Russian Satellite Hit by Debris from Chinese Anti-Satellite Test

[Developereo]

It has been posted either by gambit or audio.This thread is 9 page long and has posts averaging 1000 words each.I exactly don't remember the location the piece of debris was mentioned in the list.

No, they haven't. No one has positively identified the object that collided with BLITS.

The best we have is that the Chinese satellite is projected to have passed at a distance of 3.1km within a 10 second window.

Without any further evidence, the best we have -- the best that experts are willing to say -- is that it "appears to be" the cause of the impact.

The point is that knowing the initial and final coordinates of satellite,one could easily calculate the direction and speed of impact (Collision could be considered as perfectly inelastic on account of difference in mass of two bodies and the probability of such an small object getting embedded in structural defects present in material being very high) using Newtonian mechanics (conservation laws specifically).

The momentum transfer could result in rotational as well as translational motion, so the calculations are not as straightforward as you say. There is the blog I mentioned which claims the Russians have estimated the size of the other object, but I don't know what, if any, assumptions they made about the other object.

 

[gambit]

Without examination, I will not make any statement. Only people like you will make apriori assumptions guided by their agenda.

This is clearly a lie. You are no different than everyone else. You make guesses based upon variables and lack thereof. You have been willing to make assumptions when situations required them and you will do so again and again in the future. And you will weigh alternate hypotheses in the absence of definitive proof.

Only thing law cares about is if the defence can establish reasonable doubt. Anything else is only in your own little imaginary world.

Against an expert in orbital mechanics like Thomas Kelso who was consulted in this event, a wise lawyer would have his own expert, IF he can find one. Apparently you would not make a good lawyer.

A contributing factor is part of the cause. If it has no effect on the event, then it is not relevant as evidence or as a factor.

In this event, the FY-1C debris field is more relevant than your meteor.

Your own sources say the best they have is "appears to be". They would be embarrased by your jackas$ understanding of their own statements and extrapolating them into a legal argument.

Nonsense. They would laugh at you for believing you could challenge them.

Of course you don't. Your deliberate misquotes expose your desperation and intellectual dishonesty.

Challenged vs chewed up? Are you serious that this would constitute a deliberate misquote?

Oh, there is plenty of evidence showcasing your bigotry towards the Chinese. Your entire posting history is on record.

Then bring them. Take your time gathering them. But remember to abide by your own requirements for what constitute as 'evidence'.

You fail yet again at reading comprehension. Only half the satellite is covered in reflective coating, so any rotation or other deviation may negatively impact its reflective function.

And you utterly failed as a 'man of science'. Even if half of the satellite is covered, its function -- to reflect -- is still there. It is limited by design, not by accident. So your use of the word 'haywire' is still inapplicable.

That post of yours was after you got your as$ handed to you in the Sharia thread where you kept blabbering about Britain, Pakistan and whatnot, while ignorant of the simple English word "enforce" against the Constitution.

I already showed you the meaning of the word ENFORCE although I fully expect you are beyond help as you are lost in your own delusion. Since you failed to grasp the meaning of that word, you dug yourself into a hole and have been trying desperately to claw your way out -- only to keep falling deeper within.

And it is irrelevant. When a bill become a law, it is instantly enforceable and I did not dispute that. This is a deliberate distraction from you. But since you mentioned that a law is not enforceable if it violate the Constitution, it begs the question of HOW, as in what avenue, did the ruling of 'un-Constitutional' came to be. If a bill is found to be un-Constitutional during the examination process, then it will not become a law in the first place. So your enforce definition is pointless.

What you are desperately trying to avoid is the truth that a law can be made independent of the Constitution and that is proven by the many challenges in the Supreme Court queue. And since there are challenges in queue, this mean your argument that no religious law can be enacted is false.

Give it up!

Advice to yourself?

The Sharia thread is there for everybody to see how pitifully ignorant you are of the fundamentals behind the US Constitutional setup.

Absolutely I want people to see it. They will see your hypocrisy as well as your failure to understand US Constitution and pretend that you do.

Yes, after you got your as$ whooped, the best you can come up with is that Congress can deliberately go against the Constitution and try to slip one by until someone catches it.

How long did it took laws regarding slavery to be declared un-Constitutional?

What part of "off-topic" do you have trouble understanding?
Dictionary time again...

YOU were the one who dragged this topic in here. Now deal with it, hypocrite.

Why are you silent about the religious law in your Pakistan but railed against anti-religious laws in the US?

It has been posted either by gambit or audio.This thread is 9 page long and has posts averaging 1000 words each.I exactly don't remember the location the piece of debris was mentioned in the list.

You mean this...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...inese-anti-satellite-test-8.html?#post4035173

The links to celestrak and socrates are in that post. It shows all the major trackable debris pieces from FY-1C.

 

[anonymus]

No, they haven't. No one has positively identified the object that collided with BLITS.

The best we have is that the Chinese satellite is projected to have passed at a distance of 3.1km within a 10 second window.

Without any further evidence, the best we have -- the best that experts are willing to say -- is that it "appears to be" the cause of the impact.



The momentum transfer could result in rotational as well as translational motion, so the calculations are not as straightforward as you say. There is the blog I mentioned which claims the Russians have estimated the size of the other object, but I don't know what, if any, assumptions they made about the other object.

The fact that the calculations could be made is enough.Space agencies have computational power to calculate trajectories of of probes like voyager series.They could probably calculate motion of each particle separately rather than treating it as a rigid body. Meteor is a far out probability in any circumstances and result of a meteor strike are so different from a debris strike that it would be apparent to any observer.

gambit has posted the link to the site which list of debris,above.

 

[Developereo]

The fact that the calculations could be made is enough.Space agencies have computational power to calculate trajectories of of probes like voyager series.They could probably calculate motion of each particle separately rather than treating it as a rigid body. Meteor is a far out probability in any circumstances and result of a meteor strike are so different from a debris strike that it would be apparent to any observer.

Once again, the burden of proof is on the claimant and the claim has not been proven.

gambit has posted the link to the site which list of debris,above.

That list does not contain any definitive evidence that would serve as proof beyond reasonable doubt. Even the experts are only willing to go as far as "appears to be". No court of law will convict on "appears to be".

 

[Developereo]

This is clearly a lie. You are no different than everyone else. You make guesses based upon variables and lack thereof. You have been willing to make assumptions when situations required them and you will do so again and again in the future. And you will weigh alternate hypotheses in the absence of definitive proof.

Spare me tha tantrum. You jumped to a conclusion based on your bigotry and you want to believe3 everybody else would do the same.

Wrong.

Against an expert in orbital mechanics like Thomas Kelso who was consulted in this event, a wise lawyer would have his own expert, IF he can find one. Apparently you would not make a good lawyer.

A good lawyer would have many ways to handle Kelso. I merely gave one of the known tricks which you, in your ignorance of all things not cut-and-paste, haven't the faintest clue about.

In this event, the FY-1C debris field is more relevant than your meteor.

Don't try to cover up yet anther English gaffe. These are getting all too predictable.

Nonsense. They would laugh at you for believing you could challenge them.

The gambit desperation and misquote at play again -- intellectually dishonest to the last.

Challenged vs chewed up? Are you serious that this would constitute a deliberate misquote?

Sigh. Yet another gambit display of English illiteracy.

The sad part is you don't even know why the two are utterly different concepts. A competent lawyer can "chew up" a witness using any number of legal tricks without ever dipping his foot in the latter's area of expertise.

Then bring them. Take your time gathering them. But remember to abide by your own requirements for what constitute as 'evidence'.

Already mentioned. Your posting history.

And you utterly failed as a 'man of science'. Even if half of the satellite is covered, its function -- to reflect -- is still there. It is limited by design, not by accident. So your use of the word 'haywire' is still inapplicable.

The English language already made a fool of you -- I only showed you the (reflective) mirror. I will keep giving you rope on this one because I enjoy watching you squirm and try to talk yourway out of this jam of "going haywire".

And it is irrelevant. When a bill become a law, it is instantly enforceable and I did not dispute that.

I said nothing about enforceable, I wrote enforce.

Since you are so abjectly clueless of the English language, and doubtless don't understand the disctinction between the two concepts, no wonder you keep making a fool of yourself.

Absolutely I want people to see it. They will see your hypocrisy as well as your failure to understand US Constitution and pretend that you do.

I LOVE the way you are still smarting from that drubbing.

YOU were the one who dragged this topic in here. Now deal with it, hypocrite

Wrong. You came here, smarting from your as$ whooping in the Sharia thread and highlighted the word 'legal' in post #71 in reference to that just-finished thread.

Like a glutton for punishment, you keep coming back for more.

 

[anonymus]

Once again, the burden of proof is on the claimant and the claim has not been proven.

.

But in any sane jurisdiction plaintiff has to prove a claim only beyond a reasonable doubt not absolute doubt.

Anyway the scientific aspect of this issue had been discussed to bone and there is hardly anything left now.

 

[gambit]

Spare me tha tantrum. You jumped to a conclusion based on your bigotry and you want to believe3 everybody else would do the same.

No. The one who is throwing the tantrum is YOU. It is utterly absurd for anyone to be completely unwilling to make guesses as you are desperately trying portray yourself. By the way, got any proof of that?

A good lawyer would have many ways to handle Kelso. I merely gave one of the known tricks which you, in your ignorance of all things not cut-and-paste, haven't the faintest clue about.

You gave what trick? The only thing you said was 'chewed up'.

The only thing courts care about is EVIDENCE. Courts hear expert testimony from Phd's all the time; if the claims or opinions are not backed by supportive evidence, the expert will be chewed up by lawyers and thrown out.

Happens all the time.

What 'trick' is here?

Experts are called to provide facts and experience based opinions. Those facts do not have to be directly related to the case in trial but contributory to the expert's education and life experience. That is why they are called 'experts'? So if an expert opined on the case towards one direction, it is incumbent upon the opposition to provide the court their own expert who will use his experience and education to try to sway the case in the opposite direction.

So we have Thomas Kelso. What do you have in defense of China?

The sad part is you don't even know why the two are utterly different concepts. A competent lawyer can "chew up" a witness using any number of legal tricks without ever dipping his foot in the latter's area of expertise.

Right...So when I use the word 'challenge' as substitute to your 'chewed up' it means I have a difficult time grasping the concept of legal challenges?

Already mentioned. Your posting history.

Which contains which racially charged words and phrases and where?

The English language already made a fool of you -- I only showed you the (reflective) mirror. I will keep giving you rope on this one because I enjoy watching you squirm and try to talk yourway out of this jam of "going haywire".

No, you made a fool out of yourself. Repeatedly. The BLITS satellite cannot go 'haywire'. It has no moving parts, no electronics, and it was never under any control. It can reflect at any altitude.

I said nothing about enforceable, I wrote enforce.

Since you are so abjectly clueless of the English language, and doubtless don't understand the disctinction between the two concepts, no wonder you keep making a fool of yourself.

It does not matter.

The crux of your argument is that Congress cannot pass a law if it violate the Constitution. You are entitled to that opinion. But then you have to explain the laws regarding slavery and how long it took to be declared un-Constitutional. This example falls perfectly within your argument.

Chickensh1t.

Wrong. You came here, smarting from your as$ whooping in the Sharia thread and highlighted the word 'legal' in post #71 in reference to that just-finished thread.

Like a glutton for punishment, you keep coming back for more.

Fine. So settle the question of your hypocrisy:

Why are you silent on Pakistan's dual legal system where religious laws are supreme when you declared that you are against religious laws?

But in any sane jurisdiction plaintiff has to prove a claim only beyond a reasonable doubt not absolute doubt.

Anyway the scientific aspect of this issue had been discussed to bone and there is hardly anything left now.

Actually, he have only a bone while the Russians and their American consultant have all the meat.

 

[Developereo]

You gave what trick? The only thing you said was 'chewed up'.

Nope. I told you one of the tricks a lawyer can use; look back a couple pages.

Right...So when I use the word 'challenge' as substitute to your 'chewed up' it means I have a difficult time grasping the concept of legal challenges?

Got it in one!

You wrote that a lawyer is not qualified to challenge an expert on his subject matter, and you are right. But I never made that claim. I only said lawyers can "chew up" witness using legal tricks without ever dipping their foot in the latter's subject matter.

Which contains which racially charged words and phrases and where?

boys. You already admitted it.

No, you made a fool out of yourself. Repeatedly. The BLITS satellite cannot go 'haywire'. It has no moving parts, no electronics, and it was never under any control. It can reflect at any altitude.

Oh dear, are we back to "moving parts and electronics" again?
Did you learn nothing from my simple mirror setup going haywire when hit by a ball?

The crux of your argument is that Congress cannot pass a law if it violate the Constitution.

Not again!
Remember the "e" word? I talk about "enforce" a law; Congress can pass anything it likes.

Why are you silent on Pakistan's dual legal system where religious laws are supreme when you declared that you are against religious laws?

My personal preferences have no bearing on Pakistan's legal system but I would prefer one set of laws for everybody. If such laws are inspired by Islam, that's fine, as long as they are modified to become in line with international norms and are fair to all religions.

Some people believe this is impossible, but I believe it is worth exploring. At the end of the day, as long as the laws are fair and impartial, it doesn't matter what inspired them.

 

[ptldM3]

The satellite US destroyed was much bigger that what we destroyed, thus more debris. Blaming China for everything these fools.

Size has nothing to do with it, space debris is constantly tracked and it's origin can be traced back to where it came from--fool.

 

[gambit]

Nope. I told you one of the tricks a lawyer can use; look back a couple pages.

Right...So you have none.

Got it in one!

You wrote that a lawyer is not qualified to challenge an expert on his subject matter, and you are right. But I never made that claim. I only said lawyers can "chew up" witness using legal tricks without ever dipping their foot in the latter's subject matter.

That is soooooooo pathetic.

When a witness is under questioning, he is effectively being challenged. However he is challenged, whether through his credentials, education, age, experience, whatever, what difference does it make what phrase you want to call it? Legal tricks? What are they? I use the word 'challenge' and you nitpick over 'chewed up'.

How fracking juvenile...

boys. You already admitted it.

You can try it over and over and it is not going to stick. People are looking for specifics, like this...

The Racial Slur Database

So the best you can do in trying to mark me as a 'racist' is nothing more than your own imagination.

Oh dear, are we back to "moving parts and electronics" again?
Did you learn nothing from my simple mirror setup going haywire when hit by a ball?

Yes, dear. Because 'haywire' implicitly involves internal sub-systems, not operational deficiencies.

What a sorry 'man of science'.

Not again!
Remember the "e" word? I talk about "enforce" a law; Congress can pass anything it likes.

I do not care. The crux of your argument is still the same whether you use 'enforceable' or 'enforce', which is Congress cannot pass a law that violate the Constitution. Fine with me. But then explain how did Congress ENFORCE laws regarding slavery all those years and by what avenue did they became un-Constitutional. The more you avoid this, the more pathetic you look.

My personal preferences have no bearing on Pakistan's legal system but I would prefer one set of laws for everybody. If such laws are inspired by Islam, that's fine, as long as they are modified to become in line with international norms and are fair to all religions.

Some people believe this is impossible, but I believe it is worth exploring. At the end of the day, as long as the laws are fair and impartial, it doesn't matter what inspired them.

Fine. Then you should have no problems with Florida SB58 because it excludes all religions from being contributory towards any decision by any government official.

This make your self righteousness pretentious and hilarious.

 

[Developereo]

Right...So you have none.

No one is going to babysit you and I won't keep repeating myself. I already posted it once; look it up.

When a witness is under questioning, he is effectively being challenged. However he is challenged, whether through his credentials, education, age, experience, whatever, what difference does it make what phrase you want to call it? Legal tricks? What are they? I use the word 'challenge' and you nitpick over 'chewed up'.

Wrong. You specifically used the word "challenge" as in debate the expert subject matter. You gave the example of pilots challenging pilots or something.

However, as I explained, for a competent lawyer to "chew up" a witness does not need in depth knowledge of the witness's area of expertise.

Yes, dear. Because 'haywire' implicitly involves internal sub-systems, not operational deficiencies.

What a sorry 'man of science'.

Again, I won't waste time repeating myself since people can look back in the thread where I showed you the dictionary definition of "go haywire". It merely talks about loss of function, not the causes thereof, internal or external.

The function of BLITS is to reflect lasers. If it stops doing that, for whatever reason, it has gone haywire.

I do not care.

And that is the problem. You don't care about English words and their meanings, which makes it difficult to have a consistent debate with you.

The more you avoid this, the more pathetic you look.

Not at all. I refuse to keep going on globe-trotting wild goose chases with you when you keep losing point after point.

Fine. Then you should have no problems with Florida SB58 because it excludes all religions from being contributory towards any decision by any government official.

My issue with that law, as I mentioned before, is that, given US Constitutional guarantees, it is superfluous demagoguery with a clear agenda to demonize Muslims.

 

[gambit]

No one is going to babysit you and I won't keep repeating myself. I already posted it once; look it up.

The only thing you repeat is nonsense.

Wrong. You specifically used the word "challenge" as in debate the expert subject matter. You gave the example of pilots challenging pilots or something.

However, as I explained, for a competent lawyer to "chew up" a witness does not need in depth knowledge of the witness's area of expertise.

And you provide not a single case example, or even such a technique or 'trick'. But then again, given your sorry defense of China here so far, we know you would make a terrible lawyer.

Again, I won't waste time repeating myself since people can look back in the thread where I showed you the dictionary definition of "go haywire". It merely talks about loss of function, not the causes thereof, internal or external.

The function of BLITS is to reflect lasers. If it stops doing that, for whatever reason, it has gone haywire.

If the BLITS satellite's mission is to orbit at 200 km and simply reflect, that is an OPERATIONAL requirement. If there was a flaw in the glass manufacturing process and over time, the ball cracked at that altitude, then we can say that the satellite's function has failed. But if something happened to physically altered its orbit, higher or lower, then its operational condition have changed, not its function. How did the Russians found out its current condition? Because its reflected patterns changed. It had a predictable rotation -- perpendicular to orbital path. Now it sort of 'wobble' and a different reflecting pattern was how the Russians found out something was wrong. So its innate character did not changed, only its environment did.

What a sorry 'man of science' you turned out to be...

And that is the problem. You don't care about English words and their meanings, which makes it difficult to have a consistent debate with you.

I quoted you with that 'chewed up' phrase and I used the more proper 'challenge' and you think people is going to buy your charge that I distorted your words?

Not at all. I refuse to keep going on globe-trotting wild goose chases with you when you keep losing point after point.

The core of your argument is that Congress cannot pass laws that violate Constitutional principles. In theory, that is fine and you are entitled to your opinion that this 'cannot' have been throughout history. But you must support that declaration. You failed.

My argument is that Congress can and have passed laws that violated Constitutional principles, either through neglect or will, and my support for that is the Supreme Court open cases. You do not challenge a law regarding its Constitutionality unless you believe that it did, and that your belief is just as strong as that the belief that the law is Constitutional. So now we have a contention: One side believe a law is 'Constitutional' and the other side believe the law is 'un-Constitutional'. This is not about a bill but a finalized law that is enforceable by the President and every law enforcement officials down the ranks. I have the Supreme Court open cases on my side. I have 'Obamacare' ruling on my side.

What do you have? Zilch.

So if you are correct, then why was laws regarding slavery enforced throughout those years, by what avenue did it became un-Constitutional, and how did it took?

Indeed you would make a terrible lawyer.

My issue with that law, as I mentioned before, is that, given US Constitutional guarantees, it is superfluous demagoguery with a clear agenda to demonize Muslims.

You can call it demagoguery if you like but it does not change the fact that you are a hypocrite for not condemning the religious laws in your Pakistan. More like you were shocked that a dual legal system can exist and that your Pakistan practices it.

 

[Developereo]

The only thing you repeat is nonsense.

Everything sounds like nonsense to those who don't understand plain English.

And you provide not a single case example, or even such a technique or 'trick'.

Deficiencies in English and memory are your own problem. The thread is here. People can look back and see.

But then again, given your sorry defense of China here so far, we know you would make a terrible lawyer.

I am not defending or blaming China; simply upholding a little thing called legal process in the real world, where you need something more than "appears to be" to clinch a case.

If the BLITS satellite's mission is to orbit at 200 km and simply reflect, that is an OPERATIONAL requirement. If there was a flaw in the glass manufacturing process and over time, the ball cracked at that altitude, then we can say that the satellite's function has failed. But if something happened to physically altered its orbit, higher or lower, then its operational condition have changed, not its function. How did the Russians found out its current condition? Because its reflected patterns changed. It had a predictable rotation -- perpendicular to orbital path. Now it sort of 'wobble' and a different reflecting pattern was how the Russians found out something was wrong. So its innate character did not changed, only its environment did.

Once again, your confusion with English leads you into trouble. Let me give you an example:

- I put a mirror against the wall, just so, so that it reflects the light from my bedroom lamp into the living room. Everything works fine and my setup functions as intended.
- Now one of my friends throws a ball and the mirror moves a tad -- just enough that the light doesn't reflect into the living room any more.

So, what happened?
Due to an external stimulus (the ball), my setup (mirror at specific angle) stopped functioning as originally intended. My whole setup went haywire.

There is no "internal mechanism", "no electronics", "no control" -- just a mirror at an angle.

I quoted you with that 'chewed up' phrase and I used the more proper 'challenge' and you think people is going to buy your charge that I distorted your words?

There is nothing "more proper" about "challenged" v/s "chewed up" -- they are two completely different concepts. You specifically used the word "challenged" as in "matched technical skills" and I never claimed that.

The core of your argument is that Congress cannot pass laws that violate Constitutional principles.

Once again, "enforce", not "pass". Why do you insist on conflating the two concepts?

So if you are correct, then why was laws regarding slavery enforced throughout those years, by what avenue did it became un-Constitutional, and how did it took?

The original US Constitution indeed sanctioned slavery, so the slavery laws were fully Constitutional. In other words, Congress was in full compliance with the Constitution.

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and gave Congress the authority to enforce any anti-slavery legislation.

So, again, we are back to my assertion that Congress can only enforce laws in compliance with the Constitution in force at the time.

 

[gambit]

Everything sounds like nonsense to those who don't understand plain English.

Deficiencies in English and memory are your own problem. The thread is here. People can look back and see.

And they will see that you got schooled -- badly.

I am not defending or blaming China; simply upholding a little thing called legal process in the real world, where you need something more than "appears to be" to clinch a case.

And so far, you failed to clinch your case.

Once again, your confusion with English leads you into trouble. Let me give you an example:

- I put a mirror against the wall, just so, so that it reflects the light from my bedroom lamp into the living room. Everything works fine and my setup functions as intended.
- Now one of my friends throws a ball and the mirror moves a tad -- just enough that the light doesn't reflect into the living room any more.

So, what happened?
Due to an external stimulus (the ball), my setup (mirror at specific angle) stopped functioning as originally intended. My whole setup went haywire.

There is no "internal mechanism", "no electronics", "no control" -- just a mirror at an angle.

Did the mirror lost its function? Or did the operational parameters got changed? This is where you are confused. Some 'man of science' you turned out to be. What a fraud...

There is nothing "more proper" about "challenged" v/s "chewed up" -- they are two completely different concepts. You specifically used the word "challenged" as in "matched technical skills" and I never claimed that.

This is continually to be a pathetic attempt to recover your behind. I made no distortion and no misquote. Either 'challenge' or 'chewed up' are appropriate.

Once again, "enforce", not "pass". Why do you insist on conflating the two concepts?

That is your problem believing I did.

The original US Constitution indeed sanctioned slavery, so the slavery laws were fully Constitutional. In other words, Congress was in full compliance with the Constitution.

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and gave Congress the authority to enforce any anti-slavery legislation.

So, again, we are back to my assertion that Congress can only enforce laws in compliance with the Constitution in force at the time.

Wrong. When the US Constitution was enacted, there was no mention of slavery. Now you are going to trot out the 3/5 rule? If you do, you will end up a greater spectacular @ss than you are now.

And because you are still wrong, this make your outrage at Florida SB 58 a sham. I was wrong to called you a hypocrite. Instead, you are fraud. Not sure if that is worse. Your mealymouthed nonsense about Pakistan's religious laws being inspired by Islam and being fair to others was nothing but a 2-step dance to avoid facing up to what you are through and through -- an Islamist. You would have the entire world under Shariah laws if you could despite the fact that anywhere Shariah laws are implemented, women and non-Muslims suffers. People in your world may know how to use the computer, but not how to produce it. So instead of moving forward to the 21st century, you would rather have us regress back to the 7th. An Islamist in the mold of the Taliban is what you are.

 

[ephone]

U.S. and Russia have dumped most of garbage there. Now it is China against who does the harm???

What is the luck for China to win the lottery every time???!!!