Truth about Carl Dean and his connections
Archimedes Plutonium
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Subject: Re: AP on geometry
Date: 19 Sep 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <6tv7s4$rh9$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Distribution: world
References: <6tcnha$db$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<6tct2v$t80$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>
<6td6sk$6i8$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<6td7ao$6i8$2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <6tfb7k$hch$1...@camel19.mindspg
<6tsr8u$hp0$3@> <6turui$duk$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>
Organization: sci newsgroups too cluttered with salespeople
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
In article <6turui$duk$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>
"Carl Dean" <Cde...@mindspring.com> writes:
= Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message
= <6tsr8u$hp0$3...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>...
= =In article <6tfb7k$hch$1...@camel19.mindspring.com>
= ="Carl Dean" <Cde...@mindspring.com> writes:
= =
= == Pi will always be 3.14... no matter what. Atoms don't have any
effect
= on
= == its value.
= =
= = Words spoken by someone who claims he has a degree in engineering.
= =When in fact, he is a spamming sales person for fusion spending.
=
= Actually, I have two. As far as being a sales person - have I ever
offered
= anything for sale in any of my messages? The answer is no.
= =
= =For a perfect sphere Earth, the Equator is a circle of pi equal to 2
= =when the North Pole is the center. Now then, birdbrain dean, what
= =latitude-circle in the Southern Hemisphere has pi equal to 1.
= =
= = A more important question is what is e geometrically. So that I
can
= =use e and pi to see if they match what the Schrodinger Equation
imputes
= =for the shape of the 5f6.
=
= Congratulations! That is the dumbest thing .... well no you've done
worse
= before. I bet you still think you can "soft land" the moon into the
pacific
= ocean.
=
= How in the world can the value of Pi change depending on where you
are
= standing? No, stop! I really don't care to read 3 megs worth of
garbage.
= Please, please, please read a book. Pi is a very basic constant as
is "e".
= Did you ever graduate from high school?
In article <6ttbe8$lsj$1...@nef.ens.fr>
mad...@news.ens.fr (David Madore) writes:
= He is pointing
= at a rather important phenomenon, namely Ricci curvature: in a curved
= space, the hypersurface of a hypersphere of given radius is different
= from what it would be in flat space by a quantity that corresponds to
= the Ricci curvature of the space contained in the hypersphere. Thus,
= the value of pi appears different. On a positively curved surface as
= the sphere, it seems to be smaller, on a negatively curved surface,
it
= appears bigger.
=
= The diameter of the latitude circle at latitude l is 2*pi*R*cos(l),
= where R is the radius of the earth (thus giving 2*pi*R at the equator
= l=0 and 0 at the poles l= +/- pi/2). The distance from that circle
to
= the north pole is R*(pi/2-l) (thus giving pi*R/2 at the equator and
= pi*R at the south pole). Consequently, the ``value of pi at latitude
= R'' is 2*cos(l)/(1-2*l/pi).
=
= A little numeric computation tells me that the value of l for which
= this expression is 1 is roughly -0.74293780528 radians, or 42
degrees,
= 34 minutes and 2 minutes south of the equator (note that this is not
= exactly half way between the pole and the equator). This is much
= further south than the tropic of capricorn, which is an astronomical
= line, representing the southernmost points on Earth at which the sun
= can be seen at the zenith. Let us call this other line the Tropic of
= Plutonium
I do not believe Carl Dean has any engineering degree. Hard to pass
any engineering degree with such a lame and closed mind. I believe he
is a stooge set up to fill s.p.f. with rosy propaganda for tokamak
spending. I believe that the name Carl Dean is a fake name for some
company that makes a-lot of money off of tokamak spending.
I vote to railroad Carl Dean out of the sci newsgroups.
Anyone know Carl Dean connections so that we can begin to expose him
more.
Carl Dean
>any engineering degree with such a lame and closed mind. I believe he
>is a stooge set up to fill s.p.f. with rosy propaganda for tokamak
>spending. I believe that the name Carl Dean is a fake name for some
>company that makes a-lot of money off of tokamak spending.
> I vote to railroad Carl Dean out of the sci newsgroups.
>
> Anyone know Carl Dean connections so that we can begin to expose him
>more.
>
You uncovered my plot Archie! I'm actually Dr. Evil - CEES (Chief Executive
Evil Scientist) for large multi-national EVIL organization that wants to
extort billions from unsuspecting governments from AROUND THE WORLD! <evil
laughter>
You'll never catch me or my organization! <more evil laughter>
Dr. Evil
P.S. I know why you hate fusion reactors! The first generation reactors
are going to use lithium, and you know you need all the lithium you can get!
Ridpath
"Carl Dean" <cde...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> You uncovered my plot Archie! I'm actually Dr. Evil - CEES (Chief
Executive
> Evil Scientist) for large multi-national EVIL organization that wants
to
> extort billions from unsuspecting governments from AROUND THE WORLD!
<evil
> laughter>
>
> You'll never catch me or my organization! <more evil laughter>
>
> Dr. Evil
>
> P.S. I know why you hate fusion reactors! The first generation
reactors
> are going to use lithium, and you know you need all the lithium you
can get!
>
>
I'm sorry, but this was funny! ROFLMFAO!
--
Bill Wilson, lazy procrastinating perfectionist
Anti-spam-work-email: wwilson at twe dot com
Find out about what I do! http://www.twe.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Archimedes Plutonium
include some others such as Teresa Tutt.
Name the Movie: ANTISCIENTISTS PROFILE
I should recount how Tutt said that it is theoretically and in
practice *impossible* to soft land the Moon onto Earth.
I tried to tell her if that were the case then there should not exist
any dumbbell shaped asteroids for they are proof that soft-landing
collisions between two asteroids occurr. And if Tutt were correct than
there should not exist any dumbbell shaped astro bodies at all.
I wonder if MIT physicists agree with Tutt that a soft-landing of
Moon onto Earth is impossible both in theory and in practice.
I believe the above should be a good article for the NYT Science
Times to interview some scientist and to clear up the mess for Tutt and
for Dean to name just two. The reason I say this is because Tutt is
wrong and I am correct. That it is possible in theory and in practice
to soft land Mercury upon Earth. And to soft land the Moon upon Earth.
It will not stay a stable condition for long for the Earth will absorb
Mercury into its mantle and then core as a oversized mountain. And
because Mercury has a huge iron core it will sink into the core of
Earth. However, the Moon when it nears Earth will be shattered into
fragments by the Roche limit and these fragments can then be lowered
onto Earth peaceably.
But it is the basic physics that a soft landing is possible in
practice and in theory that Tutt does not want to confess. And she
never admitted that she was wrong. I think that all physicists should
confess when they are wrong and made a mistake, otherwise later in life
they will stray more and more over into falsehoods, and even liaring.
That would make a good NYT article because the general public has
been deluged with the asteroid killing dinosaurs news. Thus, when any
little ball, not to mention Mercury or the Moon, comes hurdling towards
Earth, even physicists lose their rational minds and declare impossible
for any soft landing.
A soft landing of Mercury or the Moon upon Earth is possible. And
that is what the NYT could straighten out well by an article in the NYT
Science Times. All real physicists know that a soft-landing is
possible. But the general public after being saturated with dinosaur
killings and asteroid movies thinks that anything approachine Earth can
only be harmful and never beneficial.
So, here is a good assignment for the NYT Science Times. Do an
article on the question of whether a soft landing of Mercury
(unaffected by Roche Limit) and the Moon (affected by Roche Limit) upon
Earth is possible or impossible. Then, the general public and
non-physicists like Tutt and Dean can learn something new.
And I want to thank the NYT recent article on Fleas, I learned a-lot
from that and I hope the next Flea cycle (is it a 17 year cycle?) is
not approaching anytime soon. The last one I hear was the year that
TIME magazine had the Flea on its cover and claimed ( I am told) that
Fleas have a cycle where they are in enormous abundance.
In article <ylZ83.10871$hh1....@news1.mia>
Carl Dean
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message
> A movie with Carl Dean as lead actor would be too boring. So I have to
>include some others such as Teresa Tutt.
I laughed when I read this! Guess he doesn't like it when you defend
yourself!
>
> Name the Movie: ANTISCIENTISTS PROFILE
>
> I should recount how Tutt said that it is theoretically and in
>practice *impossible* to soft land the Moon onto Earth.
Nothing changes, I guess. Reminds me of that "CALL ATT" commercial, except
my version goes:
L - I - T - H - I - U - M
L - I - T - H - I - U - M
L - I - T - H - I - U - M
> I wonder if MIT physicists agree with Tutt that a soft-landing of
>Moon onto Earth is impossible both in theory and in practice.
That would be a big YES!
> I believe the above should be a good article for the NYT Science
>Times to interview some scientist and to clear up the mess for Tutt and
>for Dean to name just two. The reason I say this is because Tutt is
>wrong and I am correct. That it is possible in theory and in practice
>to soft land Mercury upon Earth. And to soft land the Moon upon Earth.
>It will not stay a stable condition for long for the Earth will absorb
>Mercury into its mantle and then core as a oversized mountain. And
>because Mercury has a huge iron core it will sink into the core of
>Earth.
Ok, Archie. I'm going to go slow with you. Let's assume that you actually
succeeded in "soft landing" Mercury and as you just said, and it's huge iron
core sinks into the the mantle of the earth. What would that cause to
occur? Can you say volcanic eruptions all over the earth?! (I knew you
could)
If you don't believe, go to your kithen and get a cup. Fill the cup with
water till it is close to the top. Now slowly insert a screwdriver handle
into the water. What you will see is that the water will be displaced by
the screwdriver handle and will overflow the cup.
You better not try to refute this because it was ARCHIMEDES who formulated
this principle. It's called (now listen closely) "ARCHIMEDES PRINCIPLE"!
One would think that you would at least understand the science formulated by
the person you took your name (or nickname or whatever) from.
> However, the Moon when it nears Earth will be shattered into
>fragments by the Roche limit and these fragments can then be lowered
>onto Earth peaceably.
Sure it will. I'm hearing my modified "CALL ATT" commercial again!
>
> But it is the basic physics that a soft landing is possible in
>practice and in theory that Tutt does not want to confess. And she
>never admitted that she was wrong. I think that all physicists should
>confess when they are wrong and made a mistake, otherwise later in life
>they will stray more and more over into falsehoods, and even liaring.
But, she's not lying!
>
> That would make a good NYT article because the general public has
>been deluged with the asteroid killing dinosaurs news. Thus, when any
>little ball, not to mention Mercury or the Moon, comes hurdling towards
>Earth, even physicists lose their rational minds and declare impossible
>for any soft landing.
So all of the scientists from around the world are wrong and you are
correct? Maybe you should consider that you are wrong unless you can write
up some equations to show that it's possible. Ever seen an impact crater?
They are all over the world and the moon. I don't think you would want to
be at ground zero when it struck. I'm willing to stick my neck out and
declare that any one standing there would be most certainly dead. Waving
your hands in the air won't make any difference!
>
> A soft landing of Mercury or the Moon upon Earth is possible. And
>that is what the NYT could straighten out well by an article in the NYT
>Science Times. All real physicists know that a soft-landing is
>possible. But the general public after being saturated with dinosaur
>killings and asteroid movies thinks that anything approachine Earth can
>only be harmful and never beneficial.
Which is quite true! Unless it is so small that it burns up completely and
doesn't explode!
> So, here is a good assignment for the NYT Science Times. Do an
>article on the question of whether a soft landing of Mercury
>(unaffected by Roche Limit) and the Moon (affected by Roche Limit) upon
>Earth is possible or impossible. Then, the general public and
>non-physicists like Tutt and Dean can learn something new.
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 *(mass)*(velocity)^2
Collisions:
Momentum = (mass) (velocity)
Looking at the kinetic energy of such an object, the value for the velocity
(40,000 mph?) is squared! Then multiply by the mass which is also huge and
divide by two. I would guess that this is a HUGE (I said HUGE!) number and
would be quite lethal! Now granted IF the velocity is zero, then the
kinetic energy is zero and now you only have to deal with the static load of
the wieght of the object on the earth's crust. The earth's crust is
actually relatively thin (thinner than the shell of an egg if the earth was
shrunk down to the size of an egg). The crust of the earth is FLOATING on
top of the Magma which means that even if it didn't break, it can only hold
so much weight before it moves downward (Archimedes Principle).
> And I want to thank the NYT recent article on Fleas, I learned a-lot
>from that and I hope the next Flea cycle (is it a 17 year cycle?) is
>not approaching anytime soon. The last one I hear was the year that
>TIME magazine had the Flea on its cover and claimed ( I am told) that
>Fleas have a cycle where they are in enormous abundance.
Where'd this come from?! Seems you are more worried about fleas than you
are about the destruction of all life on earth!
>In article <ylZ83.10871$hh1....@news1.mia>
>"Carl Dean" <cde...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>You uncovered my plot Archie! I'm actually Dr. Evil - CEES (Chief
>Executive
>Evil Scientist) for large multi-national EVIL organization that wants
>to extort billions from unsuspecting governments from
>AROUND THE WORLD! <evil laughter>
>
>You'll never catch me or my organization! <more evil laughter>
>
>Dr. Evil
>
>P.S. I know why you hate fusion reactors! The first generation
>reactors
>are going to use lithium, and you know you need all the lithium you can
>get!
I wish I hadn't posted that, now the whole world knows my evil plans!
Regards,
Dr. Evil, I mean ... Carl
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
= In article <37681...@news.unibw-muenchen.de>
= "Patrick Burkart" <Patrick...@unibw-muenchen.de> writes:
=
= = Hi Carl,
= = just a little correction - JET is the name for the Joint European
= Torus
= = experiment in Culham, GB. The japanese experiment that has reached
= the
= = breakeven stage is called JT-60 according to my notes.
= = ITER has been designed for the ignition stage, but with the bail
out
= of the
= = americans probably nobody knows how much downsizing will be
necessary
= to
= = make it affordable.
= =
= = MfG, Patrick.
= =
= =
= = Carl Dean wrote :
= = = ITER has been designed and should exceed breakeven. It would
take
= ten
= = years
= = = to build. Current research is trying to make the reactors
smaller
= and
= = more
= = = economical.
= = = That is why there are so many different configurations.
= = =
= = = Equivalent breakeven has already been surpassed by the JET
= experiment in
= = = Japan.
=
= That was not just a little mistake, confusing JT-60 with JET, but a
= daily occurrence in each and every post by this imbecile posting as
= Carl Dean.
=
= What is even worse, is when you ask this imbecile for mathematics.
= One time I was elaborating on Soft Landings of Mercury and Moon on
= Earth, and this imbecile Carl Dean was asked for some mathematics as
to
= why he believed it was impossible. Do you know what his mathematics
= was??
=
= Well, I will tell it. It involved nothing more than 2 or 3 posts on
= the exponent of 10^23 or some other number, where Dean spent 2 or 3
= posts showing that he knows what 10^23 means and how to multiply with
= exponents. Mathematics that a 9th grader can do. Yet this imbecile
= claims he has two degrees in mathematics.
In article <IZAa3.5839$A1....@news1.mco>
"Carl Dean" <cde...@bellsouth.net> writes:
= Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message
= <7kdbd1$cgj$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>...
= = A movie with Carl Dean as lead actor would be too boring. So I have
to
= =include some others such as Teresa Tutt.
=
= I laughed when I read this! Guess he doesn't like it when you defend
= yourself!
=
I do not like it when you do not know enough science to even post to
the newsgroup. And you have not the commonsense to refrain from posting
and just read the physics newsgroups. You do not belong in any sci
newsgroups as a regular because you do not know any physics. And your
posts are more damaging than ever constructive.
= =
= = Name the Movie: ANTISCIENTISTS PROFILE
= =
= = I should recount how Tutt said that it is theoretically and in
= =practice *impossible* to soft land the Moon onto Earth.
=
= Nothing changes, I guess. Reminds me of that "CALL ATT" commercial,
except
= my version goes:
= L - I - T - H - I - U - M
= L - I - T - H - I - U - M
= L - I - T - H - I - U - M
=
Right, little changes. You are not a scientist yet you post too much
garbage.
And when it is pointed out to you that you are a nuisance to this
newsgroup your reply is the usual ad hominem.
= = I wonder if MIT physicists agree with Tutt that a soft-landing of
= =Moon onto Earth is impossible both in theory and in practice.
=
=
= That would be a big YES!
=
Funny. Because, before I started the thread of Soft-Landing Astro
bodies such as Mercury or Moon upon Earth, I confirmed the science
behind it with a professor of Stanford physics. You will find, (not
Carl Dean for he could not even understand a physics book or journal),
that the science of soft-landing of astro bodies has already been
covered in the literature, ie, I am not the first.
So, Carl Dean plus Teresa Tutt claim soft landing of Mercury onto
Earth is impossible. Archimedes Plutonium plus Stanford physicist plus
astronomy-physics journals claim soft landing *is possible*.
= = I believe the above should be a good article for the NYT Science
= =Times to interview some scientist and to clear up the mess for Tutt
and
= =for Dean to name just two. The reason I say this is because Tutt is
= =wrong and I am correct. That it is possible in theory and in
practice
= =to soft land Mercury upon Earth. And to soft land the Moon upon
Earth.
= =It will not stay a stable condition for long for the Earth will
absorb
= =Mercury into its mantle and then core as a oversized mountain. And
= =because Mercury has a huge iron core it will sink into the core of
= =Earth.
=
= Ok, Archie. I'm going to go slow with you. Let's assume that you
actually
= succeeded in "soft landing" Mercury and as you just said, and it's
huge iron
= core sinks into the the mantle of the earth. What would that cause
to
= occur? Can you say volcanic eruptions all over the earth?! (I knew
you
= could)
=
Obviously when someone who is not even in science, cannot even stay
on track with a conversation.
The entire conversation is about Soft Landing, not about volcano
eruptions etc.
We do not assume Soft Landing. It is me who claims Soft Landings are
possible. It is Carl Dean who claims they are impossible.
An AntiScientist like Carl Dean could never argue in favor of his
claim of Soft landing impossibility. It is tough for Carl Dean to even
remain on topic.
= If you don't believe, go to your kithen and get a cup. Fill the cup
with
= water till it is close to the top. Now slowly insert a screwdriver
handle
= into the water. What you will see is that the water will be
displaced by
= the screwdriver handle and will overflow the cup.
=
= You better not try to refute this because it was ARCHIMEDES who
formulated
= this principle. It's called (now listen closely) "ARCHIMEDES
PRINCIPLE"!
= One would think that you would at least understand the science
formulated by
= the person you took your name (or nickname or whatever) from.
=
= = However, the Moon when it nears Earth will be shattered into
= =fragments by the Roche limit and these fragments can then be lowered
= =onto Earth peaceably.
=
= Sure it will. I'm hearing my modified "CALL ATT" commercial again!
=
= =
= = But it is the basic physics that a soft landing is possible in
= =practice and in theory that Tutt does not want to confess. And she
= =never admitted that she was wrong. I think that all physicists
should
= =confess when they are wrong and made a mistake, otherwise later in
life
= =they will stray more and more over into falsehoods, and even
liaring.
=
= But, she's not lying!
= =
= = That would make a good NYT article because the general public has
= =been deluged with the asteroid killing dinosaurs news. Thus, when
any
= =little ball, not to mention Mercury or the Moon, comes hurdling
towards
= =Earth, even physicists lose their rational minds and declare
impossible
= =for any soft landing.
=
= So all of the scientists from around the world are wrong and you are
= correct? Maybe you should consider that you are wrong unless you can
write
= up some equations to show that it's possible. Ever seen an impact
crater?
= They are all over the world and the moon. I don't think you would
want to
= be at ground zero when it struck. I'm willing to stick my neck out
and
= declare that any one standing there would be most certainly dead.
Waving
= your hands in the air won't make any difference!
=
= =
= = A soft landing of Mercury or the Moon upon Earth is possible. And
= =that is what the NYT could straighten out well by an article in the
NYT
= =Science Times. All real physicists know that a soft-landing is
= =possible. But the general public after being saturated with dinosaur
= =killings and asteroid movies thinks that anything approachine Earth
can
= =only be harmful and never beneficial.
=
= Which is quite true! Unless it is so small that it burns up
completely and
= doesn't explode!
=
= = So, here is a good assignment for the NYT Science Times. Do an
= =article on the question of whether a soft landing of Mercury
= =(unaffected by Roche Limit) and the Moon (affected by Roche Limit)
upon
= =Earth is possible or impossible. Then, the general public and
= =non-physicists like Tutt and Dean can learn something new.
=
= Kinetic Energy = 1/2 *(mass)*(velocity)^2
=
= Collisions:
= Momentum = (mass) (velocity)
=
Here it looks as though Carl Dean fetched some High School physics
book and copied out a paragraph. None of which is relevant towards Carl
Dean proving his claim that Soft Landing is impossible.
What you need to do Carl Dean and Teresa Tutt to prove your claim
that a soft landing is impossible is to show the Mechanics of dumbbell
Asteroids, how they collide into a soft landing and then use that
mechanics to show that Mercury plus Earth could never dumbbell collide
as a soft landing.
Carl Dean could not even start such a science endeavor. Tutt could
start it, but her prejudices and bias would prevent her from getting
the correct answer. The correct answer is that a Soft Landing of
Mercury upon Earth is *Possible*. In fact, the mathematics that I
worked out some years ago says that you can make it as SOFT OF A
LANDING AS DESIRED.
=
= Looking at the kinetic energy of such an object, the value for the
velocity
= (40,000 mph?) is squared! Then multiply by the mass which is also
huge and
= divide by two. I would guess that this is a HUGE (I said HUGE!)
number and
= would be quite lethal! Now granted IF the velocity is zero, then the
= kinetic energy is zero and now you only have to deal with the static
load of
= the wieght of the object on the earth's crust. The earth's crust is
= actually relatively thin (thinner than the shell of an egg if the
earth was
= shrunk down to the size of an egg). The crust of the earth is
FLOATING on
= top of the Magma which means that even if it didn't break, it can
only hold
= so much weight before it moves downward (Archimedes Principle).
=
= = And I want to thank the NYT recent article on Fleas, I learned
a-lot
= =from that and I hope the next Flea cycle (is it a 17 year cycle?) is
= =not approaching anytime soon. The last one I hear was the year that
= =TIME magazine had the Flea on its cover and claimed ( I am told)
that
= =Fleas have a cycle where they are in enormous abundance.
=
=
= Where'd this come from?! Seems you are more worried about fleas than
you
= are about the destruction of all life on earth!
=
= =In article <ylZ83.10871$hh1....@news1.mia>
= ="Carl Dean" <cde...@bellsouth.net> writes:
= =
= =You uncovered my plot Archie! I'm actually Dr. Evil - CEES (Chief
= =Executive
= =Evil Scientist) for large multi-national EVIL organization that
wants
= =to extort billions from unsuspecting governments from
= =AROUND THE WORLD! <evil laughter=
= =
= =You'll never catch me or my organization! <more evil laughter=
= =
= =Dr. Evil
= =
= =P.S. I know why you hate fusion reactors! The first generation
= =reactors
= =are going to use lithium, and you know you need all the lithium you
can
= =get!
=
=
= I wish I hadn't posted that, now the whole world knows my evil plans!
=
= Regards,
= Dr. Evil, I mean ... Carl
We have loitering in real life. The sci newsgroups are not places
for loitering. If a poster lacks the ability to converse in the subject
and make any contribution to the subject such as Carl Dean, then the
readers of the newsgroup should start to reform the person. Carl Dean
mostly posts news flashes about fusion, but he is unable to understand
the news itself. He has no physics training and his posts are often
mis-information and destructive. Unless he reforms or is forced to
reform, then this long movie of ANTISCIENTISTs will be posted to
sci.physics.fusion where Dean is such a nuisance
Carl Dean
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message
>
>the newsgroup. And you have not the commonsense to refrain from posting
>and just read the physics newsgroups. You do not belong in any sci
>newsgroups as a regular because you do not know any physics. And your
>posts are more damaging than ever constructive.
I am more qualified than you will ever be. The simplist of concepts escapes
your grasp.
>= =
>= = Name the Movie: ANTISCIENTISTS PROFILE
>= =
>= = I should recount how Tutt said that it is theoretically and in
>= =practice *impossible* to soft land the Moon onto Earth.
>=
>= Nothing changes, I guess. Reminds me of that "CALL ATT" commercial,
>except
>= my version goes:
>= L - I - T - H - I - U - M
>= L - I - T - H - I - U - M
>= L - I - T - H - I - U - M
>=
>
> Right, little changes. You are not a scientist yet you post too much
>garbage.
>And when it is pointed out to you that you are a nuisance to this
>newsgroup your reply is the usual ad hominem.
Glass houses Archie! Your response as usual is BORING! All you do is say
the same dumb things while ignoring all relevent arguments about why your
lame brain idea won't work!
>
>= = I wonder if MIT physicists agree with Tutt that a soft-landing of
>= =Moon onto Earth is impossible both in theory and in practice.
>=
>=
>= That would be a big YES!
>=
>
> Funny. Because, before I started the thread of Soft-Landing Astro
>bodies such as Mercury or Moon upon Earth, I confirmed the science
>behind it with a professor of Stanford physics. You will find, (not
>Carl Dean for he could not even understand a physics book or journal),
>that the science of soft-landing of astro bodies has already been
>covered in the literature, ie, I am not the first.
Where is the reference for this material that you say is covered in
literature, since you are not the first? What is the Professor's name? You
just messed up Archie! You didn't include them because you don't have any
such information. Your argument is so ludicrous, it's laughable!
>
> So, Carl Dean plus Teresa Tutt claim soft landing of Mercury onto
>Earth is impossible. Archimedes Plutonium plus Stanford physicist plus
>astronomy-physics journals claim soft landing *is possible*.
Again, references please!
So, you are not concerned with the aftermath that occurs after your "soft
landing" occurs. You stated that the iron core would sink into the core of
the earth. This iron core would displace magma which would have to go some
place! This is ARCHIMEDES PRINCIPLE!
>
> We do not assume Soft Landing. It is me who claims Soft Landings are
>possible. It is Carl Dean who claims they are impossible.
A good scientist can make assumptions. My assumption was that even if you
could "soft land" the moon, it would still be catastrophic!
>
> An AntiScientist like Carl Dean could never argue in favor of his
>claim of Soft landing impossibility. It is tough for Carl Dean to even
>remain on topic.
You are unable to grasp the simplist of concepts or methods of debating
issues. Please re-read the following and comment on it this time!
>
>= If you don't believe, go to your kithen and get a cup. Fill the cup
>with
>= water till it is close to the top. Now slowly insert a screwdriver
>handle
>= into the water. What you will see is that the water will be
>displaced by
>= the screwdriver handle and will overflow the cup.
>=
>= You better not try to refute this because it was ARCHIMEDES who
>formulated
>= this principle. It's called (now listen closely) "ARCHIMEDES
>PRINCIPLE"!
>= One would think that you would at least understand the science
>formulated by
>= the person you took your name (or nickname or whatever) from.
I noticed that you did not comment to this statement? Gee, I wonder why?
Could it be that don't think it's relevent to the topic being discussed or
is it that you know it blows your whole "theory" out of the water!
Kinetic energy and momentum is not important?!
>
> What you need to do Carl Dean and Teresa Tutt to prove your claim
>that a soft landing is impossible is to show the Mechanics of dumbbell
>Asteroids, how they collide into a soft landing and then use that
>mechanics to show that Mercury plus Earth could never dumbbell collide
>as a soft landing.
You have to prove that it is possible. YOU need to do the Mechanics of such
a collision. I showed that even is it were possible that it would still be
disasterous. That is good enough for me. Asteroids colliding are
completely different from a collision with earth. If you don't understand
why, you should not even be discussing the subject.
>
> Carl Dean could not even start such a science endeavor. Tutt could
>start it, but her prejudices and bias would prevent her from getting
>the correct answer. The correct answer is that a Soft Landing of
>Mercury upon Earth is *Possible*. In fact, the mathematics that I
>worked out some years ago says that you can make it as SOFT OF A
>LANDING AS DESIRED.
>
>
>=
>= Looking at the kinetic energy of such an object, the value for the
>velocity
>= (40,000 mph?) is squared! Then multiply by the mass which is also
>huge and
>= divide by two. I would guess that this is a HUGE (I said HUGE!)
>number and
>= would be quite lethal! Now granted IF the velocity is zero, then the
>= kinetic energy is zero and now you only have to deal with the static
>load of
>= the wieght of the object on the earth's crust. The earth's crust is
>= actually relatively thin (thinner than the shell of an egg if the
>earth was
>= shrunk down to the size of an egg). The crust of the earth is
>FLOATING on
>= top of the Magma which means that even if it didn't break, it can
>only hold
>= so much weight before it moves downward (Archimedes Principle).
I noticed again that you completely ignored a very relevent argument.
>=
>= = And I want to thank the NYT recent article on Fleas, I learned
>a-lot
>= =from that and I hope the next Flea cycle (is it a 17 year cycle?) is
>= =not approaching anytime soon. The last one I hear was the year that
>= =TIME magazine had the Flea on its cover and claimed ( I am told)
>that
>= =Fleas have a cycle where they are in enormous abundance.
>=
>=
>= Where'd this come from?! Seems you are more worried about fleas than
>you
>= are about the destruction of all life on earth!
No comment from Archie about why he is so much more concerned about fleas
than he is about the destruction of all life on earth. Two words Archie...
"Flea Bomb". They work well, you should try them!
>=
>= I wish I hadn't posted that, now the whole world knows my evil plans!
>=
>= Regards,
>= Dr. Evil, I mean ... Carl
>
> We have loitering in real life. The sci newsgroups are not places
>for loitering. If a poster lacks the ability to converse in the subject
>and make any contribution to the subject such as Carl Dean, then the
>readers of the newsgroup should start to reform the person. Carl Dean
>mostly posts news flashes about fusion, but he is unable to understand
>the news itself. He has no physics training and his posts are often
>mis-information and destructive. Unless he reforms or is forced to
>reform, then this long movie of ANTISCIENTISTs will be posted to
>sci.physics.fusion where Dean is such a nuisance
A nuisance only to you! You deserve to be mocked! I post links about
cutting edge developments that have just been announced about fusion
research and other related topics. Not garbage such as you post. Do not
even try to compare your posts to mine. We both know that I am far more
knowledgeable than you are. You never even attempted any of my simple tests
where I asked you to solve some basic math problems. A self proclaimed
physics genius such as yourself should have been able to breeze through
them, but you didn't (or couldn't?) work a single one.
If you want to know what took me so long to respond - I was on a beach in
Florida hanging out with the most beautiful bikini-clad women imaginable! I
just might have to move to the beach!
Dr. Evil
PS My apologies to every one who is as sick of this "soft landing"
nonsense
as I am.
Fred McGalliard
>...
> > I wonder if MIT physicists agree with Tutt that a soft-landing of
> >Moon onto Earth is impossible both in theory and in practice.
>
> That would be a big YES!
How about this one. First we bring the moon in real close, say around
200 KM, (probably take a few million years to do this without breaking
the fragile rock ball up). Wait for a few centuries while tidal forces
cook the core, then assemble a big straw and suck the molten core down?
Alternatively, we could take it apart in big flat sheets, spin em up,
and sail em into the earth like a bunch of giant Frisbees. What? you
want the whole object in one piece? I thought it would come apart anyway
we got it close enough to play with it much, (Roach limit and all that)?
How about we build a really really derrick and use a big block and
tackle, stop it in orbit and then just drop it slowly down to the
surface, or what's left of the surface after the derrick is erected.
Course you have to have one really big diaper of unobtanium, to hold the
debris that find the earth's gravity way more attractive than the
moon's. So the pile of rubble you land wouldn't much resemble the moon
you started with and once you remove the diaper, the whole mess will
spill out like a rock climbers bad dream.