Answers to questions on other threds that are now locked.

[RedImperator]

My BA is in my house, but only because I don't have an office yet. And it's hung up on the living room wall, under a spotlight, not in the basement with the washing machine and the kitty litter.

[Geran]

Well Stewart, I'm still waiting for your documents.

I'm looking for copies of the following:

Your driver's license (you may black out the number)
Registration for all your firearms
Tax forms for your company
Names & universities for all those PhD types you had lunch with
Proof of your armed forces service
Your College & University diplomas
Documents to back up your other 1001 claims

He never claimed to have an University diploma, only that from "Regents College" in the Nellingen Barracks

[Master of Ossus]

He never claimed to have an University diploma, only that from "Regents College" in the Nellingen Barracks

[shrugs]

Let's see that, then.

[Straha]

ALRIGHT STEWIE. THIS IS GETTING ANNOYING. WHO'S REPLIES ARE YOU WAITING FOR BEFORE YOU CAN TYPE NAMES INTO AN E-MAIl? SERIOUSLY STEWIE.

[Stewart at SDI]

Where's this institute based, Stewie? Give me a physical address. I called your bluff back on page 2, and you still haven't acknowledged it.

This question answered long ago, if you havent read all the posts to keep up, I can't help you.

[Darth Wong]

Hey look, the lying coward is back! What's it going to be, Stewart? Are you going to answer my ultimatum or not?

WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART?

[muse]

Where's your fucking documentation? Don't know how to use the post office? Can't find your non-existent forms? Whatsa matter?


I'm looking for copies of the following:

Your driver's license (you may black out the number)
Registration for all your firearms
Tax forms for your company
Names & universities for all those PhD types you had lunch with
Proof of your armed forces service
Your College & University diplomas
Documents to back up your other 1001 claims

In case you can't see the mailing address, here it is again.

Chris M.
P.O. Box 9, Station O
ScarboroughOntario, Canada
M4A 2M9

That's an O, not a zero.

Send it with registered mail and give me the fucking tracking number so that I can see you actually sent the damn thing. You have until Friday to get everything in the mail and send the tracking number for your package.

[Stewart at SDI]

Stewie, what kind of scanner did you buy? Chances are, someone here has a similar scanner, if not an identical one, and can talk you through the difficult parts of the operation.

Never one to turn down free help, I have a Visioneer, Paper port 3100.
Would like the help. Sincerely, Stewart.

P.S. The packets are on the way to the first two who sent addresses. P. Skayhan and ?. His includes; state and federal identification cards, a certified, redacted copy of my DD-214 and it's cert and photographs of targets, guns, me infront of home and a pair of a ball to illistrait the induced defects possable in photography. The other has everything but the DD-214. SFD.

[Darth Wong]

I see no mention of your education, Stewtard. Moreover, you are still ducking my demand for you to back up your claims of "nuclear weapons expertise" with calculations demonstrating the feasibility and economy of a neutron beam that achieves neutron capture for every atom in an 80km sphere of compressed uranium through >6000km of overlaying material.

For the umpteenth time,
WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART? YOU NOW HAVE LESS THAN 8 HOURS.

[The Dude]

It looks like Stewie's "weapons analyst" experience consists mainly of looking through the windows of gun shops and saying " 'Dem guns purdy".

[aerius]

It looks like Stewie's "weapons analyst" experience consists mainly of looking through the windows of gun shops and saying " 'Dem guns purdy".

That and copying & pasting stuff off of firearms message boards.

[Stewart at SDI]

What is the "critical level" and why would +4000 tones of gas in a >35,000M^3 volume not expand farther? Assuming that your mesurements are good. If the gas expanded untill it was the same dencity as air, ~1.2Kg/M3 and the asteroid was 20x16M regular ovoid, with a dencity of 1.5 the resulting cloud would be 3,351,032M3 or >185M in diamiter. Since the origional asteroid is more than 1/8th inch on my computer screen then the resulting cloud should be about 1.2 inches OD. It is less than .25" Why is that and why does it remain about the same size in two consecutive frames? (If the asteroid were iron the resulting cloud would be ~325M OD.)

If the ambient pressure is ~10,000 Ata and the dencity is ~640Kg/M^3 I would think that it would glow don't you?

At ambient pressure/density, the critical temperature is many thousands of K; i,e. higher than the vapourization temerature of iron.

Acording to Bernuli's (or whoever's) theory, What is the pressure if the density is 1.2Kg/M^3 and the temperature is above the vaporisation point of either Iron or Silicate agragate rock?

In fact, common plasmas (like welding arcs, at ~4000K) glow only from electrically motivated incandescence, not thermal.

I hardly expect any of this to penetrate your mighty wall of ignorance, but I try.

1. The picture of the Incandesant cloud does not appear to be twice as large as the asteroid.

It is more than twice as large.

True. I must apologise for my mistake. When I first saw the pics in the other thread, I made prints of them. The first frame had a defect ajaisent to the un-exploded asteroid and I misstook it for part of the asteroid.

Even if it wasn't , you are simply nitpicking to avoid the real issue, which is that there is no reason for the expanding gas to glow.

Not true at all. Check your physics. Everyone that I talked to said that under those conditions of density and temperature, it would not only be glowing but so bright that you could not look at it. The gas has to expand before it gets to a density low enough for this argument to apply. Since the leading edge of the cloud contains the vast majority of the gas, it's density would not fall below the threshold you describe untill it is 4-6 times as large as the figures above. IE 185-325M OD to be 740-1130M OD or 1300-1950M OD. after that much expansion, the edge of the cloud would still be visable for much more expansion. Since this is clearly many times more than we see it follows that the total mass of gas in the cloud must be less.

2. Even if it was twice as large the mass of gas in the cloud would still be >4000 or >21,445 metric tones if iron. If we use a sphere, by no means agreing wirth the picture, that makes 33,510M3 or 120Kg/M3 if it's a low dencity and 640Kg/M3 if it's an iron lump. I would assume that gas at such a dencity would expand farther and still be visable untill it was at the very least less dence than sea level air.

Then you shouldn't assume.

Why not? Every one on your side of the debate has made very many assumptions that are contradictory to the evidence on film.

Even if we accept your simple-minded dismissal of the radiative cooling of the gas, the gas would be invisible well before it reached sea-level air density.

Again not true at all. I did not dismiss radiative cooling at all. I said it takes longer than the two frames we see on film, for it to happen. There are several examples that come to mind that most on this board have dismissed without checking outside sources, but just parrot back as fact.

3. At incandesant temperatures and the above dencities, would someone who still knows Bernulli's formulals please compute the resulting pressures.

Try the ideal gas law, fucktard.

You are absolutely right, IIRC. Althoug I thought I said whatever formula there some were. So why doesn't someone who still knows it run the numbers?

4. At the above conditions why does the cloud not expand in the next frame?

I'll type this in caps, since you just don't seem to get it: THE EXPANDING GAS WILL COOL;

Yes the gas cools but the atoms in it will still take several seconds to radiate all the photons worth of heat that excited them in the first place. You are confusing temperature with heat content of the total density of gas. Without air resistance to slow it, the actual temperature of the indavidual atoms will remain quite high untill they radiate all of the heat that they aquired in the vaporisation process.

THE COOLED GAS WILL NOT GLOW. In other words, the gas cloud IS expanding.

Yes it is but your ignorance of it's density distribution is showing. The density of the edge of the cloud is many orders of magnatude higher than the center. It is also not cooled by expansion as you are familiar with. Every single atom must radiate all of the heat that it aquired before it's indavidual temperature will go down.

However, only the hotter core (which is probably composed mostly of glowing condensed remnants anyway) glows, becuase the temperature and density are too low in the outer regions.

This is exactly opposite of how it works. If the radius of the initial cloud is 2, then by the time it expands to radius 3, only ~11% of the origional mass will still be within the origional boundrys and ~89% is between radius 2 and 3. By the time it gets to radius 4, only ~1% is left inside the origional boundries and the vast majority is now between radius 3 and 4.

You have proven repeatedly that you certainly do not understand this.

The gas at the midle of the cloud is at the lowest dencity and it glows but the part of the cloud that is at the highest dencity does not. Have I got that right?

Unsurprisingly, no. The density will have a negative outwards gradient (the outermost gas will be most dense, the "core" gas will be more dense.

Are you serious with this? The logic of your statement and it's contradictions; "outermost gas will be most dense" then how could the inner gas be "more dense" than the "most dense" gas at the edge of the cloud. You need to do some serious research.

Moreover, the core gas will be hotter, while the outer gas is cooler.

Also false. because the edge gas is many orders of magnatude denser than the core gas it retains it's heat for far longer than the core vacume.

Not coincidentally (given that the special effect was produced with a pyrotechnic), this is exactly what happens in actual chemical explosives which - wait for it - vapourize the explosive.

You are obviously ignorant of these facts too. I recomend the Blasters hand book by E.I. DuPont De Namours? It is available from the Scosciety of explosives engineers some place in pensilvania, IIRC.

The explosive is certainly not vaporised as the word is commonly used. All detonating explosives liborate energy as the detonation/shock wave progresses threw them. The various liborated constituant gases are then heated by the process. Because the gas can not expand as quickly as it is liborated, it is temporarily confined by it's own inertia. When it expands it behaves exactly like gas does in deep space because it is so many times higher pressure and denser than the surrounding air. Tamped blasts use the pressure to dislodge the suroundings.

In every single explosion that has ever happened, the gasious products expand as I have stated, leaving nearly perfect vacumes behind. At least untill the expanding cloud reaches equilibrium plus it and it's surrounding medium's elastic limet due to the inertia of the moving mass.

Wrong. the outer most gas is the last to cool because it is at the highest dencity.

Back in fucktard territory. The outermost gas is unconstrained

Except for it's own inertia.

(it's surrounded by vacuum) - it will expand, and therefore decrease in density, faster than the innermost gas.

Wrong again. By the time the gas cloud has expanded to 200% of it's original radius more than 99.9999% of ALL the gas in the cloud will be moving away from the center of the blast. While it is true that the inner most parts will expand ever so slightly slower than the outer most gas, this differance in velosity is totaly insignificant in space or in the atmosphere or under water for that mater, untill the density and presure reach equilibrium.

This is simple common sense.

The mechanics of this are quite simple really. If the cloud is 100% at first. When it expands to 150%, ~89% of the gas will be in the outer 50%.

Dead wrong; thanks for reconfirming your algebraic uselessness. When the cloud is at 150% of its initial radius, its volume will be at 338% of its original value; thus leaving almost 30% of the gas in the original volume. Where the fuck are you getting this idiotic notion that the gas almost totally evacuates the original space?

I have never maintained that the dencity and temperature were constant in any post. I have always said that they are changing and that we should see evidence of that change. We do not. I recomend reading Richard Rhodes books on the Atomic bomb to get a handle on this.

Fuck you, moron. Try starting with simple fluid dynamics and grade-school maths. You keep bleating that we don't see evidence of decreasing temperature and density, despite the fact that I have instructed you several times that decreasing density and temperature will render the gas transparent! Are you really this fucking dumb, or is it an act?!?

Give me a referance, book, page and quote to support your ludicris claims. You are asking me for referances all the time this is the first time thaty I have done the same to you. Put up or shut up.

Sorry, nice try Stewie. YOU said that every explosion in space would look like a ring. You deserve to be mocked for such inanity.

The observed effects of every single explosion ever studied match my discription. None match yours. Again get me a referance to prove that I am wrong.

Once again, for those who missed this. As the cloud expands, the vast majority of the gas is at the leading edge of the sphere.

Wrong. This is completely backwards. Hydrostatic pressures are not directional by definition;

True. But the effects of that pressure are. As the gas accellerates from the starting pos, it aquires vector momentum. Since all of the gas must eventialy go in the outward direction, it does not have to go far before it all has roughly parrallel vectors. After only 50% of radius expansion, 89% of the gas has a vector away from the center of the sphere. Without a surrounding medium, IE it's in space, there is nothing to stop it from expanding forever. This is hard to understand? but use big numbers and then run them. IE radius of two and expansion in units of 1/2 radius. If you do you will see what I meen. Unless you are LD or something.

even if there was a reason for even a temporary concentration of mass at the outer edge (which there isn't), it would quickly be corrected by any resulting pressure gradient.

Read all of the above. The resulting vectors of all the gas (99.9999%) is away from the center after less than 100% expansion. Any side to side variation is accommodated by surface aria expansion as the cloud expands.

The volume inside is largely empty!

Would you quit repeating this crap like it was a mantra? Not only is it wrong, but it doesn;t help you. Even if this was the case, the density will still drop with time at any given point in the cloud.

Why, it's the truth. It is correct. Wrong, it does help. True, the density does drop everywere in the cloud. I never said it didn't. Just not as fast as you need it to for the film to agree with your theory.

You are absolutely wrong again! Your math skills are obviously faulty and your knowledge of the dynamics of explosions is just as faulty. Go ask a math teacher and any physics profesor.

Oops; I accidentally squared when I should have cubed. You shouldn't have crowed about it though, becuase now I am forced to point out that my answer was off by a factor of 2, whereas yours was off by over an order of magnitude.

Wrong again. Please show how my figures are off at all. You are the one that keeps espousing theories that do not resemble the facts. Show me a feferance that agrees with you!

Even when I fuck up, you still manage to do worse.

In your dreams. When I screw up at least I have an excuse beyond my control. You just do sloppy research and work.

Really? Why don't you ask Mike about your calculations?

Fine. Mike, if you have any issues with my calcs, please PM me.

No, Mike if you have any problems with his math, you are bound to post it for all to see, just as you did for my work. After all fair is fair, or is it here?

Wrong again. No one has posted a valid rebuttal! Not a single person on this board has addressed my points.

Bald-faced lie.

Like your lame ranting are a rebuttal? In your dreams!

You think you'd get better at it with practice, but, hey, you're not that smart. I have addressed and demolished every one of your so-called points; most of them multiple times. Mike did so as well.

Defective arguments do not count as rebutals no matter how many times they are repeated.

I would have posted proofs of my claims if anyone there had given me a post office address, weeks ago. I'm an old dog and do not do new tricks.

Riiiight. It's everyone's fault but yours that you can't back your inane bullshit up. If you're too stupid to operate a dead-simple device like a scanner (which I have seen uneducated eighty-year olds do with my own eyes), then it may be time to admit you are out of your depth here.

I never said that I could not learn, just that I had better things to do right now. It's not high enough on my priority list to make the first page.

1. A Rocket powered missile is fired in frame one. You can see the trailing exhaust plume but not the missile it self near the bow of the ship. The missile is leading the visable plume by some distance. It, the missile, is to small for the lens-camera system to resolve it.

Bwahahahahahaha..... not off to a good start. It is a beam weapon.

Prove it! Then what is the green plume comming from the ship?

Strike one. Rrebutted and in your court.

2. It impacts in frame two. and either dust is dislodged from the surface by the impact's shockwave or it is gas from the conventional explosive charge that together with the kinetic energy of the missile it self shatters the asteroid.

Your theory has fallen down again, since the damage begins before this "missile" of yours even gets close to the asteroid.

Failed to read the whole thing again. The missile leads the plume and is too small to show on the film.

Strike two. Rrebutted and in your court.

3. In frame 3, the cloud expands very little and changes shape somewhat. Like most conventional explosions in non-homoginious matierial.

You are accidentally partially correct here. Unfortunately, you are unaware of the fact that conventional explosions throw off most of their mass in the form on non-glowing gas. In fact, most of the glow from conventional explosives comes from glowing solid smoke particles; the gases themselves never get hot enough to glow.

You are partialy corect, but fall into the same old trap of assuming that what we see is incandesance in the asteroid shot. An effect that I have duplicated in the Photo pack that whent out yesterday, with an ordinary room temp base ball. Your assumption about the flash from most explosives is fancifull at best and an out right lie at worst. The heat of detonation of almost all explosives is over 2000K. If you can find any Military type explosives in the Encyclopedia of Explosives or any were else for that matter, I will be amaised, because I am ignorant of it.

Strike three. Rrebutted and in your court.

4. The gas dissipates and is replaced by the dust and fragmentary remnants of the asteroid. The gas can dissipate in between frames because there is so little of it. ( much less than 100 kilos, in my oppinion.)

4A. Because of the resolution limets of the film-camera system and poor light from the distant star, larger chunks are not visible as they move away from the detonation point. If they were closer to the star and had more light the ship would certainly look much brighter. ( look at space photos from LEO.)

Funny, you are not the first moron to claim that if the particles are small enough, they will disappear. This may appear to reasonable to folks as dumb as yourself; unfortunately for you, if a roughly equal solid mass is still there, it will still reflect light in proporation to the total sectional sufrace area (which just so happens to have gone UP dramatically). Fragmentation does not reduce visibility; quite the opposite is true.

Most of what you said is at least partialy true. However the defects in you reasoning are manifold. As soon as the space between particles is sufficiant, the film will "see" more black than white and the Cloud will appier to vanish. There is still the same total light there it is just so difuse that the film can not see it.

So, if there is only 100kg of gas, where the fuck are the many thousands of tons of solids?

If we can bairly see the asteroid that is X meters long and Y meters wide, How do you expect such a poor resolution system to show boulders less than a meter wide? Look at the detail on the ship, the atsteroid and larger/closer rock in the forground. That asteroid could be in chunks half the size of volks wagons and they would not show. Just a little sarchasim there. But seriously if we can bairly see details on the ship that are White and well defined and dozzens of meters in size how will a dark rock look?

Have they suddenly become tottaly non-reflective to the same light that was illuminating the asteroid? You can't account for the mass.

Read the above.

This one is a doozy; you manage to fail conservation of mass.

In what way? I never said it whent any were far away, just that it is too small for the camera/lens/film system to resolve. The proof of that statement is right in front of your eyes, look at the film. My Minolta 110 SLR camera takes better photos than that SD ship looks in this film strip. If I used my Nikon F3 or Mamia RZ67 the results would nock you socks off!

Strike four. Rrebutted and in your court.

5-7. The cloud of dust and rock disperces slowly untill it is no longer large and thick enough to show up on the camera's film. If you had ever seen a quary blast in an open pit mine, were they use just enough explosive to shatter and dislodge the rock, you would know what I meen and understand the "slow motion" nature of the blast as seen on film.
The fading away effect is easily explained by the fact that dust does not expand like an un-confined gas, but only as from the origional inertia imparted by the explosive.

The dust SETTLES you fucking retard!!!

Why would the dust settle in 1/3 second? Or at all in space? You are clearly loosing you grip on reason.

I realize you have problems understanding the differences between atmosphere and space, but this is ridiculous. When you detonate high explosives in rock, you get a plume of fines.

What are "fines"? What does the mass ratio of explosive to rock have to do with air or space?

Because their frontal surface area is very high in proportion to their momentum, they quickly brake in the surrounding atmosphere and succumb to gravity.

Wrong again. The ratio of rock density to air density is 3-4OoM. In explosions like I described, the rock does not go far because it is given so little imputus. I am willing to bet you a C-Note that if you mesured the velocity frame to frame, that the average Rocks from said quary explosion hit the ground with say >75% of their origional velocity. You could check in your own back yard, Take your cam corder and film throwing a rock. You can throw a fist sized rock farther than the typical quary blast. Distance id porportional to V^2.

Long story short, that was a fucking awful analogy, and one which actually hurts your argument. The fact that the fines are ever visible at all is absolute proof that the particle size is not an issue; di you expect people to believe that the particles' size spontaneously DECREASES while they are in mid-air, rendering them invisible. Jesus Christ.

It explains everything and has no glairing defects.

Correction: it explains nothing and consists almost exclusively of defects. You miscast an energy-beam weapon as a self-powered missile. You can;t account for the fact that the asteroid is heavily damaged before it is visibly struck. You have accidentally drawn attention to the similarity of this event to a chemical explosion IN WHICH THE CONSTITUENTS ARE VAPOURIZED. You have laughably tried t pretend that thousands of tons of rock will become invisible if you break it into small pieces. You can't account for the solid mass that you claim remains after the impact.

Right! What is the green plume then? If the gas cloud that we can see in frame two is 100M OD it weighs less than 5.3 tones, the asteroid weighs what? It is not circular and acording to your hydrodynamic laws should be. What if frame two is the result of the missile impacting durring the inter frame time? The similarities between explosions is not accidental, all explosions should behave like all the others that we have seen. This does not. Are you willing to bet me a hundered that I can not cause that same effect, say a shovel full of rocks that is clearly visable together dissapier when tossed into the air, with any one of my cameras? I am baffeld by your last statement. Could you please quote to me were I said the mass is gone?

What you have tried to pass off as a theory is nothing but an incredible litany of analytical incompetence. Frankly, your monumental ignorance is wearying, and if you insist on repreating your nonsensical claims without any additional supporting evidence, I will simply snip them from your posts from now on.

When your arguments lack effect, silence the speaker. I have chalenged you to provide a single referance that your "hydrodynamic" theory of explosions is more than your ignorance showing. I am still waiting!

[consequences]

Hm, since he seems to be reading this thread at least some of the time:


Hey, Stewart the Wonderfuck! You going to answer Wong's Ultimatum or Not? While we are at it, where's a copy of your DD-214 you lying sack of shit?

[AdmiralKanos]

In fact, common plasmas (like welding arcs, at ~4000K) glow only from electrically motivated incandescence, not thermal.

I hardly expect any of this to penetrate your mighty wall of ignorance, but I try.

You're a moron. What do you think electrically motivated incandescence is, you imbecile? Electrons reach a state of excitation and release a photon as they drop into a lower energy shell. That's the same thing that happens when something is merely hot.

Since the leading edge of the cloud contains the vast majority of the gas, it's density would not fall below the threshold you describe untill it is 4-6 times as large as the figures above. IE 185-325M OD to be 740-1130M OD or 1300-1950M OD. after that much expansion, the edge of the cloud would still be visable for much more expansion. Since this is clearly many times more than we see it follows that the total mass of gas in the cloud must be less.

Produce your calculations to show where you got these figures. Account for high-velocity expansion and electromagnetic radiation outside the visible spectrum.

So why doesn't someone who still knows it run the numbers?

You are making the claim, asshole. And since you have made it clear that you have never run the numbers, it is quite clear that you do NOT know whether any of your arguments are actually true. No one is obligated to do YOUR work for you, to justify YOUR claims.

Yes the gas cools but the atoms in it will still take several seconds to radiate all the photons worth of heat that excited them in the first place.

Show us the calculations you used to come to this conclusion.

When your arguments lack effect, silence the speaker.

You're pathetic. I could have deleted every one of your posts if I wanted to, but I did not. You can scream persecution all you want, but it will fool no one.

I have chalenged you to provide a single referance that your "hydrodynamic" theory of explosions is more than your ignorance showing. I am still waiting!

Waiting for what? For someone else to do YOUR calculations for you, to test the validity of YOUR completely unsupported claims? News flash, asshole: NO ONE IS OBLIGATED TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU.

Your numbers are worthless if you cannot explain how you arrived at them. You can't pick numbers out of a hat, nor can you subjectively estimate them without a formula or any other direct physics analysis of the situation. In short, you are spouting numbers but you ADMIT that you never bothered to do a single calculation to see if those numbers are correct! Ergo, the onus is on YOU to show that your numbers are NOT bullshit, and produce those calculations.

Final warning: WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART? You now have two hours left.

[Master of Ossus]

Stewart, the pathological liar, has been banned. May his name be forever linked with the Hall of Shame in which he spent so much of his SD.net career marred by his pathetic claims and stupid boasting.

[Sarevok]

About time he was banned. I expected an outright liar and moron like Stewart to get banned earlier.

[The Dude]

In fact, common plasmas (like welding arcs, at ~4000K) glow only from electrically motivated incandescence, not thermal.

I hardly expect any of this to penetrate your mighty wall of ignorance, but I try.

You're a moron. What do you think electrically motivated incandescence is, you imbecile? Electrons reach a state of excitation and release a photon as they drop into a lower energy shell. That's the same thing that happens when something is merely hot.

Actually Mike, that bit was from me, misquoted by Stewie. My point was that in welding arcs, the incandescence is caused entirely by the current (i.e. electrically motivated); the temperature (4000K) is insufficient to produce incandescence in the air without the current.

[The Dude]

If the ambient pressure is ~10,000 Ata and the dencity is ~640Kg/M^3 I would think that it would glow don't you?

You seem to be forgetting a minor variable here: temperature. You are also ignoring the fact that the center of the cloud does glow. It's the low-density, low-T outer parts that don't.

Acording to Bernuli's (or whoever's) theory, What is the pressure if the density is 1.2Kg/M^3 and the temperature is above the vaporisation point of either Iron or Silicate agragate rock?

Once again, you can't even tell the difference between Bernoulli's equation and the ideal gas law. I thought you said you were an expert???

<snip repetitions, evasions and inane "leading-edge density" nonsense>

Unsurprisingly, no. The density will have a negative outwards gradient (the outermost gas will be most dense, the "core" gas will be more dense.

Are you serious with this? The logic of your statement and it's contradictions; "outermost gas will be most dense" then how could the inner gas be "more dense" than the "most dense" gas at the edge of the cloud. You need to do some serious research.

Typo. My meaning should have been clear from the term "negative outwards pressure gradient", presuming you knew what those words mean.

Also false. because the edge gas is many orders of magnatude denser than the core gas it retains it's heat for far longer than the core vacume.

You keep repeating this in parrot-like fashion, but you have yet to answer a single call for justification of such an idiotic premise.

You are obviously ignorant of these facts too. I recomend the Blasters hand book by E.I. DuPont De Namours? It is available from the Scosciety of explosives engineers some place in pensilvania, IIRC.

Another vague name-dropping reference? What a shock.

The explosive is certainly not vaporised as the word is commonly used. All detonating explosives liborate energy as the detonation/shock wave progresses threw them. The various liborated constituant gases are then heated by the process. Because the gas can not expand as quickly as it is liborated, it is temporarily confined by it's own inertia. When it expands it behaves exactly like gas does in deep space because it is so many times higher pressure and denser than the surrounding air. Tamped blasts use the pressure to dislodge the suroundings.

Semantics and handwaving. Chemical explosives work by transforming the reactants into hot gas. Deal with it.

In every single explosion that has ever happened, the gasious products expand as I have stated, leaving nearly perfect vacumes behind. At least untill the expanding cloud reaches equilibrium plus it and it's surrounding medium's elastic limet due to the inertia of the moving mass.

Oh, I see.. This is another "Stewie can't understand the difference between an explosion in space and an explosion in atmosphere" problem. Here's a hint, you fucking tool: The outer edge of the gas is not confined in the absence of atmosphere.

<snip repetition>

Give me a referance, book, page and quote to support your ludicris claims. You are asking me for referances all the time this is the first time thaty I have done the same to you. Put up or shut up.

Are you serious? You need a reference to accept that cold, disperse gases will not glow?

True. But the effects of that pressure are. As the gas accellerates from the starting pos, it aquires vector momentum. Since all of the gas must eventialy go in the outward direction, it does not have to go far before it all has roughly parrallel vectors. After only 50% of radius expansion, 89% of the gas has a vector away from the center of the sphere. Without a surrounding medium, IE it's in space, there is nothing to stop it from expanding forever. This is hard to understand? but use big numbers and then run them. IE radius of two and expansion in units of 1/2 radius. If you do you will see what I meen. Unless you are LD or something.

I'll make this as straightforward as possible for you, you fucking simpleton.

The acceleration of the gas will be dictated by the pressure gradient. The outermost gas (i.e. that with virtually ZERO pressure in the outward direction, large pressure in the inward direction) will accelerate fastest. Gas slightly closer to the center (i.e. with small pressures in the outward direction, large in the inner direction) will accelerate somewhat more slowly. Gas very close to the center (where the pressure will be nearly equal in all directions) will accelerate very slowly.

Defective arguments do not count as rebutals no matter how many times they are repeated.

Hence your failure.

Failed to read the whole thing again. The missile leads the plume and is too small to show on the film.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! You admit your theory rests on a missile we never see!

<snip nonsense>

Most of what you said is at least partialy true. However the defects in you reasoning are manifold. As soon as the space between particles is sufficiant, the film will "see" more black than white and the Cloud will appier to vanish. There is still the same total light there it is just so difuse that the film can not see it.

Just like smoke is invisible to cameras, right? Oh wait, clouds of small particles tend to be highly visible, completely out of proportion with their total mass! You lose.

<anip repetition and handwaving>

The dust SETTLES you fucking retard!!

Why would the dust settle in 1/3 second? Or at all in space? You are clearly loosing you grip on reason.

You moronically claimed that dust from rock blasting disappears because it becomes too "diffuse" to see, when in fact the particles settle to the ground. This is completely independent of the situation in ESB.

What are "fines"?

I'm sorry; that's what people who have actually studied rock fragmentation call the tiny particles.

Wrong again. The ratio of rock density to air density is 3-4OoM. In explosions like I described, the rock does not go far because it is given so little imputus. I am willing to bet you a C-Note that if you mesured the velocity frame to frame, that the average Rocks from said quary explosion hit the ground with say >75% of their origional velocity. You could check in your own back yard, Take your cam corder and film throwing a rock. You can throw a fist sized rock farther than the typical quary blast. Distance id porportional to V^2.

You are a fucking idiot. You clearly do not understand that the behaviour of a projectile in air is influenced by its relative frontal surface area.

Long story short, that was a fucking awful analogy, and one which actually hurts your argument. The fact that the fines are ever visible at all is absolute proof that the particle size is not an issue; di you expect people to believe that the particles' size spontaneously DECREASES while they are in mid-air, rendering them invisible. Jesus Christ.

It explains everything and has no glairing defects.

Except that it requires that rock particles spontaneously decrease in size in air!

Right! What is the green plume then?

Tibanna gas.

If the gas cloud that we can see in frame two is 100M OD it weighs less than 5.3 tones, the asteroid weighs what?

Strawman. Do you really expect to score points by simply fabricating arguments no one has made?

It is not circular and acording to your hydrodynamic laws should be.

Nope. Keep pitching straw there, old man.

What if frame two is the result of the missile impacting durring the inter frame time?

What if a magical winged purple bunny flew out of Darth Vader's ass and blew up the asteroid?

I am baffeld by your last statement. Could you please quote to me were I said the mass is gone?

Your theory fails to account for the mass of the asteroid after the explosion.

When your arguments lack effect, silence the speaker.

When a fucktard incessantly repeats the same unaltered drivel after every rebuttal...

I have chalenged you to provide a single referance that your "hydrodynamic" theory of explosions is more than your ignorance showing. I am still waiting!

You're still waiting? You only made that request earlier in this same post! Have you been waiting long, then?

Anyway, here you go:

Force = Pressure * Area (1)

Acceleration = Force / Mass (2)

therefore:

Acceleration = Pressure * Area / Mass

Ref:
1. Sears, Zamansky & Young, "University Physics" (7th), Addison-Wesley, Reading MA (1986), p. 295.
2. ibid., p.76.

It's unfortunate that I should have to reference such simple equations, especially for a self-proclaimed expert weapons analyst. I can only wonder exactly what sort of analysis you perform that does not require familiarity with basic mechanics.

[Ghost Rider]

Ah well...he produced some outlandish tales, but in the end pulled the tiger's tail one too many times.

Locking because it's over.

[Darth Wong]

Actually Mike, that bit was from me, misquoted by Stewie. My point was that in welding arcs, the incandescence is caused entirely by the current (i.e. electrically motivated); the temperature (4000K) is insufficient to produce incandescence in the air without the current.

Ah, I see. I couldn't even figure out what the hell he was trying to prove with that. I thought he was trying to prove that free electrons must glow.