Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #51890 > unrolled thread

Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> - 2016-10-16 05:30 -0700
    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-16 15:05 +0200
      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> - 2016-10-16 06:44 -0700
        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-16 18:34 +0200
        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 14:17 -0700
      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-10-16 09:58 -0700
      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-10-16 17:16 -0400
        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-17 01:13 +0000
          Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 19:36 -0700
          Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 17:23 -0700
            Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 20:49 -0400
              Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:38 -0700
                Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 05:31 -0700
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 18:34 -0700
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 19:18 -0400
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-20 18:53 -0500
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 19:17 -0700
                      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 04:58 -0700
                        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-23 11:18 -0500
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-10-27 19:14 -0400
              Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 01:11 -0700
                Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 05:15 -0400
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 11:02 -0700
                Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 08:08 -0700
            Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:37 -0700
              Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 05:30 -0700
                Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 18:33 -0700
                Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-10-19 04:03 -0400
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 19:16 -0700
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-21 17:36 -0700
                      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-22 22:06 -0700
                        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-22 23:04 -0700
                          Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-23 01:11 -0700
                        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-10-23 12:36 +0100
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 04:55 -0700
                      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 17:32 +0200
                        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-23 11:19 -0500
                          Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-23 15:41 -0700
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-11-05 00:48 +0000
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 19:37 -0700
                Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2016-10-19 22:13 +0000
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-10-19 13:49 -1000
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-20 21:56 -0700
        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 19:39 -0700
    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 14:17 -0700
    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-16 18:05 -0700
      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-16 18:42 -0700
        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 17:09 -0700
          Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 18:11 -0700
            Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 18:26 -0700
              Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-17 22:59 -0500
                Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 01:26 -0400
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 01:31 -0400
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 22:35 -0700
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-18 01:10 -0500
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 22:34 -0700
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2016-10-19 21:27 +0000
                Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 22:51 -0700
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:01 -0700
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:29 -0700
                      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:50 -0700
                        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 08:04 -0700
                          Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-18 18:56 +0200
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-21 22:02 +0000
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-10-22 16:15 +0000
                      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-11-04 21:18 +0000
                        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-11-04 22:26 +0000
                Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 23:56 -0700
              Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-18 13:02 +0200
                Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 14:34 +0300
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-18 15:33 +0200
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 16:38 +0300
          Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:36 -0700
      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 22:20 -0400
        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 19:37 -0700
          Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 00:18 -0400
        Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 15:39 -0700
          Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 19:24 -0400
            Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 18:21 -0700
              Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 02:24 -0400
                Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:07 -0700
                  Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 03:20 -0400
                    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-20 22:38 -0700
            Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:35 -0700
          Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:35 -0700
          Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2016-10-19 21:27 +0000
      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 19:35 -0700
    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-16 18:45 -0700
      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-16 20:09 -0700
    Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> - 2016-10-18 08:23 -0700
      Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-18 19:05 +0200

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#52056

Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:37:23 UTC+1, polymorph self  wrote:
>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:24:00 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>>>> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and 
>>>> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand anything.  
>>>> He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory was already 
>>>> there, and tested: he just applied that theory.
>>> 
>>> This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla
>>> actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of
>>> electricity, especially in regard to alternating current. AC is used to
>>> cancel out inductance, allowing electricity to be transported long
>>> distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy
>>> generated in our power plants.
>>> 
>>> Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as
>>> "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how
>>> electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of
>>> electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay for
>>> resistance and current, but not for inductance).
>>> 
>>> I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like the
>>> physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and touch. We
>>> don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what it would be
>>> like to know what it is like.
>> 
>> bernd is a snotty bugger isnt he
>> 
>> usa is way higher than germany standard of living despite millions of illegal immigrants
> 
> Proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> You've clearly never lived in Germany. I have. Little town called
> Flensburg. Lovely place. The standard of living in Germany is higher
> than the USA in just about any metric you care to mention.
> 
> It's a completely different, (and much nicer) world.
> 
> America is dead. Being hollowed out from the inside by millions and 
> millions of citizens living on food stamps, and no hope of ever finding
> a job; continually declining education standards; a race war; and a
> completely out of control war-mongering government, controlled by the
> military-industrial complex.
> 
> I'd rather starve than live in the USA. No offence to the people of
> the USA, I like Americans (except for the TSA at airports, WTF is 
> wrong with those guys?) but, having spent time there (Chicago), well,
> let's just say I was VERY glad to get home.

While I mostly agree with you, I should point out that you have chosen the
bad example. Chicago is one of the worst American cities. I hate going
there. Dunno why anyone would decide to live there. 

>> socialism won't ever work!
> 
> You sure? It's alive and well in the USA (foodstamps, Obamacare).
> Perhaps take a look closer to home ;-)
> 



-- 
dunno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52057

On 10/19/16 12:13 PM, dunno wrote:
> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:37:23 UTC+1, polymorph self  wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:24:00 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>>>>> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and
>>>>> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand anything.
>>>>> He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory was already
>>>>> there, and tested: he just applied that theory.
>>>>
>>>> This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla
>>>> actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of
>>>> electricity, especially in regard to alternating current. AC is used to
>>>> cancel out inductance, allowing electricity to be transported long
>>>> distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy
>>>> generated in our power plants.
>>>>
>>>> Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as
>>>> "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how
>>>> electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of
>>>> electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay for
>>>> resistance and current, but not for inductance).
>>>>
>>>> I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like the
>>>> physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and touch. We
>>>> don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what it would be
>>>> like to know what it is like.
>>>
>>> bernd is a snotty bugger isnt he
>>>
>>> usa is way higher than germany standard of living despite millions of illegal immigrants
>>
>> Proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>> You've clearly never lived in Germany. I have. Little town called
>> Flensburg. Lovely place. The standard of living in Germany is higher
>> than the USA in just about any metric you care to mention.
>>
>> It's a completely different, (and much nicer) world.
>>
>> America is dead. Being hollowed out from the inside by millions and
>> millions of citizens living on food stamps, and no hope of ever finding
>> a job; continually declining education standards; a race war; and a
>> completely out of control war-mongering government, controlled by the
>> military-industrial complex.
>>
>> I'd rather starve than live in the USA. No offence to the people of
>> the USA, I like Americans (except for the TSA at airports, WTF is
>> wrong with those guys?) but, having spent time there (Chicago), well,
>> let's just say I was VERY glad to get home.
>
> While I mostly agree with you, I should point out that you have chosen the
> bad example. Chicago is one of the worst American cities. I hate going
> there. Dunno why anyone would decide to live there.

Chicago, like all big cities in the US, has some really great areas and 
some not so much. And some cities have whole lot of really great parts 
(and suburbs). San Francisco and the Bay Area are mostly wonderful. And, 
then, there are smaller cities, and lots of places to live not in 
cities. America is incredibly varied.

>>> socialism won't ever work!
>>
>> You sure? It's alive and well in the USA (foodstamps, Obamacare).
>> Perhaps take a look closer to home ;-)

It works in many parts of Europe. And food stamps & Obamacare fall far 
short of anything resembling socialism.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52079

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 4:49:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 10/19/16 12:13 PM, dunno wrote:
> > Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:37:23 UTC+1, polymorph self  wrote:
> >>> usa is way higher than germany standard of living despite millions of illegal immigrants
> >>
> >> Proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.
> >>
> >> You've clearly never lived in Germany. I have. Little town called
> >> Flensburg. Lovely place. The standard of living in Germany is higher
> >> than the USA in just about any metric you care to mention.
> >>
> >> It's a completely different, (and much nicer) world.
> >>
> >> America is dead. Being hollowed out from the inside by millions and
> >> millions of citizens living on food stamps, and no hope of ever finding
> >> a job; continually declining education standards; a race war; and a
> >> completely out of control war-mongering government, controlled by the
> >> military-industrial complex.
> >>
> >> I'd rather starve than live in the USA. No offence to the people of
> >> the USA, I like Americans (except for the TSA at airports, WTF is
> >> wrong with those guys?) but, having spent time there (Chicago), well,
> >> let's just say I was VERY glad to get home.
> >
> > While I mostly agree with you, I should point out that you have chosen the
> > bad example. Chicago is one of the worst American cities. I hate going
> > there. Dunno why anyone would decide to live there.
> 
> Chicago, like all big cities in the US, has some really great areas and 
> some not so much. And some cities have whole lot of really great parts 
> (and suburbs). San Francisco and the Bay Area are mostly wonderful. And, 
> then, there are smaller cities, and lots of places to live not in 
> cities. America is incredibly varied.

I've never been to Chicago, but it has the reputation of being the crime-center of America. It is not really a matter of it having some bad areas, but rather that this is where a lot of the organized crime in America originates.

Chicago is the home of Saul Alinsky. Barrack Obama went to Chicago for the purpose of becoming an Alinskyite. Hillary Clinton is also an Alinskyite.

Most likely, Elizabeth Rather went to Chicago also for the purpose of becoming an Alinskyite.

> >>> socialism won't ever work!
> >>
> >> You sure? It's alive and well in the USA (foodstamps, Obamacare).
> >> Perhaps take a look closer to home ;-)
> 
> It works in many parts of Europe. And food stamps & Obamacare fall far 
> short of anything resembling socialism.

Really??? If food stamps and Obamacare "fall far short of anything resembling socialism," then what would resemble socialism? This is socialism! Elizabeth Rather is promoting food stamps and Obamacare --- this implies that Elizabeth Rather is a socialist.

Saul Alinsky's game was that he would represent himself as the champion of some minority group (mostly Blacks, but some other groups as well). It is estimated that 2% of all humans are sociopaths, which implies that 2% of every minority group are sociopaths. All of the sociopaths in Alinsky's chosen minority group would become followers of Alinsky and they would extort money from corporations or from the government by representing themselves as the champions of their minority group --- this is despite the fact that the other 98% of that minority group considered them to be sociopaths, criminals, and basically an embarrassement to the group.

Alinsky's extortion game is the foundation of socialism --- Saul Alinsky didn't invent socialism, but he was very good at socialism --- he was good enough at socialism to not just practice it, but to teach it, and all of his students are called Alinskyites.

Elizabeth Rather's support for John Passaniti is classic Alinsky socialism. She is not a homosexual herself, but she just uses homosexuality as a weapon. This is similar to how Saul Alinsky is not Black himself but just uses race as a weapon. Elizabeth Rather's follower Passaniti said my software "sucks" and is "crap" etc. --- I complained that this nastiness and vulgar speech was inappropriate on comp.lang.forth --- Elizabeth Rather then accused me of being homophobic and said that I was no longer welcome on comp.lang.forth, and that I will never be an ANS-Forth programmer, and that Passaniti was a true ANS-Forth programmer. She is using the homosexual group in the same way that Alinsky used the Black race.

Elizabeth Rather's game is to represent herself as the champion of programmers who can't program. She herself is unable to program. All of her followers are unable to program. What she offers them is the opportunity to be ANS-Forth programmers --- no programming is required --- all that is needed is that they  are loyal to her and attack her enemies for her, and in exchange she praises them as ANS-Forth programmers.

All Alinskyites are pathological liars. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are obvious examples. Elizabeth Rather is also a pathological liar. She relies entirely on name-dropping to prove her importance in the world. Mostly, this involves endlessly reminding everybody that she was Charles Moore's girlfriend in the 1970s, and claiming that this makes her the "leading expert" on Forth. She also claims to hob-nob with multiple Nobel Peace Prize winners, to hob-nob with Barrack Obama's family, to work for NASA, etc. --- this is despite the fact that none of these people (Charles Moore, the Nobel Peace Prize winners, Barrack Obama or NASA) brag about associating with her, and there is no evidence that any of them do associate with her --- other than Charles Moore, none of them have ever heard of her, and Charles Moore parted company with her in 1982.

Anyway, Mark Wills is right about America having problems, although if Chicago is all that he has seen of America, then he is unfairly extrapolating the worst example of America across the entirety of America. Also, it is disingenuous to say that England is better than America. England is to Europe what Chicago is to America --- the epicenter of socialism --- England is more socialistic than America is.

There are some good things that can be said about America --- nothing good has ever been said about England by anybody other than the English themselves --- and your typical English ex-patriot living elsewhere has nothing good to say about England either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51931

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:15:59 PM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:05:25 +0200 (CEST)
> albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:
> 
> > In article <d8aff20f-48eb-4bc9-8cf8-9b05311ba238@googlegroups.com>,
> > Manuel Rodriguez  <aa5@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> <OT>
> 
> > >Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did
> > >with his m= ystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap
> > >into freeenergy, Wi= kipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that
> > >is was a apparatus for trans= mitting energy.=20
> > >
> > >For building such a device two problems have to be overcome: first,
> > >the inv= ention of a logic gate (called squid device) is a must
> > >have, which operates=
> > > on zero celvin temperature with supra-conductivity (Patent Number
> > > US613809=
> > >). The second invention is a programming-language for controlling
> > >the machi= ne. And here comes Forth into the game. Forth is a
> > >stack-based programming = language for building a domain-specific
> > >language for controlling everything= . The programming of a quantum
> > >computer is not easy. The first principle is= , that programs are
> > >data and data are programs, there is no difference betw= een them.
> > >
> > >So my question to the comp.lang.forth community is: Did Nikola Tesla
> > >invent= ed the Quantum computer?  
> > 
> > As a physicist and a computer expert I would say: "bunk".
> > 
> > Tesla was short on theoretical explanations of his devices, leaving
> > a lot of room for speculation by pot heads. This is a good example.
> > At the time of Tesla's demise the very idea of a mechanical computing
> > device was in its infancy, quantum computing was under the horizon.
> > 
> > (Mechanical devices in this context include electromechanical
> > and electronic devices. After all, a Pentium could be rebuild in
> > 18-th century clock work fashion, as they did with the Babbage
> > machine.)
> > 
> 
> I agree that that Tesla developing Quantum computing is most unlikely.
> 
> As for the idea that it is possible to create things prior to the
> development of scientific theory, that has been done thousands, perhaps
> millions, of times throughout history.  There was the Baghdad battery
> around 250BC before static electricity was discovered by Thales of
> Miletus around 585BC. There was also Antikythera mechanism which
> predates physics, mechanics, computing, and clockwork mechanisms by 14
> to 18 centuries.  Etc.
> 
> And, I don't follow the rationale of Manuel's whereby one needs a 1)
> squid device and 2) a domain specific language, such a Forth, to create
> a wireless power source, as suggested by Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower.
> 
> As for Wardenclyffe Tower, we've all seen photographs of Tesla holding
> lit light-bulbs in his hand powered by high-frequency AC induction, as
> well Tesla sitting in front of high-voltage Tesla coils discharging
> massive arcs of electricity.  What most people don't know, is that you
> can use the earth as the return path in AC circuits, instead of using
> two wires.  This is called "single-wire earth return."  You can read
> about it on Wikipedia.  Today, most understand that broadcasting radio
> frequencies also transmits a miniscule amount of energy, but Tesla was
> working before or during the development of electromagnetic theory.  In
> Tesla's case, he was working with high-voltage Tesla coils and
> high-frequency AC.  High frequency AC is directly related to radio
> frequencies and he was aware of the work of others on electromagnetic
> waves and radiotelegraphy.  If you combine the ideas together, you have
> a wireless source of high-power energy.  So, it's in the realm of
> possibility that Wardenclyffe Tower was supposed to be either a
> high-frequency Tesla coil for wireless transmission of AC power via
> long-range electromagnetic fields and AC induction, or perhaps a radio
> tower for wireless transmission of high-power energy via
> radio-frequencies.
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton

what was the bhadad batery for?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51906

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 8:30:56 AM UTC-4, Manuel Rodriguez wrote:
> Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with his mystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into freeenergy, Wikipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for transmitting energy. 
> 
> For building such a device two problems have to be overcome: first, the invention of a logic gate (called squid device) is a must have, which operates on zero celvin temperature with supra-conductivity (Patent Number US613809). The second invention is a programming-language for controlling the machine. And here comes Forth into the game. Forth is a stack-based programming language for building a domain-specific language for controlling everything. The programming of a quantum computer is not easy. The first principle is, that programs are data and data are programs, there is no difference between them.
> 
> So my question to the comp.lang.forth community is: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer?

tesla coulda been parlour tricks and all a lie for all I know

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51917

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:30:56 AM UTC-7, Manuel Rodriguez wrote:
> Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with his mystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into freeenergy, Wikipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for transmitting energy. 

I saw a book that suggested that his Wardenclyffe Tower was a DEW (directed energy weapon) --- the book suggested that the Tunguska Blast was a test of the weapon.

The official theory on the Tunguska Blast is a meteor going fast enough to detonate in the atmosphere, but this isn't really supported by any evidence. A very fast meteor could conceivably compact the hydrogen enough to cause a nuclear-fusion blast like a hydrogen bomb, but this certainly didn't happen in this case (no evidence of radiation, and the blast was too small). OTOH, if the meteor is small enough to vaporize up in the atmosphere and not hit the ground leaving a crater, then it lacks the energy to cause an explosion as big as we had. So, the explosion was too big to be a shock wave from meteor vaporizing in the atmosphere, but too small to be a nuclear-fusion explosion --- it seems unlikely to be a meteor at all, so it had to be something else.

As for Tesla inventing the quantum computer --- the quantum computer hasn't been invented yet --- there is not much indication that it will ever become more than vague speculation.

In regard to DEW --- a lot of people think that the 9/11/2001 destruction of the Twin Towers was done with a DEW --- I've never seen any evidence to indicate that the towers were hit by airplanes, so it had to be something else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51922

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 2:07:32 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> The official theory on the Tunguska Blast is a meteor going fast enough to
> detonate in the atmosphere, but this isn't really supported by any evidence.

A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51959

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-7, lawren...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 2:07:32 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The official theory on the Tunguska Blast is a meteor going fast enough to
> > detonate in the atmosphere, but this isn't really supported by any evidence.
> 
> A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.

How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?

Have any simulations been done that show a result like this?

Why do you say "made mostly of ice" --- whether it is ice or iron it is going to vaporize --- if it doesn't vaporize, then there is no explosion.

It is theoretically possible that a very high-speed meteor could be compacted so much when it hits the atmosphere that the hydrogen would fuse into helium and you would get a nuclear explosion similar to a hydrogen bomb. This certainly didn't happen at Tunguska. A hydrogen bomb explosion makes a crater 50 miles wide and 5 miles deep --- there is no crater at all in Tunguska though.

As for a meteor vaporizing when it hits the atmosphere, this will cause an explosion too --- but it is not a very big explosion (the meteor is basically a big fast bullet) --- the meteor just doesn't have very much Newtonian energy, even if it is going fast enough to vaporize when it hits the atmosphere.

The Tunguska Blast was comparable in force to an atomic bomb being detonated in the atmosphere --- there is no radiation though --- there is no evidence that this was a nuclear blast.

Humorously, I remember the "In Search Of" television program speculating that this was a flying-saucer crash. lol Of course, I can't explain how a DEW works --- physicists such as Judy Wood think this is possible --- I'm not a physicist, so the whole DEW discussion is above my paygrade.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51965

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:09:22 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.
> 
> How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?

Comets come from the far outer reaches of the Solar System. That means they would be moving not far short of solar escape velocity. At our depth in the solar gravity well, that’s about 40km/s.

Consider that Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s. Something moving as fast as a comet would have an order of magnitude greater kinetic energy. And pack a correspondingly greater wallop.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51967

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, lawren...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:09:22 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> >> A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.
> > 
> > How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?
> 
> Comets come from the far outer reaches of the Solar System. That means they would be moving not far short of solar escape velocity. At our depth in the solar gravity well, that’s about 40km/s.
> 
> Consider that Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s. Something moving as fast as a comet would have an order of magnitude greater kinetic energy. And pack a correspondingly greater wallop.

So, if it is going 40 km/s then it is about quadruple the speed of a rocket that is escaping from Earth. That is not very fast. You will get an explosion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and vaporizes, but it is not going to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast was comparable in force to an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big wallop, and it remains unexplained.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51968

On 10/17/2016 8:26 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, lawren...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:09:22 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.
>>>
>>> How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?
>>
>> Comets come from the far outer reaches of the Solar System. That means they would be moving not far short of solar escape velocity. At our depth in the solar gravity well, that’s about 40km/s.
>>
>> Consider that Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s. Something moving as fast as a comet would have an order of magnitude greater kinetic energy. And pack a correspondingly greater wallop.
>
> So, if it is going 40 km/s then it is about quadruple the speed of a rocket that is escaping from Earth. That is not very fast. You will get an explosion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and vaporizes, but it is not going to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast was comparable in force to an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big wallop, and it remains unexplained.
>
We recently had a meteor do an air explosion over in Russia, it was a 
very small meteorite at about 65 feet in size, and exploded quite a ways 
up but it did a lot o damage from the air waves. It's yield was over 500 
Kilotons or 25 times more than the bomb at Hiroshima. One miles in 
diameter would be disastrous for the whole planet.

-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51981

On 10/17/2016 11:59 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 8:26 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, lawren...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:09:22 PM UTC+13,
>>> hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.
>>>>
>>>> How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?
>>>
>>> Comets come from the far outer reaches of the Solar System. That
>>> means they would be moving not far short of solar escape velocity. At
>>> our depth in the solar gravity well, that’s about 40km/s.
>>>
>>> Consider that Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s. Something moving
>>> as fast as a comet would have an order of magnitude greater kinetic
>>> energy. And pack a correspondingly greater wallop.
>>
>> So, if it is going 40 km/s then it is about quadruple the speed of a
>> rocket that is escaping from Earth. That is not very fast. You will
>> get an explosion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and vaporizes,
>> but it is not going to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast
>> was comparable in force to an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big
>> wallop, and it remains unexplained.
>>
> We recently had a meteor do an air explosion over in Russia, it was a
> very small meteorite at about 65 feet in size, and exploded quite a ways
> up but it did a lot o damage from the air waves. It's yield was over 500
> Kilotons or 25 times more than the bomb at Hiroshima. One miles in
> diameter would be disastrous for the whole planet.

Hugh doesn't know much about this subject.  He seems to have formed an 
opinion without knowing the facts.  The blast size is consistent with a 
meteor or comet hitting the earth.  There is nothing to say it was not 
such.  There are many indications that this is what happened.  It is 
just not proven in the same way a bullet can be matched to a gun.

While it has not been proven what type of cosmic body caused this event, 
there is little doubt this is what caused it.  I've not found anyone 
else talk about hydrogen igniting to cause a nuclear explosion.  There 
is no evidence anything strange like this happened and there is nothing 
inconsistent with the idea of a cosmic body causing the air explosion.

If Hugh wants to know how fast and how big it was, there are plenty of 
references on the Internet which can explain this clearly.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51982

I didn't realize, but while reading up on Tunguska, I found a report 
that a large comet is going to pass within 88,000 miles of Mars 
tomorrow.  NASA is going to have Curiosity turn a camera to the sky to 
record what it can see.  That will be pretty cool!

They describe this comet as being the size of a small mountain.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51984

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:31:07 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> I didn't realize, but while reading up on Tunguska, I found a report 
> that a large comet is going to pass within 88,000 miles of Mars 
> tomorrow.  NASA is going to have Curiosity turn a camera to the sky to 
> record what it can see.  That will be pretty cool!
> 
> They describe this comet as being the size of a small mountain.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick C

the need to be right sometimes causes humans to waste time and energy

better spent doing pushups and learning

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51986

On 10/18/2016 12:31 AM, rickman wrote:
> I didn't realize, but while reading up on Tunguska, I found a report
> that a large comet is going to pass within 88,000 miles of Mars
> tomorrow.  NASA is going to have Curiosity turn a camera to the sky to
> record what it can see.  That will be pretty cool!
>
> They describe this comet as being the size of a small mountain.
>
We recently had a meteor make a close pass, and its slated to make an 
even closer path in 2019, this next path is going to be very close 
estimated to be around 8,000 miles, but 2 years is a long time and it 
doesn't take much to alter the path by 8,000 miles so some are nervous 
about it. It's a lot bigger but still a small one of about 300+ feet in 
diameter, but that will do massive damage if it's a direct hit and would 
affect the weather for years. The thing is the orbit crosses earth orbit 
twice in a loop and the math says it will keep getting closer with each 
iteration unless something else affects it, it orbit is mostly between 
us and the sun.

Anyway on the topic of Tesla, I would not think Tesla made a Quantum 
computer, even now they have no clue how to make one even though the 
math is well understood, and the interface into it would be a bear, no 
way it could be done with primitive technology. In any case the man was 
an interesting character, and way ahead of his time.

-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51983

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:26:01 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 11:59 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote:
> > On 10/17/2016 8:26 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, lawren...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:09:22 PM UTC+13,
> >>> hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.
> >>>>
> >>>> How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?
> >>>
> >>> Comets come from the far outer reaches of the Solar System. That
> >>> means they would be moving not far short of solar escape velocity. At
> >>> our depth in the solar gravity well, that’s about 40km/s.
> >>>
> >>> Consider that Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s. Something moving
> >>> as fast as a comet would have an order of magnitude greater kinetic
> >>> energy. And pack a correspondingly greater wallop.
> >>
> >> So, if it is going 40 km/s then it is about quadruple the speed of a
> >> rocket that is escaping from Earth. That is not very fast. You will
> >> get an explosion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and vaporizes,
> >> but it is not going to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast
> >> was comparable in force to an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big
> >> wallop, and it remains unexplained.
> >>
> > We recently had a meteor do an air explosion over in Russia, it was a
> > very small meteorite at about 65 feet in size, and exploded quite a ways
> > up but it did a lot o damage from the air waves. It's yield was over 500
> > Kilotons or 25 times more than the bomb at Hiroshima. One miles in
> > diameter would be disastrous for the whole planet.
> 
> Hugh doesn't know much about this subject.  He seems to have formed an 
> opinion without knowing the facts.  The blast size is consistent with a 
> meteor or comet hitting the earth.  There is nothing to say it was not 
> such.  There are many indications that this is what happened.  It is 
> just not proven in the same way a bullet can be matched to a gun.
> 
> While it has not been proven what type of cosmic body caused this event, 
> there is little doubt this is what caused it.  I've not found anyone 
> else talk about hydrogen igniting to cause a nuclear explosion.  There 
> is no evidence anything strange like this happened and there is nothing 
> inconsistent with the idea of a cosmic body causing the air explosion.
> 
> If Hugh wants to know how fast and how big it was, there are plenty of 
> references on the Internet which can explain this clearly.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick C

I don think any of this is anything but speculations and it doesnt help build more cheap big concrete hosues and grow food.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52053

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 11:59 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote:
>> On 10/17/2016 8:26 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, lawren...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:09:22 PM UTC+13,
>>>> hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?
>>>> 
>>>> Comets come from the far outer reaches of the Solar System. That
>>>> means they would be moving not far short of solar escape velocity. At
>>>> our depth in the solar gravity well, that’s about 40km/s.
>>>> 
>>>> Consider that Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s. Something moving
>>>> as fast as a comet would have an order of magnitude greater kinetic
>>>> energy. And pack a correspondingly greater wallop.
>>> 
>>> So, if it is going 40 km/s then it is about quadruple the speed of a
>>> rocket that is escaping from Earth. That is not very fast. You will
>>> get an explosion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and vaporizes,
>>> but it is not going to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast
>>> was comparable in force to an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big
>>> wallop, and it remains unexplained.
>>> 
>> We recently had a meteor do an air explosion over in Russia, it was a
>> very small meteorite at about 65 feet in size, and exploded quite a ways
>> up but it did a lot o damage from the air waves. It's yield was over 500
>> Kilotons or 25 times more than the bomb at Hiroshima. One miles in
>> diameter would be disastrous for the whole planet.
> 
> Hugh doesn't know much about this subject.  He seems to have formed an 
> opinion without knowing the facts.  The blast size is consistent with a 
> meteor or comet hitting the earth.  There is nothing to say it was not 
> such.  There are many indications that this is what happened.  It is 
> just not proven in the same way a bullet can be matched to a gun.
> 
> While it has not been proven what type of cosmic body caused this event, 
> there is little doubt this is what caused it.  I've not found anyone 
> else talk about hydrogen igniting to cause a nuclear explosion.  There 
> is no evidence anything strange like this happened and there is nothing 
> inconsistent with the idea of a cosmic body causing the air explosion.
> 
> If Hugh wants to know how fast and how big it was, there are plenty of 
> references on the Internet which can explain this clearly.
> 

IIRC there were also witnesses who seen the meteor going from West to East
in few Russian cities right before it happened. Knowing when meteor was
seen in particular city help determine its speed.

-- 
dunno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51985

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 4:59:35 PM UTC+13, Cecil - k5nwa wrote:
>
> On 10/17/2016 8:26 PM, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:09:22 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.
>>>>
>>>> How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?
>>>
>>> Comets come from the far outer reaches of the Solar System. That means they
>>> would be moving not far short of solar escape velocity. At our depth in the
>>> solar gravity well, that’s about 40km/s.
>>>
>>> Consider that Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s. Something moving as
>>> fast as a comet would have an order of magnitude greater kinetic energy.
>>> And pack a correspondingly greater wallop.
>>
>> So, if it is going 40 km/s then it is about quadruple the speed of a rocket 
>> that is escaping from Earth. That is not very fast.

What’s your idea of “very fast”? You *do* realize that kinetic energy goes up as the square of the speed, don’t you?

For comparison, the fastest man-made object ever launched, the New Horizons probe, left Earth at about 16km/s. (And it took nearly a decade to get to Pluto.)

> You will get an explosion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and vaporizes,
> but it is not going to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast was
> comparable in force to an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big wallop, and it
> remains unexplained.

Feel free to do the numbers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51990

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 10:51:05 PM UTC-7, lawren...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 4:59:35 PM UTC+13, Cecil - k5nwa wrote:
> >
> > On 10/17/2016 8:26 PM, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> >>
> >> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:09:22 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.
> >>>>
> >>>> How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?
> >>>
> >>> Comets come from the far outer reaches of the Solar System. That means they
> >>> would be moving not far short of solar escape velocity. At our depth in the
> >>> solar gravity well, that’s about 40km/s.
> >>>
> >>> Consider that Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s. Something moving as
> >>> fast as a comet would have an order of magnitude greater kinetic energy.
> >>> And pack a correspondingly greater wallop.
> >>
> >> So, if it is going 40 km/s then it is about quadruple the speed of a rocket 
> >> that is escaping from Earth. That is not very fast.
> 
> What’s your idea of “very fast”? You *do* realize that kinetic energy goes up as the square of the speed, don’t you?
> 
> For comparison, the fastest man-made object ever launched, the New Horizons probe, left Earth at about 16km/s. (And it took nearly a decade to get to Pluto.)
> 
> > You will get an explosion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and vaporizes,
> > but it is not going to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast was
> > comparable in force to an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big wallop, and it
> > remains unexplained.
> 
> Feel free to do the numbers.

Quadruple the speed means 16 times the energy, given the same mass --- as you said, it is squared.

So, if the meteor is the same weight as the rocket, it has 16 times as much energy as the rocket --- which is not much.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51992

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:01:40 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:

> So, if the meteor is the same weight as the rocket, it has 16 times as much
> energy as the rocket --- which is not much.

The ones that cause trouble are typically not as tiny as rockets. Think mountain-sized as being more typical.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web