I don't know if you thought you we're quoting the 4th Amendment, but you weren't.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The 4th Amendment has two parts. The first part states that unreasonable searches are not allowed. The second part identifies the standards for warrants. This implies that a properly executed warrant is a means to achieve reasonableness, but it certainly isn't all inclusive.
Your argument seems to be that the Constitution clearly defines "reasonable". To that end your statement about the 14th Amendment is not relevant as the 14th only extends the question at issue to the states.
Then you reference "reasonable" and "unreasonable" terms, but the terms you identify are those for a warrant not reasonableness.
While all the clarification of the 4th Amendment has been done by the courts to date, there is no reason why congress cannot pass a statute that further limits searches and seizures, or specifically limits the behavior of the Executive.
Searches and seizures legitimately happen all the time without a warrant. An officer can search me if I am arrested, or my car if he determines he has probable cause. The standards for a warrant are not applicable here. Even with a warrant a search and/or seizure can be, and has been, deemed "unreasonable".
Because of many judicial reviews on the subject the standards for search and seizure in the US, on US citizens, by the police, and during investigation of criminal activities is well defined. The Administration is basing its behavior on its interpretation of "reasonable" when some or all of the factors listed above are not the same. In those cases there is not a lot of case law to clarify "reasonable", so the author's comment is valid. "Reasonable" is not well defined for those activities.
Your math is correct.
Your engineering sucks.
You cited "b" as the distance from the "center of the earth" to GEO. 35786 km is the distance from mean sea level (MSL) to GEO. To find "c" (distance from earth center to GEO) "b" must be 35786 + 6400 or 42186. I'll save everyone the math lesson, "c" = 36354.
A little under 1.6%
You are never "forced" to attend AA (or ASAP meetings in Virginia), but a DUI is a crime with a jail sentence. If your a first (or sometimes second) offender the judge may offer to suspend your jail time if you accept some "conditions" that may include:
restricted license (you can only drive between work and home) suspended license (welcome to public transportation) attendance at some support group no repeat offense for a year to three the breathilyzer on your steering wheel (I can't remember what's called just now) community service
Which of the above (could be all) you get offered in lieu of jail time is up to the judge and the prosecuting attorney and how good a day they're having. So if you want to get indignant about having to attend a religiously themed group, then that's your perogative, but you'll do 30 days to a year. Most of those who came before the judge I worked for suddenly found Jesus when an alternative to time in lockup was presented.
"The reason they won't work in a vacuum is that any blast is minimized by the fact that there is no means of conducting the pressure changes. The air isn't needed for the explosion."
Partially
If the explosion is far away than the effects will be minimal because as was stated there is no medium (air) to conduct the pressure from the detonation to the acceptor body (asteroid).
Both conventional and nuclear detonations near the asteriod would effect the trajectory of that body. A near nuclear detonation would impart enough energy (heat via x-rays & gamma rays) to dislodge and break up the sections of the asteriod and cause them to fly away at speed. Noting Newton's 1st law (equal and opposite reaction) we know that the energy (scalar value (1/2)mv^2) and the direction (vector) can be resolved into a single net force (of the dislodged particles) TOWARD the side of the body that the detonation was on. The equal an opposite force would be imparted to the body in the direction AWAY from the detonation; thus affecting it's trajectory.
If a conventional (chemical) explosion is very close than some of the same effects above (abeit at a smaller scale) take place, but a chemical explosion creates its own medium to transfer energy. High explosives (TNT, RDX, whatever) contain oxygen in their chemical composition so there is no need for external air. Since an chemical explosion is just the very fast (supersonic [at STP to avoid that discussion]) conversion of a solid into a gas, that expanding gas then becomes the medium to transfer energy to the asteriod.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if you thought you we're quoting the 4th Amendment, but you weren't. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The 4th Amendment has two parts. The first part states that unreasonable searches are not allowed. The second part identifies the standards for warrants. This implies that a properly executed warrant is a means to achieve reasonableness, but it certainly isn't all inclusive. Your argument seems to be that the Constitution clearly defines "reasonable". To that end your statement about the 14th Amendment is not relevant as the 14th only extends the question at issue to the states. Then you reference "reasonable" and "unreasonable" terms, but the terms you identify are those for a warrant not reasonableness. While all the clarification of the 4th Amendment has been done by the courts to date, there is no reason why congress cannot pass a statute that further limits searches and seizures, or specifically limits the behavior of the Executive. Searches and seizures legitimately happen all the time without a warrant. An officer can search me if I am arrested, or my car if he determines he has probable cause. The standards for a warrant are not applicable here. Even with a warrant a search and/or seizure can be, and has been, deemed "unreasonable". Because of many judicial reviews on the subject the standards for search and seizure in the US, on US citizens, by the police, and during investigation of criminal activities is well defined. The Administration is basing its behavior on its interpretation of "reasonable" when some or all of the factors listed above are not the same. In those cases there is not a lot of case law to clarify "reasonable", so the author's comment is valid. "Reasonable" is not well defined for those activities.
Your math is correct. Your engineering sucks. You cited "b" as the distance from the "center of the earth" to GEO. 35786 km is the distance from mean sea level (MSL) to GEO. To find "c" (distance from earth center to GEO) "b" must be 35786 + 6400 or 42186. I'll save everyone the math lesson, "c" = 36354. A little under 1.6%
You are never "forced" to attend AA (or ASAP meetings in Virginia), but a DUI is a crime with a jail sentence. If your a first (or sometimes second) offender the judge may offer to suspend your jail time if you accept some "conditions" that may include:
restricted license (you can only drive between work and home)
suspended license (welcome to public transportation)
attendance at some support group
no repeat offense for a year to three
the breathilyzer on your steering wheel (I can't remember what's called just now)
community service
Which of the above (could be all) you get offered in lieu of jail time is up to the judge and the prosecuting attorney and how good a day they're having. So if you want to get indignant about having to attend a religiously themed group, then that's your perogative, but you'll do 30 days to a year. Most of those who came before the judge I worked for suddenly found Jesus when an alternative to time in lockup was presented.
"The reason they won't work in a vacuum is that any blast is minimized by the fact that there is no means of conducting the pressure changes. The air isn't needed for the explosion."
Partially
If the explosion is far away than the effects will be minimal because as was stated there is no medium (air) to conduct the pressure from the detonation to the acceptor body (asteroid).
Both conventional and nuclear detonations near the asteriod would effect the trajectory of that body. A near nuclear detonation would impart enough energy (heat via x-rays & gamma rays) to dislodge and break up the sections of the asteriod and cause them to fly away at speed. Noting Newton's 1st law (equal and opposite reaction) we know that the energy (scalar value (1/2)mv^2) and the direction (vector) can be resolved into a single net force (of the dislodged particles) TOWARD the side of the body that the detonation was on. The equal an opposite force would be imparted to the body in the direction AWAY from the detonation; thus affecting it's trajectory.
If a conventional (chemical) explosion is very close than some of the same effects above (abeit at a smaller scale) take place, but a chemical explosion creates its own medium to transfer energy. High explosives (TNT, RDX, whatever) contain oxygen in their chemical composition so there is no need for external air. Since an chemical explosion is just the very fast (supersonic [at STP to avoid that discussion]) conversion of a solid into a gas, that expanding gas then becomes the medium to transfer energy to the asteriod.
Dah Nah NAH, Daa NAA Naa Naa Naa