Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (130236)	1/2/2001 4:55:14 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572677

Dear Daniel: Antother off the cuff comment by someone who refuses to see that reality is not defined by an ultra left wing leading faker. Since you have not named me a single successful R&D project you have done, I consider you lack of one particularly damning about having no creditability at all. Your constant harping against an evaluation that comes from a non approved Daniel Schuh source, as garbage without disproving anything said shows you have nothing to add at all. I have refuted the if it is not covered by the fireball it does not hit it theory of the report by citing a simple test. Take a kilogram of C-4 or sematex, insert an appropriate blasting cap, stick head first 1000 nails, connect blasting cap to an appropriate detonator with at least 1100 meters of appropriate wire, and place with the nails toward a garage door 100 meters away with a video camera normal to line between door and device at least 500 meters away (make sure camera sees both device and door). Remove all people from within 1000 meters of bomb (you did use enough wire to get you far enough away). Start camera from behind a 5 meter high mound of dirt, trigger detonator, which blows up device. Get video tape. You see fireball does not cover garage door. Yet many holes from nails are in door. This test shows that the fireball does not need to cover warhead for schrapnel to hit it. This particular experiment with different quantities involved, was done by the FBI after the foiled terrorist attempt depicted in "Black Sunday". I saw this on PBS, hardly a defense contractor. The fireball did not exceed 10 meters yet, thousands of simulated spectators would have been killed with none closer than 100 meters. This throughly disproves an assumption (never proven except with some mumbo jumbo) in the paper that was a major reason for classifying many attempts as failed intercepts. This throughly shows that the panel and the report writers never chacked many of the assumptions made for their proof. And you have the audacity to say that this piece of garbage is good science? There are many more assumptions made by the authors that are never proven or taken to task by the panel. Another faulty assumption is that a kinetic impact cannot cause a flash. Yet, on any firing range where the backstop is angled steel plate, a solid non explosive bullet, causes a spark when it hits that plate. If there are flamable materials nearby, the sparks can start a fire. This has happened countless times in automobile accidents. No explosive is necessary. Many times even when the fuel tank is empty, the car catches fire. Additionally, if it has enough kinetic energy, the mass of metal remaining is heated to very high temperatures, high enough to be visible to the naked eye or a video camera. Thus, many ground detonations may be due to simple kinetic energy to heat transfer (it happens on every reentry of a spacecraft (shuttle) dropping out of orbit or even just a rock (meteor)). Yet another assumption that was never tested. Face it, just because someone made valid points that you have yet to refute, you dismiss them as someone who has an axe to grind. Successful reports stand up to such criticism. In fact, it is required to stand up. If it does not stand up, it is shown to be flawed and is simply discarded and disregarded. That is how science moves forward. Every scientific law is just a theory that has yet to be shown to be faulty. It has stood up to every criticism and test successfully. The first time that it can be shown to not stand up, it is either marked as old, simply wrong, or correct in all but that area. One such law was Newton's laws. They were fine for many years, it took a Patent clerk to prove that it failed when the velocities approached the speed of light. That it needed correction factors that are quite small for normal speeds but get large when close to "c". He did not receive the Nobel Prize for this more recognizable work but, got it for previous lesser known work showing one of the first quantum effects noted (the "Photoelectric Effect" paper). Unless you can show their assumptions to be actually true, their conclusions are just noise. Pete