How Astronomers Missed the Massive Asteroid That Just Whizze

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:c4259aee-e017-43cb-
ba9a-3821c4c24097@googlegroups.com:

His new line is that radiation
from a bomb in space doesn't matter

No... I said that neutron emission from a bomb in space doesn't
matter. It was in response to your question about what I would do
about the neutron emission. Get your story straight, punk.

Tell us, idiot... what is the half life of said neutron emission?
Oh... that's right... it only lasts while it is being emitted. It is
not a radioactive isotope... of anything.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:c4259aee-e017-43cb-
ba9a-3821c4c24097@googlegroups.com:

The fool posts that fusion bombs don't emit radiation
or fallout.

You are the fool.

I posted tha a PURE fusion device would be clean. YOU are the one
mumbling retarded baby bullshit about a remark that was never made.

And BTW, I know what we already have, and how it operates.

HOAD, fatass.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:dce07555-f083-46c4-
b44b-c032bbc677d5@googlegroups.com:

You're the one that was worried about radiation from a bomb
used way out in space. You posted this:

No, jackass... YOU were the one worried about it as I stated we
could break it up and you came back bitching about how that would
rain radioactive pieces down on us.

Yeah, chump... That was YOU, not me.

I responded to your inane stupidity with the pure fusion reply.

Get your facts straight, twerp.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:14f56cfc-bf5e-4fc7-
96bd-e96876b4655c@googlegroups.com:

> you silly kangaroo humping troll.

Immature much, putz?

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:14f56cfc-bf5e-4fc7-
96bd-e96876b4655c@googlegroups.com:

> fool.

Why, yes... that is exactly what you are.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:caed7da3-1c07-40eb-
8797-89a92918c9b6@googlegroups.com:

and one that has to be
compact and go into space.

More made up bullshit criteria.

It would NOT "have to be compact" you retarded fuck. We send multi-
ton payloads into orbit. Boosting a warhead toward an incoming object
is a no brainer. Get a clue.

It could be a large as we want it to be. Hell, we could send
multiple boosters and warheads.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 2:43:38 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:52:31 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:01:33 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:50:17 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:08:28 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:41573418-6c17-4f75-82a3-a588cf5594e2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at
explosive destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep
up, dipshit.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really
existed...... It doesn't.

That is your argument? Note that the statement I made is a hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you have been going off about stupid shit for days now.

Neither does your pure fusion bomb that
creates no radiation or contamination.

Look at the remark, you stupid fuck. It is not incorrect. A pure
fusion device would be clean. Plain and simple and correct.

Again, here is what you posted:

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

You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You said "fusion device".

Trader4 is stupid enough to think that this is an argument.

Unlike Bill, who's so stupid he thinks DL is smart. Two peas in a pod.

Trader4 doesn't get fine distinctions. I think DLUNU is smarter than Trader4. So is a lump of rock.

ROFL

Trader4 is also easily amused.

Rest of your useless troll BS flushed.

A pity you couldn't make any sense it, which isn't exactly a surprise.

Here is what DL posted:

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

It's clear what he meant. If one is proposing to use some non-existent
device, which would have to be developed, then it's up to them to say
so, fool.

I know why trader4 thinks that. It's the sort of idiot preconception that fools like trader4 invent when they are trying to concoct a rational-looking argument, without having enough sense to do it right.

And further, and again, with today's understanding of physics,
there is no way to create a FUSION BOMB, without using a fission reaction
first and without creating radiation and fallout.

I do keep on pointing that aneutronic fusion is possible,and trader4 keeps on failing to get the point

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

Scaling it up to fusion bomb proportions would take work, but today's understanding of physics says that it is entirely possible.

Scaling what up, fuckwit? From your own source:

"However, the conditions required to harness aneutronic fusion are much more extreme than those required for the conventional deuterium–tritium (D-T) nuclear fuel cycle. "

Also from my source

"HB11 Energy, an Australian spin-off company created in September 2017, holds the patents of UNSW's theoretical physicist Heinrich Hora and develops a two-laser driven fusion energy technique with an avalanche reaction offering a billion time increased fusion yield improvement compared to other previous inertial confinement fusion systems."

They may be extreme, but they also appear to be accessible. I've heard Heinrich Hora talk about the scheme, and it does seem to be practicable. Getting the money together to buy the bits is what spin-offs are all about.

> So, there is nothing at this point to even talk about scaling up.

Not that trader4 noticed. Venture capitalists do seem to have more sense than trader4 - who doesn't - and might beg to differ, if they didn't have better things to do with their time.

And more importantly:

A - the conditions required are "much more extreme than those required
for conventional fusion". And we know how well the conventional fusion
work has gone. After over half a century of trying, we still have
nothing that works or is even close to working.

The Joint European Torus has been working for a decade now, and ITER should be working in 2025 and get serious - if brief - power generation by 2035. It's still a proof of principle machine, but big enough to make the next step an actual power generator.

So how viable is
something that requires much more extreme conditions?

Rather more viable, if Heinrich Hora is right.

B - this talk about aneutronic is about a small, controlled
enviornment similar to what is being worked on for
conventional fusion, ie trying to setup a very tiny space for a
small, CONTROLLED fusion reaction to take place. We haven't even
done that, but even if we did, that you can't
grasp how totally different that is from what is required for
an uncontrolled, massive explosion, ie a bomb, puts you in the
class of DL.

I can grasp the difference without any difficulty. You clearly can't. Anybody who claim that physics makes fusion impossible without fusion, when we've been doing it for years (albeit on a small scale) really doesn't know what he's talking about.

A massive energy yield wouldn't be any less controlled than the tiny experiments that are going on at the moment. You've got to scale up the process massively, but the fact that the equipment doesn't have to survive the energy release makes it a very different design problem, with different opportunities.

The fool posts that fusion bombs don't emit radiation
or fallout.

He didn't. You chose to understand that his fusion device was a conventional fission-fusion-fission hydrogen bomb, which was and is entirely idiotic, and you still haven't realised that you'd set up a straw man.

If you weren't too dumb to realise that you'd misunderstood what was posted in the first place, this would be dishonest, but it's just idiotic.

And here you are, piling on, desperately trying to
bailout your butt buddy. Maybe you two should get together
and get your story straight.

Why bother? You are much happier with the story that you extracted by misunderstanding what has been posted and you are much too dumb to ever realise that it's you've got thewrong end of the stick.

> His new line is that radiation from a bomb in space doesn't matter and he's now accusing me of claiming it did!

It's perfectly obvious that radiation from a bomb in space doesn't matter. There are risks involved in getting a dirty bomb into space, so a clean bomb would be more attractive.

Your take on the issue is one that looks good to you, and you are too stupid to realise that you have - as usual - misunderstood what was said.

ROFL

You two deserve each other.

Neither of us deserve you. But the genetic lottery does mean that there are some very stupid people around, a few with a totally unrealistic idea of their own competence. Public-spirited citizens have an obligation to identify these dangerous lunatics, and we've been doing our duty.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 2:53:25 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 12:06:58 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:14:54 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:09:04 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:c8e4bf8f-f587-4464-bd3b-8859dec2c261@googlegroups.com:


You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You
said "fusion device". And any fusion bomb that we know how to
make today both radiates and contaminates, two good reasons being
they require a fission nuclear reaction to create fusion and
fusion itself releases neutron radiation. So, even your mythical
pure fusion bomb would radiate. In other words, you were wrong
again. Now you want to try to move the goal posts.

Oh boy.... Neutron emission way up in space where the incoming
asteroid is at. We should worry! NOT!

You are an idiot. DANCE, IDIOT!... DANCE!

You're the one that was worried about radiation from a bomb
used way out in space. You posted this:

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

They would, if they had one. Why create a bigger mess than you have to?

If Uber cars went up into space, they could just send one of those
and push the asteroid out of the way. See how easy it is when you
make up silly things that don't exist?

Trader4 is the kind of idiot who would waste time doing that.

And if you are sending stuff up to outer space, you do have to worry about what might happen if it didn't make it out of the atmosphere, which does happen from time to time.

Seems with the future of life on earth about to end from an asteroid
that wouldn't be high on the priority list. But of course being a
silly lib, that's exactly the kind of thing you'd focus on.

I doubt if anybody would focus on it, but people with more neurones than trader4 can keep several things in mind at once, and prioritise the risks involved.

You're so lost and trapped in BS that you can't even remember what
you posted.

Trader4 is hopelessly lost in his bizarre misunderstandings of the stuff that other people post, and thinks that when anybody points this out, they have failed to remember posting what he thought that they posted.

It's amusing, if tedious.

And of course there is no such fusion device, nor is one
possible with today's understanding of physics.

Trader4 thinks that he understands the physics involved.

For a bomb, a fission reaction is needed to create the extreme conditions required for fusion.

Odd that the National Ignition Facility doesn't need a fission reaction reaction to create the extreme conditions required for fusion.

Not odd that Bill doesn't understand that a controlled fusion
experiment where we put in a massive amount of power, more power
than we get out, to try
to generate a tiny amount of fusion energy, means nothing when
what we're talking about is a fusion bomb and one that has to be
compact and go into space.

The National Ignition Facility is required to survive each explosion intact.
If you wanted a large explosion, you would have more options.

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

It only creates small nuclear reactions at the moment, but that's all they need to do their job. Coping with bigger explosions would complicate their work.

It would never create an actual destructive explosion at all, fool.

It's not designed to. Trader4 doesn't seem to understand that scaling up isn't just a process of writing larger dimension on the mechanical drawings.

But keep trying to bailout your butt buddy. Meanwhile, he's shifted
gears, he's now claiming that radiation way out in space doesn't
matter and actually accusing me of being the one who said it did!

You certainly invented that implication. Your capacity for convenient misunderstanding is remarkable, but it's best explained as you stumbling onto a point of view that you can run with, rather than any kind of deliberate choice.

> Now, ain't that special? Why don't you two get your stories straight?

Our stories are fine. It's sad that you can't follow them, but you were clearly born stupid, and there's nothing to be done about that.

> ROFL

It's easily amused.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:15d9cb1d-b737-480c-
a8d4-55e63f7b904b@googlegroups.com:

ROFL

It's easily amused.

Yes, and it apparently likes "rolling around" on surfaces made for
our feet.

He probably kicks up dust and breathes that too. No wonder he sports
issues, he has stupid putz disease.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:19d645b7-7b52-4694-86bb-d59c44189495@googlegroups.com:

It's not possible because with whole a whole building full of
equipment and the instantaneous power of the whole country, all we
can do is create fusion in a small pellet that doesn't generate as
much energy as is put into it. There is no way to scale that up
into a bomb, fool.

You are an idiot. For CONTROLLED use here, we use a pellet.

And it does put out quite a lot of heat. So much that much of the
heat and subsequent power it produces is required to contain it.

So of course it is a small mass. It puts out far more than the
laser impingement required to bring it critical. The containment of
the reaction is what costs.

And as far as "scaling that up", we most certainly could, because
we are NOT spending ANY energy on containment for an explosive yield
device.

Do try to keep up, child. Your "all we can do" is about as far
off-the-mark as it gets.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:5c637c61-1d07-415b-
b32d-d76570db3ac7@googlegroups.com:

No, you accepted the problem and proposed using a
fusion bomb, thinking it's clean. IT's not. Wrong again.

You are an idiot. Read the thread, jackass.

It was not you, but I responded to another poster claiming that it
would rain radioactive debris down on us. I should have known it was
not you, since terms like 'debris' are outside of your grasp.

And no, dipshit... there was no "thinking it's clean". That is
just you again, being stupid. Since a fusion device was suggested,
it follows that reason for the suggestion was to eliminate
radioactivity from affecting the exploded segments.

The action would never happen since we all (not you) already know
that breaking it up is not a solution.

So you keep rambling stupid bullshit, child. It suits you.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:15:46 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:caed7da3-1c07-40eb-
8797-89a92918c9b6@googlegroups.com:

and one that has to be
compact and go into space.

More made up bullshit criteria.

It would NOT "have to be compact" you retarded fuck. We send multi-
ton payloads into orbit. Boosting a warhead toward an incoming object
is a no brainer. Get a clue.

It could be a large as we want it to be. Hell, we could send
multiple boosters and warheads.

Why don't we just send you with a big hammer?

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:52:31 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:01:33 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:50:17 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:08:28 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:41573418-6c17-4f75-82a3-a588cf5594e2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at
explosive destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep
up, dipshit.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really
existed...... It doesn't.

That is your argument? Note that the statement I made is a
hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you
have been going off about stupid shit for days now.

Neither does your pure fusion bomb that
creates no radiation or contamination.

Look at the remark, you stupid fuck. It is not incorrect. A pure
fusion device would be clean. Plain and simple and correct.

Again, here is what you posted:

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

You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You said
"fusion device".

Trader4 is stupid enough to think that this is an argument.

Unlike Bill, who's so stupid he thinks DL is smart. Two peas in a pod.

Trader4 doesn't get fine distinctions. I think DLUNU is smarter than Trader4. So is a lump of rock.

ROFL

Trader4 is also easily amused.

Rest of your useless troll BS flushed.

A pity you couldn't make any sense it, which isn't exactly a surprise.

Here is what DL posted:

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

It's clear what he meant. If one is proposing to use some non-existent
device, which would have to be developed, then it's up to them to say
so, fool.

I know why trader4 thinks that. It's the sort of idiot preconception that fools like trader4 invent when they are trying to concoct a rational-looking argument, without having enough sense to do it right.

And further, and again, with today's understanding of physics,
there is no way to create a FUSION BOMB, without using a fission reaction
first and without creating radiation and fallout.

I do keep on pointing that aneutronic fusion is possible,and trader4 keeps on failing to get the point

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

Scaling it up to fusion bomb proportions would take work, but today's understanding of physics says that it is entirely possible.

It's not possible because with whole a whole building full of equipment and the
instantaneous power of the whole country, all we can do is create
fusion in a small pellet that doesn't generate as much energy
as is put into it. There is no way to scale that up into a bomb, fool.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:03:49 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:dce07555-f083-46c4-
b44b-c032bbc677d5@googlegroups.com:

You're the one that was worried about radiation from a bomb
used way out in space. You posted this:



No, jackass... YOU were the one worried about it as I stated we
could break it up and you came back bitching about how that would
rain radioactive pieces down on us.

That's yet another lie. I challenge you to give us the post where
I said that. Show it to us. You can't, because I never said it,
I never brought up the issue of radiation from a bomb way out in
space being a problem. YOU proposed using a fusion bomb, claiming
that would avoid radiation and contamination. Which of course
is wrong, always wrong. Then you went on to claim that our current
"crop" of nuclear weapons rely on radiation effects, not explosive
destructive power. And then just like above you lied, turned it upside
down and claimed that I said that our current weapons are neutron bombs.

Wrong, always wrong.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:07:59 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:c4259aee-e017-43cb-
ba9a-3821c4c24097@googlegroups.com:


The fool posts that fusion bombs don't emit radiation
or fallout.

You are the fool.

I posted tha a PURE fusion device would be clean.

That's lie. You simply said that they should use a fusion bomb to
avoid radiation and contamination. Which of course is wrong. Oh,
and since you now claim that radiation and contamination from such
a bomb out in space isn't an issue, then why didn't you say that
to begin with? No, you accepted the problem and proposed using a
fusion bomb, thinking it's clean. IT's not. Wrong again.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:b2d4ea1d-aee5-43b4-
9aad-d09341176a46@googlegroups.com:

Why don't we just send you with a big hammer?

Why don't you send your name and address, and you and me and my
friend's 0.80" extreme overbore dowsing rod can suss it out?

Oh, that's right... you are a fat assed pussy boy.

HOAD, FatFuckTard4.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:965998fd-9c91-4777-ab95-a0ee3e024a92@googlegroups.com:

Yes, I can see how that could be a problem, given that after
having spent trillions of dollars over half a century on the far
simpler version of fusion, we still have nothing remotely
approaching anything viable for power production. And this novel
method, per your own genius source, requires conditions far more
extreme.

You are an abject idiot. First, it was not "Trillions of dollars",
you retarded fuck.

Second, it has been longer than half a century, dipshit.

Third, it is experimental, so that WE scientists (100% excludes
you) can characterize what elements will be required to move to power
production.

I guess you have no clue as to how educational institutions operate.

Much less research grants, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

You are clueless, etc.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:965998fd-9c91-4777-
ab95-a0ee3e024a92@googlegroups.com:

We're talking about a bomb, not electric power generation, stupid.

Yet you are the one whom keeps rattling on about how we cannot make
power because we keep the reaction small.

The point is, idiot... We DO know how to make the reaction, and we
DO know how to make it at any scale we wish.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:965998fd-9c91-4777-ab95-a0ee3e024a92@googlegroups.com:

What I said was that with our current level of understanding of
physics a FUSION BOMB is impossible without fission, stupid.

Yes, you did 'say' that. And you are 100% wrong.

Fission initiated fusion bombs are made that way because we need
the compact, easily manufacturable, low yield devices. It is about
logistics, not technical prowess in physics.

We absolutely know how to make a fusion reaction (and bomb) of any
size without the use of a fussion initiator.

We do not, however, as we as a nation honor our treaties and
agreements regarding such developments.

 

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in news:qi70om$47s$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

We absolutely know how to make a fusion reaction (and bomb) of any
size without the use of a fussion initiator.

FISSION initiator. u/i typo.