ChemE, I can't recommend arithmetic highly enough to you: 10000ton*.5*(30000mph)^2?ton_explosive ([10000 * tonm] * 0.5) * ([30000 * mph]^2) ? ton_explosive = 194988.5 ton_explosive
http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/ On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > But something exploded with the force of 30 Hiroshima bombs, I don't > believe a sonic boom can do that > > > On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: > >> Yes you missed something. You missed this part of my post: >> >> the motive of concocting such a coincidence would be to telegraph a message >> to intelligence agencies that "You will notice we sent the asteroid's little >> brother in a controlled >> shallow-angle entry. Think what we could have done? Notice, also, how >> we've made your politicians who posit a US weapon system look like baffoons >> -- we still possess plausible deniability hiding behind an "act of God" >> propaganda." This has the Heinleinesque feature that it may be a bluff >> based on a very limited capacity to actually deliver such kinetic energy >> weapons from nonterrestrial resources -- a limit that would be very very >> difficult for adversaries to place reasonable error bars on. >> >> >> Foreign policy implications are still at issue here but, for crying out >> loud, aren't there enough potential reasons for conflict between Russia and >> the US? >> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> Are you saying the meteor itself was a kinetic energy weapon? Because >> it did not hit anything. It exploded. Am I missing something? >> >> A *kinetic energy penetrator* (also known as a *KE weapon*) is a type of >> ammunition <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition> which, like a >> bullet<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet>, >> does not contain explosives <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive> and >> uses kinetic energy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy> to >> penetrate the target. >> >> Stewart >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> James Bowery wrote: >> >> At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the >> confirmation I need to summarily reject the "sheer coincidence" explanation >> with just the two events. >> >> >> It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that >> something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks >> affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot >> prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many >> undiscovered rocks in space. >> >> >> I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. >> >> By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation >> that is at least as plausible as "sheer coincidence" then one has to >> behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have >> witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological >> ramifications. >> >> By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline >> demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, >> whether artificial or natural, that is at least as plausible as the "sheer >> coincidence" hypothesis -- which is, on its face, not very plausible. >> >> I already made that investment and have satisfied myself there is an >> artificial explanation that is at least as plausible as the "sheer >> coincidence" hypothesis. >> >> Apparently you missed it: >> >> <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg77055.html> >> >>
