Russian Satellite Hit by Debris from Chinese Anti-Satellite Test

[Audio]

his posting history.

When i'll be fifty, ill call pretentious young brats "boys" as well. At the minimum. And it will be indiscriminant of race, religion, status.
At best, his posting history could be described as an older man mocking (rightfully) younger people due to their naivete, lack of real life experience or downright stupidity which is also probably the way the PDF establishment sees it as well. If they would not, he would be banned for "his posting history".

Why would a Vietnamese call Chinese with racist slur? They are more or less the same race. Kind of self defeating argument you got going there.

 

[gambit]

From your own link: On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible.

A piece of circumstantial evidence is something which can have alternative explanations. So, one piece of circumstantial evidence is not enough for conviction. It is only when multiple evidences form a corroborative chain that they lead to conviction.

Try reading your own links before posting.

You may have read it, but apparently laziness got the better of you. Laziness in thinking.

Yes, circumstantial evidences can offer more than one explanations. BUT NOT ALL EXPLANATIONS HAVE THE SAME WEIGHT. Heck, no one needs to be a lawyer to know that...

We have seen those celebratory gun fire into the air so typical in the ME, so if a man suddenly drop dead while walking, without examination, are you going to tell us that a meteorite is just as probable as a bullet for cause of death?

- Meteor or bullet
- Meteor or heart attack
- Heart attack or bullet
- Act of Allah or bullet
- Act of Allah or heart attack
- Allah got mad because the day before, the guy prayed only four times instead of the required five so Allah diverted a bullet as well as give him a heart attack.

So without examination, which of the above is the most probable cause of death?

Yes, I was being charitable and accepting the predicted location as a given. Even with that charitable leeway, you still only have ONE piece of evidence. Doesn't matter how many times you keep repeating it, this will not create new evidence where none exists.

You are truly digging your grave here and I LOVE it. For your information, evidence must relate to the suspect in question -- just saying debris causes collision is meaningless. Of course it does; the question is, did it do so in this case? Prove it.

Who said the debris field caused the collision? And you have the gall to mock me for reading comprehension?

There are more than one piece of circumstantial evidence here and no matter how much you repeat that there is only one, it is not going to alter reality. Even TV procedural crime dramas get it more correct than you have.

The debris field is one piece of evidence, not the cause. Assuming a piece collided with the BLITS satellite, the cause would be the forces of physics because over time that piece eventually deviated from its original path. The BLITS satellite deviating from its original orbital path is another piece of evidence.

Be charitable to yourself, because no one with any common sense will...

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.

Only in your world that a lawyer can challenge a technical expert. Do you see it?

But just in case not...A lawyer is a technician (expert) of law, so to challenge a lawyer, you need another lawyer. Supposedly the great US President Abraham Lincoln, himself a lawyer, said: "A person who represents himself has a fool for a client." Now why do you think he said that? To challenge a pilot, you need another pilot, not a plumber. To challenge an armed robber, you need an armed cop. To challenge Thor, you need Apollo. Do you see it now? I bet you are the type who would bring a knife to a gun fight.

The Russian scientists are themselves experts in a specific field of space exploration. They have a problem out of their field of expertise so they called another expert -- Kelso. Now who is going to have balls big enough to challenge Kelso? YOU? Where are the Chinese experts, after all, China is getting the heat in the press and the scientific community about this?

We have been through this. You routinely address Chinese posters as "boys" which is considered racist in US culture. In your pathetic delusions, you probably fancy yourself as shrewd and getting away with it, but it ain't fooling anyone.

I have seen a black Chief Msgt called a roomful of mostly while enlisted and officers as 'boys' and no one took offense. I have seen a white full bird colonel called a roomful of mostly white enlisted and officers as 'boys' and no one took offense.

You speak of me as having a 'visceral hatred' for the Chinese? Look no further than some of your own fellow Pakistanis here who trolls the Internet for negative press about the US and added in their own vile insulting commentaries. Same behaviors for the some of the Chinese. Now see if you can find the same from me for China. Given the amount of threads I started can be counted on one hand, that should not be too difficult, no?

Bottom line is: You are still full of sh1t for accusing me of being a racist. And since you are so keen on evidence, bring them, even the circumstantial ones.

The implication is only in your mind. In the English language, as spoken by everyone else on the planet, the term "go haywire" only describes the symptoms, not the cause.

"Stop the Spinning"

The doctor [...] explained that the whack to my head had caused my innerear balance system to go haywire.

Once again, English, as well as logic, fail you miserably.

The vestibular system (inner ear) is the mechanism for balance and therefore it is the cause for vertigo. The BLITS satellite have no internal mechanisms of any kind. It cannot go out of control because it was never under any control, internal or external. Being in the wrong place is a matter of perspective, not of innate characteristics. So of all the examples you could bring to defend your use of 'haywire' to describe what happened to the BLITS satellite, you blundered and use the worst.

I also encourage readers to check the thread first-hand and verify who is telling the truth and who is peddling revisionist bullshit to cover his tracks.

Anyone who actually understands the US legal system -- which precludes YOU -- will know that such laws are superfluous demagoguery. In case you don't have your dictionary handy, it means unnecessary tub thumping to score cheap political points by appealing to bigotry of people like you.

All legal rulings on US soil must abide by the Constitution, and it already contains iron clad guarantees against religious laws on US soil; it does not need any help from penny ante State laws with dubious motives.

The 'prerequisite' comment was in the context of this discussion about religious laws, as in "Constitutional amendments are a prerequisite before Congress can pass any religious laws".

Of course, any legislative body can pass any law it wants; for the purposes of a focused discussion, it is understood in this debate that we will only consider laws which are Constitutionally valid.

The highlighted is called 'moving the goal posts' after you got busted for not knowing how the US Constitution plays its role in US laws and talked as if you do.

But you are still wrong...As explained below...

The discussion, summarized, was as below (again, I encourage people to follow the link above and verify for themselves):

Premise: American Muslims will enforce Sharia law upon non-Muslims.

gambit: ... Britain ... Pakistan ... dual legal system ...

me: If I can interrupt your globe-trotting foray and bring the discussion back to the US, any Sharia/Halakha/cannon laws within the US are purely voluntary; there is no way any US governmental entity can enforce religious laws on US soil.

gambit: US Congress can.

me: No. Congress can not pass laws violating the Constitution and Constitutional safeguards against religious laws are very strict and time-tested. Before Congress can introduce religious laws, proper Constitutional amendments would need to be ratified by the requisite number of States. To ratify an amendment means that the people have voluntarily accepted its implications, so there's no question of enforcing anything.

You can cut-and-paste entire encyclopedias, it won't change the fact that you are CLUELESS about the rationale and process behind US Constitutional law, the role of the US Congress, and the safeguards against religious laws on US soil.

Yes, the US Congress can pass laws that violate Constitutional principles.

See here...BEFORE a law can be deemed 'un-Constitutional' it must be CHALLENGED. And there are ample examples of that even to today with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka 'Obamacare', brought in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled parts of PPACA are un-Constitutional and parts are Constitutional. But the Court cannot rule on anything unless the law is CHALLENGED IN FRONT OF THE JUSTICES.

So yes, Congress can pass a law that violate Constitutional principles, even blatantly, but until a citizen dispute the law in court, that law is enforceable by the President and all the way down to the county sheriff.

A 'bill' can be debated to see if it passes Constitutionality and discard IF there is consensus by the debaters that the bill does not fit. Of course, it is the wise thing to do to reduce the odds of the law being challenged, save the people costs of correcting any errors, and avoid embarrassment. But the fact that there are many challenges of many laws means there are many laws whose Constitutionality either inadequately assessed or even ignored.

So what I tried to explained to you is essentially correct: That a legislature, state or US Congress, can pass laws independent of the Constitution. And the proof of that are the many challenges of many laws.

- Law
- Enforcement
- Challenge

It can take one day or one hundred years but how long did it took for laws on slavery to be challenged and found un-Constitutional?

So is it possible that religious laws can be passed and that they are enforceable? Absolutely.

I do want people to take a good and long look in that discussion about Florida SB 58. They will see you for the hypocrite that you are. You cried foul about SB 58 and self righteously declared you do not support religious laws. It is fair: If anti-Shariah laws are wrong, then the enforcement of Shariah laws upon non-Muslims are also wrong. But when confronted with the fact that your Pakistan have religious laws and that the Pakitani President is legally obliged to enforce them, you did what all cowards do -- run away.

When i'll be fifty, ill call pretentious young brats "boys" as well. At the minimum. And it will be indiscriminant of race, religion, status.
At best, his posting history could be described as an older man mocking (rightfully) younger people due to their naivete, lack of real life experience or downright stupidity which is also probably the way the PDF establishment sees it as well. If they would not, he would be banned for "his posting history".

Why would a Vietnamese call Chinese with racist slur? They are more or less the same race. Kind of self defeating argument you got going there.

I called the Chinese members here 'boys' because of their immaturity in debates. Mr. Dev here conveniently 'forgot' that I was once polite and respectful towards the Chinese. I focused only on the contents of their arguments. They did not like being debunked left and right so they got nasty. Mr. Dev also conveniently 'forgot' that once the Chinese learned I was Viet, the insults got even more personal and vile. His defense of them here is done purely out of spite for US.

 

[Developereo]

And gambit shows up for more punishment. That's what I LOVE about you.

Yes, circumstantial evidences can offer more than one explanations. BUT NOT ALL EXPLANATIONS HAVE THE SAME WEIGHT.

As long as there is more than one possible explanation, that creates reasonable doubt. The only way to remove that reasonable doubt is to provide additional evidence. Hence, my statement stands that a single piece of circumstantial evidence is not enough for conviction.

So without examination, which of the above is the most probable cause of death?

You can talk probabilities all day long. Unless you find specific evidence linking the suspect and the victim, you have no conviction.

Who said the debris field caused the collision? And you have the gall to mock me for reading comprehension?

You wrote: "The fact that China's ASAT test created an orbital debris field is one piece of circumstantial evidence" implying that the debris field was a factor in the collision. If the debris field is not a factor, then it is irrelevant and should not be mentioned as "evidence".

The debris field is one piece of evidence, not the cause. Assuming a piece collided with the BLITS satellite, the cause would be the forces of physics because over time that piece eventually deviated from its original path. The BLITS satellite deviating from its original orbital path is another piece of evidence.

All the other evidence simply proves that a collision occurred. As I mentioned several pages back, the discussion here is about evidence allegedly linking the Chinese satellite to the collision. And, to that effect, there is still only ONE piece of evidence that the Chinese satellite, with its entourage of debris, was projected to pass around 3.1km from the BLITS with a 10 second window.

This has been the case from the start and all your cutting-and-pasting hasn't materialzed new evidence where there isn't any.

Only in your world that a lawyer can challenge a technical expert.

Correction: I wrote that lawyers "chewed up" expert witnesses.

The most valuable expertise in a court is the expert knowledge of how the law works. Lawyers are experts in law and they maneuver other experts into legal minefields all the time to extract statements favorable to their case. That's exactly what a good lawyer gets paid to do.

All they need to do in this case is to create reasonable doubt by getting the expert to admit that the data is not conclusive and can have alternative explanations. Both the Russians and Americans concede that the best they have here is "appears to be".

Case dismissed.

I have seen a black Chief Msgt called a roomful of mostly while enlisted and officers as 'boys' and no one took offense. I have seen a white full bird colonel called a roomful of mostly white enlisted and officers as 'boys' and no one took offense.

Already addressed. Language is interpreted in the context of a person's past behavior. Without a history of animosity towards a group, there is no reason to infer malevolent intent.

However, when there is a consistent history of animosity, as in your case, then words take on a different meaning. The evidence for your consistent anti-Chinese animosity is your posting history.

The vestibular system (inner ear) is the mechanism for balance and therefore it is the cause for vertigo. The BLITS satellite have no internal mechanisms of any kind. It cannot go out of control because it was never under any control, internal or external. Being in the wrong place is a matter of perspective, not of innate characteristics. So of all the examples you could bring to defend your use of 'haywire' to describe what happened to the BLITS satellite, you blundered and use the worst.

I love your desperate flights to and fro. First you claimed that the phrase "go haywire" only applies to systems with internal mechanisms, which I showed you to be false. The dictionary definition simply says "to stop functioning".

Then you blabbered on about it being caused by internal causes, which again you were shown to be wrong by the example I gave where the malfunction was caused by an external stimulus (whack on the head).

Now you are trying to save your as$ by talking about control. Nowhere does it say that an object has to have control, internal or external, in order to provide a specific function. I can place a mirror at a certain angle and it performs a function. If someone throws a ball and moves the mirror, my setup will "go haywire" and stop functioning.

Give it up before digging yourself deeper that you already are.

The highlighted is called 'moving the goal posts' after you got busted for not knowing how the US Constitution plays its role in US laws and talked as if you do.

Since I am the one who told YOU how the US Constitution works, it is amusing to see you try and squirm out of it.

There is no shifting of goal posts here. The discussion from the beginning has been about what laws the Congress can enforce on US citizens. There is no point discussing laws which can't be enforced in the first place because they are outside the realm of the debate.

But you are still wrong...As explained below...

All your cut-and-paste revisionism won't change the fact that you remain eternally clueless about the US legal system.

The premise all along was whether Congress can ENFORCE such laws. Break out that dictionary since you still don't seem to understand what that word means. Heck, I'll do it for you.

enforce - definition of enforce by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

en·force (n-fôrs, -frs)
1. To compel observance of or obedience to

See what that reads?

Congress -- or anyone -- can pass any law it wants, but it can't compel obedience to that law on US soil if it violates the Constitution.

Your confusion lies in the fact that you think you can bamboozle people with your cut-and-paste routine when your underlying argument is bogus to start with.

Pakitani

To be honest, I didn't even bother reading uyour ramblings abour Britain and Pakistan because they had nothing to do with the topic. As always, you confuse quantity with quality and I ignore all your (and most people's) babblings which are off-topic.

purely out of spite for US.

Spare me the violins. I defend the US when the facts warrant it, and criticize it at other times.

Don't ever delude yourself that I see you as representing the US viewpoint -- you only represent the extremist right wing loony fringe of US thought.

 

[anonymus]

It's called circumstantial evidence, as in "Joe was near the crime scene when the crime happened".

Did Joe do it? did he leave any evidence behind linking him to the crime?

Once again, I am not taking sides either way -- maybe it was the Chinese debris, maybe it wasn't. The point is that the claimant has to prove their case.

No,

The correct analogy would be

Joe and an old lady are walking in a narrow 1 m wide and 50 m long street.Surveillance cameras capture joe entering street from one side and lady from another.There is no one else in the street.The lady is found bleeding from a knife wound once joe exits the street.

lol, I say low gravity. This force is not enough to bring down any particle in short time, which gained velocity by some means.

Gravity is responsible for the debris to have orbital motion around the earth.Without gravity debris would shoot out like bullets.Gravity causes debris to undergo projectile motion.If the velocity of the junk is low or not properly oriented it would fall onto the earth.If the velocity of particle is high then also it would fell towards the earth but due to the fact that earth is circular and with finite radius the particle would overshoot the earths edge and keep repeating this cycle over and over again.Thus an orbiting object is born.

The orbit of the particle may eventually get tighter and tighter due to following causes.
1.Drag.Even outer space is not a perfect vacuum.Drag howsoever small eventually lowers the orbit of satellite.

2.Radiation pressure.Though small causes change in orbit overtime.

3.Electromagnetic radiation.An orbiting body having a charge (every thing has a net charge wrt to some other object) loses energy by emitting electromagnetic radiation.

 

[Developereo]

Joe and an old lady are walking in a narrow 1 m wide and 50 m long street.Surveillance cameras capture joe entering street from one side and lady from another.There is no one else in the street.The lady is found bleeding from a knife wound once joe exits the street.

Except that we don't have a surveillance camera in this case that tells us definitively what all transited that place during those 10 seconds.

A better analogy would be that there are multiple entrances and exits from the alley. We know that Joe was one of the people at the scene of the crime, but we have no clue who else was there.

 

[anonymus]

As long as there is more than one possible explanation, that creates reasonable doubt. The only way to remove that reasonable doubt is to provide additional evidence. Hence, my statement stands that a single piece of circumstantial evidence is not enough for conviction.

The other possible explanation should be practically feasible.The satellite was a basic satellite and did not carried onboard fuel and navigation system so its knocking itself out of orbit is not even a theoretical possibility.It has to had some extraneous factors of which only a debris collision is a possibility of which there are only two suspects,meteor collision or collision with an orbital body.Given the fact that meteor are relatively rare objects except during a meteor shower which occurs due to sudden flux of meteors and added to this the fact that angle of approach of meteors is relatively high ( most are radial or forms sharp angle with the plane of earth .This reduces the probability of a hit a a meteor has to pass through a particular point in space and time to score a hit ),it is highly unlikely to be a meteor hit.This possibility is further ruled out as most of the meteors or near earth objects are tracked by space organisations and even if the said meteor would have been been missed ,it would have shown on radars and telescopes.

Regarding debris,only debris from Chinese satellite were present in vicinity and were within the margin of error present in astronomical situation,it is a probable culprit.

Regarding law, Law demands "Reasonable proof" not absolute proof.People could argue that earth is not round (Even today there exist a society for this : The Flat Earth Society) but it would not be believed as earth's shape has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Absolution is a property of religion while science is always skeptical.

Except that we don't have a surveillance camera in this case that tells us definitively what all transited that place during those 10 seconds.

A better analogy would be that there are multiple entrances and exits from the alley. We know that Joe was one of the people at the scene of the crime, but we have no clue who else was there.

Orbit of a satellite or any projectile is fixed barring external interference in short and medium term.This is very basis of working of GPS,communication,ballistic missile defense or any space based machinery.

so your argument regarding multiple entrances and exits is invalid.

I am slow at typing and have typed the reply above this one in between the time you have posted.It contains explanation of last post.

 

[Developereo]

The other possible explanation should be practically feasible.

The only thing the defence needs to show is that other explanations are possible for the observed events.

Meteoroids may explain satellite mysteries

But bear in mind that roughly 100 tons of space dust and rubble, or meteoroids, rain down on Earth every day. And that before the space agency's Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) was allowed to take a final plunge to keep it from cluttering space, something smacked into the spacecraft four years ago, hard enough to dislodge four pieces from its frame.

It is then up to the prosecution to prove why these other explanations should be discarded and their suspect is the only possible explanation beyond reasonable doubt.

Keep in mind that this the object that hit the Russian satellite didn't need to be big and need not show up on radar tracking.

http://spaceports.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/crowded-skies-russian-satellite-blits.html

while the weight of the piece that struck it may only be around 0.08 grams.

 

[anonymus]

The only thing the defence needs to show is that other explanations are possible for the observed events.

Meteoroids may explain satellite mysteries

But bear in mind that roughly 100 tons of space dust and rubble, or meteoroids, rain down on Earth every day. And that before the space agency's Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) was allowed to take a final plunge to keep it from cluttering space, something smacked into the spacecraft four years ago, hard enough to dislodge four pieces from its frame.

If such low probabilities are considered then even if there is a eyewitness to a murder case.his/her testimony should be declared null and void as there is a probability ( 1 in 36 billion) of genetic twin of that person to be present somewhere on earth who may have committed the murder.

And you are skipping over the fact that low earth objects are constantly monitored and even if this objects was not,the only thing scientists have to do is check logs of radio telescopes.

Most of the meteors raining down follow radial path thus having only a small opportunity in space and time to score a hit and majority of space dust and rubble is well space dust and rubble.

Apart from that the debris whic hit the satellite was projected to be in vicinity at the same time.

 

[Developereo]

If such low probabilities are considered then even if there is a eyewitness to a murder case.his/her testimony should be declared null and void as there is a probability ( 1 in 36 billion) of genetic twin of that person to be present somewhere on earth who may have committed the murder.

And you are skipping over the fact that low earth objects are constantly monitored and even if this objects was not,the only thing scientists have to do is check logs of radio telescopes.

Most of the meteors raining down follow radial path thus having only a small opportunity in space and time to score a hit and majority of space dust and rubble is well space dust and rubble.

Apart from that the debris whic hit the satellite was projected to be in vicinity at the same time.

As posted above, 0.08 grams -- that's a speck of dust that won't show up on any radar and will burn up in the upper atmosphere very quickly.

 

[gambit]

And gambit shows up for more punishment. That's what I LOVE about you.

The one who has been getting his backside spanked is YOU, buddy.

As long as there is more than one possible explanation, that creates reasonable doubt. The only way to remove that reasonable doubt is to provide additional evidence. Hence, my statement stands that a single piece of circumstantial evidence is not enough for conviction.

You can talk probabilities all day long. Unless you find specific evidence linking the suspect and the victim, you have no conviction.

Let us try this again...

We have seen those celebratory gun fire into the air so typical in the ME, so if a man suddenly drop dead while walking, without examination, are you going to tell us that a meteorite is just as probable as a bullet for cause of death?

- Meteor or bullet
- Meteor or heart attack
- Heart attack or bullet
- Act of Allah or bullet
- Act of Allah or heart attack
- Allah got mad because the day before, the guy prayed only four times instead of the required five so Allah diverted a bullet as well as give him a heart attack.

So without examination, which of the above is the most probable cause of death?

No sane person would weigh all possible explanations the same. The heaviest weighted one will be regarded as the MOST PROBABLE and PLAUSIBLE version.

You wrote: "The fact that China's ASAT test created an orbital debris field is one piece of circumstantial evidence" implying that the debris field was a factor in the collision. If the debris field is not a factor, then it is irrelevant and should not be mentioned as "evidence".

As a factor, not THE CAUSE. Your argument is like saying the tire that created the tire track at the crime scene is irrelevant. We do not need for it to be THE tire that ran over the victim. We just need it to be the type and design that matches the track at the crime scene so we can narrow the investigation. What was it you say about glutton for punishment? You must be punch drunk by now.

All the other evidence simply proves that a collision occurred. As I mentioned several pages back, the discussion here is about evidence allegedly linking the Chinese satellite to the collision. And, to that effect, there is still only ONE piece of evidence that the Chinese satellite, with its entourage of debris, was projected to pass around 3.1km from the BLITS with a 10 second window.

This has been the case from the start and all your cutting-and-pasting hasn't materialzed new evidence where there isn't any.

At least I have far more credible sources while you have at best 'not sure'.

Correction: I wrote that lawyers "chewed up" expert witnesses.

The most valuable expertise in a court is the expert knowledge of how the law works. Lawyers are experts in law and they maneuver other experts into legal minefields all the time to extract statements favorable to their case. That's exactly what a good lawyer gets paid to do.

All they need to do in this case is to create reasonable doubt by getting the expert to admit that the data is not conclusive and can have alternative explanations. Both the Russians and Americans concede that the best they have here is "appears to be".

I do not care what you corrected. If an expert outside of the law is called upon to testify, no sane lawyer is going to challenge him on his own. So the Russians have Kelso. Where is yours for China?

Case dismissed.

Yours.

Already addressed. Language is interpreted in the context of a person's past behavior. Without a history of animosity towards a group, there is no reason to infer malevolent intent.

However, when there is a consistent history of animosity, as in your case, then words take on a different meaning. The evidence for your consistent anti-Chinese animosity is your posting history.

Riiiiight...So at best, in the absence of even circumstantial evidences, the best you can do is interpreted on a whimsy that I am a 'racist' based upon an animosity between the truly recorded racist Chinese here who have had numerous suspensions and me, who have none.

I love your desperate flights to and fro. First you claimed that the phrase "go haywire" only applies to systems with internal mechanisms, which I showed you to be false. The dictionary definition simply says "to stop functioning".

Fine...Since all the BLITS satellite does is to reflect, how does being on a different orbit stopped its reflective function?

Now you are trying to save your as$ by talking about control. Nowhere does it say that an object has to have control, internal or external, in order to provide a specific function. I can place a mirror at a certain angle and it performs a function. If someone throws a ball and moves the mirror, my setup will "go haywire" and stop functioning.

Wrong. The mirror did not failed in its function. Your set up is simply out of intended array. If I remove a resistor out of the network, its resistance did not go to zero. Its absence may cause the network to malfunction but that would be at the system level, not component. The BLITS satellite have no sub-systems to malfunction.

Some 'man of science' you turned out to be.

Since I am the one who told YOU how the US Constitution works, it is amusing to see you try and squirm out of it.

Bullsh1t. You got busted back on page 7 post 103 on how the US Constitution really works.

There is no shifting of goal posts here. The discussion from the beginning has been about what laws the Congress can enforce on US citizens. There is no point discussing laws which can't be enforced in the first place because they are outside the realm of the debate.

Yes there was and you shifted the goal posts. A legislature can pass any law it want. It is only when the law is challenged and ruled to be against some overriding principle does its enforcement stop. You cannot even explain why there are challenges in the first place.

The premise all along was whether Congress can ENFORCE such laws. Break out that dictionary since you still don't seem to understand what that word means. Heck, I'll do it for you.

enforce - definition of enforce by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

en·force (n-fôrs, -frs)
1. To compel observance of or obedience to

See what that reads?

Congress -- or anyone -- can pass any law it wants, but it can't compel obedience to that law on US soil if it violates the Constitution.

And by what avenue to rule that a law violate the Constitution?

Your confusion lies in the fact that you think you can bamboozle people with your cut-and-paste routine when your underlying argument is bogus to start with.

I am more clear about this than you are considering how you repeated failed to understand the role of the Supreme Court.

To be honest, I didn't even bother reading uyour ramblings abour Britain and Pakistan because they had nothing to do with the topic. As always, you confuse quantity with quality and I ignore all your (and most people's) babblings which are off-topic.

Explain the contradiction that for US, religious laws offends you but for Pakistan with its dual legal system where religious laws are supreme, you are silent.

Spare me the violins. I defend the US when the facts warrant it, and criticize it at other times.

Don't ever delude yourself that I see you as representing the US viewpoint -- you only represent the extremist right wing loony fringe of US thought.

Har...How many Americans are on this forum? If I represent only the extreme right wing, then you should have no problems conceding that the far greater number of Pakistanis with their loony beliefs represents the norm of Pakistan?

 

[anonymus]

As posted above, 0.08 grams -- that's a speck of dust that won't show up on any radar and will burn up in the upper atmosphere very quickly.

But the particle which collided was tracked and it's proof has been posted by some other poster.

and it is not just the mass which decides the ferocity of collision but velocity also along with degree of elasticity of the collision.The collision with a metal particle is bound to be more elastic thus resulting in much greater momentum being transferred to the satellite than a meteor made up of water.

Also the trajectory of particle could be predicted from the effect it has on motion of satellite as in space,there are less number of extraneous variable.

The effect of a top down collision would be different from a tangential one.If it would have been a meteorite,it could have been found out by simple Newtonian mechanics with initial and final state of satellite known.

 

[gambit]

The other possible explanation should be practically feasible.The satellite was a basic satellite and did not carried onboard fuel and navigation system so its knocking itself out of orbit is not even a theoretical possibility.It has to had some extraneous factors of which only a debris collision is a possibility of which there are only two suspects,meteor collision or collision with an orbital body.Given the fact that meteor are relatively rare objects except during a meteor shower which occurs due to sudden flux of meteors and added to this the fact that angle of approach of meteors is relatively high ( most are radial or forms sharp angle with the plane of earth .This reduces the probability of a hit a a meteor has to pass through a particular point in space and time to score a hit ),it is highly unlikely to be a meteor hit.This possibility is further ruled out as most of the meteors or near earth objects are tracked by space organisations and even if the said meteor would have been been missed ,it would have shown on radars and telescopes.

Regarding debris,only debris from Chinese satellite were present in vicinity and were within the margin of error present in astronomical situation,it is a probable culprit.

Everything you said would be exactly how Thomas Kelso would present in his argument favoring debris to satellite collision. Not meteor to satellite collision.

Dr. T.S. Kelso, CelesTrak WWW

 

[Developereo]

I LOVE it when you get desperate -- it magnifies your entertainment value many fold.

The one who has been getting his backside spanked is YOU, buddy.

Delusions are your game. Like how you keep believing that cutting and pasting will somehow help hide your abject ignorance of fundamental concepts.

We have seen those celebratory gun fire into the air so typical in the ME, so if a man suddenly drop dead while walking, without examination, are you going to tell us that a meteorite is just as probable as a bullet for cause of death?

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

No sane person would weigh all possible explanations the same. The heaviest weighted one will be regarded as the MOST PROBABLE and PLAUSIBLE version.

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

As a factor, not THE CAUSE.

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.

Why oh why do you insist on showing your incompetence with English and law at every turn?

What was it you say about glutton for punishment? You must be punch drunk by now.

I am punch drunk watching you make a fool of yourself at every turn -- and keep coming back for more.

At least I have far more credible sources while you have at best 'not sure'.

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.

I do not care what you corrected.

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

You prefer to have a conversation with yourself where you invent and interpret things as they suit you. We saw that before many times before when you fail pathetically in a debate and start going into delusion mode imagining things and then responding to them.

That delusional monolog a trademark of Sir gambit de Quixote.

Riiiiight...So at best, in the absence of even circumstantial evidences

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

Fine...Since all the BLITS satellite does is to reflect, how does being on a different orbit stopped its reflective function?

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.

Wrong. The mirror did not failed in its function.

I wrote -- and it is still there -- "the setup went haywire". I do like the way you keep exposing your dishonesty and desperation by deliberately misquoting me.

Some 'man of science' you turned out to be.

You really shouldn't talk about science unless it's a cut-and-paste job. The hilarity is too much.

Bullsh1t. You got busted back on page 7 post 103 on how the US Constitution really works.

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.

Give it up!

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

Yes there was and you shifted the goal posts. A legislature can pass any law it want. It is only when the law is challenged and ruled to be against some overriding principle does its enforcement stop. You cannot even explain why there are challenges in the first place.

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.

What a pathetic attempt to salvage your position!

I am more clear about this than you are considering how you repeated failed to understand the role of the Supreme Court.

You don't know jack about any aspect of the US Constitutional safeguards. The cut-and-paste job ain't fooling anybody.

Explain the contradiction that for US, religious laws offends you but for Pakistan with its dual legal system where religious laws are supreme, you are silent.

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

 

[Developereo]

But the particle which collided was tracked and it's proof has been posted by some other poster.

Can you post it here? I haven't seen it.

and it is not just the mass which decides the ferocity of collision but velocity also along with degree of elasticity of the collision.The collision with a metal particle is bound to be more elastic thus resulting in much greater momentum being transferred to the satellite than a meteor made up of water.

Also the trajectory of particle could be predicted from the effect it has on motion of satellite as in space,there are less number of extraneous variable.

The effect of a top down collision would be different from a tangential one.If it would have been a meteorite,it could have been found out by simple Newtonian mechanics with initial and final state of satellite known.

Lots of factors at play -- a meteoroid is likely to be travelling much faster than a satellite, imparting more momentum for a given mass. Composition of meteoroid is also varied -- from pure ice to rock/ice. Given all these uncertainties, nothing can be ruled out.

 

[anonymus]

Can you post it here? I haven't seen it.

.

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.

Lots of factors at play -- a meteoroid is likely to be travelling much faster than a satellite, imparting more momentum for a given mass. Composition of meteoroid is also varied -- from pure ice to rock/ice. Given all these uncertainties, nothing can be ruled out.

There are lot of factors at play but most of them have independent variables.Lack of drag and friction means absence of a variable force which decreases the degree of equation by one.

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).

There are ways of doing it and people who have adequate data would have already done it.Since no space agency or even amateur astronomer is coming forward to deny the claims,their is high probability of chinese junk theory being true.