Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #51890 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-16 05:30 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-18 19:05 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 91 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 00:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5832fa82-08e8-4b4d-933d-abfde9a7ff0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51992 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:29:33 AM UTC-7, lawren...@gmail.com wrote: > 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. I agree that having a mountain-sized meteor land on you head is going to hurt --- that is hardly typical though --- that is roughly the size of the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous. I still don't think that the Tunguska Blast was caused by a meteor --- if Tunguska had been hit by a house-sized meteor, there would have been a crater. The Chelyabinsk meteor was about 65 feet in diameter (house-sized). It was travelling at a very shallow angle and so it broke up in the atmosphere. If it had been travelling at a steeper angle then it would have hit the ground and likely caused a crater comparable to the Barringer Crater (a.k.a. Meteor Crater) in Arizona. In Tunguska we had a whopping big explosion at a single point in the atmosphere --- I don't think this was caused by a meteor --- I still think Tesla is the most likely suspect with his Wardenclyffe Tower.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 08:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e48cfb15-6435-49e4-a4a3-acdcf5669af7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51994 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:50:05 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > if Tunguska had been hit by a house-sized meteor, there would have been a > crater. House-sized block of rock, yes. House-sized block of (almost entirely) ice, no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 18:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu5k87$gbh$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #52009 |
In article <e48cfb15-6435-49e4-a4a3-acdcf5669af7@googlegroups.com>, <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:50:05 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > >> if Tunguska had been hit by a house-sized meteor, there would have been a >> crater. > >House-sized block of rock, yes. House-sized block of (almost entirely) ice, no. Tell that to the captain of the Titanic. Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 22:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nue39v$d47$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51985 |
Am Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:51:04 -0700 schrieb lawrencedo99: >> 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. Ok, let's do some numbers. Earth escape velocity is 11km/s. Earth rotation velocity (around the sun) is ~30km/s. The same speed is needed to escape Sun's gravity (upward, instead of forward), the good thing is that when you launch a rocket from earth, it has that speed forward, and you only need a flyby or two to turn forward speed into upward speed (typical is launch from Earth to Venus and back to earth, which is why there are tight launch windows about twice a year). But for a comet, you can expect that it comes in at nearly 30km/s down- or upwards (depending if already passed by sun or not), and mostly perpendicular to earth's orbit. That makes on average about 42km/s vs. earth (the actual velocity depends on other things like the actual angle the comet or asteroid is flying in, how far it gets out and things like that, it is an estimate). And you have to add those 11km/s worth of energy to it, because earth's gravity will accelerate the comet even further, not by much, just you have now 43.4km/s. So give or take something, you expect in the order of 40km/s for the speed delta of the comet vs. earth. Energy is E=1/2 mv². One kiloton TNT is ~4.2TJ (J=kg m²/ s²). You need around 5.25 metric tons of meteorite or comet mass per kiloton TNT equivalent. The estimate is 10-15 MT TNT, so the estimated mass of the meteorite is at least around 50Gg (50k metric tons). Assuming dense ice, I get that with a diameter of at least 45m, assuming iron (10 times as heavy), around 21m diameter. The assumption here is that the comet or asteroid entering earth's atmosphere is turning its kinetic energy into heat to evaporate, and there is no remaining speed left after it did so: all kinetic energy is transferred into heat. Real ice comets are not very dense (can be down to ~0.1g/cm³, the Rosetta mission suggests even less), not even the iron asteroids are that dense, so a more realistic estimate is between 30m and 80m diameter, depending on the material. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Oct22.181534@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #52097 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> writes:
>Am Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:51:04 -0700 schrieb lawrencedo99:
>
>>> 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.
>
>Ok, let's do some numbers. Earth escape velocity is 11km/s. Earth
>rotation velocity (around the sun) is ~30km/s. The same speed is needed
>to escape Sun's gravity (upward, instead of forward), the good thing is
>that when you launch a rocket from earth, it has that speed forward, and
>you only need a flyby or two to turn forward speed into upward speed
>(typical is launch from Earth to Venus and back to earth, which is why
>there are tight launch windows about twice a year).
Escape velocity is sqrt(2)*orbiting velocity, i.e., Solar escape
velocity is 42km/s from the position of Earth. Fortunatley, we are
already at 30km/s, so we only need an additional 12km/s (but that's a
big issue when you have already have troubles escaping from Earth's
gravity well. The direction does not really matter as long as you
avoid colliding with something. E.g., you could go inwards at 42km/s
relative to the sun, and you would at first get faster, and after
passing the closest spot (perihelion), get slower again, reaching
42km/s again when crossing Earth orbit, and then escaping; the wonders
of a gravity field at work.
Flybys are not mainly used to change direction, but to avoid having to
pay for the extra 12km/s (or more, if you want to reach the outer
solar system faster) all by yourself. Instead, you exchange impulse
with the planet you fly by, and only need to pay for reaching a close
planet (Venus or Mars).
>But for a comet, you can expect that it comes in at nearly 30km/s down-
>or upwards (depending if already passed by sun or not)
Correct that to 42km/s.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 21:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nviu03$raf$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52117 |
Am Sat, 22 Oct 2016 16:15:34 +0000 schrieb Anton Ertl: > Escape velocity is sqrt(2)*orbiting velocity, i.e., Solar escape > velocity is 42km/s from the position of Earth. Ah, I used a different system of inertia. From Earth (moving around the sun), escape velocity is 30km/s straight up (still rotating with 30km/s around the sun). Together with the horizontal velocity, this gives the 42km/s relative to resting, and shows that moving straight forward "only" additional 12km/s are sufficient. Note that while you need 11km/s from earth to leave, you can't just add that together to get 23km/s from surface to escape, rather you need to have 12km/s left when you go beyond the moon. So your kinetic energy must be E_leave_earth+E_12km/s, and that means 16.3km/s are good enough. IIRC, the fastest object mankind ever accelerated were the Pioneers, which both had 18km/s (no fly-by required to leave the solar system). > Fortunatley, we are > already at 30km/s, so we only need an additional 12km/s (but that's a > big issue when you have already have troubles escaping from Earth's > gravity well. The direction does not really matter as long as you avoid > colliding with something. E.g., you could go inwards at 42km/s relative > to the sun, and you would at first get faster, and after passing the > closest spot (perihelion), get slower again, reaching 42km/s again when > crossing Earth orbit, and then escaping; the wonders of a gravity field > at work. > > Flybys are not mainly used to change direction, but to avoid having to > pay for the extra 12km/s (or more, if you want to reach the outer solar > system faster) all by yourself. Instead, you exchange impulse with the > planet you fly by, and only need to pay for reaching a close planet > (Venus or Mars). Oh, also a different inertia system view. From a geometric point of view, all you get from a fly-by is a change of direction relative to the object you flew by. Of course, that change of direction is an exchange of impulse, but it is completely elastic, so you can't gain any speed relative to that object (the actual unexplained speed difference we observed is is called "fly-by anomaly", it shouldn't be there, and it is very small). Note that from the planet's point of view where you did the fly-by, you have exactly the same kinetic energy when you came in as when you left. Only your direction changed. >>But for a comet, you can expect that it comes in at nearly 30km/s down- >>or upwards (depending if already passed by sun or not) > > Correct that to 42km/s. It's actually done later, but things are more difficult when you look closer, because direction matters: you could get anything between 12km/s (comet coming from behind) and 72km/s (comet coming the other way round). -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 22:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Nov4.232647@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #52442 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> writes:
>> Flybys are not mainly used to change direction, but to avoid having to
>> pay for the extra 12km/s (or more, if you want to reach the outer solar
>> system faster) all by yourself. Instead, you exchange impulse with the
>> planet you fly by, and only need to pay for reaching a close planet
>> (Venus or Mars).
>
>Oh, also a different inertia system view. From a geometric point of
>view, all you get from a fly-by is a change of direction relative to the
>object you flew by. Of course, that change of direction is an exchange
>of impulse, but it is completely elastic, so you can't gain any speed
>relative to that object (the actual unexplained speed difference we
>observed is is called "fly-by anomaly", it shouldn't be there, and it is
>very small).
>
>Note that from the planet's point of view where you did the fly-by, you
>have exactly the same kinetic energy when you came in as when you left.
>Only your direction changed.
Of course a flyby doesn't change speed relative to the planet you fly
by (except during the flyby itself).
But you change speed relative to the sun which you want to escape.
E.g., say you fly by Mars, and cross it's path being 2km/s slower than
Mars in approximately the same direction. The flyby can change it's
direction relative to Mars to be 2km/s faster than Mars; no speed
change relative to Mars, but a speed gain relative to the sun (and
Mars has a tiny speed loss relative to the sun).
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 23:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcf69623-4197-47df-9c73-7e8c38a445ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51968 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:59:35 PM UTC-7, Cecil - k5nwa 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. > > -- > Cecil - k5nwa Okay, I agree that a meteor explosion's "yield" can be comparable to a nuclear bomb. I am still very dubious that the Tunguska Blast was a meteor though. At Tunguska there was a small area where the blast occurred. As I said before, the trees were standing at the center, and then outside of the center the trees for over 100 miles in every direction were knocked down pointing away from the center. So, the blast occurred directly over that center point. The Chelyabinsk Blast that you mentioned was much different. The meteor was travelling at a shallow angle to the surface of the Earth and it broke up into pieces. Because it was moving fast and almost parallel to the surface, this break up occurred over a stretch of land, not at a single point (there is a photo of it trailing smoke through the sky) --- this is why its yield was so great --- because the damage wasn't at a single point but was stretched out. I don't think you can really compare Tunguska to Chelyabinsk because Tunguska occurred at a single point, whereas Chelyabinsk did not. Also, Tunguska was a quite a big explosion --- it takes a lot of energy to flatten over 700 square miles of forest --- Chelyabinsk was completely different, and significantly smaller.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 13:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu4vfp$d4e$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #51967 |
In article <4e39079b-de4d-4bb3-9e14-17e14a973e55@googlegroups.com>, <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote: <SNIP> > >So, if it is going 40 km/s then it is about quadruple the speed of a rocket= > that is escaping from Earth. That is not very fast. You will get an explos= >ion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and vaporizes, but it is not going = >to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast was comparable in force t= >o an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big wallop, and it remains unexplained= >. So here is an exercise from a physics book: What is the weight of a comet that on impact releases the same energy as as a hydrogen bomb of 1 megaton ( 10^9 kg of tnt)? Comets move at about 40km/s relative to earth. -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 14:34 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <nu51ba$l4e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51999 |
On 18/10/2016 14:02, Albert van der Horst wrote: > So here is an exercise from a physics book: > > What is the weight of a comet that on impact releases the same energy > as as a hydrogen bomb of 1 megaton ( 10^9 kg of tnt)? > Comets move at about 40km/s relative to earth. OK, that's kind of fun. 1 ton TNT ~= 4.184e8 joules (according to Wikipedia), so 1 MT TNT ~= 4.184e14 joules (e.g. kg (m/s)^2) To be found: mass of comet traveling 40 km/s having equivalent kinetic energy of 1 MT TNT. E = 0.5 * m * v^2 so: 4.184e14 = m * 0.5 * (40km/s * 1000m/km)^2 or m = 8.368e14 / 1.6e9 = 5.23e5 or about 523,000 kg did I drop any units/ miss decimals? Assuming that's about right, such a comet made of frozen water would be (if as dense as water) 523000 liters or a cube about 52.3 meters on a side. Not huge by any means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 15:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu58bj$end$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #52001 |
In article <nu51ba$l4e$1@dont-email.me>, Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On 18/10/2016 14:02, Albert van der Horst wrote: > >> So here is an exercise from a physics book: >> >> What is the weight of a comet that on impact releases the same energy >> as as a hydrogen bomb of 1 megaton ( 10^9 kg of tnt)? >> Comets move at about 40km/s relative to earth. > >OK, that's kind of fun. > >1 ton TNT ~= 4.184e8 joules (according to Wikipedia), so >1 MT TNT ~= 4.184e14 joules (e.g. kg (m/s)^2) > >To be found: mass of comet traveling 40 km/s having equivalent kinetic >energy of 1 MT TNT. > >E = 0.5 * m * v^2 > >so: > >4.184e14 = m * 0.5 * (40km/s * 1000m/km)^2 > >or > >m = 8.368e14 / 1.6e9 > = 5.23e5 > >or about 523,000 kg > >did I drop any units/ miss decimals? Not till here. > >Assuming that's about right, such a comet made of frozen water would be >(if as dense as water) 523000 liters or a cube about 52.3 meters on a >side. Not huge by any means. > Here you go astray. 523 tons of water is about a cube of 8 m. (I know my powers of 2 !) P.S. I made the exercise up. Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 16:38 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <nu58j7$f5a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52005 |
On 10/18/2016 16:33, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article <nu51ba$l4e$1@dont-email.me>, > Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote: >> did I drop any units/ miss decimals? > > Not till here. Bonus! >> Assuming that's about right, such a comet made of frozen water would be >> (if as dense as water) 523000 liters or a cube about 52.3 meters on a >> side. Not huge by any means. >> > > Here you go astray. 523 tons of water is about a cube of 8 m. > (I know my powers of 2 !) Bogus!!! I hate it when that happens. You're right, and an 8m cube is even less impressive that a 52m one. It would be even smaller, of course, if it were a meteorite... > P.S. I made the exercise up. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 21:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5fd7ad3-f773-40b0-8db5-3bb2e77dbf45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51959 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:09:22 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > 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. why is there not a forth replacement for debian linux that lets me surf net in chrome liek browser and save and edit files?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 22:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu1cfq$lfk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51917 |
On 10/16/2016 9:05 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > 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. My dear God! I have not seen such a display of ignorance anywhere on the Internet... aside from some Trump supporters. There is plenty of evidence that the Tunguska Blast was indeed a meteor. Just google a bit and you will find researchers think they have found a lake made by a fragment with what they suspect is a piece of the meteorite beneath the bottom. As to the cause of 9/11 *not* being caused by airplanes... yes, there is little evidence of the damage being caused by airplane... other than videos, pictures and thousands if not millions of witnesses. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 19:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a665729-8195-47f7-b43e-415a08b44862@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51924 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 10:19:58 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > On 10/16/2016 9:05 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > 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. > > My dear God! I have not seen such a display of ignorance anywhere on > the Internet... aside from some Trump supporters. > > There is plenty of evidence that the Tunguska Blast was indeed a meteor. > Just google a bit and you will find researchers think they have found > a lake made by a fragment with what they suspect is a piece of the > meteorite beneath the bottom. > > As to the cause of 9/11 *not* being caused by airplanes... yes, there is > little evidence of the damage being caused by airplane... other than > videos, pictures and thousands if not millions of witnesses. > > -- > > Rick C hey fag watch it I am a Trump supporter as are all non tax parasites...ya fuking social justice warrior kuk!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 00:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu1je3$5uq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51930 |
On 10/16/2016 10:37 PM, polymorph self wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 10:19:58 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >> On 10/16/2016 9:05 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>> 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. >> >> My dear God! I have not seen such a display of ignorance anywhere on >> the Internet... aside from some Trump supporters. >> >> There is plenty of evidence that the Tunguska Blast was indeed a meteor. >> Just google a bit and you will find researchers think they have found >> a lake made by a fragment with what they suspect is a piece of the >> meteorite beneath the bottom. >> >> As to the cause of 9/11 *not* being caused by airplanes... yes, there is >> little evidence of the damage being caused by airplane... other than >> videos, pictures and thousands if not millions of witnesses. >> >> -- >> >> Rick C > > hey fag watch it I am a Trump supporter as are all non tax parasites...ya fuking social justice warrior kuk! "non tax parsites", you mean like Trump? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 15:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58c171a2-a525-4696-95d1-0aaee22fdde0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51924 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 7:19:58 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > On 10/16/2016 9:05 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > 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. > > My dear God! I have not seen such a display of ignorance anywhere on > the Internet... aside from some Trump supporters. > > There is plenty of evidence that the Tunguska Blast was indeed a meteor. > Just google a bit and you will find researchers think they have found > a lake made by a fragment with what they suspect is a piece of the > meteorite beneath the bottom. There is no crater at Tunguska. In the center of the blast area the trees are still standing, but all the trees away from the center are knocked down and pointing outwards away from the center. This indicates a blast in the atmosphere. There was a similar effect for the atomic bombs detonated in the atmosphere over Nagasaki and Hiroshima --- the buildings directly under the blast remained standing, but the buildings away from the center were knocked down pointing outwards away from the center. Most of the original research of meteors came from Daniel Barringer who bought Meteor Crater in Arizona and drilled into it. He originally believed that he was going to find a big chunk of iron and other heavy metals underground which he could mine. His effort at making money failed because he learned that there is no meteor fragment underground --- the meteor vaporizes upon impact --- he drilled quite deep at the center and never found anything. Also, he originally believed that because the crater was almost perfectly round, the meteor must have come in straight down, and that if it had come in at an angle the crater would have been oblong. He learned that this wasn't true either. He did some tests in which he shot a .22LR bullet into a box of clay and he found that you get a round crater at almost every angle (only extremely shallow angles result in a ricochet and an oblong crater). So, Barringer didn't get rich, but he did learn so much about the subject that he acquired some fame as an amateur scientist. I learned all of this by reading books in the giftshop on my visit to Meteor Crater (I can speed-read, so I don't usually pay for books, but I just read them through while browsing in bookstores). The only successful mining done at Meteor Crater was by an old guy who prospected the area looking for diamonds. Apparently when the meteor hit it turned graphite into small diamonds that were then flung away for many miles. The old guy apparently got murdered though --- he was well-known to be out there alone prospecting in the desert with his donkey and a backpack full of diamonds --- he carried a big pistol when he went into town to sell his diamonds and buy supplies, and he warned everybody to leave him alone, but then he suddenly disappeared (his camp was found by searchers, but there was no trace of him). > As to the cause of 9/11 *not* being caused by airplanes... yes, there is > little evidence of the damage being caused by airplane... other than > videos, pictures and thousands if not millions of witnesses. Low-intelligence people have difficulty understanding that television is not reality. When Rickman says that there are "millions of witnesses" he is referring to the millions of people who saw the videos on television. This is moronic! Most if not all of the videos shown on the nightly news are faked --- this is done routinely every day of every year on every channel --- the 9/11/2001 videos were blatantly faked; they're not even close to being realistic. The television videos look cartoonish; similar to Wily Coyote going through a brick wall and leaving a coyote-shaped hole. The reality is that an airplane is mostly made out of aluminum to make it lightweight, whereas a skyscraper has a framework of steel, so a plane would splatter on the outside (only the engines are heavy enough and solid enough to punch through into the building). Also, the Pentagon was almost certainly hit by a missile. Also, the Pennsylvania crash site was obviously faked because there was no airplane found there (just a trench containing some miscelaneous debris including a few airplane pieces but not from the correct make and model of airplane). I've never actually seen any evidence to support the theory that the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes --- none of the airplanes' wreckage was ever found --- most likely, those airplanes just landed at some airport somewhere and were hidden away, but they never crashed anywhere, which is why there was no airplane wreckage found anywhere. The fact that the videos on television were faked only proves that the videos were faked, although this does imply that the official story about the planes hitting the buildings is untrue. This does not prove that a DEW was used to destroy the buildings; DEW is just one of several theories. Another theory is that the buildings were destroyed using conventional demolition techniques. This seems likely for Building-7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU) but rather unlikely for the Twin Towers --- nobody can say with certainty how the Twin Towers were destroyed. This is a good website discussing the DEW theory in regard to the Twin Towers: http://www.drjudywood.com/ Only a low-grade moron actually believes what his TV tells him to believe. None of this stuff is true! When 9/11/2001 happened, I noticed right away that the rubble was immediately disposed of without anybody being given a chance to examine it. This reminded me of how, after the Oklahoma City bombing, the rubble was immediately disposed of without anybody being given a chance to examine it. That was fake too --- there is no way that a truck load of AMFO blowing up in the street is going to do anything more than break the windows --- you have to actually cut the pillars with shaped charges in order to cause a big building to collapse. Similarly, Osama bin Laden was supposedly killed by Seal-Team-Six, but then he was given a burial at sea without anybody being given a chance to examine the body to determine that it is really him. Really??? We are supposed to believe this??? Television is an insult to human intelligence!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 19:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu3mj4$ad4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51949 |
On 10/17/2016 6:39 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 7:19:58 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: >> On 10/16/2016 9:05 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>> 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. >> >> My dear God! I have not seen such a display of ignorance anywhere >> on the Internet... aside from some Trump supporters. >> >> There is plenty of evidence that the Tunguska Blast was indeed a >> meteor. Just google a bit and you will find researchers think they >> have found a lake made by a fragment with what they suspect is a >> piece of the meteorite beneath the bottom. > > There is no crater at Tunguska. In the center of the blast area the > trees are still standing, but all the trees away from the center are > knocked down and pointing outwards away from the center. This > indicates a blast in the atmosphere. There was a similar effect for > the atomic bombs detonated in the atmosphere over Nagasaki and > Hiroshima --- the buildings directly under the blast remained > standing, but the buildings away from the center were knocked down > pointing outwards away from the center. Hugh, you are misinterpreting the information. Yes, there was an air blast, but that does not preclude a crater and fragment. In fact they believe they have found many fragments of this meteorite, just very tiny ones. None of this precludes a larger fragment from making a crater which is now a lake. >> As to the cause of 9/11 *not* being caused by airplanes... yes, >> there is little evidence of the damage being caused by airplane... >> other than videos, pictures and thousands if not millions of >> witnesses. > > Low-intelligence people have difficulty understanding that television > is not reality. When Rickman says that there are "millions of > witnesses" he is referring to the millions of people who saw the > videos on television. This is moronic! Most if not all of the videos > shown on the nightly news are faked --- this is done routinely every > day of every year on every channel --- the 9/11/2001 videos were > blatantly faked; they're not even close to being realistic. Yes, and the thousands of eyewitnesses are on the CIA payroll. I used to think you just had some mental condition that made you feel persecuted. Now I see it is much wider ranging than that... > The television videos look cartoonish; similar to Wily Coyote going > through a brick wall and leaving a coyote-shaped hole. The reality is > that an airplane is mostly made out of aluminum to make it > lightweight, whereas a skyscraper has a framework of steel, so a > plane would splatter on the outside (only the engines are heavy > enough and solid enough to punch through into the building). Also, > the Pentagon was almost certainly hit by a missile. Also, the > Pennsylvania crash site was obviously faked because there was no > airplane found there (just a trench containing some miscelaneous > debris including a few airplane pieces but not from the correct make > and model of airplane). I've never actually seen any evidence to > support the theory that the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes --- > none of the airplanes' wreckage was ever found --- most likely, those > airplanes just landed at some airport somewhere and were hidden away, > but they never crashed anywhere, which is why there was no airplane > wreckage found anywhere. It is truly mind boggling that you think there was some sort of conspiracy to fake 9/11. If the planes didn't hit the twin towers, where *are* they? Did the CIA force the plane to land in a remote location and execute all the people on board... including the terrorists? > The fact that the videos on television were faked only proves that > the videos were faked, although this does imply that the official > story about the planes hitting the buildings is untrue. This does not > prove that a DEW was used to destroy the buildings; DEW is just one > of several theories. Another theory is that the buildings were > destroyed using conventional demolition techniques. This seems likely > for Building-7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU) but > rather unlikely for the Twin Towers --- nobody can say with certainty > how the Twin Towers were destroyed. > > This is a good website discussing the DEW theory in regard to the > Twin Towers: http://www.drjudywood.com/ > > Only a low-grade moron actually believes what his TV tells him to > believe. None of this stuff is true! When 9/11/2001 happened, I > noticed right away that the rubble was immediately disposed of > without anybody being given a chance to examine it. This reminded me > of how, after the Oklahoma City bombing, the rubble was immediately > disposed of without anybody being given a chance to examine it. That > was fake too --- there is no way that a truck load of AMFO blowing up > in the street is going to do anything more than break the windows --- > you have to actually cut the pillars with shaped charges in order to > cause a big building to collapse. Similarly, Osama bin Laden was > supposedly killed by Seal-Team-Six, but then he was given a burial at > sea without anybody being given a chance to examine the body to > determine that it is really him. Really??? We are supposed to believe > this??? Television is an insult to human intelligence! If we didn't kill Osama bin Laden, why wouldn't the terrorist community be bragging about it? Did we make a deal with him that if he lies low we would stop hunting him? So much ignorance... -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 18:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c00df98-7364-4a96-9b03-446831c53eee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51953 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 4:24:41 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > On 10/17/2016 6:39 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > the 9/11/2001 videos were > > blatantly faked; they're not even close to being realistic. > > Yes, and the thousands of eyewitnesses are on the CIA payroll. I used > to think you just had some mental condition that made you feel > persecuted. Now I see it is much wider ranging than that... I never mentioned the CIA. There aren't thousands of witnesses anyway; there are a few dozen. Some research has been done on them, and most are on the payroll of the television stations --- they are actors pretending to be on-the-spot witnesses. > > I've never actually seen any evidence to > > support the theory that the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes --- > > none of the airplanes' wreckage was ever found --- most likely, those > > airplanes just landed at some airport somewhere and were hidden away, > > but they never crashed anywhere, which is why there was no airplane > > wreckage found anywhere. > > It is truly mind boggling that you think there was some sort of > conspiracy to fake 9/11. If the planes didn't hit the twin towers, > where *are* they? Well, that is the big question --- where *are* the airplanes --- there was no wreckage found at any of the supposed crash sites. I find it truly mind-boggling that people can believe that there were plane crashes when there is no wreckage, no black-box, no physical evidence whatsoever --- there is nothing except eye-witness accounts from people of very dubious credibility (the television stations were interviewing their own employees who supposedly just happened to be present at the time of the crashes and saw it all). > Did the CIA force the plane to land in a remote > location and execute all the people on board... including the terrorists? Why do you keep saying the CIA? That is rather speculative. I'm not saying that the CIA wasn't involved --- I think they were --- but they aren't capable of pulling something like this off entirely on their own. I think Dick Cheney was the mastermind of 9/11-2001 --- he is the most likely suspect. But, yes --- the planes landed somewhere and everybody on board was executed --- I've never seen any evidence to support the claim that the planes were in the air at the time of the Twin Towers' destruction. The planes were supposedly hijacked and in the air for over 45 minutes, yet they weren't intercepted by the Air Force or noticed by NORAD, which is unrealistic --- they weren't in the air at all. > If we didn't kill Osama bin Laden, why wouldn't the terrorist community > be bragging about it? Did we make a deal with him that if he lies low > we would stop hunting him? I think Osama bin Laden has been dead for quite some time. He most likely was killed in the bombing of those Tora Bora tunnels in the immediate aftermath of 9/11/2001. All of those videos of him since that time are fake --- they were made by actors pretending to be him. I think Osama bin Laden works for the CIA. He had a pretty cozy relationship with America. For example, after the Khobar Towers were bombed, bin Laden construction got the contract to rebuild them. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi also had pretty cozy relationships with America, maintaining profitable economic ties with America even when they were supposedly mortal enemies of America. > So much ignorance... I agree that there is a lot of ignorance... People believe what they are told to believe. There was no plane wreckage ever found from any of the supposed 9/11/2001 plane crashes, yet people believe that planes crashed. The pillars at the Murrah Federal Building were cut with shaped charges attached to them, yet people believe that a truckload of fertilizer and fuel-oil in the street knocked down the building. Elizabeth Rather has never posted any Forth code on comp.lang.forth except for code snippets copied directly out of the "Starting Forth" book, yet people believe that she is the "leading expert" on Forth. Osama bin Laden's body has never been produced for identification, yet people believe that he was killed by Seal-Team-Six (all of whom died mysteriously afterward, so we can't ask them). People believe that the nightly news represents reality, but it is just images on a television screen provided for entertainment. It is often said that people were superstitious in the Middle Ages --- actually, superstition is much more common today than it was then --- people routinely believe in things today for which they have no evidence whatsoever, and for which common sense would indicate are not realistic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 02:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu4f69$ruj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51966 |
On 10/17/2016 9:21 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 4:24:41 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: >> On 10/17/2016 6:39 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>> the 9/11/2001 videos were blatantly faked; they're not even close >>> to being realistic. >> >> Yes, and the thousands of eyewitnesses are on the CIA payroll. I >> used to think you just had some mental condition that made you feel >> persecuted. Now I see it is much wider ranging than that... > > I never mentioned the CIA. No I said it as an example of how absurd your statements are sounding. You might as well have talked about the CIA being involved or aliens. > There aren't thousands of witnesses anyway; there are a few dozen. > Some research has been done on them, and most are on the payroll of > the television stations --- they are actors pretending to be > on-the-spot witnesses. A few dozen??? You have to be kidding!!! Only a few were actually looking when the first plane hit, but hundreds if not thousands of people saw first hand the second plane hit. That is why there are so many photos of it... not to mention the many millions who saw it, LIVE on television. Or are you suggesting the images being broadcast that day were not live, but some movie or CGI? If you are in denialist mode there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. >>> I've never actually seen any evidence to support the theory that >>> the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes --- none of the airplanes' >>> wreckage was ever found --- most likely, those airplanes just >>> landed at some airport somewhere and were hidden away, but they >>> never crashed anywhere, which is why there was no airplane >>> wreckage found anywhere. >> >> It is truly mind boggling that you think there was some sort of >> conspiracy to fake 9/11. If the planes didn't hit the twin towers, >> where *are* they? > > Well, that is the big question --- where *are* the airplanes --- > there was no wreckage found at any of the supposed crash sites. Not true. There was "little" wreckage found. The PA crash has lots of debris from the plane. But then there are many kook web sites which say otherwise paying no attention to the facts. > I find it truly mind-boggling that people can believe that there were > plane crashes when there is no wreckage, no black-box, no physical > evidence whatsoever --- there is nothing except eye-witness accounts > from people of very dubious credibility (the television stations were > interviewing their own employees who supposedly just happened to be > present at the time of the crashes and saw it all). I can't believe anyone can think there were no plane crashes! Even if there was some conspiracy to make the world thing 9/11 happen it makes no sense there would be no planes. The easiest way to make it look like planes hit the WTC would be to fly planes into the WTC! Anything else would have to be mind mindbogglingly complex and impossible to pull off. Only a conspiracy kook would believe the planes didn't really crash into the WTC. >> Did the CIA force the plane to land in a remote location and >> execute all the people on board... including the terrorists? > > Why do you keep saying the CIA? That is rather speculative. I'm not > saying that the CIA wasn't involved --- I think they were --- but > they aren't capable of pulling something like this off entirely on > their own. That's because no one is capable of pulling this off. But you didn't answer the question, where are the planes and the people? Were they killed and buried in a trench somewhere? Maybe in PA? > I think Dick Cheney was the mastermind of 9/11-2001 --- he is the > most likely suspect. > > But, yes --- the planes landed somewhere and everybody on board was > executed --- I've never seen any evidence to support the claim that > the planes were in the air at the time of the Twin Towers' > destruction. You don't believe the planes hit the WTC because you have seen no evidence of it, YET, you believe the planes were landed somewhere and the people executed... even though there is no evidence. The single biggest reason why this is not fake is because it would be so much easier to make it happen for real than to stage it all!!! > The planes were supposedly hijacked and in the air for over 45 > minutes, yet they weren't intercepted by the Air Force or noticed by > NORAD, which is unrealistic --- they weren't in the air at all. > >> If we didn't kill Osama bin Laden, why wouldn't the terrorist >> community be bragging about it? Did we make a deal with him that >> if he lies low we would stop hunting him? > > I think Osama bin Laden has been dead for quite some time. He most > likely was killed in the bombing of those Tora Bora tunnels in the > immediate aftermath of 9/11/2001. All of those videos of him since > that time are fake --- they were made by actors pretending to be > him. > > I think Osama bin Laden works for the CIA. He had a pretty cozy > relationship with America. For example, after the Khobar Towers were > bombed, bin Laden construction got the contract to rebuild them. > Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi also had pretty cozy relationships > with America, maintaining profitable economic ties with America even > when they were supposedly mortal enemies of America. Ok, I give up. You believe all this without evidence because it makes sense in you addled mind. You really do need help. I'm not just saying that to score points or to sound cool on the Internet. Hugh, you have a very serious problem and should seek counseling. You could be much happier if you did. >> So much ignorance... > > I agree that there is a lot of ignorance... > > People believe what they are told to believe. There was no plane > wreckage ever found from any of the supposed 9/11/2001 plane crashes, > yet people believe that planes crashed. The pillars at the Murrah > Federal Building were cut with shaped charges attached to them, yet > people believe that a truckload of fertilizer and fuel-oil in the > street knocked down the building. Elizabeth Rather has never posted > any Forth code on comp.lang.forth except for code snippets copied > directly out of the "Starting Forth" book, yet people believe that > she is the "leading expert" on Forth. Osama bin Laden's body has > never been produced for identification, yet people believe that he > was killed by Seal-Team-Six (all of whom died mysteriously afterward, > so we can't ask them). People believe that the nightly news > represents reality, but it is just images on a television screen > provided for entertainment. > > It is often said that people were superstitious in the Middle Ages > --- actually, superstition is much more common today than it was then > --- people routinely believe in things today for which they have no > evidence whatsoever, and for which common sense would indicate are > not realistic. Yes, words so true... at least for some people. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web