It took you two weeks to come up with this drivel? Pathetic.
Stewart at SDI wrote:Nice copout, jack-ass. I thought you said you were an expert.
I am, but you consistantly refuse to aknowledge my supirior training in this aria and claim that your engineering degree makes you more qualified than I am in maters relating to weapons and their effects. What part of your training qualifies you in this aria?
Basic physics, which is quite obviously more than you possess, all of your lies aside. Interplanetary space is not the same as the upper atmosphere.
Wrong again, three times. Yes shit!
There were three detonations that the AEC and DoD concidered to be in space as they defined it.
Oh I see, and could you provide the quote where they explicitly stated that all of the published data showing the ionosphere to be many orders of magnitude denser than interplanetary space is incorrect? Oh wait, you can't,
because it doesn't exist.
All three were visable for many, 20-40 seconds, by all news paper accounts, from more than 2,200 miles way in Hawii. After all they, the DoD and AEC are experts in this sort of thing and they planed all three test's to determine the effects of nuclear detonations in "space"! (Read "The Secret History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons" by "Chuck Hansen" for compleat details of all three "Space" shots.)
Actually, NASA is generally considered the foremost authority on space-related matters. And accuracy of astrophysical terminology is not the DoD's primary interest.
Thirdly, for your information, since it is obiously lacking, the "Lower" atmosphere is that which is below the tropopause, IE below 11,000M. The stratisphere then extends up to ~50Km. Above this is the "Ionisphere" that contains mostly Hydrogen ions and a few "traces" of other gases Ions. NASA conciders this altitude >50Km, to be "Space" as they have awarded "Astronaught's Wings" to several X-15 pilots for flights above it!
And yet they state very clearly on their own website that it is part of the upper atmosphere.
They're even more irrelevant than Starfish, in case you didn't notice. Did you seriously think that part even merited comment?
Why are they irrelevant? Yes I did, since the people who disigned and conducted all three of the test's designated them to be in "SPACE"! Since they surely know more about these things than you do, I will defere to them. Can you cite anything credible that claims any of the three shots were not in space? After all we all know that your degree does not qualify you to have competent knowledge in this aria!
NASA's own website contradicts your ignorant bullshit.
What part of "the atmosphere is different from space" do you not understand?
What part of this do you understand? NASA, the DoD and AEC all agreed that "SPACE" began at altitudes greater than 50 kilometers as far as weapons tests and some other things went. Why are you ignorant of those facts?
NASA's own website contradicts your ignorant bullshit.
Provide the quote in context. Nobody is listening to your convenient "interpretations" of source material any more, not after your voluminous bullshit.
I did not interpret anything. I just recalled from my vast memory and I did provide the sources. It's just up to you to read the entire referance to get the data that you desire, or provide a quote and source that disputes my claims. Your oppinions are worth less than mine. I have training in this and related fields. You never claimed that you did have any equivalent.
Actually, I
could have claimed all kinds of things, if I were as dishonest as you. Unverified claims count for precisely dick, which is why I made a point of linking to specific references. Something which you have conspicuously failed to do.
I have asked repeatedly for you to quote anything that might even hint that the nuclear weapons shots in question would appear any differently than the supposed very large release of energy required to "vaporise" any asteroid. In return all you ever gave is your "oppinion" that the density of the medium surrounding the three shots and the "Starfish-Prime" shot in particular when compaired to your undefined and unspecified "Interplanetary Space" in the Hoth system would make the event as portraid vastly different than all other known similar events!
Yes, when you change the environment of a nuclear blast, its interaction with that environment will change. This is not just my "opinion"; it is basic logic. It is also backed up by NASA itself; a fact which you conspicuously and conveniently and repeatedly ignore.
How does your engineering degree qualify you to have any valid oppinion on this subject?
I know basic physics, which is more than enough to refute your ignorant bullshit. Your claims of superior expertise are worth precisely dick, since everyone knows you have been lying through your teeth since Day One.
Why should we accept your therory that directly dissagrees with the AEC, DoD and the weaponeers who disigned and conducted the nuclear test shots in question? When they all thought the test shots were in space? Did you study Physics? Cosmotoligy? Astronomy? Aerodynamics? Or to become a aircraft pilot? Any of these subjects might give you a glimps into the reallivant knowledge, but as far as we know, you are ignorant in all of those arias.
Physics
is a required subject in mechanical engineering, you idiot. Mechanical engineering is applied physics. Thanks for demonstrating yet again that your knowledge amounts to that of a high school kid.
One last time. What is the density of "Interplanetary Space" in general and in the Hoth system in particular and how do you know that it is any different than the environment surounding the Nuclear Weapons Effects "Space" Shots in question? I've asked this question several times, but you have continued to duck the qustion.
More lies. I answered this question a long time ago, to deafening silence from you. See
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 859#929859 for the details. For the umpteenth time, the density of the atmosphere at 400km altitude is between one thousand and one million times the density of interplanetary space.
Only in your most vivid dream fantasies could a person of your demonstraited expertise and self imagined strength ever assault by H2H, any person with my expertise and then pretend to live threw it!
Oooooooh, I'm soooooo scared. Didn't your Mommy ever tell you that nobody gives points in a debate for bragging about how big and strong you are?
Since you have failed to answer my questions and ignored my expertise in this field
I answered your questions with numbers, statements, a graph, and even direct quotes from NASA; you ignored it all. As for your claims of "expertise", give it a rest. No one believes you.
even after stating that your own degree was in an unrelated field, while claiming that it afforded you expert statis that is denieghed me, with a degree in "General Science" that includes hours in Physics,
"Hours in Physics"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!
*takes breath*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!
What kind of education did you get, where "hours in physics" was considered useful?
Oh, by the way, do you really think that anyone will be impressed by your claim of a degree in "General Science"? Most schools don't even
offer such a degree, and those that do are generally low-grade tech schools, because any
useful level of competence in modern science requires specialization. BTW, mechanical engineering
is applied physics; something you would know if you had a
real technical background.
You have belittled my expertise in other fields, without demonstraiting that you have any knowledge what so ever in them, therefore, I am forced to consult with people who's degrees are supirior to your own.
Ah yes, unnamed people for whom you can make up even
more impressive imaginary credentials. I'm soooooo impressed.
In addition, since I would never presume upon our feindships among my colegues,
Of course not, since they don't exist.
I am forced to go to outside sources to question Phd Physisists and Professors of Cosmotology, Astro-physics and Astronomy.
I have occasionally consulted Curtis Saxton myself, since he has a PhD in astrophysics. Rest assured that he does not contradict NASA on the fact that the ionosphere is not equivalent to interplanetary space. There is an altitude above which people often consider the density low enough to consider "space" because it is not useful for things like jet propulsion, aerodynamic lift, etc. That does
not mean it is actually functionally identical to interplanetary space, and you can whine about that fact until the cows come home but you won't be able to change it.
I origionaly thought to question them by E-mail but did not get a single person willing to be interviewed for an "on line" article. So I changed my tack and drove over 1,000 miles to Millwaky, Beliot, Rockford, Barrington, Chicago and four suburbs, Champainge/Urbana and the Fermi National Laboratory just 30 or 40 miles south of me.
Yeah, I'm sure you did. I believe you. You went and drove thousands of miles all over the northeastern United States to question a bunch of science experts (and who all made time for you even though they didn't know you from Adam, of course), all for the purpose of trying to win a "Star Wars vs Star Trek" argument. If that were really true, it would be the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. Luckily, we all know it's not true.
The pitch whent like this; Hello I am Stewart Davies and I am writing an article for publication on line about the differances between science and science fiction. Whould you be willing to answer 8-10 questions over lunch that I am buying at your favorite resturant? When only five of the first twelve agreed, I started to bring a cooler with Sub-Way sandwiches, Sodas and a variety of adult beverages. I then asked if we could do lunch in thier office,if they were to buisy for a resturant, or finaly, just while we walked to were ever they were going. A total of eight Phd-plus type guys agreed to answer the questions. I first gave them prints of the film clip in it's entirety and transcripts down loaded from the debate, then told them that "exact" answers were not required, just thier best oppinions. The questions and thier answers are below. Just think, I got all this for less than $800 bucks worth of wear and tear on the car, expences and ten days of my time. What a bargain!!!:)
You have a talent for very detailed stories. Perhaps you believe that all of this superfluous detail will convince us that your story is authentic instead of the laughable pile of obvious lies that we all know it is.
1. Given that the asteroid in question is between 20 and 40M long and 12 and 24M in diamiter, has a specific density between 1.5 and 8 and thus masses between <3,400 and >144,000 metric tons, is there any possability what so ever, that this film clip of less than .3 seconds, could be an accurate depiction of 4.18E12 to 4.18E15 Joules, equivilant to ONE KILOTON to ONE MEGATON of TNT'S worth of energy "Vaporising" said asteroid?
All eight answered NO!
Wow, all eight of your imaginary friends agreed with you! Yippeeee!
2. Can you think of any known mechanism that would alow this film clip to accurately portray the above event?
Again all eight answered NO!
Wow, all eight of your imaginary friends agreed with you! Yippeeee!
3. Given that all of the several asteroid blastings showed virtually identicle chains of events, all lasting less than 1/2rd of a second, Could the slow fraim rate of 24 per second have missed any significant event that could change you oppinion as stated previously?
All eight answered NO, Again!
Wow, all eight of your imaginary friends agreed with you! Yippeeee!
4. If the asteroid in the question above were "vaporised" deep in "Interplanetary Space", How many seconds would you expect the resulting incandesant gas to be visable to the naked eye? Would the event happening at an equivilant Earth altitude of 200Km. cange the results above substantialy?
All eight answers ranged fron "a few seconds" to "several tens of seconds" When I pressed, the few seconds became 2-3, maby 10. No, the differance in dencity is not sufficiant to change the results significantly.
Wow, all eight of your imaginary friends agreed with you! Yippeeee!
5. Given that the camera's possition is reallitivly close to the detonation, could the expanding gas that we would expect to see escape the view fraim durring the 10-12 Ms interfraim time between exposures? Or would it still be visable as it recieded into the distance?
After some discusion about the total number of fraims in the clip, all eight again agreed that it was not possable for the expanding cloud of incandesant gas to escape the camera's view into the distance.
Wow, all eight of your imaginary friends agreed with you! Yippeeee!
6. Given the irregular, non-spherical shape of the gas/smoke or dust shown in fraim one and the reallitive lack of expansion of same in fraim two, Could the asteroid be compleatly "Vaporised" in fraim one?
All eight answered NO!
Wow, all eight of your imaginary friends agreed with you! Yippeeee!
7. Given that the appirant volume of the cloud of smoke or gas is between >50,000M.E3 and <400,000M.E3, not counting the volume of the unvaporised asteroid inside, How much of the asteroid would have to be vaporised to make that cloud and what would the density be?
All eight answers ran like this. I'de only be guessing about the total mass, but the density would vary between at most 1 Kg/ME3 at the suface being vaporised to 1E-9 to E-12 Kg./ME3 at the visable edges of the cloud formation.
(Since I did not want to waist my precious interview time, I made these calculations later. If the average dencity is 1E-5 Kg/ME3 then the total mass of the gas in the cloud would be between .5 and 4 kilos! If my calculations are right? Furthermore, if the total suface aria of the smaller size asteroid that we are possiting is 754 million Cm^2 then the depth of vaporisation is thus much less than .01MM, while the larger size needs less than 0.1MM of it's surface vaporised to make the visable cloud seen in the film.)
Wow, all eight of your imaginary friends agreed with you! Yippeeee!
8. Is there any known mechanism that could make the incandesant gas in fraims 1 and 2 change color by fraim three? What if the gas in fraims one and two were realy smoke or dust, Could secondary or terciary reactions in ordinary high explosive account for the changes as the cloud dissipates?
All eight said yes there was, but absent the expansion required to supercool the gas between fraims, as evidenced by the film, No it's not possable. Two agreed that ordinary HE does sometimes change the color of the smoke generated as the detonation progresses.
Wow, all eight of your imaginary friends agreed with you! Yippeeee!
9. Given that the ~160 kilogrames of ordinary high explosive in a nominal 750 pound bomb leaves a crater +14M. accross by +2M. deep. Could a simmilar yeald of less than 1,000 kilos of HE compleatly shatter a typical asteroid as we know them, in a manner consistant with that portaid in the film clip shown?
Six did not know, but one said certainly and the last said it probably would not take 100 kilos to get the results seen in the film, even for the largest asteroid possited. He also recomended that I get a copy of "The Blaster's Handbook" published by "E. I. Du Pont D. Namours" to find the required amount and type of explosive to shatter the loose agregate rock that is typical of most asteroids.
Wow, all eight of your imaginary friends agreed with you! Yippeeee! I did like the part where you fed your imaginary friends your assumption that the asteroid was shattered rather than vapourized, despite all of the times I've had to show you the picture of the asteroid clearly glowing white-hot. You know, this one:
Still waiting for you to answer the point, dumb-ass. Not to mention your moronic claim that the asteroids were "soft lumps of talc" even though they somehow resisted deformation after being impacted by metallic TIE fighters.
10. If you were a contestant in a science quiz show and had to choose one answer below for a million dollar prize, between the two compeeting theories below and highlighted in the text of the down load. Which would you choose?
A. An invisable beam "vaporises" the asteroid in fraim one. There is less than 50% expansion of the resulting gas in fraim two as some bright bolt of "plasma" impacts the incandesant cloud. It expands beyond the bounds of the camera's fraim before fraim three and then leaves a residual smoke cloud of a different color. In fraim four, it shrinks and changes color, getting darker and dimmer. It fades from view completely by fraim eight.
Or.
B. Either an invisable beam or a missile of some kind impacts between fraim 0 and fraim one, and dislodges dust from the surface visable in fraim one. The plasma bolt or missile impacts in fraim two, generating very little aditional expansion of the original cloud of smoke or dust as it detonates. The asteroid shatters in fraim three, leaving behind a cloud of dust and smoke. Larger pieces are not visable either due to poor lighting preventing adiquate exposure of the fast moving fragments or insufficiant resolution of the camera system. The cloud expands slowly over the next three or four fraims and faids from view by fraim eight.
All eight chose answer B!
Wow, all eight of your imaginary friends agreed with you! Yippeeee!
One Professor reminded me that the missile could have been rocket powered as much of the exhaust is not visable in several types of rocket untill secondary and even terciary reactions take place. The exhaust is visable in fraim one but the missile could have been in the target already.
What missile? You
are aware that there was no rocket-powered missile at all, right? We're talking about a turbolaser bolt, moron.
A second pointed out that if the asteroid was being tracked by a sufficiantly powerfull missile guidance illumination radar, that radar beam could have "micro-waved" the surface of the body enough to cause what little gas we see in fraims one and two to "vaporise". He also pointed out that radar energy flows over the surface of any target untill it is absorbed or hits a discontinuety to be re-radiated. It could therefore burn off mattierial from every side of the body in question.
Oh yes, I'm suuuuuure that radar sets normally cause a piece of rocky iron to look like this:
In addition, if the radar transmision was a "half wave signal of only positive or negitive parts of the wave that a much lower power level could cause the build up of "static" electricity that would cause the dust to jump from the surface and repell it self from every other particle giving the appearance of a smoth surface. He could not think how that half wave transmitter might work but it is more likely than the vaporisation theory "A" above.
And you think that somehow explains this?
There you have it, eight Phd. Proffessors who agree with me and find your explanation untenable. Because they asked me not to publish thier names and or organisations for a variety of reasons not the least of wich was your rude and beligerant behaviour, embarasment at being associated with such trivial persuites and thier buisy schedules, therefore, I am with holding thier names, Etc. I also know you will avoid the points above and asail me for withholding the names, with some crap like I made it all up or some other specious argument, but I don't care, I can proove my sources.
Yeah, sure. I believe you. Unnamed authorities that you supposedly drove thousands of miles to see, who are afraid of
my belligerence after some weirdo drives hundreds of miles to ask them sci-fi questions, and who willingly gave their valuable time to perform sci-fi analyses for the great prize of a submarine sandwich and soft drinks. Who could possibly doubt such a story?
Can you find anyone at all with a Phd in physics who will agree with you?
Curtis Saxton, PhD astrophysics, author of the Star Wars Technical Commentaries which can be found at
http://www.theforce.net/swtc
To asail this data you must find equivilant Phd.s that dispute the above findings for the ten questions and ARE WILLING TO PUBLISH THIER NAMES AND INSTITUTIONS FOR PEER REVIEW!
That's a pretty fucking funny demand, coming from a guy who just appealed to the authority of a bunch of imaginary experts whose names he shall "withold".
At least three of the people that I interviewed will then be willing to enter into a private online debate with your experts and then post an agreed statement.
I hear lots of big talk, but as usual, no action. Verily, thou art the master of unverified claims.
How many of the posters on this board are willing to put up $100 U.S.D. on which answer, A or B above, that the most Physics Phd's choose? I am! We all know what they say about walk'n and talk'n, are you walk'n or are you $TALK'N$?
Ah yes, when in trouble, resort to trash-talk, empty threats, and wagers that you obviously have no intention of keeping. Sorry bubba, but it ain't gonna fly. You obviously think that by pretending to bet money, you bolster your authority. However, the names and universities and contact information for these imaginary professors would have gone a
lot farther toward bolstering your claims than this empty bluffing, and if you think people don't see through your little games, you're even dumber than I thought.
P.S. Will post photos tomorrow of previously discussed items.
Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.
Let me summarize your entire post:
"I'm Stewart Davies, and I can't explain why I'm right, so I'm just going to claim that I'm right because I'm more qualified. And since no one's buying that, I'll just claim that I know some unnamed people who are even
more qualified, and believe me, they think I'm right too".
My dear boy, you are a truly sad case. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that you would come up with such a laughable symphony of lies. I did like the part where you bragged about spending $800 to drive around and interview experts about this, though. Now people will be confused about whether they should point and laugh at you, or feel pity for you.
If you persist, I'll join in the crowd because you've just been that annoying.
Maybe I shoulda just watched some mindless sitcom....
Class of 2007 w00t
