NASA Satellite stops on a dime!? WTF!!!

[tron]

what if its a torus, k'know like a doughnut, wouldnt that explain things like agharta?

[DrEvil]

Here's the thing with space travel, it has to do with inertia and mostly gravity assists from the Sun and planets. I don't know why I even bother with this. To use the term "it's not rocket science" and also the term this is elementary, this is stupid. For starters go pick yourself up any Carl Sagan book and read. Cosmos and Pale Blue Dot will explain any and all questions you might have. Then pick up Broca's Brain and The Dragons of Eden to figure out your mental condition, maco144. Sorry bro, and I never use this term, but again you are either an idiot or a troll. There are plenty more books, but start there.

I for one, will continue to write nothing of substance. Sorry you can't grok that. It's on you.

If you're going to post in this thread you should ask questions not just regurgitate indoctrinated Science lies that I've already disproven. Here's the thing with your supposed 'rocket science' - if I am arguing from a model that shows that there is no Universe billions of light years across then your entire concept planetary gravity assists is just a purely theoretical made from mathematical equations that don't represent reality. You're certain that gravity exists when actual intelligent scientists/journals aren't even sure about it. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/05/whats-the-matter-with-gravity/ or http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/gravity.html or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model or http://www.nature.com/news/gravity-rivals-join-forces-to-nail-down-big-g-1.16090#/trouble. Perhaps you should go tell PBS NOVA, Astronomy Today, and Nature to pick up a copy of Carl Sagan, I'm sure they'd be so grateful for your really intelligent, useful contribution .

See the thing is 82, Ive spent the time actually learning what all the counter points are and I can express the issues that are inherently flawed in believing in your Scientism. You just keep spouting off basic crap that any who studies this is well beyond. I know it's hard to accept but when I demonstrably show that every point you bring up is not conclusively how reality is, eventually you have to wonder if the model you pretend to know is actually the model of reality.

If you're going to go the "I'm smarter than you" route at least try for some rigor. None of the articles you linked say what you claim they say. The behavior of gravity is perfectly well understood, it's why we can land stuff on other planets with pinprick precision.
The reason why it behaves as it does and the underlying mechanics of it is what they're arguing about, but none of them are saying that it doesn't exist at all.

What you so charitably call proof is so laughable it beggars belief and consists of a series of shockingly stupid youtube videos and graphics coupled with some arguments so moronic they're an insult to morons.
You can't even come up with a coherent explanation for why this centuries long global hoax is taking place.

And since coffin_dodger specifically asked for no one to disagree with him in his electric universe thread I'll say it here: the electric universe theory is a load of crap, garbled nonsense for people who can't handle not understanding something. The universe doesn't give a fuck if you can understand it or not. It will happily kill you if you go pretty much anywhere but Earth.

Oh, and since you mention 'scientism', a made up term usually used by creationists and other religious cretins trying to ignore facts and push their favored deity, I have to ask - are you by any chance deeply religious, and if so, does that inform your worldview (I'm asking because I want to know if I'm arguing with a religious fanatic or not)?

[justdrew]

I don't believe this is about a classic "Crank" - I believe this is an organized psi-op. Who is running it and why?

confusion and time-wasting alone are probably sufficient reason, but then there's always the possibility of recruiting some more useful idiots who'll work for free.

surely this poster is an exception to the rule though, no doubt.

and if the stars align just right, who knows, maybe someday it can go mainstream and contribute to the destruction of education and general enlightenment values. Though so little is left already in so many places, the payoff would more likely be appointing approved clerics to develop the new courses and execute the iconoclasm.

DrEvil - you're likely arguing with a mimetic warfare algorithm. A tool for the distribution of psychologically viral material. Surely the pattern of this type of operation is obvious by now? We've seen countless of these revisionist passion plays by now.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 2&start=60

THE ROCKET NOZZLE QUESTION



Let's look at this fundamental aspect of rocket nozzle design:

"The optimal size of a rocket engine nozzle to be used within the atmosphere is when the exit pressure equals ambient (atmospheric) pressure, which decreases with altitude. For rockets travelling from the Earth to orbit, a simple nozzle design is only optimal at one altitude, losing efficiency and wasting fuel at other altitudes."
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle

Right away, I'd say this sounds awfully problematic... in other words: at only one given altitude" X", a rocket (with a fixed rocket nozzle) performs at maximum efficiency. At ALL other altitudes, the rocket loses efficiency and wastes fuel. (Additionally, it appears that the airflow around a vehicle travelling at Mach speeds also reduces its surrounding external pressure - thus further reducing the thrust of any given jet/or rocket). So what happens between, say 60 and 100km of altitude as a rocket approaches the 'edge of space' (the so-called Kàrmàn line where air density is 2.2million times thinner than at sea level) - while still combating 90% gravity pull? Are rockets still airworthy there? Only NASA knows, I guess.

But let's go to Aerospaceweb and see what they tell us about...

"Nozzle Overexpansion & Underexpansion"
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/pr ... 0220.shtml

You may wish to read the above-linked article. Here's the basic problem illustrated by their 3-step diagram:


Now, wouldn't this be the logical progression of the above phenomena?


In other words, wouldn't the rocket plume eventually expand so much as to simply nebulize in all directions, thus ceasing to provide the necessary thrust/force to counter the pull of gravity? (This, of course, unless you believe that beyond a 'certain altitude', gravity ceases to be a force - and the spaceship gets 'flung' by its sheer momentum into 'free-fall' orbit...)

Lastly, you may ask, what type of rocket nozzle is used on modern spacecraft? Amazingly, it seems that the old De Laval design (1888 !) is still very much the (fixed)rocket nozzle widely used today... so much for technical innovation, NASA!
"Very nearly all modern rocket engines that employ hot gas combustion use de Laval nozzles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Post by Flabbergasted on May 29th, 2013, 5:43 pm

First of all, I have to say I agree with Boethius that no propulsion is possible without gravity and an atmosphere (or surface contact). The principle that makes a rocket work under these two conditions (as at the moment of launch) would be inapplicable under any other conditions (such as in "space").

Having said that, I would like to add a perspective more akin to traditional cosmology and metaphysics. This is not directly relevant to the analysis of the feasibility of propulsion in so-called "space", which I think has been satisfactorily dismissed by Boethius, Hoi and others, but may be worth a few minutes of meditation.

Modern science has adopted or inherited certain assumptions, or paradigms, about time and space and matter which may be useful and go a long way in organizing knowledge for the sake of practical applications, but which do not necessarily correspond to ultimate reality.

For example, based on our everyday physical perception of "empty space" between macroscopic objects (despite our knowledge of the invisible gas that fills it), we imagine that the space between what we define as the "nucleus" and the "electrons" of an atom is absolutely empty. Likewise, we imagine the space between celestial bodies to be "empty" (or near-empty, which doesn´t really make a difference). In short, we assume the existence of a preexisting three-dimensional nothingness called "space", in which things (particles, bodies) move and have their being.

In reality, space and matter are two sides of the same coin. There is no matter without spatial extension, and no spatial extension which is not also an expression of "matter", whether it is perceptible to our physical senses or not.

There can really be no transition from "nothingness" (which would necessarily be non-dimensional, although a purely intellectual construct) and "somethingness". It is inconceivable to move from one object to another separated by absolute nothingness. Nothingness, or "empty space", is merely a sensory appearance which is necessary for our practical life, but not a metaphysical possibility. In the physical world there can really be no discontinuity.

It would be interesting to look at the connection between the introduction of the "empty three-dimensional space" world view and the promotion of zero to the status of number. Just as you cannot derive "something" from nothing, you cannot derive the series of numbers from zero by multiplication. The Universe "begins" with something, like the number 1, or else it is non-manifest.

[tron]

i just found this, its pretty interesting and seems to fit with the pyramids being built by time travellers



I am not a scientist, but I have a theory about a couple of different things when it comes to the origin of our universe. My ideas seems to be fairly original, yet simple. I believe that the Sun gave birth to all of the planets, one by one. That the sun spits out a large ball of plasma every 80 billion years or so resulting in a new planet. Each planet is an offspring of the sun on an outward journey away from it. A ball of molten plasma exploding out into space, spinning and slowly cooling until the outer crust forms. Basically the planets are a timeline of what happens to a ball of plasma shot out of the sun. Ball of plasma-cools-crusts over, spins from its source, expands and breaks apart, sweating oceans, exploding into a gas and then freezing as it reached the depths of space. Mercury is a baby and Pluto is an old man.

1. Mercury the newest planet, closest to the sun. Mercury has cooled on the outside but remains molten within, a planet to be. Gases and moisture trap within the cooling rock as it hurtles through frozen space at breakneck speed.

2. Venus which soon will be in the sweet spot rotation that Earth is in. Once there it will begin to expand and oceans will form as the Earth once expanded or spun apart from a sheer rock surface to what it is now. Venus is the next earth.

3. Earth is expanding, spinning and twisting apart to reveal the oceans, when the next planet is born, we will all die, perhaps this is what the Mayans knew of? 2012 or sometime soon a new planet will be born. Will it be born out of the sun? Yes. Will that event destroy all mankind? Yes, I'm afraid so. What may loook like a star will be born out of the sun, cooling into a new planet

4. Mars- Once had life much like Earth but was disintegrated when Mercury was born, soon to be a gas giant once it explodes in 6 billion years

5. Jupiter- Hard to believe, but Jupiter was once the size of earth, still a heat source remains within, but mostly this gas giant consists of gas

6. Saturn- Much like Jupiter, just shrinking and freezing as it moves away from the sun

7. Neptune- Allt he gas condenses and freezes and we have these two ice giants

8. uranus , lets not go there its stinky.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/5603 ... o-planets/

[Joe Hillshoist]

i read the first couple of pages and the last one. Did anyone really question if the earth is flat?

Its one thing any human can test for themselves if they have the time and motivation.

Welcome to the thread where we are debating if the earth is flat and what the Universe actually is. Feel free to share your insight!

Get in a boat. Go several miles offshore. Can you see the beach?

What about the mountains?

If you can't get a boat then try this.

Find a large body of water with skyscrapers or hills/mountains visible across the water. It has to be large. Many 10s of miles across. If you want a reference point try Port Phillip Bay in Victoria, Australia. Imagine looking anywhere from Sorrento thru Rosebud to Dromana due North across the bay to the city of Melbourne. Its about 60 km across a reasonably calm, shallow bay. You can look it up on a mapping program and even find something comparable if you really want to test it yourself.

Water is fairly "flat". As flat as anything.

So if the world was flat looking North across that bay would mean you could see the bottoms of the buildings, the streets, yachts at the Marina etc etc.

Try it and see what happens.


As for the universe, and what is it?

I would suggest "complex and sometimes hard to explain" covers it.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Post by Flabbergasted on May 29th, 2013, 5:43 pm

First of all, I have to say I agree with Boethius that no propulsion is possible without gravity and an atmosphere (or surface contact). The principle that makes a rocket work under these two conditions (as at the moment of launch) would be inapplicable under any other conditions (such as in "space").

Having said that, I would like to add a perspective more akin to traditional cosmology and metaphysics. This is not directly relevant to the analysis of the feasibility of propulsion in so-called "space", which I think has been satisfactorily dismissed by Boethius, Hoi and others, but may be worth a few minutes of meditation.

Modern science has adopted or inherited certain assumptions, or paradigms, about time and space and matter which may be useful and go a long way in organizing knowledge for the sake of practical applications, but which do not necessarily correspond to ultimate reality.

For example, based on our everyday physical perception of "empty space" between macroscopic objects (despite our knowledge of the invisible gas that fills it), we imagine that the space between what we define as the "nucleus" and the "electrons" of an atom is absolutely empty. Likewise, we imagine the space between celestial bodies to be "empty" (or near-empty, which doesn´t really make a difference). In short, we assume the existence of a preexisting three-dimensional nothingness called "space", in which things (particles, bodies) move and have their being.

In reality, space and matter are two sides of the same coin. There is no matter without spatial extension, and no spatial extension which is not also an expression of "matter", whether it is perceptible to our physical senses or not.

There can really be no transition from "nothingness" (which would necessarily be non-dimensional, although a purely intellectual construct) and "somethingness". It is inconceivable to move from one object to another separated by absolute nothingness. Nothingness, or "empty space", is merely a sensory appearance which is necessary for our practical life, but not a metaphysical possibility. In the physical world there can really be no discontinuity.

It would be interesting to look at the connection between the introduction of the "empty three-dimensional space" world view and the promotion of zero to the status of number. Just as you cannot derive "something" from nothing, you cannot derive the series of numbers from zero by multiplication. The Universe "begins" with something, like the number 1, or else it is non-manifest.

[/quote]

Nothingness isn't what outer space is.

I typed "what is the vacuum of space made of" and got this response:

Outer space is not a perfect vacuum, but a tenuous plasma awash with charged particles, electromagnetic fields, and the occasional star. Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum.

So its close to but not actually a vacuum.

According to the search results anyway. I couldn't find that quote at the page it linked to so who knows.

[82_28]

I still want to get an answer as to driving through Eastern Colorado towards the mountains and you see the tops of the Rockies first and then as you continue on they come into full view. You haven't answered the reason for this anomaly yet.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I still want to get an answer as to driving through Eastern Colorado towards the mountains and you see the tops of the Rockies first and then as you continue on they come into full view. You haven't answered the reason for this anomaly yet.

Contact high - you're in Colorado.

[82_28]

I see what you're saying, Joe. But back then there wasn't no legal weed (sorry, I love writing like an illiterate). Plus I haven't lived in Colorado in almost 18 years. I live in the other "first state" to legalize it.

[maco144]

[quote="[url=http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=621335#p621335]
Get in a boat. Go several miles offshore. Can you see the beach?

What about the mountains?

If you can't get a boat then try this.

Find a large body of water with skyscrapers or hills/mountains visible across the water. It has to be large. Many 10s of miles across. If you want a reference point try Port Phillip Bay in Victoria, Australia. Imagine looking anywhere from Sorrento thru Rosebud to Dromana due North across the bay to the city of Melbourne. Its about 60 km across a reasonably calm, shallow bay. You can look it up on a mapping program and even find something comparable if you really want to test it yourself.

Water is fairly "flat". As flat as anything.

So if the world was flat looking North across that bay would mean you could see the bottoms of the buildings, the streets, yachts at the Marina etc etc.

Try it and see what happens.
[/quote]

I know youre eager to jump in but perhaps you could continue reading the thread. This has already been addressed many times and the reason you cant see the lower part of the city/whatever is because of law of perspective. If you were to get binoculars or anything to enhance your view youd plainly see that the things you thought to have disappeared would plainly be right there. This is why people think ships disappear over the curve of the earth but if they were to pull out a telescope theyd see it's right there.

[divideandconquer]

I still want to get an answer as to driving through Eastern Colorado towards the mountains and you see the tops of the Rockies first and then as you continue on they come into full view. You haven't answered the reason for this anomaly yet.

I'm not convinced of anything yet, but here ya go:





I thought this quote was interesting.

[maco144]

If you're going to post in this thread you should ask questions not just regurgitate indoctrinated Science lies that I've already disproven. Here's the thing with your supposed 'rocket science' - if I am arguing from a model that shows that there is no Universe billions of light years across then your

If you're going to go the "I'm smarter than you" route at least try for some rigor. None of the articles you linked say what you claim they say. The behavior of gravity is perfectly well understood, it's why we can land stuff on other planets with pinprick precision.
The reason why it behaves as it does and the underlying mechanics of it is what they're arguing about, but none of them are saying that it doesn't exist at all.

What you so charitably call proof is so laughable it beggars belief and consists of a series of shockingly stupid youtube videos and graphics coupled with some arguments so moronic they're an insult to morons.
You can't even come up with a coherent explanation for why this centuries long global hoax is taking place.

And since coffin_dodger specifically asked for no one to disagree with him in his electric universe thread I'll say it here: the electric universe theory is a load of crap, garbled nonsense for people who can't handle not understanding something. The universe doesn't give a fuck if you can understand it or not. It will happily kill you if you go pretty much anywhere but Earth.

Oh, and since you mention 'scientism', a made up term usually used by creationists and other religious cretins trying to ignore facts and push their favored deity, I have to ask - are you by any chance deeply religious, and if so, does that inform your worldview (I'm asking because I want to know if I'm arguing with a religious fanatic or not)?

The articles clearly show that there isn't a consensus on what gravity is, how to measure it, what effect it has, etc. Flat Earth takes the next step and does away with it since it can't be found or proven. It does away with standard model and general relativity since we can readily find flaws in both models.

The explanation for why the hoax should be obvious and I'm pretty sure we've covered it several times.

Scientism is a pretty apt term for people who just regurgitate their laymen indoctrination of globe model / Big Bang Universe.

I believe in God but not in the Abrahamic/Eastern religions. I think whether it was God/Alien/Man who put the dome above is clearly sign of an intelligence way above ours and to me whatever did that belongs in the Pantheon.

[dada]

This thread covered all of this a few months ago. I see nothing new. Now we're just going around in circles.

what if its a torus, k'know like a doughnut, wouldnt that explain things like agharta?

Yes, but what if the doughnut itself is hollow?

[LolaB]

And now for some mild comic relief, JP Sears has it all figured out: