Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Am A Shaker

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on September 23, 2003 01:44:43 UTC

Dick dismisses me as mediocre for not shaking up the world of physics.

Well, I actually have in my own field.

My field is space defense, popularly known as the Star Wars defense system. In 1987 the government with the endorsement of Sec Defense Casper Wienberger was preparing to deploy a space based defense system.

I knew from my research that the system was inherently vulnerable. I quit my job and pointed that out to the public via two televised press conferences and an article in the centerfold of the journal Arms Control Today.

As a result the recently deceased Edward Teller and Greg Canavan of Los Alamos had to come up with a system that was not inherently vulnerable. What they came up with is called Brilliant Pebbles and it is now the only ICBM defense system that can possibly work. It is what Bush ultimately wants to deploy.

However, Brilliant Pebbles requires the orbiting of 10,000 kinetic kill missiles in space that would automatically shoot down any ICBM or similar space craft in launch phase. That for example would shut down any space program like the Hubble Telescope.

Back in 1988 that was considered so rediculous by congress that the entire Early Deployment Program was cancelled.

You all can judge for yourself whether my work shook up defense physics. It in fact impacts each and every one of you- not only the physics community.

I do not need to comment on Stafford. I have already pointed out how his own theorem agrees with my characterization of his life's work. The fact that he refuses to address the issues I raised based on his theorem demonstrates that he has no valid argument with them.

However, as he uses the "shake up" characterization to claim my work is mediocre, I would then suggest that it is proper to judge his work by the same criteria. And you all know what his impact on the world of physics has been by his own admission in the above post.

Richard

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins