How Astronomers Missed the Massive Asteroid That Just Whizze

"John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0d3c8a6d-52e4-431c-946f-b3fb96e84326@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 7:13:11 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
the headline says "massive" but asteroids at the lower end of
that range are small enough that if you could intercept
exoatmospherically with a ten, 20 megaton nuclear weapon at a
couple hundred meters would vaporize the bulk of it.

Problem: Huge-ass asteroid on collision course with Earth

Solution: Nuke it

Problem: 12 medium-sized radioactive asteroids on collision course
with Earth

-- john, KE5FX

Problem: Folks unable to analyze a problem, leading to not needed
non solutions.

Solution: Ignore them.

Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates.

Obliteration does not work, because that turns a "bullet" type
projectile into a "shotgun blast" type projectile.

Deflection would be the only usable choice.

IOW, we are all doomed, essentially, but not because of radiated
meteorites.

 

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 8:30:28 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 9:13:03 PM UTC+10, John Miles, KE5FX wrote:
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 7:13:11 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
the headline says "massive" but asteroids at the lower end of that range
are small enough that if you could intercept exoatmospherically with a
ten, 20 megaton nuclear weapon at a couple hundred meters would vaporize
the bulk of it.

Problem: Huge-ass asteroid on collision course with Earth

Solution: Nuke it

Problem: 12 medium-sized radioactive asteroids on collision course with Earth

If you use a big enough nuke, the fragments will all have been moved onto slightly different orbits - if they are all moving apart, none of them are on the original orbit.

Even if you don't blast it into separate bits, what you do blast off will have momentum in a different direction to what's left of the asteroid, and the residue will have an equal and opposite change of momentum.

It's all calculable - more accurately after the blast - and if a first blast didn't do all that was needed, you'll probably have time for another.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

How about detonating far enough away so as not likely to break it into
pieces, just cause a slight change in course so it misses Earth? If you
do that far enough out, only a small change in it's arc at that point,
would cause a big change in distance later.


I thought there were other options,

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 12:05:50 AM UTC+10, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 8/1/19 12:49 AM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the temperature of space below that?

Temperature is a property of matter.


It's also a property of fields.

Do tell. A photon is a feature of an electromagnetic field, and each photon has an energy associated with it's wavelength.

Temperature is all about energy distribution so you needs lots of photons to define a temperature.

A field - as such - is defined by the particles that interact with it, and it does strike me that it would bit tricky to assign a temperature to a static magnetic or electric field.

I do look forward to being corrected.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 10:50:10 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 8:30:28 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 9:13:03 PM UTC+10, John Miles, KE5FX wrote:
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 7:13:11 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
the headline says "massive" but asteroids at the lower end of that range
are small enough that if you could intercept exoatmospherically with a
ten, 20 megaton nuclear weapon at a couple hundred meters would vaporize
the bulk of it.

Problem: Huge-ass asteroid on collision course with Earth

Solution: Nuke it

Problem: 12 medium-sized radioactive asteroids on collision course with Earth

If you use a big enough nuke, the fragments will all have been moved onto slightly different orbits - if they are all moving apart, none of them are on the original orbit.

Even if you don't blast it into separate bits, what you do blast off will have momentum in a different direction to what's left of the asteroid, and the residue will have an equal and opposite change of momentum.

It's all calculable - more accurately after the blast - and if a first blast didn't do all that was needed, you'll probably have time for another.

How about detonating far enough away so as not likely to break it into
pieces, just cause a slight change in course so it misses Earth? If you
do that far enough out, only a small change in it's arc at that point,
would cause a big change in distance later.

A nuclear blast doesn't do anything worthwhile to the momentum of an asteroid on its own.

The only way it does anything useful is by heating up the surface of the asteroid to the point where the surface boils off.

The stream of vapour away from the asteroid does have momentum, and the pressure of the initial cloud of vapour on the asteroid surface transfers an equal and opposite momentum into the asteroid.

Put the nuclear blast close enough to the asteroid and make it big enough, and the pressure wave propagated into the asteroid could break it up.

Take the nuclear blast away from the asteroid and the inverse square law means that the surface of the asteroid might not even got hot enough to volatilise, and there wouldn't be any change in the momentum - and thus the direction - of the asteroid.

I don't think that NT has actually thought about this all that hard.

> I thought there were other options,

In so far as he has thought about it at all.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 8/1/19 12:49 AM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

Isn't the temperature of space below that?

Temperature is a property of matter.

It's also a property of fields.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 7/31/19 4:04 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 31/07/2019 19:54, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 9:30:44 AM UTC-4,
upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:07:21 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/2019 07:20, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 22:51:24 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/07/2019 17:42, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 00:21:56 GMT, Steve Wilson
no@spam.com> wrote:

July 26, 2019

How Astronomers Missed the Massive Asteroid That Just
Whizzed Past Earth

By Yasemin Saplakoglu, Staff Writer

A large asteroid just whizzed past our planet - and
astronomers weren't expecting it.

Ranging in size from 187 to 427 feet (57 to 130 meters)
wide, the space rock named 2019 OK snuck up on us
Thursday morning (July 25).

It swung as close as 45,000 miles (73,000 kilometers)
from Earth, what one astronomer told The Washington Post
was "uncomfortably close."

Some animation claim that the flyby occurred when the
asteroid was flying towards perihelion, i.e. it would come
from the night side of Earth and it should be easier to
detect earlier.

The big ones that sneak up on  us are typically either very
dark covered in carbon soot like dust or coming from the
direction of the sun so that they are in the twilight sky
until the last possible moment or both. I am a bit surprised
that the automatic searchers didn't get it a bit sooner (so
will they be). There is a protocol for Earth crossers with
suspected close approach or collision risk at the minor
planets centre.

A very dark carbon asteroid inside the orbit of the Earth will
get *hot* and radiate a lot in the 8-15 um thermal-IR range but
very little in the near-IR or visible range. Thus comparing
ThIR and NIR pictures should help identifying such objects.

Warm certainly enough to maybe melt water depending on how slowly
it spins - that is why comets develop tails as they near the
sun.

That is more about sublimation (going directly from solid to gas).


However a perfect black body at the Earth's orbit without an
atmosphere their peak sun side temperature is likely to be more
like 5C peaking at around 12um.

The average full sphere temperature would be close to -15 C.
However, for "equatorial" regions the variation can be quite large.
Look at the day time surface temperatures of the Moon, it can be
uncomfortably high. Admittedly the sun has been shining for up to
two weeks. Anyway for faster rotating bodies the warm equatorial
regions going from late "evening" to early "night" is still quite
warm and radiates ThIR quite well.

Enough that the more sensitive far IR systems might see it. How
bright the side facing Earth is depends on its actual
temperature which could be quite a bit cooler.

There was never enough military demand to see objects cooler than
37C so the sensitivity is not so good at these longer thermal
wavelengths.

Since the hot object is tumbling around it will also radiate
ThIR on the "night" side of the object, while a very reflective
object nearly on the line between Sun and Earth, will have a
very small reflective area for visible light and NIR.

I think most of the survey instruments are wide field big sensor
devices on fast Schmidt scopes mostly in the visible or near IR
backed with computer programs to spot anything that moves.

The most sensitive IR detectors are cooled by letting helium
evaporate at 4 K. This unfortunately means that the detector is
usable only as long as there is some liquid helium left in the
tanks.

Isn't the temperature of space below that?  So a shielded radiator
should be able to dissipate the heat absorbed by the satellite and
condense the helium.  The helium would then be essentially a heat
pipe.  This may be too large to be practically launched.

It is very difficult to do that. The standard tricks get you a heat
shadow. The Hubble ran into a bunch of related problems with thermal
effects known to the spook bird manufacturers but highly classified.
They had to reinvent the wheel (and theirs was a bit rounder too).

Sticking a mirror or maybe two in the path between the sun and the
sensor is about as good as you can get. Biggest problem is that for a
wide angle survey instrument you want a very large number of pixels.

So instead of 0.01 radian diameter source at 5800K and the rest at 4K
you trade that for 0.05 radian occulting disk at 280K emitting maybe
5-10% and the rest at 4K with one good mirror interposed. Two is about
where the law of diminishing returns sets in.

In low Earth orbit you also have a hefty chunk of 300K emission very
nearby and subtending a much larger solid angle than the sun.

You also can't usefully cool anything to 4K by radiation. The radiative
cooling rate goes like T**4, so cooling at 4K is

(4/300)**4 = 3E-8

times as fast as at room temperature. Just the heat from the Moon is
enough to dwarf that.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 8:52:25 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

"John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0d3c8a6d-52e4-431c-946f-b3fb96e84326@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 7:13:11 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
the headline says "massive" but asteroids at the lower end of
that range are small enough that if you could intercept
exoatmospherically with a ten, 20 megaton nuclear weapon at a
couple hundred meters would vaporize the bulk of it.

Problem: Huge-ass asteroid on collision course with Earth

Solution: Nuke it

Problem: 12 medium-sized radioactive asteroids on collision course
with Earth

-- john, KE5FX


Problem: Folks unable to analyze a problem, leading to not needed
non solutions.

Solution: Ignore them.

Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates.

That's good to know, the world has been mistaken to fear the fallout from
hydrogen bombs for the last half century, because they don't radiate
or contaminate. And all the bother in the early days, treaties to limit
testing to underground. Could have just set them all off in the air
and avoided all the additional effort.


Wrong, always wrong.

Obliteration does not work, because that turns a "bullet" type
projectile into a "shotgun blast" type projectile.

Of course it can work, because if it does turn it into thousands of
small pieces, then it's harmless. For proof of that, look at any
meteor shower. Almost all burn up, without ever reaching the ground.

Deflection would be the only usable choice.

IOW, we are all doomed, essentially, but not because of radiated
meteorites.

You're already doomed by being wrong, always wrong.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 12:49:59 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

Isn't the temperature of space below that?

Temperature is a property of matter.

Actually it is a measure of energy and does not imply the existence of matter. Besides, space contains matter. Even if there is no conventional matter, there is the quantum background "fuzz".

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:6ac0425e-3c0a-4a6b-8da7-8642dcffa263@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 8:52:25 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
"John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0d3c8a6d-52e4-431c-946f-b3fb96e84326@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 7:13:11 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
the headline says "massive" but asteroids at the lower end of
that range are small enough that if you could intercept
exoatmospherically with a ten, 20 megaton nuclear weapon at a
couple hundred meters would vaporize the bulk of it.

Problem: Huge-ass asteroid on collision course with Earth

Solution: Nuke it

Problem: 12 medium-sized radioactive asteroids on collision
course with Earth

-- john, KE5FX


Problem: Folks unable to analyze a problem, leading to not
needed non solutions.

Solution: Ignore them.

Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one
that
radiates or contaminates.

That's good to know, the world has been mistaken to fear the
fallout from hydrogen bombs for the last half century, because
they don't radiate or contaminate.

You are an idiot. I said nothing about using current Hydrogen
bombs, you fucking presumptuous putz!

A fusion bomb has no radioactive fallout. A pure fusion bomb. Our
Hydrogen bombs you were so quick to assume I referred to are not pure
fusion bombs.

Essentially your inane zeal to tag my remarks as wrong all the time
has your ass in a twist, boy. You are fucked in the head.

And all the bother in the
early days, treaties to limit testing to underground. Could have
just set them all off in the air and avoided all the additional
effort.


Wrong, always wrong.

You make retarded, stupid observations of non-events which you also
make up in your head.

Obliteration does not work, because that turns a "bullet" type
projectile into a "shotgun blast" type projectile.

Of course it can work, because if it does turn it into thousands
of small pieces, then it's harmless.

You really are an idiot and have no clue about mass, much less how
a shotgun works. Din't you google up my 0.80" overbore remark?
Oh... I know you didn't because there was no "I am adding that to my
lits" post.

It has been discussed in huge detail by millions, boy. Breaking it
up would only make things worse as then multiple impacts would happen
at multiple locations.

For proof of that, look at
any meteor shower.

You really are clueless.

Almost all burn up, without ever reaching the
ground.

Again... you are dumber than dogshit, boy.

Deflection would be the only usable choice.

IOW, we are all doomed, essentially, but not because of
radiated
meteorites.


You're already doomed by being wrong, always wrong.

You are doomed to be the pathetic, zero depth, zero contribution,
zero count asswipe which you have already always been all your life.
You are a true piece of shit, and your mother should be executed in
the public square for failing to flush you, the moment the severely
ass fucked street slut shat you.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4a42c39b-e413-421b-9cb5-04b638860f51@googlegroups.com:

Actually it is a measure of energy and does not imply the
existence of matter.

Planck would differ with you.

Heat... specifically the thing that 'temperature' puts a measure on,
is ONLY exibited by atomic / molecular motion.

So matter is required to have heat.

Any you find devoid of matter was 'generated' by matter and is a
remnant.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 8:30:28 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 9:13:03 PM UTC+10, John Miles, KE5FX wrote:
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 7:13:11 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
the headline says "massive" but asteroids at the lower end of that range
are small enough that if you could intercept exoatmospherically with a
ten, 20 megaton nuclear weapon at a couple hundred meters would vaporize
the bulk of it.

Problem: Huge-ass asteroid on collision course with Earth

Solution: Nuke it

Problem: 12 medium-sized radioactive asteroids on collision course with Earth

If you use a big enough nuke, the fragments will all have been moved onto slightly different orbits - if they are all moving apart, none of them are on the original orbit.

Even if you don't blast it into separate bits, what you do blast off will have momentum in a different direction to what's left of the asteroid, and the residue will have an equal and opposite change of momentum.

It's all calculable - more accurately after the blast - and if a first blast didn't do all that was needed, you'll probably have time for another.

Much of the damage of a nuke is from the vaporizing of matter near the explosion. I wonder how much less the impact of a nuke will be in space where only the material of the bomb itself will impact an asteroid.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 3:51:56 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Bert Timmerman wrote:
Steve Wilson wrote:
July 26, 2019

How Astronomers Missed the Massive Asteroid That Just Whizzed Past Earth

By Yasemin Saplakoglu, Staff Writer

A large asteroid just whizzed past our planet - and astronomers
weren't expecting it.
[...]

Pleasant dreams

Hrmmm, Looks like we're spending all those trillions on the "wrong" type
of defense industry LOL ;-)

You're a good deal more likely to be killed in a war
than by a falling asteroid.

That's great, but you can choose to not fight a war. Besides, it's like earthquakes. The likelihood is small, but the consequences can be huge. That's why we are trying to track the bigger asteroids even though the chances of an impact by one of that size is very, very small. The smaller ones that we can't track, but are much more likely to impact the planet can still have devastating consequences for the world.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 12:18:06 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4a42c39b-e413-421b-9cb5-04b638860f51@googlegroups.com:

Actually it is a measure of energy and does not imply the
existence of matter.

Planck would differ with you.

Heat... specifically the thing that 'temperature' puts a measure on,
is ONLY exibited by atomic / molecular motion.

So matter is required to have heat.

Any you find devoid of matter was 'generated' by matter and is a
remnant.

I don't normally bother replying to you as you mostly have no idea of what you are talking about. In this case I can point to the cosmic background radiation which is considered to be approximately 4°K and does in no way involve matter.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Martin Brown]

On 01/08/2019 17:10, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 8:30:28 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 9:13:03 PM UTC+10, John Miles, KE5FX
wrote:
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 7:13:11 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
the headline says "massive" but asteroids at the lower end of
that range are small enough that if you could intercept
exoatmospherically with a ten, 20 megaton nuclear weapon at a
couple hundred meters would vaporize the bulk of it.

Problem: Huge-ass asteroid on collision course with Earth

Solution: Nuke it

Problem: 12 medium-sized radioactive asteroids on collision
course with Earth

Better to divert it some other way if you see it in plenty of time.
Nuclear explosives are messy.

If you use a big enough nuke, the fragments will all have been
moved onto slightly different orbits - if they are all moving
apart, none of them are on the original orbit.

Although the odd one might still be on a collision course. A bit like
slamming the cue ball into the pack the result can be quirky.

Even if you don't blast it into separate bits, what you do blast
off will have momentum in a different direction to what's left of
the asteroid, and the residue will have an equal and opposite
change of momentum.

It's all calculable - more accurately after the blast - and if a
first blast didn't do all that was needed, you'll probably have
time for another.

I doubt if we have any nuclear launch systems capable of delivering an
H-bomb to an incoming asteroid reliably at present.

Much of the damage of a nuke is from the vaporizing of matter near
the explosion. I wonder how much less the impact of a nuke will be
in space where only the material of the bomb itself will impact an
asteroid.

Maximum destructive force is when the fireball doesn't touch the ground
by some slowly varying ratio of its size. A ground burst generates much
more fallout and vapourising rocks or water robs the shockwave of power.

In space if you were going to do it to an asteroid you ideally would
want to have the thing detonate very close to the target so that it
exerts maximum impulsive force. Neutron capture means that the surface
facing the blast will be radioactive glass much like Trinitite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite

Or for a stoney asteroid probably more like radioactive Obsidian.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 12:49:59 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4e35d268-daad-4268-8762-c5474c415e42@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 12:18:06 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4a42c39b-e413-421b-9cb5-04b638860f51@googlegroups.com:

Actually it is a measure of energy and does not imply the
existence of matter.

Planck would differ with you.

Heat... specifically the thing that 'temperature' puts a
measure on,

is ONLY exibited by atomic / molecular motion.

So matter is required to have heat.

Any you find devoid of matter was 'generated' by matter and is
a
remnant.

I don't normally bother replying to you as you mostly have no idea
of what you are talking about. In this case I can point to the
cosmic background radiation which is considered to be
approximately 4°K and does in no way involve matter.


It involves the moment matter was created throughout the known
universe. Duh! It most certainly does (did) involve matter... all
of the matter there was and is all at once and we are part of what is
left.

Note I did not say you were wrong. Temperature can be measured.

Can you measure it in free space? Empty space?

Does it require something moving to impart change into the
transducer you are using to measure it with?

What are you measuring? The air? The surface of a medium? All
involve matter and contact with the transducer.

Theorizing ideals? Matter is still there.

If you are measuring the temperature of a photon stream (the solar
wind) (source left) with an IR device perpendicular to the flow, what
are you measuring and what generated it? Hint: Look left. That
star's matter generated that energy.

This is why I usually don't reply to you. When you come up with a wrong idea, you double down. All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not matter and yet it has a temperature.

arthropods

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4e35d268-daad-4268-8762-c5474c415e42@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 12:18:06 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4a42c39b-e413-421b-9cb5-04b638860f51@googlegroups.com:

Actually it is a measure of energy and does not imply the
existence of matter.

Planck would differ with you.

Heat... specifically the thing that 'temperature' puts a
measure on,

is ONLY exibited by atomic / molecular motion.

So matter is required to have heat.

Any you find devoid of matter was 'generated' by matter and is
a
remnant.

I don't normally bother replying to you as you mostly have no idea
of what you are talking about. In this case I can point to the
cosmic background radiation which is considered to be
approximately 4°K and does in no way involve matter.

It involves the moment matter was created throughout the known
universe. Duh! It most certainly does (did) involve matter... all
of the matter there was and is all at once and we are part of what is
left.

Note I did not say you were wrong. Temperature can be measured.

Can you measure it in free space? Empty space?

Does it require something moving to impart change into the
transducer you are using to measure it with?

What are you measuring? The air? The surface of a medium? All
involve matter and contact with the transducer.

Theorizing ideals? Matter is still there.

If you are measuring the temperature of a photon stream (the solar
wind) (source left) with an IR device perpendicular to the flow, what
are you measuring and what generated it? Hint: Look left. That
star's matter generated that energy.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 01/08/2019 17:32, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 12:18:06 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4a42c39b-e413-421b-9cb5-04b638860f51@googlegroups.com:

Actually it is a measure of energy and does not imply the
existence of matter.

Planck would differ with you.

Heat... specifically the thing that 'temperature' puts a measure
on, is ONLY exibited by atomic / molecular motion.

So matter is required to have heat.

Any you find devoid of matter was 'generated' by matter and is a
remnant.

I don't normally bother replying to you as you mostly have no idea of
what you are talking about. In this case I can point to the cosmic
background radiation which is considered to be approximately 4°K and
does in no way involve matter.

Yes. It does. The cosmic microwave background is from a roughly 4000K
hydrogen plasma surface of last scattering at a redshift of about 1100.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_%28cosmology%29


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-08-01 18:06, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 3:51:56 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman
wrote:
Bert Timmerman wrote:
Steve Wilson wrote:
July 26, 2019

How Astronomers Missed the Massive Asteroid That Just Whizzed
Past Earth

By Yasemin Saplakoglu, Staff Writer

A large asteroid just whizzed past our planet - and
astronomers weren't expecting it.
[...]

Pleasant dreams

Hrmmm, Looks like we're spending all those trillions on the
"wrong" type of defense industry LOL ;-)

You're a good deal more likely to be killed in a war than by a
falling asteroid.

That's great, but you can choose to not fight a war. [...]

That's a side track over which we can quibble endlessly.
As a general rule, it's your leaders that choose in your
stead. They tell you to go to war, you go to war. Period.
Some random individual may manage to escape, but as a rule,
they don't.

Jeroen Belleman

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f97e2c69-5462-4298-a991-1166b0dbb306@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 12:49:59 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4e35d268-daad-4268-8762-c5474c415e42@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 12:18:06 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4a42c39b-e413-421b-9cb5-04b638860f51@googlegroups.com:

Actually it is a measure of energy and does not imply the
existence of matter.

Planck would differ with you.

Heat... specifically the thing that 'temperature' puts a
measure on,

is ONLY exibited by atomic / molecular motion.

So matter is required to have heat.

Any you find devoid of matter was 'generated' by matter and
is a
remnant.

I don't normally bother replying to you as you mostly have no
idea of what you are talking about. In this case I can point
to the cosmic background radiation which is considered to be
approximately 4°K and does in no way involve matter.


It involves the moment matter was created throughout the known
universe. Duh! It most certainly does (did) involve matter...
all of the matter there was and is all at once and we are part of
what is left.

Note I did not say you were wrong. Temperature can be
measured.

Can you measure it in free space? Empty space?

Does it require something moving to impart change into the
transducer you are using to measure it with?

What are you measuring? The air? The surface of a medium?
All
involve matter and contact with the transducer.

Theorizing ideals? Matter is still there.

If you are measuring the temperature of a photon stream (the
solar
wind) (source left) with an IR device perpendicular to the flow,
what are you measuring and what generated it? Hint: Look left.
That star's matter generated that energy.

This is why I usually don't reply to you. When you come up with a
wrong idea, you double down.

When you spout this stupid horseshit I want to make you eat a 12 ga
round. See how that works.

> All your noise aside,

Damn, now I want to "double down" with both barrels. Any way you
could stop participating in the retard bandwagon behavior?

the cosmic
background radiation is not matter and yet it has a temperature.

When you say "has temperature", that has to be measured and
measureable and observable. That means it is moving. Moving means
it was emitted. Emitted means that it was emitted from something.
No matter remains from that event, except all of us planets, stars,
dust and such. Plenty of matter was involved... all of it.

arthropods

Where does one measure it? What are you measuring?

And what was the source of what you are measuring? Oh... that's
right... it is remnant energy produced when all matter we know of
was created at the beginning of this thing we all call the universe.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-08-01 14:50, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 8:30:28 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 9:13:03 PM UTC+10, John Miles, KE5FX wrote:
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 7:13:11 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
the headline says "massive" but asteroids at the lower end of that range
are small enough that if you could intercept exoatmospherically with a
ten, 20 megaton nuclear weapon at a couple hundred meters would vaporize
the bulk of it.

Problem: Huge-ass asteroid on collision course with Earth

Solution: Nuke it

Problem: 12 medium-sized radioactive asteroids on collision course with Earth

If you use a big enough nuke, the fragments will all have been moved onto slightly different orbits - if they are all moving apart, none of them are on the original orbit.

Even if you don't blast it into separate bits, what you do blast off will have momentum in a different direction to what's left of the asteroid, and the residue will have an equal and opposite change of momentum.

It's all calculable - more accurately after the blast - and if a first blast didn't do all that was needed, you'll probably have time for another.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

How about detonating far enough away so as not likely to break it into
pieces, just cause a slight change in course so it misses Earth? If you
do that far enough out, only a small change in it's arc at that point,
would cause a big change in distance later.


I thought there were other options,

Asteroids are mostly loose rubble piles. You're more likely to blast
off some superficial stuff while the bulk continues on its original
course.

Jeroen Belleman