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.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.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 >>>> >>>> >> >
