"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 > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
