How Astronomers Missed the Massive Asteroid That Just Whizzed Past Earth

Whoey Louie wrote in news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are retarded. They are in no such locations you stupid f*ck. We banned them DECADES ago!

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

They have "momentum" and are affected by gravitational fields. Tell us how that works.

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Still striving to eat that 0.80" extreme overbore load, eh?

You sure do deserve it.

Whoey Louie wrote in news:e5318b50-1af8-4d3c- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Look closely, idiot. Look at that "not one" part.

As in NOT whatever your wee wittle bwain is futzing around with.

ourse

ded

that

out from hydrogen bombs for the last half century, because they don't radia te or contaminate. And all the bother in the early days, treaties to limit testing to underground. Could have just set them all off in the air and av oided all the additional effort.

t buddy.

o time, which trader4 doesn't.

bomb used to initiate nuclear fusion was surrounded by liquified deuterium, which was itself enclosed in a five ton natural uranium tamper.

ural uranium tamper, which was responsible for 77% of the final yield.

less dirty.

Do we actually care how much radioactivity gets dump on asteroid in the pro cess of discouraging it from hitting the earth?

Putting five tons of natural uranium around the fusion layer of a fission-f usion-fission bomb triples the explosive yield, but multiplies the radioact ive contamination about one hundred fold. The critical mass of U-235 is 56 kg, and of plutonium-239 only about 11 kgm.

Use a different tamper, and you can have a much cleaner - if somewhat less powerful - bomb.

clear

on reaction to start the process. It doesn't create an explosion - it's a p roof-of -principle device designed to lead to sustained power generation.

ron and hydrogen. It's ingenious, and the people pushing the scheme seem co nfident that it can be made to work.

Your claim was that "There is no known way and probably isn't a way period, to create a nuclear fusion explosion".

This is obviously wrong. Nobody has created a big explosion yet, but nothin g in the physics makes it impossible.

t would be needed to destroy an asteroid, f****it.

You are the f****it here. There's nothing in the physics that makes it impo ssible. There's an obvious reason for the fact that nobody has tried to do it.

led on top of more BS.

Your problem is that you confuse theory and practice, and seem to think tha t the fact that nobody has demonstrated a non-fission driven fusion based e xplosion is all the evidence you need to claim that it is impossible. In re ality, anybody who could demonstrate such a device would keep very quiet ab out it.

hair

esn't

in.

generate a lot of radioactivity. The people who wanted to use nuclear exp losives for civil did some work on such devices a long time ago, but nothin g got built or tested that I've heard about.

Not that you or I know about. People deeper in the defense industries might know better.

Keep on making crazy assertions based on the set of delusions you happen to like.

that you know what you are talking about.

that make him feel good.

Trader4 does worse. DL does get stuff right from time to time.

Not as reliably as krw - and now you - like to claim.

The stupidity is all yours, as you persistently remind us. What kind of idi ot chooses "Whoey Louie" as his pseudonym?

Look at this. All the world's fusion bombs create radiation and fallout. One prime reason is that they have to use a FISSION reaction to create the conditions for fusion to occur. There is no mythical fusion bomb that produces no radiation or contamination, as you claimed.

Wrong, always wrong.

You're so wrong that you just claimed the US doesn't have land based and sub based nuclear ICBMs anymore.

Wrong, always wrong.

I've added that to your threat file.

Wrong again, always wrong.

Of course the US still has land based ICBMs as well as ICBMs on nuclear subs under the world's oceans right now and weapons capable of being delivered by aircraft. It's called the nuclear triad, stupid. Trump didn't know what that was either, so you have some good company there.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really existed...... It doesn't. Neither does your pure fusion bomb that creates no radiation or contamination. Would you volunteer to stand exposed to the neutrons from a fusion reactor or bomb? Ever hear of a neutron bomb? Neutrons kill people stupid.

And here again is what you posted:

"A design for this application would be a huge device meant for explosive force, not radiation effect, which our crop currently relies on. "

Which of course is wrong. The vast majority of our current nuclear weapons are in fact meant for explosive force, not radiation effect.

Wrong, always wrong.

ROFL

Wrong, always wrong.

Show us examples of these new bombs. You can't. Just like you can never show anything to back up any of your other false claims. Found the accident reports for those B1 bomber crashes you claimed were due to fly-by-wire?

ROFL

In another post you just said that the US no longer has nuclear weapons that are on land based and sub based ICBMs, that we gave them up decades ago. Wrong, always wrong. Maybe your butt buddy Bill will chime in to try to help you out on that BS. You two are fun to watch.

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Bwuahahahahahaha! HOAD, f***ss... HOAD!

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are an idiot. You said they were all neutron bombs. They were banned decades ago and were never on top of our ICBMs. That is what I said.

You are the dopey dumbfuck whom is always getting it wrong. Your zeal to attack me only menas that you need a HOAD moment.

HOAD, twerp. That's all you deserve.

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

That is your argument? Note that the statement I made is a hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you have been going off about stupid shit for days nows.

Look at the remark, you stupid f*ck. It is not incorrect. A pure fusion device would be clean. Plain and simple and correct.

You just cannot get over the fact that you were wrong to attack me or the statement.

Nice try though, PUNK. You really need a HOAD moment in your life.

You are an idiot.

No... neutrons kill stupid people. The shame is that you have not been exposed.

Would you volunteer for a HOAD event? It's free for folks like you. I guarantee that it would be efficacious. HOAD, twerp.

You have a sad habit of this stupid shit. This is Usenet, idiot. You do not need to requote previously posted material, putz.

They are dual purpose and are designed to be that way.

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

No. That is not what I said. You conveniently snipped what you said which I responded to. YOU said they were all populated with neutron warheads. THAT is what I refuted.

Get over your stupid self, child. Better yet, HOAD.

Wrong and lying, again. Here is the exchange:

You posted:

"A design for this application (asteroid destruction) would be a huge device meant for explosive force, not radiation effect, which our crop currently relies on. "

That of course is wrong, so I posted:

" The exception would be

To which, you replied:

"You are retarded. They are in no such locations you stupid f*ck. We banned them DECADES ago!"

So, you claimed that our current nuclear weapons are targeted to create radiation, not explosive blast destruction. Wrong.

Then you claimed that we don't have land and sub based ICBMs.

Now you just claimed that we banned neutron bombs, which is misleading, AFAIK, there is no actual ban, there is no law, no agreement, no treaty banning them, the US simply phased the small amount we had out. But all that is irrelevant. The core nonsense here, that you put forth, was that our current nuclear weapons rely on the effects of radiation, not blast power. That is wrong, very, very wrong.

Again, here is what you posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that radiates or contaminates. "

You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You said "fusion device". And any fusion bomb that we know how to make today both radiates and contaminates, two good reasons being they require a fission nuclear reaction to create fusion and fusion itself releases neutron radiation. So, even your mythical pure fusion bomb would radiate. In other words, you were wrong again. Now you want to try to move the goal posts.

You just can't get over the fact that what you posted was wrong. And then you do the usual, expand on the ignorance, like claiming that our current nuclear weapons rely on the effects of radiation, not explosive blast. Wrong, always wrong.

It was a serious question. You claim that a "pure fusion bomb" is possible. I just want to know if you'd stand around and watch one go off at a distance far enough to avoid any blast danger? Would you stand in a lab next to an unshielded fusion reactor? You said a pure fusion reaction doesn't radiate, so it would be safe, right?

Oh, but I do need to quote. Because you keep lying and denying what you posted. You twist in the wind, spin and try to obfuscate. But it just digs your ignorance hole ever deeper. And feel free to quote whatever I post. When you're right and have the facts, you welcome it.

Wrong on that too. Wrong, always wrong.

That's a lie, I said no such thing. In fact, it's YOU who claimed that our current "crop" of nuclear weapons are based on using the effects of radiation, not blast. That sounds like neutron bombs. So, YOU brought up that BS, not me. And of course it's wrong.

They were

No, in fact you said our current "crop" of nuclear weapons relies on radiation, not explosive blast power. That's wrong and it implies that what's on our ICBMs would be neutron bombs. So, make up your mind, which is it? Our current weapons rely on radiation, not explosive blast power or we don't have them, they were banned? The banned part is misleading too. AFAIK, the US doesn't have any neutron bombs anymore, but it's not because they were banned. There is no law, treaty, etc, which just phased them out.

I suggest some anger management help.

Trader4 is stupid enough to think that this is an argument.

DLUNU didn't specify an existing fusion device. You've decided that he meant a fusion device which exists now and is known to people as stupid as trader4.

Not necessarily.

Trader4 doesn't seem to know about these reactions.

Trader4 has this persistent delusion that he knows what he is talking about, and can declare other peoples opinions wrong.

Krw has the same kind of problem. They both seem to lack any mechanism that allows them to reality check their opinions, and correct them when they've got them wrong, which happens rather frequently.

Trader4 has said that it's wrong, and he's infallible on matters of faith in his own opinion (which is absolute).

That's not what he was saying. He did mention that neutron bombs would have relied on pure radiation damage, and that they've been banned.

You seem to have misunderstood this - as often happens. You aren't very bight.

Actually not - except in the krw sense of not agreeing with trader4 opinion.

They radiate a whole lot less than fission reactors, and an aneutronic fusion reaction would emit only charged particles, which are absorbed a lot more rapidly than neutrons.