable event.

 The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter written
 by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:

 1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
 demonstrates you have not understood clustering.

 2) You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
 and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
 your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
 Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
 an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company.

 ?


 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins
 alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Are you familiar with clustering?  just because a rare event happens
 twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
 just happened to hit the probability twice.


 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Think about this like an actuary, folks:

 When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
 says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
 the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
 revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
 model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance -- 
 if
 the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one 
 might
 not invest all that much money in revising the model.

 However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
 nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
 events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the 
 model
 so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out of line
 with reality.

 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
 million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events 
 that
 independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

 1/(365*100)^2
 = 1/133225

 Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand
 for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

 This is not a coincidence.

 PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
 of 1000.


 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
 approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
 direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the 
 main
 mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
 explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion 
 technology.
 Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can 
 come
 up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the 
 source
 footage.  An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation
 with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical
 artifact that would also explain those fragments.

 There are a few statistical anomalies

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread ChemE Stewart

Of course I also agree that our model is wrong:

1)They found no massive hunk of iron in that 30' hole in the lake because
there was no ball of iron as a nucleus to begin with. That is a sinkhole
2) Our estimate of the mass of those objects based upon ordinary matter is
vastly too low because they contain energetic dark matter nuclei just a
gnat's ass in diameter but massive.
3) This extra mass would allow those particles surrounded by ordinary
matter to orbit each other at much higher velocities than ordinary matter
of the same volume.
4) They exploded like a pipe bomb because that nucleus becomes energetic,
like a comet as it collects heat and mattter and increases pressure at the
core until a massive explosion occurs.
5) If the object(s) exploded mid-air, what created the large diameter hole
in the lake? And if it did not explode where is the object in the lake,
which they have not found after hunting for days? All they have found is
cm size debris

Looks like NASA was off by a factor of 1,000 in their estimated mass, so
where is all that stuff??

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

I know you guys are open minded so I keep brain rattling...

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

PS: Why do I bother?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary. In the termination letter written
by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:

1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
demonstrates you have not understood clustering.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins
alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

Are you familiar with clustering? just because a rare event happens
twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
just happened to hit the probability twice.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model
says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
revision. The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
model? If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
might not invest all that much money in revising the model.

However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
of line with reality.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events
that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand
for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a
factor of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Estimating the probability has to do with the investment decision tree.
 Such exploration requires resources and the resources allocated to the
search have to take into account the expected value in terms of risk
adjusted utility of obtaining a targeted statistical
samplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value_of_sample_information.
 The failure to approach research funding decisions in this manner is, for
an immediately recognizable example, a major contributor to the pathology
manifest in cold fusion research funding -- or rather lack thereof.

The cut-off points in proposed research avenues are constrained by that
expected value.  Conversely, the depth of the search -- exploring ever less
plausible theories -- is driven by that expected value.

There are some pretty wild theories out there about this cluster and
depending on these tradeoffs, exploring them is either rational or
irrational.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Rather that debate the probability of the two events being coupled through
 random chance, why not assume the two events did not occur at the same time
 by random change and explore the reason why they occurred at the same time?
  Why not explore the probability that an asteroid has rocks that orbit it
 as the system moves through space?  This planetary system would be
 invisible and not have any effect if the main body passed far enough from
 the earth or another planet.  Suppose the meteor that hit Russia was in
 obit and its position at the time the system approached the earth caused it
 to approach the earth from a direction opposite to the direction the
 asteroid approached the earth.  Why not calculate the probability of this
 event since it makes more sense than the present discussion?

 Ed

 On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:28 PM, James Bowery wrote:

 Of course we're all familiar with the clustering phenomenon that occurs
 when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
 during their lifespan type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
 the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.

 So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

 An actuary, being fully aware of such clustering proceeds to purchase a
 thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
 have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
 nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare
 in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries
 Eureka! and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research
 program to get to the bottom of this improbable event.

 The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter written
 by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:

 1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
 demonstrates you have not understood clustering.

 2) You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
 and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
 your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
 Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
 an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company.

 ?

 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins 
 alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Are you familiar with clustering?  just because a rare event happens
 twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
 just happened to hit the probability twice.


 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Think about this like an actuary, folks:

 When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
 says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
 the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
 revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
 model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
 if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
 might not invest all that much money in revising the model.

 However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
 nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
 events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
 model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
 of line with reality.

 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

 The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
 million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events that
 independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

  1/(365*100)^2
 = 1/133225

 Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand
 for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

 This is not a

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread Edmund Storms

I agree with what you said, Jim. However, all decisions in life are  
based on what appears to be the most likely outcome using logic based  
on what appears to be the best facts. Judgement and common sense are  
used most often to decide what to believe.


But more important, the consequence of the decision is frequently so  
important that it needs to be considered. For example, if the two  
events were connected by chance, the next time an asteroid comes  
close, we would not expect a meteor strike and could relax. On the  
other hand, if asteroids are surrounded by  swarms of orbiting rocks,  
we might want to be more prepared than was the case this time.   
Consequently, such a study is important.


Likewise, LENR being real is more important to know than that it is  
not real.  Therefore, a study to determine which conclusion is true is  
important.


Global warming being real is more important than if it is not real.  
Therefore, being sure which is true is important.


Instead, skeptical people debate the questions as if the consequence  
does not matter.  If they ran an insurance company, it would quickly  
fail. :-)


Ed


On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote:

Estimating the probability has to do with the investment decision  
tree.  Such exploration requires resources and the resources  
allocated to the search have to take into account the expected value  
in terms of risk adjusted utility of obtaining a targeted  
statistical sample.  The failure to approach research funding  
decisions in this manner is, for an immediately recognizable  
example, a major contributor to the pathology manifest in cold  
fusion research funding -- or rather lack thereof.


The cut-off points in proposed research avenues are constrained by  
that expected value.  Conversely, the depth of the search --  
exploring ever less plausible theories -- is driven by that  
expected value.


There are some pretty wild theories out there about this cluster  
and depending on these tradeoffs, exploring them is either rational  
or irrational.


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Rather that debate the probability of the two events being coupled  
through random chance, why not assume the two events did not occur  
at the same time by random change and explore the reason why they  
occurred at the same time?  Why not explore the probability that an  
asteroid has rocks that orbit it as the system moves through space?   
This planetary system would be invisible and not have any effect if  
the main body passed far enough from the earth or another planet.   
Suppose the meteor that hit Russia was in obit and its position at  
the time the system approached the earth caused it to approach the  
earth from a direction opposite to the direction the asteroid  
approached the earth.  Why not calculate the probability of this  
event since it makes more sense than the present discussion?


Ed

On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:28 PM, James Bowery wrote:

Of course we're all familiar with the clustering phenomenon that  
occurs when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters,  
at some point during their lifespan type type out the complete  
works of Shakespeare in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote  
them.


So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

An actuary, being fully aware of such clustering proceeds to  
purchase a thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer  
keyboards (you will have a hard time getting your mitts on a  
thousand working typewriters nowadays), and they proceed to type  
out the complete works of Shakespeare in the precise order that  
Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries Eureka! and runs to  
his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get to  
the bottom of this improbable event.


The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter  
written by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to  
say:


1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event  
demonstrates you have not understood clustering.


2) You are being terminated because not only did you spend all  
that time and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word  
processors, but your failure to understand that monkeys typing out  
the complete works of Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears  
no reasonable relationship to an event that we might underwrite as  
an insurance company.


?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
Are you familiar with clustering?  just because a rare event  
happens twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on  
previous data. You just happened to hit the probability twice.



On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com  
wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your  
model says that an event should

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread de Bivort Lawrence

Think of the more interesting, shorter writings that monkey would come up with. 
Would be quite instructional, I imagine. 

Cheers,
Lawry

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:49 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
 also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
 repetitive)
 But because you would have to convert the numbers to letters, you
 would need to group them and since you would get many numbers over 26
 it would take a very long while to find a string that had the works
 without some numbers higher than 26 plus any numbers assigned to
 punctuation.
 
 So if you instead used a 26 (or maybe 30ish for punctuation) based
 counting system where each number had a corresponding letter then you
 would find the complete works of Shakespeare much much sooner in the
 series.
 
 The accountant would appreciate this considering the saving in monkeys
 and typewriters.
 
 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
 PS:  Why do I bother?
 
 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Of course we're all familiar with the clustering phenomenon that occurs
 when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
 during their lifespan type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
 the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.
 
 So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:
 
 An actuary, being fully aware of such clustering proceeds to purchase a
 thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
 have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
 nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
 the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries Eureka!
 and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get
 to the bottom of this improbable event.
 
 The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter written
 by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:
 
 1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
 demonstrates you have not understood clustering.
 
 2) You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
 and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
 your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
 Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
 an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company.
 
 ?
 
 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins
 alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Are you familiar with clustering?  just because a rare event happens
 twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
 just happened to hit the probability twice.
 
 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Think about this like an actuary, folks:
 
 When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
 says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
 the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
 revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
 model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance -- 
 if
 the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one 
 might
 not invest all that much money in revising the model.
 
 However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
 nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
 events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the 
 model
 so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out of 
 line
 with reality.
 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
 million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events 
 that
 independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:
 
 1/(365*100)^2
 = 1/133225
 
 Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand
 for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.
 
 This is not a coincidence.
 
 PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
 of 1000.
 
 
 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
 approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
 direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the 
 main
 mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
 explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion 
 technology.
 Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can 
 come
 up with for this approach-from-behind object is

RE: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-17 Thread Jones Beene

NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in this
Russian video, in slo-mo.

 

The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode.

 

Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian military,
why not give it some credence? 

 

Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.

 

 

 

 

NASA's
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.
html#comments  blog states:

Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

 

180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.

 

What is your cite, Terry?

RE: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-17 Thread Jones Beene

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s
feature=player_embedded#t=0s

 

 

NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in this
Russian video, in slo-mo.

 

The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at about 27
seconds).

 

Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian military,
why not give it some credence? 

 

Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.

 

 

 

 

NASA's
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.
html#comments  blog states:

Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

 

180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.

 

What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-17 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 1:19 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 What is your cite, Terry?

It could have been the same.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent  
fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video  
shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the  
atmosphere, where is the common sense?


Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=- 
octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s



NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up  
in this Russian video, in slo-mo.


The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast  
moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it  
explode (at about 27 seconds).


Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian  
military, why not give it some credence?


Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.




NASA's blog states:
Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.

What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object approaching
from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the
ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes,
we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring the
out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with for
this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage.  An
optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical artifact
that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events --
which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems
to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become
advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of
geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
approach on Feb 15, 2012.

2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause
widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves
correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades.

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're
potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the
mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon of
public announcement.

It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard
for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over land,
and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is land we
can increase the  expected frequency only a few fold at best.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
 fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows.
 As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere,
 where is the common sense?

 Ed

 On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s***
 *
 ** **
 ** **
 NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
 this Russian video, in slo-mo.
 ** **
 The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
 object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at about
 27 seconds).
 ** **
 Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
 military, why not give it some credence?
 ** **
 Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
 ** **
 ** **
 ** **
 ** **
 NASA's blog 
 stateshttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments
 :

 Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

 ** **
 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
 ** **
 What is your cite, Terry?

RE: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-17 Thread Jones Beene

Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was nuclear-like in its
intensity. Maybe they know something. 

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite



Ed,

Near the end of the video at 26-27 seconds - where the slow motion starts -
a pointed object can be seen barreling into the meteor - following which, it
explodes. That object is a little too perfect to be believed, but it is
intriguing if not faked. 

This is consistent with an air launched ABM which generally have small
nuclear warheads (briefcase size). This would account for the rapid
acceleration of debris following the explosion. An ABM missile developed in
the USA called Sprint was reported to have achieved 21,000 mph at high
altitude. That missile had an official speed of mach 10 in the lower
atmosphere and was nuclear tipped. 

Consequently - this high speed is within the realm of common sense for a
ABM launched from a high altitude interceptor. Plus this region where the
incident occurred is the most secret and sensitive in all of Russia - it is
their Oak Ridge and Hanford. That would explain why an interceptor would
have been operational at this time. It could have been a precaution against
the other, larger meteorite.

BTW, that Sprint missile was early 1990s - twenty years old and yet it could
conceivably have shot down (nuked) a meteorite in some circumstance - if
one is not concerned about the repercussions and radioactivity. Consequently
- it is remotely possible the Russians have am ABM which is fast enough - at
least when launched at high altitude; and that they would be willing to use
it to protect a very sensitive region.

The most likely explanation, of course, is that the video was faked.

But that explanation lacks the drama of a shoot down and after all, there
was a Military Officer quoted as saying we shot it down... within hours of
the incident... but that quote was not from Pravda - closer to the Russian
equivalent of Fox.


From: Edmund Storms 


What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded,
which sent fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the
video shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the
atmosphere, where is the common sense? 

Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded 
 
 
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to
show up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.
 
The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a
fast moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode
(at about 27 seconds).
 
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from
Russian military, why not give it some credence?
 
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was
altered.
 
 
 
 
NASA's blog states
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.
html :
Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction
 
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
 
What is your cite, Terry?

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Note the blury object on the left just below the meteor's tail, which
appears to catch up to the meteor.

Harry

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
 What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
 fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows. As
 for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere, where
 is the common sense?

 Ed
 On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s


 NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in this
 Russian video, in slo-mo.

 The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
 object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at about 27
 seconds).

 Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian military,
 why not give it some credence?

 Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.




 NASA's blog states:

 Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction


 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.

 What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
 I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object approaching
 from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the
 ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes, we're
 talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
 ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring the
 out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with for
 this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage.  An
 optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
 expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical artifact
 that would also explain those fragments.


According to this wikipedia entry the russian's posses a missle that
could have conceivably intercepted the meteor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol-M
The first stage has three rocket motors developed by the Soyuz Federal
Center for Dual-Use Technologies. This gives the missile a much higher
acceleration than other ICBM types. It enables the missile to
accelerate to the speed of 7,320 m/s and to travel a flatter
trajectory to distances of up to 10,000 km

harry

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was nuclear-like in its
 intensity. Maybe they know something.


 http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
 ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite


This should not enter into rational conversation.

It is known and has been repeatedly stated since the early days of nuclear
armaments that meteoric explosions have nuclear-like intensity.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Notice that several independent contrails formed before the explosion  
as separate pieces moved through the atmosphere at slightly different  
speeds and locations in space.  The object appearing to come from  
behind could be a piece of the meteor that had come off earlier and  
appeared to moved into the video frame at that time.  Because it is  
impossible to tell from the video whether both objects  were at the  
same distance from the observer, the second object was most likely a  
part that moved slightly faster than the main part, but was many feet  
more distant from the observer. This is an example of the imagination  
being controlled by what a person wants to see or has been told to see.


I suspect a swarm of smaller objects were in orbit around the big  
asteroid, a few of which hit the earth. Only the one hitting Russia  
was big enough to be noticed because it came in over land.  The  
direction of approach would be determined by where in the orbit around  
the  asteroid the object was at the time of collision with the earth.


Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 1:16 PM, James Bowery wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object  
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and  
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into  
the main mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside  
of plausible explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known  
propulsion technology.  Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most  
plausible explanation I can come up with for this approach-from- 
behind object is modification of the source footage.  An optical  
artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the  
expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical  
artifact that would also explain those fragments.


There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial  
events -- which may be explained independently but taken as  
independent events seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:


1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently  
become advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing  
inside of geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first  
public announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its  
closest approach on Feb 15, 2012.


2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to  
cause widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense  
shockwaves correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported  
for decades.


3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --  
appear statistically independent.


It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since  
we're potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon  
relating not to the mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but  
rather to the phenomenon of public announcement.


It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is  
hard for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor  
enters over land, and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's  
surface that is land we can increase the  expected frequency only a  
few fold at best.


On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent  
fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video  
shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the  
atmosphere, where is the common sense?


Ed

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=- 
octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s



NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show  
up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.


The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast  
moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it  
explode (at about 27 seconds).


Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian  
military, why not give it some credence?


Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.




NASA's blog states:
Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.

What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Please apply some common sense.  The object was too small to detect  
and was totally unexpected. Even if it was detected with enough time  
to launch a missile, why do this?


Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com  
wrote:
I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object  
approaching
from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction  
to the
ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.   
Yes, we're

talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.   
Ignoring the
out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up  
with for
this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source  
footage.  An

optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical  
artifact

that would also explain those fragments.



According to this wikipedia entry the russian's posses a missle that
could have conceivably intercepted the meteor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol-M
The first stage has three rocket motors developed by the Soyuz Federal
Center for Dual-Use Technologies. This gives the missile a much higher
acceleration than other ICBM types. It enables the missile to
accelerate to the speed of 7,320 m/s and to travel a flatter
trajectory to distances of up to 10,000 km

harry

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Erratum:  Ignoring the out-gong fragments should be Taking into account
the out-going fragments

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object approaching
 from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the
 ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes,
 we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
 ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring the
 out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with for
 this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage.  An
 optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
 expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical artifact
 that would also explain those fragments.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

A comparable nuclear blast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paCUhiUxxIw

Seems the spectators found it thrilling.

harry

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was nuclear-like in its
 intensity. Maybe they know something.

 http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
 ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite



 Ed,

 Near the end of the video at 26-27 seconds - where the slow motion starts -
 a pointed object can be seen barreling into the meteor - following which, it
 explodes. That object is a little too perfect to be believed, but it is
 intriguing if not faked.

 This is consistent with an air launched ABM which generally have small
 nuclear warheads (briefcase size). This would account for the rapid
 acceleration of debris following the explosion. An ABM missile developed in
 the USA called Sprint was reported to have achieved 21,000 mph at high
 altitude. That missile had an official speed of mach 10 in the lower
 atmosphere and was nuclear tipped.

 Consequently - this high speed is within the realm of common sense for a
 ABM launched from a high altitude interceptor. Plus this region where the
 incident occurred is the most secret and sensitive in all of Russia - it is
 their Oak Ridge and Hanford. That would explain why an interceptor would
 have been operational at this time. It could have been a precaution against
 the other, larger meteorite.

 BTW, that Sprint missile was early 1990s - twenty years old and yet it could
 conceivably have shot down (nuked) a meteorite in some circumstance - if
 one is not concerned about the repercussions and radioactivity. Consequently
 - it is remotely possible the Russians have am ABM which is fast enough - at
 least when launched at high altitude; and that they would be willing to use
 it to protect a very sensitive region.

 The most likely explanation, of course, is that the video was faked.

 But that explanation lacks the drama of a shoot down and after all, there
 was a Military Officer quoted as saying we shot it down... within hours of
 the incident... but that quote was not from Pravda - closer to the Russian
 equivalent of Fox.


 From: Edmund Storms


 What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded,
 which sent fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the
 video shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the
 atmosphere, where is the common sense?

 Ed
 On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded


 NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to
 show up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.

 The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a
 fast moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode
 (at about 27 seconds).

 Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from
 Russian military, why not give it some credence?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

I don't think it was intercepted, but I am not convinced by the
argument that it was technically impossible.

Harry

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
 Please apply some common sense.  The object was too small to detect and was
 totally unexpected. Even if it was detected with enough time to launch a
 missile, why do this?

 Ed
 On Feb 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:

 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
 approaching
 from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the
 ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes,
 we're
 talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
 ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring
 the
 out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with
 for
 this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage.
 An
 optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
 expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical artifact
 that would also explain those fragments.



 According to this wikipedia entry the russian's posses a missle that
 could have conceivably intercepted the meteor.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol-M
 The first stage has three rocket motors developed by the Soyuz Federal
 Center for Dual-Use Technologies. This gives the missile a much higher
 acceleration than other ICBM types. It enables the missile to
 accelerate to the speed of 7,320 m/s and to travel a flatter
 trajectory to distances of up to 10,000 km

 harry

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-17 Thread Terry Blanton

Like Tunguska, it was an alien sacrifice:

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6868/56

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured


This speculation would be fun if some people were not serious.

On Feb 17, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:


Like Tunguska, it was an alien sacrifice:

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6868/56

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

This is a currently operational ground-based Russian
ABMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBto1aVOQwE
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don't think it was intercepted, but I am not convinced by the
 argument that it was technically impossible.

 Harry

 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
  Please apply some common sense.  The object was too small to detect and
 was
  totally unexpected. Even if it was detected with enough time to launch a
  missile, why do this?
 
  Ed
  On Feb 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
 
  On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
  approaching
  from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to
 the
  ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes,
  we're
  talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
  ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring
  the
  out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with
  for
  this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage.
  An
  optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
  expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical
 artifact
  that would also explain those fragments.
 
 
 
  According to this wikipedia entry the russian's posses a missle that
  could have conceivably intercepted the meteor.
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol-M
  The first stage has three rocket motors developed by the Soyuz Federal
  Center for Dual-Use Technologies. This gives the missile a much higher
  acceleration than other ICBM types. It enables the missile to
  accelerate to the speed of 7,320 m/s and to travel a flatter
  trajectory to distances of up to 10,000 km
 
  harry

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-17 Thread David Roberson

Would an electromagnetic pulse from any nuclear explosion at this altitude 
cause widespread damage to electronic equipment?  I have not seen any reports 
of this problem.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 17, 2013 4:09 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured


Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was nuclear-like in its
intensity. Maybe they know something. 

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite



Ed,

Near the end of the video at 26-27 seconds - where the slow motion starts -
a pointed object can be seen barreling into the meteor - following which, it
explodes. That object is a little too perfect to be believed, but it is
intriguing if not faked. 

This is consistent with an air launched ABM which generally have small
nuclear warheads (briefcase size). This would account for the rapid
acceleration of debris following the explosion. An ABM missile developed in
the USA called Sprint was reported to have achieved 21,000 mph at high
altitude. That missile had an official speed of mach 10 in the lower
atmosphere and was nuclear tipped. 

Consequently - this high speed is within the realm of common sense for a
ABM launched from a high altitude interceptor. Plus this region where the
incident occurred is the most secret and sensitive in all of Russia - it is
their Oak Ridge and Hanford. That would explain why an interceptor would
have been operational at this time. It could have been a precaution against
the other, larger meteorite.

BTW, that Sprint missile was early 1990s - twenty years old and yet it could
conceivably have shot down (nuked) a meteorite in some circumstance - if
one is not concerned about the repercussions and radioactivity. Consequently
- it is remotely possible the Russians have am ABM which is fast enough - at
least when launched at high altitude; and that they would be willing to use
it to protect a very sensitive region.

The most likely explanation, of course, is that the video was faked.

But that explanation lacks the drama of a shoot down and after all, there
was a Military Officer quoted as saying we shot it down... within hours of
the incident... but that quote was not from Pravda - closer to the Russian
equivalent of Fox.


From: Edmund Storms 


What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded,
which sent fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the
video shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the
atmosphere, where is the common sense? 

Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded 
 
 
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to
show up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.
 
The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a
fast moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode
(at about 27 seconds).
 
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from
Russian military, why not give it some credence?
 
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was
altered.
 
 
 
 
NASA's blog states
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.
html :
Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction
 
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
 
What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-17 Thread Daniel Rocha

That explosion is way, way too small. It look like to have at most 1kt-2kt.
That meteor exploded with 500x that energy.

It should be something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvW0N-cFexM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fSMJkMK5M





2013/2/17 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com

 A comparable nuclear blast

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paCUhiUxxIw

 Seems the spectators found it thrilling.

 harry

 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
  Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was nuclear-like in its
  intensity. Maybe they know something.
 
 
 http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
  ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite
 
 
 
  Ed,
 
  Near the end of the video at 26-27 seconds - where the slow motion
 starts -
  a pointed object can be seen barreling into the meteor - following
 which, it
  explodes. That object is a little too perfect to be believed, but it is
  intriguing if not faked.
 
  This is consistent with an air launched ABM which generally have small
  nuclear warheads (briefcase size). This would account for the rapid
  acceleration of debris following the explosion. An ABM missile developed
 in
  the USA called Sprint was reported to have achieved 21,000 mph at high
  altitude. That missile had an official speed of mach 10 in the lower
  atmosphere and was nuclear tipped.
 
  Consequently - this high speed is within the realm of common sense for
 a
  ABM launched from a high altitude interceptor. Plus this region where the
  incident occurred is the most secret and sensitive in all of Russia - it
 is
  their Oak Ridge and Hanford. That would explain why an interceptor would
  have been operational at this time. It could have been a precaution
 against
  the other, larger meteorite.
 
  BTW, that Sprint missile was early 1990s - twenty years old and yet it
 could
  conceivably have shot down (nuked) a meteorite in some circumstance -
 if
  one is not concerned about the repercussions and radioactivity.
 Consequently
  - it is remotely possible the Russians have am ABM which is fast enough
 - at
  least when launched at high altitude; and that they would be willing to
 use
  it to protect a very sensitive region.
 
  The most likely explanation, of course, is that the video was faked.
 
  But that explanation lacks the drama of a shoot down and after all,
 there
  was a Military Officer quoted as saying we shot it down... within
 hours of
  the incident... but that quote was not from Pravda - closer to the
 Russian
  equivalent of Fox.
 
 
  From: Edmund Storms
 
 
  What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded,
  which sent fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the
  video shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the
  atmosphere, where is the common sense?
 
  Ed
  On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
 
 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded
 
 
  NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that
 seems to
  show up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.
 
  The video could have been altered - with the addition
  of a
  fast moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it
 explode
  (at about 27 seconds).
 
  Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came
 from
  Russian military, why not give it some credence?




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-17 Thread Daniel Rocha

A remastered version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNx67QjUHxU


2013/2/17 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com

 That explosion is way, way too small. It look like to have at most
 1kt-2kt. That meteor exploded with 500x that energy.

 It should be something like this:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvW0N-cFexM
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fSMJkMK5M





 2013/2/17 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com

 A comparable nuclear blast

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paCUhiUxxIw

 Seems the spectators found it thrilling.

 harry

 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
  Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was nuclear-like in its
  intensity. Maybe they know something.
 
 
 http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
  ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite
 
 
 
  Ed,
 
  Near the end of the video at 26-27 seconds - where the slow motion
 starts -
  a pointed object can be seen barreling into the meteor - following
 which, it
  explodes. That object is a little too perfect to be believed, but it
 is
  intriguing if not faked.
 
  This is consistent with an air launched ABM which generally have small
  nuclear warheads (briefcase size). This would account for the rapid
  acceleration of debris following the explosion. An ABM missile
 developed in
  the USA called Sprint was reported to have achieved 21,000 mph at high
  altitude. That missile had an official speed of mach 10 in the lower
  atmosphere and was nuclear tipped.
 
  Consequently - this high speed is within the realm of common sense
 for a
  ABM launched from a high altitude interceptor. Plus this region where
 the
  incident occurred is the most secret and sensitive in all of Russia -
 it is
  their Oak Ridge and Hanford. That would explain why an interceptor would
  have been operational at this time. It could have been a precaution
 against
  the other, larger meteorite.
 
  BTW, that Sprint missile was early 1990s - twenty years old and yet it
 could
  conceivably have shot down (nuked) a meteorite in some circumstance -
 if
  one is not concerned about the repercussions and radioactivity.
 Consequently
  - it is remotely possible the Russians have am ABM which is fast enough
 - at
  least when launched at high altitude; and that they would be willing to
 use
  it to protect a very sensitive region.
 
  The most likely explanation, of course, is that the video was faked.
 
  But that explanation lacks the drama of a shoot down and after all,
 there
  was a Military Officer quoted as saying we shot it down... within
 hours of
  the incident... but that quote was not from Pravda - closer to the
 Russian
  equivalent of Fox.
 
 
  From: Edmund Storms
 
 
  What is so unusual about this video? The meteor
 exploded,
  which sent fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the
  video shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in
 the
  atmosphere, where is the common sense?
 
  Ed
  On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
 
 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded
 
 
  NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that
 seems to
  show up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.
 
  The video could have been altered - with the addition
  of a
  fast moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it
 explode
  (at about 27 seconds).
 
  Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came
 from
  Russian military, why not give it some credence?




 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-17 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 6:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 Would an electromagnetic pulse from any nuclear explosion at this altitude
 cause widespread damage to electronic equipment?  I have not seen any
 reports of this problem.

The nature of the explosion of a meteoroid is closer to that of a
boiler than a nuclear bomb.  The trapped water or dry ice within the
structure flash vaporizes with the entry into the atmosphere and the
destruction is a rending of the structure of the rock or nickel/iron.
Virtually no EMP or gamma should result.

Space rocks.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

http://www.amusingplanet.com/2008/07/how-to-watch-nuclear-explosion.html

Harry

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 A remastered version:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNx67QjUHxU


 2013/2/17 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com

 That explosion is way, way too small. It look like to have at most
 1kt-2kt. That meteor exploded with 500x that energy.

 It should be something like this:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvW0N-cFexM
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fSMJkMK5M





 2013/2/17 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com

 A comparable nuclear blast

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paCUhiUxxIw

 Seems the spectators found it thrilling.

 harry

 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
  Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was nuclear-like in its
  intensity. Maybe they know something.
 
 
  http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
  ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite
 
 
 
  Ed,
 
  Near the end of the video at 26-27 seconds - where the slow motion
  starts -
  a pointed object can be seen barreling into the meteor - following
  which, it
  explodes. That object is a little too perfect to be believed, but it
  is
  intriguing if not faked.
 
  This is consistent with an air launched ABM which generally have small
  nuclear warheads (briefcase size). This would account for the rapid
  acceleration of debris following the explosion. An ABM missile
  developed in
  the USA called Sprint was reported to have achieved 21,000 mph at
  high
  altitude. That missile had an official speed of mach 10 in the lower
  atmosphere and was nuclear tipped.
 
  Consequently - this high speed is within the realm of common sense
  for a
  ABM launched from a high altitude interceptor. Plus this region where
  the
  incident occurred is the most secret and sensitive in all of Russia -
  it is
  their Oak Ridge and Hanford. That would explain why an interceptor
  would
  have been operational at this time. It could have been a precaution
  against
  the other, larger meteorite.
 
  BTW, that Sprint missile was early 1990s - twenty years old and yet it
  could
  conceivably have shot down (nuked) a meteorite in some circumstance -
  if
  one is not concerned about the repercussions and radioactivity.
  Consequently
  - it is remotely possible the Russians have am ABM which is fast enough
  - at
  least when launched at high altitude; and that they would be willing to
  use
  it to protect a very sensitive region.
 
  The most likely explanation, of course, is that the video was faked.
 
  But that explanation lacks the drama of a shoot down and after all,
  there
  was a Military Officer quoted as saying we shot it down... within
  hours of
  the incident... but that quote was not from Pravda - closer to the
  Russian
  equivalent of Fox.
 
 
  From: Edmund Storms
 
 
  What is so unusual about this video? The meteor
  exploded,
  which sent fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the
  video shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in
  the
  atmosphere, where is the common sense?
 
  Ed
  On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
 
 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded
 
 
  NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that
  seems to
  show up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.
 
  The video could have been altered - with the addition
  of a
  fast moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it
  explode
  (at about 27 seconds).
 
  Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came
  from
  Russian military, why not give it some credence?




 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com




 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

On July 19, 1957, five men stood at Ground Zero of an atomic test
that was being conducted at the Nevada Test Site. This was the test of
a 2KT (kiloton) MB-1 nuclear air-to-air rocket launched from an F-89
Scorpion interceptor. The nuclear missile detonated 10,000 ft above
their heads.

A reel-to-reel tape recorder was present to record their experience.
You can see and hear the men react to the shock wave moments after the
detonation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlE1BdOAfVc

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-17 Thread David Roberson

Yeah, that is what I was trying to say Terry.  I pointed out that there was no 
electromagnetic pulse damage, so likely no nuclear explosion. :-)


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 17, 2013 8:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured


On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 6:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 Would an electromagnetic pulse from any nuclear explosion at this altitude
 cause widespread damage to electronic equipment?  I have not seen any
 reports of this problem.

The nature of the explosion of a meteoroid is closer to that of a
boiler than a nuclear bomb.  The trapped water or dry ice within the
structure flash vaporizes with the entry into the atmosphere and the
destruction is a rending of the structure of the rock or nickel/iron.
Virtually no EMP or gamma should result.

Space rocks.

RE: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-16 Thread Jones Beene

It was only a matter of time before the conspiracy theorists got into full 
action… This one is almost believable.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/15/russian-meteor-conspiracy_n_2694031.html

 

Of course, it is the Russian angle and fairly tame. 

 

Closer to home, has Rush or Rove found a way to blame it on the prez ?

 

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

David Roberson wrote:

 

The fact that both of these events happened so close together just does not 
seem likely since both are infrequent.  Talk of a miracle in cold fusion; this 
seems like one in astronomy.

 

I suspect these events only seem infrequent, in two ways.  First, because we 
personally aren't involved in monitoring all of the asteroids, large and small, 
coming through the local region of the solar system, and if we did, we might 
lose sleep at night (just a guess).  Second, our ability to record such events 
is improving, and we might have lost a lot of data earlier on when the tracking 
of events was less systematic and accurate.

 

An interesting challenge would be to independently work out the parameters of a 
model based on the Poisson distribution to calculate the likelihood and 
magnitude of similar events in the next few years.

 

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-16 Thread James Bowery

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:22 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
  Obvious question:
 
  Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid?

 No, they were almost perpendicular.  Pure and delightful coincidence.


NASA's blog 
stateshttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments
:

Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction


180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.

What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-16 Thread James Bowery

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 The fact that both of these events happened so close together just does
 not seem likely since both are infrequent.  Talk of a miracle in cold
 fusion; this seems like one in astronomy.


 I suspect these events only seem infrequent


Careful, Eric.  We're actually getting, just in the last few
yearshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=dVzR0kzklRE#t=187s,
enough data to falsify claims like yours now.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

This video captures the sound of the explosion and breaking glass:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dA2A_df0w

This may wake people up and make them realize the need for Spaceguard.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-15 Thread Vorl Bek

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:23:22 -0500
Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 This video captures the sound of the explosion and breaking glass:
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dA2A_df0w
 
 This may wake people up and make them realize the need for Spaceguard.

Why? The last time a big rock hit earth was the one that exploded
in uninhabited Siberia, doing no damage, over a hundred years ago.
And when was the one before that?

It looks to me like the chance of earth being hit by a rock that
does real damage is minuscule.

Why spend billions, or is it trillions, on 'spaceguard' to prevent
something that will almost certainly never happen?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-15 Thread ChemE Stewart

Almost certainly will never happen???  That's   the same attitude the
dinosaurs had.

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Friday, February 15, 2013, Vorl Bek wrote:

 On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:23:22 -0500
 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote:

  This video captures the sound of the explosion and breaking glass:
 
  Meteor Hits Russia Hard 2013https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dA2A_df0w
 
  This may wake people up and make them realize the need for Spaceguard.

 Why? The last time a big rock hit earth was the one that exploded
 in uninhabited Siberia, doing no damage, over a hundred years ago.
 And when was the one before that?

 It looks to me like the chance of earth being hit by a rock that
 does real damage is minuscule.

 Why spend billions, or is it trillions, on 'spaceguard' to prevent
 something that will almost certainly never happen?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:

And when was the one before that?


No one knows when the last one was. It might have hit the Pacific. The
population was lower. But you are missing the point. Celestial mechanics
are highly predictable. The first thing to determine is how many there are
and how soon the next one will hit.


It looks to me like the chance of earth being hit by a rock that does real
 damage is minuscule.


Based on what? Have you measured the positions and trajectories of all
potentially harmful meteors? 90% of them?



 Why spend billions, or is it trillions, on  spaceguard' to
 prevent something that will almost certainly never happen?


1. You cannot know the certainty level. That's what we have to find out.

2. It will cost billions but not trillions.

3. It will certainly create new knowledge and benefit science. It is worth
it for that reason alone.

4. It might even evolve into commercially useful space technology.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-15 Thread Vorl Bek

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:04:27 -0500
Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
 
 And when was the one before that?
 
 
 No one knows when the last one was. It might have hit the Pacific. The
 population was lower. But you are missing the point. Celestial mechanics
 are highly predictable. The first thing to determine is how many there are
 and how soon the next one will hit.

We already know that the next one that hits will almost certainly
be far in the future. We know that because there are no records, as
far as I know, of hits before the Tunguska rock; and lower
population or not, there would have been records if the rocks had
hit frequently enough for us to be worrying about a 'next'
occurrence.

 
  Why spend billions, or is it trillions, on  spaceguard' to
  prevent something that will almost certainly never happen?
 
 
 1. You cannot know the certainty level. That's what we have to find out.

See above.

 
 2. It will cost billions but not trillions.
 
 3. It will certainly create new knowledge and benefit science. It is worth
 it for that reason alone.

You don't have to spend billions on something that is not going to
happen in order to benefit science; spend it on better batteries,
better solar panels, even this 'lenr' stuff.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-15 Thread ChemE Stewart

Comets are notoriously unpredictable and unstable so I disagree with your
celestial mechanics

On Friday, February 15, 2013, Vorl Bek wrote:

 On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:04:27 -0500
 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote:

  Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com javascript:; wrote:
 
  And when was the one before that?
  
 
  No one knows when the last one was. It might have hit the Pacific. The
  population was lower. But you are missing the point. Celestial mechanics
  are highly predictable. The first thing to determine is how many there
 are
  and how soon the next one will hit.

 We already know that the next one that hits will almost certainly
 be far in the future. We know that because there are no records, as
 far as I know, of hits before the Tunguska rock; and lower
 population or not, there would have been records if the rocks had
 hit frequently enough for us to be worrying about a 'next'
 occurrence.

 
   Why spend billions, or is it trillions, on  spaceguard' to
   prevent something that will almost certainly never happen?
  
 
  1. You cannot know the certainty level. That's what we have to find out.

 See above.

 
  2. It will cost billions but not trillions.
 
  3. It will certainly create new knowledge and benefit science. It is
 worth
  it for that reason alone.

 You don't have to spend billions on something that is not going to
 happen in order to benefit science; spend it on better batteries,
 better solar panels, even this 'lenr' stuff.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:


 Comets are notoriously unpredictable and unstable so I disagree with your
 celestial mechanics


I was kidding partly. However, comets change more than meteors because they
vent gas. They are active.

If things were so predictable we could just measure them and have done with
it. Small meteors can only be predicted out about 100 years.

Anyway, that is why we need to look for them and measure the trajectories
carefully.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-15 Thread James Bowery

Obvious question:

Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid?

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 See:

 http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/world/europe/russia-meteor-shower/index.html

 Reads like science fiction.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured