One more one list list of smacked assholes!
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
Moderator: Vympel
Psst, damage occurs before the visible bolt hits. That's because the beam's invisible. His Divine Shadow has a gif that illustrates this perfectly.You claim that the Turbo Laser is a beam weapon, yet the article elswere on this site is unshure of the exact nature of the device. My question to you is. If it is a beam, how come it apears to move from fraim to fraim at such a low reallitivistic velosity?
Grampa on a three day long date?Stewart at SDI wrote:I am sorry that I could not respond sooner, I have a life and spent the last three days on a hot date.
Really, please, pretty pretty please....use a fucking spell checker or at least just cut and paste real words together.In direct responce to your smak down attack I make the following points;
Density fuckhead.1. All known gases glow at 1,200K. Almost all gases glow at 1,000K andmore than a few will glow at 700 if the ambient light level is low. The failure of your possition in stating, parafraising, "what makes you think that gas at 2,000K will glow just because an iron bar does?" Why would any normal person think that it would not if an iron bar does? I can see the flaims from my stove that are only 900K.
A fuck load of matter you idiot.2. Why would the explosion differ from 400 Km altitude to hard vacume? What exactly is the difference in density between the two environments? With the density of "air pressure" being such a point of contention between us, How many more atoms per cubic meter of air at 400 Km altitude are there than in inter-steller space? The answer is "too few to mater".
For fuck's sake, where do you get your bullshit from?3. That the starfish shot was not in hard vacume is a ludicris assumption. You must define hard vacum and why the reagion of space around the Hoth system is different from the space around earth. I state that there is so little air at that altitude that it would have no effect. It now falls to you to prove that the density at 400Km, is high enough to matter, not just to state that it does. I refer you to the following books: THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS published by the DoE in 1954, THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN both by Richard Rhodes and the OPERATION PLOWSHAIR reports also published by the DoE.
That good enough for you retard?http://www.windows.ucar.edu/ wrote:A satellite, orbiting around the Earth, would continue to orbit forever if gravity were the only force acting on it. However, satellites below 2000 kilometers, are actually travelling through the Earth's atmosphere. Collisions with air particles, even at these high altitudes, slowly act to circularize the orbit and slow down the spacecraft causing it to drop to lower altitudes.
Yet again, where do you get your bullshit from?4. That the halo effect is missing and is also not understood by your selves, does not mean that it is not a valid effect and point in our discussion. It is caused by the nearly spherical expansion of the products of an explosion in space. The gas forms a shell or membrain like structure that might enclose a sphere. Any time gas is released into space, it will form this type of structure. Period. If the gas is luminesant, then the eye will percieve a hollow ring like construct because when you look threw the diamiter you only see the two sides wich appier reallitivly dark. The closer that the line of sight gets to the tangent of the sphere, the more gas the line of sight must pass threw, thus appiering much brighter. No halo, no incandesant gas, no incandesant gas no large relise of energy mesured in kilo, mega, giga or any other tons!
Appealing to your own made up credentials, fuck off looser.As a final point. Does anyone there have any expiriance or expertise in any of the following subjects? Explosives, Nuclear Weapons, Demolitions, Lasers, Masers, any other Beam Weapons or Devices, Satilites, Electronic Warfare, Aerospace Engineering, Weapons Systems Annalysis, Military Technologies or the Martial Arts? ( Not Karate, the arts of war, Logistics, Tactics and Stratigy!)
What the fuck do arias have to do with this shit eh? Are we doing opera now?If not, then you are taking someone elses word, second hand, without direct first hand knowledge. The proofs may look good, but if they are based on false assumptions, how good can they be? I have some expertise in each of those arias above and I am prepaired to debate any points that you might wish to test my fundamental knowledge. That you think that you know something is evident and the arguments that you cite clearly show that you have no personal knowledge to draw on, only that you must parrot back what others have said.
Let me guess, senile dementia been added to your bullshit resume?Pick a single point and we will argue that point to the exclusion of all others untill it is agreed or we tire of the pointlessness of it. It is two hard to remember all the things said.
Why dont you fuck off back under what ever steaming heap of bullshit you crawled out from under?You claim that the Turbo Laser is a beam weapon, yet the article elswere on this site is unshure of the exact nature of the device. My question to you is. If it is a beam, how come it apears to move from fraim to fraim at such a low reallitivistic velosity?
Well, what do you expect from someone who considers his pay cheque a valid point in a V's debate....Tribun wrote:Oh my God.
He only got 16 posts, but already has produced more mish-mashed shit than Andrew Joshua Talon or Darkstar had managed to produce in that short time span.![]()
He disgraced the Imperial Smackdown by misspelling it!
I seem to remember pointless bluster about having a life and apologizing for not responding sooner from one ANDREW JOSHUA TALON. If you begin down the Dark Path, forever will it dominate your destiny!Stewart at SDI wrote:I am sorry that I could not respond sooner, I have a life and spent the last three days on a hot date.
How DARE you disgrace Mike's signature move with your atrocious spelling. Here's a tip: while you are obviously jerking off while posting your bullshit, your dick should not be used to actually strike the keys. It makes it more difficult to understand what you are trying to say. Similarly, you should not type with a catcher's mit.In direct responce to your smak down attack I make the following points;
Oh, geez. Your unconscionable ignorance is showing even more strongly, here. Do you even understand what causes things to glow? Are you seriously attempting to compare your kitchen stove to a recently vaporized asteroid?1. All known gases glow at 1,200K. Almost all gases glow at 1,000K andmore than a few will glow at 700 if the ambient light level is low. The failure of your possition in stating, parafraising, "what makes you think that gas at 2,000K will glow just because an iron bar does?" Why would any normal person think that it would not if an iron bar does? I can see the flaims from my stove that are only 900K.
Mike explained that in his post, dumbass. Here it is, for your reading pleasure and convenience, now in bold!2. Why would the explosion differ from 400 Km altitude to hard vacume?
What exactly is the difference in density between the two environments? With the density of "air pressure" being such a point of contention between us, How many more atoms per cubic meter of air at 400 Km altitude are there than in inter-steller space? The answer is "too few to mater".
3. That the starfish shot was not in hard vacume is a ludicris assumption.
You must define hard vacum and why the reagion of space around the Hoth system is different from the space around earth.
I state that there is so little air at that altitude that it would have no effect. It now falls to you to prove that the density at 400Km, is high enough to matter, not just to state that it does.
I refer you to the following books: THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS published by the DoE in 1954, THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN both by Richard Rhodes and the OPERATION PLOWSHAIR reports also published by the DoE.
4. That the halo effect is missing and is also not understood by your selves, does not mean that it is not a valid effect and point in our discussion. It is caused by the nearly spherical expansion of the products of an explosion in space. The gas forms a shell or membrain like structure that might enclose a sphere.
Any time gas is released into space, it will form this type of structure. Period.
If the gas is luminesant, then the eye will percieve a hollow ring like construct because when you look threw the diamiter you only see the two sides wich appier reallitivly dark. The closer that the line of sight gets to the tangent of the sphere, the more gas the line of sight must pass threw, thus appiering much brighter. No halo, no incandesant gas, no incandesant gas no large relise of energy mesured in kilo, mega, giga or any other tons!
As a final point. Does anyone there have any expiriance or expertise in any of the following subjects? Explosives, Nuclear Weapons, Demolitions, Lasers, Masers, any other Beam Weapons or Devices, Satilites, Electronic Warfare, Aerospace Engineering, Weapons Systems Annalysis, Military Technologies or the Martial Arts? ( Not Karate, the arts of war, Logistics, Tactics and Stratigy!)
If not, then you are taking someone elses word, second hand, without direct first hand knowledge. The proofs may look good, but if they are based on false assumptions, how good can they be?
I have some expertise in each of those arias above and I am prepaired to debate any points that you might wish to test my fundamental knowledge.
That you think that you know something is evident and the arguments that you cite clearly show that you have no personal knowledge to draw on, only that you must parrot back what others have said.
Pick a single point and we will argue that point to the exclusion of all others untill it is agreed or we tire of the pointlessness of it. It is two hard to remember all the things said.
Yeah, sure. After all of your obvious lies, we believe you.Stewart at SDI wrote:I am sorry that I could not respond sooner, I have a life and spent the last three days on a hot date.
Yet again you demonstrate your ignorance. The ionosphere is already over 1200K. Why don't we see constant glowing over the entire sky, day and night? Because it is not dense enough, fool. The density of gas controls its luminous intensity, measured in watts per square metre of radiating area.In direct responce to your smak down attack I make the following points;
1. All known gases glow at 1,200K. Almost all gases glow at 1,000K andmore than a few will glow at 700 if the ambient light level is low. The failure of your possition in stating, parafraising, "what makes you think that gas at 2,000K will glow just because an iron bar does?" Why would any normal person think that it would not if an iron bar does? I can see the flaims from my stove that are only 900K.
Too few to glow visibly even at 2000K, fool. But when you heat them up to millions of K, they glow, hence the halo.2. Why would the explosion differ from 400 Km altitude to hard vacume? What exactly is the difference in density between the two environments? With the density of "air pressure" being such a point of contention between us, How many more atoms per cubic meter of air at 400 Km altitude are there than in inter-steller space? The answer is "too few to mater".
Fact, not assumption. 400km is within the upper atmosphere, and it is at such an altitude that satellite lifetimes are limited by atmospheric drag. Do I honestly need to explain to you why atmospheric drag indicates the presence of ... atmosphere? Are you honestly this dense?3. That the starfish shot was not in hard vacume is a ludicris assumption.
Then why can we see the aurora borealis, moron? Obviously, there's enough gas up there to produce easily visible patterns when energized by something. By the way, here's NASA's profile of ionospheric electron densities (note that the electron density drops at low altitudes because the lower atmosphere is not ionized):You must define hard vacum and why the reagion of space around the Hoth system is different from the space around earth. I state that there is so little air at that altitude that it would have no effect.
Since it is physically impossible for the blast energy to not interact with the gas, that burden of proof has been more than satisfied by simply demontrating that the gas is present, and in many orders of magnitude greater density than would be present in the interstellar medium. Now would you care to explain the reasoning behind your claim that a density difference of more than three orders of magnitude should have "no effect"?It now falls to you to prove that the density at 400Km, is high enough to matter, not just to state that it does.
I notice you don't actually quote the portions of those documents which prove that a nuclear detonation would not produce visible interactions with upper atmospheric gas.I refer you to the following books: THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS published by the DoE in 1954, THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN both by Richard Rhodes and the OPERATION PLOWSHAIR reports also published by the DoE.
You act as though it is understood by you. Very well then, please produce your calculations and physical theories to explain why we should expect to see a persistent glowing halo of only a few hundred metres diameter. Get this through your thick skull: you have not presented anything remotely resembling a physics theory or explanation for this so far; your entire argument is to claim that "Starfish" was precisely analogous, and we have shown numerous times in multiple ways that it is not, so your argument becomes utterly nonexistent.4. That the halo effect is missing and is also not understood by your selves,
Since you are obviously too stupid to understand what I said in my previous post, this gas is hurled out at a significant fraction of the speed of light. The "structure" you speak of will not hang around within a range of a few dozen metres from the source for several minutes, and any attempt on your part to claim that it will do so is simply nonsense.does not mean that it is not a valid effect and point in our discussion. It is caused by the nearly spherical expansion of the products of an explosion in space. The gas forms a shell or membrain like structure that might enclose a sphere. Any time gas is released into space, it will form this type of structure. Period.
For the third time, this ring-like structure will expand at a significant fraction of the speed of light, moron. You won't even see it on 24fps film when a 40m wide asteroid takes up a significant portion of the frame.If the gas is luminesant, then the eye will percieve a hollow ring like construct because when you look threw the diamiter you only see the two sides wich appier reallitivly dark. The closer that the line of sight gets to the tangent of the sphere, the more gas the line of sight must pass threw, thus appiering much brighter. No halo, no incandesant gas, no incandesant gas no large relise of energy mesured in kilo, mega, giga or any other tons!
As a final point. Does anyone there have any expiriance or expertise in any of the following subjects? Explosives, Nuclear Weapons, Demolitions, Lasers, Masers, any other Beam Weapons or Devices, Satilites, Electronic Warfare, Aerospace Engineering, Weapons Systems Annalysis, Military Technologies or the Martial Arts? ( Not Karate, the arts of war, Logistics, Tactics and Stratigy!)
An ironic statement from someone whose argument relies on name-dropping.If not, then you are taking someone elses word, second hand, without direct first hand knowledge.
False assumptions like your moronic claim that the gas density in the Earth's upper atmosphere is not significantly different from the gas density in interplanetary space?The proofs may look good, but if they are based on false assumptions, how good can they be?
And what is your personal knowledge? Do you have a physics degree? An engineering degree? What are your credentials? Or do you think that a vague "I have expertise in" statement covers it all? You have already stated that gas glows visibly at 2000K regardless of density, which is utterly, blatantly wrong and any first-year physics student would know that. You have also stated that 400km altitude is interplanetary space rather than upper atmosphere, even though NASA disagrees. And finally, you claimed that the asteroids in TESB were "soft lumps of talc", an utterly moronic statement in light of their appearance and the fact that metallic TIE fighters exploded against them without even denting them. Your credibility lays in tatters, no matter how fervently you may wish otherwise.I have some expertise in each of those arias above and I am prepaired to debate any points that you might wish to test my fundamental knowledge. That you think that you know something is evident and the arguments that you cite clearly show that you have no personal knowledge to draw on, only that you must parrot back what others have said.
Then go back and quote my previous response to you, as I have been doing for you. So far, you have refused to respond directly to any single point I have made, while I have been responding directly to every single point you have made.Pick a single point and we will argue that point to the exclusion of all others untill it is agreed or we tire of the pointlessness of it. It is two hard to remember all the things said.
What does this have to do with the energy yield of the TESB turbolaser vapourization event? You came storming in here saying that a visible, long-term persistent "halo" should be visible onscreen in TESB if the energy release is in the hundreds of kilotons as estimated on my webpage. Your rationale for this statement has been thoroughly shredded, and what is your response? To appeal to your own authority and attempt to change the subject. Pathetic.You claim that the Turbo Laser is a beam weapon, yet the article elswere on this site is unshure of the exact nature of the device. My question to you is. If it is a beam, how come it apears to move from fraim to fraim at such a low reallitivistic velosity?
*yawn* Yeah, yeah, whatever.Stewart at SDI wrote:I am sorry that I could not respond sooner, I have a life and spent the last three days on a hot date.
In direct responce to your smak down attack I make the following points;
Iron Bar? WTF are you talking about? Mike hasn't mentioned any sort of iron bar. For that matter, what does *any* of this have to do with Mike's counterargument? Mike's argument is relating to density (the density of atmosphere is much less than say, a piece of iron, even though the gasses are much hotter.)1. All known gases glow at 1,200K. Almost all gases glow at 1,000K andmore than a few will glow at 700 if the ambient light level is low. The failure of your possition in stating, parafraising, "what makes you think that gas at 2,000K will glow just because an iron bar does?" Why would any normal person think that it would not if an iron bar does? I can see the flaims from my stove that are only 900K.
And of course, you provide evidence to substantiate... no you don't.2. Why would the explosion differ from 400 Km altitude to hard vacume? What exactly is the difference in density between the two environments? With the density of "air pressure" being such a point of contention between us, How many more atoms per cubic meter of air at 400 Km altitude are there than in inter-steller space? The answer is "too few to mater".
Vaccuum in reference to outer space (rather than "pure" vaccuum, since outer space is not totally "empty" - we don't want you playing semantics whore now, do we?) is quite a different matter than atmosphere - I've seen no sources indicating that 400 km above space is "vaccuum" - it has been labeled as part tof the upper atmosphere (the thermosphere/ionosphere, more specifically.) How can you not be aware of the fact that the Earth's atmosphere extends hundreds, even thousands, of kilometers above the planet? If you want proof, you can look here - oh wait, I'm betting your knowledge is greater than the sum total of NASA too, isnt it?3. That the starfish shot was not in hard vacume is a ludicris assumption. You must define hard vacum and why the reagion of space around the Hoth system is different from the space around earth.
You provide no evidence to back up your position. Despite the fact this is repeatedly mentioned, you continue to ignore this requirement.I state that there is so little air at that altitude that it would have no effect. It now falls to you to prove that the density at 400Km, is high enough to matter, not just to state that it does.
Sorry, but the Burden of Proof is upon you to provide the references to back up your position. Its not up to us to do your damn research for you. Just what sort of education have you had that makes you think you can make other people do your research for you, anyhow?I refer you to the following books: THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS published by the DoE in 1954, THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN both by Richard Rhodes and the OPERATION PLOWSHAIR reports also published by the DoE.
Ah, more "I'm smarter than you and its too technical for you to understand" bullshit.4. That the halo effect is missing and is also not understood by your selves, does not mean that it is not a valid effect and point in our discussion.
So? We're discussing how *long* this so called effect is supposed to last. You insist it takes minutes, but have yet to prove that this is in fact the minimum time required for the effect in all cases (instead you're insisting that it takes the same amount of time irrespective of temperature OR Density. Thus a 32 million kg asteroid heated to several thousand degrees will have a halo that lasts supposedly as long as a much less massive nuclear detonation that is heated to millions of degrees.)It is caused by the nearly spherical expansion of the products of an explosion in space. The gas forms a shell or membrain like structure that might enclose a sphere. Any time gas is released into space, it will form this type of structure. Period. If the gas is luminesant, then the eye will percieve a hollow ring like construct because when you look threw the diamiter you only see the two sides wich appier reallitivly dark.
Nothing of which tells us why you insist that the vaporized asteroid must have lingered for several minutes, of course. OH wait, I'm sure there is some sort of complicated nuances that my neanderthal brain neglected to realize.The closer that the line of sight gets to the tangent of the sphere, the more gas the line of sight must pass threw, thus appiering much brighter. No halo, no incandesant gas, no incandesant gas no large relise of energy mesured in kilo, mega, giga or any other tons!
Oh, so we're all supposed to shut up and bow down before your supposedly superior intellect just because you claim to have expertise on those subjects even though fi your logic is faulty?As a final point. Does anyone there have any expiriance or expertise in any of the following subjects? Explosives, Nuclear Weapons, Demolitions, Lasers, Masers, any other Beam Weapons or Devices, Satilites, Electronic Warfare, Aerospace Engineering, Weapons Systems Annalysis, Military Technologies or the Martial Arts? ( Not Karate, the arts of war, Logistics, Tactics and Stratigy!)
Same can be said for you, Stewie. you're making alot of claims about your qualifications and expecting us to take your word on it without being able to verify them. Maybe you'd like to give us the opportunity to check up on you to make sure you're telling the truth?If not, then you are taking someone elses word, second hand, without direct first hand knowledge. The proofs may look good, but if they are based on false assumptions, how good can they be?
Your "Fundamental knowledge" has already been tested. Either you are lying about your education or you are being deliberately twisting science to justify your position.I have some expertise in each of those arias above and I am prepaired to debate any points that you might wish to test my fundamental knowledge.
Newsflash, Stewie. I KNOW Mike. I know his qualifications. I understand what he is claiming, and I can verify what he says independently. He has, unlike you, thoroughly explained his position in such a fashion that anyone who does some simple research can understand and verify what he is saying. You, on the other hand, spout off alot of vague references without actually citing them, never bother to explain the logic behind your statements, and hide behind your supposed credentials and insist we simply don't understand. Gee, I wonder who I'm more inclined to believe?That you think that you know something is evident and the arguments that you cite clearly show that you have no personal knowledge to draw on, only that you must parrot back what others have said.
Its only "pointless" when one side refuses to back up his or her claims with evidence, and only touts their education as proof of the validity of their position. (IE you.)Pick a single point and we will argue that point to the exclusion of all others untill it is agreed or we tire of the pointlessness of it. It is two hard to remember all the things said.
Irrelevant. We're discussing the "output" of a turbolaser, not its nature. Stop trying to change the subject.You claim that the Turbo Laser is a beam weapon, yet the article elswere on this site is unshure of the exact nature of the device. My question to you is. If it is a beam, how come it apears to move from fraim to fraim at such a low reallitivistic velosity?
Damn...sheer babble.Stewart at SDI wrote:It occured to me that I had the proof that you seek all along. This morning I dug threw all the boxes piled in the basement to find my "NUCLEAR BOMB EFFECTS COMPUTER", a circular slide rule developed by E. Royce Fletcher for the DIVISION OF BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION under contract No. E(29-2)-1013, based on data from "THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS" revised eddition 1977.
And?This device is available from yours truely at a discount yet to be determined or directly from the DoE at full list price. You might also find one to borrow, at any major library in any big city, in the pocket, inside the back cover of the above mentioned book.
More babble. In fact it completely avoids what canon evidence we have seen and substitues it with an unknown mechanism.Setting the inner wheel at aproximately 333 kilotons yeald, I read the THERMAL ENERGY EMITED in time to be 20% in .52 S., 30% in .38S., 40% in .84S. 50% in 1.16S., 60% in 1.67S., 70% in 2.7S. and 5.7 seconds for 80% of the total. The time taken to give up the last 20% of the total thermal radiation energy is more than three times what it took to yeald the first 80%!
Since none of the times listed are within the paramiters needed to jibe with the films, we could reasonably conclude that some other mechanism must have caused the asteroid to vanish besides being "vaporised" by radiations unknown from some beam weapon.
I will read your replies to both posts when I return from todays frivolities. or maby Tuesday. Sincerely,
Stewart.
That's for thermal energy emmisions inside the Earth's atmosphere, for stuff like airbursts at a few thousand feet. Try again. Oh, and quit poaching off the Nuclear Weapons FAQ you dork.Stewart at SDI wrote:Setting the inner wheel at aproximately 333 kilotons yeald, I read the THERMAL ENERGY EMITED in time to be 20% in .52 S., 30% in .38S., 40% in .84S. 50% in 1.16S., 60% in 1.67S., 70% in 2.7S. and 5.7 seconds for 80% of the total.
Given he hasn't once responded beyond his babble of what he think he knows.Robert Walper wrote:Hey, fellas, while I in no way support or agree with Stewart's position or arguements, wouldn't it be easier for just one person to debate him at this time?
1) This prevents any parties from crying "Hey, you're ignoring my posts! Concession accepted!" Also, the virtual unknowns jumping in with "yeah, you're a moron" mantra gets irritating at times.
2) This prevents any potential cry "I'm debating multiple people, I got my posts mixed up" defense, etc. I mean, seriously, the guy is outnumbered. Kinda hard to debate multiple persons due to (possible) time constraints and possible appeal to post mixup.
3) Repetative rebuttals/arguements can be avoided, on both sides.
4) We don't need half a dozen people to prove him wrong...one will suffice.
So...should I just shutup or will someone step forward with the task of attempting to reason with Steward on behalf of the SD.net gang?
Those figures are for atmospheric detonations, you idiot.Stewart at SDI wrote:It occured to me that I had the proof that you seek all along. This morning I dug threw all the boxes piled in the basement to find my "NUCLEAR BOMB EFFECTS COMPUTER", a circular slide rule developed by E. Royce Fletcher for the DIVISION OF BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION under contract No. E(29-2)-1013, based on data from "THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS" revised eddition 1977.
This device is available from yours truely at a discount yet to be determined or directly from the DoE at full list price. You might also find one to borrow, at any major library in any big city, in the pocket, inside the back cover of the above mentioned book.
Setting the inner wheel at aproximately 333 kilotons yeald, I read the THERMAL ENERGY EMITED in time to be 20% in .52 S., 30% in .38S., 40% in .84S. 50% in 1.16S., 60% in 1.67S., 70% in 2.7S. and 5.7 seconds for 80% of the total. The time taken to give up the last 20% of the total thermal radiation energy is more than three times what it took to yeald the first 80%!
I love the way you take the emission profiles for an atmospheric detonation and simply assume that they will apply to a detonation in interstellar space despite the fact that atmospheric detonation physics are entirely dominated by the interaction of the blast energy with the surrounding atmosphere. It is increasingly clear to everyone present that you are an imbecile.Since none of the times listed are within the paramiters needed to jibe with the films, we could reasonably conclude that some other mechanism must have caused the asteroid to vanish besides being "vaporised" by radiations unknown from some beam weapon.
I will read your replies to both posts when I return from todays frivolities. or maby Tuesday. Sincerely,
Stewart.