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 Vajk<http://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 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
