Answers to questions on other threds that are now locked.

[Darth Wong]

I am still waiting for a postal address.

Stewart, you fucking dumbass, what the hell is the problem with sending scanned images over via e-mail?

Obviously, the fact that people are more willing to give out E-mail addresses than home addresses, particularly to a known inveterate liar.

[The Kernel]

Alright, that's enough. I'm done with entertaining this little asshole. We've given him every oportunity, but he just continues to make excuses, and at this point looks like he is merely attention trolling. Since it looks like others want to keep the little compulsive liar around for some reason, I'll just say that I wash my hands of this little turd and his reign of stupidity on this board.

*walks away in disgust*

[The Dude]

Stewart, you fucking dumbass, what the hell is the problem with sending scanned images over via e-mail?

The problem is that he hasn't figured out a way to make crayon look official. So, for now, he will coast on the unwillingness of anyone to give their home address to a moron gun nut.

[Darth Wong]

No, they are in the basement. Do any of the other members of this board have their degree hanging in their home?

Why yes, of course I have them with me.

I keep a plaque that has a copy of my university degree on my desk at home, and my college degree hangs on the wall.

It's actually very common for professionals to keep their credentials prominently displayed: something Stewart would know if he weren't a snot-nosed high school kid copying and exaggerating pieces out of other peoples' biographies.

[The Dude]

Here's a hint for the next time you try to bullshit somebody: keep your story straight.

Don't forget; he's willing to drive 1000 miles to interview eight "PhD plus types", but this debate isn't important enough to him to justify reading the quick start pamphlet for a new scanner.

[Ghost Rider]

Here's a hint for the next time you try to bullshit somebody: keep your story straight.

Don't forget; he's willing to drive 1000 miles to interview eight "PhD plus types", but this debate isn't important enough to him to justify reading the quick start pamphlet for a new scanner.

Hell according to him he claims to be employed by 8 companies and is an independent contractor, and is paid by foriegn countries by brown paper bags....instead of oh....account transfers.

I say he's been watching one too many piss poor Spy novels

[The Dude]

It's actually very common for professionals to keep their credentials prominently displayed: something Stewart would know if he weren't a snot-nosed high school kid copying and exaggerating pieces out of other peoples' biographies.

Well, there really is an unmarried (shock!) Stewart F Davies, born in 1948, living at the address he gave (with his septuagenarian parents, apparently).

The quesiton is: is this the same guy (or some retarded relative or some such) and, if so, what the fuck is his malfunction?

[Ghost Rider]

It's actually very common for professionals to keep their credentials prominently displayed: something Stewart would know if he weren't a snot-nosed high school kid copying and exaggerating pieces out of other peoples' biographies.

Well, there really is an unmarried (shock!) Stewart F Davies, born in 1948, living at the address he gave (with his septuagenarian parents, apparently).

The quesiton is: is this the same guy (or some retarded relative or some such) and, if so, what the fuck is his malfunction?

He claims to be near that age(his wild yabberings of 1960 speech)

Maybe he's what trolls grow up to be.

[aerius]

Don't forget; he's willing to drive 1000 miles to interview eight "PhD plus types", but this debate isn't important enough to him to justify reading the quick start pamphlet for a new scanner.

Guess he couldn't find a "computer expert plus type" to setup a scanner for him. Looks like the neighbourhood kids laughed at him and kicked his ass for trying to bribe them with peanut butter sandwiches.

[Darth Wong]

Well, there really is an unmarried (shock!) Stewart F Davies, born in 1948, living at the address he gave (with his septuagenarian parents, apparently).

The quesiton is: is this the same guy (or some retarded relative or some such) and, if so, what the fuck is his malfunction?

If that's really him, then why is he so ignorant of so many things? He doesn't know that most professionals keep their credentials displayed in their offices, he doesn't know how to make an argument without appeals to anonymous authority, he brags like a snot-nosed teenager, etc.

I have known people in my life who did act like this even at an advanced age, but they weren't professionals. Maybe that's what Stewart is: a postal worker or garbage collector or something similar (ie- not someone who would know that professionals often keep their credentials prominently displayed or that it's considered highly unprofessional to brag about salary) who spent a bit of time in the army and has created a fanciful biography for himself. After all, Tim McVeigh really was in the army too, but his tales of his own skills and exploits were grossly exaggerated as well.

Of course, I suppose somebody could always phone to see if it's really him

[Straha]

HEY STEWIE!!! YOU OBVIOUSLY MISSED THE CHALLENGE I POSTED BEFORE BECAUSE THE THREAD IS SO BUSY! SO I'M POSTING IN ALL CAPS AND BOLD TO MAKE SURE YOU CATCH IT NOW!! HERE IT IS REPOSTED BELOW IN THE QUOTES! I AWAIT YOUR REPLY!

Fine, Stewie try this for a challenge. My E-Mail is Trebor214@aol.com.

Send me over the E-mail the names and the universities that the "PhD plus" people you talked to work at/attend. I promise that I will not post anything from your e-mail on the board, and I will not post the names of the contacts, unless they give their approval, and I promise I will not pester them beyond 1 E-Mail or phone call.

[The Dude]

I have known people in my life who did act like this even at an advanced age, but they weren't professionals. Maybe that's what Stewart is: a postal worker or garbage collector or something similar (ie- not someone who would know that professionals often keep their credentials prominently displayed or that it's considered highly unprofessional to brag about salary) who spent a bit of time in the army and has created a fanciful biography for himself. After all, Tim McVeigh really was in the army too, but his tales of his own skills and exploits were grossly exaggerated as well.

Maybe he's Scooter from the future: 55, unemployed, unmarried, living in his parents basement, designing a Star Trek board game, trolling BBSes, playing with his "pistol"....

[Dargos]

Maybe he's Scooter from the future: 55, unemployed, unmarried, living in his parents basement, designing a Star Trek board game, trolling BBSes, playing with his "pistol"....

Thank you Dude. This post made the insanity of all the others worth it. Beer out the nose and onto the computer screen.

[Stewart at SDI]

It's called cooling and expansion, fucktard. In order to be visibly glowing, the gas must have a minimum combination of temperature and density. When one or both of these drop below a critical level, the gas becomes transparent.

What is the "critical level" and why would +4000 tones of gas in a >35,000M^3 volume not expand farther? Assuming that your mesurements are good. If the gas expanded untill it was the same dencity as air, ~1.2Kg/M3 and the asteroid was 20x16M regular ovoid, with a dencity of 1.5 the resulting cloud would be 3,351,032M3 or >185M in diamiter. Since the origional asteroid is more than 1/8th inch on my computer screen then the resulting cloud should be about 1.2 inches OD. It is less than .25" Why is that and why does it remain the same size in two consecutive frames? (If the asteroid were iron the resulting cloud would be ~325M OD.)

No math - I thought you were an analyst? The immediate pressure would be on the order of 3-4 GPa - barely enough to overcome a high-strengh steel. Since the incandescent material in FRAME 2 is already over twice the diameter of the asteroid, the pressure will have already dropped by an order of magnitude. Not only are you wrong on the facts, but you have failed to show how, even if you were correct, any of this this supports your argument.

1. The picture of the Incandesant cloud does not appear to be twice as large as the asteroid.

2. Even if it was twice as large the mass of gas in the cloud would still be >4000 or >21,445 metric tones if iron. If we use a sphere, by no means agreing wirth the picture, that makes 33,510M3 or 120Kg/M3 if it's a low dencity and 640Kg/M3 if it's an iron lump. I would assume that gas at such a dencity would expand farther and still be visable untill it was at the very least less dence than sea level air.

3. At incandesant temperatures and the above dencities, would someone who still knows Bernulli's formulals please compute the resulting pressures.

4. At the above conditions why does the cloud not expand in the next frame?

It You seem completely unable to grasp the fact that there is more than one thing going on here at once; the gas is COOLING and EXPANDING. Both will reduce its visibility.

I understand it completely. The gas at the midle of the cloud is at the lowest dencity and it glows but the part of the cloud that is at the highest dencity does not. Have I got that right? If it is expanding so fast why can we still see the center of the cloud?

The outermost gas will cool extremely rapidly due to the surface area to mass ratio and the large temperature gradient. The cold gas will not be visible

Wrong. the outer most gas is the last to cool because it is at the highest dencity. The mechanics of this are quite simple really. If the cloud is 100% at first. When it expands to 150%, ~89% of the gas will be in the outer 50%. By the time it gets to 200% the center of the cloud, that origional 100% part that had the entire original mass in side it now has about 1.2% the total gas in it. the more it expands, the less gas is inside the origional volume. That is why we should see a ring like structure instead of a bright irregular blob.

Only YOU expect this, because you cling dogmatically to the notion that the gas' temperature and density will be constant as it expands.

What remains visible in FRAME 3 is only a portion (the portion with sufficient T and density) of the original mass.

I have never maintained that the dencity and temperature were constant in any post. I have always said that they are changing and that we should see evidence of that change. We do not. I recomend reading Richard Rhodes books on the Atomic bomb to get a handle on this. As it is you have exactly the opposite idea of what happens.

Explosions in space look like hollow rings???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH

Try getting your science from somewhere other than sci-fi movies. The expansion of gas will be SPHERICAL in space.

EXACTLY! That is what I have been saying all along. Read all of my posts if you dought this.

Once again, for those who missed this. As the cloud expands, the vast majority of the gas is at the leading edge of the sphere. The volume inside is largely empty! Ther is not enough gas/temperature/dencity to make the vast volume visable. It cools from the inside out! What we see in explosions in space is only the front of the expanding cloud. The closer we get to looking threw the edge, to the tangent as it were, the more luminesent gas we have to look threw and thus the brighter it looks. That image is a ring like one that is brightest at the edge and dimmer the farther in tward the center we look.

You are a fucking moron. When the cloud's radius has doubled, the volume will have quadrupled,

Absolutely wrong. the volume will have gone up EIGHT TIMES!

and therefore some 25% of the original gas will occupy the original volume. It seems we must add basic algebra to your impressive list of incompetencies.[/quote]

You are absolutely wrong again! Your math skills are obviously faulty and your knowledge of the dynamics of explosions is just as faulty. Go ask a math teacher and any physics profesor.

No one with a degree in physics will disput this.

Who needs a physics degree? A high-school freshman could refute such shoddy calculations.

Really? Why don't you ask Mike about your calculations?

I have made the assertion and none there has posted any reputable source disputing it.

Thanks for confirming that you do not understand the concept of burden of proof. To boot, you are again incorrect on the facts; all of your assertions concerning the asteroid issue have been refuted repeatedly. Fully 100% of your assertions regarding your own abilities and credentials remain unsubstantiated.

Wrong again. No one has posted a valid rebuttal! Not a single person on this board has addressed my points. They just point to the same old "fact" from the same mistaken sources as if they were indeed TRUE! They are not TRUE and are based on faulty assumptions.

I would have posted proofs of my claims if anyone there had given me a post office address, weeks ago. I'm an old dog and do not do new tricks.

I notice you glossed over the fact that you have no viable explanation for why the asteroid is NOT THERE after the flash if it was not vapourized. Sounds like a concession to me.

Not true again. If you had read all the posts, you would know my theory. Once again as currently refined by my recent investigations.

1. A Rocket powered missile is fired in frame one. You can see the trailing exhaust plume but not the missile it self near the bow of the ship. The missile is leading the visable plume by some distance. It, the missile, is to small for the lens-camera system to resolve it.

2. It impacts in frame two. and either dust is dislodged from the surface by the impacts shockwave or it is gas from the conventional explosive charge that together with the kinetic energy of the missile it self shatters the asteroid.

3. In frame 3, the cloud expands very little and changes shape somewhat. Like most conventional explosions in non-homoginious matierial.

4. The gas dissipates and is replaced by the dust and fragmentary remnants of the asteroid. The gas can dissipate in between frames because there is so little of it. ( much less than 100 kilos, in my oppinion.)

4A. Because of the resolution limets of the film-camera system and poor light from the distant star, larger chunks are not visible as they move away from the detonation point. If they were closer to the star and had more light the ship would certainly look much brighter. ( look at space photos from LEO.)

5-7. The cloud of dust and rock disperces slowly untill it is no longer large and thick enough to show up on the camera's film. If you had ever seen a quary blast in an open pit mine, were they use just enough explosive to shatter and dislodge the rock, you would know what I meen and understand the "slow motion" nature of the blast as seen on film. The fading away effect is easily explained by the fact that dust does not expand like an un-confined gas, but only as from the origional inertia imparted by the explosive.

It explains everything and has no glairing defects. The appierance that the cloud is incandesant can easily be explained by the nature and limetations of photography. I have made photos of an ordinary ball that look surprizingly like the frames two and three of the sequence in question. An ordinary cloud of dust moving due to the explosion could look just like what we see!

Sincerely, Stewart.

[Stewart at SDI]

Let me get this straight, Stewart, you waste thousands of characters explaining what types of weapons you own, yet cannot spend the time to figure out how to use a scanner and send us digital images of your degrees. This is bordering on the absurd.

I never said that I would up load my certs. They are in the basment stored in boxes for more than since '81 and I am not willing to waist my time looking for them. If your so keen of seeing them write to the school and ask for a transcript. Quit using it as an excuse to avoid my arguments.

I asked for a post office first. If none of you is willing to send me one, then you can wait untill I decide to figue it out.

[Stewart at SDI]

Why did you refuse to take my bet if you truely thought it was so hard? Do not give my any excuse that it's too hard to verify or it's not worth the time. A hundred is enough to be serious, not enough to be vital to your family's wellfair(unless you are poor) and it would be enough to sound good when you bragg. Any good CME should be able to think of a dozzen ways to check this.

Sincerely, Stewart.

why should anyone be expected to take your challenge seriously when you have yet to answer to any challenge posted by anyone else on this board? most of which are absurdly fucking simple.

It's on the way!

[Stewart at SDI]

What about your shit about the guys with the rifles and you with the pistol outshooting them on a bet eh?

What are you talking about?

[DPDarkPrimus]

Oh, good. You're responding. Give me the address.

[Stewart at SDI]

So dipshit...which is it.

A sole propietary, a LLC, or a corporation.

And how are you paid...W-2, or 1099(and specify which)

It varies with the contractor-contractee and country. In the states, it falls under the Forign Earned Income Exclusions rules of the IRS that exempts the FIRST $80,000 earned in any one 365 day calender year from your Income tax filing. The IRS relies on your honesty since forign governments generaly do not report their payments to contractors to the IRS.

If you knew anything at all about this kind of thing you would know that as well.

When working for American companies such as Boeing Services International, McDonnell Douglas Services, Northrup, Lockheed, Goodyear Aerospace, Loral and General Dynamics in forign countries, you get a W-2 just like any one else.

When working for forign companies like Syanco and Saudi Catering they give you cash in plain brown envelopes. It is up to you to specify the denomination and country of currancy.

I claim all of the above on my resume'. What big name companies has anyone on this board worked for? Will they take you back?

Sincerely, Stewart.

Amazing and YOU didn't answer the question.

So, what else is new here.

And by the way you lied about Boeing and every American company unless you're EMPLOYED by them...but hey what's new.

I did not lie. I did answer the questions, read the post. How I got paid varies and I told you all of the details. I did work for them or with them on an industry team in forign countries.

Read the post before you say that I ducked the question.

[Master of Ossus]

Let me get this straight, Stewart, you waste thousands of characters explaining what types of weapons you own, yet cannot spend the time to figure out how to use a scanner and send us digital images of your degrees. This is bordering on the absurd.

I never said that I would up load my certs. They are in the basment stored in boxes for more than since '81 and I am not willing to waist my time looking for them.

Fuck off, troll. No dumbass who actually went to the trouble of getting a degree in the first place runs off and loses it.

If your so keen of seeing them write to the school and ask for a transcript.

According to another poster, the school you went to no longer exists. Besides, what year did you graduate from Uni in?

Quit using it as an excuse to avoid my arguments.

Your "arguments" have been so thoroughly demolished that no rational person would bother examining them, anymore. Face it, you lost to Mike. Explosions in space do not resemble hollow rings. Diffuse gas will not glow visibly, even if it is VERY hot. Similarly, dense gas will not glow visibly if it is not energetic enough. Your inability to address these critical points was a concession.

I asked for a post office first. If none of you is willing to send me one, then you can wait untill I decide to figue it out.

How hard is it to figure out a god-damned scanner? Any ignoramus would've been able to figure out how to scan something, by now. I'm not kidding. Scanners are NOT complicated, doofus. I'm tired of you ignoring challenges and making up excuses not to answer them. It's time for you to put up, moron.

[Straha]

JUST SO YOU KNOW STEWIE! I SENT A REPLY TO YOUR E-MAIL! TYPED BIG SO YOU WON'T MISS THIS!

[Stewart at SDI]

Not much of a strategist, are you? First you say you're too busy with an exciting social life to answer points on this silly debate, then you say you're driving around the Northeastern United States for weeks looking for testimony for this silly debate, then you say you're the "dean of technology" at a totally invisible "thinktank" business with no official registration running out of your home where the title "dean" would be meaningless, then you say you're actually busy developing a game even though you had claimed to be virtually COMPUTER ILLITERATE during our debate!

What kind of logic would lead you to draw these conclusions from what I have said?

Never said I was to buisy, just that I was late because of.

Two weeks all within 400 miles of home.

I also said that I was retired since the early ninties. The charter has been defunct since then.

Once a Dean always a Dean.

Does a game have to be on a computer to be a game? What does my computer skills or more importantly lack of same have to do with this?

Either you are not paying attention or your powers of observation are weak and youer thought proccesses are defective.

Sincerely, Stewart.

[Stewart at SDI]

Why yes, of course I have them with me.

I keep a plaque that has a copy of my university degree on my desk at home, and my college degree hangs on the wall.

It's actually very common for professionals to keep their credentials prominently displayed: something Stewart would know if he weren't a snot-nosed high school kid copying and exaggerating pieces out of other peoples' biographies.

It is most un-usual to see this in the homes of people that I know. Even those with most prominent degrees. I just do not see them hanging up at home or even in the office that much.

I must not hang out with the right types.

[Stewart at SDI]

Let me get this straight, Stewart, you waste thousands of characters explaining what types of weapons you own, yet cannot spend the time to figure out how to use a scanner and send us digital images of your degrees. This is bordering on the absurd.

I would rather joust with you than read the manual, learn to clip it to an e-mail and then send it. It's all ready to post. What is wrong with that? in the weeks since this started noone has agreed to give me an address.

Fuck off, troll. No dumbass who actually went to the trouble of getting a degree in the first place runs off and loses it.

I did. Didn't think it was that hard to do or that it was that important.

According to another poster, the school you went to no longer exists. Besides, what year did you graduate from Uni in?

1980.

Your "arguments" have been so thoroughly demolished that no rational person would bother examining them, anymore. Face it, you lost to Mike. Explosions in space do not resemble hollow rings. Diffuse gas will not glow visibly, even if it is VERY hot. Similarly, dense gas will not glow visibly if it is not energetic enough. Your inability to address these critical points was a concession.

I have addressed these points why don't you read the responces?

IHow hard is it to figure out a god-damned scanner? Any ignoramus would've been able to figure out how to scan something, by now. I'm not kidding. Scanners are NOT complicated, doofus. I'm tired of you ignoring challenges and making up excuses not to answer them. It's time for you to put up, moron.

I am sure that they are very easy to use and to get it cliped to a MSG. I just do not feel like spending the time or effort.

How come no one there is willing to give me an address untill to night. When I get the responce, the stuff will be in the mail.

[muse]

I asked for a post office first. If none of you is willing to send me one, then you can wait untill I decide to figue it out.

Fine. Mail it here.

P.O. Box 9, Station O, Scarborough
Ontario, Canada M4A2M9

That's an O, not a zero.

Send it with registered mail and give me the fucking tracking number so that I can see you actually sent the damn thing.