How Astronomers Missed the Massive Asteroid That Just Whizze

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

torsdag den 1. august 2019 kl. 20.02.05 UTC+2 skrev 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.

that's why you need drillers https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120591/

 

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 11:54:15 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Helium boils at The=4.2 K. The cosmic background radiation Tcb is 2.7
K. The problem is finding a large part of the sky with no stars or
galaxies. Those heat sources will increase the average space
temperature.

The theoretical maximum power that could be removed from one suave
meter of the telescope P = c(The^4 - Tcb^) Where c is Stefan
Bolzmann's constant. Thus P = 14 uW/m˛ not much cooling power

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 2:28:54 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

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

The temperature of the cosmic background radiation is not the temperature of the hydrogen. To argue that this temperature can only be measured of matter is not at all the same thing.

The energy has a temperature. It can be measured. No need to invoke the matter that created it. If you do, then go another step and consider the energy that gave rise to the matter. No, don't. It's a silly argument even used once. No need to apply reductio ad absurdum.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 2:28:54 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

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

The temperature of the cosmic background radiation is not the temperature of the hydrogen. To argue that this temperature can only be measured of matter is not at all the same thing.

The energy has a temperature. It can be measured. No need to invoke the matter that created it. If you do, then go another step and consider the energy that gave rise to the matter. No, don't. It's a silly argument even used once. No need to apply reductio ad absurdum.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 2:16:14 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

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.

Actually, you always have choices. Your leaders tell you to go to war, get new leaders. Or leave the country. No small number of people did that during the Vietnam war.

Bottom line is people do what they want. Mostly people want to go to war while no one chooses to be struck by an asteroid. Wouldn't matter if you did. I guess that's one case where you don't have a choice. lol

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:19:22 AM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:

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.

But deliver a lot of energy per unit mass.

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.

Not in the same way that we have nuclear launch systems capable of delivering nuclear warheads to paces on earth.

Asteroids don't have defensive systems, and we do have hardware capable of delivering instrument packages to passing comets. Putting together one big enough to deliver a hydrogen bomb wouldn't require much in the way of development.

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.

This might be true of explosions within the atmosphere.

If you wanted to maximise the energy transfer into the asteroid, you'd deliver a drilling rig with the bomb, and bury it inside the asteroid before you set it off.

In the ideal case, you'd blow it in half, dividing the energy content of the bomb into two equal halves manifested as the kinetic energy of each half of the asteroid, which does generate the maximum momentum difference for give amount of energy.

E= m.V^2/2 and momentum = m.V

radiated energy isn't going to change the orbital path of the asteroid, and a blast wave consisting of small mass of particles moving very fast isn't all that much more effective.

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.

Who cares? If it doesn't hit the earth you don't have to worry about it, and if it did, radioactive contamination wouldn't be the major problem.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

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.

In the same way that you are doing here.

> All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not matter and yet it has a temperature.

It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the individual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a wavelength and thus an energy content, but that's not a "temperature".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 2:32:57 AM UTC+10, 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.

It consists of microwave photons, and the only way that you can observe their temperature is to expose matter to them. Each photon does have a specific wavelength and energy content, and if you sample a lot of them you can work out the apparent temperature of the mass that emitted them, but no single photon in the cosmic microwave background radiation has an individual "temperature".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 12:55:06 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

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.

Trader4 is rather better entitled to the title than DLUNU.

The first fusion weapon was very dirty indeed, because the uranium bomb used to initiate nuclear fusion was surrounded by liquified deuterium, which was itself enclosed in a five ton natural uranium tamper.

The neutrons released by deuterium fusion caused fission in the natural uranium tamper, which was responsible for 77% of the final yield.

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

A hydrogen bomb designed for civil engineering work could be a lot less dirty.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 12:50:50 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

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".

Fields - as such - don't have energy. Particles travelling through fields can gain or lose energy, but claiming that a field has a "temperature" strikes me as odd.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 12:25:33 PM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 2:28:54 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
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

The temperature of the cosmic background radiation is not the temperature of the hydrogen.

In fact is the temperature of that hydrogen, redshifted down by quite a lot..

> To argue that this temperature can only be measured of matter is not at all the same thing.

Temperature is all about the distribution of energy in a population of particles. It doesn't exist in any other context.

> The energy has a temperature. It can be measured.

How? Spell out the steps involved.

> No need to invoke the matter that created it.

Only if you can't understand the concepts invovled

> If you do, then go another step and consider the energy that gave rise to the matter.

How would that help? E=m.c^2 does show up in a lot in misunderstood physics, but it does tend to be unhelpful.

> No, don't. It's a silly argument even used once. No need to apply reductio ad absurdum.

Rick C produces his own silly argument. Temperature is about energy distribution and implies the existence of a lot of particles whose energy has been measured.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 2:28:54 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
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

The temperature of the cosmic background radiation is not the temperature of the hydrogen. To argue that this temperature can only be measured of matter is not at all the same thing.

How do we know the surface temperature of the sun ? Did someone put a
thermometer in it ?

If we look at the solar spectrum of sunlight it has a spectral peak in
yellow near 0.5 um and some radiation at slightly shorter wavelengths
and a long tail towards longer wavelengths. This looks like the
typical black body radiation of an object at 6000 K so we conclude
that the solar surface temperature is 6000 K.

We have now detected some microwave radiation at about 2000 times
longer wavelengths i.e. 1000 um or 1 mm (300 GHz) with something on
the shorter wavelengths and a long tail on longer wavelengths. An
object at about 3 K has the same black body spectrum, so we say that
the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature is 3 K (actually
2.7K). If we accept the theory about the expansion of the universe,
this could be explained with doppler red shifting of some higher
temperature black body in the past.

>The energy has a temperature. It can be measured. No need to invoke the matter that created it. If you do, then go another step and consider the energy that gave rise to the matter. No, don't. It's a silly argument even used once. No need to apply reductio ad absurdum.

The temperature of an object in an airless environment e.g.a satellite
is determined solely by the radiation balance with the environment. It
receives radiated energy from all objects (including the sun) and
radiates energy into all directions, (including toward the much higher
temperature sun). The object finally reaches an equilibrium
temperature at which the out radiated energy is the same as the
incoming radiation from all sources. The outgoing spectrum corresponds
to the black body temperature of the object.

 

On Fri, 02 Aug 2019 08:17:11 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 2:28:54 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
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

The temperature of the cosmic background radiation is not the temperature of the hydrogen. To argue that this temperature can only be measured of matter is not at all the same thing.

How do we know the surface temperature of the sun ?
Did someone put a thermometer in it ?

In 2014 according to a press release associated with the North Korea
press agency claimed that their astronaut had landed on the dark side
of the sun.

Hopefully their astronaut also made some direct.temperature
measurement at the landing site.

However, how relevant are those measurements on the dark side of the
sun is for the daytime sun temperatures

If we look at the solar spectrum of sunlight it has a spectral peak in
yellow near 0.5 um and some radiation at slightly shorter wavelengths
and a long tail towards longer wavelengths. This looks like the
typical black body radiation of an object at 6000 K so we conclude
that the solar surface temperature is 6000 K.

We have now detected some microwave radiation at about 2000 times
longer wavelengths i.e. 1000 um or 1 mm (300 GHz) with something on
the shorter wavelengths and a long tail on longer wavelengths. An
object at about 3 K has the same black body spectrum, so we say that
the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature is 3 K (actually
2.7K). If we accept the theory about the expansion of the universe,
this could be explained with doppler red shifting of some higher
temperature black body in the past.

The energy has a temperature. It can be measured. No need to invoke the matter that created it. If you do, then go another step and consider the energy that gave rise to the matter. No, don't. It's a silly argument even used once. No need to apply reductio ad absurdum.

The temperature of an object in an airless environment e.g.a satellite
is determined solely by the radiation balance with the environment. It
receives radiated energy from all objects (including the sun) and
radiates energy into all directions, (including toward the much higher
temperature sun). The object finally reaches an equilibrium
temperature at which the out radiated energy is the same as the
incoming radiation from all sources. The outgoing spectrum corresponds
to the black body temperature of the object.

Unfortunately the N. Korea story was a fake news made up by a
satirical site, but would have been as believable as real press
releases from North Korea press office at that time.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:5dcacfe7-3c48-41e8-
8105-609ccac57015@googlegroups.com:

I see, so now you claim you were suggesting we use a mythical clean
hydrogen bomb that does not exist and no one knows how to make.
How very practical. But we all know you really thought H bombs
don't
result in radiation and fallout.

You do not KNOW anything, tradertard fatassed fucktard 4.

We make earthbound deliverable payload devices here.

It was never that such a method did not exist, it was about using
what we have and making a bunch of them.

Of course a pure fusion device is doable. Especially a single one-
off being sent to a far away target in space.

It is simple, traderFUCKTARD4. Your pathetic, inane attacks on me
has further bent your already bent brain. Any intelligence you once
possessed got burnt up in the atmosphere, boy.

You can squirm all you want, twerp. It has no effect on the fact
that you are devoid of knowledge and dance around with your google
search info, which you cannot even present properly.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:5dcacfe7-3c48-41e8-
8105-609ccac57015@googlegroups.com:

which
with current physics knowledge is impossible?

You are an idiot. They are quite possible.

The simple fact is that the CTBT keeps us from knowing anything
about it since we have not done any reearch or testing since the
'50s.
Designs for battle theater use would be keyed toward that use.

A design for this application would be a huge device meant for
explosive force, not radiation effect, which our crop currently
relies on.

And any new design would be keyed toward small theater irradiation,
not explosive destruction.
Tactical devices.

So, yeah, idiot... WE would have to design and use a custom device
for the pupose, and note that you will go stick your head between
your legs, except that you are too fat for that task, and kiss your
ass goodbye because you are no part of "WE".

And then finally, it would NOT work as WE already know that simply
breaking it up would only make things worse.

So all you have done is prove that you are too stupid to know
anything about it.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
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.

In the same way that you are doing here.

All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not matter and yet it has a temperature.

It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the individual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a wavelength and thus an energy content, but that's not a "temperature".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Photons don't have mass, stupid.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 6:59:10 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:5dcacfe7-3c48-41e8-
8105-609ccac57015@googlegroups.com:

which
with current physics knowledge is impossible?

You are an idiot. They are quite possible.

The simple fact is that the CTBT keeps us from knowing anything
about it since we have not done any reearch or testing since the
'50s.

ROFL. Yes, but you of course know about it.

Designs for battle theater use would be keyed toward that use.

A design for this application would be a huge device meant for
explosive force, not radiation effect, which our crop currently
relies on.

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at explosive
destructive force, not for radiation effect. The exception would be
whatever neutron bomb type devices we have, but all that is sitting
in silos and in boomer subs are targeted for explosive destruction,
not to create radiation.

And second, any fool would know that a "huge device", would not be
suited to the application of sending it into space to meet an
asteroid on a course with earth.

Wrong, always wrong.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 6:44:30 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:5dcacfe7-3c48-41e8-
8105-609ccac57015@googlegroups.com:


I see, so now you claim you were suggesting we use a mythical clean
hydrogen bomb that does not exist and no one knows how to make.
How very practical. But we all know you really thought H bombs
don't
result in radiation and fallout.



You do not KNOW anything, tradertard fatassed fucktard 4.

We make earthbound deliverable payload devices here.

It was never that such a method did not exist, it was about using
what we have and making a bunch of them.

It's very much about such a method not existing. Because there is no
way with current physics and our understanding of nuclear fusion to
make a nuclear fusion bomb, a hydrogen bomb, without using a fission
reaction first. And in fact, to make a high yield device, they use
further fission at the end of the process.

Of course a pure fusion device is doable. Especially a single one-
off being sent to a far away target in space.

Keep doubling down on your ignorance.

It is simple, traderFUCKTARD4.

So, go explain it to the world's nuclear physicists, who have it wrong.
Those silly fools have been making dirty hydrogen bombs for sixty five
years when they could be making clean ones.


Wrong, always wrong.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:16:14 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 12:55:06 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
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.

Trader4 is rather better entitled to the title than DLUNU.

Figures that you'd chime in on the wrong side to try to help your butt buddy.

The first fusion weapon was very dirty indeed, because the uranium bomb used to initiate nuclear fusion was surrounded by liquified deuterium, which was itself enclosed in a five ton natural uranium tamper.

The neutrons released by deuterium fusion caused fission in the natural uranium tamper, which was responsible for 77% of the final yield.

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

A hydrogen bomb designed for civil engineering work could be a lot less dirty.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Less dirty is still dirty, stupid. This is what DL posted:


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


There is no known way and probably isn't a way period, to create a nuclear
fusion explosion without using a nuclear fission reaction to start it
and it starts it with a huge release of radiation, which is what gets
the fusion going. And you get plenty of fallout too. Funny how some
nuclear plant somewhere has a fart and you libs run around with your hair
on fire. But DL comes along and claims that a nuclear fusion bomb doesn't
radiate or contaminate, and you just right on board the ignorance train.
Keep making up crazy stuff with DL. Soon you'll be always wrong too.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 11:44:27 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:16:14 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 12:55:06 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
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.

Trader4 is rather better entitled to the title than DLUNU.

Figures that you'd chime in on the wrong side to try to help your butt buddy.

I'm not all that fond of DLUNU, but he does get stuff right from time to time, which trader4 doesn't.

The first fusion weapon was very dirty indeed, because the uranium bomb used to initiate nuclear fusion was surrounded by liquified deuterium, which was itself enclosed in a five ton natural uranium tamper.

The neutrons released by deuterium fusion caused fission in the natural uranium tamper, which was responsible for 77% of the final yield.

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

A hydrogen bomb designed for civil engineering work could be a lot less dirty.


Less dirty is still dirty, stupid. This is what DL posted:

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

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

There is no known way and probably isn't a way period, to create a nuclear
fusion explosion without using a nuclear fission reaction to start it
and it starts it with a huge release of radiation, which is what gets
the fusion going.

The Joint European Torus creates nuclear fusion without a nuclear fission reaction to start the process. It doesn't create an explosion - it's a proof-of -principle device designed to lead to sustained power generation.

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

uses a lot of lasers to create a very small fusion explosion.

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/laser-boron-fusion-now-%E2%80%98leading-contender%E2%80%99-energy

is about a scheme that uses two laser flashes in combination to fuse lithium and hydrogen. It's ingenious, and the people pushing the scheme seem confident that it can be made to work.

And you get plenty of fallout too. Funny how some
nuclear plant somewhere has a fart and you libs run around with your hair
on fire. But DL comes along and claims that a nuclear fusion bomb doesn't
radiate or contaminate, and you just right on board the ignorance train.

DLUNU was talking about a fusion bomb that would have been designed not generate a lot of radioactivity. The people who wanted to use nuclear explosives for civil did some work on such devices a long time ago, but nothing got built or tested that I've heard about.

> Keep making up crazy stuff with DL.

I'm afraid that you are the crazy here - you have this lunatic delusion that you know what you are talking about.

> Soon you'll be always wrong too.

Cursitor Doom thinks that already, but he does specialise in delusions that make him feel good.

--
Bill Sloman. Sydney