[totallackey]

That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.

That really depends on the size doesn't it? I figure it's a lot easier to settle on, say Mars, than to redirect a mass-extinction event asteroid. The chicxulub crater was done by an object estimated to be about 6 miles in diameter. That's a whole lot of mass.

Oh, pardon me Mssrs. Rocket Scientists...

What fiction do you base your outlandish statements on?

[Poseidon]

Actually, TOTALLACKEY, a better question would be, what pre-500BC manuscript do you base YOUR ideas on?

[totallackey]

Actually, TOTALLACKEY, a better question would be, what pre-500BC manuscript do you base YOUR ideas on?

No, the better question remains what I asked.

Got people making BS claims with no basis in reality.

[Poseidon]

Well, since FET is based entirely on concepts that the Greeks made obsolete in about 300 BC, when Aristotle came around...

And no. Even my limited knowledge of math can tell you that moving small objects to Mars is easier than moving a gigantic object even a few degrees. I recognise that you're general lack of anything between the ears does cause cognitive problems, but please, do not impute such problems to the rest of us.

[Rushy]

That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.

That really depends on the size doesn't it? I figure it's a lot easier to settle on, say Mars, than to redirect a mass-extinction event asteroid. The chicxulub crater was done by an object estimated to be about 6 miles in diameter. That's a whole lot of mass.

Oh, pardon me Mssrs. Rocket Scientists...

What fiction do you base your outlandish statements on?

An asteroid is bigger than a rocket.

[totallackey]

Well, since FET is based entirely on concepts that the Greeks made obsolete in about 300 BC, when Aristotle came around...

And no. Even my limited knowledge of math can tell you that moving small objects to Mars is easier than moving a gigantic object even a few degrees. I recognise that you're general lack of anything between the ears does cause cognitive problems, but please, do not impute such problems to the rest of us.

You accuse me of a lack of anything between the ears, yet make elementary mistakes in grammar (highlighted for the benefit of the readership).

I highly doubt you can calculate your way to the corner grocer most days.

That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.

An asteroid is bigger than a rocket.

You have ZERO clue of the amount of energy required for either task, so quit bloviating on concerning the issue.

[andruszkow]

That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.

That really depends on the size doesn't it? I figure it's a lot easier to settle on, say Mars, than to redirect a mass-extinction event asteroid. The chicxulub crater was done by an object estimated to be about 6 miles in diameter. That's a whole lot of mass.

Oh, pardon me Mssrs. Rocket Scientists...

What fiction do you base your outlandish statements on?

What part of it? That changing the path of an asteroid is hard?

[totallackey]

What part of it? That changing the path of an asteroid is hard?

Zero of it being real to begin with, the part comparing the difficulty of colonizing another planet in time to avoid extinction  or the part detouring or smashing the asteroid prior to collision.

[Rama Set]

Good old NDT recently said in an interview that whatever your concern for life on Earth is, it is easier to solve and requires less energy than moving humanity as a whole to Mars. But that is moving billions of people. If you just want to move a small portion, it is likely easier than say, redirecting a killer asteroid.

[Rushy]

You have ZERO clue of the amount of energy required for either task, so quit bloviating on concerning the issue.

You should teach me about the amount of energy required to move an asteroid.

[Poseidon]

Well, since FET is based entirely on concepts that the Greeks made obsolete in about 300 BC, when Aristotle came around...

And no. Even my limited knowledge of math can tell you that moving small objects to Mars is easier than moving a gigantic object even a few degrees. I recognise that you're general lack of anything between the ears does cause cognitive problems, but please, do not impute such problems to the rest of us.

You accuse me of a lack of anything between the ears, yet make elementary mistakes in grammar (highlighted for the benefit of the readership).

I highly doubt you can calculate your way to the corner grocer most days.

That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.

An asteroid is bigger than a rocket.

You have ZERO clue of the amount of energy required for either task, so quit bloviating on concerning the issue.

"You are general lack..." . That is what the apostrophe means, right? Now who is the grammatical idiot? SCHMUCK.

[totallackey]

You have ZERO clue of the amount of energy required for either task, so quit bloviating on concerning the issue.

You should teach me about the amount of energy required to move an asteroid.

You made the claim.

Get teachy...

Show and tell time.

[totallackey]

Well, since FET is based entirely on concepts that the Greeks made obsolete in about 300 BC, when Aristotle came around...

And no. Even my limited knowledge of math can tell you that moving small objects to Mars is easier than moving a gigantic object even a few degrees. I recognise that you're general lack of anything between the ears does cause cognitive problems, but please, do not impute such problems to the rest of us.

You accuse me of a lack of anything between the ears, yet make elementary mistakes in grammar (highlighted for the benefit of the readership).

I highly doubt you can calculate your way to the corner grocer most days.

That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.

An asteroid is bigger than a rocket.

You have ZERO clue of the amount of energy required for either task, so quit bloviating on concerning the issue.

"You are general lack..." . That is what the apostrophe means, right? Now who is the grammatical idiot? SCHMUCK.

You still are and are only solidifying your position as the grammatical idiot.

Kindly explain in what possible version of English is the sentence "I recognise that you aregeneral lack of anything between the ears does cause cognitive problems, but please, do not impute such problems to the rest of us," grammatically correct?

You call me a schmuck, and you cannot even write at a sixth grade level.

[Rushy]

I suggest both of you stop calling the other one an idiot or you will both be placed on timeout.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

But to make an argument, as the OP does, that Russia doesn't mean what they are saying based on the technology we supposedly had "pre-Speak-and-Spell", just shows how lacking in knowledge the average FEer is in logic and basic human progress.

So, acknowledging that the technology we used 50 years ago to supposedly land on the moon is objectively inferior in every imaginable way to what we have developed since is somehow illogical?

And you're both idiots by the way