Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> I have not seen the video,
> You should.
>

Yes -- I should have watched it first.  It does not look like parallax.  It
looks like a hoax.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:00 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

This big string also appears somewhere in our random
> string, hence our random string is a perfect ToE.
>

This is the assumption I'm querying.  I'm not saying it's incorrect, I'm
just wondering whether it's certain that it is correct.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

Sorry, I've only been skimming the posts in the thread. In the back of
my mind I've been wondering how the two space rocks
could be related even though they were headed in almost in opposite
directions. Your talk of spacebased kinetic energy weapons got me
thinkingIf a space rock fragments from an explosion it could
result in two rocks moving in opposite directions. Alternatively, the
two space rocks and their trajectories could be the result of an
improbable collision in recent years.

Harry


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> Your interpretation of what I've written renders me speechless.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
>>
>> So is it your thesis that the russian meteor was a fragment blown off
>> the larger meteor?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>> > Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons
>> > with
>> > precise targeting, try "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein.
>> >
>> > In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over
>> > Gen
>> > Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and
>> > Vajk.  He had written the foreword to Graham's book "High Frontier"
>> > about
>> > weaponizing nonterrestrial resources.
>> >
>> > Graham was a key figure in Reagan's "Star Wars" Strategic Defense
>> > Initiative.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with
> precise targeting, try "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein.

Yeah, but they didn't call it "the foot".  :-)

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

Your interpretation of what I've written renders me speechless.


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> So is it your thesis that the russian meteor was a fragment blown off
> the larger meteor?
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> > Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons
> with
> > precise targeting, try "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein.
> >
> > In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over
> Gen
> > Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and
> > Vajk.  He had written the foreword to Graham's book "High Frontier" about
> > weaponizing nonterrestrial resources.
> >
> > Graham was a key figure in Reagan's "Star Wars" Strategic Defense
> > Initiative.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

So is it your thesis that the russian meteor was a fragment blown off
the larger meteor?

Harry

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with
> precise targeting, try "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein.
>
> In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over Gen
> Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and
> Vajk.  He had written the foreword to Graham's book "High Frontier" about
> weaponizing nonterrestrial resources.
>
> Graham was a key figure in Reagan's "Star Wars" Strategic Defense
> Initiative.
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Terry, thanks for clearing it up.  Whatever was steering that last
meteoroid was a very bad driver.


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with
> precise targeting, try "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein.
>
> In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over Gen
> Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and
> Vajk.  He had written the foreword to Graham's book "High Frontier" about
> weaponizing nonterrestrial resources.
>
> Graham was a key figure in Reagan's "Star Wars" Strategic Defense
> Initiative.
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with
precise targeting, try "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein.

In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over Gen
Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and
Vajk.  He had written the foreword to Graham's book "High Frontier" about
weaponizing nonterrestrial resources.

Graham was a key figure in Reagan's "Star Wars" Strategic Defense
Initiative.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Terry Blanton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

"The message is simply this:  We have sufficient control of the asteroid's
little brother that you might be wise to consider the possibility that we
have control of the asteroid."

I would like our governments first to get a handle on identifying, tracking
and redirecting/destroying them before they do damage to the Earth and
injure, kill and destroy.  Then I guess weaponizing them as you theorize,
like we do everything else could be considered...


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:24 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Actually, no, my theory is still that the mass for the kinetic energy
> weapon we saw over Russia was of non-terrestrial origin and this is
> consistent with Pike's claim that launch costs for "God's Rods" are too
> high.
>
> The economics of space-based civil engineering and industrialization, such
> as solar power satellites, have been known to be launch cost limited since
> the early 70s.  The solution was also worked out then:  use non-terrestrial
> materials.
>
> During the subsequent energy crisis under Carter and then on to the Reagan
> administration there were multiple studies of solar power satellites that
> proceeded to proclaim them uneconomic for the same reason that Pike
> declared "God's Rods" uneconomic:  launch costs.  However, every one of
> these "studies" failed to provide any damning critique of the studies that
> had shown non-terrestrial materials was an economic end-run.  Why the
> persistent stupidity in the face of obvious needs for energy and, more
> generally, environmental pressures on the biosphere of an expanding
> technological civilization.
>
> Certainly, we may invoke stupidity as adequate explanation.  On the other
> hand they may have been "dumb like a fox" during a period when Reagan's
> "Star Wars" project was investing huge amounts of money in space-based
> weapons systems.
>
> It is worth noting that during "Star Wars" I was working a the company
> most likely to be involved in the development of space-based kinetic energy
> weapons:  Science Applications International Corporation.  I frequently
> received in my mail box there mail addressed to the prior occupant of my
> office, Peter 
> Vajk.
>  Click through his name for a delightful coincidence.
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:59 AM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>
>> Wow, I guess I proved your theory and my homework is done!
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>>> Oh now this is highly amusing.
>>>
>>> In response to my request for a single URL to an "internet government
>>> conspiracy theory" that was more plausible than my theory of a classified
>>> military program based on widely acknowledged science, technology and
>>> economics, ChemE provided a link to a Popular Science blog.  Unfortunately,
>>> that link was not to one theory, but to several including such "plausible"
>>> theories as Mayan prophecies.
>>>
>>> However, one of the links was to "internet kook" Rense.com where someone
>>> mentioned a space-based kinetic energy weapon called "God's Rods" --
>>> however, in addition to providing no cites for the referenced weapon
>>> system, there was no mention of the asteroid fly-by "coincidence" in the
>>> Rense.com "internet government conspiracy theory".  You can track it down
>>> if you like.  Prima facia, it isn't interesting if for no other reason than
>>> they didn't account for the asteroidal "coincidence".
>>>
>>> The plausibility of a space-based kinetic energy weapon, itself, didn't
>>> seem outlandish so I set about searching for mainstream press sources on
>>> "God's Rods" prior to recent events.
>>>
>>> Lo and behold, Popular Science, source of ChemE's "debunking" article
>>> was, itself the first source I found dating back to 2004!
>>>
>>> http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god
>>>
>>> If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable
>>> origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching
>>> heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket
>>> technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to
>>> making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the
>>> rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the
>>> rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the
>>> fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at
>>> any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A
>>> better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the
>>> rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough
>>> during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact.
>>> ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth,
>>> would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem
>>> to understand the downside of space 

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

Actually, no, my theory is still that the mass for the kinetic energy
weapon we saw over Russia was of non-terrestrial origin and this is
consistent with Pike's claim that launch costs for "God's Rods" are too
high.

The economics of space-based civil engineering and industrialization, such
as solar power satellites, have been known to be launch cost limited since
the early 70s.  The solution was also worked out then:  use non-terrestrial
materials.

During the subsequent energy crisis under Carter and then on to the Reagan
administration there were multiple studies of solar power satellites that
proceeded to proclaim them uneconomic for the same reason that Pike
declared "God's Rods" uneconomic:  launch costs.  However, every one of
these "studies" failed to provide any damning critique of the studies that
had shown non-terrestrial materials was an economic end-run.  Why the
persistent stupidity in the face of obvious needs for energy and, more
generally, environmental pressures on the biosphere of an expanding
technological civilization.

Certainly, we may invoke stupidity as adequate explanation.  On the other
hand they may have been "dumb like a fox" during a period when Reagan's
"Star Wars" project was investing huge amounts of money in space-based
weapons systems.

It is worth noting that during "Star Wars" I was working a the company most
likely to be involved in the development of space-based kinetic energy
weapons:  Science Applications International Corporation.  I frequently
received in my mail box there mail addressed to the prior occupant of my
office, Peter 
Vajk.
 Click through his name for a delightful coincidence.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:59 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Wow, I guess I proved your theory and my homework is done!
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Oh now this is highly amusing.
>>
>> In response to my request for a single URL to an "internet government
>> conspiracy theory" that was more plausible than my theory of a classified
>> military program based on widely acknowledged science, technology and
>> economics, ChemE provided a link to a Popular Science blog.  Unfortunately,
>> that link was not to one theory, but to several including such "plausible"
>> theories as Mayan prophecies.
>>
>> However, one of the links was to "internet kook" Rense.com where someone
>> mentioned a space-based kinetic energy weapon called "God's Rods" --
>> however, in addition to providing no cites for the referenced weapon
>> system, there was no mention of the asteroid fly-by "coincidence" in the
>> Rense.com "internet government conspiracy theory".  You can track it down
>> if you like.  Prima facia, it isn't interesting if for no other reason than
>> they didn't account for the asteroidal "coincidence".
>>
>> The plausibility of a space-based kinetic energy weapon, itself, didn't
>> seem outlandish so I set about searching for mainstream press sources on
>> "God's Rods" prior to recent events.
>>
>> Lo and behold, Popular Science, source of ChemE's "debunking" article
>> was, itself the first source I found dating back to 2004!
>>
>> http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god
>>
>> If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable
>> origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching
>> heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket
>> technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to
>> making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the
>> rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the
>> rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the
>> fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at
>> any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A
>> better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the
>> rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough
>> during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact.
>> ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth,
>> would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem
>> to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high
>> costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But
>> I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right
>> now.”
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:35 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> We await with bated breath your homework.
>>>
>>> I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
>>> various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
>>> typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.
>>>
>>> The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Wow, I guess I proved your theory and my homework is done!


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Oh now this is highly amusing.
>
> In response to my request for a single URL to an "internet government
> conspiracy theory" that was more plausible than my theory of a classified
> military program based on widely acknowledged science, technology and
> economics, ChemE provided a link to a Popular Science blog.  Unfortunately,
> that link was not to one theory, but to several including such "plausible"
> theories as Mayan prophecies.
>
> However, one of the links was to "internet kook" Rense.com where someone
> mentioned a space-based kinetic energy weapon called "God's Rods" --
> however, in addition to providing no cites for the referenced weapon
> system, there was no mention of the asteroid fly-by "coincidence" in the
> Rense.com "internet government conspiracy theory".  You can track it down
> if you like.  Prima facia, it isn't interesting if for no other reason than
> they didn't account for the asteroidal "coincidence".
>
> The plausibility of a space-based kinetic energy weapon, itself, didn't
> seem outlandish so I set about searching for mainstream press sources on
> "God's Rods" prior to recent events.
>
> Lo and behold, Popular Science, source of ChemE's "debunking" article was,
> itself the first source I found dating back to 2004!
>
> http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god
>
> If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable
> origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching
> heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket
> technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to
> making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the
> rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the
> rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the
> fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at
> any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A
> better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the
> rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough
> during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact.
> ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth,
> would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem
> to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high
> costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But
> I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right
> now.”
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:35 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> We await with bated breath your homework.
>>
>> I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
>> various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
>> typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.
>>
>> The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory
>> is this uncited sentence: "Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
>> evidence of a new weapon."  and the only possible backup for this sentence
>> is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
>> meteor.
>>
>> Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
>> trolls.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>>> Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.
>>>
>>> Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
>>> with the Mayans based on its merits.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.

 A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
 prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
 (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
 theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
 classified work as "conspiratorial".

 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:

 Ok,

 The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site

 The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
 nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
 Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
 it, although they found fragments around the hole.

 The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
 tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.

 Your answer:

 http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories



 On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

 

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

Oh now this is highly amusing.

In response to my request for a single URL to an "internet government
conspiracy theory" that was more plausible than my theory of a classified
military program based on widely acknowledged science, technology and
economics, ChemE provided a link to a Popular Science blog.  Unfortunately,
that link was not to one theory, but to several including such "plausible"
theories as Mayan prophecies.

However, one of the links was to "internet kook" Rense.com where someone
mentioned a space-based kinetic energy weapon called "God's Rods" --
however, in addition to providing no cites for the referenced weapon
system, there was no mention of the asteroid fly-by "coincidence" in the
Rense.com "internet government conspiracy theory".  You can track it down
if you like.  Prima facia, it isn't interesting if for no other reason than
they didn't account for the asteroidal "coincidence".

The plausibility of a space-based kinetic energy weapon, itself, didn't
seem outlandish so I set about searching for mainstream press sources on
"God's Rods" prior to recent events.

Lo and behold, Popular Science, source of ChemE's "debunking" article was,
itself the first source I found dating back to 2004!

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god

If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable
origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching
heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket
technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to
making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the
rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the
rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the
fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at
any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A
better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the
rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough
during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact.
ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth,
would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem
to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high
costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But
I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right
now.”




On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:35 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> We await with bated breath your homework.
>
> I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
> various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
> typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.
>
> The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is
> this uncited sentence: "Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
> evidence of a new weapon."  and the only possible backup for this sentence
> is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
> meteor.
>
> Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
> trolls.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
>> Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.
>>
>> Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
>> with the Mayans based on its merits.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>>> No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.
>>>
>>> A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
>>> prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
>>> (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
>>> theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
>>> classified work as "conspiratorial".
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok,
>>>
>>> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>>>
>>> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
>>> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
>>> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
>>> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>>>
>>> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
>>> tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>>>
>>> Your answer:
>>>
>>> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the
>>> URL to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>>>
>>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>>>
>>> But you must then search for the subheading:
>>>
>>> Typical Partic

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Actually I have 300 pages of homework and research on my blog, I just did
not submit it to you.  I am actually beginning to like your theory though,
unfortunately the evidence is locked deep within the government vaults
along with other evidenced files such as:

"The government killed Kennedy"
"Obama's Real Birth Certificate"
"Chemtrails"
"HAARP induced weather"

and many others which can be found at this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

So it is very hard for me to falsify your theory and as far as I can tell
the only predictive use for it is to predict more government conspiracy
theories.

Love your creativity though man.



On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> The science, technology and even economics are all published in AIAA peer
> reviewed journals in papers whose arithmetic has withstood the test of
> decades.  Limited by intellectual property rights, they are now openly
> advertised in the prospectus for Planetary Resources.
>
> What I'm talking about isn't even as secret as was the Manhattan project,
> where significant technical problems involving isotope separation, critical
> mass and implosion systems had to be developed in secret.  The military
> value of asteroid husbandry is at least as great as the military value of
> nuclear weaponry.
>
> You, on the other hand, have shown no homework.  Only oracular rhetoric
> regarding everything from hurricanes to sinkholes -- and let us not forget
> that you intersperse these comments with "joking" asides regarding a
> variety of other phenomena that are as substantiated as your "serious"
> claims, so that it appears your entire presence here may be one big joke on
> vortex-l.
>
> Is it?
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:16 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
>> " could actually keep secret a project that was on the order of a few
>> tens of billions of dollars -- but there are reasons to believe this level
>> of secrecy is within the capability of the military."
>>
>> Right, your theory is locked within secret government documents.  Mine is
>> open to falsify, with some fairly outrageous claims.
>>
>> Label it trolling or whatever you would like.  Many on vortex are making
>> non-peer reviewed claims, many with merit.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>>> Clearly the "generator" at the back end is meant to carry clubs.
>>> http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/msl.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Harry Veeder 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton 
>>> wrote:
>>> >> Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

The science, technology and even economics are all published in AIAA peer
reviewed journals in papers whose arithmetic has withstood the test of
decades.  Limited by intellectual property rights, they are now openly
advertised in the prospectus for Planetary Resources.

What I'm talking about isn't even as secret as was the Manhattan project,
where significant technical problems involving isotope separation, critical
mass and implosion systems had to be developed in secret.  The military
value of asteroid husbandry is at least as great as the military value of
nuclear weaponry.

You, on the other hand, have shown no homework.  Only oracular rhetoric
regarding everything from hurricanes to sinkholes -- and let us not forget
that you intersperse these comments with "joking" asides regarding a
variety of other phenomena that are as substantiated as your "serious"
claims, so that it appears your entire presence here may be one big joke on
vortex-l.

Is it?

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:16 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> " could actually keep secret a project that was on the order of a few
> tens of billions of dollars -- but there are reasons to believe this level
> of secrecy is within the capability of the military."
>
> Right, your theory is locked within secret government documents.  Mine is
> open to falsify, with some fairly outrageous claims.
>
> Label it trolling or whatever you would like.  Many on vortex are making
> non-peer reviewed claims, many with merit.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> Clearly the "generator" at the back end is meant to carry clubs.
>> http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/msl.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Harry Veeder 
>> wrote:
>> > Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton 
>> wrote:
>> >> Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?
>> >>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

" could actually keep secret a project that was on the order of a few tens
of billions of dollars -- but there are reasons to believe this level of
secrecy is within the capability of the military."

Right, your theory is locked within secret government documents.  Mine is
open to falsify, with some fairly outrageous claims.

Label it trolling or whatever you would like.  Many on vortex are making
non-peer reviewed claims, many with merit.


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> Clearly the "generator" at the back end is meant to carry clubs.
> http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/msl.jpg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Harry Veeder 
> wrote:
> > Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton 
> wrote:
> >> Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?
> >>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

Clearly the "generator" at the back end is meant to carry clubs.
http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/msl.jpg



On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>> Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?
>>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

You've been trolling vortex-l with our dark matter rhetoric, shoehorning
just about anything of mild interest without so much as a single
calculation that could be peer reviewed that even in a post-hoc analysis
could be seen as validating your rhetoric.

While its true I don't speak for everyone, I'm certain that among the many
who have fallen silent in response to your constant trolls there are a few
who actually are open minded enough to look at something resembling real
work from you.  I'm among them actually, which is why I'm not simply silent.

As far as my theory goes, I've already stated but to elaborate:

The sources for asteroid mining are numerous, well established AIAA
publications spanning decades and including current business plans by a
company backed by major silicon valley venture financiers:  Planetary
Resources.  The sensor technologies are likewise very old and mature
although the specific technologies cited by Planetary Resources have been
under deep black cover for decades with occasional glimpses leaked.  The
least plausible aspect of my theory is that anyone could actually keep
secret a project that was on the order of a few tens of billions of dollars
-- but there are reasons to believe this level of secrecy is within the
capability of the military.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:32 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Thanks for keeping me awake I drove 10 hours today.  Stalemate is OK with
> me.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>
>> Don't speak for everyone, you are the only unaccredited Bowery U
>> professor requesting homework while you advance more government conspiracy
>> theories.
>>
>> Dark energy/vacuum energy/ZPE whatever you want to call it makes up 95%
>> of the universe, it is about time we figure out where it is.  Where do you
>> think it is? I think it is creating severe low pressure systems in our
>> atmosphere through vacuum and the Earth is orbiting into higher energy
>> particles all of the time.  These high energy quantum particles also help
>> explain quantum gravity.
>>
>> I don't think we live in a nice smooth constant entropy universe, plenty
>> of ripples right here on Earth.
>>
>> What is the evidence for your theory?  I am open to evidence.  Do you
>> have secret government documents?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> We await with bated breath your homework.
>>
>> I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
>> various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
>> typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.
>>
>> The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory
>> is this uncited sentence: "Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
>> evidence of a new weapon."  and the only possible backup for this sentence
>> is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
>> meteor.
>>
>> Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
>> trolls.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.
>>
>> Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
>> with the Mayans based on its merits.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.
>>
>> A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
>> prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
>> (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
>> theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
>> classified work as "conspiratorial".
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Ok,
>>
>> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>>
>> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
>> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
>> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
>> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>>
>> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
>> tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>>
>> Your answer:
>>
>> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
>> to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>>
>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>>
>> But you must then search for the subheading:
>>
>> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>>
>> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
>> these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>>
>> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
>> "internet government consp

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Thanks for keeping me awake I drove 10 hours today.  Stalemate is OK with
me.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:

> Don't speak for everyone, you are the only unaccredited Bowery U professor
> requesting homework while you advance more government conspiracy theories.
>
> Dark energy/vacuum energy/ZPE whatever you want to call it makes up 95% of
> the universe, it is about time we figure out where it is.  Where do you
> think it is? I think it is creating severe low pressure systems in our
> atmosphere through vacuum and the Earth is orbiting into higher energy
> particles all of the time.  These high energy quantum particles also help
> explain quantum gravity.
>
> I don't think we live in a nice smooth constant entropy universe, plenty
> of ripples right here on Earth.
>
> What is the evidence for your theory?  I am open to evidence.  Do you have
> secret government documents?
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> We await with bated breath your homework.
>
> I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
> various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
> typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.
>
> The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is
> this uncited sentence: "Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
> evidence of a new weapon."  and the only possible backup for this sentence
> is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
> meteor.
>
> Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
> trolls.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.
>
> Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
> with the Mayans based on its merits.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.
>
> A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
> prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
> (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
> theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
> classified work as "conspiratorial".
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Ok,
>
> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>
> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>
> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons.
>   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>
> Your answer:
>
> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
> to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>
> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>
> But you must then search for the subheading:
>
> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>
> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
> these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>
> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
> "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
> remains unanswered even in part.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Darkmattersalot.com
> on the menu
>
> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Don't speak for everyone, you are the only unaccredited Bowery U professor
requesting homework while you advance more government conspiracy theories.

Dark energy/vacuum energy/ZPE whatever you want to call it makes up 95% of
the universe, it is about time we figure out where it is.  Where do you
think it is? I think it is creating severe low pressure systems in our
atmosphere through vacuum and the Earth is orbiting into higher energy
particles all of the time.  These high energy quantum particles also help
explain quantum gravity.

I don't think we live in a nice smooth constant entropy universe, plenty of
ripples right here on Earth.

What is the evidence for your theory?  I am open to evidence.  Do you have
secret government documents?




On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

> We await with bated breath your homework.
>
> I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
> various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
> typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.
>
> The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is
> this uncited sentence: "Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
> evidence of a new weapon."  and the only possible backup for this sentence
> is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
> meteor.
>
> Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
> trolls.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.
>>
>> Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
>> with the Mayans based on its merits.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>>> No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.
>>>
>>> A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
>>> prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
>>> (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
>>> theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
>>> classified work as "conspiratorial".
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok,
>>>
>>> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>>>
>>> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
>>> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
>>> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
>>> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>>>
>>> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
>>> tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>>>
>>> Your answer:
>>>
>>> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the
>>> URL to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>>>
>>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>>>
>>> But you must then search for the subheading:
>>>
>>> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>>>
>>> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application
>>> of these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>>>
>>> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
>>> "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
>>> remains unanswered even in part.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> Darkmattersalot.com
>>> on the menu
>>>
>>> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
>>> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
>>> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
>>> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
>>> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
>>> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>>>
>>> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
>>> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
>>> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
>>> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show
>>> multi-body problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I
>>> have also been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure
>>> systems.  I am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and
>>> fitting it to two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional
>>> patent filed.
>>>
>>> All you have is an

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

We await with bated breath your homework.

I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.

The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is
this uncited sentence: "Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
evidence of a new weapon."  and the only possible backup for this sentence
is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
meteor.

Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
trolls.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.
>
> Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
> with the Mayans based on its merits.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.
>>
>> A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
>> prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
>> (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
>> theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
>> classified work as "conspiratorial".
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Ok,
>>
>> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>>
>> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
>> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
>> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
>> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>>
>> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
>> tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>>
>> Your answer:
>>
>> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
>> to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>>
>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>>
>> But you must then search for the subheading:
>>
>> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>>
>> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
>> these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>>
>> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
>> "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
>> remains unanswered even in part.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Darkmattersalot.com
>> on the menu
>>
>> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
>> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
>> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
>> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
>> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
>> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>>
>> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
>> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
>> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
>> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
>> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
>> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
>> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
>> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>>
>> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
>> all over the Internet.
>>
>> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
>> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
>> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
>> refuse to be forthcoming.
>>
>> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Wow, I
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Terry Blanton]

Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.

Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
with the Mayans based on its merits.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

> No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.
>
> A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
> prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
> (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
> theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
> classified work as "conspiratorial".
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Ok,
>
> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>
> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>
> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons.
>   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>
> Your answer:
>
> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
> to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>
> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>
> But you must then search for the subheading:
>
> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>
> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
> these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>
> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
> "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
> remains unanswered even in part.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Darkmattersalot.com
> on the menu
>
> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>
> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>
> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
> all over the Internet.
>
> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
> refuse to be forthcoming.
>
> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Wow, I
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.

A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
(singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
classified work as "conspiratorial".

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Ok,
>
> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>
> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>
> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons.
>   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>
> Your answer:
>
> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
>> to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>>
>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>>
>> But you must then search for the subheading:
>>
>> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>>
>> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
>> these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>>
>> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
>> "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
>> remains unanswered even in part.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Darkmattersalot.com
>> on the menu
>>
>> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
>> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
>> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
>> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
>> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
>> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>>
>> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
>> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
>> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
>> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
>> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
>> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
>> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
>> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>>
>> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
>> all over the Internet.
>>
>> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
>> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
>> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
>> refuse to be forthcoming.
>>
>> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
>> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
>> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
>> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
>> governments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
>> for the "coincidence":
>>
>> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
>> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
>> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
>> picture
>>  should
>> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
>> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
>> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
>> decades -- including the military.
>>
>> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
>> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
>> a decades-long maturation p

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Ok,

The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site

The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
it, although they found fragments around the hole.

The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons.
  Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.

Your answer:
http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories



On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
> to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>
> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>
> But you must then search for the subheading:
>
> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>
> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
> these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>
> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
> "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
> remains unanswered even in part.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Darkmattersalot.com
> on the menu
>
> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>
> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>
> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
> all over the Internet.
>
> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
> refuse to be forthcoming.
>
> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
> governments.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
> for the "coincidence":
>
> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
> picture
>  should
> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
> decades -- including the military.
>
> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
> a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
> unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
> necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
> artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
> artificially controlled meteor:
>
> If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
> prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
> precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
> is known -- or at least admittedly known -- b

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):

http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/

But you must then search for the subheading:

Typical Particle Orbit Calculations

The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.

My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
"internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
remains unanswered even in part.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Darkmattersalot.com
> on the menu
>
> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
>> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
>> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
>> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
>> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>>
>> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
>> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
>> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
>> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
>> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
>> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
>> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
>> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>>
>> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
>> all over the Internet.
>>
>> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
>> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
>> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
>> refuse to be forthcoming.
>>
>> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
>> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
>> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
>> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
>> governments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
>> for the "coincidence":
>>
>> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
>> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
>> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
>> picture
>>  should
>> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
>> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
>> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
>> decades -- including the military.
>>
>> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
>> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
>> a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
>> unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
>> necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
>> artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
>> artificially controlled meteor:
>>
>> If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
>> prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
>> precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
>> is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources.  This
>> provides the "opportunity" in that it may have been known many years,
>> possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within
>> GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013.
>>
>> As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were
>> placed on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing
>> chunks of rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could
>> provide sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter
>> earth's atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby gu

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Darkmattersalot.com
on the menu

My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>
> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>
> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
> all over the Internet.
>
> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
> refuse to be forthcoming.
>
> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
> governments.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
> for the "coincidence":
>
> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
> picture
>  should
> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
> decades -- including the military.
>
> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
> a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
> unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
> necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
> artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
> artificially controlled meteor:
>
> If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
> prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
> precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
> is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources.  This
> provides the "opportunity" in that it may have been known many years,
> possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within
> GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013.
>
> As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were placed
> on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing chunks of
> rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could provide
> sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter earth's
> atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no substantial
> serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry would
> approximately coincide with the near pass of the asteroid.
>
> Now for the motive:
>
> In intelligence agencies (yes I have had dealings including working in a
> SCIF for months under daily review by the Joint Chiefs and Jasons on an
> 'imminent nuclear war' priority project, so I do know a little) there is
> something called a "signature" which provides a "plausible deniability"
> cover to the mundanes while ensuring the message gets through to the
> opposing side's intelligence agencies.  Such a statistical anomaly
> involving potential weaponry fits the bill of a "signature
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.

On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
explanation of the observe phenomena.


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>
> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
> all over the Internet.
>
> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
>> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
>> refuse to be forthcoming.
>>
>> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
>> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
>> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
>> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
>> governments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
>> for the "coincidence":
>>
>> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
>> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
>> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
>> picture
>>  should
>> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
>> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
>> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
>> decades -- including the military.
>>
>> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
>> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
>> a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
>> unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
>> necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
>> artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
>> artificially controlled meteor:
>>
>> If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
>> prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
>> precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
>> is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources.  This
>> provides the "opportunity" in that it may have been known many years,
>> possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within
>> GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013.
>>
>> As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were
>> placed on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing
>> chunks of rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could
>> provide sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter
>> earth's atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no
>> substantial serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry
>> would approximately coincide with the near pass of the asteroid.
>>
>> Now for the motive:
>>
>> In intelligence agencies (yes I have had dealings including working in a
>> SCIF for months under daily review by the Joint Chiefs and Jasons on an
>> 'imminent nuclear war' priority project, so I do know a little) there is
>> something called a "signature" which provides a "plausible deniability"
>> cover to the mundanes while ensuring the message gets through to the
>> opposing side's intelligence agencies.  Such a statistical anomaly
>> involving potential weaponry fits the bill of a "signature".  The message
>> is simply this:  We have sufficient control of the asteroid's little
>> brother that you might be wise to consider the possibility that we have
>> control of the asteroid.
>>
>> Re

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.

All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
all over the Internet.

I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark band
are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
> refuse to be forthcoming.
>
> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
> governments.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
> for the "coincidence":
>
> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
> picture
>  should
> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
> decades -- including the military.
>
> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
> a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
> unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
> necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
> artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
> artificially controlled meteor:
>
> If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
> prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
> precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
> is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources.  This
> provides the "opportunity" in that it may have been known many years,
> possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within
> GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013.
>
> As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were placed
> on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing chunks of
> rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could provide
> sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter earth's
> atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no substantial
> serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry would
> approximately coincide with the near pass of the asteroid.
>
> Now for the motive:
>
> In intelligence agencies (yes I have had dealings including working in a
> SCIF for months under daily review by the Joint Chiefs and Jasons on an
> 'imminent nuclear war' priority project, so I do know a little) there is
> something called a "signature" which provides a "plausible deniability"
> cover to the mundanes while ensuring the message gets through to the
> opposing side's intelligence agencies.  Such a statistical anomaly
> involving potential weaponry fits the bill of a "signature".  The message
> is simply this:  We have sufficient control of the asteroid's little
> brother that you might be wise to consider the possibility that we have
> control of the asteroid.
>
> Remaining questions regarding the motive (as in means, motive and
> opportunity) are:
>
> Why Russia?
>
> Why now?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
> A particularly relevant passage for those who get stuck on "clustering" of
> random events (ToE: Theory of Everything):
>
> (R) Random universe. Actually there is a much simpler way of obtaining a
> ToE. Consider an infinite
> sequence of random bits (fair coin tosses). It is easy to see that any
> finite pattern, i.e., any finite
> binary sequence, occurs (actually infinitely often) in this string. Now
> consider our observable universe
> quantized at e.g. Planck level, and code the whole space-time universe
> into a huge bit string. If the
> universe ends in a big crunc

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

rse ends in a big crunch, this string is finite. (Think of a digital
>> high resolution 3D movie of the
>> universe from the big bang to the big crunch). This big string also
>> appears somewhere in our random
>> string, hence our random string is a perfect ToE. This is reminiscent of
>> the Boltzmann brain idea that
>> in a sufficiently large random universe, *there exist low entropy regions
>> * that resemble our own universe
>> and/or brain (observer) [17, Sec.3.8].
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> All this talk about Pi and monkeys seems not to be really taking hold of
>> some minds here at vortex.  Let me suggest if you are going to founder on
>> the rocks of algorithmic randomness/information/probability theory, you go
>> for guidance to the world's  foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and
>> read his relatively accessible "A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be
>> Subjective)" <http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/3/4/329>.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>> Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal
>> all of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.
>>  Of course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of
>> predictions that are utter non sense.
>>
>>  Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they
>> happen because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every
>> historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them
>> as far as I know.
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Harry Veeder 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
>>
>>   If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
>> works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
>> different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
>> natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>> >> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are 
>> >> making
>> when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
>> typing
>> monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
>> can
>> be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is
>> already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an
>> impossibility.
>> >
>> > I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive
>> means.
>> > If it never can end and d
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

inds here at vortex.  Let me suggest if you are going to founder on
> the rocks of algorithmic randomness/information/probability theory, you go
> for guidance to the world's  foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and
> read his relatively accessible "A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be
> Subjective)" <http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/3/4/329>.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal all
> of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.  Of
> course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of
> predictions that are utter non sense.
>
>  Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they
> happen because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every
> historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them
> as far as I know.
>
>  Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
>
>   If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
> works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
> different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
> natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry  wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> >> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are 
> >> making
> when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
> typing
> monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
> can
> be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is
> already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an
> impossibility.
> >
> > I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive
> means.
> > If it never can end and d
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

ll of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.
>>>  Of course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of
>>> predictions that are utter non sense.
>>>
>>>  Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they
>>> happen because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every
>>> historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them
>>> as far as I know.
>>>
>>>  Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Harry Veeder 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
>>>
>>>   If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
>>> works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
>>> different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
>>> natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker  
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are 
>>> >> making
>>> when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
>>> typing
>>> monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the 
>>> folio can
>>> be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there 
>>> is
>>> already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an
>>> impossibility.
>>> >
>>> > I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive
>>> means.
>>> > If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
>>> > the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
>>> > if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
>>> > And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.
>>> >
>>> > What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
>>> > lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
>>> > which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
>>> > Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
>>> > the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
>>> > of the universe.
>>> >
>>> > And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
>>> > first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
>>> > up also.
>>> >
>>> > Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
>>> > will need to go through Pi.
>>> >
>>> > Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
>>> > it might never occur.
>>> > I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
>>> > 100 digits?
>>> > For that matter does it show up at all?
>>> > There is nothing meaning it must, ever.
>>> >
>>> > But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
>>> > further you search.
>>> >
>>> > 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286
>>> >
>>> > Ah, didn't take long.
>>> >
>>> > Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
>>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U
>>> >
>>> > Fun video.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> I have not seen the video,
>>> > You should.
>>> >
>>> > But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
>>> > do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out.
>>> > Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could
>>> > check the validity of what the other version shows.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

A particularly relevant passage for those who get stuck on "clustering" of
random events (ToE: Theory of Everything):

(R) Random universe. Actually there is a much simpler way of obtaining a
ToE. Consider an infinite
sequence of random bits (fair coin tosses). It is easy to see that any
finite pattern, i.e., any finite
binary sequence, occurs (actually infinitely often) in this string. Now
consider our observable universe
quantized at e.g. Planck level, and code the whole space-time universe into
a huge bit string. If the
universe ends in a big crunch, this string is finite. (Think of a digital
high resolution 3D movie of the
universe from the big bang to the big crunch). This big string also appears
somewhere in our random
string, hence our random string is a perfect ToE. This is reminiscent of
the Boltzmann brain idea that
in a sufficiently large random universe, *there exist low entropy
regions*that resemble our own universe
and/or brain (observer) [17, Sec.3.8].


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> All this talk about Pi and monkeys seems not to be really taking hold of
> some minds here at vortex.  Let me suggest if you are going to founder on
> the rocks of algorithmic randomness/information/probability theory, you go
> for guidance to the world's  foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and
> read his relatively accessible "A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be
> Subjective)" <http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/3/4/329>.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal
>> all of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.
>>  Of course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of
>> predictions that are utter non sense.
>>
>>  Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they
>> happen because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every
>> historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them
>> as far as I know.
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Harry Veeder 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
>>
>>   If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
>> works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
>> different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
>> natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>> >> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are 
>> >> making
>> when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
>> typing
>> monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
>> can
>> be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is
>> already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an
>> impossibility.
>> >
>> > I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive
>> means.
>> > If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
>> > the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
>> > if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
>> > And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.
>> >
>> > What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
>> > lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
>> > which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
>> > Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
>> > the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
>> > of the universe.
>> >
>> > And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
>> > first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
>> > up also.
>> >
>> > Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
>> > will need to go through Pi.
>> >
>> > Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
>> > it might never occur.
>> > I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
>> > 100 digits?
>> > For that matter does it show up at all?
>> > There is nothin

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

All this talk about Pi and monkeys seems not to be really taking hold of
some minds here at vortex.  Let me suggest if you are going to founder on
the rocks of algorithmic randomness/information/probability theory, you go
for guidance to the world's  foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and
read his relatively accessible "A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be
Subjective)" <http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/3/4/329>.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal all
> of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.  Of
> course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of
> predictions that are utter non sense.
>
>  Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they
> happen because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every
> historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them
> as far as I know.
>
>  Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
>
>   If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
> works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
> different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
> natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry  wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> >> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are 
> >> making
> when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
> typing
> monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
> can
> be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is
> already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an
> impossibility.
> >
> > I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive
> means.
> > If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
> > the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
> > if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
> > And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.
> >
> > What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
> > lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
> > which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
> > Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
> > the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
> > of the universe.
> >
> > And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
> > first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
> > up also.
> >
> > Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
> > will need to go through Pi.
> >
> > Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
> > it might never occur.
> > I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
> > 100 digits?
> > For that matter does it show up at all?
> > There is nothing meaning it must, ever.
> >
> > But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
> > further you search.
> >
> > 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286
> >
> > Ah, didn't take long.
> >
> > Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U
> >
> > Fun video.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I have not seen the video,
> > You should.
> >
> > But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
> > do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out.
> > Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could
> > check the validity of what the other version shows.
> >
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[David Roberson]

Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal all of 
the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.  Of course, 
you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of predictions that 
are utter non sense.


Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they happen 
because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every historical 
event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them as far as I 
know.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured


 If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?

Harry



On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are making 
when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally typing 
monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
can 
be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is 
already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an 
impossibility.
>
> I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive 
means.
> If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
> the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
> if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
> And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.
>
> What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
> lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
> which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
> Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
> the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
> of the universe.
>
> And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
> first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
> up also.
>
> Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
> will need to go through Pi.
>
> Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
> it might never occur.
> I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
> 100 digits?
> For that matter does it show up at all?
> There is nothing meaning it must, ever.
>
> But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
> further you search.
>
> 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286
>
> Ah, didn't take long.
>
> Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U
>
> Fun video.
>
>
>>
>> I have not seen the video,
> You should.
>
> But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
> do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out.
> Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could
> check the validity of what the other version shows.
>


 

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

 If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?

Harry



On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are making 
>> when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
>> typing monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that 
>> the folio can be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I 
>> wonder if there is already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that 
>> the latter is an impossibility.
>
> I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive 
> means.
> If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
> the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
> if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
> And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.
>
> What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
> lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
> which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
> Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
> the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
> of the universe.
>
> And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
> first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
> up also.
>
> Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
> will need to go through Pi.
>
> Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
> it might never occur.
> I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
> 100 digits?
> For that matter does it show up at all?
> There is nothing meaning it must, ever.
>
> But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
> further you search.
>
> 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286
>
> Ah, didn't take long.
>
> Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U
>
> Fun video.
>
>
>>
>> I have not seen the video,
> You should.
>
> But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
> do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out.
> Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could
> check the validity of what the other version shows.
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[David Roberson]

Terry, I laughed when I heard the first estimates that it only weighed 10 tons. 
 Have you looked at the mass of big boulders lately?  A ton is tiny.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 10:49 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
> You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
 Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.




 

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[John Berry]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are making 
> when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
> typing monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the 
> folio can be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder 
> if there is already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the 
> latter is an impossibility.

I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive means.
If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.

What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
of the universe.

And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
up also.

Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
will need to go through Pi.

Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
it might never occur.
I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
100 digits?
For that matter does it show up at all?
There is nothing meaning it must, ever.

But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
further you search.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286

Ah, didn't take long.

Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U

Fun video.


>
> I have not seen the video,
You should.

But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out.
Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could
check the validity of what the other version shows.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harvey Norris]

--- On Wed, 2/20/13, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

From: Daniel Rocha 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
To: "John Milstone" 
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013, 12:15 PM

1m3 of an asteroid weights 7tons, usually. If its radius is 7.5m, then we have 
a volume of 4/3*pi*(7.5) ~ 1800m^3. The total weight is around 12thousand tons. 
Not much, really.


2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart 

10,000 tons is A LOT OF STUFF

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:


Where is it?

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic energy of a 
sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical density of 7g/cm^3. 
The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt and its weight around 
10ktons.





2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart 


Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)
I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.
I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30' diameter 
hole in the ice.  So far nada...





Should be worth a lot if it exists.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:





On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:




> You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...

>

> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/








That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy

released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.

 Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must

have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.




duh, dark matter nuclei??? I wouldnt take theorists too seriously when it comes 
to reality, so I'm hoping youre spoofing us.








-- 
Daniel Rocha - rjdanieldi...@gmail.com









-- 
Daniel Rocha - rjdanieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Should be easy to find then, especially the 20' dia hole in the lake
object.  I would be dawning my scuba gear and metal detector.  40 x the
price of gold...

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> 1m3 of an asteroid weights 7tons, usually. If its radius is 7.5m, then we
> have a volume of 4/3*pi*(7.5) ~ 1800m^3. The total weight is around
> 12thousand tons. Not much, really.
>
>
> 2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart  'cheme...@gmail.com');>>
>
>> 10,000 tons is A LOT OF STUFF
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM, ChemE Stewart 
>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Where is it?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>>
 There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic
 energy of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical
 density of 7g/cm^3. The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt
 and its weight around 10ktons.


 2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart 

> Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)
>
> I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.
>
> I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
> diameter hole in the ice.  So far nada...
>
> Should be worth a lot if it exists.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart 
>> wrote:
>> > You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
>>
>> That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
>> released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
>>  Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
>> have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>


 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com  'danieldi...@gmail.com');>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Daniel Rocha]

1m3 of an asteroid weights 7tons, usually. If its radius is 7.5m, then we
have a volume of 4/3*pi*(7.5) ~ 1800m^3. The total weight is around
12thousand tons. Not much, really.


2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart 

> 10,000 tons is A LOT OF STUFF
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>
>> Where is it?
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>>> There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic
>>> energy of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical
>>> density of 7g/cm^3. The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt
>>> and its weight around 10ktons.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart 
>>>
 Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)

 I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.

 I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
 diameter hole in the ice.  So far nada...

 Should be worth a lot if it exists.


 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart 
> wrote:
> > You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
> >
> >
> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
>
> That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
> released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
>  Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
> have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.
>
> 
>
>

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

10,000 tons is A LOT OF STUFF


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Where is it?
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic
>> energy of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical
>> density of 7g/cm^3. The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt
>> and its weight around 10ktons.
>>
>>
>> 2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart 
>>
>>> Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)
>>>
>>> I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.
>>>
>>> I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
>>> diameter hole in the ice.  So far nada...
>>>
>>> Should be worth a lot if it exists.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart 
 wrote:
 > You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
 >
 >
 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

 That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
 released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
  Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
 have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.

 


>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Where is it?

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic energy
> of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical density of
> 7g/cm^3. The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt and its
> weight around 10ktons.
>
>
> 2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart  'cheme...@gmail.com');>>
>
>> Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)
>>
>> I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.
>>
>> I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
>> diameter hole in the ice.  So far nada...
>>
>> Should be worth a lot if it exists.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton 
>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart 
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>> > You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
>>>
>>> That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
>>> released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
>>>  Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
>>> have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com  'danieldi...@gmail.com');>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Daniel Rocha]

There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic energy
of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical density of
7g/cm^3. The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt and its
weight around 10ktons.


2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart 

> Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)
>
> I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.
>
> I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
> diameter hole in the ice.  So far nada...
>
> Should be worth a lot if it exists.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart 
>> wrote:
>> > You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
>>
>> That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
>> released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
>>  Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
>> have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)

I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.

I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
diameter hole in the ice.  So far nada...

Should be worth a lot if it exists.


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
> > You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
> >
> >
> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
>
> That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
> released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
>  Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
> have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.
>
> 
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
> You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

That article makes no sense at all.  Maybe they mean the energy
released was bigger; but, they still say it was only 15 m in diameter.
 Oh, I see, the density was 1000 times greater.  Well, heck, we must
have had a piece of a neutron star hit us.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

The biggest blunder is having an object hurdling at you @ 60,000 mph with
the ability to take out a city and not even realizing it.

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> It was just a horrible blunder. Even I got the number and the yield of the
> explosion right. Just look at the beginning of this thread.
>
>
> 2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart  'cheme...@gmail.com');>>
>
>> You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
>>
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
>>
>> Of course maybe it was just diffuse plasma.
>>
>> Stewart
>> Darkmattersalot.com
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:49, John Berry  wrote:
>>>
>>> > It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
>>> > also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
>>> > repetitive
>>>
>>> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are
>>> making when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of
>>> eternally typing monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or
>>> imagining that the folio can be found at some point transcoded in the
>>> decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is already a mathematical proof out there
>>> to the effect that the latter is an impossibility.
>>>
>>> I have not seen the video, but what has been described could possibly be
>>> due to parallax with the frame of reference of the camera and arising in
>>> connection with a piece of the meteor that split off at some point during
>>> entry.
>>>
>>> I doubt the gravitational field of a ten ton meteor is strong enough to
>>> keep much in an orbit of any kind.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com  'danieldi...@gmail.com');>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Daniel Rocha]

It was just a horrible blunder. Even I got the number and the yield of the
explosion right. Just look at the beginning of this thread.


2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart 

> You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
>
> Of course maybe it was just diffuse plasma.
>
> Stewart
> Darkmattersalot.com
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:49, John Berry  wrote:
>>
>> > It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
>> > also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
>> > repetitive
>>
>> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are
>> making when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of
>> eternally typing monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or
>> imagining that the folio can be found at some point transcoded in the
>> decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is already a mathematical proof out there
>> to the effect that the latter is an impossibility.
>>
>> I have not seen the video, but what has been described could possibly be
>> due to parallax with the frame of reference of the camera and arising in
>> connection with a piece of the meteor that split off at some point during
>> entry.
>>
>> I doubt the gravitational field of a ten ton meteor is strong enough to
>> keep much in an orbit of any kind.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

Of course maybe it was just diffuse plasma.

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Eric Walker wrote:

> On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:49, John Berry >
> wrote:
>
> > It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
> > also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
> > repetitive
>
> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are
> making when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of
> eternally typing monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or
> imagining that the folio can be found at some point transcoded in the
> decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is already a mathematical proof out there
> to the effect that the latter is an impossibility.
>
> I have not seen the video, but what has been described could possibly be
> due to parallax with the frame of reference of the camera and arising in
> connection with a piece of the meteor that split off at some point during
> entry.
>
> I doubt the gravitational field of a ten ton meteor is strong enough to
> keep much in an orbit of any kind.
>
> Eric
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Eric Walker]

On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:49, John Berry  wrote:

> It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
> also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
> repetitive

I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are making 
when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally typing 
monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
can be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there 
is already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an 
impossibility.

I have not seen the video, but what has been described could possibly be due to 
parallax with the frame of reference of the camera and arising in connection 
with a piece of the meteor that split off at some point during entry.

I doubt the gravitational field of a ten ton meteor is strong enough to keep 
much in an orbit of any kind.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Eric Walker]

On Feb 17, 2013, at 15:04, James Bowery  wrote:

>> I suspect these events only seem infrequent
>  
> Careful, Eric.  We're actually getting, just in the last few years, enough 
> data to falsify claims like yours now.

I'm not claiming, I'm suspecting. ;)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[de Bivort Lawrence]

Think of the more interesting, shorter writings that monkey would come up with. 
Would be quite instructional, I imagine. 

Cheers,
Lawry

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:49 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
> also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
> repetitive)
> But because you would have to convert the numbers to letters, you
> would need to group them and since you would get many numbers over 26
> it would take a very long while to find a string that had the works
> without some numbers higher than 26 plus any numbers assigned to
> punctuation.
> 
> So if you instead used a 26 (or maybe 30ish for punctuation) based
> counting system where each number had a corresponding letter then you
> would find the complete works of Shakespeare much much sooner in the
> series.
> 
> The accountant would appreciate this considering the saving in monkeys
> and typewriters.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>> PS:  Why do I bother?
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Of course we're all familiar with the "clustering" phenomenon that occurs
>>> when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
>>> during their "lifespan" type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
>>> the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.
>>> 
>>> So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:
>>> 
>>> An actuary, being fully aware of such "clustering" proceeds to purchase a
>>> thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
>>> have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
>>> nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
>>> the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries "Eureka!"
>>> and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get
>>> to the bottom of this improbable event.
>>> 
>>> The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter written
>>> by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:
>>> 
>>> 1) "You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
>>> demonstrates you have not understood clustering."
>>> 
>>> 2) "You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
>>> and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
>>> your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
>>> Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
>>> an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company."
>>> 
>>> ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins
>>>  wrote:
 
 Are you familiar with "clustering"?  just because a rare event happens
 twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
 just happened to hit the probability twice.
 
 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> 
> Think about this like an actuary, folks:
> 
> When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
> says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
> the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
> revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
> model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance -- 
> if
> the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one 
> might
> not invest all that much money in revising the model.
> 
> However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
> nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
> events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the 
> model
> so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out of 
> line
> with reality.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery 
> wrote:
>> 
>> The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
>> million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events 
>> that
>> independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:
>> 
>> 1/(365*100)^2
>> = 1/133225
>> 
>> Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand
>> for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.
>> 
>> This is not a coincidence.
>> 
>> PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
>> of 1000.
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
>>> approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
>>> direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into th

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[de Bivort Lawrence]

Random events cluster. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Alexander Hollins  
wrote:

> Are you familiar with "clustering"?  just because a rare event happens twice 
> close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You just 
> happened to hit the probability twice. 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>> Think about this like an actuary, folks:
>> 
>> When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model says 
>> that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and the 
>> event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs revision.  
>> The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that model?  If the 
>> events modeled are of no particular economic importance -- if the damages 
>> underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one might not invest 
>> all that much money in revising the model.
>> 
>> However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of nuclear 
>> attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction events; 
>> one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the model so that 
>> the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out of line with 
>> reality.
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>> The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a million.  
>>> The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events that 
>>> independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:
>>> 
>>> 1/(365*100)^2
>>> = 1/133225
>>> 
>>> Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand for 
>>> whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.
>>> 
>>> This is not a coincidence.
>>> 
>>> PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor of 
>>> 1000.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
 I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object approaching 
 from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the 
 ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes, 
 we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation 
 by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring 
 the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with 
 for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source 
 footage.  An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation 
 with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical 
 artifact that would also explain those fragments.
 
 There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events -- 
 which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems 
 to multiply their probabilities towards zero:
 
 1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become 
 advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of 
 geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public 
 announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest 
 approach on Feb 15, 2012.
 
 2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause 
 widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves 
 correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades.
 
 3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor -- appear 
 statistically independent.
 
 It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're 
 potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the 
 mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon 
 of public announcement.
 
 It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard 
 for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over 
 land, and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is 
 land we can increase the  expected frequency only a few fold at best.  
 
 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
> What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent 
> fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows. 
> As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere, 
> where is the common sense? 
> 
> Ed
> 
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
>>  
>>  
>> NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in 
>> this Russian video, in slo-mo.
>>  
>> The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving 
>> object that seems to impact with the object to ma

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Edmund Storms]

I agree with what you said, Jim. However, all decisions in life are  
based on what appears to be the most likely outcome using logic based  
on what appears to be the best facts. Judgement and common sense are  
used most often to decide what to believe.


But more important, the consequence of the decision is frequently so  
important that it needs to be considered. For example, if the two  
events were connected by chance, the next time an asteroid comes  
close, we would not expect a meteor strike and could relax. On the  
other hand, if asteroids are surrounded by  swarms of orbiting rocks,  
we might want to be more prepared than was the case this time.   
Consequently, such a study is important.


Likewise, LENR being real is more important to know than that it is  
not real.  Therefore, a study to determine which conclusion is true is  
important.


Global warming being real is more important than if it is not real.  
Therefore, being sure which is true is important.


Instead, skeptical people debate the questions as if the consequence  
does not matter.  If they ran an insurance company, it would quickly  
fail. :-)


Ed


On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote:

Estimating the probability has to do with the investment decision  
tree.  Such exploration requires resources and the resources  
allocated to the search have to take into account the expected value  
in terms of risk adjusted utility of obtaining a targeted  
statistical sample.  The failure to approach research funding  
decisions in this manner is, for an immediately recognizable  
example, a major contributor to the pathology manifest in cold  
fusion research funding -- or rather lack thereof.


The cut-off points in proposed research avenues are constrained by  
that expected value.  Conversely, the depth of the search --  
exploring ever less "plausible" theories -- is driven by that  
expected value.


There are some pretty wild theories out there about this "cluster"  
and depending on these tradeoffs, exploring them is either rational  
or irrational.


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Rather that debate the probability of the two events being coupled  
through random chance, why not assume the two events did not occur  
at the same time by random change and explore the reason why they  
occurred at the same time?  Why not explore the probability that an  
asteroid has rocks that orbit it as the system moves through space?   
This planetary system would be invisible and not have any effect if  
the main body passed far enough from the earth or another planet.   
Suppose the meteor that hit Russia was in obit and its position at  
the time the system approached the earth caused it to approach the  
earth from a direction opposite to the direction the asteroid  
approached the earth.  Why not calculate the probability of this  
event since it makes more sense than the present discussion?


Ed

On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:28 PM, James Bowery wrote:

Of course we're all familiar with the "clustering" phenomenon that  
occurs when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters,  
at some point during their "lifespan" type type out the complete  
works of Shakespeare in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote  
them.


So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

An actuary, being fully aware of such "clustering" proceeds to  
purchase a thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer  
keyboards (you will have a hard time getting your mitts on a  
thousand working typewriters nowadays), and they proceed to type  
out the complete works of Shakespeare in the precise order that  
Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries "Eureka!" and runs to  
his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get to  
the bottom of this improbable event.


The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter  
written by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to  
say:


1) "You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event  
demonstrates you have not understood clustering."


2) "You are being terminated because not only did you spend all  
that time and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word  
processors, but your failure to understand that monkeys typing out  
the complete works of Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears  
no reasonable relationship to an event that we might underwrite as  
an insurance company."


?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins > wrote:
Are you familiar with "clustering"?  just because a rare event  
happens twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on  
previous data. You just happened to hit the probability twice.



On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery   
wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your  
model says that an event should occur only less than once in a  
million years and the

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

Estimating the probability has to do with the investment decision tree.
 Such exploration requires resources and the resources allocated to the
search have to take into account the expected value in terms of risk
adjusted utility of obtaining a targeted statistical
sample.
 The failure to approach research funding decisions in this manner is, for
an immediately recognizable example, a major contributor to the pathology
manifest in cold fusion research funding -- or rather lack thereof.

The cut-off points in proposed research avenues are constrained by that
expected value.  Conversely, the depth of the search -- exploring ever less
"plausible" theories -- is driven by that expected value.

There are some pretty wild theories out there about this "cluster" and
depending on these tradeoffs, exploring them is either rational or
irrational.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Rather that debate the probability of the two events being coupled through
> random chance, why not assume the two events did not occur at the same time
> by random change and explore the reason why they occurred at the same time?
>  Why not explore the probability that an asteroid has rocks that orbit it
> as the system moves through space?  This planetary system would be
> invisible and not have any effect if the main body passed far enough from
> the earth or another planet.  Suppose the meteor that hit Russia was in
> obit and its position at the time the system approached the earth caused it
> to approach the earth from a direction opposite to the direction the
> asteroid approached the earth.  Why not calculate the probability of this
> event since it makes more sense than the present discussion?
>
> Ed
>
> On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:28 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Of course we're all familiar with the "clustering" phenomenon that occurs
> when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
> during their "lifespan" type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
> the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.
>
> So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:
>
> An actuary, being fully aware of such "clustering" proceeds to purchase a
> thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
> have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
> nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare
> in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries
> "Eureka!" and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research
> program to get to the bottom of this improbable event.
>
> The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter written
> by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:
>
> 1) "You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
> demonstrates you have not understood clustering."
>
> 2) "You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
> and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
> your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
> Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
> an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company."
>
> ?
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins <
> alexander.holl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you familiar with "clustering"?  just because a rare event happens
>> twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
>> just happened to hit the probability twice.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> Think about this like an actuary, folks:
>>>
>>> When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
>>> says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
>>> the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
>>> revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
>>> model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
>>> if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
>>> might not invest all that much money in revising the model.
>>>
>>> However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
>>> nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
>>> events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
>>> model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
>>> of line with reality.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
 million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events that
 independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

  1/(365*100)^2
 = 1/133225

 Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount b

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Of course I also agree that our model is wrong:

1)They found no massive hunk of iron in that 30' hole in the lake because
there was no ball of iron as a nucleus to begin with.  That is a sinkhole
2) Our estimate of the mass of those objects based upon ordinary matter is
vastly too low because they contain energetic dark matter nuclei just a
gnat's ass in diameter but massive.
3) This extra mass would allow those "particles" surrounded by ordinary
matter to orbit each other at much higher velocities than ordinary matter
of the same volume.
4)  They exploded like a pipe bomb because that nucleus becomes energetic,
like a comet as it collects heat and mattter and increases pressure at the
core until a massive explosion occurs.
5)  If the object(s) exploded mid-air, what created the large diameter hole
in the lake?  And if it did not explode where is the object in the lake,
which they have not found after hunting for days?  All they have found is
cm size debris

Looks like NASA was off by a factor of 1,000 in their estimated mass, so
where is all that stuff??

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

I know you guys are open minded so I keep brain rattling...

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com



On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> PS:  Why do I bother?
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Of course we're all familiar with the "clustering" phenomenon that occurs
>> when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
>> during their "lifespan" type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
>> the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.
>>
>> So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:
>>
>> An actuary, being fully aware of such "clustering" proceeds to purchase a
>> thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
>> have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
>> nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare
>> in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries
>> "Eureka!" and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research
>> program to get to the bottom of this improbable event.
>>
>> The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter written
>> by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:
>>
>> 1) "You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
>> demonstrates you have not understood clustering."
>>
>> 2) "You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
>> and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
>> your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
>> Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
>> an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company."
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins <
>> alexander.holl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Are you familiar with "clustering"?  just because a rare event happens
>>> twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
>>> just happened to hit the probability twice.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 Think about this like an actuary, folks:

 When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
 says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
 the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
 revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
 model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
 if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
 might not invest all that much money in revising the model.

 However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
 nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
 events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
 model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
 of line with reality.

 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
> million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events 
> that
> independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:
>
>  1/(365*100)^2
> = 1/133225
>
> Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand
> for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.
>
> This is not a coincidence.
>
> PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a
> factor of 
> 1000
> .
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[John Berry]

It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
repetitive)
But because you would have to convert the numbers to letters, you
would need to group them and since you would get many numbers over 26
it would take a very long while to find a string that had the works
without some numbers higher than 26 plus any numbers assigned to
punctuation.

So if you instead used a 26 (or maybe 30ish for punctuation) based
counting system where each number had a corresponding letter then you
would find the complete works of Shakespeare much much sooner in the
series.

The accountant would appreciate this considering the saving in monkeys
and typewriters.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
> PS:  Why do I bother?
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> Of course we're all familiar with the "clustering" phenomenon that occurs
>> when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
>> during their "lifespan" type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
>> the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.
>>
>> So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:
>>
>> An actuary, being fully aware of such "clustering" proceeds to purchase a
>> thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
>> have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
>> nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
>> the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries "Eureka!"
>> and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get
>> to the bottom of this improbable event.
>>
>> The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter written
>> by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:
>>
>> 1) "You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
>> demonstrates you have not understood clustering."
>>
>> 2) "You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
>> and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
>> your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
>> Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
>> an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company."
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you familiar with "clustering"?  just because a rare event happens
>>> twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
>>> just happened to hit the probability twice.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

 Think about this like an actuary, folks:

 When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
 says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
 the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
 revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
 model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance -- 
 if
 the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one 
 might
 not invest all that much money in revising the model.

 However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
 nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
 events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the 
 model
 so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out of line
 with reality.

 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery 
 wrote:
>
> The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
> million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events 
> that
> independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:
>
> 1/(365*100)^2
> = 1/133225
>
> Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand
> for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.
>
> This is not a coincidence.
>
> PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
> of 1000.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery 
> wrote:
>>
>> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
>> approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
>> direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the 
>> main
>> mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
>> explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion 
>> technology.
>> Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can 
>> come
>> up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the 
>> source
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Edmund Storms]

Rather that debate the probability of the two events being coupled  
through random chance, why not assume the two events did not occur at  
the same time by random change and explore the reason why they  
occurred at the same time?  Why not explore the probability that an  
asteroid has rocks that orbit it as the system moves through space?   
This planetary system would be invisible and not have any effect if  
the main body passed far enough from the earth or another planet.   
Suppose the meteor that hit Russia was in obit and its position at the  
time the system approached the earth caused it to approach the earth  
from a direction opposite to the direction the asteroid approached the  
earth.  Why not calculate the probability of this event since it makes  
more sense than the present discussion?


Ed
On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:28 PM, James Bowery wrote:

Of course we're all familiar with the "clustering" phenomenon that  
occurs when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters,  
at some point during their "lifespan" type type out the complete  
works of Shakespeare in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.


So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

An actuary, being fully aware of such "clustering" proceeds to  
purchase a thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer  
keyboards (you will have a hard time getting your mitts on a  
thousand working typewriters nowadays), and they proceed to type out  
the complete works of Shakespeare in the precise order that  
Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries "Eureka!" and runs to his  
CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get to the  
bottom of this improbable event.


The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter  
written by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to  
say:


1) "You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event  
demonstrates you have not understood clustering."


2) "You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that  
time and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word  
processors, but your failure to understand that monkeys typing out  
the complete works of Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears  
no reasonable relationship to an event that we might underwrite as  
an insurance company."


?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins > wrote:
Are you familiar with "clustering"?  just because a rare event  
happens twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on  
previous data. You just happened to hit the probability twice.



On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery   
wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your  
model says that an event should occur only less than once in a  
million years and the event occurred a few days ago, you might think  
your model needs revision.  The question then becomes how much to  
invest in revising that model?  If the events modeled are of no  
particular economic importance -- if the damages underwritten are  
likely to be mundane in scale -- then one might not invest all that  
much money in revising the model.


However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of  
nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse --  
extinction events; one might want to invest substantial resources in  
revising the model so that the probability of the observed events  
aren't so wildly out of line with reality.


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery   
wrote:
The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a  
million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial  
events that independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on  
the same day:


1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand  
for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.


This is not a coincidence.

PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a  
factor of 1000.



On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery   
wrote:
I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object  
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and  
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into  
the main mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside  
of plausible explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known  
propulsion technology.  Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most  
plausible explanation I can come up with for this approach-from- 
behind object is modification of the source footage.  An optical  
artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the  
expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical  
artifact that would also explain those fragments.


There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial  
events -- which may be explained independently but 

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

PS:  Why do I bother?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Of course we're all familiar with the "clustering" phenomenon that occurs
> when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
> during their "lifespan" type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
> the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.
>
> So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:
>
> An actuary, being fully aware of such "clustering" proceeds to purchase a
> thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
> have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
> nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare
> in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries
> "Eureka!" and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research
> program to get to the bottom of this improbable event.
>
> The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter written
> by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:
>
> 1) "You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
> demonstrates you have not understood clustering."
>
> 2) "You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
> and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
> your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
> Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
> an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company."
>
> ?
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins <
> alexander.holl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you familiar with "clustering"?  just because a rare event happens
>> twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
>> just happened to hit the probability twice.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> Think about this like an actuary, folks:
>>>
>>> When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
>>> says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
>>> the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
>>> revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
>>> model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
>>> if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
>>> might not invest all that much money in revising the model.
>>>
>>> However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
>>> nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
>>> events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
>>> model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
>>> of line with reality.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
 million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events that
 independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

  1/(365*100)^2
 = 1/133225

 Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand
 for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

 This is not a coincidence.

 PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a
 factor of 
 1000
 .


 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
> approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
> direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the 
> main
> mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
> explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion 
> technology.
>  Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
> come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
> source footage.  An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
> correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up 
> with
> a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.
>
> There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
> -- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
> seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:
>
> 1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently
> become advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside
> of geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
> announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
> approach on Feb 15, 2012.
>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

Of course we're all familiar with the "clustering" phenomenon that occurs
when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
during their "lifespan" type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.

So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

An actuary, being fully aware of such "clustering" proceeds to purchase a
thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare
in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries
"Eureka!" and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research
program to get to the bottom of this improbable event.

The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter written by
the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:

1) "You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
demonstrates you have not understood clustering."

2) "You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company."

?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins <
alexander.holl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are you familiar with "clustering"?  just because a rare event happens
> twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
> just happened to hit the probability twice.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Think about this like an actuary, folks:
>>
>> When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
>> says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
>> the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
>> revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
>> model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
>> if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
>> might not invest all that much money in revising the model.
>>
>> However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
>> nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
>> events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
>> model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
>> of line with reality.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
>>> million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events that
>>> independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:
>>>
>>>  1/(365*100)^2
>>> = 1/133225
>>>
>>> Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand for
>>> whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.
>>>
>>> This is not a coincidence.
>>>
>>> PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
>>> of 
>>> 1000
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
 approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
 direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
 mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
 explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
  Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
 come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
 source footage.  An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
 correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
 a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

 There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
 -- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
 seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

 1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently
 become advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside
 of geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
 announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
 approach on Feb 15, 2012.

 2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause
 widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves
 correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for d

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Alexander Hollins]

Are you familiar with "clustering"?  just because a rare event happens
twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
just happened to hit the probability twice.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Think about this like an actuary, folks:
>
> When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
> says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
> the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
> revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
> model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
> if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
> might not invest all that much money in revising the model.
>
> However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
> nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
> events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
> model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
> of line with reality.
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
>> million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events that
>> independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:
>>
>>  1/(365*100)^2
>> = 1/133225
>>
>> Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand for
>> whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.
>>
>> This is not a coincidence.
>>
>> PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
>> of 
>> 1000
>> .
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
>>> approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
>>> direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
>>> mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
>>> explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
>>>  Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
>>> come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
>>> source footage.  An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
>>> correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
>>> a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.
>>>
>>> There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
>>> -- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
>>> seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:
>>>
>>> 1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become
>>> advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of
>>> geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
>>> announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
>>> approach on Feb 15, 2012.
>>>
>>> 2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause
>>> widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves
>>> correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades.
>>>
>>> 3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
>>> appear statistically independent.
>>>
>>> It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're
>>> potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the
>>> mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon of
>>> public announcement.
>>>
>>> It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard
>>> for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over land,
>>> and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is land we
>>> can increase the  expected frequency only a few fold at best.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
 fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows.
 As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere,
 where is the common sense?

 Ed

 On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
 
 ** **
 ** **
 NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
 this Russian video, in slo-mo.
 ** **
 The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
 object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at
 about 27 seconds).
 ** **
 Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
>>>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model says
that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and the
event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs revision.
 The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that model?  If
the events modeled are of no particular economic importance -- if the
damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one might
not invest all that much money in revising the model.

However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of nuclear
attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction events;
one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the model so
that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out of line
with reality.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a million.
>  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events that
> independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:
>
> 1/(365*100)^2
> = 1/133225
>
> Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand for
> whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.
>
> This is not a coincidence.
>
> PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
> of 
> 1000
> .
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
>> approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
>> direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
>> mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
>> explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
>>  Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
>> come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
>> source footage.  An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
>> correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
>> a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.
>>
>> There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events --
>> which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems
>> to multiply their probabilities towards zero:
>>
>> 1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become
>> advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of
>> geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
>> announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
>> approach on Feb 15, 2012.
>>
>> 2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause
>> widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves
>> correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades.
>>
>> 3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
>> appear statistically independent.
>>
>> It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're
>> potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the
>> mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon of
>> public announcement.
>>
>> It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard
>> for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over land,
>> and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is land we
>> can increase the  expected frequency only a few fold at best.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
>>> fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows.
>>> As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere,
>>> where is the common sense?
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s*
>>> ***
>>> ** **
>>> ** **
>>> NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
>>> this Russian video, in slo-mo.
>>> ** **
>>> The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
>>> object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at
>>> about 27 seconds).
>>> ** **
>>> Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
>>> military, why not give it some credence?
>>> ** **
>>> Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
>>> ** **
>>> ** **
>>> ** **
>>> ** **
>>> NASA's blog 
>>> states
>>> :
>>>
>>> "Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"
>>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

You provide no arithmetic and your argument is consistent with my
arithmetic.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:48 PM, leaking pen  wrote:

> flip a coin 99 times, if it comes up heads 99 times, what is the
> probability that it will come up heads the 100th time?   And not sure where
> Fox got their 10 tons, but the volume, 15 meters across, is pretty much
> been the estimate since the beginning. perhaps someone mis estimated what
> 15 cubic feet of stone weighs?
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:43 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
>> million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events that
>> independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:
>>
>> 1/(365*100)^2
>> = 1/133225
>>
>> Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand for
>> whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.
>>
>> This is not a coincidence.
>>
>> PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
>> of 
>> 1000
>> .
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
>>> approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
>>> direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
>>> mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
>>> explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
>>>  Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
>>> come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
>>> source footage.  An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
>>> correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
>>> a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.
>>>
>>> There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
>>> -- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
>>> seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:
>>>
>>> 1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become
>>> advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of
>>> geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
>>> announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
>>> approach on Feb 15, 2012.
>>>
>>> 2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause
>>> widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves
>>> correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades.
>>>
>>> 3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
>>> appear statistically independent.
>>>
>>> It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're
>>> potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the
>>> mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon of
>>> public announcement.
>>>
>>> It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard
>>> for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over land,
>>> and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is land we
>>> can increase the  expected frequency only a few fold at best.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
 fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows.
 As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere,
 where is the common sense?

 Ed

 On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
 
 ** **
 ** **
 NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
 this Russian video, in slo-mo.
 ** **
 The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
 object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at
 about 27 seconds).
 ** **
 Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
 military, why not give it some credence?
 ** **
 Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
 ** **
 ** **
 ** **
 ** **
 NASA's blog 
 states
 :

 "Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"

 ** **
 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
 ** **
 What is your cite, Terry?



>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[leaking pen]

flip a coin 99 times, if it comes up heads 99 times, what is the
probability that it will come up heads the 100th time?   And not sure where
Fox got their 10 tons, but the volume, 15 meters across, is pretty much
been the estimate since the beginning. perhaps someone mis estimated what
15 cubic feet of stone weighs?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:43 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a million.
>  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events that
> independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:
>
> 1/(365*100)^2
> = 1/133225
>
> Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand for
> whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.
>
> This is not a coincidence.
>
> PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
> of 
> 1000
> .
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
>> approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
>> direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
>> mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
>> explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
>>  Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
>> come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
>> source footage.  An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
>> correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
>> a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.
>>
>> There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events --
>> which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems
>> to multiply their probabilities towards zero:
>>
>> 1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become
>> advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of
>> geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
>> announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
>> approach on Feb 15, 2012.
>>
>> 2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause
>> widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves
>> correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades.
>>
>> 3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
>> appear statistically independent.
>>
>> It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're
>> potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the
>> mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon of
>> public announcement.
>>
>> It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard
>> for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over land,
>> and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is land we
>> can increase the  expected frequency only a few fold at best.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
>>> fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows.
>>> As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere,
>>> where is the common sense?
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s*
>>> ***
>>> ** **
>>> ** **
>>> NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
>>> this Russian video, in slo-mo.
>>> ** **
>>> The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
>>> object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at
>>> about 27 seconds).
>>> ** **
>>> Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
>>> military, why not give it some credence?
>>> ** **
>>> Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
>>> ** **
>>> ** **
>>> ** **
>>> ** **
>>> NASA's blog 
>>> states
>>> :
>>>
>>> "Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"
>>>
>>> ** **
>>> 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
>>> ** **
>>> What is your cite, Terry?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a million.
 The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor of
1000
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object approaching
> from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the
> ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes,
> we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
> ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring the
> out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with for
> this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage.  An
> optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
> expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical artifact
> that would also explain those fragments.
>
> There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events --
> which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems
> to multiply their probabilities towards zero:
>
> 1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become
> advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of
> geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
> announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
> approach on Feb 15, 2012.
>
> 2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause
> widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves
> correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades.
>
> 3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
> appear statistically independent.
>
> It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're
> potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the
> mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon of
> public announcement.
>
> It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard
> for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over land,
> and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is land we
> can increase the  expected frequency only a few fold at best.
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
>> fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows.
>> As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere,
>> where is the common sense?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s**
>> **
>> ** **
>> ** **
>> NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
>> this Russian video, in slo-mo.
>> ** **
>> The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
>> object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at about
>> 27 seconds).
>> ** **
>> Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
>> military, why not give it some credence?
>> ** **
>> Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
>> ** **
>> ** **
>> ** **
>> ** **
>> NASA's blog 
>> states
>> :
>>
>> "Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"
>>
>> ** **
>> 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
>> ** **
>> What is your cite, Terry?
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[David Roberson]

Yeah, that is what I was trying to say Terry.  I pointed out that there was no 
electromagnetic pulse damage, so likely no nuclear explosion. :-)


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 17, 2013 8:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured


On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 6:36 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> Would an electromagnetic pulse from any nuclear explosion at this altitude
> cause widespread damage to electronic equipment?  I have not seen any
> reports of this problem.

The nature of the explosion of a meteoroid is closer to that of a
boiler than a nuclear bomb.  The trapped water or dry ice within the
structure flash vaporizes with the entry into the atmosphere and the
destruction is a rending of the structure of the rock or nickel/iron.
Virtually no EMP or gamma should result.

Space rocks.


 

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

<>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlE1BdOAfVc

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

http://www.amusingplanet.com/2008/07/how-to-watch-nuclear-explosion.html

Harry

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
> A remastered version:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNx67QjUHxU
>
>
> 2013/2/17 Daniel Rocha 
>>
>> That explosion is way, way too small. It look like to have at most
>> 1kt-2kt. That meteor exploded with 500x that energy.
>>
>> It should be something like this:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvW0N-cFexM
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fSMJkMK5M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/2/17 Harry Veeder 
>>>
>>> A comparable nuclear blast
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paCUhiUxxIw
>>>
>>> Seems the spectators found it thrilling.
>>>
>>> harry
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>> > Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was "nuclear-like" in its
>>> > intensity. Maybe they know something.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
>>> > ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Ed,
>>> >
>>> > Near the end of the video at 26-27 seconds - where the slow motion
>>> > starts -
>>> > a pointed object can be seen barreling into the meteor - following
>>> > which, it
>>> > explodes. That object is a little too "perfect" to be believed, but it
>>> > is
>>> > intriguing if not faked.
>>> >
>>> > This is consistent with an air launched ABM which generally have small
>>> > nuclear warheads (briefcase size). This would account for the rapid
>>> > acceleration of debris following the explosion. An ABM missile
>>> > developed in
>>> > the USA called "Sprint" was reported to have achieved 21,000 mph at
>>> > high
>>> > altitude. That missile had an official speed of mach 10 in the lower
>>> > atmosphere and was nuclear tipped.
>>> >
>>> > Consequently - this high speed is within the realm of "common sense"
>>> > for a
>>> > ABM launched from a high altitude interceptor. Plus this region where
>>> > the
>>> > incident occurred is the most secret and sensitive in all of Russia -
>>> > it is
>>> > their Oak Ridge and Hanford. That would explain why an interceptor
>>> > would
>>> > have been operational at this time. It could have been a precaution
>>> > against
>>> > the other, larger meteorite.
>>> >
>>> > BTW, that Sprint missile was early 1990s - twenty years old and yet it
>>> > could
>>> > conceivably have "shot down" (nuked) a meteorite in some circumstance -
>>> > if
>>> > one is not concerned about the repercussions and radioactivity.
>>> > Consequently
>>> > - it is remotely possible the Russians have am ABM which is fast enough
>>> > - at
>>> > least when launched at high altitude; and that they would be willing to
>>> > use
>>> > it to protect a very sensitive region.
>>> >
>>> > The most likely explanation, of course, is that the video was faked.
>>> >
>>> > But that explanation lacks the drama of a "shoot down" and after all,
>>> > there
>>> > was a Military Officer quoted as saying "we shot it down"... within
>>> > hours of
>>> > the incident... but that quote was not from Pravda - closer to the
>>> > Russian
>>> > equivalent of Fox.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > From: Edmund Storms
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > What is so unusual about this video? The meteor
>>> > exploded,
>>> > which sent fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the
>>> > video shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in
>>> > the
>>> > atmosphere, where is the common sense?
>>> >
>>> > Ed
>>> > On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
>>> > 
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that
>>> > seems to
>>> > show up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.
>>> >
>>> > The video could have been altered - with the addition
>>> > of a
>>> > fast moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it
>>> > explode
>>> > (at about 27 seconds).
>>> >
>>> > Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came
>>> > from
>>> > Russian military, why not give it some credence?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Terry Blanton]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 6:36 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> Would an electromagnetic pulse from any nuclear explosion at this altitude
> cause widespread damage to electronic equipment?  I have not seen any
> reports of this problem.

The nature of the explosion of a meteoroid is closer to that of a
boiler than a nuclear bomb.  The trapped water or dry ice within the
structure flash vaporizes with the entry into the atmosphere and the
destruction is a rending of the structure of the rock or nickel/iron.
Virtually no EMP or gamma should result.

Space rocks.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Daniel Rocha]

A remastered version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNx67QjUHxU


2013/2/17 Daniel Rocha 

> That explosion is way, way too small. It look like to have at most
> 1kt-2kt. That meteor exploded with 500x that energy.
>
> It should be something like this:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvW0N-cFexM
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fSMJkMK5M
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/2/17 Harry Veeder 
>
>> A comparable nuclear blast
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paCUhiUxxIw
>>
>> Seems the spectators found it thrilling.
>>
>> harry
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>> > Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was "nuclear-like" in its
>> > intensity. Maybe they know something.
>> >
>> >
>> http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
>> > ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ed,
>> >
>> > Near the end of the video at 26-27 seconds - where the slow motion
>> starts -
>> > a pointed object can be seen barreling into the meteor - following
>> which, it
>> > explodes. That object is a little too "perfect" to be believed, but it
>> is
>> > intriguing if not faked.
>> >
>> > This is consistent with an air launched ABM which generally have small
>> > nuclear warheads (briefcase size). This would account for the rapid
>> > acceleration of debris following the explosion. An ABM missile
>> developed in
>> > the USA called "Sprint" was reported to have achieved 21,000 mph at high
>> > altitude. That missile had an official speed of mach 10 in the lower
>> > atmosphere and was nuclear tipped.
>> >
>> > Consequently - this high speed is within the realm of "common sense"
>> for a
>> > ABM launched from a high altitude interceptor. Plus this region where
>> the
>> > incident occurred is the most secret and sensitive in all of Russia -
>> it is
>> > their Oak Ridge and Hanford. That would explain why an interceptor would
>> > have been operational at this time. It could have been a precaution
>> against
>> > the other, larger meteorite.
>> >
>> > BTW, that Sprint missile was early 1990s - twenty years old and yet it
>> could
>> > conceivably have "shot down" (nuked) a meteorite in some circumstance -
>> if
>> > one is not concerned about the repercussions and radioactivity.
>> Consequently
>> > - it is remotely possible the Russians have am ABM which is fast enough
>> - at
>> > least when launched at high altitude; and that they would be willing to
>> use
>> > it to protect a very sensitive region.
>> >
>> > The most likely explanation, of course, is that the video was faked.
>> >
>> > But that explanation lacks the drama of a "shoot down" and after all,
>> there
>> > was a Military Officer quoted as saying "we shot it down"... within
>> hours of
>> > the incident... but that quote was not from Pravda - closer to the
>> Russian
>> > equivalent of Fox.
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Edmund Storms
>> >
>> >
>> > What is so unusual about this video? The meteor
>> exploded,
>> > which sent fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the
>> > video shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in
>> the
>> > atmosphere, where is the common sense?
>> >
>> > Ed
>> > On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
>> > 
>> >
>> >
>> > NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that
>> seems to
>> > show up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.
>> >
>> > The video could have been altered - with the addition
>>  of a
>> > fast moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it
>> explode
>> > (at about 27 seconds).
>> >
>> > Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came
>> from
>> > Russian military, why not give it some credence?
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Daniel Rocha]

That explosion is way, way too small. It look like to have at most 1kt-2kt.
That meteor exploded with 500x that energy.

It should be something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvW0N-cFexM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fSMJkMK5M





2013/2/17 Harry Veeder 

> A comparable nuclear blast
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paCUhiUxxIw
>
> Seems the spectators found it thrilling.
>
> harry
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> > Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was "nuclear-like" in its
> > intensity. Maybe they know something.
> >
> >
> http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
> > ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite
> >
> >
> >
> > Ed,
> >
> > Near the end of the video at 26-27 seconds - where the slow motion
> starts -
> > a pointed object can be seen barreling into the meteor - following
> which, it
> > explodes. That object is a little too "perfect" to be believed, but it is
> > intriguing if not faked.
> >
> > This is consistent with an air launched ABM which generally have small
> > nuclear warheads (briefcase size). This would account for the rapid
> > acceleration of debris following the explosion. An ABM missile developed
> in
> > the USA called "Sprint" was reported to have achieved 21,000 mph at high
> > altitude. That missile had an official speed of mach 10 in the lower
> > atmosphere and was nuclear tipped.
> >
> > Consequently - this high speed is within the realm of "common sense" for
> a
> > ABM launched from a high altitude interceptor. Plus this region where the
> > incident occurred is the most secret and sensitive in all of Russia - it
> is
> > their Oak Ridge and Hanford. That would explain why an interceptor would
> > have been operational at this time. It could have been a precaution
> against
> > the other, larger meteorite.
> >
> > BTW, that Sprint missile was early 1990s - twenty years old and yet it
> could
> > conceivably have "shot down" (nuked) a meteorite in some circumstance -
> if
> > one is not concerned about the repercussions and radioactivity.
> Consequently
> > - it is remotely possible the Russians have am ABM which is fast enough
> - at
> > least when launched at high altitude; and that they would be willing to
> use
> > it to protect a very sensitive region.
> >
> > The most likely explanation, of course, is that the video was faked.
> >
> > But that explanation lacks the drama of a "shoot down" and after all,
> there
> > was a Military Officer quoted as saying "we shot it down"... within
> hours of
> > the incident... but that quote was not from Pravda - closer to the
> Russian
> > equivalent of Fox.
> >
> >
> > From: Edmund Storms
> >
> >
> > What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded,
> > which sent fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the
> > video shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the
> > atmosphere, where is the common sense?
> >
> > Ed
> > On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> >
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
> > 
> >
> >
> > NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that
> seems to
> > show up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.
> >
> > The video could have been altered - with the addition
>  of a
> > fast moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it
> explode
> > (at about 27 seconds).
> >
> > Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came
> from
> > Russian military, why not give it some credence?
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[David Roberson]

Would an electromagnetic pulse from any nuclear explosion at this altitude 
cause widespread damage to electronic equipment?  I have not seen any reports 
of this problem.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 17, 2013 4:09 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured


Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was "nuclear-like" in its
intensity. Maybe they know something. 

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite



Ed,

Near the end of the video at 26-27 seconds - where the slow motion starts -
a pointed object can be seen barreling into the meteor - following which, it
explodes. That object is a little too "perfect" to be believed, but it is
intriguing if not faked. 

This is consistent with an air launched ABM which generally have small
nuclear warheads (briefcase size). This would account for the rapid
acceleration of debris following the explosion. An ABM missile developed in
the USA called "Sprint" was reported to have achieved 21,000 mph at high
altitude. That missile had an official speed of mach 10 in the lower
atmosphere and was nuclear tipped. 

Consequently - this high speed is within the realm of "common sense" for a
ABM launched from a high altitude interceptor. Plus this region where the
incident occurred is the most secret and sensitive in all of Russia - it is
their Oak Ridge and Hanford. That would explain why an interceptor would
have been operational at this time. It could have been a precaution against
the other, larger meteorite.

BTW, that Sprint missile was early 1990s - twenty years old and yet it could
conceivably have "shot down" (nuked) a meteorite in some circumstance - if
one is not concerned about the repercussions and radioactivity. Consequently
- it is remotely possible the Russians have am ABM which is fast enough - at
least when launched at high altitude; and that they would be willing to use
it to protect a very sensitive region.

The most likely explanation, of course, is that the video was faked.

But that explanation lacks the drama of a "shoot down" and after all, there
was a Military Officer quoted as saying "we shot it down"... within hours of
the incident... but that quote was not from Pravda - closer to the Russian
equivalent of Fox.


From: Edmund Storms 


What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded,
which sent fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the
video shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the
atmosphere, where is the common sense? 

Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded> 
 
 
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to
show up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.
 
The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a
fast moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode
(at about 27 seconds).
 
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from
Russian military, why not give it some credence?
 
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was
altered.
 
 
 
 
NASA's blog states
<http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.
html> :
"Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"
 
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
 
What is your cite, Terry?


 

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

This is a currently operational ground-based Russian
ABM
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> I don't think it was intercepted, but I am not convinced by the
> argument that it was technically impossible.
>
> Harry
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Edmund Storms 
> wrote:
> > Please apply some common sense.  The object was too small to detect and
> was
> > totally unexpected. Even if it was detected with enough time to launch a
> > missile, why do this?
> >
> > Ed
> > On Feb 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
> >>> approaching
> >>> from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to
> the
> >>> ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes,
> >>> we're
> >>> talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
> >>> ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring
> >>> the
> >>> out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with
> >>> for
> >>> this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage.
> >>> An
> >>> optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
> >>> expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical
> artifact
> >>> that would also explain those fragments.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> According to this wikipedia entry the russian's posses a missle that
> >> could have conceivably intercepted the meteor.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol-M
> >> The first stage has three rocket motors developed by the Soyuz Federal
> >> Center for Dual-Use Technologies. This gives the missile a much higher
> >> acceleration than other ICBM types. It enables the missile to
> >> accelerate to the speed of 7,320 m/s and to travel a flatter
> >> trajectory to distances of up to 10,000 km
> >>
> >> harry
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Edmund Storms]

This speculation would be fun if some people were not serious.

On Feb 17, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:


Like Tunguska, it was an alien sacrifice:

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6868/56

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Terry Blanton]

Like Tunguska, it was an alien sacrifice:

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6868/56

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

I don't think it was intercepted, but I am not convinced by the
argument that it was technically impossible.

Harry

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> Please apply some common sense.  The object was too small to detect and was
> totally unexpected. Even if it was detected with enough time to launch a
> missile, why do this?
>
> Ed
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
>>> approaching
>>> from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the
>>> ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes,
>>> we're
>>> talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
>>> ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring
>>> the
>>> out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with
>>> for
>>> this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage.
>>> An
>>> optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
>>> expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical artifact
>>> that would also explain those fragments.
>>
>>
>>
>> According to this wikipedia entry the russian's posses a missle that
>> could have conceivably intercepted the meteor.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol-M
>> The first stage has three rocket motors developed by the Soyuz Federal
>> Center for Dual-Use Technologies. This gives the missile a much higher
>> acceleration than other ICBM types. It enables the missile to
>> accelerate to the speed of 7,320 m/s and to travel a flatter
>> trajectory to distances of up to 10,000 km
>>
>> harry
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

A comparable nuclear blast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paCUhiUxxIw

Seems the spectators found it thrilling.

harry

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was "nuclear-like" in its
> intensity. Maybe they know something.
>
> http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
> ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite
>
>
>
> Ed,
>
> Near the end of the video at 26-27 seconds - where the slow motion starts -
> a pointed object can be seen barreling into the meteor - following which, it
> explodes. That object is a little too "perfect" to be believed, but it is
> intriguing if not faked.
>
> This is consistent with an air launched ABM which generally have small
> nuclear warheads (briefcase size). This would account for the rapid
> acceleration of debris following the explosion. An ABM missile developed in
> the USA called "Sprint" was reported to have achieved 21,000 mph at high
> altitude. That missile had an official speed of mach 10 in the lower
> atmosphere and was nuclear tipped.
>
> Consequently - this high speed is within the realm of "common sense" for a
> ABM launched from a high altitude interceptor. Plus this region where the
> incident occurred is the most secret and sensitive in all of Russia - it is
> their Oak Ridge and Hanford. That would explain why an interceptor would
> have been operational at this time. It could have been a precaution against
> the other, larger meteorite.
>
> BTW, that Sprint missile was early 1990s - twenty years old and yet it could
> conceivably have "shot down" (nuked) a meteorite in some circumstance - if
> one is not concerned about the repercussions and radioactivity. Consequently
> - it is remotely possible the Russians have am ABM which is fast enough - at
> least when launched at high altitude; and that they would be willing to use
> it to protect a very sensitive region.
>
> The most likely explanation, of course, is that the video was faked.
>
> But that explanation lacks the drama of a "shoot down" and after all, there
> was a Military Officer quoted as saying "we shot it down"... within hours of
> the incident... but that quote was not from Pravda - closer to the Russian
> equivalent of Fox.
>
>
> From: Edmund Storms
>
>
> What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded,
> which sent fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the
> video shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the
> atmosphere, where is the common sense?
>
> Ed
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
> 
>
>
> NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to
> show up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.
>
> The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a
> fast moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode
> (at about 27 seconds).
>
> Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from
> Russian military, why not give it some credence?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

Erratum:  "Ignoring the out-gong fragments" should be "Taking into account
the out-going fragments"

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object approaching
> from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the
> ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes,
> we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
> ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring the
> out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with for
> this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage.  An
> optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
> expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical artifact
> that would also explain those fragments.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Edmund Storms]

Please apply some common sense.  The object was too small to detect  
and was totally unexpected. Even if it was detected with enough time  
to launch a missile, why do this?


Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery   
wrote:
I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object  
approaching
from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction  
to the
ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.   
Yes, we're

talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.   
Ignoring the
out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up  
with for
this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source  
footage.  An

optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical  
artifact

that would also explain those fragments.



According to this wikipedia entry the russian's posses a missle that
could have conceivably intercepted the meteor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol-M
The first stage has three rocket motors developed by the Soyuz Federal
Center for Dual-Use Technologies. This gives the missile a much higher
acceleration than other ICBM types. It enables the missile to
accelerate to the speed of 7,320 m/s and to travel a flatter
trajectory to distances of up to 10,000 km

harry

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Edmund Storms]

Notice that several independent contrails formed before the explosion  
as separate pieces moved through the atmosphere at slightly different  
speeds and locations in space.  The object appearing to come from  
behind could be a piece of the meteor that had come off earlier and  
appeared to moved into the video frame at that time.  Because it is  
impossible to tell from the video whether both objects  were at the  
same distance from the observer, the second object was most likely a  
part that moved slightly faster than the main part, but was many feet  
more distant from the observer. This is an example of the imagination  
being controlled by what a person wants to see or has been told to see.


I suspect a swarm of smaller objects were in orbit around the big  
asteroid, a few of which hit the earth. Only the one hitting Russia  
was big enough to be noticed because it came in over land.  The  
direction of approach would be determined by where in the orbit around  
the  asteroid the object was at the time of collision with the earth.


Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 1:16 PM, James Bowery wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object  
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and  
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into  
the main mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside  
of plausible explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known  
propulsion technology.  Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most  
plausible explanation I can come up with for this approach-from- 
behind object is modification of the source footage.  An optical  
artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the  
expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical  
artifact that would also explain those fragments.


There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial  
events -- which may be explained independently but taken as  
independent events seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:


1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently  
become advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing  
inside of geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first  
public announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its  
closest approach on Feb 15, 2012.


2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to  
cause widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense  
shockwaves correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported  
for decades.


3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --  
appear statistically independent.


It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since  
we're potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon  
relating not to the mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but  
rather to the phenomenon of public announcement.


It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is  
hard for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor  
enters over land, and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's  
surface that is land we can increase the  expected frequency only a  
few fold at best.


On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent  
fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video  
shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the  
atmosphere, where is the common sense?


Ed

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=- 
octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s



NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show  
up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.


The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast  
moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it  
explode (at about 27 seconds).


Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian  
military, why not give it some credence?


Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.




NASA's blog states:
"Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"

180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.

What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was "nuclear-like" in its
> intensity. Maybe they know something.
>
>
> http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
> ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite


This should not enter into rational conversation.

It is known and has been repeatedly stated since the early days of nuclear
armaments that meteoric explosions have "nuclear-like" intensity.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object approaching
> from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the
> ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes, we're
> talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
> ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring the
> out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with for
> this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage.  An
> optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
> expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical artifact
> that would also explain those fragments.


According to this wikipedia entry the russian's posses a missle that
could have conceivably intercepted the meteor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol-M
The first stage has three rocket motors developed by the Soyuz Federal
Center for Dual-Use Technologies. This gives the missile a much higher
acceleration than other ICBM types. It enables the missile to
accelerate to the speed of 7,320 m/s and to travel a flatter
trajectory to distances of up to 10,000 km

harry

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

Note the blury object on the left just below the meteor's tail, which
appears to catch up to the meteor.

Harry

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
> fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows. As
> for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere, where
> is the common sense?
>
> Ed
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
>
>
> NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in this
> Russian video, in slo-mo.
>
> The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
> object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at about 27
> seconds).
>
> Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian military,
> why not give it some credence?
>
> Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
>
>
>
>
> NASA's blog states:
>
> "Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"
>
>
> 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
>
> What is your cite, Terry?
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Jones Beene]

Resend with this addition: NASA says meteor was "nuclear-like" in its
intensity. Maybe they know something. 

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16969092-nuclear-like-in-its-i
ntensity-russian-meteor-blast-is-the-largest-since-1908?lite



Ed,

Near the end of the video at 26-27 seconds - where the slow motion starts -
a pointed object can be seen barreling into the meteor - following which, it
explodes. That object is a little too "perfect" to be believed, but it is
intriguing if not faked. 

This is consistent with an air launched ABM which generally have small
nuclear warheads (briefcase size). This would account for the rapid
acceleration of debris following the explosion. An ABM missile developed in
the USA called "Sprint" was reported to have achieved 21,000 mph at high
altitude. That missile had an official speed of mach 10 in the lower
atmosphere and was nuclear tipped. 

Consequently - this high speed is within the realm of "common sense" for a
ABM launched from a high altitude interceptor. Plus this region where the
incident occurred is the most secret and sensitive in all of Russia - it is
their Oak Ridge and Hanford. That would explain why an interceptor would
have been operational at this time. It could have been a precaution against
the other, larger meteorite.

BTW, that Sprint missile was early 1990s - twenty years old and yet it could
conceivably have "shot down" (nuked) a meteorite in some circumstance - if
one is not concerned about the repercussions and radioactivity. Consequently
- it is remotely possible the Russians have am ABM which is fast enough - at
least when launched at high altitude; and that they would be willing to use
it to protect a very sensitive region.

The most likely explanation, of course, is that the video was faked.

But that explanation lacks the drama of a "shoot down" and after all, there
was a Military Officer quoted as saying "we shot it down"... within hours of
the incident... but that quote was not from Pravda - closer to the Russian
equivalent of Fox.


From: Edmund Storms 


What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded,
which sent fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the
video shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the
atmosphere, where is the common sense? 

Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
 
 
 
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to
show up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.
 
The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a
fast moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode
(at about 27 seconds).
 
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from
Russian military, why not give it some credence?
 
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was
altered.
 
 
 
 
NASA's blog states
 :
"Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"
 
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
 
What is your cite, Terry?

<>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object approaching
from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the
ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes,
we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring the
out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with for
this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage.  An
optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical artifact
that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events --
which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems
to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become
advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of
geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
approach on Feb 15, 2012.

2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause
widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves
correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades.

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're
potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the
mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon of
public announcement.

It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard
for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over land,
and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is land we
can increase the  expected frequency only a few fold at best.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
> fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows.
> As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere,
> where is the common sense?
>
> Ed
>
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s***
> *
> ** **
> ** **
> NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
> this Russian video, in slo-mo.
> ** **
> The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
> object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at about
> 27 seconds).
> ** **
> Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
> military, why not give it some credence?
> ** **
> Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> NASA's blog 
> states
> :
>
> "Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"
>
> ** **
> 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
> ** **
> What is your cite, Terry?
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Edmund Storms]

What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent  
fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video  
shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the  
atmosphere, where is the common sense?


Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=- 
octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s



NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up  
in this Russian video, in slo-mo.


The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast  
moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it  
explode (at about 27 seconds).


Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian  
military, why not give it some credence?


Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.




NASA's blog states:
"Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"

180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.

What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Terry Blanton]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 1:19 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> What is your cite, Terry?

It could have been the same.

RE: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Jones Beene]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs

&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

 

 

NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in this
Russian video, in slo-mo.

 

The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at about 27
seconds).

 

Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian military,
why not give it some credence? 

 

Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.

 

 

 

 

NASA's
  blog states:

"Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"

 

180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.

 

What is your cite, Terry?

RE: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Jones Beene]

NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in this
Russian video, in slo-mo.

 

The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode.

 

Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian military,
why not give it some credence? 

 

Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.

 

 

 

 

NASA's
  blog states:

"Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"

 

180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.

 

What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:08 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> The fact that both of these events happened so close together just does
>> not seem likely since both are infrequent.  Talk of a miracle in cold
>> fusion; this seems like one in astronomy.
>>
>
> I suspect these events only seem infrequent
>

Careful, Eric.  We're actually getting, just in the last few
years,
enough data to falsify claims like yours now.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:22 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> > Obvious question:
> >
> > Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid?
>
> No, they were almost perpendicular.  Pure and delightful coincidence.
>
>
NASA's blog 
states
:

"Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"


180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.

What is your cite, Terry?

RE: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Jones Beene]

It was only a matter of time before the conspiracy theorists got into full 
action… This one is almost believable.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/15/russian-meteor-conspiracy_n_2694031.html

 

Of course, it is the Russian angle and fairly tame. 

 

Closer to home, has Rush or Rove found a way to blame it on the prez ?

 

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

David Roberson wrote:

 

The fact that both of these events happened so close together just does not 
seem likely since both are infrequent.  Talk of a miracle in cold fusion; this 
seems like one in astronomy.

 

I suspect these events only seem infrequent, in two ways.  First, because we 
personally aren't involved in monitoring all of the asteroids, large and small, 
coming through the local region of the solar system, and if we did, we might 
lose sleep at night (just a guess).  Second, our ability to record such events 
is improving, and we might have lost a lot of data earlier on when the tracking 
of events was less systematic and accurate.

 

An interesting challenge would be to independently work out the parameters of a 
model based on the Poisson distribution to calculate the likelihood and 
magnitude of similar events in the next few years.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:08 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

The fact that both of these events happened so close together just does not
> seem likely since both are infrequent.  Talk of a miracle in cold fusion;
> this seems like one in astronomy.
>

I suspect these events only seem infrequent, in two ways.  First, because
we personally aren't involved in monitoring all of the asteroids, large and
small, coming through the local region of the solar system, and if we did,
we might lose sleep at night (just a guess).  Second, our ability to record
such events is improving, and we might have lost a lot of data earlier on
when the tracking of events was less systematic and accurate.

An interesting challenge would be to independently work out the parameters
of a model based on the Poisson distribution to calculate the likelihood
and magnitude of similar events in the next few years.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[David Roberson]

I would like to see a plot of the orbit of the rock that hit Russia.  It may be 
possible that it was associated with the asteroid a very long time ago and 
became deflected on a fly by that happened when no one was looking.  I suspect 
that the time frame for near misses of the pair would vary, but there may be 
some form of synchronization occurring that we have not modeled accurately.


The fact that both of these events happened so close together just does not 
seem likely since both are infrequent.  Talk of a miracle in cold fusion; this 
seems like one in astronomy.


How about a conspiricy theory?  An alien race sent the small one as a shot 
across our bow.  They thought that we were far to intelligent to think that 
this was a coincidence and would understand the message.  The warning is that 
we had better prepare to deflect a big one that will come our way one day.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured


> A comment in line with my sine vs cycloid thinking :

> Indeed, it gives an orbital period of 153 millenia -- so they're
> pretty much travelling in the same direction. No cycloid motion.

153372146.1years

Oops : not 153 MILLennia .. but 153 MEGennia


 

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Alan Fletcher]

> A comment in line with my sine vs cycloid thinking :

> Indeed, it gives an orbital period of 153 millenia -- so they're
> pretty much travelling in the same direction. No cycloid motion.

153372146.1years

Oops : not 153 MILLennia .. but 153 MEGennia

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Alan Fletcher]

A comment in line with my sine vs cycloid thinking :

http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/02/15/1747226/asteroid-2012-da14-approaches?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed
 
Re:are we sure it has nothing to do with DA14? (Score:4, Informative)
by Clueless Moron (548336) on Friday February 15, @02:51PM (#42914591)

No... if that meteorite was in an orbit 30,000km radius from DA14 (which it 
would have to have been in order to hit Russia when it did), its orbital 
velocity would necessarily have to be very low. As in, so slow it would take 
millenia to complete even one orbit. Since DA14 is moving at a whopping 
30km/second relative to Earth, anything orbiting it that far out would be 
moving in virtually the same direction and speed with respect to us.

In short, there's no way that meteorite could have been orbiting DA14

- - - - - - 
I plugged the best numbers I could find into a spreadsheet.

The asteroid of mass m1 passes d1 above earth, with velocity v1
For the meteor to just graze earth 16 hours ahead of the asteroid, it must be 
d2 = time*velocity ahead of it.

We then have a right triangle with sides d1 and d2 ... hypotenuse d3 = radius 
of orbit.

Ignoring the mass of the meteor, we have the period 2 pi * sqrt( d3^3 / G m1 )

Indeed, it gives an orbital period of 153 millenia -- so they're pretty much 
travelling in the same direction. No cycloid motion.

Asteroid 2012 DA 14 and Russian meteorite
v1  2013.2.15:A

v130km/sec3m/sec   Velocity of asteroid relatve 
to earth
d1 27000km 2700m   Distance from surface of 
earth
t216hrs   57600secsMeteor ahead of asteroid 
(hours)
d2   172800m   v1*t2   Meteor ahead of 
asteroid (m)
d3   1728210925sqrt(d1^2 + d2^2) Radius of 
meteor orbit

m113tonnes13000kg  Mass of asteroid
G   6.7E-11G   gravitational 
constant

t2  4.83674E+15orbital period seconds = 2 * 
pi * sqrt ( d3 / G m1)
1.34354E+12hrs
55980833311days
153372146.1years

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Vorl Bek]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:06:15 -0500
Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Vorl Bek  wrote:
> 
> 
> > So 1500 years ago a rock falling into the ocean caused a couple of cold
> > years, about the equivalent of the Tambora explosion of 1815. European
> > civilization survived that with nary a hiccup.
> >
> > If it had hit land (30 percent chance) it would have caused worse crop
> > failures . . . ; still, our European civilization today, with its abundance
> > of food and fuel, would sail through it like it was a summer breeze.
> 
> 
> The object was roughly 200 m in length. 

No, the article says it was 300m in length and caused the
equivalent of the 1815 Tambora explosion.


As noted in the article, if a 300 m
> object -- somewhat bigger -- were to hit land, 

No, that was the one that hit 5000 years ago and was a kilometer in
length.


it would have the force of
> roughly 20,000 Hiroshima bombs and it would destroy an area the size of
> France. That's ~400 MT, or 10 times the size of the Tsar Bomb, the largest
> thermonuclear bomb in history. The shock wave would be spread over a much
> larger area than the Tsar Bomb, the way today's meteor was.
> 
> I would not call that sailing through like a summer breeze.

I would not either, but I was talking about the 300m pebble that
was the equivalent of Tambora.

> 
> If the 1908 Tunguska meteor had struck a city, it would have completely
> destroyed it.  Even the largest city such as London, Paris or New York
> would have been completely leveled.

So what? With 70 percent of the world ocean, and most of the rest
NOT London, Paris or New York, in fact with most of the rest
pretty much empty, should we be in anguish over the possibility?
> 
> 
> 
> > "much of a continent would be leveled; years of winter and mass
> > starvation would ensue."
> >
> > It sounds like gross exaggeration . . .
> 
> 
> I do not think you know enough about this to judge whether that is gross
> exaggeration or not. 

True, and maybe the author really can estimate what a 1k rock can
do when it hits earth at x-thousand mph.

> In fact, I get the impression you are jumping to
> conclusions about a subject you know nothing about, and dismissing the
> opinions of scientific experts who have spent years studying these
> subjects. People often do that with cold fusion and with global warming. It
> irks me.

The article isn't as scary to me as it is to you:

1. There was a Tambora-like rockfall 1500 years ago.

And the next Tambora was in 1815, 1400 years later. Why the heck
should I be worrying that another Tambora will hit me in the head
tomorrow? And, as I said, European civilization would hardly
notice it.

2. There was a super-Tambora 5000 years ago. 

5000 years ago. And I am supposed to be worried that another one
will hit in a few years or decades?

I see she talks about big craters under the ocean, but don't we
need more than such vague references to start sucking money out
of taxpayer's pockets?

> 
> 
> 
> > ; and anyway, if the thing hit
> > 5000 years ago, when did the previous one hit?
> 
> 
> We don't know. We should find out. More to the point, we should find out
> when the next one is likely to hit.
> 
> 
> 
> > Was it 1 years previous, 20,000? Should  I lie awake nights about this?
> >
> 
> No, you should advocate sensible scientific research aimed at preventing it.

If the last big one was 5000 years ago, my statistical intuition
tells me that we have at least a couple hundred years before the
next big one hits, and by that time we will have the ability to
create an effective 'spaceguard'.

> 
> 
> 
> > This speculation strikes me as chicken little stuff, and not to
> > be concerned about.
> >
> 
> You strike me as someone who has no qualifications whatever to hold that
> opinion.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Daniel Rocha]

As spherical object with that size and made of water would weight ~1800
tons.  If that's an iron asteroid, that would give over 10 thousand tons.

In terms of explosive power, it should be equivalent between 0.2 and 1
Megaton

2013/2/15 Jed Rothwell 

>
>
> They say the object was 15 m in size, ~10 tons.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>
> Nature comment (we know they're an unbiased source!)
>

On a subject like this I consider them unbiased. They are only biased
against a limited number of things such as cold fusion. A person's bias or
prejudice is often highly selective to one subject area, and does not
affect other areas.

Anyway, this report says the object released "hundreds of kilotonnes of
energy." That would make it bigger than the Hiroshima bomb. If it had come
straight in during the Cold War, it might have wiped out a city and have
triggered a nuclear war.

The detector used to determine the size of the blast was set up as part of
the Cold War test ban treaty.

As I said, this not "sailing through like a summer breeze." These things
are a serious long-term technical problem, along with global warming, and
things like the reduced efficacy of antibiotics from overuse and abuse. If
people would have more respect for science, and start paying more attention
and money for it, we would be a lot closer to solving problems like this.


The right-wing fruitcakes in Russia are saying this was a U.S. weapon.
People like that are everywhere!

- Jed