I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

Not really! Just describe the space craft incl. accommodation/gear that can do the trip with humans aboard. Then figure out the various manoeuvres required to sail to the target and back and calculate the fuel required. But it must be a realistic space craft. Not just teenager love dreams and fantasies.

I knew that mentioning my age would cause responses like this . Just as I am not the stereotypical Utah Mormon, I am also not the stereotypical 17 year old.  Ever sense I got my drivers license the GPS on my car hasn't recorded even a speeding violation, but usually teenagers are notoriously unsafe drivers.  That's just one example, I could continue.

I didn't get around to doing all the fuel calculation stuff yesterday, I will try to do it today.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 31, 2015, 07:35:45 AM

I had never heard of the FES forum before some brainwashed clown stated there that he had won my Challenge.

This thread was started January 8th, 2015.
Your first post here was August 9th, 2014.
And no one claimed to have one your challenge, someone just linked to your site as though it qualified as evidence, looking at your first post.

May we conclude, however, that you don't think the Earth is flat? Do you have any opinion on the fact that the forum that seems to have allowed the longest discussion with you is one founded to promote that idea?

Yes, my first post was August 9, 2014 in some Buzz Aldrin (an alcholic astro-clown) thread, where somebody linked to me and my space Challenge 2. My Challenge 2 has nothing to do with a flat Earth though. The Challenge is to demonstrate a human space trip from Earth to the Moon or a planet and back. It doesn't matter much if Earth is flat or so. Fact is Earth is mostly covered by water/oceans. It seems most people agree to it. My biz is safety at sea.
 
Right now it is very popular. http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm ! An American owned ship capsizes in Italy and becomes a wreck on the rocks and then some clowns decide to remove the wreck to Genoa at insurances account. Why? Aha - it was full of valuable cocaine.

In the meantime the poor shipmaster was found guilty of some other, minor things. I wonder how it will end.

I am a healthy, intelligent, happy, good looking, popular and funny person

Only an idiot talks about themselves like this. Even if you were all those things - it does not reflect well on you to say it.

I am at this very moment rendering out the final part of my Apollo mission in Orbiter and then it will be uploaded to YouTube.  I will give you the link as soon as I have it.

OK, the video is uploading now and when it's done it can be found " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here.  By the time you are reading this message the video is probably done uploading.

You just copy paste Wikipedia...

Uh... yeah... didn't you notice the quotation marks around my definition?  So now you're claiming that either the Dunning-Kruger syndrome doesn't exist, ir you're not suffering from it—even although you fit its parameters like a finger in a glove?

As a highly skilled individual.....

This is a highly contentious claim, and may even be a blatant lie.  Apart from claiming to be a retired boat mechanic with a purported "qualification" from a minor university 40 years ago, you've offered absolutely no viable evidence to support the claims you make about your absurd (and probably non-existent) "challenge" as it relates to advanced astrophysics.

You don't even have basic qualifications to discuss astrophysics with any credibility;  you just gather and repeat various bits and pieces of other people's works in the field on your nonsensical web pages.  And that's precisely why the rest of the accredited science world (and everybody here) is laughing at you Björkman—it's just that you're too fucking dense to even think that for a moment.

I can only suggest you apply for membership of THIS association wherein you may find some people with similar qualifications and ineterst as yourself.  Good luck.

   

Even the clown association has a better looking website than Anders. Not by much grant you, but it is a step up.

Even the clown association has a better looking website than Anders. Not by much grant you, but it is a step up.

That's because all their members have higher IQs than Björkman.       

Quote from: Arith on April 01, 2015, 03:44:54 AM

Even the clown association has a better looking website than Anders. Not by much grant you, but it is a step up.

That's because all their members have higher IQs than Björkman.       

For newcomers to this very popular FES forum thread, ausGeoff has not won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge (topic). It seems he cannot accept it and, apart from wetting/shitting his pants, he is worried about IQs, etc.

Quote from: ausGeoff on April 01, 2015, 03:50:15 AM

Quote from: Arith on April 01, 2015, 03:44:54 AM

Even the clown association has a better looking website than Anders. Not by much grant you, but it is a step up.

That's because all their members have higher IQs than Björkman.       

For newcomers to this very popular FES forum thread, ausGeoff has not won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge (topic). It seems he cannot accept it and, apart from wetting/shitting his pants, he is worried about IQs, etc.

Only because you have:

a) no intention of paying
b) keep changing the rules
c) don't understand basic science and engineering
d) have some serious issues

I propose Heiwa come up with a clear, concise checklist. If this challenge is indeed genuine, then we can simply work on the basis of that. If Heiwa adds anything to said checklist, we can see the dishonesty openly.
How's that Heiwa? If your challenge is real, that should be a simple thing to do. I'll make a start:

• Explain spacesuit gloves
• Explain fuel consumption
• Explain how fuel is carried

Please continue: and remember, this will be binding. If your checklist does indeed get answered, you can't just add more.

I propose Heiwa come up with a clear, concise checklist. If this challenge is indeed genuine, then we can simply work on the basis of that. If Heiwa adds anything to said checklist, we can see the dishonesty openly.
How's that Heiwa? If your challenge is real, that should be a simple thing to do. I'll make a start:

• Explain spacesuit gloves
• Explain fuel consumption
• Explain how fuel is carried

Please continue: and remember, this will be binding. If your checklist does indeed get answered, you can't just add more.

but...  how do you expect him to Gish Gallop that way?!

I propose Heiwa come up with a clear, concise checklist. If this challenge is indeed genuine, then we can simply work on the basis of that. If Heiwa adds anything to said checklist, we can see the dishonesty openly.
How's that Heiwa? If your challenge is real, that should be a simple thing to do. I'll make a start:

• Explain spacesuit gloves
• Explain fuel consumption
• Explain how fuel is carried

Please continue: and remember, this will be binding. If your checklist does indeed get answered, you can't just add more.

All details of Challenge 2 is at bottom of http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . If you can see, read and understand my writing there, it means that you should tell me about your human space travel trip, incl. fuel consumption, fuel tanks and why not, the gloves you intend to wear, etc, etc. If you cannot see, read and understand my writing I suggest you ask for assistance somewhere.
I do not expect anyone to win my Challenge as ... human space travel is ... not possible ... under any circumstances. Just ask Buzz Aldrin!

Quote from: Heiwa on April 01, 2015, 07:12:55 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on April 01, 2015, 03:50:15 AM

Quote from: Arith on April 01, 2015, 03:44:54 AM

Even the clown association has a better looking website than Anders. Not by much grant you, but it is a step up.

That's because all their members have higher IQs than Björkman.       

For newcomers to this very popular FES forum thread, ausGeoff has not won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge (topic). It seems he cannot accept it and, apart from wetting/shitting his pants, he is worried about IQs, etc.

Only because you have:

a) no intention of paying
b) keep changing the rules
c) don't understand basic science and engineering
d) have some serious issues

a) I will pay
b)basic rules are not changed
c)suggest you use basic science and engineering
d)wish you luck

a) I will pay

b)basic rules are not changed

a) I will pay

Then why havn't you?

b)basic rules are not changed

Then what do you it when you move the goal posts by saying that we need to discribe the AC system in the space suit?  You even updated your website to change the rules to include space suit cooling system related stuff.

c)suggest you use basic science and engineering

We have been doing that, yet somehow you, a millionaire engineer, can't understand it.  That's not our fault.

d)wish you luck

We will need it to get past that huge bias of yours.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 01, 2015, 12:44:24 PM

a) I will pay

Then why havn't you?

Nobody has so far won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge (topic). Not even NASA has tried.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 01, 2015, 01:33:05 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 01, 2015, 12:44:24 PM

a) I will pay

Then why havn't you?

Nobody has so far won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge (topic). Not even NASA has tried.

And the simulator didn't win me the challenge?  How is this possible?

Speaking of the simulator, I have uploaded my video of the Apollo mission from Lunar liftoff to splashdown:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Orbiter Apollo Mission Part 3: Returning to Earth
As it turns out, the AMSO mod has updated to include damage and failure simulation for reentry.

All details of Challenge 2 is at bottom of http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . If you can see, read and understand my writing there, it means that you should tell me about your human space travel trip, incl. fuel consumption, fuel tanks and why not, the gloves you intend to wear, etc, etc.

Why the gloves?  Technically, you don't need a space suit in order to fly to, or land on, the moon.  Just about the only time that the Apollo 8 astronauts wore their space suits was from liftoff until TLI.  The only you really need a space suit is if you plan on leaving the craft while in space or while on the moon.

Perhaps your "challenge" should just stick to the basics of space flight that you still can't quite grasp, no matter how many times and in different ways that they're explained to you.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 01, 2015, 05:50:08 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 01, 2015, 01:33:05 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 01, 2015, 12:44:24 PM

a) I will pay

Then why havn't you?

Nobody has so far won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge (topic). Not even NASA has tried.

And the simulator didn't win me the challenge?  How is this possible?

You have to apply and present the figures of all manoeuvres. Not even the writers of the simulator software you use have applied. I find it strange.

You only claim you have won using a simulator of somebody else. Not good enough. And your space craft never returned to Earth. You just assume that it can land someway. Like the NASA space craft that landed in Utah some years back. What a fantasy.

 But thanks for trying.
 

You have to apply and present the figures of all manoeuvres. Not even the writers of the simulator software you use have applied. I find it strange.

You only claim you have won using a simulator of somebody else. Not good enough. And your space craft never returned to Earth. You just assume that it can land someway. Like the NASA space craft that landed in Utah some years back. What a fantasy.

 But thanks for trying.

Yeah, ummm...   First of all, my space craft did return to Earth, and had you read the rest of my post you would see the video of that happening.

Also, do you deny having this on your website as part of the challenge 2:

you could just copy/paste the accomplishment technology and win a €1 000 000:- cheque! Do it. Money is evidently available in the bank.

It clearly says that we could just copy paste some official NASA stuff and that means that showing a simulator and mod which simulate an Apollo mission, doing that mission on camera, and providing you with a way of validating the realism of the simulator is me going the extra mile and yet you insist that it's not good enough.  The wright era of the software havn't applied simply because they don't even know that you exist because you are not as famous as you think.

That simulator was made by sonebody else, so what?  If I were to make a simulator like that it would take me years and if I'm lucky I could earn $1,000,000 just by selling copies of it.  It's unreasonable to ask for a simulator designed by me especially when the person asking is so bad with computers that he thinks MS paint is a computer language.

By the way, in case you are too lazy to scroll up here is my video about the return trip from the Moon again:
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Orbiter Apollo Mission Part 3: Returning to Earth

Quote

you could just copy/paste the accomplishment technology and win a €1 000 000:- cheque! Do it. Money is evidently available in the bank.

It clearly says that we could just copy paste some official NASA stuff and that means that showing a simulator and mod which simulate an Apollo mission, doing that mission on camera, and providing you with a way of validating the realism of the simulator is me going the extra mile and yet you insist that it's not good enough.  The wright era of the software havn't applied simply because they don't even know that you exist because you are not as famous as you think.

That simulator was made by sonebody else, so what?  If I were to make a simulator like that it would take me years and if I'm lucky I could earn $1,000,000 just by selling copies of it.  It's unreasonable to ask for a simulator designed by me especially when the person asking is so bad with computers that he thinks MS paint is a computer language.

By the way, in case you are too lazy to scroll up here is my video about the return trip from the Moon again:
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Orbiter Apollo Mission Part 3: Returning to Earth

Your simulator shows just plenty CGI for boys. You have to provide more details, e.g. how to brake and change course when arriving close to target for landing and fuel used, etc, etc. and then how to take off again and return. NASA has failed it. They just invent figures of all kind to impress the public like cheap magicians. So I recommend that you check the simulator physics/software before using it for, e.g. winning my Challenge.

Did you check about the NASA space craft landing in Utah some years back? Do you really believe it happened? I explain why it is fantasy on http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#SD . Check with the scientists that analyzed the alleged cargo of this space craft what they found about it. Was it really collected in space?

Yeah, ummm...   First of all, my space craft did return to Earth, and had you read the rest of my post you would see the video of that happening.

Hey Mikeman, don't forget that a simulator ... simulates.
And do you know the definition of simulate?
"to assume or have the appearance or characteristics of".

Although, you can't prove the reality of a Moon flight, with something giving an appearance of flight.

You have to prove it with your calculation. Don't be afraid, you can do it, Aldrins had used a slide rule to guide his ship!!!
http://historical.ha.com/itm/transportation/space-exploration/buzz-aldrin-s-apollo-11-slide-rule-flown-to-the-moon/a/669-25368.s
 

Again, he's offered to go through the SOURCE - which would contain formulae. Which Anders has repeatedly and conveniently 'forgotten' and never explored.

He's also said that simulators exist so you don't have to waste expensive materials and possible loss of actual life just to find out say if their trajectory is proper. That's why they call it a simulator. The math is real, the objects are not. However being a simulator, those objects are modelled after real life. You know, to simulate.

So we're going back to the "deliver capsule to doorstep to win"?

Again, he's offered to go through the SOURCE - which would contain formulae. Which Anders has repeatedly and conveniently 'forgotten' and never explored.

He's also said that simulators exist so you don't have to waste expensive materials and possible loss of actual life just to find out say if their trajectory is proper. That's why they call it a simulator. The math is real, the objects are not. However being a simulator, those objects are modelled after real life. You know, to simulate.

So we're going back to the "deliver capsule to doorstep to win"?

It seems the alleged winner of Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge planned to go to the Moon and back. It is not easy as the Moon orbits the Earth that orbits the Sun at high speeds. He is using un unknown simulator. OK.
So at a certain time he departs Earth in a certain direction at a certain speed in 3-D space. The speed is immediately reduced due to Earth gravity and the direction is affected by the positions of the Moon and the Sun. It is assumed that the Moon is arriving in front of the space ship at the right time, so that Moon gravity attracts the space ship, which thus is going faster and faster towards the Moon, say >2 500 m/s = quite fast direction CoG of the Moon. The simulator takes care of everything. OK?
Now it is time to slow down. The simulator takes care of that too, I am told. I am mainly interested in the fuel used to brake. And that you brake in exactly the right direction. So far nobody has been able to explain how you do it. Not even NASA.

I like Tintin 1953. He just slowed down and landed on the Moon and reported it in a Belgian cartoon magazin. No videos, no CGI, no NASA. If Tintin says he is a winner of Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge, I will review the application.

If you took the time to look for yourself, you might actually find out - but you won't.
You'll blindly put up your challenge's synopsis for the 829384th time and throw some ad-hom in there and the cycle starts again.
You never listen. You nod with a blank stare then repeat what you've said over and over and over and over AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER like a broken record.

If you're too simple to be able to pull it apart and understand the simulator, just say so.

If you took the time to look for yourself, you might actually find out - but you won't.
You'll blindly put up your challenge's synopsis for the 829384th time and throw some ad-hom in there and the cycle starts again.
You never listen. You nod with a blank stare then repeat what you've said over and over and over and over AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER like a broken record.

If you're too simple to be able to pull it apart and understand the simulator, just say so.

If you visit my Challenges 1 and 2 page you'll see that 2 is about space (from 2012). 1 is about a weak top crushing a strong bottom (from 2010). I am quite good at structural design and analysis incl. dynamic structural failure analysis, i.e. what happens when a structure breaks apart. To do a real dynamic structural failure analysis you need plenty computer power and time ... but it has been done lately with interesting results, e.g. no structure can collapse from top down as suggested by US terrorists.

Thus it was safe to launch the Heiwa Challenge #1 about structures. Nobody can win it as no structure can collapse as seen live on five US TV channels on 911. It was just a pre-recorded movie being broadcasted;

Which brings us to the Heiwa Challenge #2. Navigation in 3-D space with a moving space craft among a moving Sun, a moving planet (Earth) with a moving Moon. It is quite complex and requires plenty computer power ... that was not available in the 1960s. NASA tried to punch plenty cards to feed into the IBM 350 (?) main frame computers that after a day printed out 10 000 pages of results where you or Apollo 11 were in space relative some stars or whatever.  Not very reliable satnav system. Punching cards in a space craft 1969. A joke.
Evidently we have better computers today but ... the problem remain how to navigate in 3-D space relative what ... a black hole in the centre of the Milky Way.
Anyway, Challenge #2 cannot be won due to the problem of re-entry. Our Utah friend apparently believes a NASA space craft landed in Utah after a successful re-entry 2006 but ... it is fake. Like all re-entries since 1961. They cannot be done.

Quote from: Arith on April 02, 2015, 09:12:31 AM

If you took the time to look for yourself, you might actually find out - but you won't.
You'll blindly put up your challenge's synopsis for the 829384th time and throw some ad-hom in there and the cycle starts again.
You never listen. You nod with a blank stare then repeat what you've said over and over and over and over AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER like a broken record.

If you're too simple to be able to pull it apart and understand the simulator, just say so.

If you visit my Challenges 1 and 2 page you'll see that 2 is about space (from 2012). 1 is about a weak top crushing a strong bottom (from 2010). I am quite good at structural design and analysis incl. dynamic structural failure analysis, i.e. what happens when a structure breaks apart. To do a real dynamic structural failure analysis you need plenty computer power and time ... but it has been done lately with interesting results, e.g. no structure can collapse from top down as suggested by US terrorists.

Thus it was safe to launch the Heiwa Challenge #1 about structures. Nobody can win it as no structure can collapse as seen live on five US TV channels on 911. It was just a pre-recorded movie being broadcasted;

Which brings us to the Heiwa Challenge #2. Navigation in 3-D space with a moving space craft among a moving Sun, a moving planet (Earth) with a mving Moon. It is quite complex and requires plenty computer power ... that was not available in the 1960s. NASA tried to punch plenty cards to feed into the IBM 350 (?) main frame computers that after a day printed out 10 000 pages of results where you or Apollo 11 were in space relative some stars or whatever.  Not very reliable satnav system. Punching cards in a space craft 1969. A joke.
Evidently we have better computers today but ... the problem remain how to navigate in 3-D space relative what ... a black hole in the centre of the Milky Way.
Anyway, Challenge #2 cannot be won due to the problem of re-entry. Our Utah friend apparently believes a NASA space craft landed in Utah after a successful re-entry 2006 but ... it is fake. Like all re-entries since 1961. They cannot be done.

Oh the irony of your response Heiwa...

If you took the time to look for yourself, you might actually find out - but you won't.
You'll blindly put up your challenge's synopsis for the 829384th time and throw some ad-hom in there and the cycle starts again.
You never listen. You nod with a blank stare then repeat what you've said over and over and over and over AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER like a broken record.

If you're too simple to be able to pull it apart and understand the simulator, just say so.

You unblocked him didn't you.

Hey Mikeman, don't forget that a simulator ... simulates.

There is a reason why simulations are used to test things like structures before they are actually built.

And do you know the definition of simulate?
"to assume or have the appearance or characteristics of".

And it definitely simulates the characteristics of space flight like realistic orbital mechanics.

Although, you can't prove the reality of a Moon flight, with something giving an appearance of flight.

I can however prove that it's possible given that the Earth is round, which is what the challenge is all about.

You have to prove it with your calculation. Don't be afraid, you can do it, Aldrins had used a slide rule to guide his ship!!!
http://historical.ha.com/itm/transportation/space-exploration/buzz-aldrin-s-apollo-11-slide-rule-flown-to-the-moon/a/669-25368.s

Nobody said that a slide rule was the only instrument used to do calculations on the space craft, they also used the on bored computer.