The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Crouton on December 25, 2021, 01:33:33 AM
-
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee333eeeeeeeeeeeeddedrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....
-
... Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
-
?
-
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-fueling-for-launch
The thing that's going to make hubble look like dog shit if it doesn't explode first.
-
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-fueling-for-launch
The thing that's going to make hubble look like dog shit if it doesn't explode first.
OK. You have my attention now 8)
It would be a bit of a bastard if the optics ended up looking like shit and in need of repair like the Hubble did. At least they could innovate getting a man all the way over to the L2 point to do a fix. :D
-
Yeah that's the tense part. It takes 6 months to get there and there's zero hope of fixing if something goes wrong.
-
Earf is flat so telescope fake
-
It would be a bit of a bastard if the optics ended up looking like shit and in need of repair like the Hubble did.
JWST is using deformable mirrors as part of the adaptive optics to help avoid that sort of situation.
https://www.findlight.net/blog/2019/03/05/mirrors-webb/
At least they could innovate getting a man all the way over to the L2 point to do a fix. :D
Yeah, that's one of the bummers about going out to L2. JWST is only designed to last about 5-10 years with no hope of repair missions that helped keep Hubble going for 30+ years.
Then again, who knows? Maybe Elon Musk can get one of his Star Ships to do a repair mission in about 10 years or so.
-
The JWST is still just at low altitude orbiting Earth at increased speed, and it will take several months before it arrives on location somewhere in our Solar System to study the UNIVERSE. What at joke - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
-
The JWST is still just at low altitude orbiting Earth at increased speed, and it will take several months before it arrives on location somewhere in our Solar System to study the UNIVERSE. What at joke - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
What's the joke in taking a month to travel 1.5 million km? The several months you say is not the time it takes to get there, but the time it takes to unfold the mirror and sun shield. It's not something they want to screw up.
-
The JWST is still just at low altitude orbiting Earth at increased speed, and it will take several months before it arrives on location somewhere in our Solar System to study the UNIVERSE. What at joke - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
What's the joke in taking a month to travel 1.5 million km? The several months you say is not the time it takes to get there, but the time it takes to unfold the mirror and sun shield. It's not something they want to screw up.
Good question. Why cannot NASA build faster space crafts so it goes faster to go to Mars and Venus? 200 days to Mars, 110 to Venus. Isn't it slow or long? Why waste so much time. Better is to go faster!
-
The JWST is still just at low altitude orbiting Earth at increased speed, and it will take several months before it arrives on location somewhere in our Solar System to study the UNIVERSE. What at joke - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
What's the joke in taking a month to travel 1.5 million km? The several months you say is not the time it takes to get there, but the time it takes to unfold the mirror and sun shield. It's not something they want to screw up.
Good question. Why cannot NASA build faster space crafts so it goes faster to go to Mars and Venus? 200 days to Mars, 110 to Venus. Isn't it slow or long? Why waste so much time. Better is to go faster!
While getting to Mars in a few days would be great and all, there is the issue of slowing down so you can land on the thing
Anyway, that's another topic dont you agree? I didn't bring you out of your isolation so you can dump on every science related thread with your weird thoughts.
What do you think of the James Webb telescope? It's not breaking or leaving the Earths orbit so you should be comfortable with that aspect
-
The JWST is still just at low altitude orbiting Earth at increased speed, and it will take several months before it arrives on location somewhere in our Solar System to study the UNIVERSE. What at joke - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
What's the joke in taking a month to travel 1.5 million km? The several months you say is not the time it takes to get there, but the time it takes to unfold the mirror and sun shield. It's not something they want to screw up.
Good question. Why cannot NASA build faster space crafts so it goes faster to go to Mars and Venus? 200 days to Mars, 110 to Venus. Isn't it slow or long? Why waste so much time. Better is to go faster!
Why can't we put metal in a microwave?
-
I would like to hear more of heiwas theories about why the jwst is a hoax because it doesn't have a toilet.
-
I would like to hear more of heiwas theories about why the jwst is a hoax because it doesn't have a toilet.
This JWST is a big joke. Not even a hoax!! It is a space telescope that has just been lifted off Earth to be put somewhere in space close topPlanet Saturn 20 light minutes away from Earth to look at the Universe 100 million light years away ... for a closer look. The JWST is unmanned, so no toilet is required.
Compare with Lone Skum's SpaceWC craft going to planet Mars 200 days one way with no toilet aboard.
-
I would like to hear more of heiwas theories about why the jwst is a hoax because it doesn't have a toilet.
This JWST is a big joke. Not even a hoax!! It is a space telescope that has just been lifted off Earth to be put somewhere in space close topPlanet Saturn 20 light minutes away from Earth to look at the Universe 100 million light years away ... for a closer look. The JWST is unmanned, so no toilet is required.
Compare with Lone Skum's SpaceWC craft going to planet Mars 200 days one way with no toilet aboard.
Saturn is not 1.5 million km away lol
Also it's going to look much further than 100 million light years distant. I suggest you read up more on where this telescope is going and what it's mission is before you comment again
-
It is a space telescope that has just been lifted off Earth to be put somewhere in space close topPlanet Saturn 20 light minutes away from Earth to look at the Universe 100 million light years away ...
It always amazes me at just how many things you can get wrong in just one sentence.
-
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-fueling-for-launch
The thing that's going to make hubble look like dog shit if it doesn't explode first.
Webb adds to the capabilities of NASA's Great Observatories (of the original four, Hubble and Chandra still operating), but does not replace the capabilities of Hubble. Webb only operates as low as 0.6 um wavelength, so will not be able to take "natural color" images (as the human eye would see it) of planets, nebulae, galaxies, etc., nor investigate any phenomena in the UV. Webb's advantage is extending the distance (and hence the ability to view back further in time) by having a larger mirror that can collect dimmer light, and having a wavelength capability farther out in the IR to see objects that have been red-shifted more (because they're farther away and hence travelling faster away from us, and emit farther out in the IR).
Added capability, not better quality replacement capability.
-
I would like to hear more of heiwas theories about why the jwst is a hoax because it doesn't have a toilet.
This JWST is a big joke. Not even a hoax!! It is a space telescope that has just been lifted off Earth to be put somewhere in space close topPlanet Saturn 20 light minutes away from Earth to look at the Universe 100 million light years away ... for a closer look. The JWST is unmanned, so no toilet is required.
Compare with Lone Skum's SpaceWC craft going to planet Mars 200 days one way with no toilet aboard.
Saturn is not 1.5 million km away lol
Also it's going to look much further than 100 million light years distant. I suggest you read up more on where this telescope is going and what it's mission is before you comment again
?? Anyway the James Webb Space Telescope is going to be located at a stable Lagrange point in an Earth orbit far away (maybe close to planet Saturn?) so that pictures can be taken of the end of the Universe at a billion light years away. Just imagine that. Photons have arrived from a billion light years away!! I can see the same thing just looking out of my window. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm .
-
the James Webb scope is the newest best.So fucked that some imbeciles can't comprehend basic reality.
-
Heiwa. Answer this.
How far away is Saturn?
How far away is the L2 point?
Let us know if you think they are close to each other
-
Photons have arrived from a billion light years away!! I can see the same thing just looking out of my window.
You can see this from your house?
(https://astronomy.com/-/media/Images/News%20and%20Observing/News/2017/04/ASYGI0415_09.jpg?mw=1000&mh=800)
-
?? Anyway the James Webb Space Telescope is going to be located at a stable Lagrange point in an Earth orbit far away (maybe close to planet Saturn?) so that pictures can be taken of the end of the Universe at a billion light years away. Just imagine that. Photons have arrived from a billion light years away!! I can see the same thing just looking out of my window. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm .
I won't be reading your explanation, as you clearly don't even understand what a Lagrangian point in Earth's orbit is, if you think it's near Saturn.
Earth's most distant Lagrangian point (L3) is approximately 182 million miles away on the opposite side of the Sun. Saturn is approximately 746 million miles away (at closest approach), at least 3 times further than Earth's L3.
-
Photons have arrived from a billion light years away!! I can see the same thing just looking out of my window.
You can see this from your house?
(https://astronomy.com/-/media/Images/News%20and%20Observing/News/2017/04/ASYGI0415_09.jpg?mw=1000&mh=800)
I can see this right here. ;)
whats up babe, sorry it's been a while.
-
Heiwa. Answer this.
How far away is Saturn?
How far away is the L2 point?
Let us know if you think they are close to each other
The L2 point (between Earth and Sun) is about 1.5 million kilometers or 0.01 au from Earth and thus very far from planet Saturn. It seems the JWST instruments will just record infrared light for unknown reasons. I simply consider the JWST a $1000 million hoax. Imagine paying that for a telescope that can only record infrared light.
-
Heiwa. Answer this.
How far away is Saturn?
How far away is the L2 point?
Let us know if you think they are close to each other
The L2 point (between Earth and Sun) is about 1.5 million kilometers or 0.01 au from Earth and thus very far from planet Saturn. It seems the JWST instruments will just record infrared light for unknown reasons. I simply consider the JWST a $1000 million hoax. Imagine paying that for a telescope that can only record infrared light.
Heiwa co is a hoax.
-
Heiwa. Answer this.
How far away is Saturn?
How far away is the L2 point?
Let us know if you think they are close to each other
The L2 point (between Earth and Sun) is about 1.5 million kilometers or 0.01 au from Earth and thus very far from planet Saturn. It seems the JWST instruments will just record infrared light for unknown reasons. I simply consider the JWST a $1000 million hoax. Imagine paying that for a telescope that can only record infrared light.
It sees in infrared because the things that are the farthest away from us in the universe are red-shifted. That means it can see things that are farther away than anything Hubble could hope to see - things that are moving away from the Milky Way so fast that visible light has shifted into the IR part of the spectrum. It's not an unknown reason. It's a very well known and well shared reason that literally anyone who has paid the slightest amount of attention has already heard and understood.
-
The L2 point (between Earth and Sun) is about 1.5 million kilometers or 0.01 au from Earth and thus very far from planet Saturn.
L2 is about 1.5 million km opposite to the sun.
(https://earthsky.org/upl/2011/11/james_webb_2011_1.jpg)
It seems the JWST instruments will just record infrared light for unknown reasons.
Then maybe you should learn about those reasons.
https://webbtelescope.org/webb-science/the-observatory/infrared-astronomy
I simply consider the JWST a $1000 million hoax.
*sigh* Delays and cost overruns drove the cost to $10 billion.
Imagine paying that for a telescope that can only record infrared light.
Imagine not mocking things that you obviously don't understand.
-
Heiwa. Answer this.
How far away is Saturn?
How far away is the L2 point?
Let us know if you think they are close to each other
The L2 point (between Earth and Sun) is about 1.5 million kilometers or 0.01 au from Earth and thus very far from planet Saturn. It seems the JWST instruments will just record infrared light for unknown reasons. I simply consider the JWST a $1000 million hoax. Imagine paying that for a telescope that can only record infrared light.
It sees in infrared because the things that are the farthest away from us in the universe are red-shifted. That means it can see things that are farther away than anything Hubble could hope to see - things that are moving away from the Milky Way so fast that visible light has shifted into the IR part of the spectrum. It's not an unknown reason. It's a very well known and well shared reason that literally anyone who has paid the slightest amount of attention has already heard and understood.
What if I'm driving at the speed of light and I down shift?
-
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
A website showing the telescope's progress. Lists all the stages. Many fun animations that are so simple that even Heiwa can understand them.
No mention of a toilet though.
-
Heiwa. Answer this.
How far away is Saturn?
How far away is the L2 point?
Let us know if you think they are close to each other
The L2 point (between Earth and Sun) is about 1.5 million kilometers or 0.01 au from Earth and thus very far from planet Saturn. It seems the JWST instruments will just record infrared light for unknown reasons. I simply consider the JWST a $1000 million hoax. Imagine paying that for a telescope that can only record infrared light.
It sees in infrared because the things that are the farthest away from us in the universe are red-shifted. That means it can see things that are farther away than anything Hubble could hope to see - things that are moving away from the Milky Way so fast that visible light has shifted into the IR part of the spectrum. It's not an unknown reason. It's a very well known and well shared reason that literally anyone who has paid the slightest amount of attention has already heard and understood.
What if I'm driving at the speed of light and I down shift?
You catch one hell of a buzz, or so I've heard ;)
-
Isn't it a pity that the JWST can only record invisible infra red light? Visible light is more colorful and fun to look at.
-
Isn't it a pity that the JWST can only record invisible infra red light? Visible light is more colorful and fun to look at.
Wrong:
Webb's instruments are designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range.
WILL WEBB TAKE AMAZING PICTURES LIKE HUBBLE? CAN WEBB SEE VISIBLE LIGHT?
YES! We are going to be looking at things we've never seen before and looking at things we have seen before in all new ways.
The beauty and quality of an astronomical image depends on two things: the sharpness and the number of pixels in the camera. On both of these counts, Webb is very similar to, and in many ways better than, Hubble. Although Webb images will be infrared, this can be translated by computer into a visible picture (just like we have done with Spitzer, which has produced beautiful pictures as well). Additionally Webb can see orange and red visible light. Webb images will be different, but just as beautiful as Hubble's.
-
Isn't it a pity that the JWST can only record invisible infra red light? Visible light is more colorful and fun to look at.
Wrong:
Webb's instruments are designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range.
WILL WEBB TAKE AMAZING PICTURES LIKE HUBBLE? CAN WEBB SEE VISIBLE LIGHT?
YES! We are going to be looking at things we've never seen before and looking at things we have seen before in all new ways.
The beauty and quality of an astronomical image depends on two things: the sharpness and the number of pixels in the camera. On both of these counts, Webb is very similar to, and in many ways better than, Hubble. Although Webb images will be infrared, this can be translated by computer into a visible picture (just like we have done with Spitzer, which has produced beautiful pictures as well). Additionally Webb can see orange and red visible light. Webb images will be different, but just as beautiful as Hubble's.
OK, JWST can record visible pictures of the Universe in space and send them down to Earth to be watched. I prefer to watch same from Earth without a telescope in space.
-
You can go right ahead and do that. Webb will go right ahead and still take pictures you can't see from your basement.
-
OK, JWST can record visible pictures of the Universe in space and send them down to Earth to be watched. I prefer to watch same from Earth without a telescope in space.
Feel free to watch from wherever you may prefer. Your preference, however, has less than zero bearing on reality.
-
Isn't it a pity that the JWST can only record invisible infra red light? Visible light is more colorful and fun to look at.
Wrong:
Webb's instruments are designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range.
WILL WEBB TAKE AMAZING PICTURES LIKE HUBBLE? CAN WEBB SEE VISIBLE LIGHT?
YES! We are going to be looking at things we've never seen before and looking at things we have seen before in all new ways.
The beauty and quality of an astronomical image depends on two things: the sharpness and the number of pixels in the camera. On both of these counts, Webb is very similar to, and in many ways better than, Hubble. Although Webb images will be infrared, this can be translated by computer into a visible picture (just like we have done with Spitzer, which has produced beautiful pictures as well). Additionally Webb can see orange and red visible light. Webb images will be different, but just as beautiful as Hubble's.
OK, JWST can record visible pictures of the Universe in space and send them down to Earth to be watched. I prefer to watch same from Earth without a telescope in space.
How exactly? Through the magical powers of smoking crack?
-
It really is ridiculous:
"Once operational, Webb will reveal insights about all phases of cosmic history – back to just after the big bang – and will help search for signs of potential habitability among the thousands of exoplanets scientists have discovered in recent years. The mission is an international collaboration led by NASA, in partnership with the European and Canadian space agencies."
“The James Webb Space Telescope is a colossal achievement, built to transform our view of the universe and deliver amazing science,” says NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “Webb will look back over 13 billion years to the light created just after the big bang, with the power to show humanity the farthest reaches of space that we have ever seen. We are now very close to unlocking mysteries of the cosmos, thanks to the skills and expertise of our phenomenal team.”
Imagine looking at infrared light that is 13 billion years old at a price tag $1B.
-
It really is ridiculous:
What’s the point you are failing to make?
-
It really is ridiculous:
What’s the point you are failing to make?
For those that do not understand what the Universe is all about, I just recommend looking up in the sky.
-
It's cloudy with intermittent rain.
-
Same here. I guess that's what the universe is all about.
-
What if I'm driving at the speed of light and I down shift turn on my headlights?
FTFY
-
It really is ridiculous:
What’s the point you are failing to make?
For those that do not understand what the Universe is all about, I just recommend looking up in the sky.
Fun fact: Every object that you can see in the night sky without a telescope is within the Milky Way galaxy. That's a pretty limited understanding of the universe.
-
It really is ridiculous:
What’s the point you are failing to make?
For those that do not understand what the Universe is all about, I just recommend looking up in the sky.
Fun fact: Every object that you can see in the night sky without a telescope is within the Milky Way galaxy. That's a pretty limited understanding of the universe.
Well, planet Earth is of course the center of the Milky Way galaxy in the sky, but if you look beyond the Milky Way, you'll find other galaxies and the end of the Universe. Just use your eyes and brains.
-
Well, planet Earth is of course the center of the Milky Way galaxy in the sky, but if you look beyond the Milky Way, you'll find other galaxies and the end of the Universe. Just use your eyes and brains.
Nope. If you use your eyes, brain, and a telescope it becomes evident that the Earth is not the centre of the Milky Way.
Fun fact: Every object that you can see in the night sky without a telescope is within the Milky Way galaxy. That's a pretty limited understanding of the universe.
Nope. There are at least 3 extragalactic objects visible with the naked eye: M31 (Andromeda galaxy), and the Large and Small Magellanic clouds.
-
Well, planet Earth is of course the center of the Milky Way galaxy in the sky, but if you look beyond the Milky Way, you'll find other galaxies and the end of the Universe. Just use your eyes and brains.
Nope. If you use your eyes, brain, and a telescope it becomes evident that the Earth is not the centre of the Milky Way.
Please look again, the Earth is the center of the Universe of which the Milky Way is only a galaxy.
-
Please look again, the Earth is the center of the Universe of which the Milky Way is only a galaxy.
I looked again, and the Earth still isn't the centre of anything.
-
Please look again, the Earth is the center of the Universe of which the Milky Way is only a galaxy.
I looked again, and the Earth still isn't the centre of anything.
If the universe is infinite, is there a centre? Or maybe every point is a centre?
-
Please look again, the Earth is the center of the Universe of which the Milky Way is only a galaxy.
I looked again, and the Earth still isn't the centre of anything.
If the universe is infinite, is there a centre? Or maybe every point is a centre?
No, it's infinite and has no end so there is no centre.
-
Please look again, the Earth is the center of the Universe of which the Milky Way is only a galaxy.
I looked again, and the Earth still isn't the centre of anything.
Maybe you looked at a Black Hole?
-
Please look again, the Earth is the center of the Universe of which the Milky Way is only a galaxy.
I looked again, and the Earth still isn't the centre of anything.
If the universe is infinite, is there a centre? Or maybe every point is a centre?
No, it's infinite and has no end so there is no centre.
Anders is so dense that he is the center of mass of the universe.
-
Please look again, the Earth is the center of the Universe of which the Milky Way is only a galaxy.
I looked again, and the Earth still isn't the centre of anything.
If the universe is infinite, is there a centre? Or maybe every point is a centre?
No, it's infinite and has no end so there is no centre.
Anders is so dense that he is the center of mass of the universe.
Now that I can believe 8)
-
Please look again, the Earth is the center of the Universe of which the Milky Way is only a galaxy.
I looked again, and the Earth still isn't the centre of anything.
If the universe is infinite, is there a centre? Or maybe every point is a centre?
No, it's infinite and has no end so there is no centre.
Anders is so dense that he is the center of mass of the universe.
Now that I can believe 8)
Actually it is the planet Earth which is the center of the Universe. I just happen to sit on the crust of the Earth watching developments, e.g. that the JWST is flying away from me to point L2 to start watching it from another location.
-
Actually it is the planet Earth which is the center of the Universe. I just happen to sit on the crust of the Earth watching developments, e.g. that the JWST is flying away from me to point L2 to start watching it from another location.
Translation:
Ego dictates that the Universe is centered on your reference frame.
-
Actually it is the planet Earth which is the center of the Universe. I just happen to sit on the crust of the Earth watching developments, e.g. that the JWST is flying away from me to point L2 to start watching it from another location.
Translation:
Ego dictates that the Universe is centered on your reference frame.
No, I just look out of my window on Earth and note the whole Universe rotates around it. Of course the Earth rotates around its Poles, but it is just to create day/night, etc., to allow the Sun to warm us up.
-
No, I just look out of my window on Earth and note the whole Universe rotates around it. Of course the Earth rotates around its Poles, but it is just to create day/night, etc., to allow the Sun to warm us up.
Wow. Geocentrism is probably the least stupid idea that Anders has presented since he's been on this site.
-
No, I just look out of my window on Earth and note the whole Universe rotates around it. Of course the Earth rotates around its Poles, but it is just to create day/night, etc., to allow the Sun to warm us up.
Wow. Geocentrism is probably the least stupid idea that Anders has presented since he's been on this site.
All his ideas are stupid so I really don't know what he's like on full retart mode.
-
No, I just look out of my window on Earth and note the whole Universe rotates around it. Of course the Earth rotates around its Poles, but it is just to create day/night, etc., to allow the Sun to warm us up.
Wow. Geocentrism is probably the least stupid idea that Anders has presented since he's been on this site.
All his ideas are stupid so I really don't know what he's like on full retart mode.
There's a 459 page thread at the top of this page that shows Anders in his full glory.
-
No, I just look out of my window on Earth and note the whole Universe rotates around it. Of course the Earth rotates around its Poles, but it is just to create day/night, etc., to allow the Sun to warm us up.
Wow. Geocentrism is probably the least stupid idea that Anders has presented since he's been on this site.
All his ideas are stupid so I really don't know what he's like on full retart mode.
There's a 459 page thread at the top of this page that shows Anders in his full glory.
Full retart mode has been achieved.
-
I look forward to the JWST look at the Betelguese star - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm#B - even if I can see it from my window.
-
No wonder you can see it, it's the 10th brightest star out there. With JWST (and Hubble) we can image stars you can't really see. That's kinda the point.
-
No wonder you can see it, it's the 10th brightest star out there. With JWST (and Hubble) we can image stars you can't really see. That's kinda the point.
So JWST can image something I cannot really see. Thanks for the information.
-
No wonder you can see it, it's the 10th brightest star out there. With JWST (and Hubble) we can image stars you can't really see. That's kinda the point.
So JWST can image something I cannot really see. Thanks for the information.
JWST can image something with much greater resolution and detail than you can see from looking out your window.
Do you wear glasses? Have you ever used binoculars or a telescope? Those are all things to help you see something you might not be able to see at all, or at least with greater clarity. It's not a difficult concept yet you are having difficulty with it.
-
No wonder you can see it, it's the 10th brightest star out there. With JWST (and Hubble) we can image stars you can't really see. That's kinda the point.
So JWST can image something I cannot really see. Thanks for the information.
JWST can image something with much greater resolution and detail than you can see from looking out your window.
Do you wear glasses? Have you ever used binoculars or a telescope? Those are all things to help you see something you might not be able to see at all, or at least with greater clarity. It's not a difficult concept yet you are having difficulty with it.
I happen to have a great view of the Mediterranean Sea from my windows so of course I have binoculars handy to watch the ships passing out there and the sunrise at the horizon each morning in good weather. From that I have concluded that planet Earth is the center of our Solar system and the complete Universe. To send the JWST to the Earth/Moon Lagrange point 2 at 150 million kilometers away in space doesn't change anything. The JWST still orbits the Earth and everything else that orbits the Earth in the Universe. Better to remain on Earth and watch the show from there.
-
I happen to have a great view of the Mediterranean Sea from my windows so of course I have binoculars handy to watch the ships passing out there and the sunrise at the horizon each morning in good weather. From that I have concluded that planet Earth is the center of our Solar system and the complete Universe.
Who needs astronomers wed you have Anders looking at ships with his binoculars?
-
I happen to have a great view of the Mediterranean Sea from my windows so of course I have binoculars handy to watch the ships passing out there and the sunrise at the horizon each morning in good weather. From that I have concluded that planet Earth is the center of our Solar system and the complete Universe.
Who needs astronomers wed you have Anders looking at ships with his binoculars?
Topic is the James Webb telescope at Lagrange point 2 orbiting Earth and the Moon to observe the end of the Universe from there. I just do the same thing from my window at home.
-
Of course you do. :-*
-
I happen to have a great view of the Mediterranean Sea from my windows so of course I have binoculars handy to watch the ships passing out there and the sunrise at the horizon each morning in good weather. From that I have concluded that planet Earth is the center of our Solar system and the complete Universe.
Who needs astronomers wed you have Anders looking at ships with his binoculars?
Topic is the James Webb telescope at Lagrange point 2 orbiting Earth and the Moon to observe the end of the Universe from there. I just do the same thing from my window at home.
Got any pictures from your window that show the end of the universe?
-
Topic is the James Webb telescope at Lagrange point 2 orbiting Earth and the Moon to observe the end of the Universe from there.
L2 does not orbit the earth or moon. It orbits the sun.
I just do the same thing from my window at home.
No, you don't.
-
Topic is the James Webb telescope at Lagrange point 2 orbiting Earth and the Moon to observe the end of the Universe from there.
L2 does not orbit the earth or moon. It orbits the sun.
I just do the same thing from my window at home.
No, you don't.
In this case the Earth/Moon L2 point orbits planet Earth. Just look out of your window. The Sun/Earth L2 point is much further away as it orbits the Sun. Question remains, if it the Earth that orbits the Sun or vice versa? From my point of view it is the Sun that orbits the Earth.
-
Topic is the James Webb telescope at Lagrange point 2 orbiting Earth and the Moon to observe the end of the Universe from there.
L2 does not orbit the earth or moon. It orbits the sun.
I just do the same thing from my window at home.
No, you don't.
In this case the Earth/Moon L2 point orbits planet Earth. Just look out of your window. The Sun/Earth L2 point is much further away as it orbits the Sun. Question remains, if it the Earth that orbits the Sun or vice versa? From my point of view it is the Sun that orbits the Earth.
You're an idiot ::)
-
Topic is the James Webb telescope at Lagrange point 2 orbiting Earth and the Moon to observe the end of the Universe from there.
L2 does not orbit the earth or moon. It orbits the sun.
I just do the same thing from my window at home.
No, you don't.
In this case the Earth/Moon L2 point orbits planet Earth. Just look out of your window. The Sun/Earth L2 point is much further away as it orbits the Sun. Question remains, if it the Earth that orbits the Sun or vice versa? From my point of view it is the Sun that orbits the Earth.
You're an idiot ::)
No, fact remains that anything - a space ship - taking off from Earth to enter space orbits Earth all the time until it tries, e.g. to land on the Moon (which is not possible). Anything taking off from the Moon will first orbit the Moon and then drop down on Earth at increasing speed. The JWST has apparently taken off from Earth last month, which it still orbits. The JWST shall apparently arrive at the L2 point after some time and then remain there while continuing orbiting the Earth.
-
Topic is the James Webb telescope at Lagrange point 2 orbiting Earth and the Moon to observe the end of the Universe from there.
L2 does not orbit the earth or moon. It orbits the sun.
I just do the same thing from my window at home.
No, you don't.
In this case the Earth/Moon L2 point orbits planet Earth. Just look out of your window. The Sun/Earth L2 point is much further away as it orbits the Sun. Question remains, if it the Earth that orbits the Sun or vice versa? From my point of view it is the Sun that orbits the Earth.
You're an idiot ::)
No, fact remains that anything - a space ship - taking off from Earth to enter space orbits Earth all the time until it tries, e.g. to land on the Moon (which is not possible). Anything taking off from the Moon will first orbit the Moon and then drop down on Earth at increasing speed. The JWST has apparently taken off from Earth last month, which it still orbits. The JWST shall apparently arrive at the L2 point after some time and then remain there while continuing orbiting the Earth.
Case in point. You're an idiot ::)
-
Topic is the James Webb telescope at Lagrange point 2 orbiting Earth and the Moon to observe the end of the Universe from there.
L2 does not orbit the earth or moon. It orbits the sun.
I just do the same thing from my window at home.
No, you don't.
In this case the Earth/Moon L2 point orbits planet Earth. Just look out of your window. The Sun/Earth L2 point is much further away as it orbits the Sun. Question remains, if it the Earth that orbits the Sun or vice versa? From my point of view it is the Sun that orbits the Earth.
You're an idiot ::)
No, fact remains that anything - a space ship - taking off from Earth to enter space orbits Earth all the time until it tries, e.g. to land on the Moon (which is not possible). Anything taking off from the Moon will first orbit the Moon and then drop down on Earth at increasing speed. The JWST has apparently taken off from Earth last month, which it still orbits. The JWST shall apparently arrive at the L2 point after some time and then remain there while continuing orbiting the Earth.
Case in point. You're an idiot ::)
You just repeat yourself, so I'll give you a chance. Explain!
-
Topic is the James Webb telescope at Lagrange point 2 orbiting Earth and the Moon to observe the end of the Universe from there.
L2 does not orbit the earth or moon. It orbits the sun.
I just do the same thing from my window at home.
No, you don't.
In this case the Earth/Moon L2 point orbits planet Earth. Just look out of your window. The Sun/Earth L2 point is much further away as it orbits the Sun. Question remains, if it the Earth that orbits the Sun or vice versa? From my point of view it is the Sun that orbits the Earth.
You're an idiot ::)
No, fact remains that anything - a space ship - taking off from Earth to enter space orbits Earth all the time until it tries, e.g. to land on the Moon (which is not possible). Anything taking off from the Moon will first orbit the Moon and then drop down on Earth at increasing speed. The JWST has apparently taken off from Earth last month, which it still orbits. The JWST shall apparently arrive at the L2 point after some time and then remain there while continuing orbiting the Earth.
Case in point. You're an idiot ::)
You just repeat yourself, so I'll give you a chance. Explain!
I've done some digging and I've uncovered substantial evidence that backs up Shifter's claim.
http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm#B
-
In this case the Earth/Moon L2 point orbits planet Earth. Just look out of your window. The Sun/Earth L2 point is much further away as it orbits the Sun.
Yes, the Webb telescope is going to a halo orbit around the Earth/Sun L2 point.
(https://webb.nasa.gov/images/l2.3.jpg)
Question remains, if it the Earth that orbits the Sun or vice versa? From my point of view it is the Sun that orbits the Earth.
That depends on whether you take a geocentric or heliocentric view of the solar system.
-
In this case the Earth/Moon L2 point orbits planet Earth. Just look out of your window. The Sun/Earth L2 point is much further away as it orbits the Sun.
Yes, the Webb telescope is going to a halo orbit around the Earth/Sun L2 point.
(https://webb.nasa.gov/images/l2.3.jpg)
Question remains, if it the Earth that orbits the Sun or vice versa? From my point of view it is the Sun that orbits the Earth.
That depends on whether you take a geocentric or heliocentric view of the solar system.
Halo orbit at L2? You need a mass to orbit around and at L2 there is no mass to orbit around.
-
You need a mass to orbit around and at L2 there is no mass to orbit around.
Your ignorance and dumbarsery never cease to amaze us. Keep giving us laughs.
-
You need a mass to orbit around and at L2 there is no mass to orbit around.
Your ignorance and dumbarsery never cease to amaze us. Keep giving us laughs.
Fact is that there is nothing to orbit around at L2.
-
You need a mass to orbit around and at L2 there is no mass to orbit around.
Your ignorance and dumbarsery never cease to amaze us. Keep giving us laughs.
You're speaking to Heiwa, a man who thinks space toilets aren't a thing.
-
You need a mass to orbit around and at L2 there is no mass to orbit around.
Your ignorance and dumbarsery never cease to amaze us. Keep giving us laughs.
Fact is that there is nothing to orbit around at L2.
There is no mass at L2 that is the source of the gravitational well. The masses of the Sun and Earth balance to provide a gravitational null point around which a satellite can orbit, albeit with minor periodic corrections since it is unstable. So while your fact is correct, your conclusion is not.
-
It has nearly achieved its final form. Soon its true purpose will be clear!
-
It has nearly achieved its final form. Soon its true purpose will be clear!
The pollywog is almost a frog?
-
It has nearly achieved its final form. Soon its true purpose will be clear!
The pollywog is almost a frog?
Well if you want to rob it of it's drama then yes.
-
It has nearly achieved its final form. Soon its true purpose will be clear!
The pollywog is almost a frog?
Well if you want to rob it of it's drama then yes.
Your description scared me.
-
You need a mass to orbit around and at L2 there is no mass to orbit around.
Your ignorance and dumbarsery never cease to amaze us. Keep giving us laughs.
Fact is that there is nothing to orbit around at L2.
There is no mass at L2 that is the source of the gravitational well. The masses of the Sun and Earth balance to provide a gravitational null point around which a satellite can orbit, albeit with minor periodic corrections since it is unstable. So while your fact is correct, your conclusion is not.
Thanks to agree that the space of the Universe/Solar system at the L2 point is empty. Question remains why anything should orbit around the emptiness at L2? Isn't it enough just to be there and moving with it? Because L2 is a fast moving point in 3D space ... and quite difficult to find.
-
It has nearly achieved its final form. Soon its true purpose will be clear!
The pollywog is almost a frog?
Well if you want to rob it of it's drama then yes.
Your description scared me.
Good! You should be scared. Science is not some disneyland Niel Degrasse Tyson bullshit.
It's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein creating a sex robot that ends up killing you!
-
:'(
-
It's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein creating a sex robot that ends up killing you!
Well, as long as the sex is good then what the hell. We all gotta die someday. May as well be in the throws of passion
-
Thanks to agree that the space of the Universe/Solar system at the L2 point is empty. Question remains why anything should orbit around the emptiness at L2? Isn't it enough just to be there and moving with it?
Because the moon is directly in line between the earth and L2. It's kinda hard to get a radio signal to go through the moon.
Because L2 is a fast moving point in 3D space ... and quite difficult to find.
Euler didn't seem to have too much trouble finding it in the mid 1700s.
-
Thanks to agree that the space of the Universe/Solar system at the L2 point is empty. Question remains why anything should orbit around the emptiness at L2? Isn't it enough just to be there and moving with it?
Because the moon is directly in line between the earth and L2. It's kinda hard to get a radio signal to go through the moon.
Because L2 is a fast moving point in 3D space ... and quite difficult to find.
Euler didn't seem to have too much trouble finding it in the mid 1700s.
Actually the Moon orbits planet Earth in abt 28 days and never lines up with the Sun and the Langrange point L2. All of it only makes sense when planet Earth is fix at the center of the Universe with the Moon, the Sun, point L2, the Solar system and the rest of the Universe all orbiting planet Earth.
-
JWST L2 Orbit:
(https://i.imgur.com/hJD1qLT.gif)
-
You need a mass to orbit around and at L2 there is no mass to orbit around.
Your ignorance and dumbarsery never cease to amaze us. Keep giving us laughs.
Fact is that there is nothing to orbit around at L2.
There is no mass at L2 that is the source of the gravitational well. The masses of the Sun and Earth balance to provide a gravitational null point around which a satellite can orbit, albeit with minor periodic corrections since it is unstable. So while your fact is correct, your conclusion is not.
Thanks to agree that the space of the Universe/Solar system at the L2 point is empty. Question remains why anything should orbit around the emptiness at L2? Isn't it enough just to be there and moving with it? Because L2 is a fast moving point in 3D space ... and quite difficult to find.
Thanks for reading my first sentence, but not my second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_orbit
May be difficult for you to find ... there are some folks who are quite good at it.
-
JWST has successfully fully deployed.
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-fully-deployed
-
Yes! It's final form has been achieved!
It shall now delve deep into the farthest reaches of time. It's true purpose becomes clear; to harvest pornography from the very beginning of creation and beam it into our minds as we sleep!
Get ready for a serious uptick in unreported wet dreams which NASA will vehemently deny.
-
Amazing! The solar array they had to unfurl alone is like the size of a tennis court. Not to mention all the other 'transformer' actions needed.
Can't wait for the first images of space smut from the beginnings of time to be beamed into my dreams. Godspeed JWST!
-
Actually the Moon orbits planet Earth in abt 28 days and never lines up with the Sun and the Langrange point L2.
So, maybe you do know a thing or two about astronomy.
All of it only makes sense when planet Earth is fix at the center of the Universe with the Moon, the Sun, point L2, the Solar system and the rest of the Universe all orbiting planet Earth.
Then again, maybe not.
-
Anyway, according the NESA clowns their JWST will arrive at L2 on 23 January 2022 and start orbiting around L2 then, which I look forward to. I wonder what they will see. The origins of the Universe! What can they look like?
-
Anyway, according the NESA clowns their JWST will arrive at L2 on 23 January 2022 and start orbiting around L2 then, which I look forward to. I wonder what they will see. The origins of the Universe! What can they look like?
It’s going to be a while:
(https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/web/assets/pictures/JWST-comissioning-v10-01.png)
-
Yes, after L2 arrival the NESA clowns need 90 days of commissioning and alignments and then another 60 days of verifications and tests but then ... we will see the the origins of the Universe.
-
Yes, you are finally starting to get it. And no space toilets required.
-
Yes, you are finally starting to get it. And no space toilets required.
The JWST is unmanned at L2 so no toilet is required. You mix up with the Elon Musk 200 days trips to planet Mars where the passengers have no toilets. It costs extra!
-
Yes, you are finally starting to get it. And no space toilets required.
The JWST is unmanned at L2 so no toilet is required. You mix up with the Leon Musk 200 days trips to planet Mars where the passengers have no toilets. It costs extra!
Elon isn't going to Mars. It's marketing fluff like the BS 'Mars One' hoax. Look how long it takes to get going to the Moon sorted. If that is any indication than we are still, in reality, decades away from getting a capable ship with passengers to Mars. In the meantime, Elon can keep talking it up, get attention and popularity and thus make sure his stocks go up.
His idea of 'nuke Mars' as a way to terraform it is key to understanding Elons fundamental misunderstanding of science and how things work in the real world. The idea is about as dumb as anything you would come up with
Also, passengers dont need a toilet in space. They can use their fecal matter and smear it along the walls of the ship. Over time it should form a layer thick enough to help protect the crew from solar radiation. The idea is not mine
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23230-mars-trip-to-use-astronaut-poo-as-radiation-shield/
-
Amazing! The solar array they had to unfurl alone is like the size of a tennis court. Not to mention all the other 'transformer' actions needed.
Can't wait for the first images of space smut from the beginnings of time to be beamed into my dreams. Godspeed JWST!
The solar array for generating power is 6m x 2m. The sun shade that passively keep the telescope at cryogenic temperatures is quoted as being about the size of a tennis court.
-
Amazing! The solar array they had to unfurl alone is like the size of a tennis court. Not to mention all the other 'transformer' actions needed.
Can't wait for the first images of space smut from the beginnings of time to be beamed into my dreams. Godspeed JWST!
The solar array for generating power is 6m x 2m. The sun shade that passively keep the telescope at cryogenic temperatures is quoted as being about the size of a tennis court.
Yes, the sun shade. Apologies for the heinously gross misstatement.
-
Yes, when the JWST orbits Earth at the L2 point at high altitude, it cannot see the Sun because planet Earth is in the way all the time. It means that the JWST cannot study the Sun from the L2 point. But the JWST can study planet Earth (in front of the Sun) from the L2 point all the time. To study the rest of the Universe and the Solar system, the JWST must just look in another direction.
Problem remains to orbit planet Earth at the L2 point, i.e. to maintain speed and direction in the orbit (around Earth) and to maintain altitude (above Earth). I still haven't figured out how the JWST does it without some steering system. According the NESA clowns the JWST is never at the L2 point! Instead it orbits the L2 point, but how it is done is religious magic!
-
Yes, when the JWST orbits Earth at the L2 point at high altitude, it cannot see the Sun because planet Earth is in the way all the time. It means that the JWST cannot study the Sun from the L2 point. But the JWST can study planet Earth (in front of the Sun) from the L2 point all the time. To study the rest of the Universe and the Solar system, the JWST must just look in another direction.
Problem remains to orbit planet Earth at the L2 point, i.e. to maintain speed and direction in the orbit (around Earth) and to maintain altitude (above Earth). I still haven't figured out how the JWST does it without some steering system. According the NESA clowns the JWST is never at the L2 point! Instead it orbits the L2 point, but how it is done is religious magic!
The Earth-Sun L2 point is way beyond the orbit of the Moon. At any given time, the Sun, Earth and Moon are all at the the same point from the JWST's view.
The telescope does not orbit the Earth at the L2 point, it orbits the Sun.
It is orbit around the Sun, and in a halo orbit around the L2 point at the same time. It is called a Lissajous orbit. It is an unstable orbit, and as such the telescope is equipped with the means to adjust itself and maintain the correct orbit.
No magic involved.
-
It is orbit around the Sun, and in a halo orbit around the L2 point at the same time. It is called a Lissajous orbit. It is an unstable orbit, and as such the telescope is equipped with the means to adjust itself and maintain the correct orbit.
No magic involved.
I'm curious why when this telescope runs out of fuel that it becomes a write off. Like I get that the L2 point is great and optimal but when it runs out of fuel, just face it so the sun shield is protecting it and let it go do its thing.... It's space. Whats the worst that could happen?
If it is doing amazing work I hope they future proofed a way to refuel it. Just send another space craft with the means to power/fuel it. Would sure be a lot cheaper and less risky than building a whole new telescope....
-
I'm curious why when this telescope runs out of fuel that it becomes a write off. Like I get that the L2 point is great and optimal but when it runs out of fuel, just face it so the sun shield is protecting it and let it go do its thing.... It's space. Whats the worst that could happen?
If it is doing amazing work I hope they future proofed a way to refuel it. Just send another space craft with the means to power/fuel it. Would sure be a lot cheaper and less risky than building a whole new telescope....
As the L2 point is unstable, once it looses the ability to maintain it's orbit it will fall towards the Sun (I assume, and may be wrong, in which case it would fall to Earth).
As far as I understand, the distance, orbit, and complexity of the telescope make refuelling impossible.
-
I'm curious why when this telescope runs out of fuel that it becomes a write off. Like I get that the L2 point is great and optimal but when it runs out of fuel, just face it so the sun shield is protecting it and let it go do its thing.... It's space. Whats the worst that could happen?
If it is doing amazing work I hope they future proofed a way to refuel it. Just send another space craft with the means to power/fuel it. Would sure be a lot cheaper and less risky than building a whole new telescope....
As the L2 point is unstable, once it looses the ability to maintain it's orbit it will fall towards the Sun (I assume, and may be wrong, in which case it would fall to Earth).
As far as I understand, the distance, orbit, and complexity of the telescope make refuelling impossible.
I dont think it would 'fall' anywhere because if its moving at the same speed Earth is, it's around 30km/s. It cant 'fall' to the sun unless it first counteracts that speed first entirely (which is why its hard to get any probe to the sun but easy to get a probe to leave the solar system as all you need is Earths escape velocity). My guess is that it will continue to orbit the sun, but in an unstable fashion. I would just hope it's not utterly useless and a piece of junk at that point
-
Yes, when the JWST orbits Earth at the L2 point at high altitude, it cannot see the Sun because planet Earth is in the way all the time. It means that the JWST cannot study the Sun from the L2 point. But the JWST can study planet Earth (in front of the Sun) from the L2 point all the time. To study the rest of the Universe and the Solar system, the JWST must just look in another direction.
Problem remains to orbit planet Earth at the L2 point, i.e. to maintain speed and direction in the orbit (around Earth) and to maintain altitude (above Earth). I still haven't figured out how the JWST does it without some steering system. According the NESA clowns the JWST is never at the L2 point! Instead it orbits the L2 point, but how it is done is religious magic!
The Earth-Sun L2 point is way beyond the orbit of the Moon. At any given time, the Sun, Earth and Moon are all at the the same point from the JWST's view.
The telescope does not orbit the Earth at the L2 point, it orbits the Sun.
It is orbit around the Sun, and in a halo orbit around the L2 point at the same time. It is called a Lissajous orbit. It is an unstable orbit, and as such the telescope is equipped with the means to adjust itself and maintain the correct orbit.
No magic involved.
Hm!! Of course the JWST orbits planet Earth at point L2. At that point both the JWST and Earth orbit the Sun ... or ... actually the Sun orbits Earth and the JWST. You really ought to learn about orbits. Anything NESA sends away from Earth always orbits Earth ... and nothing else.
-
By Heiwa's logic, Jupiter orbits the Earth too ::)
-
I dont think it would 'fall' anywhere because if its moving at the same speed Earth is, it's around 30km/s. It cant 'fall' to the sun unless it first counteracts that speed first entirely (which is why its hard to get any probe to the sun but easy to get a probe to leave the solar system as all you need is Earths escape velocity). My guess is that it will continue to orbit the sun, but in an unstable fashion. I would just hope it's not utterly useless and a piece of junk at that point
That makes sense. I think I just assumed it would slow due to interaction with the solar wind. My understanding of orbital mechanics needs attention.
-
Of course the JWST orbits planet Earth at point L2.
Do you consider this "orbiting earth"?
JWST L2 Orbit:
(https://i.imgur.com/hJD1qLT.gif)
-
I'm curious why when this telescope runs out of fuel that it becomes a write off.
I read somewhere that JPL or whomever, did build a "refueling" port into it. Though there are zero plans for a refueling mission. Which I imagine if they do come up with one, it would have to be some sort of unmanned robotic adventure.
The good news is that based upon the precision of the launch and getting it to where it needs to be (less fuel expended than originally calculated), the life expectancy is said to make it viable well after the 10 year mark.
-
By Heiwa's logic, Jupiter orbits the Earth too ::)
Yes. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Just prove me wrong.
-
By Heiwa's logic, Jupiter orbits the Earth too ::)
Yes. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Just prove me wrong.
The grand sum of human knowledge has already proven you wrong. The onus is on you to prove science wrong.
-
By Heiwa's logic, Jupiter orbits the Earth too ::)
Yes. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Just prove me wrong.
Lucky for you, it's trivial to define a FoR where that's the case, but the math regarding how bodies move in that FoR is needlessly complicated.
-
By Heiwa's logic, Jupiter orbits the Earth too ::)
Yes. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Just prove me wrong.
Lucky for you, it's trivial to define a FoR where that's the case, but the math regarding how bodies move in that FoR is needlessly complicated.
I agree. You have to get the mass of the Sun right and find out what it orbits around - planet Mars? But from my windows I see every morning the Sun rises above the distant horizon (of the Earth) and it is only possible if planet Earth rotates around its poles at the center of the Solar system and the Universe.
-
By Heiwa's logic, Jupiter orbits the Earth too ::)
Yes. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Just prove me wrong.
Lucky for you, it's trivial to define a FoR where that's the case, but the math regarding how bodies move in that FoR is needlessly complicated.
I agree. You have to get the mass of the Sun right and find out what it orbits around - planet Mars? But from my windows I see every morning the Sun rises above the distant horizon (of the Earth) and it is only possible if planet Earth rotates around its poles at the center of the Solar system and the Universe.
You could say at a crunch the sun orbits around Sagittarius A*
-
I agree. You have to get the mass of the Sun right and find out what it orbits around - planet Mars? But from my windows I see every morning the Sun rises above the distant horizon (of the Earth) and it is only possible if planet Earth rotates around its poles at the center of the Solar system and the Universe.
The entire universe does not see from your window - only you.
A hypothetical being on a far distant planet would have a similar view and could reach a similar conclusion. Indeed any being on any rotation sphere could draw the same conclusion.
As there is no way to determine who is correct, other than claiming a privileged view, each must have equal validity. Therefore, every being on a rotating sphere could consider themselves the centre of the Universe.
This is clearly an absurd situation - each being claiming they are the centre.
The resolution to the absurdity is simple: there is no privileged view, and there is no centre. Science, which does not limit itself to one view, readily accepts this. It works to create a coherent, consistent framework that every observer can agree on no matter their personal viewpoint.
Maybe spend less time staring out your window, and more time broadening your mental horizons? It may lead you to realise that you, and the view out your window, are not the centre of the Universe.
-
By Heiwa's logic, Jupiter orbits the Earth too ::)
Yes. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Just prove me wrong.
Lucky for you, it's trivial to define a FoR where that's the case, but the math regarding how bodies move in that FoR is needlessly complicated.
I agree. You have to get the mass of the Sun right and find out what it orbits around - planet Mars? But from my windows I see every morning the Sun rises above the distant horizon (of the Earth) and it is only possible if planet Earth rotates around its poles at the center of the Solar system and the Universe.
Why is that the only possibility?
-
Yes, when the JWST orbits Earth at the L2 point at high altitude, it cannot see the Sun because planet Earth is in the way all the time. It means that the JWST cannot study the Sun from the L2 point.
JWST is designed to study just about every sun except the one at the center of our solar system. Those telescopes would be in a halo orbit around L1.
But the JWST can study planet Earth (in front of the Sun) from the L2 point all the time.
Actually, L2 really isn't very good for studying the earth because it would be severely backlit by the sun.
To study the rest of the Universe and the Solar system, the JWST must just look in another direction.
Problem remains to orbit planet Earth at the L2 point, i.e. to maintain speed and direction in the orbit (around Earth) and to maintain altitude (above Earth). I still haven't figured out how the JWST does it without some steering system.
Then it's a good thing that JWST does have a steering system that allows it to turn around and face away from the sun and earth.
According the NESA clowns the JWST is never at the L2 point! Instead it orbits the L2 point, but how it is done is religious magic!
It's been said that any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic, so I can see why you keep getting confused.
-
I dont think it would 'fall' anywhere because if its moving at the same speed Earth is, it's around 30km/s. It cant 'fall' to the sun unless it first counteracts that speed first entirely (which is why its hard to get any probe to the sun but easy to get a probe to leave the solar system as all you need is Earths escape velocity). My guess is that it will continue to orbit the sun, but in an unstable fashion. I would just hope it's not utterly useless and a piece of junk at that point
Perhaps this might help.
-
By Heiwa's logic, Jupiter orbits the Earth too ::)
Yes. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Just prove me wrong.
Lucky for you, it's trivial to define a FoR where that's the case, but the math regarding how bodies move in that FoR is needlessly complicated.
I agree. You have to get the mass of the Sun right and find out what it orbits around - planet Mars? But from my windows I see every morning the Sun rises above the distant horizon (of the Earth) and it is only possible if planet Earth rotates around its poles at the center of the Solar system and the Universe.
Why is that the only possibility?
It seems everyone agrees that planet Earth rotates 360° around its poles in 24 hrs from East to West, so watching the Sun from such a rotating location, the Sun would appear to rise at the horizon (if you can see it) in the morning. The horizon could also be a mountain range, and then the Sun would rise from behind it. Note that the Sun does not rise vertically. Its trajectory is slightly inclined.
Have you ever witnessed a sun rise?
As planet Earth is fix at the center of the Solar system/Universe, the visible trajectory of the Sun (mass unknown) - a 360° orbit around Earth (another unknown mass) in 365 days - cannot be explained by gravity forces, etc. It means other forces to be explained are in action, e.g. electromagnetic ones, to keep the Sun orbiting Earth. Complicated stuff, to say the least.
-
Yes, when the JWST orbits Earth at the L2 point at high altitude, it cannot see the Sun because planet Earth is in the way all the time. It means that the JWST cannot study the Sun from the L2 point.
JWST is designed to study just about every sun except the one at the center of our solar system. Those telescopes would be in a halo orbit around L1.
But the JWST can study planet Earth (in front of the Sun) from the L2 point all the time.
Actually, L2 really isn't very good for studying the earth because it would be severely backlit by the sun.
To study the rest of the Universe and the Solar system, the JWST must just look in another direction.
Problem remains to orbit planet Earth at the L2 point, i.e. to maintain speed and direction in the orbit (around Earth) and to maintain altitude (above Earth). I still haven't figured out how the JWST does it without some steering system.
Then it's a good thing that JWST does have a steering system that allows it to turn around and face away from the sun and earth.
According the NESA clowns the JWST is never at the L2 point! Instead it orbits the L2 point, but how it is done is religious magic!
It's been said that any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic, so I can see why you keep getting confused.
Markjo - you are 100% right that planet Earth appears like a fix black dot against the Sun when observed by the JWST from L2. The purpose of the JWST is to look in all other directions from L2 to spot the origin of the Universe with its billons of stars, black holes, etc. I doubt the JWST will find it.
-
By Heiwa's logic, Jupiter orbits the Earth too ::)
Yes. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Just prove me wrong.
Lucky for you, it's trivial to define a FoR where that's the case, but the math regarding how bodies move in that FoR is needlessly complicated.
I agree. You have to get the mass of the Sun right and find out what it orbits around - planet Mars? But from my windows I see every morning the Sun rises above the distant horizon (of the Earth) and it is only possible if planet Earth rotates around its poles at the center of the Solar system and the Universe.
Why is that the only possibility?
It seems everyone agrees that planet Earth rotates 360° around its poles in 24 hrs from East to West, so watching the Sun from such a rotating location, the Sun would appear to rise at the horizon (if you can see it) in the morning. The horizon could also be a mountain range, and then the Sun would rise from behind it. Note that the Sun does not rise vertically. Its trajectory is slightly inclined.
Have you ever witnessed a sun rise?
No.
As planet Earth is fix at the center of the Solar system/Universe, the visible trajectory of the Sun (mass unknown) - a 360° orbit around Earth (another unknown mass) in 365 days - cannot be explained by gravity forces, etc. It means other forces to be explained are in action, e.g. electromagnetic ones, to keep the Sun orbiting Earth. Complicated stuff, to say the least.
That doesn't answer the question. The question is why is the earth the center of the universe the only possibility. All you are saying is that you think the Sun orbits the earth. And you don't even explain that.
But you are correct in saying that the Sun orbiting around the earth can't be explained by gravity forces. I agree. But the earth orbiting the Sun can be explained by gravity forces.
And what makes you say Earth's mass is unknown? According to whom? You?
-
As planet Earth is fix at the center of the Solar system/Universe, the visible trajectory of the Sun (mass unknown) - a 360° orbit around Earth (another unknown mass) in 365 days - cannot be explained by gravity forces, etc. It means other forces to be explained are in action, e.g. electromagnetic ones, to keep the Sun orbiting Earth. Complicated stuff, to say the least.
That doesn't answer the question. The question is why is the earth the center of the universe the only possibility. All you are saying is that you think the Sun orbits the earth. And you don't even explain that.
But you are correct in saying that the Sun orbiting around the earth can't be explained by gravity forces. I agree. But the earth orbiting the Sun can be explained by gravity forces.
And what makes you say Earth's mass is unknown? According to whom? You?
Based on observations from my window the Sun and the Solar system and the complete Universe orbits around Earth, i.e. Earth is the center of the Universe. The forces and energies involved to keep it in balance are unclear. It seems planet Earth is fixed in Universe and doesn't move at all. Everything else moves around Earth.
I have not been able to find any verified info about the mass of planet Earth. It seems planet Earth consists of a thin crust mostly covered by water for fish and ships. What is below the crust is unclear. Hot magma and old lava? Yes, now and then there is a crack in the crust and magma and lava flow up, but what does it prove? Earth is hot magma? Nobody knows. And NESA sends the JWST to L2 to find out. What a joke!
-
As planet Earth is fix at the center of the Solar system/Universe, the visible trajectory of the Sun (mass unknown) - a 360° orbit around Earth (another unknown mass) in 365 days - cannot be explained by gravity forces, etc. It means other forces to be explained are in action, e.g. electromagnetic ones, to keep the Sun orbiting Earth. Complicated stuff, to say the least.
That doesn't answer the question. The question is why is the earth the center of the universe the only possibility. All you are saying is that you think the Sun orbits the earth. And you don't even explain that.
But you are correct in saying that the Sun orbiting around the earth can't be explained by gravity forces. I agree. But the earth orbiting the Sun can be explained by gravity forces.
And what makes you say Earth's mass is unknown? According to whom? You?
Based on observations from my window the Sun and the Solar system and the complete Universe orbits around Earth, i.e. Earth is the center of the Universe. The forces and energies involved to keep it in balance are unclear. It seems planeet Earth is fixed in Universe and doesn't move at all. Everything else moves around Earth.
I have not been able to find any verified info about the mass of planet Earth. It seems planet Earth consists of a thin crust mostly covered by water for fish and ships. What is below the crust is unclear. Magma and lava? Yes, now and then there is a crack in the crust and magma and lava flow up, but what does it prove? Earth is hot magma? Nobody knows. And NESA sends the JWST to L2 to find out. What a joke!
If you are going to say the Earth is at the centre of the universe then you must know the size and shape of the universe. Please tell us how you observed all this from 'out your window'
I used to think you were a regular loon or just a troll with your stupid moon landing conspirtard shit. Even would give you credit for all the work you did to play the role on your shitty website www.ratemypoo.com. But now we know you're just trolling for shits and giggles. Just saying the dumbest shit you can think of.
Anyway, why dont you start a new thread about Earth being the centre of the universe or other such nonsense and leave this thread to the science and work of the James Webb Telescope. You're an old fogie with one foot in the grave. School is well and truly out.
-
Based on observations from my window the Sun and the Solar system and the complete Universe orbits around Earth, i.e. Earth is the center of the Universe. The forces and energies involved to keep it in balance are unclear. It seems planeet Earth is fixed in Universe and doesn't move at all. Everything else moves around Earth.
I have not been able to find any verified info about the mass of planet Earth. It seems planet Earth consists of a thin crust mostly covered by water for fish and ships. What is below the crust is unclear. Magma and lava? Yes, now and then there is a crack in the crust and magma and lava flow up, but what does it prove? Earth is hot magma? Nobody knows. And NESA sends the JWST to L2 to find out. What a joke!
1. You, and your window, still are not the centre of the Universe.
2. Magma, not lava, within the Earth. Lava, not magma, once erupted. If you can't even get that right...
3. JWST is heading to L2 to observe the far reaches of the Universe, not to determine the mass and composition of the Earth. That is already known.
-
Based on observations from my window the Sun and the Solar system and the complete Universe orbits around Earth, i.e. Earth is the center of the Universe. The forces and energies involved to keep it in balance are unclear. It seems planeet Earth is fixed in Universe and doesn't move at all. Everything else moves around Earth.
I have not been able to find any verified info about the mass of planet Earth. It seems planet Earth consists of a thin crust mostly covered by water for fish and ships. What is below the crust is unclear. Magma and lava? Yes, now and then there is a crack in the crust and magma and lava flow up, but what does it prove? Earth is hot magma? Nobody knows. And NESA sends the JWST to L2 to find out. What a joke!
1. You, and your window, still are not the centre of the Universe.
2. Magma, not lava, within the Earth. Lava, not magma, once erupted. If you can't even get that right...
3. JWST is heading to L2 to observe the far reaches of the Universe, not to determine the mass and composition of the Earth. That is already known.
Thanks, but from my point of view Earth seems to be fix in the Universe with the rest orbiting Earth. Luckily no magma/lava has erupted below me stopping my view. According NESA the JWST has arrived at L2 and testing has started. Soon the JWST will observe the whole Universe from the beginning. I wonder what it looks like. Probably same as from my window.
-
It seems everyone agrees that planet Earth rotates 360° around its poles in 24 hrs from East to West, so watching the Sun from such a rotating location, the Sun would appear to rise at the horizon (if you can see it) in the morning. The horizon could also be a mountain range, and then the Sun would rise from behind it. Note that the Sun does not rise vertically. Its trajectory is slightly inclined.
Have you ever witnessed a sun rise?
As planet Earth is fix at the center of the Solar system/Universe, the visible trajectory of the Sun (mass unknown) - a 360° orbit around Earth (another unknown mass) in 365 days - cannot be explained by gravity forces, etc. It means other forces to be explained are in action, e.g. electromagnetic ones, to keep the Sun orbiting Earth. Complicated stuff, to say the least.
LOL.
And people are trying to explain to you how halo orbits work?
-
It seems everyone agrees that planet Earth rotates 360° around its poles in 24 hrs from East to West, so watching the Sun from such a rotating location, the Sun would appear to rise at the horizon (if you can see it) in the morning. The horizon could also be a mountain range, and then the Sun would rise from behind it. Note that the Sun does not rise vertically. Its trajectory is slightly inclined.
Have you ever witnessed a sun rise?
As planet Earth is fix at the center of the Solar system/Universe, the visible trajectory of the Sun (mass unknown) - a 360° orbit around Earth (another unknown mass) in 365 days - cannot be explained by gravity forces, etc. It means other forces to be explained are in action, e.g. electromagnetic ones, to keep the Sun orbiting Earth. Complicated stuff, to say the least.
LOL.
And people are trying to explain to you how halo orbits work?
Of course I know that a halo orbit is a periodic, three-dimensional orbit near one of the L1, L2 or L3 Lagrange points in the three-body problem of orbital mechanics. Although a Lagrange point is just a point in empty space, its peculiar characteristic is that it can be orbited by a Lissajous orbit or a halo orbit. These can be thought of as resulting from an interaction between the gravitational pull of the two planetary bodies and the Coriolis and centrifugal force on a spacecraft. Halo orbits exist in any three-body system, e.g., a Sun–Earth–orbiting satellite system or an Earth–Moon–orbiting satellite system. Continuous "families" of both northern and southern halo orbits exist at each Lagrange point. Because halo orbits tend to be unstable, stationkeeping may be required to keep a satellite on the orbit.
Most satellites in halo orbit serve scientific purposes, for example as space telescopes, it is suggested.
Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_orbit
But halo orbits are just another space joke. Like the JWST.
-
Well, you had to copy and paste your explanation of halo orbits, so your knowledge of them seems a joke.
Care to furnish some proof that halo orbits and the JWST are a joke? Proof, mind you, not just incredulity or your limited view from a window.
-
I'd just like to apologise to Crouton for unleashing the Heiwa troll. It's my fault for wishing him a merry Christmas on his dumb challenge thread which obviously sent him a notification to his email that someone replied and he hasn't logged off since.
The James Webb telescope is an amazing feat of engineering and if the few Americans that are smart can pull it off and have it successfully deploy, we will be inside a new era of understanding our universe. That is what this thread should be about. Not Heiwas pathetic attention seeking as he shits up the thread
-
Well, you had to copy and paste your explanation of halo orbits, so your knowledge of them seems a joke.
Care to furnish some proof that halo orbits and the JWST are a joke? Proof, mind you, not just incredulity or your limited view from a window.
As I say, I just look out from my window on Earth to daily watch the Solar system and the Universe and don't need a JWST orbiting at L2 to do the same thing for me. I think my observations are valid proof that the Sun orbits planet Earth. The JWST cannot even see the Sun from L2 as Earth hides the view.
-
The JWST cannot even see the Sun from L2 as Earth hides the view.
This would lend to evidence the earth revolves around the sun because if the sun revolved around the earth, it wouldn't matter where the JWST is located, you'd see it now and then
Get your own trolling right. Now you're just lame and boring
-
Today at 08.00 local time I observed from my window the Sun rising at the horizon out of the Mediterranean Sea due East. Same could be seen by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_Observatory nearby. Actually it was the Sun being visible in the morning as our planet Earth is rotating around its poles 24/24. Earth is otherwise fixed in space. All the stars in the Universe orbit around Earth, which is easy to verify using a telescope at night, e.g. the one at Nice mentioned above. Unfortunately the chief of the Nice telescope is busy driving a rover around on planet Mars using remote control looking for water! Imagine that! Anyway, same person cannot explain how his rover managed to land on Mars at all. Reason? It is a joke.
-
Well, you had to copy and paste your explanation of halo orbits, so your knowledge of them seems a joke.
Care to furnish some proof that halo orbits and the JWST are a joke? Proof, mind you, not just incredulity or your limited view from a window.
As I say, I just look out from my window on Earth to daily watch the Solar system and the Universe and don't need a JWST orbiting at L2 to do the same thing for me. I think my observations are valid proof that the Sun orbits planet Earth. The JWST cannot even see the Sun from L2 as Earth hides the view.
Ahh, wilful ignorance is your proof.
I can look out my window and see some buildings across the way. From my perspective all the buildings look like 2D squares. By your reasoning, that is valid proof that 3D buildings do not exist, and are in fact 2D squares.
Actually, this could be really useful. I'll speed down a motorway at 120mph, and when caught, my defence will be "when I looked out my window, I could see I was doing 70mph, and I think that's valid proof."
I wonder what I would see through a prison window.
-
I wonder what I would see through a prison window.
Heiwas not in prison. He's in an old fogies home and he's got the staring window to keep him occupied
-
Heiwas not in prison. He's in an old fogies home and he's got the staring window to keep him occupied
Here in the UK that window has likely been bricked up and replaced with a staring billboard to raise funds for the home.
Maybe it's this forum and the number of dummies that get spat out here, I feel I should point out (the fact that Shifter was joking notwithstanding) that I at no point implied Heiwa is in prison, only that I would be if I used Heiwa's logic as legal defence.
That said, I had surmised that Haiwa is a hermit, and by window they mean cave entrance.
-
Aha, there are people here that surmise things, i.e, guess. I never do it.
-
Aha, there are people here that surmise things, i.e, guess. I never do it.
That is exactly what you do. You look out your window, observe the sky, suppose that the Universe rotates around the Earth, and provide no proof other than you can see it. You also surmise that the JWST is a joke, again providing no proof, except incredulity.
-
How would the universe rotate around the earth? Imagine the forces at work that something maybe hundreds of billions of light years away - or more, they say it's 'infinite' - pick earth as the spot to rotate around.
Heiwa just says the dumbest shit because he's bored. At least with people like wise or Sandokhan, you can believe that they believe what they say. No one believes Heiwas believes the BS he says. As it's all over the place and he contracts himself non stop. What a boring old fart he became in his twilight years.
Just go back to your stupid moon landing hoax theory. Or nuclear bombs are fake or bow visor falling off ships or 9/11 fakery challenges.
-
Aha, there are people here that surmise things, i.e, guess. I never do it.
That is exactly what you do. You look out your window, observe the sky, suppose that the Universe rotates around the Earth, and provide no proof other than you can see it. You also surmise that the JWST is a joke, again providing no proof, except incredulity.
Not really. I just watch from my window on Earth the universe/sky around Earth and me and conclude Earth is fix in it - at the center - and that the rest orbits around Earth. The JWST clowns have other ideas and think that they must send a telescope, JWST, to L2 and watch the same things from there. And the JWST has arrived at L2 and started to observe. No pictures are available so far. But it seems also JWST is orbiting Earth at L2. Everything orbits Earth. I am happy just to sit on Earth and watch it. And it upsets plenty fools believing in fantastic nuclear bombs 1945, flying Americans to the Moon 1969, fanatic Arabs landing in skyscrapers 9/2001 and funny people sinking ships by losing visors at the bow earlier 1994, etc. Plenty people believe such fantasies. I don't.
-
I'd just like to apologise to Crouton for unleashing the Heiwa troll. It's my fault for wishing him a merry Christmas on his dumb challenge thread which obviously sent him a notification to his email that someone replied and he hasn't logged off since.
The James Webb telescope is an amazing feat of engineering and if the few Americans that are smart can pull it off and have it successfully deploy, we will be inside a new era of understanding our universe. That is what this thread should be about. Not Heiwas pathetic attention seeking as he shits up the thread
No worries. In my mind I picture all these exchanges with Heiwa sort of like an after school special where experts are trying to educate the audience on something but some dimwitted kid keeps bringing up obviously wrong points just so that the experts can talk about it.
-
Actually it was the Sun being visible in the morning as our planet Earth is rotating around its poles 24/24. Earth is otherwise fixed in space.
Hold on a second. The earth rotates AND the Sun orbits Earth? How does that work? If the earth rotates once every 24 hours, is the Sun stationary?
Additionally, do they let you outside or are you only allowed to look out your window?
-
Actually it was the Sun being visible in the morning as our planet Earth is rotating around its poles 24/24. Earth is otherwise fixed in space.
Hold on a second. The earth rotates AND the Sun orbits Earth? How does that work? If the earth rotates once every 24 hours, is the Sun stationary?
Additionally, do they let you outside or are you only allowed to look out your window?
Yes, Earth rotates 36O° in 24/24 but is otherwise stationary at the center of the Solar system/Universe and the Sun orbits Earth in a year at high speed. Just look out at your own window to see it, e.g. how the Sun seems to slowly rise over the horizon every morning as seen from the rotating Earth. Then the light arrives so you can see clearly and also feel the heat (energy) arriving ... at no cost for you. And nobody can explain how the magic observed works. Light and heat ... from the Sun ... orbiting Earth.
-
Actually it was the Sun being visible in the morning as our planet Earth is rotating around its poles 24/24. Earth is otherwise fixed in space.
Hold on a second. The earth rotates AND the Sun orbits Earth? How does that work? If the earth rotates once every 24 hours, is the Sun stationary?
Additionally, do they let you outside or are you only allowed to look out your window?
Yes, Earth rotates 36O° in 24/24 but is otherwise stationary at the center of the Solar system/Universe and the Sun orbits Earth in a year at high speed. Just look out at your own window to see it, e.g. how the Sun seems to slowly rise over the horizon every morning as seen from the rotating Earth. Then the light arrives so you can see clearly and also feel the heat (energy) arriving ... at no cost for you. And nobody can explain how the magic observed works. Light and heat ... from the Sun ... orbiting Earth.
GTFO
-
Actually it was the Sun being visible in the morning as our planet Earth is rotating around its poles 24/24. Earth is otherwise fixed in space.
Hold on a second. The earth rotates AND the Sun orbits Earth? How does that work? If the earth rotates once every 24 hours, is the Sun stationary?
Additionally, do they let you outside or are you only allowed to look out your window?
Yes, Earth rotates 36O° in 24/24 but is otherwise stationary at the center of the Solar system/Universe and the Sun orbits Earth in a year at high speed. Just look out at your own window to see it, e.g. how the Sun seems to slowly rise over the horizon every morning as seen from the rotating Earth. Then the light arrives so you can see clearly and also feel the heat (energy) arriving ... at no cost for you. And nobody can explain how the magic observed works. Light and heat ... from the Sun ... orbiting Earth.
GTFO
I know that according to Kepler and Copernicus the rotating Earth orbits the Sun at high speed as the Pope also said so at the time, but they just got it wrong. Their brains told them fake news/science. Happens all the time. Most people have no idea how their brains work. And what light and heat is. And how to politely discuss serious matters.
-
Actually it was the Sun being visible in the morning as our planet Earth is rotating around its poles 24/24. Earth is otherwise fixed in space.
Hold on a second. The earth rotates AND the Sun orbits Earth? How does that work? If the earth rotates once every 24 hours, is the Sun stationary?
Additionally, do they let you outside or are you only allowed to look out your window?
Yes, Earth rotates 36O° in 24/24 but is otherwise stationary at the center of the Solar system/Universe and the Sun orbits Earth in a year at high speed. Just look out at your own window to see it, e.g. how the Sun seems to slowly rise over the horizon every morning as seen from the rotating Earth. Then the light arrives so you can see clearly and also feel the heat (energy) arriving ... at no cost for you. And nobody can explain how the magic observed works. Light and heat ... from the Sun ... orbiting Earth.
GTFO
I know that according to Kepler and Copernicus the rotating Earth orbits the Sun at high speed as the Pope also said so at the time, but they just got it wrong. Their brains told them fake news/science. Happens all the time. Most people have no idea how their brains work. And what light and heat is. And how to politely discuss serious matters.
You used to call people twerps and guttersnipes remember. You were funny back then. Not anymore :'(
-
Actually it was the Sun being visible in the morning as our planet Earth is rotating around its poles 24/24. Earth is otherwise fixed in space.
Hold on a second. The earth rotates AND the Sun orbits Earth? How does that work? If the earth rotates once every 24 hours, is the Sun stationary?
Additionally, do they let you outside or are you only allowed to look out your window?
Yes, Earth rotates 36O° in 24/24 but is otherwise stationary at the center of the Solar system/Universe and the Sun orbits Earth in a year at high speed. Just look out at your own window to see it, e.g. how the Sun seems to slowly rise over the horizon every morning as seen from the rotating Earth. Then the light arrives so you can see clearly and also feel the heat (energy) arriving ... at no cost for you. And nobody can explain how the magic observed works. Light and heat ... from the Sun ... orbiting Earth.
GTFO
I know that according to Kepler and Copernicus the rotating Earth orbits the Sun at high speed as the Pope also said so at the time, but they just got it wrong. Their brains told them fake news/science. Happens all the time. Most people have no idea how their brains work. And what light and heat is. And how to politely discuss serious matters.
I'm pretty sure a smidge of research has been done and technology advanced in the past 500 or so years that has backed up Kep and Cop.
If Earth is the center, do the planets revolve around Earth and not the Sun?
Lastly, you still haven't explained why and how your semi-geocentric view is the only possibility.
-
I'd like to see Heiwa draw a model. Where earth is the centre and everything, including the sun revolves around it. He acknowledges that the JWST will be at the L2 point and will never see the Sun. I'd like his model to include this as well
I'd also like to ask Heiwa if he believes the sun has greater mass than the earth and if so, why is the sun gravitationally bound to us and not the other way around.
Nothing he says makes sense. It can't be visualised and the math is complete BS. But draw us a model heiwa
Who knows. Maybe your model blows everyone away and you win a Nobel prize.
Or maybe you're just a bored senile old troll getting his kicks by talking shit on a forum.
-
I'd like to see Heiwa draw a model. Where earth is the centre and everything, including the sun revolves around it. He acknowledges that the JWST will be at the L2 point and will never see the Sun. I'd like his model to include this as well
I'd also like to ask Heiwa if he believes the sun has greater mass than the earth and if so, why is the sun gravitationally bound to us and not the other way around.
Nothing he says makes sense. It can't be visualised and the math is complete BS. But draw us a model heiwa
Who knows. Maybe your model blows everyone away and you win a Nobel prize.
Or maybe you're just a bored senile old troll getting his kicks by talking shit on a forum.
Thanks for asking. I explain and visualize most at http://www.heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm and http://www.heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm .
The Sun is not gravitationally bound to Earth. Other forces are at play.
The Sun and its mass is a mystery in my view. I see it from my window rise every morning over the horizon in the East (right now actually). My eyes record its strong light and my skin feels the heat, etc. Signals are sent to my brain and I just report it. Nothing to get upset about.
Nobel prize? Not for me! Plenty fake scientists have got it for designing fake nuclear weapons to scare the shit out of people.
-
Yeah, two pages of argument from incredulity, replete with misunderstanding and ad hoc explanations.
For those who would rather not read, a paraphrased sample of the page's reasoning: I don't understand complex ideas so they must be lies, freeing me up to claim anything I like.
-
Actually it was the Sun being visible in the morning as our planet Earth is rotating around its poles 24/24. Earth is otherwise fixed in space.
Hold on a second. The earth rotates AND the Sun orbits Earth? How does that work? If the earth rotates once every 24 hours, is the Sun stationary?
Additionally, do they let you outside or are you only allowed to look out your window?
Yes, Earth rotates 36O° in 24/24 but is otherwise stationary at the center of the Solar system/Universe and the Sun orbits Earth in a year at high speed. Just look out at your own window to see it, e.g. how the Sun seems to slowly rise over the horizon every morning as seen from the rotating Earth. Then the light arrives so you can see clearly and also feel the heat (energy) arriving ... at no cost for you. And nobody can explain how the magic observed works. Light and heat ... from the Sun ... orbiting Earth.
GTFO
I know that according to Kepler and Copernicus the rotating Earth orbits the Sun at high speed as the Pope also said so at the time, but they just got it wrong. Their brains told them fake news/science. Happens all the time. Most people have no idea how their brains work. And what light and heat is. And how to politely discuss serious matters.
You used to call people twerps and guttersnipes remember. You were funny back then. Not anymore :'(
At least Heiwa is making it far more clear that he is just an attention seeking troll.
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it - http://heiwaco.com/NPD.htm
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
3. Advertisements
Do not create threads/posts, send private messages, or use your profile to advertise products, services, etc.
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
Interesting. I'd have thought that the universe could be observed from anywhere in the universe.
Anyway, one of the reasons that JWST is being deployed to L2 is that it's primarily an infrared telescope and therefore it's helpful to be as far away from heat sources (sun and earth) as reasonably possible.
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
What’s your evidence that Hubble & jwst are hoaxes? And don’t link to your craptastic circa 1994 designed website again. Evidence needs to be here.
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
What’s your evidence that Hubble & jwst are hoaxes? And don’t link to your craptastic circa 1994 designed website again. Evidence needs to be here.
Just study the ESA/NASA websites about JWST and Hubble and try to contact the people behind the fantasies and you'll understand.
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
What’s your evidence that Hubble & jwst are hoaxes? And don’t link to your craptastic circa 1994 designed website again. Evidence needs to be here.
Just study the ESA/NASA websites about JWST and Hubble and try to contact the people behind the fantasies and you'll understand.
What does trying to contact ESA/NASA people have to do with anything? Why would I need to contact them anyway?
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
What’s your evidence that Hubble & jwst are hoaxes? And don’t link to your craptastic circa 1994 designed website again. Evidence needs to be here.
Just study the ESA/NASA websites about JWST and Hubble and try to contact the people behind the fantasies and you'll understand.
What does trying to contact ESA/NASA people have to do with anything? Why would I need to contact them anyway?
I get my info from ESA/NASA and their web sites and they invite me to ask questions, etc. But they never reply!
Try yourself!
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
What’s your evidence that Hubble & jwst are hoaxes? And don’t link to your craptastic circa 1994 designed website again. Evidence needs to be here.
Just study the ESA/NASA websites about JWST and Hubble and try to contact the people behind the fantasies and you'll understand.
What does trying to contact ESA/NASA people have to do with anything? Why would I need to contact them anyway?
I get my info from ESA/NASA and their web sites and they invite me to ask questions, etc. But they never reply!
Try yourself!
First, I doubt anyone here actually believes you have tried to contact anyone. Second, if you had, they're likely just ignoring you as you come off as a crackpot. But they might post your letter up so everyone in the office can laugh at it though.
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
What’s your evidence that Hubble & jwst are hoaxes? And don’t link to your craptastic circa 1994 designed website again. Evidence needs to be here.
Just study the ESA/NASA websites about JWST and Hubble and try to contact the people behind the fantasies and you'll understand.
What does trying to contact ESA/NASA people have to do with anything? Why would I need to contact them anyway?
I get my info from ESA/NASA and their web sites and they invite me to ask questions, etc. But they never reply!
Try yourself!
First, I doubt anyone here actually believes you have tried to contact anyone. Second, if you had, they're likely just ignoring you as you come off as a crackpot. But they might post your letter up so everyone in the office can laugh at it though.
Pls, the NASA/ESA websites are full of contact info, which I use. I just politely ask technical questions and nobody replies. Try yourself!
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
What’s your evidence that Hubble & jwst are hoaxes? And don’t link to your craptastic circa 1994 designed website again. Evidence needs to be here.
Just study the ESA/NASA websites about JWST and Hubble and try to contact the people behind the fantasies and you'll understand.
What does trying to contact ESA/NASA people have to do with anything? Why would I need to contact them anyway?
I get my info from ESA/NASA and their web sites and they invite me to ask questions, etc. But they never reply!
Try yourself!
How did they invite you to ask questions? They have never invited me.
As well, what questions have you asked that have gone unanswered?
And what does it matter if ESA/NASA don't respond to you? What makes you so special?
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
What’s your evidence that Hubble & jwst are hoaxes? And don’t link to your craptastic circa 1994 designed website again. Evidence needs to be here.
Just study the ESA/NASA websites about JWST and Hubble and try to contact the people behind the fantasies and you'll understand.
What does trying to contact ESA/NASA people have to do with anything? Why would I need to contact them anyway?
I get my info from ESA/NASA and their web sites and they invite me to ask questions, etc. But they never reply!
Try yourself!
How did they invite you to ask questions? They have never invited me.
As well, what questions have you asked that have gone unanswered?
And what does it matter if ESA/NASA don't respond to you? What makes you so special?
I just get my info from ESA/NASA and their web sites which invite me to ask questions, etc. They never reply, though.
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
What’s your evidence that Hubble & jwst are hoaxes? And don’t link to your craptastic circa 1994 designed website again. Evidence needs to be here.
Just study the ESA/NASA websites about JWST and Hubble and try to contact the people behind the fantasies and you'll understand.
What does trying to contact ESA/NASA people have to do with anything? Why would I need to contact them anyway?
I get my info from ESA/NASA and their web sites and they invite me to ask questions, etc. But they never reply!
Try yourself!
How did they invite you to ask questions? They have never invited me.
As well, what questions have you asked that have gone unanswered?
And what does it matter if ESA/NASA don't respond to you? What makes you so special?
I just get my info from ESA/NASA and their web sites which invite me to ask questions, etc. They never reply, though.
I just visited NASA.org:
Contact Page
The NASA Communications Office receives thousands of communications each week from all over the world and we endeavor to provide timely information and answers to questions. However, we encourage you to use the NASA Web site for finding the information you are seeking or the answers to your questions before submitting a request for information. NASA also invites you to consider using one or more of the following easy and convenient communications tools for receiving NASA Updates on the exciting work NASA is doing.
What's an example a question you have submitted? And why does it bother you and why does it matter that they have not responded to you? Do you feel you are that important to demand a response?
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
What’s your evidence that Hubble & jwst are hoaxes? And don’t link to your craptastic circa 1994 designed website again. Evidence needs to be here.
Just study the ESA/NASA websites about JWST and Hubble and try to contact the people behind the fantasies and you'll understand.
What does trying to contact ESA/NASA people have to do with anything? Why would I need to contact them anyway?
I get my info from ESA/NASA and their web sites and they invite me to ask questions, etc. But they never reply!
Try yourself!
How did they invite you to ask questions? They have never invited me.
As well, what questions have you asked that have gone unanswered?
And what does it matter if ESA/NASA don't respond to you? What makes you so special?
I just get my info from ESA/NASA and their web sites which invite me to ask questions, etc. They never reply, though.
I just visited NASA.org:
Contact Page
The NASA Communications Office receives thousands of communications each week from all over the world and we endeavor to provide timely information and answers to questions. However, we encourage you to use the NASA Web site for finding the information you are seeking or the answers to your questions before submitting a request for information. NASA also invites you to consider using one or more of the following easy and convenient communications tools for receiving NASA Updates on the exciting work NASA is doing.
What's an example a question you have submitted? And why does it bother you and why does it matter that they have not responded to you? Do you feel you are that important to demand a response?
Do I feel I am that important to demand a response?
No, not at all. I just note what NASA says, doubt the fantasies, explain why and ask a question and ... no reply.
-
Do I feel I am that important to demand a response?
yes
-
The Universe is a big place and I wonder if the JWST will see all of it
No, it will not see all of it.
Probably because the JWST (like the Hobble) is a hoax from A to Z to fool people. The Universe can simply only be observed from Earth and LEO.
What’s your evidence that Hubble & jwst are hoaxes? And don’t link to your craptastic circa 1994 designed website again. Evidence needs to be here.
Just study the ESA/NASA websites about JWST and Hubble and try to contact the people behind the fantasies and you'll understand.
What does trying to contact ESA/NASA people have to do with anything? Why would I need to contact them anyway?
I get my info from ESA/NASA and their web sites and they invite me to ask questions, etc. But they never reply!
Try yourself!
How did they invite you to ask questions? They have never invited me.
As well, what questions have you asked that have gone unanswered?
And what does it matter if ESA/NASA don't respond to you? What makes you so special?
I just get my info from ESA/NASA and their web sites which invite me to ask questions, etc. They never reply, though.
I just visited NASA.org:
Contact Page
The NASA Communications Office receives thousands of communications each week from all over the world and we endeavor to provide timely information and answers to questions. However, we encourage you to use the NASA Web site for finding the information you are seeking or the answers to your questions before submitting a request for information. NASA also invites you to consider using one or more of the following easy and convenient communications tools for receiving NASA Updates on the exciting work NASA is doing.
What's an example a question you have submitted? And why does it bother you and why does it matter that they have not responded to you? Do you feel you are that important to demand a response?
Do I feel I am that important to demand a response?
No, not at all. I just note what NASA says, doubt the fantasies, explain why and ask a question and ... no reply.
What's your point? That NASA hasn't responded to your questions? So what? Do you think they respond to everyone's questions? What is the relevance of whether they ever responded to you or not?
-
Dearest Heiwa,
Please post an exact copy of a question you have posed to NASA.
Thank You,
-Bullwinkle
-
Dearest Heiwa,
Please post an exact copy of a question you have posed to NASA.
Thank You,
-JSS
-
Dearest Heiwa,
Please post an exact copy of a question you have posed to NASA.
Thank You,
-Bullwinkle
Some time back I asked NASA about the many scientific zero-gravity experiments carried out on the International (Fake) Space Station for various "scientists" since many years and what findings they had reached and NASA couldn't name any scientists and results.
-
Dearest Heiwa,
Please post an exact copy of a question you have posed to NASA.
Thank You,
-Bullwinkle
Some time back I asked NASA about the many scientific zero-gravity experiments carried out on the International (Fake) Space Station for various "scientists" since many years and what findings they had reached and NASA couldn't name any scientists and results.
They didn't respond to your question means that they couldn't name any scientists and results??? How does that work exactly?
A simple 5 second google search reveals all kinds of zero-g studies and experiments on the ISS, shuttle, skylab, etc.
Here's a start from NASA:
Capturing the secrets of weightless movements for Earth applications (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/benefits/elite_s2/)
Here's 38 pages of studies and experiments in regard to humans in space/micro-gravity:
Astronaut Health and Performance (https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/584739main_Wings-ch5d-pgs370-407.pdf)
Here's a whole bunch of stuff from Michael J. Wargo, Sc.D.
Microgravity Research Division
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/62474main_Microgravity_Teachers_Guide.pdf
Just go to google scholar and search on 'NASA Microgravity Research Division'. You'll get 12,000+ papers/studies
Are you that arrogant to think that if someone doesn't respond to you no information exists? Really? That pretty much says it all as to why all of your stuff is garbage - You don't even bother to do even the most basic, rudimentary research. No wonder why no one takes your "challenges" seriously.
-
Dearest Heiwa,
Please post an exact copy of a question you have posed to NASA.
Thank You,
-Bullwinkle
Some time back I asked NASA about the many scientific zero-gravity experiments carried out on the International (Fake) Space Station for various "scientists" since many years and what findings they had reached and NASA couldn't name any scientists and results.
Please post an exact copy of a question you have posed to NASA.
-
Dearest Heiwa,
Please post an exact copy of a question you have posed to NASA.
Thank You,
-Bullwinkle
Some time back I asked NASA about the many scientific zero-gravity experiments carried out on the International (Fake) Space Station for various "scientists" since many years and what findings they had reached and NASA couldn't name any scientists and results.
You were asked to post an EXACT copy of a question you asked them. Is this your answer? Because if so then I was right, you come off as a crackpot. Or is it that you never actually asked them and you're just making it up now?
-
Considering the ease with which I have written email filters, I would assume that the NASA admins would be able to do similar.
I can well imagine the contents of Heiwa's email having spent some time reading the the HeyWacko, apologies - heiwaco, site. Fake, joke, fantasy and other such terms are likely to appear in the email, and any of those would result in it being filed in the bin.
-
"Important people with important jobs ignore the ravings of a crazy old man that doesn't believe they exist." There's the headline, Heiwa! Now just go sell it to some news outlet so you can get your recognition finally. I bet there are plenty of places just dying for a story like that. UFOology Today, OAN, who knows?!
-
Yes, I am old and crazy and consider the JWST a stupid joke/hoax to orbit nothing at the L2 point to watch the origins of the Universe somewhere. I do the same thing just looking out of my office window and I see a lot of things but no origin of the Universe. Why go to L2 when you can do the same thing from home?
-
Yes, I am old and crazy and consider the JWST a stupid joke/hoax to orbit nothing at the L2 point to watch the origins of the Universe somewhere. I do the same thing just looking out of my office window and I see a lot of things but no origin of the Universe. Why go to L2 when you can do the same thing from home?
Considering you're confined to your home I can see why you would think that. Does your "office" window have bars on it?
-
Yes, I am old and crazy and consider the JWST a stupid joke/hoax to orbit nothing at the L2 point to watch the origins of the Universe somewhere. I do the same thing just looking out of my office window and I see a lot of things but no origin of the Universe. Why go to L2 when you can do the same thing from home?
Infrared light is blocked by the Earth's atmosphere, so no matter how long you look or what instruments you use, you will be unable to observe the universe in that band of the electromagnetic spectrum.
But sure, you carry on looking out your window, restricting your view, as that allows you to ignore reality and construct your own fantasies.
-
Dearest Heiwa,
Please post an exact copy of a question you have posed to NASA.
Thank You,
-Bullwinkle
Some time back I asked NASA about the many scientific zero-gravity experiments carried out on the International (Fake) Space Station for various "scientists" since many years and what findings they had reached and NASA couldn't name any scientists and results.
You were asked to post an EXACT copy of a question you asked them. Is this your answer? Because if so then I was right, you come off as a crackpot. Or is it that you never actually asked them and you're just making it up now?
I'm going with B, "he's just making it up."
Yes, that's my final answer.
Do I win?
-
Yes, I am old and crazy and consider the JWST a stupid joke/hoax to orbit nothing at the L2 point to watch the origins of the Universe somewhere. I do the same thing just looking out of my office window and I see a lot of things but no origin of the Universe. Why go to L2 when you can do the same thing from home?
Why do you keeps saying such stupid things?
-
Yes, I am old and crazy and consider the JWST a stupid joke/hoax to orbit nothing at the L2 point to watch the origins of the Universe somewhere. I do the same thing just looking out of my office window and I see a lot of things but no origin of the Universe. Why go to L2 when you can do the same thing from home?
Infrared light is blocked by the Earth's atmosphere, so no matter how long you look or what instruments you use, you will be unable to observe the universe in that band of the electromagnetic spectrum.
But sure, you carry on looking out your window, restricting your view, as that allows you to ignore reality and construct your own fantasies.
Well, I see the Sun rising at the horizon from my window every morning (in good weather). Of course it is only 70 meters above sea level, but there are mountains 3000 m high behind me, which provides the same view. The horizon is then only further away. So I observe the light and heat of the Sun, when it arrives through the atmosphere and behind the Sun are the origins of the Universe far away. But as the Universe has always existed, there is no origin to see. No Big Bang! No Creation! Only nothing.
-
Yes, I am old and crazy and consider the JWST a stupid joke/hoax to orbit nothing at the L2 point to watch the origins of the Universe somewhere. I do the same thing just looking out of my office window and I see a lot of things but no origin of the Universe. Why go to L2 when you can do the same thing from home?
Infrared light is blocked by the Earth's atmosphere, so no matter how long you look or what instruments you use, you will be unable to observe the universe in that band of the electromagnetic spectrum.
But sure, you carry on looking out your window, restricting your view, as that allows you to ignore reality and construct your own fantasies.
Well, I see the Sun rising at the horizon from my window every morning (in good weather). Of course it is only 70 meters above sea level, but there are mountains 3000 m high behind me, which provides the same view. The horizon is then only further away. So I observe the light and heat of the Sun, when it arrives through the atmosphere and behind the Sun are the origins of the Universe far away. But as the Universe has always existed, there is no origin to see. No Big Bang! No Creation! Only nothing.
What can you see behind the sun? Do you not believe telescopes exist?
-
Yes, I am old and crazy and consider the JWST a stupid joke/hoax to orbit nothing at the L2 point to watch the origins of the Universe somewhere. I do the same thing just looking out of my office window and I see a lot of things but no origin of the Universe. Why go to L2 when you can do the same thing from home?
Infrared light is blocked by the Earth's atmosphere, so no matter how long you look or what instruments you use, you will be unable to observe the universe in that band of the electromagnetic spectrum.
But sure, you carry on looking out your window, restricting your view, as that allows you to ignore reality and construct your own fantasies.
Well, I see the Sun rising at the horizon from my window every morning (in good weather). Of course it is only 70 meters above sea level, but there are mountains 3000 m high behind me, which provides the same view. The horizon is then only further away. So I observe the light and heat of the Sun, when it arrives through the atmosphere and behind the Sun are the origins of the Universe far away. But as the Universe has always existed, there is no origin to see. No Big Bang! No Creation! Only nothing.
What can you see behind the sun? Do you not believe telescopes exist?
Behind the Sun is the solar system with planets and beyond that there is the rest of the Milky way galaxy and beyond it there are more galaxies and the universe with no end in sight. It has always been like that. No creation of it can be seen in my telescope. The atmosphere evidently makes observations difficult, but the atmosphere is there to protect Earth from harmful radiations. Only fools believe in the Universe having been created, e.g. out of nothing.
-
The atmosphere evidently makes observations difficult, but the atmosphere is there to protect Earth from harmful radiations.
Hence putting telescopes outside of earth's atmosphere. Even a ship plumbing engineer would understand this.
Only fools believe in the Universe having been created, e.g. out of nothing.
What's your evidence for this? Just an opinion of yours?
-
The atmosphere evidently makes observations difficult, but the atmosphere is there to protect Earth from harmful radiations.
Hence putting telescopes outside of earth's atmosphere. Even a ship plumbing engineer would understand this.
Only fools believe in the Universe having been created, e.g. out of nothing.
What's your evidence for this? Just an opinion of yours?
Haven't you heard of the BIG BANG 14 billion years ago when the UNIVERSE came about from nothing?
-
The atmosphere evidently makes observations difficult, but the atmosphere is there to protect Earth from harmful radiations.
Hence putting telescopes outside of earth's atmosphere. Even a ship plumbing engineer would understand this.
Only fools believe in the Universe having been created, e.g. out of nothing.
What's your evidence for this? Just an opinion of yours?
Haven't you heard of the BIG BANG 14 billion years ago when the UNIVERSE came about from nothing?
You like to repeat things that have been discussed before as though you never had the prior conversations. Is it willful ignorance, or senility?
-
Haven't you heard of the BIG BANG 14 billion years ago when the UNIVERSE came about from nothing?
That is what you say science teaches, but that is not true.
Ex nihilo creation is a religious concept, not a scientific one.
The current prevailing model says that the physical universe we observe today emerged from the condensation of matter from energy, due to symmetry breaking of the unified fundamental forces. This happened after cosmic inflation - the moment called Big Bang. In other words the energy that formed matter already existed, and was contained with the singularity that preceded the Big Bang.
However, unlike yourself who claim to be able to know the true nature of the universe simply by observation from your window, scientists don't claim this to be fact. They present it as the model that best explains what you see out your window, freely admitting that at as a model, it may be wrong. Indeed not all scientists agree with the prevailing ΛCDM model.
That's the thing though, science is the unending search for knowledge and understanding. It isn't then end result but the process. Things that are believed to be well understood can be flipped on their head by later discoveries, and better, deeper understanding.
But you go ahead and make up crap that you claim science says is fact, as it's a great way to highlight your own ignorance.
-
Well, I just say the the Universe has always existed and that sending the JWST to L2 will confirm it, which I could see from my window without going to L2. Nothing to get upset about.
-
Well, I just say the the Universe has always existed and that sending the JWST to L2 will confirm it, which I could see from my window without going to L2. Nothing to get upset about.
How did you confirm it from your window?
-
Well, I just say the the Universe has always existed and that sending the JWST to L2 will confirm it, which I could see from my window without going to L2. Nothing to get upset about.
How did you confirm it from your window?
By watching the Sun rise in the morning and the Moon passing at night with planets, stars and sometimes a comet behind the Moon. I have also seen the International Fake Station passing. It is just an unmanned satellite orbiting Earth.
-
Well, I just say the the Universe has always existed and that sending the JWST to L2 will confirm it, which I could see from my window without going to L2. Nothing to get upset about.
How did you confirm it from your window?
By watching the Sun rise in the morning and the Moon passing at night with planets, stars and sometimes a comet behind the Moon. I have also seen the International Fake Station passing. It is just an unmanned satellite orbiting Earth.
Wow, so you know everything about the universe and its origins from just looking out the window. Impressive. I guess we can finally dispense with all the universities, research institutes, physicists, astronomers, etc., and just go with Heiwa's Theory of Everything. All the world needs is you and your window.
-
Well, I just say the the Universe has always existed and that sending the JWST to L2 will confirm it, which I could see from my window without going to L2. Nothing to get upset about.
How did you confirm it from your window?
By watching the Sun rise in the morning and the Moon passing at night with planets, stars and sometimes a comet behind the Moon. I have also seen the International Fake Station passing. It is just an unmanned satellite orbiting Earth.
Wow, so you know everything about the universe and its origins from just looking out the window. Impressive. I guess we can finally dispense with all the universities, research institutes, physicists, astronomers, etc., and just go with Heiwa's Theory of Everything. All the world needs is you and your window.
No, I just know about the Universe what I observe from my window. Plenty people make up all sorts of fantasies about nuclear bombs 1945, space travel 1969, a bow visor falling off a ferry 1994, 911 skyscraper collapses at NY 2001, etc, which I consider old fake news to fool people. For details see my web page.
-
Well, I just say the the Universe has always existed and that sending the JWST to L2 will confirm it, which I could see from my window without going to L2. Nothing to get upset about.
How did you confirm it from your window?
By watching the Sun rise in the morning and the Moon passing at night with planets, stars and sometimes a comet behind the Moon. I have also seen the International Fake Station passing. It is just an unmanned satellite orbiting Earth.
Wow, so you know everything about the universe and its origins from just looking out the window. Impressive. I guess we can finally dispense with all the universities, research institutes, physicists, astronomers, etc., and just go with Heiwa's Theory of Everything. All the world needs is you and your window.
No, I just know about the Universe what I observe from my window.
Yes that is utterly accurate. That's all you know and your mechanism for knowledge, which amounts to all that you know, is looking out a window. Thanks for clarifying the depth of your knowledge and how it is acquired: A window.
-
Well, I just say the the Universe has always existed and that sending the JWST to L2 will confirm it, which I could see from my window without going to L2. Nothing to get upset about.
How did you confirm it from your window?
By watching the Sun rise in the morning and the Moon passing at night with planets, stars and sometimes a comet behind the Moon. I have also seen the International Fake Station passing. It is just an unmanned satellite orbiting Earth.
Wow, so you know everything about the universe and its origins from just looking out the window. Impressive. I guess we can finally dispense with all the universities, research institutes, physicists, astronomers, etc., and just go with Heiwa's Theory of Everything. All the world needs is you and your window.
No, I just know about the Universe what I observe from my window.
Yes that is utterly accurate. That's all you know and your mechanism for knowledge, which amounts to all that you know, is looking out a window. Thanks for clarifying the depth of your knowledge and how it is acquired: A window.
What is the alternative? Sending a space telescope to L2 and look from there? It really is ridiculous. No, best is visual observation from Earth with due regard to the atmosphere.
-
This window, does it have locked restrictors for which you do not have the keys and anti-ligature mesh?
-
This window, does it have locked restrictors for which you do not have the keys and anti-ligature mesh?
No, there are seven windows with a view of the Mediterranean Sea at my top floor penthouse. But the place is well protected against intruders. I happen to be rich. What about you? Do you have a job?
-
I too am fabulously wealthy and influential but also, I have had difficulty in leaving my mansion or its grounds, not only has my wife now told me she is a mental health nurse, and we are in fact not married, but the staff too have declared they do not work for me.
I speculate that I have probably been too wrapped up in my studies and allowed things to slip, and shall endeavour to put things right, she is justly annoyed at my lack of attention lately and has set out to make me more attentive to her needs, her persistence in wearing the uniform I so like indicates that she does care and all is redeemable, the staff I shall probably sack.
-
Since Heiwa is refusing to show us the message he sent to NASA (or just can't understand what is being asked of him), I wonder if we can file a freedom of information request to see what he said.
Assuming he's not just making it all up.
-
It's filed under /dev/null.
-
Since Heiwa is refusing to show us the message he sent to NASA (or just can't understand what is being asked of him), I wonder if we can file a freedom of information request to see what he said.
Assuming he's not just making it all up.
No, I am hard at work to update my web page about it.
Lagrange points are positions in space where the gravitational forces of a two-body system like the Sun and Earth produce enhanced regions of attraction and repulsion.
These can be used by spacecraft as "parking spots" in space to remain in a fixed position with minimal fuel consumption, if you can find them, I am told.
The ESA/NASA clowns suggest that the JWST can orbit (!!) around Lagrange Point L2.
It is called a halo orbit, a periodic, three-dimensional orbit near one of the L1, L2 or L3 Lagrange points in the three-body problem of orbital mechanics.
Although a Lagrange point is just a point in empty space, its peculiar characteristic is that it can be orbited by a Lissajous orbit or a halo orbit, I am told.
In orbital mechanics, a Lissajous orbit is a quasi-periodic (?) orbital trajectory that an object like the JWST can follow around a Lagrangian point of no mass in a three-body system without requiring any propulsion.
So Lagrangian points exist in a two-body system. When you enter a third body, like the JWST, into this system it becomes a three-body dynamic system and the third body can Lissajous orbit around the Lagrangian point requiring no propulsion, of course, I am told.
Questions remain how to enter the JWST in a Lissajous orbit around Lagrange point L2 and what the orbit sped and radius are.
It seems the JWST will change direction all the time around L2, so if you shall observe the end of the Universe from L2 you have to change your aim all the time. How to do it?
I have asked ESA/NASA about it and await a reply.
-
No, I am hard at work to update my web page about it.
Have you considered updating to a Geocities theme?
-
No, I am hard at work to update my web page about it.
Have you considered updating to a Geocities theme?
No. What is it? Web design? I like my 1980's style.
-
Questions remain how to enter the JWST in a Lissajous orbit around Lagrange point L2 and what the orbit sped and radius are.
It seems the JWST will change direction all the time around L2, so if you shall observe the end of the Universe from L2 you have to change your aim all the time. How to do it?
I have asked ESA/NASA about it and await a reply.
Why do you need to ask NASA/ESA when you can just look it up.
JWST Orbit (https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-observatory-characteristics/jwst-orbit#JWSTOrbit-Orbitmaintenance)
JWST will be placed in an orbit about the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrange point located about 1.5 million km from Earth, which is four times the distance between the Earth and the Moon.
It is incorrect to say that JWST "will be at L2." Rather, JWST will orbit around L2.
The distance of JWST from the L2 point varies between 250,000 to 832,000 km, as shown in Figure 1. The period of the orbit is about 6 months. The maximum excursion above or below the ecliptic plane is 520,000 km. The maximum distance from the Earth is 1.8 million km, and the maximum Earth-Sun angle is <33°.
L2 is a saddle point in the gravitational potential of the Solar System. Because saddle points are not stable, JWST will need to regularly fire onboard thrusters to maintain its orbit around L2. These station-keeping maneuvers will be performed every 21 days.
To maintain solar power, the orbit is designed such that JWST is never in the shadow of the Earth or the Moon during the mission.
Rationale for the orbit dimensions
A larger orbit makes it easier to get the spacecraft to L2, as well as maintain its orbit. However, larger orbits can also permit stray light from the Earth or Moon to get past the sun shield and strike the primary or secondary mirrors. In addition, a larger orbit reduces communication contact opportunities.
Because JWST is solar powered, it cannot pass through the Earth's shadow during the mission. Orbits are selected that avoid shadow crossings, by selecting the launch time for a given launch day.
The L2 orbit shape is not constrained, so torus orbits, halo orbits, or Lissajous orbits are acceptable and are determined primarily by the launch's time of day and day of year. This freedom in the L2 orbit design allows for multiple launch opportunities for most months and minimizes the velocity needed to get to orbit. A trajectory can be fashioned so that JWST ‘falls into orbit’ about L2 rather than having to forcibly inject itself into a set orbit using its propulsion subsystem; this saves propellant and makes for simpler orbit maintenance.
(https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/files/97976978/97976979/1/1596073035306/JWSTorbit.jpg)
Orbit maintenance
The L2 orbit has an orbit period of 6 months. While orbits about the L2 point are inherently unstable, the orbit size is large and the orbital velocity is low (~1 km/s), so the orbit "decays" slowly. However, JWST's large sun shield, roughly the size of a tennis court, is subject to significant solar radiation pressure which results in both a force and a torque. The direction of solar force varies as the observatory's attitude changes from observation to observation. The solar torque is balanced by reaction wheels, but periodically, the accumulated momentum is dumped by firing thrusters. Because JWST operations are event-driven, the observatory attitude profile and momentum dumping cannot be accurately predicted months in advance. These 2 perturbations increase the acceleration of JWST from its orbit about L2, and necessitates more frequent orbit maintenance (station keeping) maneuvers than other Lagrange orbit missions (which are typically 3–4 times per year). Accurate orbit determination will require daily tracking measurements over a period of 19 days, so station keeping will be performed every 21 days.
Orbit perturbations along the Sun-L2 axis have the greatest impact on orbit stability. Thrusters are mounted on the spacecraft bus (located on the side of the sun shield facing the Sun); those used for orbit correction are oriented as far away from the sun shield as possible. The sun shield can support a larger sun-pitch angle† for orbit correction than that allowed for science operations. This architecture allows thruster firing at angles up to 90° from the Sun consistent with Sun avoidance restrictions, which is sufficient to provide orbit correction in all cases.
The orbit will be biased to compensate for mean outward forces associated with gravitation of the planets and radiation pressure on the sun shield.
-
Since Heiwa is refusing to show us the message he sent to NASA (or just can't understand what is being asked of him), I wonder if we can file a freedom of information request to see what he said.
Assuming he's not just making it all up.
No, I am hard at work to update my web page about it.
Lagrange points are positions in space where the gravitational forces of a two-body system like the Sun and Earth produce enhanced regions of attraction and repulsion.
These can be used by spacecraft as "parking spots" in space to remain in a fixed position with minimal fuel consumption, if you can find them, I am told.
The ESA/NASA clowns suggest that the JWST can orbit (!!) around Lagrange Point L2.
It is called a halo orbit, a periodic, three-dimensional orbit near one of the L1, L2 or L3 Lagrange points in the three-body problem of orbital mechanics.
Although a Lagrange point is just a point in empty space, its peculiar characteristic is that it can be orbited by a Lissajous orbit or a halo orbit, I am told.
In orbital mechanics, a Lissajous orbit is a quasi-periodic (?) orbital trajectory that an object like the JWST can follow around a Lagrangian point of no mass in a three-body system without requiring any propulsion.
So Lagrangian points exist in a two-body system. When you enter a third body, like the JWST, into this system it becomes a three-body dynamic system and the third body can Lissajous orbit around the Lagrangian point requiring no propulsion, of course, I am told.
Questions remain how to enter the JWST in a Lissajous orbit around Lagrange point L2 and what the orbit sped and radius are.
It seems the JWST will change direction all the time around L2, so if you shall observe the end of the Universe from L2 you have to change your aim all the time. How to do it?
I have asked ESA/NASA about it and await a reply.
translation: I don't understand anything about this. I sent an email that likely went directly to their spam folders.
-
What is the alternative? Sending a space telescope to L2 and look from there? It really is ridiculous. No, best is visual observation from Earth with due regard to the atmosphere.
Between the distortion due to turbulent air and the various wavelengths of light that it absorbs, the atmosphere is the main reason why space based telescopes are so much better than earth based telescopes.
-
What is the alternative? Sending a space telescope to L2 and look from there? It really is ridiculous. No, best is visual observation from Earth with due regard to the atmosphere.
Between the distortion due to turbulent air and the various wavelengths of light that it absorbs, the atmosphere is the main reason why space based telescopes are so much better than earth based telescopes.
No, Earth based telescopes on high mountain tops are the best way to study the Universe in good weather. Second best are satellites in LEO.
-
What is the alternative? Sending a space telescope to L2 and look from there? It really is ridiculous. No, best is visual observation from Earth with due regard to the atmosphere.
Between the distortion due to turbulent air and the various wavelengths of light that it absorbs, the atmosphere is the main reason why space based telescopes are so much better than earth based telescopes.
No, Earth based telescopes on high mountain tops are the best way to study the Universe in good weather. Second best are satellites in LEO.
Actually, first best would be JWST way out in L2.
Why in the world would mountain top telescopes be better than ones in LEO outside of our atmosphere? ???
-
What is the alternative? Sending a space telescope to L2 and look from there? It really is ridiculous. No, best is visual observation from Earth with due regard to the atmosphere.
Between the distortion due to turbulent air and the various wavelengths of light that it absorbs, the atmosphere is the main reason why space based telescopes are so much better than earth based telescopes.
No, Earth based telescopes on high mountain tops are the best way to study the Universe in good weather. Second best are satellites in LEO.
Why in the world would mountain top telescopes be better than ones in LEO outside of our atmosphere? ???
Sitting at a telescope on a rotating Earth or just, like me, looking out of the window, I can see the whole Universe. Or actually not. The Universe has no end. It is endless.
-
Except when the sun is up, or the moon is full, or it’s cloudy.
-
Actually, first best would be JWST way out in L2.
Why in the world would mountain top telescopes be better than ones in LEO outside of our atmosphere? ???
Because a mountain top telescope is the only one that allows him to maintain a geocentric reference frame. Any other reference frame and his nonsense becomes apparent.
Sitting at a telescope on a rotating Earth or just, like me, looking out of the window, I can see the whole Universe. Or actually not. The Universe has no end. It is endless.
Except that, as has been pointed out many times, a terrestrial telescope cannot view the Universe in infrared, and as almost all of the observable Universe has been red-shifted into the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum, you are unable to see almost all of the observable Universe.
-
What is the alternative? Sending a space telescope to L2 and look from there? It really is ridiculous. No, best is visual observation from Earth with due regard to the atmosphere.
Between the distortion due to turbulent air and the various wavelengths of light that it absorbs, the atmosphere is the main reason why space based telescopes are so much better than earth based telescopes.
No, Earth based telescopes on high mountain tops are the best way to study the Universe in good weather. Second best are satellites in LEO.
Why in the world would mountain top telescopes be better than ones in LEO outside of our atmosphere? ???
Sitting at a telescope on a rotating Earth or just, like me, looking out of the window, I can see the whole Universe. Or actually not. The Universe has no end. It is endless.
Who needs a mountain-top telescope or one up in LEO or at L2 when we have your window? Makes sense that all the world needs is a pane of glass in your tenement/treatment center.
Why don't you post some of the amazing and revealing images you get of the cosmos from your view.
-
Why don't you post some of the amazing and revealing images you get of the cosmos from your view.
It is only stars and galaxies as far as I can see from my windows. The Black Holes are not visible. The universe has no end so the end is not visible. No, more interesting is watching the Sun rise over the horizon each morning. Photons light up the atmosphere and suddenly the edge of the Sun is above the horizon and I can see light and feel heat one AU away. But nobody can explain how the light and heat are created. You can only see and feel it.
-
The Black Holes are not visible.
Indeed. However, a black hole's affect on surrounding matter and light is.
The universe has no end so the end is not visible.
It's a good job the JWST isn't looking for the edge of the Universe. It will observe the earliest, most distant galaxies and stars within the observable Universe.
But nobody can explain how the light and heat are created.
Nuclear fusion - a mechanism well explained, and experimentally proven.
-
But nobody can explain how the light and heat are created.
Nuclear fusion - a mechanism well explained, and experimentally proven.
Hm, nobody has been able start fusion on Earth ever!
-
Hm, nobody has been able start fusion on Earth ever!
If you ignore Tokomak, ITER, JET, and of course the fact that amateur physicians are able to use homemade inertial electrostatic confinement devices to achieve fusion.
But sure, nobody has ever been able to initiate fusion.
-
Hm, nobody has been able start fusion on Earth ever!
If you ignore Tokomak, ITER, JET, and of course the fact that amateur physicians are able to use homemade inertial electrostatic confinement devices to achieve fusion.
But sure, nobody has ever been able to initiate fusion.
ITER is down the road from me. It may initiate fusion 2150 but it is unclear. ITER is just a construction site.
-
Heiwa start another thread if you want to demonstrate your ignorance about fusion. This one is about JWST, which by the way has un-pegged its mirrors now so they can be adjusted as needed for focusing on all the cool things it will be looking at.
-
My mistake. The fact stands, however, that fusion has been achieved.
-
Why don't you post some of the amazing and revealing images you get of the cosmos from your view.
It is only stars and galaxies as far as I can see from my windows. The Black Holes are not visible. The universe has no end so the end is not visible. No, more interesting is watching the Sun rise over the horizon each morning. Photons light up the atmosphere and suddenly the edge of the Sun is above the horizon and I can see light and feel heat one AU away. But nobody can explain how the light and heat are created. You can only see and feel it.
I suppose there's no need for any institutional astronomical observation facilities or research considering we have you and your window. I also suppose that you designed your failed COULOMBI EGG oil tanker by simply looking out your window watching tankers pass by in the Med.
Thanks for showing the extremely shallow depth of your expertise and research.
-
Why don't you post some of the amazing and revealing images you get of the cosmos from your view.
It is only stars and galaxies as far as I can see from my windows. The Black Holes are not visible. The universe has no end so the end is not visible. No, more interesting is watching the Sun rise over the horizon each morning. Photons light up the atmosphere and suddenly the edge of the Sun is above the horizon and I can see light and feel heat one AU away. But nobody can explain how the light and heat are created. You can only see and feel it.
I suppose there's no need for any institutional astronomical observation facilities or research considering we have you and your window. I also suppose that you designed your failed COULOMBI EGG oil tanker by simply looking out your window watching tankers pass by in the Med.
Thanks for showing the extremely shallow depth of your expertise and research.
Re the COULOMBI EGG (CE) oil tanker I assisted the United Nations International Maritime Organization (IMO) 1990/7 to develop new rules for safer oil tankers after the Exxon Valdez grounding/oil spill 1989. We met twice annually at London during seven years. I represented Liberia. USA wanted double hull only, but the IMO adopted better rules/ideas based on accident statistics. Put the tanker oil spill protection where the accidental damages occur, minimize outflow of oil, etc. etc.
1997 the IMO incl. USA approved the CE as better/safer than double hull, i.e. success, and the next day USA announced that CE tankers could not enter US ports. A US oil company wanted earlier to buy the patents of the CE concept but we turned down the offer.
-
Why don't you post some of the amazing and revealing images you get of the cosmos from your view.
It is only stars and galaxies as far as I can see from my windows. The Black Holes are not visible. The universe has no end so the end is not visible. No, more interesting is watching the Sun rise over the horizon each morning. Photons light up the atmosphere and suddenly the edge of the Sun is above the horizon and I can see light and feel heat one AU away. But nobody can explain how the light and heat are created. You can only see and feel it.
I suppose there's no need for any institutional astronomical observation facilities or research considering we have you and your window. I also suppose that you designed your failed COULOMBI EGG oil tanker by simply looking out your window watching tankers pass by in the Med.
Thanks for showing the extremely shallow depth of your expertise and research.
Re the COULOMBI EGG (CE) oil tanker...blah, blah, blah...sour grapes...
We know, we know. We know all about how and why your coulombi failed. That's not the point.
The point is you seem to think you can glean everything about the cosmos by just looking out your window. Do you apply the same technique when it comes to engineering? If not, why do you think you know more than astronomical "engineers" by just looking out your window?
-
Why don't you post some of the amazing and revealing images you get of the cosmos from your view.
It is only stars and galaxies as far as I can see from my windows. The Black Holes are not visible. The universe has no end so the end is not visible. No, more interesting is watching the Sun rise over the horizon each morning. Photons light up the atmosphere and suddenly the edge of the Sun is above the horizon and I can see light and feel heat one AU away. But nobody can explain how the light and heat are created. You can only see and feel it.
I suppose there's no need for any institutional astronomical observation facilities or research considering we have you and your window. I also suppose that you designed your failed COULOMBI EGG oil tanker by simply looking out your window watching tankers pass by in the Med.
Thanks for showing the extremely shallow depth of your expertise and research.
Re the COULOMBI EGG (CE) oil tanker...blah, blah, blah...sour grapes...
We know, we know. We know all about how and why your coulombi failed. That's not the point.
The point is you seem to think you can glean everything about the cosmos by just looking out your window. Do you apply the same technique when it comes to engineering? If not, why do you think you know more than astronomical "engineers" by just looking out your window?
?? The CE was approved by the IMO 1997 and is still approved. The problem is the USA that prevents CE oil tankers to visit US ports.
My method is to observe things and draw conclusions. At the IMO 1990/7 we studied 100's of tanker collisions and groundings and associated oil spills and found that 80% of the collision spills were caused by damages only above waterline (which is only 20% of the side). Everyone agreed that the best collision protection should be above and in the waterline! The US rule to put the protection below waterline is sub-optimal!
Re cosmos I think it is be best to observe it directly from Earth. Putting expensive appliances in space to observe space is easy to fake things.
-
Why don't you post some of the amazing and revealing images you get of the cosmos from your view.
It is only stars and galaxies as far as I can see from my windows. The Black Holes are not visible. The universe has no end so the end is not visible. No, more interesting is watching the Sun rise over the horizon each morning. Photons light up the atmosphere and suddenly the edge of the Sun is above the horizon and I can see light and feel heat one AU away. But nobody can explain how the light and heat are created. You can only see and feel it.
I suppose there's no need for any institutional astronomical observation facilities or research considering we have you and your window. I also suppose that you designed your failed COULOMBI EGG oil tanker by simply looking out your window watching tankers pass by in the Med.
Thanks for showing the extremely shallow depth of your expertise and research.
Re the COULOMBI EGG (CE) oil tanker...blah, blah, blah...sour grapes...
We know, we know. We know all about how and why your coulombi failed. That's not the point.
The point is you seem to think you can glean everything about the cosmos by just looking out your window. Do you apply the same technique when it comes to engineering? If not, why do you think you know more than astronomical "engineers" by just looking out your window?
?? The CE was approved by the IMO 1997 and is still approved. The problem is the USA that prevents CE oil tankers to visit US ports.
My method is to observe things and draw conclusions. At the IMO 1990/7 we studied 100's of tanker collisions and groundings and associated oil spills and found that 80% of the collision spills were caused by damages only above waterline (which is only 20% of the side). Everyone agreed that the best collision protection should be above and in the waterline! The US rule to put the protection below waterline is sub-optimal!
Re cosmos I think it is be best to observe it directly from Earth. Putting expensive appliances in space to observe space is easy to fake things.
Did you study the 100's of tanker collisions by just looking out your window?
-
Why don't you post some of the amazing and revealing images you get of the cosmos from your view.
It is only stars and galaxies as far as I can see from my windows. The Black Holes are not visible. The universe has no end so the end is not visible. No, more interesting is watching the Sun rise over the horizon each morning. Photons light up the atmosphere and suddenly the edge of the Sun is above the horizon and I can see light and feel heat one AU away. But nobody can explain how the light and heat are created. You can only see and feel it.
I suppose there's no need for any institutional astronomical observation facilities or research considering we have you and your window. I also suppose that you designed your failed COULOMBI EGG oil tanker by simply looking out your window watching tankers pass by in the Med.
Thanks for showing the extremely shallow depth of your expertise and research.
Re the COULOMBI EGG (CE) oil tanker...blah, blah, blah...sour grapes...
We know, we know. We know all about how and why your coulombi failed. That's not the point.
The point is you seem to think you can glean everything about the cosmos by just looking out your window. Do you apply the same technique when it comes to engineering? If not, why do you think you know more than astronomical "engineers" by just looking out your window?
?? The CE was approved by the IMO 1997 and is still approved. The problem is the USA that prevents CE oil tankers to visit US ports.
My method is to observe things and draw conclusions. At the IMO 1990/7 we studied 100's of tanker collisions and groundings and associated oil spills and found that 80% of the collision spills were caused by damages only above waterline (which is only 20% of the side). Everyone agreed that the best collision protection should be above and in the waterline! The US rule to put the protection below waterline is sub-optimal!
Re cosmos I think it is be best to observe it directly from Earth. Putting expensive appliances in space to observe space is easy to fake things.
Did you study the 100's of tanker collisions by just looking out your window?
Of course not. Interested parties collected the information by observation and others including me analyzed them to better understand it. Same with cosmos. Study it by observation by humans from Earth, etc. Putting appliances in space is possible - they will always orbit Earth - but they cannot see much. Humans are better but they cannot visit space.
-
Why don't you post some of the amazing and revealing images you get of the cosmos from your view.
It is only stars and galaxies as far as I can see from my windows. The Black Holes are not visible. The universe has no end so the end is not visible. No, more interesting is watching the Sun rise over the horizon each morning. Photons light up the atmosphere and suddenly the edge of the Sun is above the horizon and I can see light and feel heat one AU away. But nobody can explain how the light and heat are created. You can only see and feel it.
I suppose there's no need for any institutional astronomical observation facilities or research considering we have you and your window. I also suppose that you designed your failed COULOMBI EGG oil tanker by simply looking out your window watching tankers pass by in the Med.
Thanks for showing the extremely shallow depth of your expertise and research.
Re the COULOMBI EGG (CE) oil tanker...blah, blah, blah...sour grapes...
We know, we know. We know all about how and why your coulombi failed. That's not the point.
The point is you seem to think you can glean everything about the cosmos by just looking out your window. Do you apply the same technique when it comes to engineering? If not, why do you think you know more than astronomical "engineers" by just looking out your window?
?? The CE was approved by the IMO 1997 and is still approved. The problem is the USA that prevents CE oil tankers to visit US ports.
My method is to observe things and draw conclusions. At the IMO 1990/7 we studied 100's of tanker collisions and groundings and associated oil spills and found that 80% of the collision spills were caused by damages only above waterline (which is only 20% of the side). Everyone agreed that the best collision protection should be above and in the waterline! The US rule to put the protection below waterline is sub-optimal!
Re cosmos I think it is be best to observe it directly from Earth. Putting expensive appliances in space to observe space is easy to fake things.
Did you study the 100's of tanker collisions by just looking out your window?
Of course not. Interested parties collected the information by observation and others including me analyzed them to better understand it. Same with cosmos. Study it by observation by humans from Earth, etc. Putting appliances in space is possible - they will always orbit Earth - but they cannot see much. Humans are better but they cannot visit space.
I think the mere fact that simple eyeglasses exist destroys whatever it is you think you have as an argument that humans can see better than devices.
-
Why don't you post some of the amazing and revealing images you get of the cosmos from your view.
It is only stars and galaxies as far as I can see from my windows. The Black Holes are not visible. The universe has no end so the end is not visible. No, more interesting is watching the Sun rise over the horizon each morning. Photons light up the atmosphere and suddenly the edge of the Sun is above the horizon and I can see light and feel heat one AU away. But nobody can explain how the light and heat are created. You can only see and feel it.
I suppose there's no need for any institutional astronomical observation facilities or research considering we have you and your window. I also suppose that you designed your failed COULOMBI EGG oil tanker by simply looking out your window watching tankers pass by in the Med.
Thanks for showing the extremely shallow depth of your expertise and research.
Re the COULOMBI EGG (CE) oil tanker...blah, blah, blah...sour grapes...
We know, we know. We know all about how and why your coulombi failed. That's not the point.
The point is you seem to think you can glean everything about the cosmos by just looking out your window. Do you apply the same technique when it comes to engineering? If not, why do you think you know more than astronomical "engineers" by just looking out your window?
?? The CE was approved by the IMO 1997 and is still approved. The problem is the USA that prevents CE oil tankers to visit US ports.
My method is to observe things and draw conclusions. At the IMO 1990/7 we studied 100's of tanker collisions and groundings and associated oil spills and found that 80% of the collision spills were caused by damages only above waterline (which is only 20% of the side). Everyone agreed that the best collision protection should be above and in the waterline! The US rule to put the protection below waterline is sub-optimal!
Re cosmos I think it is be best to observe it directly from Earth. Putting expensive appliances in space to observe space is easy to fake things.
Did you study the 100's of tanker collisions by just looking out your window?
Of course not. Interested parties collected the information by observation and others including me analyzed them to better understand it. Same with cosmos. Study it by observation by humans from Earth, etc. Putting appliances in space is possible - they will always orbit Earth - but they cannot see much. Humans are better but they cannot visit space.
I think the mere fact that simple eyeglasses exist destroys whatever it is you think you have as an argument that humans can see better than devices.
You mix up eye sight and observation. My daughter the MD likes to take test cell samples of her patients and study the samples using a microscope to diagnose what's wrong with the patients. Once upon a time I earned money by climbing around inside oil tankers looking for cracks, fractures, corrosion, deformations and other damages and for it you needed good eyes.
-
Re cosmos I think it is be best to observe it directly from Earth. Putting expensive appliances in space to observe space is easy to fake things.
You're an idiot. Viewing from Earth is shit. Light pollution, atmospheric refraction, certain wave lengths in the EM field dont reach 'your window', you aren't limited to night time viewing, or subject to the weather. You think the Hubble could have gotten us the images if it were a ground based telescope? Why doesn't every country have one then? Better yet, why doesn't everyone take out their smart phones and snap pics of the universe from their bedroom window? ??? ::)
Also your eyes are shit. That goes for every human. You dont have the resolution to even see our closest neighbouring star system is a trinary system. Can you even see Uranus with your eyes? Not even an eagle with it's awesome resolution could see that.
Can you see beyond the visible light spectrum and see from radio waves to gamma rays? Do you not think there is information to be learned in those spectrums that our eyes can not see?
Quit your trolling. You have failed. Not only does it make you look like a dense nitwit but it's boring too. No one believes even you believe the shit your spewing. You're just a senile old man trying to get his last laughs before you turn to dust in a box in the ground. Bravo dude. You're so cool 8)
-
Re cosmos I think it is be best to observe it directly from Earth. Putting expensive appliances in space to observe space is easy to fake things.
You're an idiot. Viewing from Earth is shit. Light pollution, atmospheric refraction, certain wave lengths in the EM field dont reach 'your window', you aren't limited to night time viewing, or subject to the weather. You think the Hubble could have gotten us the images if it were a ground based telescope? Why doesn't every country have one then? Better yet, why doesn't everyone take out their smart phones and snap pics of the universe from their bedroom window? ??? ::)
Also your eyes are shit. That goes for every human. You dont have the resolution to even see our closest neighbouring star system is a trinary system. Can you even see Uranus with your eyes? Not even an eagle with it's awesome resolution could see that.
Can you see beyond the visible light spectrum and see from radio waves to gamma rays? Do you not think there is information to be learned in those spectrums that our eyes can not see?
Quit your trolling. You have failed. Not only does it make you look like a dense nitwit but it's boring too. No one believes even you believe the shit your spewing. You're just a senile old man trying to get his last laughs before you turn to dust in a box in the ground. Bravo dude. You're so cool 8)
I am not an idiot, but I reply anyway.
My eyes are pretty good.
I can only see visible light reflected from objects of all sorts. For other types of light I use proper instruments.
Why don't you use proper language in a discussion? Are you on drugs. Are you mentally fit. If yes, seek help from a doctor.
-
Re cosmos I think it is be best to observe it directly from Earth. Putting expensive appliances in space to observe space is easy to fake things.
You're an idiot. Viewing from Earth is shit. Light pollution, atmospheric refraction, certain wave lengths in the EM field dont reach 'your window', you aren't limited to night time viewing, or subject to the weather. You think the Hubble could have gotten us the images if it were a ground based telescope? Why doesn't every country have one then? Better yet, why doesn't everyone take out their smart phones and snap pics of the universe from their bedroom window? ??? ::)
Also your eyes are shit. That goes for every human. You dont have the resolution to even see our closest neighbouring star system is a trinary system. Can you even see Uranus with your eyes? Not even an eagle with it's awesome resolution could see that.
Can you see beyond the visible light spectrum and see from radio waves to gamma rays? Do you not think there is information to be learned in those spectrums that our eyes can not see?
Quit your trolling. You have failed. Not only does it make you look like a dense nitwit but it's boring too. No one believes even you believe the shit your spewing. You're just a senile old man trying to get his last laughs before you turn to dust in a box in the ground. Bravo dude. You're so cool 8)
I am not an idiot, but I reply anyway.
My eyes are pretty good.
I can only see visible light reflected from objects of all sorts. For other types of light I use proper instruments.
Proper instruments. You mean like a telescope? Like the Hubble or James Webb?
-
Re cosmos I think it is be best to observe it directly from Earth. Putting expensive appliances in space to observe space is easy to fake things.
You're an idiot. Viewing from Earth is shit. Light pollution, atmospheric refraction, certain wave lengths in the EM field dont reach 'your window', you aren't limited to night time viewing, or subject to the weather. You think the Hubble could have gotten us the images if it were a ground based telescope? Why doesn't every country have one then? Better yet, why doesn't everyone take out their smart phones and snap pics of the universe from their bedroom window? ??? ::)
Also your eyes are shit. That goes for every human. You dont have the resolution to even see our closest neighbouring star system is a trinary system. Can you even see Uranus with your eyes? Not even an eagle with it's awesome resolution could see that.
Can you see beyond the visible light spectrum and see from radio waves to gamma rays? Do you not think there is information to be learned in those spectrums that our eyes can not see?
Quit your trolling. You have failed. Not only does it make you look like a dense nitwit but it's boring too. No one believes even you believe the shit your spewing. You're just a senile old man trying to get his last laughs before you turn to dust in a box in the ground. Bravo dude. You're so cool 8)
I am not an idiot, but I reply anyway.
My eyes are pretty good.
I can only see visible light reflected from objects of all sorts. For other types of light I use proper instruments.
Proper instruments. You mean like a telescope? Like the Hubble or James Webb?
Yes, but the telescopes on Earth are much better, bigger, stronger and solid and locally operated by humans. Space telescopes like Hubble and JWST are remotely operated by humans on Earth and are just nonsense. Hubble can just take color pictures and we haven't seen any JWST pictures yet. Worthless.
-
Re cosmos I think it is be best to observe it directly from Earth. Putting expensive appliances in space to observe space is easy to fake things.
You're an idiot. Viewing from Earth is shit. Light pollution, atmospheric refraction, certain wave lengths in the EM field dont reach 'your window', you aren't limited to night time viewing, or subject to the weather. You think the Hubble could have gotten us the images if it were a ground based telescope? Why doesn't every country have one then? Better yet, why doesn't everyone take out their smart phones and snap pics of the universe from their bedroom window? ??? ::)
Also your eyes are shit. That goes for every human. You dont have the resolution to even see our closest neighbouring star system is a trinary system. Can you even see Uranus with your eyes? Not even an eagle with it's awesome resolution could see that.
Can you see beyond the visible light spectrum and see from radio waves to gamma rays? Do you not think there is information to be learned in those spectrums that our eyes can not see?
Quit your trolling. You have failed. Not only does it make you look like a dense nitwit but it's boring too. No one believes even you believe the shit your spewing. You're just a senile old man trying to get his last laughs before you turn to dust in a box in the ground. Bravo dude. You're so cool 8)
I am not an idiot, but I reply anyway.
My eyes are pretty good.
I can only see visible light reflected from objects of all sorts. For other types of light I use proper instruments.
Proper instruments. You mean like a telescope? Like the Hubble or James Webb?
Yes, but the telescopes on Earth are much better, bigger, stronger and solid and locally operated by humans. Space telescopes like Hubble and JWST are remotely operated by humans on Earth and are just nonsense. Hubble can just take color pictures and we haven't seen any JWST pictures yet. Worthless.
Idiot. Case in point.
-
Re cosmos I think it is be best to observe it directly from Earth. Putting expensive appliances in space to observe space is easy to fake things.
You're an idiot. Viewing from Earth is shit. Light pollution, atmospheric refraction, certain wave lengths in the EM field dont reach 'your window', you aren't limited to night time viewing, or subject to the weather. You think the Hubble could have gotten us the images if it were a ground based telescope? Why doesn't every country have one then? Better yet, why doesn't everyone take out their smart phones and snap pics of the universe from their bedroom window? ??? ::)
Also your eyes are shit. That goes for every human. You dont have the resolution to even see our closest neighbouring star system is a trinary system. Can you even see Uranus with your eyes? Not even an eagle with it's awesome resolution could see that.
Can you see beyond the visible light spectrum and see from radio waves to gamma rays? Do you not think there is information to be learned in those spectrums that our eyes can not see?
Quit your trolling. You have failed. Not only does it make you look like a dense nitwit but it's boring too. No one believes even you believe the shit your spewing. You're just a senile old man trying to get his last laughs before you turn to dust in a box in the ground. Bravo dude. You're so cool 8)
I am not an idiot, but I reply anyway.
My eyes are pretty good.
I can only see visible light reflected from objects of all sorts. For other types of light I use proper instruments.
Proper instruments. You mean like a telescope? Like the Hubble or James Webb?
Yes, but the telescopes on Earth are much better, bigger, stronger and solid and locally operated by humans. Space telescopes like Hubble and JWST are remotely operated by humans on Earth and are just nonsense. Hubble can just take color pictures and we haven't seen any JWST pictures yet. Worthless.
Idiot. Case in point.
I just want to do my own observations not relying on pictures done by others.
-
Re cosmos I think it is be best to observe it directly from Earth. Putting expensive appliances in space to observe space is easy to fake things.
You're an idiot. Viewing from Earth is shit. Light pollution, atmospheric refraction, certain wave lengths in the EM field dont reach 'your window', you aren't limited to night time viewing, or subject to the weather. You think the Hubble could have gotten us the images if it were a ground based telescope? Why doesn't every country have one then? Better yet, why doesn't everyone take out their smart phones and snap pics of the universe from their bedroom window? ??? ::)
Also your eyes are shit. That goes for every human. You dont have the resolution to even see our closest neighbouring star system is a trinary system. Can you even see Uranus with your eyes? Not even an eagle with it's awesome resolution could see that.
Can you see beyond the visible light spectrum and see from radio waves to gamma rays? Do you not think there is information to be learned in those spectrums that our eyes can not see?
Quit your trolling. You have failed. Not only does it make you look like a dense nitwit but it's boring too. No one believes even you believe the shit your spewing. You're just a senile old man trying to get his last laughs before you turn to dust in a box in the ground. Bravo dude. You're so cool 8)
I am not an idiot, but I reply anyway.
My eyes are pretty good.
I can only see visible light reflected from objects of all sorts. For other types of light I use proper instruments.
Proper instruments. You mean like a telescope? Like the Hubble or James Webb?
Yes, but the telescopes on Earth are much better, bigger, stronger and solid and locally operated by humans. Space telescopes like Hubble and JWST are remotely operated by humans on Earth and are just nonsense. Hubble can just take color pictures and we haven't seen any JWST pictures yet. Worthless.
Idiot. Case in point.
I just want to do my own observations not relying on pictures done by others.
Good for you. Then I guess you have no business or further input in a thread like this
-
I really look forward of an infrared picture of a galaxy or a star or anything at the end of the Universe. I wonder what it will look like.
-
I really look forward of an infrared picture of a galaxy or a star or anything at the end of the Universe. I wonder what it will look like.
It will look like unlike anything you could see from your nursing home window
-
I really look forward of an infrared picture of a galaxy or a star or anything at the end of the Universe. I wonder what it will look like.
It will look like unlike anything you could see from your nursing home window
You mean my penthouse with a view of the Mediterranean Sea and the Universe, if you look up? People are jealous about it, but the roof garden needs watering and a lot of work. And I do that work. Anyway, I really look foward to some pictures taken by the JWST.
-
Since Heiwa is refusing to show us the message he sent to NASA (or just can't understand what is being asked of him), I wonder if we can file a freedom of information request to see what he said.
Assuming he's not just making it all up.
No, I am hard at work to update my web page about it.
You are being asked to post exact copies of what you sent to NASA, and you continue to either refuse or not understand the question.
Nobody wants to go to your web page.
Confused or trolling? Who can tell. ::)
-
Confused or trolling? Who can tell. ::)
My money is on both. Can't even keep his story straight or convince us even he believes the shit he's saying. He should have stayed to the other thread.
-
Since Heiwa is refusing to show us the message he sent to NASA (or just can't understand what is being asked of him), I wonder if we can file a freedom of information request to see what he said.
Assuming he's not just making it all up.
No, I am hard at work to update my web page about it.
You are being asked to post exact copies of what you sent to NASA, and you continue to either refuse or not understand the question.
Nobody wants to go to your web page.
Confused or trolling? Who can tell. ::)
Well, you have to visit my popular web page to find out.
-
Since Heiwa is refusing to show us the message he sent to NASA (or just can't understand what is being asked of him), I wonder if we can file a freedom of information request to see what he said.
Assuming he's not just making it all up.
No, I am hard at work to update my web page about it.
You are being asked to post exact copies of what you sent to NASA, and you continue to either refuse or not understand the question.
Nobody wants to go to your web page.
Confused or trolling? Who can tell. ::)
Well, you have to visit my popular web page to find out.
Give us a screenshot of your website analytics. How many views etc. Once you take out the Google crawlers and your spam from this site, how 'popular' is it really?
-
Since Heiwa is refusing to show us the message he sent to NASA (or just can't understand what is being asked of him), I wonder if we can file a freedom of information request to see what he said.
Assuming he's not just making it all up.
No, I am hard at work to update my web page about it.
You are being asked to post exact copies of what you sent to NASA, and you continue to either refuse or not understand the question.
Nobody wants to go to your web page.
Confused or trolling? Who can tell. ::)
Well, you have to visit my popular web page to find out.
Give us a screenshot of your website analytics. How many views etc. Once you take out the Google crawlers and your spam from this site, how 'popular' is it really?
Right now is http://www.heiwaco.com/estoniabluffendeltva.htm#kapitel8 very popular (>100 visits/day). It is from a book I wrote 2000, i.e. >21 years ago. People read it and then tell other people to study it.
-
Since Heiwa is refusing to show us the message he sent to NASA (or just can't understand what is being asked of him), I wonder if we can file a freedom of information request to see what he said.
Assuming he's not just making it all up.
No, I am hard at work to update my web page about it.
You are being asked to post exact copies of what you sent to NASA, and you continue to either refuse or not understand the question.
Nobody wants to go to your web page.
Confused or trolling? Who can tell. ::)
Well, you have to visit my popular web page to find out.
Give us a screenshot of your website analytics. How many views etc. Once you take out the Google crawlers and your spam from this site, how 'popular' is it really?
Right now is http://www.heiwaco.com/estoniabluffendeltva.htm#kapitel8 very popular (>100 visits/day). It is from a book I wrote 2000, i.e. >21 years ago. People read it and then tell other people to study it.
100? That's all? All bots and spiders anyway. And how would you know that "people read it and then tell other people to study it"?
In any case, apparently no one goes to your site, no one real anyway other than just me today. I used a whole bunch of different Heiwa site URL's, the main page, your books page, the challenge pages, etc., and loaded them into traffic tracker tools. Not one human visits your site.
(https://i.imgur.com/x3ND1qb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/VJaKeg1.png)
My favorite result from the above is:
(https://i.imgur.com/Wd13xry.png)
We'll have to wait till your site "matures" before we can recognize that a human actually visited it...How long has your site been around? 15+ years? It still hasn't matured enough to even register traffic. Hilarious.
-
Since Heiwa is refusing to show us the message he sent to NASA (or just can't understand what is being asked of him), I wonder if we can file a freedom of information request to see what he said.
Assuming he's not just making it all up.
No, I am hard at work to update my web page about it.
You are being asked to post exact copies of what you sent to NASA, and you continue to either refuse or not understand the question.
Nobody wants to go to your web page.
Confused or trolling? Who can tell. ::)
Well, you have to visit my popular web page to find out.
Give us a screenshot of your website analytics. How many views etc. Once you take out the Google crawlers and your spam from this site, how 'popular' is it really?
Right now is http://www.heiwaco.com/estoniabluffendeltva.htm#kapitel8 very popular (>100 visits/day). It is from a book I wrote 2000, i.e. >21 years ago. People read it and then tell other people to study it.
100? That's all? All bots and spiders anyway. And how would you know that "people read it and then tell other people to study it"?
In any case, apparently no one goes to your site, no one real anyway other than just me today. I used a whole bunch of different Heiwa site URL's, the main page, your books page, the challenge pages, etc., and loaded them into traffic tracker tools. Not one human visits your site.
(https://i.imgur.com/x3ND1qb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/VJaKeg1.png)
My favorite result from the above is:
(https://i.imgur.com/Wd13xry.png)
We'll have to wait till your site "matures" before we can recognize that a human actually visited it...How long has your site been around? 15+ years? It still hasn't matured enough to even register traffic. Hilarious.
My site is just to promote my books and services and not to compete with FB, Google, CNN, BBC, etc. I think 100 downloads yesterday of a page of a book I wrote 21 years ago is pretty good. All my hard copy books are sold off, so I put them on the Internet for free. You sound like a poor loser with little understanding of what's going on.
-
How embarrassing for Heiwa. Oh well, good thing for his sake he believes he's on a good roll. Can't have him face the end of his mortality believing himself to be the failure he is
-
How embarrassing for Heiwa. Oh well, good thing for his sake he believes he's on a good roll. Can't have him face the end of his mortality believing himself to be the failure he is
You sound like a poor loser with little understanding of what's going on.
-
How embarrassing for Heiwa. Oh well, good thing for his sake he believes he's on a good roll. Can't have him face the end of his mortality believing himself to be the failure he is
You sound like a poor loser with little understanding of what's going on.
That sounds like a pretty apt description of yourself then anyone else around here. R U OK?
-
How embarrassing for Heiwa. Oh well, good thing for his sake he believes he's on a good roll. Can't have him face the end of his mortality believing himself to be the failure he is
You sound like a poor loser with little understanding of what's going on.
That sounds like a pretty apt description of yourself then anyone else around here. R U OK?
No. You sound like a poor loser with little understanding of what's going on.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/x3ND1qb.png)
Hilarious.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/x3ND1qb.png)
Hilarious.
ROFL!!!!! ;D
-
Back on topic, JWST is just a few hours from its L2 orbit insertion burn.
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
-
Confused or trolling? Who can tell. ::)
Well, you have to visit my popular web page to find out.
Troll is always the answer with you.
And I thought spam bot accounts were not allowed on this site. :P
-
Aww shit :( Mission declared a total loss....
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
-
Meh, we can all go look out Heiwa's window instead.
-
Aww shit :( Mission declared a total loss....
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
Not really. The JWS telescope has almost arrived close to L2 and soon pictures of the end of the Universe will be available. I wonder what they look like.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/x3ND1qb.png)
Hilarious.
ROFL!!!!! ;D
No, most of the visitors study my pages about the MS Estonia sabotage 1994 killing almost 1000 people and the other look at my pages about the Cuba Crisis 1963 about the Kennedy brothers preventing world war 3.
Officially Estonia lost its visor in a hurricane, when the passengers aboard were having fun in the bars and restaurants, and the Cuba Crisis was sorted out by John and Bob fucking their usual prostitutes.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/x3ND1qb.png)
Hilarious.
I'm going to guess all 270 of those backlinks come from all the times he spams his website link here. :D
-
L2 orbit!
Now we wait. And wait. And wait some more.
I guess I'll see how things are going in June.
-
L2 orbit!
Now we wait. And wait. And wait some more.
I guess I'll see how things are going in June.
Yeah, the fine-tuning of all those mirrors is going to be tedious work. I have to believe that a thing that AI will eventually be tasked with on future telescope projects like this.
-
I'm having a vision of a lonely optometrist out there at L2 going "Is it better or worse? Better or worse?"
-
Back on topic, JWST is just a few hours from its L2 orbit insertion burn.
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
The best with the L2 point is that it is 100% in the cold shade of the Sun behind planet Earth at -350F or -212C. When the JWST is hit by the Sun it warms up to +50C. Vaccum space is such a wonderful place to watch the end of the universe from.
-
Back on topic, JWST is just a few hours from its L2 orbit insertion burn.
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
The best with the L2 point is that it is 100% in the cold shade of the Sun behind planet Earth at -350F or -212C. When the JWST is hit by the Sun it warms up to +50C. Vaccum space is such a wonderful place to watch the end of the universe from.
You're right, it is.
-
I'm having a vision of a lonely optometrist out there at L2 going "Is it better or worse? Better or worse?"
I don't know why I'm laughing so much at this, but the mental image is hilarious!
*mirror 12 rotates .000003 radians in literally any direction*
Doc: Would you say that's more focused, or less focused?
JWST: Honestly I can't tell... worse? Wait, did you move mirror 10 at the same time, because that one seems off now
-
Back on topic, JWST is just a few hours from its L2 orbit insertion burn.
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
The best with the L2 point is that it is 100% in the cold shade of the Sun behind planet Earth at -350F or -212C. When the JWST is hit by the Sun it warms up to +50C. Vaccum space is such a wonderful place to watch the end of the universe from.
Not completely in the shade
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/57377/is-l2-at-a-distance-where-the-earth-totally-eclipses-the-sun
-
Back on topic, JWST is just a few hours from its L2 orbit insertion burn.
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
The best with the L2 point is that it is 100% in the cold shade of the Sun behind planet Earth at -350F or -212C. When the JWST is hit by the Sun it warms up to +50C. Vaccum space is such a wonderful place to watch the end of the universe from.
Not completely in the shade
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/57377/is-l2-at-a-distance-where-the-earth-totally-eclipses-the-sun
In space you are either in or out of any shade. Light just travels straight in space. So you are either completely in the shade or not in the shade, i.e. in the light, when in space.
The famous L2 point in space is always in the shade of the Earth blocking the Sun behind.
So the JWST at L2 will be in the shade of the Earth when looking at the end of the Universe far away. But I have never understood why I have to go to point L2 to find out. I just look out of my window on Earth to study the end of the Universe above me. Of course today it is cloudy between me and the end of the Universe, but it will clear up.
-
In space you are either in or out of any shade. Light just travels straight in space. So you are either completely in the shade or not in the shade, i.e. in the light, when in space.
Ignoring of course the entire galaxy of stars shining light in every direction.
The famous L2 point in space is always in the shade of the Earth blocking the Sun behind.
So the JWST at L2 will be in the shade of the Earth when looking at the end of the Universe far away. But I have never understood why I have to go to point L2 to find out. I just look out of my window on Earth to study the end of the Universe above me. Of course today it is cloudy between me and the end of the Universe, but it will clear up.
Ignoring, again, that the JWST is not located at L2, but in a halo orbit around L2, and is not in Earth's shadow. JWST is orbiting the L2 point so that the Sun, Earth and Moon are always within a small angular distance if each other behind the telescope's field if view.
-
In space you are either in or out of any shade. Light just travels straight in space. So you are either completely in the shade or not in the shade, i.e. in the light, when in space.
Ignoring of course the entire galaxy of stars shining light in every direction.
The famous L2 point in space is always in the shade of the Earth blocking the Sun behind.
So the JWST at L2 will be in the shade of the Earth when looking at the end of the Universe far away. But I have never understood why I have to go to point L2 to find out. I just look out of my window on Earth to study the end of the Universe above me. Of course today it is cloudy between me and the end of the Universe, but it will clear up.
Ignoring, again, that the JWST is not located at L2, but in a halo orbit around L2, and is not in Earth's shadow. JWST is orbiting the L2 point so that the Sun, Earth and Moon are always within a small angular distance if each other behind the telescope's field if view.
ESA/NASA tell us that the JWST orbits the Sun at the L2 point with the Earth in between all the time and that the Earth looks like a Black Hole/Disque in front of the Sun, i.e. JWST is in the shadow of Earth all the time, when it looks at the end of the Universe in the other direction. Just looking out of my window I can see the end of the Universe in the sky above me. At night I can see billions of bright stars from my window but it is still pitch dark at the ground below me. Anyway, when the JWST otbits the Sun at the L2 point, it also orbits the L2 point itself, i.e. the JWST orbits two things at the same time, i.e. the Sun and the L2 point. But you can only orbit one thing at a time! Orbiting two things at the same time is not possible.
-
At night I can see billions of bright stars from my window but it is still pitch dark at the ground below me.
Bullshit
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2e954349fd1d12c28e1c86561c2815d3-lq)
That's all the stars you can see from your staring window. You dont see as much or as far as you think
And your vision that only sees in the visible light spectrum.... You miss a lot of detail and information
(https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/courses/astr1200_18/youngstar/pillarsofcreation_visir.jpg)
That is why we like to send telescopes that can detect far more information than the human eye is capable of seeing.
-
At night I can see billions of bright stars from my window but it is still pitch dark at the ground below me.
Bullshit
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2e954349fd1d12c28e1c86561c2815d3-lq)
That's all the stars you can see from your staring window. You dont see as much or as far as you think
And your vision that only sees in the visible light spectrum.... You miss a lot of detail and information
(https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/courses/astr1200_18/youngstar/pillarsofcreation_visir.jpg)
That is why we like to send telescopes that can detect far more information than the human eye is capable of seeing.
So you say I cannot see the end of the Universe from my window. I thought it was just outside far away.
-
So you say I cannot see the end of the Universe from my window. I thought it was just outside far away.
For individual objects such as stars, you cant see much more than a few thousand light years away. And that would be on a night with no other light pollution. Our galaxy is 100K light years across so you aren't ever able to see ~99% of the stars here. Not without help from a telescope anyway
The furthest light you might ever see is from the Andromeda galaxy - only because you have the light of many billions of stars. But again, you cant see it if there is light pollution outside.
-
Back on topic, JWST is just a few hours from its L2 orbit insertion burn.
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
The best with the L2 point is that it is 100% in the cold shade of the Sun behind planet Earth at -350F or -212C. When the JWST is hit by the Sun it warms up to +50C. Vaccum space is such a wonderful place to watch the end of the universe from.
Not completely in the shade
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/57377/is-l2-at-a-distance-where-the-earth-totally-eclipses-the-sun
In space you are either in or out of any shade. Light just travels straight in space. So you are either completely in the shade or not in the shade, i.e. in the light, when in space.
The famous L2 point in space is always in the shade of the Earth blocking the Sun behind.
So the JWST at L2 will be in the shade of the Earth when looking at the end of the Universe far away. But I have never understood why I have to go to point L2 to find out. I just look out of my window on Earth to study the end of the Universe above me. Of course today it is cloudy between me and the end of the Universe, but it will clear up.
And heiwa proves only that he didn't read the link provided.
-
In space you are either in or out of any shade. Light just travels straight in space. So you are either completely in the shade or not in the shade, i.e. in the light, when in space.
Ignoring of course the entire galaxy of stars shining light in every direction.
The famous L2 point in space is always in the shade of the Earth blocking the Sun behind.
So the JWST at L2 will be in the shade of the Earth when looking at the end of the Universe far away. But I have never understood why I have to go to point L2 to find out. I just look out of my window on Earth to study the end of the Universe above me. Of course today it is cloudy between me and the end of the Universe, but it will clear up.
Ignoring, again, that the JWST is not located at L2, but in a halo orbit around L2, and is not in Earth's shadow. JWST is orbiting the L2 point so that the Sun, Earth and Moon are always within a small angular distance if each other behind the telescope's field if view.
ESA/NASA tell us that the JWST orbits the Sun at the L2 point with the Earth in between all the time and that the Earth looks like a Black Hole/Disque in front of the Sun, i.e. JWST is in the shadow of Earth all the time, when it looks at the end of the Universe in the other direction. Just looking out of my window I can see the end of the Universe in the sky above me. At night I can see billions of bright stars from my window but it is still pitch dark at the ground below me. Anyway, when the JWST otbits the Sun at the L2 point, it also orbits the L2 point itself, i.e. the JWST orbits two things at the same time, i.e. the Sun and the L2 point. But you can only orbit one thing at a time! Orbiting two things at the same time is not possible.
Wrong. All satellites orbiting the Earth are also orbiting the Sun. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean nobody else does.
-
In space you are either in or out of any shade. Light just travels straight in space. So you are either completely in the shade or not in the shade, i.e. in the light, when in space.
Ignoring of course the entire galaxy of stars shining light in every direction.
The famous L2 point in space is always in the shade of the Earth blocking the Sun behind.
So the JWST at L2 will be in the shade of the Earth when looking at the end of the Universe far away. But I have never understood why I have to go to point L2 to find out. I just look out of my window on Earth to study the end of the Universe above me. Of course today it is cloudy between me and the end of the Universe, but it will clear up.
Ignoring, again, that the JWST is not located at L2, but in a halo orbit around L2, and is not in Earth's shadow. JWST is orbiting the L2 point so that the Sun, Earth and Moon are always within a small angular distance if each other behind the telescope's field if view.
ESA/NASA tell us that the JWST orbits the Sun at the L2 point with the Earth in between all the time and that the Earth looks like a Black Hole/Disque in front of the Sun, i.e. JWST is in the shadow of Earth all the time, when it looks at the end of the Universe in the other direction. Just looking out of my window I can see the end of the Universe in the sky above me. At night I can see billions of bright stars from my window but it is still pitch dark at the ground below me. Anyway, when the JWST otbits the Sun at the L2 point, it also orbits the L2 point itself, i.e. the JWST orbits two things at the same time, i.e. the Sun and the L2 point. But you can only orbit one thing at a time! Orbiting two things at the same time is not possible.
Wrong. All satellites orbiting the Earth are also orbiting the Sun. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean nobody else does.
Satellites orbiting the Earth do not orbit the Sun. It is only the Earth that orbits the Sun (or vice versa).
-
So you say I cannot see the end of the Universe from my window. I thought it was just outside far away.
For individual objects such as stars, you cant see much more than a few thousand light years away. And that would be on a night with no other light pollution. Our galaxy is 100K light years across so you aren't ever able to see ~99% of the stars here. Not without help from a telescope anyway
The furthest light you might ever see is from the Andromeda galaxy - only because you have the light of many billions of stars. But again, you cant see it if there is light pollution outside.
But from the L2 point you can see outside the Milky Way galaxy and the end of the Universe, you say, as there is no light pollution at L2? Please, grow up!
Actually there is no way to fly to L2, start orbiting around L2 and then start looking at the end of the Universe from L2. It is pure fantasy of the people involved stealing the money to do it.
-
ESA/NASA tell us that the JWST orbits the Sun at the L2 point with the Earth in between all the time and that the Earth looks like a Black Hole/Disque in front of the Sun, i.e. JWST is in the shadow of Earth all the time, when it looks at the end of the Universe in the other direction. J
(https://i.imgur.com/hJD1qLT.gif)
-
So you say I cannot see the end of the Universe from my window. I thought it was just outside far away.
For individual objects such as stars, you cant see much more than a few thousand light years away. And that would be on a night with no other light pollution. Our galaxy is 100K light years across so you aren't ever able to see ~99% of the stars here. Not without help from a telescope anyway
The furthest light you might ever see is from the Andromeda galaxy - only because you have the light of many billions of stars. But again, you cant see it if there is light pollution outside.
But from the L2 point you can see outside the Milky Way galaxy and the end of the Universe, you say, as there is no light pollution at L2? Please, grow up!
Actually there is no way to fly to L2, start orbiting around L2 and then start looking at the end of the Universe from L2. It is pure fantasy of the people involved stealing the money to do it.
Idiot. Where did I say you can see the end of the universe from the L2 point?
You claim you can see it from your nursing home window and now you tell me to 'grow up' at the notion of seeing it from the L2 lol.
Keep your trolling straight
To see far into the universe you need a big fucking telescope. And you need it to see in wave lengths far beyond the human range
If you can't keep your trolling character straight, just don't bother and talk about your moon landing hoax nonsense
-
Actually there is no way to fly to L2, start orbiting around L2 and then start looking at the end of the Universe from L2. It is pure fantasy of the people involved stealing the money to do it.
Since it has already been done, your "actually" is the only fantasy.
You have nothing to back up your statement. The scientific community worldwide has tens of thousands of measurements over >15 years of observations.
You lose.
-
In space you are either in or out of any shade. Light just travels straight in space. So you are either completely in the shade or not in the shade, i.e. in the light, when in space.
Ignoring of course the entire galaxy of stars shining light in every direction.
The famous L2 point in space is always in the shade of the Earth blocking the Sun behind.
So the JWST at L2 will be in the shade of the Earth when looking at the end of the Universe far away. But I have never understood why I have to go to point L2 to find out. I just look out of my window on Earth to study the end of the Universe above me. Of course today it is cloudy between me and the end of the Universe, but it will clear up.
Ignoring, again, that the JWST is not located at L2, but in a halo orbit around L2, and is not in Earth's shadow. JWST is orbiting the L2 point so that the Sun, Earth and Moon are always within a small angular distance if each other behind the telescope's field if view.
ESA/NASA tell us that the JWST orbits the Sun at the L2 point with the Earth in between all the time and that the Earth looks like a Black Hole/Disque in front of the Sun, i.e. JWST is in the shadow of Earth all the time, when it looks at the end of the Universe in the other direction. Just looking out of my window I can see the end of the Universe in the sky above me. At night I can see billions of bright stars from my window but it is still pitch dark at the ground below me. Anyway, when the JWST otbits the Sun at the L2 point, it also orbits the L2 point itself, i.e. the JWST orbits two things at the same time, i.e. the Sun and the L2 point. But you can only orbit one thing at a time! Orbiting two things at the same time is not possible.
Wrong. All satellites orbiting the Earth are also orbiting the Sun. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean nobody else does.
Satellites orbiting the Earth do not orbit the Sun. It is only the Earth that orbits the Sun (or vice versa).
Still wrong
-
So the JWST at L2 will be in the shade of the Earth when looking at the end of the Universe far away.
Who told you that JWST will be looking at the end of the universe? If anything, it will be collecting light from very near the beginning of the universe.
But I have never understood why I have to go to point L2 to find out.
They didn't "have to" put JWST in orbit around L2, but there are advantages that make it worth the effort.
So why send Webb to orbit Sun-Earth L2? Because it is an ideal location for an infrared observatory. At Sun-Earth L2, the Sun and Earth (and Moon, too) are always on one side of space, allowing Webb to keep its telescope optics and instruments perpetually shaded. This enables them to get cold for infrared sensitivity, yet still access nearly half the sky at any given moment for observations.
I just look out of my window on Earth to study the end of the Universe above me. Of course today it is cloudy between me and the end of the Universe, but it will clear up.
Space based telescopes don't have to worry about cloudy nights or light pollution from city lights. In fact, they don't even have to worry about waiting for night, so they can make observations 24 hours a day.
-
Actually there is no way to fly to L2, start orbiting around L2 and then start looking at the end of the Universe from L2. It is pure fantasy of the people involved stealing the money to do it.
Since it has already been done, your "actually" is the only fantasy.
You have nothing to back up your statement. The scientific community worldwide has tens of thousands of measurements over >15 years of observations.
You lose.
No. There is no evidence that the JWST is orbiting L2.
-
Heiwa what do you mean by 'Earth that orbits the Sun (or vice versa).'
How can it be both?
-
No. There is no evidence that the JWST is orbiting L2.
Yes, there is evidence. You just don't have access to it. Get over it.
-
No. There is no evidence that the JWST is orbiting L2.
Yes, there is evidence. You just don't have access to it. Get over it.
Well, show the evidence!
-
Heiwa what do you mean by 'Earth that orbits the Sun (or vice versa).'
How can it be both?
-
No. There is no evidence that the JWST is orbiting L2.
Yes, there is evidence. You just don't have access to it. Get over it.
Well, show the evidence!
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QHMQdP7WSFXPqBssdgcHEV-970-80.gif)
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/jwst_31dec2021_pw17_low.gif)
JWST on New Year's Eve 2021.
Gianluca Masi/Virtual Telescope Project
(https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/JWST_08jan2022_pw17_lowres.gif?x37618)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HAQ9XbwsuAg7Rayaaiotof-1024-80.jpg.webp)
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope is visible at L2 in this image, seen as a tiny white speck next to the arrow. (Image credit: Gianluca Masi/The Virtual Telescope Project)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P4jxvYerbHHoQgEFnxEkKg-970-80.jpg)
-
No. There is no evidence that the JWST is orbiting L2.
Yes, there is evidence. You just don't have access to it. Get over it.
Well, show the evidence!
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QHMQdP7WSFXPqBssdgcHEV-970-80.gif)
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/jwst_31dec2021_pw17_low.gif)
JWST on New Year's Eve 2021.
Gianluca Masi/Virtual Telescope Project
(https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/JWST_08jan2022_pw17_lowres.gif?x37618)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HAQ9XbwsuAg7Rayaaiotof-1024-80.jpg.webp)
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope is visible at L2 in this image, seen as a tiny white speck next to the arrow. (Image credit: Gianluca Masi/The Virtual Telescope Project)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P4jxvYerbHHoQgEFnxEkKg-970-80.jpg)
But where is the evidence? The https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/ is just another hoax based on Earth asking for money. It is a joke.
-
Heiwa what do you mean by 'Earth that orbits the Sun (or vice versa).'
How can it be both?
-
Actually there is no way to fly to L2, start orbiting around L2 and then start looking at the end of the Universe from L2. It is pure fantasy of the people involved stealing the money to do it.
Since it has already been done, your "actually" is the only fantasy.
You have nothing to back up your statement. The scientific community worldwide has tens of thousands of measurements over >15 years of observations.
You lose.
No. There is no evidence that the JWST is orbiting L2.
I never said anything about JWST. Your claim was that it "there is no way to fly to L2, start orbiting around L2 and then start looking at the end of the Universe from L2." Both NASA, ESA, Russia have already done this, and the evidence is the >15 years of observations from multiple spacecraft observatories, including Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Herschel, Planck, Gaia, Spektr-RG.
All you have is a blanket statement that something can't be done.
You lose. Again.
-
Actually there is no way to fly to L2, start orbiting around L2 and then start looking at the end of the Universe from L2. It is pure fantasy of the people involved stealing the money to do it.
Since it has already been done, your "actually" is the only fantasy.
You have nothing to back up your statement. The scientific community worldwide has tens of thousands of measurements over >15 years of observations.
You lose.
No. There is no evidence that the JWST is orbiting L2.
I never said anything about JWST. Your claim was that it "there is no way to fly to L2, start orbiting around L2 and then start looking at the end of the Universe from L2." Both NASA, ESA, Russia have already done this, and the evidence is the >15 years of observations from multiple spacecraft observatories, including Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Herschel, Planck, Gaia, Spektr-RG.
All you have is a blanket statement that something can't be done.
You lose. Again.
Yes, I must have missed spacecraft observatories like Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Herschel, Planck, Gaia, Spektr-RG. What did they see from L2?
-
Actually there is no way to fly to L2, start orbiting around L2 and then start looking at the end of the Universe from L2. It is pure fantasy of the people involved stealing the money to do it.
Since it has already been done, your "actually" is the only fantasy.
You have nothing to back up your statement. The scientific community worldwide has tens of thousands of measurements over >15 years of observations.
You lose.
No. There is no evidence that the JWST is orbiting L2.
I never said anything about JWST. Your claim was that it "there is no way to fly to L2, start orbiting around L2 and then start looking at the end of the Universe from L2." Both NASA, ESA, Russia have already done this, and the evidence is the >15 years of observations from multiple spacecraft observatories, including Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Herschel, Planck, Gaia, Spektr-RG.
All you have is a blanket statement that something can't be done.
You lose. Again.
Yes, I must have missed spacecraft observatories like Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Herschel, Planck, Gaia, Spektr-RG. What did they see from L2?
For a start ... looked at the end of the universe.
WMAP key achievements:
The WMAP science team has
... has put the "precision" in "precision cosmology" by reducing the allowed volume of cosmological parameters by a factor in excess of 68,000. The three most highly cited physics and astronomy papers published in the new millennium are WMAP scientific papers--- reflecting WMAP's enormous impact.
…mapped the pattern of tiny fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky.
…determined the universe to be 13.77 billion years old to within a half percent.
…nailed down the curvature of space to within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
…determined that ordinary atoms (also called baryons) make up only 4.6% of the universe.
…completed a census of the universe and finds that dark matter (matter not made up of atoms) is 24.0%
…determined that dark energy, in the form of a cosmological constant, makes up 71.4% of the universe, causing the expansion rate of the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)." - Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" article
… mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation over the full sky and discovered that the universe was reionized earlier than previously believed. - "WMAP scores on large-scale structure. By measuring the polarization in the CMB it is possible to look at the amplitude of the fluctuations of density in the universe that produced the first galaxies. That is a real breakthrough in our understanding of the origin of structure." - ScienceWatch: "What's Hot in Physics", Simon Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008.
…detected that the amplitude of the variations in the density of the universe on big scales is slightly larger than smaller scales. This, along with other results, supports "inflation", the idea is that the universe underwent a dramatic period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.
… determined that the distribution of these fluctuations follows a bell curve with the same properties across the sky, and that there are equal numbers of hot and cold spots in the map. The simplest version of the inflation idea predicted these properties and remarkably, WMAP’s precision measurement of the properties of the fluctuations has confirmed these predictions, in detail.
And you have ...?
-
Actually there is no way to fly to L2, start orbiting around L2 and then start looking at the end of the Universe from L2. It is pure fantasy of the people involved stealing the money to do it.
Since it has already been done, your "actually" is the only fantasy.
You have nothing to back up your statement. The scientific community worldwide has tens of thousands of measurements over >15 years of observations.
You lose.
No. There is no evidence that the JWST is orbiting L2.
I never said anything about JWST. Your claim was that it "there is no way to fly to L2, start orbiting around L2 and then start looking at the end of the Universe from L2." Both NASA, ESA, Russia have already done this, and the evidence is the >15 years of observations from multiple spacecraft observatories, including Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Herschel, Planck, Gaia, Spektr-RG.
All you have is a blanket statement that something can't be done.
You lose. Again.
Yes, I must have missed spacecraft observatories like Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Herschel, Planck, Gaia, Spektr-RG. What did they see from L2?
For a start ... looked at the end of the universe.
WMAP key achievements:
The WMAP science team has
... has put the "precision" in "precision cosmology" by reducing the allowed volume of cosmological parameters by a factor in excess of 68,000. The three most highly cited physics and astronomy papers published in the new millennium are WMAP scientific papers--- reflecting WMAP's enormous impact.
…mapped the pattern of tiny fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky.
…determined the universe to be 13.77 billion years old to within a half percent.
…nailed down the curvature of space to within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
…determined that ordinary atoms (also called baryons) make up only 4.6% of the universe.
…completed a census of the universe and finds that dark matter (matter not made up of atoms) is 24.0%
…determined that dark energy, in the form of a cosmological constant, makes up 71.4% of the universe, causing the expansion rate of the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)." - Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" article
… mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation over the full sky and discovered that the universe was reionized earlier than previously believed. - "WMAP scores on large-scale structure. By measuring the polarization in the CMB it is possible to look at the amplitude of the fluctuations of density in the universe that produced the first galaxies. That is a real breakthrough in our understanding of the origin of structure." - ScienceWatch: "What's Hot in Physics", Simon Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008.
…detected that the amplitude of the variations in the density of the universe on big scales is slightly larger than smaller scales. This, along with other results, supports "inflation", the idea is that the universe underwent a dramatic period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.
… determined that the distribution of these fluctuations follows a bell curve with the same properties across the sky, and that there are equal numbers of hot and cold spots in the map. The simplest version of the inflation idea predicted these properties and remarkably, WMAP’s precision measurement of the properties of the fluctuations has confirmed these predictions, in detail.
And you have ...?
I have concluded that the Universe has always existed, i.e. there are no beginning and end of the Universe. I just look out of my window and see it. No Big Bang. No 13.77 billion years since a Big Bang.
Big Bang? The Universe was created out of nothing for unknown reasons. Only twerps believe that magic!
-
Heiwa cant keep up from tripping over his own trolling lol and then he runs away when he's called out on his contradicting of himself BS
-
No. There is no evidence that the JWST is orbiting L2.
Yes, there is evidence. You just don't have access to it. Get over it.
Well, show the evidence!
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QHMQdP7WSFXPqBssdgcHEV-970-80.gif)
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/jwst_31dec2021_pw17_low.gif)
JWST on New Year's Eve 2021.
Gianluca Masi/Virtual Telescope Project
(https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/JWST_08jan2022_pw17_lowres.gif?x37618)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HAQ9XbwsuAg7Rayaaiotof-1024-80.jpg.webp)
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope is visible at L2 in this image, seen as a tiny white speck next to the arrow. (Image credit: Gianluca Masi/The Virtual Telescope Project)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P4jxvYerbHHoQgEFnxEkKg-970-80.jpg)
But where is the evidence? The https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/ is just another hoax based on Earth asking for money. It is a joke.
Something is moving out there that wasn't there before launch and is right where it is said to be. Way more evidence than what you have - Your evidence being nothing.
Where's your evidence for the virtual telescope being a hoax? Yep, just what I thought, you have none.
-
No. There is no evidence that the JWST is orbiting L2.
Yes, there is evidence. You just don't have access to it. Get over it.
Well, show the evidence!
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QHMQdP7WSFXPqBssdgcHEV-970-80.gif)
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/jwst_31dec2021_pw17_low.gif)
JWST on New Year's Eve 2021.
Gianluca Masi/Virtual Telescope Project
(https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/JWST_08jan2022_pw17_lowres.gif?x37618)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HAQ9XbwsuAg7Rayaaiotof-1024-80.jpg.webp)
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope is visible at L2 in this image, seen as a tiny white speck next to the arrow. (Image credit: Gianluca Masi/The Virtual Telescope Project)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P4jxvYerbHHoQgEFnxEkKg-970-80.jpg)
But where is the evidence? The https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/ is just another hoax based on Earth asking for money. It is a joke.
Something is moving out there that wasn't there before launch and is right where it is said to be. Way more evidence than what you have - Your evidence being nothing.
Where's your evidence for the virtual telescope being a hoax? Yep, just what I thought, you have none.
Just listen to the people behind the virtual telescope. Would you buy a second hand space telescope from them?
-
No. There is no evidence that the JWST is orbiting L2.
Yes, there is evidence. You just don't have access to it. Get over it.
Well, show the evidence!
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QHMQdP7WSFXPqBssdgcHEV-970-80.gif)
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/jwst_31dec2021_pw17_low.gif)
JWST on New Year's Eve 2021.
Gianluca Masi/Virtual Telescope Project
(https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/JWST_08jan2022_pw17_lowres.gif?x37618)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HAQ9XbwsuAg7Rayaaiotof-1024-80.jpg.webp)
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope is visible at L2 in this image, seen as a tiny white speck next to the arrow. (Image credit: Gianluca Masi/The Virtual Telescope Project)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P4jxvYerbHHoQgEFnxEkKg-970-80.jpg)
But where is the evidence? The https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/ is just another hoax based on Earth asking for money. It is a joke.
Something is moving out there that wasn't there before launch and is right where it is said to be. Way more evidence than what you have - Your evidence being nothing.
Where's your evidence for the virtual telescope being a hoax? Yep, just what I thought, you have none.
Just listen to the people behind the virtual telescope. Would you buy a second hand space telescope from them?
Yes, I would. At least they realize and show evidence that telescopes are infinitely better than your old eyes looking out your window.
Let's see your evidence that the virtual telescope is a hoax.
-
Something is moving out there that wasn't there before launch and is right where it is said to be. Way more evidence than what you have - Your evidence being nothing.
Where's your evidence for the virtual telescope being a hoax? Yep, just what I thought, you have none.
Let's return to the virtual pictures of the JWST moving to L2! The JWST is moving pretty fast in its orbit around Earth and must slow down to same speed as L2. But the JWST has no means (rockets/fuel/energy) to do it. Thus, the whole thing - JWST, virtual telescopes - is a hoax.
-
Your lack of correct information, combined with the confidence with which you share it, is truly remarkable!
-
Something is moving out there that wasn't there before launch and is right where it is said to be. Way more evidence than what you have - Your evidence being nothing.
Where's your evidence for the virtual telescope being a hoax? Yep, just what I thought, you have none.
Just listen to the people behind the virtual telescope. Would you buy a second hand space telescope from them?
Yes, I would. At least they realize and show evidence that telescopes are infinitely better than your old eyes looking out your window.
Let's see your evidence that the virtual telescope is a hoax.
Let's return to the virtual pictures of the JWST moving to L2! The JWST is moving pretty fast in its orbit around Earth and must slow down to same speed as L2. But the JWST has no means (rockets/fuel/energy) to do it. Thus, the whole thing - JWST, virtual telescopes - is a hoax.
Do some research into orbital insertion. You are woefully ignorant as to the physics applied by the much more knowledgeable people than you who calculate, engineer, and execute such things.
Just because you don’t know how something works doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Stick to your ‘danger at sea’ work.
-
Something is moving out there that wasn't there before launch and is right where it is said to be. Way more evidence than what you have - Your evidence being nothing.
Where's your evidence for the virtual telescope being a hoax? Yep, just what I thought, you have none.
Just listen to the people behind the virtual telescope. Would you buy a second hand space telescope from them?
Yes, I would. At least they realize and show evidence that telescopes are infinitely better than your old eyes looking out your window.
Let's see your evidence that the virtual telescope is a hoax.
Let's return to the virtual pictures of the JWST moving to L2! The JWST is moving pretty fast in its orbit around Earth and must slow down to same speed as L2. But the JWST has no means (rockets/fuel/energy) to do it. Thus, the whole thing - JWST, virtual telescopes - is a hoax.
Do some research into orbital insertion. You are woefully ignorant as to the physics applied by the much more knowledgeable people than you who calculate, engineer, and execute such things.
Just because you don’t know how something works doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Stick to your ‘danger at sea’ work.
Heiwa is a danger at sea. Tell us about the time you tested your 'bow visor impossible to break' theory with a bunch of unwitting sleeping crewman aboard, Heiwa....
No wonder you lost your job.
-
From https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html I Iearn:
“Telescope deployment is complete. Webb is now orbiting L2. Ongoing cool down and eventual instrument turn-on, testing and calibration occur. Telescope mirror alignment and calibration also begin as temperatures fall within range and instruments are enabled.
The telescope and scientific instruments started to cool rapidly in the shade of the sun shield once it was deployed, but it will take several weeks for them to cool all the way down to stable operational temperatures. This cool down will be carefully controlled with strategically-placed electric heater strips. The remaining five months of commissioning will be all about aligning the optics and calibrating the scientific instruments. “
So after cool down using electric heater strips there is another five months of commissioning before we can see anything. What a joke!
-
No one cares what you think Heiwa. Email NASA and tell them it's a joke then. I bet you won't get a reply because the only joke is you
-
No one cares what you think Heiwa. Email NASA and tell them it's a joke then. I bet you won't get a reply because the only joke is you
I think cooling down a space telescope at the L2 point using electric heater strips is funny.
-
No one cares what you think Heiwa. Email NASA and tell them it's a joke then. I bet you won't get a reply because the only joke is you
I think cooling down a space telescope at the L2 point using electric heater strips is funny.
Your lack of basic understanding of how things work is funny
Do you know how a refrigerator works? Jesus Christ you're an imbecile. :o
-
No one cares what you think Heiwa. Email NASA and tell them it's a joke then. I bet you won't get a reply because the only joke is you
I think cooling down a space telescope at the L2 point using electric heater strips is funny.
Your lack of basic understanding of how things work is funny
Do you know how a refrigerator works? Jesus Christ you're an imbecile. :o
My refrigerator doesn't use heater strips to produce ice cubes. I have my doubts about ESA/NASA and their JWST using heater strips to cool down in vacuum space.
-
No one cares what you think Heiwa. Email NASA and tell them it's a joke then. I bet you won't get a reply because the only joke is you
I think cooling down a space telescope at the L2 point using electric heater strips is funny.
Your lack of basic understanding of how things work is funny
Do you know how a refrigerator works? Jesus Christ you're an imbecile. :o
My refrigerator doesn't use heater strips to produce ice cubes. I have my doubts about ESA/NASA and their JWST using heater strips to cool down in vacuum space.
Here is an example of how it works in operation
(https://scitechdaily.com/images/Webb-Aft-Radiator-Deployment.gif)
I know you're old and senile but even this concept shouldn't be above you
The ADIR, which swings away from the backside of the telescope like a trap door on hinges, is connected to the instruments via flexible straps made of high-purity aluminum foil. The radiator draws heat out of the instruments and dumps it overboard to the extreme cold background of deep space.
To be clear - there is no 'active heating' lol. It's deflecting heat away from the telescope... Can your brain decipher the concept now or are you beyond help
-
No one cares what you think Heiwa. Email NASA and tell them it's a joke then. I bet you won't get a reply because the only joke is you
I think cooling down a space telescope at the L2 point using electric heater strips is funny.
Your lack of basic understanding of how things work is funny
Do you know how a refrigerator works? Jesus Christ you're an imbecile. :o
My refrigerator doesn't use heater strips to produce ice cubes. I have my doubts about ESA/NASA and their JWST using heater strips to cool down in vacuum space.
Here is an example of how it works in operation
(https://scitechdaily.com/images/Webb-Aft-Radiator-Deployment.gif)
I know you're old and senile but even this concept shouldn't be above you
The ADIR, which swings away from the backside of the telescope like a trap door on hinges, is connected to the instruments via flexible straps made of high-purity aluminum foil. The radiator draws heat out of the instruments and dumps it overboard to the extreme cold background of deep space.
To be clear - there is no 'active heating' lol. It's deflecting heat away from the telescope... Can your brain decipher the concept now or are you beyond help
No, I don't understand the concept.
Where is the heater strip and where is the telescope? And what is being cooled?
-
No, I don't understand the concept.
I see. Well, good luck with the rest of your life ::)
-
To be clear - there is no 'active heating' lol.
Well it says there is Shifty, and to be honest if you have very expensive and finely tuned apparatus you probably want to go from 54c to -211c in a controlled manner to limit shrinkage and stress.
-
To be clear - there is no 'active heating' lol.
Well it says there is Shifty, and to be honest if you have very expensive and finely tuned apparatus you probably want to go from 54c to -211c in a controlled manner to limit shrinkage and stress.
Controlling heat loss is not the same as heating something up. The temperatures trend will always be going down
-
To be clear - there is no 'active heating' lol.
Well it says there is Shifty, and to be honest if you have very expensive and finely tuned apparatus you probably want to go from 54c to -211c in a controlled manner to limit shrinkage and stress.
Controlling heat loss is not the same as heating something up. The temperatures trend will always be going down
You can still use active heating to control heat loss. These things are not mutually exclusive.
-
To be clear - there is no 'active heating' lol.
Well it says there is Shifty, and to be honest if you have very expensive and finely tuned apparatus you probably want to go from 54c to -211c in a controlled manner to limit shrinkage and stress.
Controlling heat loss is not the same as heating something up. The temperatures trend will always be going down
You can still use active heating to control heat loss. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Anything that is not 0 Kelvins has 'heat'
If the system (in this case the James Webb Telescope) is always in a state of losing heat, then there is no 'heating'. You can apply energy (heat) to the system but if the energy produced is insufficient to raise the temperature than it can't be 'heating' the system.
I see what you mean but my mind when saying 'active heating' was in regards to Heiwas insinuation that the telescope cools down by heat. There are also some nifty tricks the telescope is doing to reduce heat in a passive manner (like the animated gif I posted).
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
A halo orbit around the L2 point is not the same as sitting at the L2 point.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
You keep stating that the JWST is in Earth's shadow at L2 and you are wrong. The telescope will be kept out of Earth's shadow to maintain thermal stability. Go read some literature, stop making up bullshit, and claiming NASA/ESA are a joke.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
You keep stating that the JWST is in Earth's shadow at L2 and you are wrong. The telescope will be kept out of Earth's shadow to maintain thermal stability. Go read some literature, stop making up bullshit, and claiming NASA/ESA are a joke.
Has Heiwa ever actually admitted he was wrong on anything, ever?
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
You keep stating that the JWST is in Earth's shadow at L2 and you are wrong. The telescope will be kept out of Earth's shadow to maintain thermal stability. Go read some literature, stop making up bullshit, and claiming NASA/ESA are a joke.
Has Heiwa ever actually admitted he was wrong on anything, ever?
Not sure why Heiwa bothered with this thread. He can't keep up with his own trolling and keeps tripping over his own BS
He probably doesn't have to admit he's wrong because he knows he's just talking shit. He wants us to believe that we believe he believes what he's saying lol. Except it's pretty clear he's just become a low effort troll
He had his 'challenge' BS trolling stories worked out but this, it's clear he never researched it well enough to come up with and stick to a story. He should have stayed in that thread of Mikes he claimed.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
It seems the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun and the JWST flies around in space in an impossible trajectory orbiting nothing.
It seems we agree that the Moon doesn't orbit the Sun (but the Earth). I can see that from my window.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
It seems the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun and the JWST flies around in space in an impossible trajectory orbiting nothing.
What makes it impossible? Do tell us. You're about 250 years behind the times in regard to orbital mechanics.
MECHANICS OF HALO SATELLITES (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TN%20D-6365.pdf)
A. Motion in the Vicinity of the Translunar Libration Point
As was shown by Lagrange in 1772, there are five points in the earth-moon gravitational field with the interesting property that if a satellite were placed at one of them with the proper velocity, it would be in equilibrium because the gravitational accelerations acting on the satellite would be counterbalanced by its centripetal acceleration (i.e., accelerations are balanced in the rotating reference frame). These 11libration points 11 are all located in the moon's orbital plane, and their general configuration is depicted in Figure 2. This paper will be primarily concerned with the translunar libration point L 2
(https://i.imgur.com/wdzRah8.png)
The third-order solution for the nominal path in the vicinity of L 2 is given in Appendix B. Traces of this solution for a one-year period are showJl in Figures 3 and 4. Because the period of the oscillatory motion in the moon's orbital plane is 14.65 days, while the out-of-plane period is 15. 23 days, the yz-projection of the nominal path is a Lissajous curve.
Show us your calculations versus those contained within the document. I'm sure your calculations make it impossible.
Just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean that someone else hasn't figured it out.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
It seems the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun and the JWST flies around in space in an impossible trajectory orbiting nothing.
What makes it impossible? Do tell us. You're about 250 years behind the times in regard to orbital mechanics.
MECHANICS OF HALO SATELLITES (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TN%20D-6365.pdf)
A. Motion in the Vicinity of the Translunar Libration Point
As was shown by Lagrange in 1772, there are five points in the earth-moon gravitational field with the interesting property that if a satellite were placed at one of them with the proper velocity, it would be in equilibrium because the gravitational accelerations acting on the satellite would be counterbalanced by its centripetal acceleration (i.e., accelerations are balanced in the rotating reference frame). These 11libration points 11 are all located in the moon's orbital plane, and their general configuration is depicted in Figure 2. This paper will be primarily concerned with the translunar libration point L 2
(https://i.imgur.com/wdzRah8.png)
The third-order solution for the nominal path in the vicinity of L 2 is given in Appendix B. Traces of this solution for a one-year period are showJl in Figures 3 and 4. Because the period of the oscillatory motion in the moon's orbital plane is 14.65 days, while the out-of-plane period is 15. 23 days, the yz-projection of the nominal path is a Lissajous curve.
Show us your calculations versus those contained within the document. I'm sure your calculations make it impossible.
Just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean that someone else hasn't figured it out.
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
-
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
I suggest that you are a bored and boring troll. You can provide no evidence to the contrary.
-
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
I suggest that you are a bored and boring troll. You can provide no evidence to the contrary.
I am not bored at all. I look out of my windows and watch the Mediterranean Sea below and the objects in the sky above and the horizon in between. That the JWST elliptically orbits Earth governed by gravity forces, I can see, but it in a fixed plane relative Earth, i.e. it doesn't wobble around in its trajectory ... around Earth or L2 as suggested by others. Does ESA/NASA really know what an "orbit" is? An orbit is the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft round a star, planet, or moon in a fixed plane, and with a periodic, elliptical revolution.
-
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
I suggest that you are a bored and boring troll. You can provide no evidence to the contrary.
Does ESA/NASA really know what an "orbit" is?
I would venture to guess they know way, way, more than you.
Show us your evidence and calculations.
-
I agree with Heiwa, how do you squeeze a telescope up in between all those planets?
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P4jxvYerbHHoQgEFnxEkKg-970-80.jpg)
-
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
I suggest that you are a bored and boring troll. You can provide no evidence to the contrary.
Does ESA/NASA really know what an "orbit" is?
I would venture to guess they know way, way, more than you.
Show us your evidence and calculations.
Question is if ESA/NASA knows what an orbit is. I have asked them about the orbit Earth/L2 and they cannot provide it.
-
Question is if ESA/NASA knows what an orbit is. I have asked them about the orbit Earth/L2 and they cannot provide it.
What question, specifically, did you ask?
-
Question is if ESA/NASA knows what an orbit is. I have asked them about the orbit Earth/L2 and they cannot provide it.
What question, specifically, did you ask?
Just details of the one month orbit around Earth between moving Earth to moving L2. As both Earth and L2 orbits the Sun, it is quite difficult to start from one moving planet Earth with a great mass to another moving zero mass point L2, and I simply wonder how it is done. It seems nobody at ESA/NASA knows.
-
Just details of the one month orbit around Earth between moving Earth to moving L2. As both Earth and L2 orbits the Sun, it is quite difficult to start from one moving planet Earth with a great mass to another moving zero mass point L2, and I simply wonder how it is done. It seems nobody at ESA/NASA knows.
Ah, so because you didn't get an answer, they must not know. It doesn't matter that they likely get large quantities of questions, so answering them all would be impossible.
Nope, doesn't matter, because ego dictates that your question is of profound importance and should clearly be at the top of the list of questions demanding an answer.
Lagrangian points naturally capture objects. This can be evidenced by the trojan objects orbiting Jupiter's L4 and L5 points, and asteroids in obit around the Earth/Sun L4 and L5 points. If it can happen naturally, then it ought to be possible technologically.
If a man made object approaches a Lagrangian point at the right speed and trajectory then it will be captured the same way a natural object would. Calculating the necessary speed and trajectory is indeed difficult, but not impossible. That you do not understand the necessary equations (and to be fair, neither do I fully) does not render it impossible.
-
Just details of the one month orbit around Earth between moving Earth to moving L2. As both Earth and L2 orbits the Sun, it is quite difficult to start from one moving planet Earth with a great mass to another moving zero mass point L2, and I simply wonder how it is done. It seems nobody at ESA/NASA knows.
Ah, so because you didn't get an answer, they must not know. It doesn't matter that they likely get large quantities of questions, so answering them all would be impossible.
Nope, doesn't matter, because ego dictates that your question is of profound importance and should clearly be at the top of the list of questions demanding an answer.
He's also avoided posting exactly what he asked despite being asked multiple times. This is either because he didn't really ask and this is just another of his lies, or the way he asked makes it clear he was a crackpot.
-
Just details of the one month orbit around Earth between moving Earth to moving L2. As both Earth and L2 orbits the Sun, it is quite difficult to start from one moving planet Earth with a great mass to another moving zero mass point L2, and I simply wonder how it is done. It seems nobody at ESA/NASA knows.
Ah, so because you didn't get an answer, they must not know. It doesn't matter that they likely get large quantities of questions, so answering them all would be impossible.
Nope, doesn't matter, because ego dictates that your question is of profound importance and should clearly be at the top of the list of questions demanding an answer.
Lagrangian points naturally capture objects. This can be evidenced by the trojan objects orbiting Jupiter's L4 and L5 points, and asteroids in obit around the Earth/Sun L4 and L5 points. If it can happen naturally, then it ought to be possible technologically.
If a man made object approaches a Lagrangian point at the right speed and trajectory then it will be captured the same way a natural object would. Calculating the necessary speed and trajectory is indeed difficult, but not impossible. That you do not understand the necessary equations (and to be fair, neither do I fully) does not render it impossible.
Yes, ESA/NASA hasn't got a clue about space travel and orbits.
No, Lagrangian points do not capture anything. It only happens that gravity forces of adjacent bodies are zero there and cannot attract anything.
Lagrangian points are not fixed in space and move all the times due to all celestial bodies move all the time. No man made object can ever find a Lagrangian point in space. Thanks for telling me you you don't understand how to do it.
-
I suggest that you are a bored and boring troll. You can provide no evidence to the contrary.
I am not bored at all. I look out of my windows and watch the Mediterranean Sea below and the objects in the sky above and the horizon in between. That the JWST elliptically orbits Earth governed by gravity forces, I can see, but it in a fixed plane relative Earth, i.e. it doesn't wobble around in its trajectory ... around Earth or L2 as suggested by others. Does ESA/NASA really know what an "orbit" is? An orbit is the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft round a star, planet, or moon in a fixed plane, and with a periodic, elliptical revolution.
You have provided no evidence that you are not bored. And you are most certainly boring.
And the idea that you are an expert in orbits, and that two organizations with roughly 20,000 people and $30B have been deluded or mistaken simply because you can’t imagine how something works is laughable. And boring.
-
I agree with Heiwa, how do you squeeze a telescope up in between all those planets?
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P4jxvYerbHHoQgEFnxEkKg-970-80.jpg)
I admit, it looks awfully crowded up there...
-
Question is if ESA/NASA knows what an orbit is. I have asked them about the orbit Earth/L2 and they cannot provide it.
Sure you did.
And let me guess, you can't provide us with a copy of the message you claim to have sent them.
Just more repeated trolling. You need new material. :(
-
Question is if ESA/NASA knows what an orbit is. I have asked them about the orbit Earth/L2 and they cannot provide it.
Sure you did.
And let me guess, you can't provide us with a copy of the message you claim to have sent them.
Just more repeated trolling. You need new material. :(
The real problem is, they blocked his email address long, long ago. Back when he was demanding they provide him info about how the heat shields were constructed for the old shuttle.
-
Question is if ESA/NASA knows what an orbit is. I have asked them about the orbit Earth/L2 and they cannot provide it.
Sure you did.
And let me guess, you can't provide us with a copy of the message you claim to have sent them.
Just more repeated trolling. You need new material. :(
The real problem is, they blocked his email address long, long ago. Back when he was demanding they provide him info about how the heat shields were constructed for the old shuttle.
http://heiwaco.com/moontraveld.htm explains a lot! So the L2 point orbits both the Sun and the Earth at high speed and the JWST orbits the L2 point at a certain speed so the JWST is moving all the time. It is not a good location to observe the Universe. Better is from my window. I can do it any time.
-
Question is if ESA/NASA knows what an orbit is. I have asked them about the orbit Earth/L2 and they cannot provide it.
Sure you did.
And let me guess, you can't provide us with a copy of the message you claim to have sent them.
Just more repeated trolling. You need new material. :(
The real problem is, they blocked his email address long, long ago. Back when he was demanding they provide him info about how the heat shields were constructed for the old shuttle.
http://heiwaco.com/moontraveld.htm explains a lot!
This actually explains stuff along with supporting calculations. No rants from a madman 'Danger at Sea' ship plumber involved. Just science and physics...
L2 STATION KEEPING MANEUVER STRATEGY FOR THE JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190028877/downloads/20190028877.pdf)
So the L2 point orbits both the Sun and the Earth at high speed and the JWST orbits the L2 point at a certain speed so the JWST is moving all the time. It is not a good location to observe the Universe. Better is from my window. I can do it any time.
You saying your location of viewing the universe is better from your window than a telescope beyond our atmosphere speaks volumes as to just how ignorant you are. How would you even know it's better? What are you basing that on?
Why won't you show us an image of the cosmos from your window and describe what you've gleaned from it? Show us how it's better than, let's say hubble, let alone JWST.
-
Question is if ESA/NASA knows what an orbit is. I have asked them about the orbit Earth/L2 and they cannot provide it.
Sure you did.
And let me guess, you can't provide us with a copy of the message you claim to have sent them.
Just more repeated trolling. You need new material. :(
The real problem is, they blocked his email address long, long ago. Back when he was demanding they provide him info about how the heat shields were constructed for the old shuttle.
http://heiwaco.com/moontraveld.htm explains a lot!
This actually explains stuff along with supporting calculations. No rants from a madman 'Danger at Sea' ship plumber involved. Just science and physics...
L2 STATION KEEPING MANEUVER STRATEGY FOR THE JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190028877/downloads/20190028877.pdf)
So the L2 point orbits both the Sun and the Earth at high speed and the JWST orbits the L2 point at a certain speed so the JWST is moving all the time. It is not a good location to observe the Universe. Better is from my window. I can do it any time.
You saying your location of viewing the universe is better from your window than a telescope beyond our atmosphere speaks volumes as to just how ignorant you are. How would you even know it's better? What are you basing that on?
Why won't you show us an image of the cosmos from your window and describe what you've gleaned from it? Show us how it's better than, let's say hubble, let alone JWST.
Just look out of your own window and observe what I do! It is a much better location than an orbit around moving point L2 that needs adjustments all the time.
As we all know the dynamical region about the SEMB L2 point is inherently unstable. As such, routine station-
keeping maneuvers are necessary to keep the JWST observatory with its trim flap (ROTFL) and thrusters in a science orbit for the desired 10.5-year mission lifetime. It is not necessary from my window. No trim flap required.
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
-
Question is if ESA/NASA knows what an orbit is. I have asked them about the orbit Earth/L2 and they cannot provide it.
Sure you did.
And let me guess, you can't provide us with a copy of the message you claim to have sent them.
Just more repeated trolling. You need new material. :(
The real problem is, they blocked his email address long, long ago. Back when he was demanding they provide him info about how the heat shields were constructed for the old shuttle.
http://heiwaco.com/moontraveld.htm explains a lot!
This actually explains stuff along with supporting calculations. No rants from a madman 'Danger at Sea' ship plumber involved. Just science and physics...
L2 STATION KEEPING MANEUVER STRATEGY FOR THE JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190028877/downloads/20190028877.pdf)
So the L2 point orbits both the Sun and the Earth at high speed and the JWST orbits the L2 point at a certain speed so the JWST is moving all the time. It is not a good location to observe the Universe. Better is from my window. I can do it any time.
You saying your location of viewing the universe is better from your window than a telescope beyond our atmosphere speaks volumes as to just how ignorant you are. How would you even know it's better? What are you basing that on?
Why won't you show us an image of the cosmos from your window and describe what you've gleaned from it? Show us how it's better than, let's say hubble, let alone JWST.
Just look out of your own window and observe what I do! It is a much better location than an orbit around moving point L2 that needs adjustments all the time.
As we all know the dynamical region about the SEMB L2 point is inherently unstable. As such, routine station-
keeping maneuvers are necessary to keep the JWST observatory with its trim flap (ROTFL) and thrusters in a science orbit for the desired 10.5-year mission lifetime. It is not necessary from my window. No trim flap required.
Just because you think you can see everything in the cosmos from your window doesn't mean that other more learned folks can't devise ways to see better. Would you say that about glasses? As in, "Oh, I can see just fine even though things are blurry farther away, no need for glasses..." Are you anti-glasses, anti-cameras, anti-microscopes, anti-telescopes? What kind of drugs are you on?
I mean why did you propose a new design for tankers? To make them "better", right? Why do you think advancing technology only applies to ship building and nothing else? Do ship builders/designers just look out their window at passing tankers and say, "Improving on that is not necessary based on the view from my window..."? Is that how you go about engineering, just looking out your window? Could you be lazier?
What is wrong with you?
-
Question is if ESA/NASA knows what an orbit is. I have asked them about the orbit Earth/L2 and they cannot provide it.
Sure you did.
And let me guess, you can't provide us with a copy of the message you claim to have sent them.
Just more repeated trolling. You need new material. :(
The real problem is, they blocked his email address long, long ago. Back when he was demanding they provide him info about how the heat shields were constructed for the old shuttle.
http://heiwaco.com/moontraveld.htm explains a lot!
This actually explains stuff along with supporting calculations. No rants from a madman 'Danger at Sea' ship plumber involved. Just science and physics...
L2 STATION KEEPING MANEUVER STRATEGY FOR THE JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190028877/downloads/20190028877.pdf)
So the L2 point orbits both the Sun and the Earth at high speed and the JWST orbits the L2 point at a certain speed so the JWST is moving all the time. It is not a good location to observe the Universe. Better is from my window. I can do it any time.
You saying your location of viewing the universe is better from your window than a telescope beyond our atmosphere speaks volumes as to just how ignorant you are. How would you even know it's better? What are you basing that on?
Why won't you show us an image of the cosmos from your window and describe what you've gleaned from it? Show us how it's better than, let's say hubble, let alone JWST.
Just look out of your own window and observe what I do! It is a much better location than an orbit around moving point L2 that needs adjustments all the time.
As we all know the dynamical region about the SEMB L2 point is inherently unstable. As such, routine station-
keeping maneuvers are necessary to keep the JWST observatory with its trim flap (ROTFL) and thrusters in a science orbit for the desired 10.5-year mission lifetime. It is not necessary from my window. No trim flap required.
Just because you think you can see everything in the cosmos from your window doesn't mean that other more learned folks can't devise ways to see better. Would you say that about glasses? As in, "Oh, I can see just fine even though things are blurry farther away, no need for glasses..." Are you anti-glasses, anti-cameras, anti-microscopes, anti-telescopes? What kind of drugs are you on?
I mean why did you propose a new design for tankers? To make them "better", right? Why do you think advancing technology only applies to ship building and nothing else? Do ship builders/designers just look out their window at passing tankers and say, "Improving on that is not necessary based on the view from my window..."? Is that how you go about engineering, just looking out your window? Could you be lazier?
What is wrong with you?
Nothing is wrong with me. I just tested negative with regard to Covid for the 4th time! Re oil tankers United Nations asked 1990 for better, safer, designs spilling less oil and I made a proposal that was approved and accepted 1997. The next day some clown (a US admiral) told United nations that my design was not allowed in USA!
-
Question is if ESA/NASA knows what an orbit is. I have asked them about the orbit Earth/L2 and they cannot provide it.
Sure you did.
And let me guess, you can't provide us with a copy of the message you claim to have sent them.
Just more repeated trolling. You need new material. :(
The real problem is, they blocked his email address long, long ago. Back when he was demanding they provide him info about how the heat shields were constructed for the old shuttle.
http://heiwaco.com/moontraveld.htm explains a lot!
This actually explains stuff along with supporting calculations. No rants from a madman 'Danger at Sea' ship plumber involved. Just science and physics...
L2 STATION KEEPING MANEUVER STRATEGY FOR THE JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190028877/downloads/20190028877.pdf)
So the L2 point orbits both the Sun and the Earth at high speed and the JWST orbits the L2 point at a certain speed so the JWST is moving all the time. It is not a good location to observe the Universe. Better is from my window. I can do it any time.
You saying your location of viewing the universe is better from your window than a telescope beyond our atmosphere speaks volumes as to just how ignorant you are. How would you even know it's better? What are you basing that on?
Why won't you show us an image of the cosmos from your window and describe what you've gleaned from it? Show us how it's better than, let's say hubble, let alone JWST.
Just look out of your own window and observe what I do! It is a much better location than an orbit around moving point L2 that needs adjustments all the time.
As we all know the dynamical region about the SEMB L2 point is inherently unstable. As such, routine station-
keeping maneuvers are necessary to keep the JWST observatory with its trim flap (ROTFL) and thrusters in a science orbit for the desired 10.5-year mission lifetime. It is not necessary from my window. No trim flap required.
Just because you think you can see everything in the cosmos from your window doesn't mean that other more learned folks can't devise ways to see better. Would you say that about glasses? As in, "Oh, I can see just fine even though things are blurry farther away, no need for glasses..." Are you anti-glasses, anti-cameras, anti-microscopes, anti-telescopes? What kind of drugs are you on?
I mean why did you propose a new design for tankers? To make them "better", right? Why do you think advancing technology only applies to ship building and nothing else? Do ship builders/designers just look out their window at passing tankers and say, "Improving on that is not necessary based on the view from my window..."? Is that how you go about engineering, just looking out your window? Could you be lazier?
What is wrong with you?
Nothing is wrong with me. I just tested negative with regard to Covid for the 4th time! Re oil tankers United Nations asked 1990 for better, safer, designs spilling less oil and I made a proposal that was approved and accepted 1997. The next day some clown (a US admiral) told United nations that my design was not allowed in USA!
And the reason why it was rejected was because your design was based upon nothing more than you looking out your window.
-
Question is if ESA/NASA knows what an orbit is. I have asked them about the orbit Earth/L2 and they cannot provide it.
Sure you did.
And let me guess, you can't provide us with a copy of the message you claim to have sent them.
Just more repeated trolling. You need new material. :(
The real problem is, they blocked his email address long, long ago. Back when he was demanding they provide him info about how the heat shields were constructed for the old shuttle.
http://heiwaco.com/moontraveld.htm explains a lot!
This actually explains stuff along with supporting calculations. No rants from a madman 'Danger at Sea' ship plumber involved. Just science and physics...
L2 STATION KEEPING MANEUVER STRATEGY FOR THE JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190028877/downloads/20190028877.pdf)
So the L2 point orbits both the Sun and the Earth at high speed and the JWST orbits the L2 point at a certain speed so the JWST is moving all the time. It is not a good location to observe the Universe. Better is from my window. I can do it any time.
You saying your location of viewing the universe is better from your window than a telescope beyond our atmosphere speaks volumes as to just how ignorant you are. How would you even know it's better? What are you basing that on?
Why won't you show us an image of the cosmos from your window and describe what you've gleaned from it? Show us how it's better than, let's say hubble, let alone JWST.
Just look out of your own window and observe what I do! It is a much better location than an orbit around moving point L2 that needs adjustments all the time.
As we all know the dynamical region about the SEMB L2 point is inherently unstable. As such, routine station-
keeping maneuvers are necessary to keep the JWST observatory with its trim flap (ROTFL) and thrusters in a science orbit for the desired 10.5-year mission lifetime. It is not necessary from my window. No trim flap required.
Just because you think you can see everything in the cosmos from your window doesn't mean that other more learned folks can't devise ways to see better. Would you say that about glasses? As in, "Oh, I can see just fine even though things are blurry farther away, no need for glasses..." Are you anti-glasses, anti-cameras, anti-microscopes, anti-telescopes? What kind of drugs are you on?
I mean why did you propose a new design for tankers? To make them "better", right? Why do you think advancing technology only applies to ship building and nothing else? Do ship builders/designers just look out their window at passing tankers and say, "Improving on that is not necessary based on the view from my window..."? Is that how you go about engineering, just looking out your window? Could you be lazier?
What is wrong with you?
Nothing is wrong with me. I just tested negative with regard to Covid for the 4th time! Re oil tankers United Nations asked 1990 for better, safer, designs spilling less oil and I made a proposal that was approved and accepted 1997. The next day some clown (a US admiral) told United nations that my design was not allowed in USA!
And the reason why it was rejected was because your design was based upon nothing more than you looking out your window.
No, US interests wanted to buy the patents of the concept and were turned down.
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
It would indeed be silly for a spacecraft to have a trim flap like boats or planes have.
Luckily the JWST has an aft momentum flap like spacecraft have.
You can read all about it on my website, janeyouignorantjwst.com
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
Apparently
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
All is explained and calculated in here. Time for you to do some actual learning:
[1] S. Yoon, "Orbit Determinaton for the James Webb Space Telescope," in 24th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Laurel MD, 2014.
[2] NASA, "James Webb Space Telescope," NASA, [Online]. Available: jwst.nasa.gov. [Accessed 10 Mar 2014].
[3] J. Mather, "The James Webb Space Telescope and Future IR Space Telescopes," in Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 2004.
[4] D. Dunham and R. Farquhar, "Libration Point Missions, 1978-2002," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[5] J. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, Richmond VA: Willmann-Bell, 1998.
[6] R. Henry, W. Kinzel and M. Jordan, "JWST Scheduling with SODRM 2012, Preesnted to the JWST AWG," Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2014.
[7] W. Kinzel, "JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque Tables," Space Telescopt Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2007.
[8] Space Telescope Science Institute, "James Webb Space Telescope Field-of-Regard and Sky Coverage," 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/design/field-of-regard. [Accessed 20 March 2014].
[9] C. Roberts, "Long Term Missions at the Sun-Earth Libration Point L1: ACE, SOHO and WIND," in AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2011.
[10] K. Howell and H. Pernicka, "Stationkeeping Method for Libration Point Trajectories," J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 151-159, 1993. 19
[11] T. Pavlak and K. Howell, "Strategy for Optimal, Long-Term Stationkeeping of Libration Point Orbits in the Earth-Moon System," in AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Minneapolis MN, 2012.
[12] D. Folta, T. Pavlak, A. Haapala and K. Howell, "Earth-Moon Libration Point Stationkeeping: Theory, Modeling and Operations," in 1st IAA/AAS Conference on the Dynamics and Control of Space Systems, Porto, Portugal, 2012.
[13] M. Beckman and A. Delion, "James Webb Telescope Stationkeeping Analysis," in AGI User's Conference, 2003.
[14] L. Janes and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006.
[15] M. Hechler and J. Cobos, "Herschel, Planck and GAIA Orbit Design," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[16] C. Schiff, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Critical Design Review [Powerpoint charts]," 2006.
[17] D. Gidanian, "JWST Solar Torque Modeling," Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach CA, 2008.
[18] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Analysis Working Group, Apr 2013, 2013.
[19] T. Johnson and V. Coppola, "Solar Radiation Pressue Plugins," Analytical Graphics Inc., 2010.
[20] D. Folta, Interviewee, Personal communication on MAVEN mission. [Interview]. Mar 2013.
[21] C. Schiff and E. Dove, "Monte Carlo Simulatons of the Formation Flying Dynamics for the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) Mission," in TBD, TBD, TBD.
[22] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Spacecraft Critical Design Review, 2014.
[23] K. Gordon, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Science and Operations Center: Science Operations Design Reference Mission Revision C," Space Telescope Science Institute, 2012.
[24] M. Ziebart, "High Precision Analytical Solar Radiaton Pressure Modelling for GNSS Spacecraft," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of East London, London, 2001. 20 Appendix. Solar Pressure and Atmospheric Drag (SPAD) Modeling for JWST The SPAD tool was developed at NASA Goddard to compute SRP and
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
All is explained and calculated in here. Time for you to do some actual learning:
[1] S. Yoon, "Orbit Determinaton for the James Webb Space Telescope," in 24th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Laurel MD, 2014.
[2] NASA, "James Webb Space Telescope," NASA, [Online]. Available: jwst.nasa.gov. [Accessed 10 Mar 2014].
[3] J. Mather, "The James Webb Space Telescope and Future IR Space Telescopes," in Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 2004.
[4] D. Dunham and R. Farquhar, "Libration Point Missions, 1978-2002," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[5] J. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, Richmond VA: Willmann-Bell, 1998.
[6] R. Henry, W. Kinzel and M. Jordan, "JWST Scheduling with SODRM 2012, Preesnted to the JWST AWG," Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2014.
[7] W. Kinzel, "JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque Tables," Space Telescopt Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2007.
[8] Space Telescope Science Institute, "James Webb Space Telescope Field-of-Regard and Sky Coverage," 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/design/field-of-regard. [Accessed 20 March 2014].
[9] C. Roberts, "Long Term Missions at the Sun-Earth Libration Point L1: ACE, SOHO and WIND," in AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2011.
[10] K. Howell and H. Pernicka, "Stationkeeping Method for Libration Point Trajectories," J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 151-159, 1993. 19
[11] T. Pavlak and K. Howell, "Strategy for Optimal, Long-Term Stationkeeping of Libration Point Orbits in the Earth-Moon System," in AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Minneapolis MN, 2012.
[12] D. Folta, T. Pavlak, A. Haapala and K. Howell, "Earth-Moon Libration Point Stationkeeping: Theory, Modeling and Operations," in 1st IAA/AAS Conference on the Dynamics and Control of Space Systems, Porto, Portugal, 2012.
[13] M. Beckman and A. Delion, "James Webb Telescope Stationkeeping Analysis," in AGI User's Conference, 2003.
[14] L. Janes and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006.
[15] M. Hechler and J. Cobos, "Herschel, Planck and GAIA Orbit Design," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[16] C. Schiff, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Critical Design Review [Powerpoint charts]," 2006.
[17] D. Gidanian, "JWST Solar Torque Modeling," Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach CA, 2008.
[18] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Analysis Working Group, Apr 2013, 2013.
[19] T. Johnson and V. Coppola, "Solar Radiation Pressue Plugins," Analytical Graphics Inc., 2010.
[20] D. Folta, Interviewee, Personal communication on MAVEN mission. [Interview]. Mar 2013.
[21] C. Schiff and E. Dove, "Monte Carlo Simulatons of the Formation Flying Dynamics for the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) Mission," in TBD, TBD, TBD.
[22] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Spacecraft Critical Design Review, 2014.
[23] K. Gordon, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Science and Operations Center: Science Operations Design Reference Mission Revision C," Space Telescope Science Institute, 2012.
[24] M. Ziebart, "High Precision Analytical Solar Radiaton Pressure Modelling for GNSS Spacecraft," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of East London, London, 2001. 20 Appendix. Solar Pressure and Atmospheric Drag (SPAD) Modeling for JWST The SPAD tool was developed at NASA Goddard to compute SRP and
But the trim flap doesn't solve the the momentum problem.
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
All is explained and calculated in here. Time for you to do some actual learning:
[1] S. Yoon, "Orbit Determinaton for the James Webb Space Telescope," in 24th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Laurel MD, 2014.
[2] NASA, "James Webb Space Telescope," NASA, [Online]. Available: jwst.nasa.gov. [Accessed 10 Mar 2014].
[3] J. Mather, "The James Webb Space Telescope and Future IR Space Telescopes," in Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 2004.
[4] D. Dunham and R. Farquhar, "Libration Point Missions, 1978-2002," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[5] J. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, Richmond VA: Willmann-Bell, 1998.
[6] R. Henry, W. Kinzel and M. Jordan, "JWST Scheduling with SODRM 2012, Preesnted to the JWST AWG," Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2014.
[7] W. Kinzel, "JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque Tables," Space Telescopt Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2007.
[8] Space Telescope Science Institute, "James Webb Space Telescope Field-of-Regard and Sky Coverage," 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/design/field-of-regard. [Accessed 20 March 2014].
[9] C. Roberts, "Long Term Missions at the Sun-Earth Libration Point L1: ACE, SOHO and WIND," in AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2011.
[10] K. Howell and H. Pernicka, "Stationkeeping Method for Libration Point Trajectories," J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 151-159, 1993. 19
[11] T. Pavlak and K. Howell, "Strategy for Optimal, Long-Term Stationkeeping of Libration Point Orbits in the Earth-Moon System," in AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Minneapolis MN, 2012.
[12] D. Folta, T. Pavlak, A. Haapala and K. Howell, "Earth-Moon Libration Point Stationkeeping: Theory, Modeling and Operations," in 1st IAA/AAS Conference on the Dynamics and Control of Space Systems, Porto, Portugal, 2012.
[13] M. Beckman and A. Delion, "James Webb Telescope Stationkeeping Analysis," in AGI User's Conference, 2003.
[14] L. Janes and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006.
[15] M. Hechler and J. Cobos, "Herschel, Planck and GAIA Orbit Design," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[16] C. Schiff, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Critical Design Review [Powerpoint charts]," 2006.
[17] D. Gidanian, "JWST Solar Torque Modeling," Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach CA, 2008.
[18] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Analysis Working Group, Apr 2013, 2013.
[19] T. Johnson and V. Coppola, "Solar Radiation Pressue Plugins," Analytical Graphics Inc., 2010.
[20] D. Folta, Interviewee, Personal communication on MAVEN mission. [Interview]. Mar 2013.
[21] C. Schiff and E. Dove, "Monte Carlo Simulatons of the Formation Flying Dynamics for the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) Mission," in TBD, TBD, TBD.
[22] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Spacecraft Critical Design Review, 2014.
[23] K. Gordon, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Science and Operations Center: Science Operations Design Reference Mission Revision C," Space Telescope Science Institute, 2012.
[24] M. Ziebart, "High Precision Analytical Solar Radiaton Pressure Modelling for GNSS Spacecraft," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of East London, London, 2001. 20 Appendix. Solar Pressure and Atmospheric Drag (SPAD) Modeling for JWST The SPAD tool was developed at NASA Goddard to compute SRP and
But the trim flap doesn't solve the the momentum problem.
Start reading. You might actually learn something for a change.
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
All is explained and calculated in here. Time for you to do some actual learning:
[1] S. Yoon, "Orbit Determinaton for the James Webb Space Telescope," in 24th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Laurel MD, 2014.
[2] NASA, "James Webb Space Telescope," NASA, [Online]. Available: jwst.nasa.gov. [Accessed 10 Mar 2014].
[3] J. Mather, "The James Webb Space Telescope and Future IR Space Telescopes," in Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 2004.
[4] D. Dunham and R. Farquhar, "Libration Point Missions, 1978-2002," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[5] J. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, Richmond VA: Willmann-Bell, 1998.
[6] R. Henry, W. Kinzel and M. Jordan, "JWST Scheduling with SODRM 2012, Preesnted to the JWST AWG," Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2014.
[7] W. Kinzel, "JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque Tables," Space Telescopt Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2007.
[8] Space Telescope Science Institute, "James Webb Space Telescope Field-of-Regard and Sky Coverage," 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/design/field-of-regard. [Accessed 20 March 2014].
[9] C. Roberts, "Long Term Missions at the Sun-Earth Libration Point L1: ACE, SOHO and WIND," in AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2011.
[10] K. Howell and H. Pernicka, "Stationkeeping Method for Libration Point Trajectories," J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 151-159, 1993. 19
[11] T. Pavlak and K. Howell, "Strategy for Optimal, Long-Term Stationkeeping of Libration Point Orbits in the Earth-Moon System," in AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Minneapolis MN, 2012.
[12] D. Folta, T. Pavlak, A. Haapala and K. Howell, "Earth-Moon Libration Point Stationkeeping: Theory, Modeling and Operations," in 1st IAA/AAS Conference on the Dynamics and Control of Space Systems, Porto, Portugal, 2012.
[13] M. Beckman and A. Delion, "James Webb Telescope Stationkeeping Analysis," in AGI User's Conference, 2003.
[14] L. Janes and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006.
[15] M. Hechler and J. Cobos, "Herschel, Planck and GAIA Orbit Design," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[16] C. Schiff, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Critical Design Review [Powerpoint charts]," 2006.
[17] D. Gidanian, "JWST Solar Torque Modeling," Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach CA, 2008.
[18] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Analysis Working Group, Apr 2013, 2013.
[19] T. Johnson and V. Coppola, "Solar Radiation Pressue Plugins," Analytical Graphics Inc., 2010.
[20] D. Folta, Interviewee, Personal communication on MAVEN mission. [Interview]. Mar 2013.
[21] C. Schiff and E. Dove, "Monte Carlo Simulatons of the Formation Flying Dynamics for the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) Mission," in TBD, TBD, TBD.
[22] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Spacecraft Critical Design Review, 2014.
[23] K. Gordon, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Science and Operations Center: Science Operations Design Reference Mission Revision C," Space Telescope Science Institute, 2012.
[24] M. Ziebart, "High Precision Analytical Solar Radiaton Pressure Modelling for GNSS Spacecraft," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of East London, London, 2001. 20 Appendix. Solar Pressure and Atmospheric Drag (SPAD) Modeling for JWST The SPAD tool was developed at NASA Goddard to compute SRP and
But the trim flap doesn't solve the the momentum problem.
Start reading. You might actually learn something for a change.
OK - I started with [8] and it had been retracted. Probably usual garbage.
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
All is explained and calculated in here. Time for you to do some actual learning:
[1] S. Yoon, "Orbit Determinaton for the James Webb Space Telescope," in 24th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Laurel MD, 2014.
[2] NASA, "James Webb Space Telescope," NASA, [Online]. Available: jwst.nasa.gov. [Accessed 10 Mar 2014].
[3] J. Mather, "The James Webb Space Telescope and Future IR Space Telescopes," in Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 2004.
[4] D. Dunham and R. Farquhar, "Libration Point Missions, 1978-2002," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[5] J. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, Richmond VA: Willmann-Bell, 1998.
[6] R. Henry, W. Kinzel and M. Jordan, "JWST Scheduling with SODRM 2012, Preesnted to the JWST AWG," Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2014.
[7] W. Kinzel, "JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque Tables," Space Telescopt Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2007.
[8] Space Telescope Science Institute, "James Webb Space Telescope Field-of-Regard and Sky Coverage," 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/design/field-of-regard. [Accessed 20 March 2014].
[9] C. Roberts, "Long Term Missions at the Sun-Earth Libration Point L1: ACE, SOHO and WIND," in AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2011.
[10] K. Howell and H. Pernicka, "Stationkeeping Method for Libration Point Trajectories," J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 151-159, 1993. 19
[11] T. Pavlak and K. Howell, "Strategy for Optimal, Long-Term Stationkeeping of Libration Point Orbits in the Earth-Moon System," in AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Minneapolis MN, 2012.
[12] D. Folta, T. Pavlak, A. Haapala and K. Howell, "Earth-Moon Libration Point Stationkeeping: Theory, Modeling and Operations," in 1st IAA/AAS Conference on the Dynamics and Control of Space Systems, Porto, Portugal, 2012.
[13] M. Beckman and A. Delion, "James Webb Telescope Stationkeeping Analysis," in AGI User's Conference, 2003.
[14] L. Janes and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006.
[15] M. Hechler and J. Cobos, "Herschel, Planck and GAIA Orbit Design," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[16] C. Schiff, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Critical Design Review [Powerpoint charts]," 2006.
[17] D. Gidanian, "JWST Solar Torque Modeling," Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach CA, 2008.
[18] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Analysis Working Group, Apr 2013, 2013.
[19] T. Johnson and V. Coppola, "Solar Radiation Pressue Plugins," Analytical Graphics Inc., 2010.
[20] D. Folta, Interviewee, Personal communication on MAVEN mission. [Interview]. Mar 2013.
[21] C. Schiff and E. Dove, "Monte Carlo Simulatons of the Formation Flying Dynamics for the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) Mission," in TBD, TBD, TBD.
[22] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Spacecraft Critical Design Review, 2014.
[23] K. Gordon, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Science and Operations Center: Science Operations Design Reference Mission Revision C," Space Telescope Science Institute, 2012.
[24] M. Ziebart, "High Precision Analytical Solar Radiaton Pressure Modelling for GNSS Spacecraft," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of East London, London, 2001. 20 Appendix. Solar Pressure and Atmospheric Drag (SPAD) Modeling for JWST The SPAD tool was developed at NASA Goddard to compute SRP and
But the trim flap doesn't solve the the momentum problem.
Start reading. You might actually learn something for a change.
OK - I started with [8] and it had been retracted. Probably usual garbage.
How do you know it was “retracted”? It’s just not there. It’s from a course given at the institute 8 years ago.
In any case, 1 down, 23 more to go. Let us know when you’ve completed your reading.
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
All is explained and calculated in here. Time for you to do some actual learning:
[1] S. Yoon, "Orbit Determinaton for the James Webb Space Telescope," in 24th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Laurel MD, 2014.
[2] NASA, "James Webb Space Telescope," NASA, [Online]. Available: jwst.nasa.gov. [Accessed 10 Mar 2014].
[3] J. Mather, "The James Webb Space Telescope and Future IR Space Telescopes," in Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 2004.
[4] D. Dunham and R. Farquhar, "Libration Point Missions, 1978-2002," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[5] J. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, Richmond VA: Willmann-Bell, 1998.
[6] R. Henry, W. Kinzel and M. Jordan, "JWST Scheduling with SODRM 2012, Preesnted to the JWST AWG," Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2014.
[7] W. Kinzel, "JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque Tables," Space Telescopt Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2007.
[8] Space Telescope Science Institute, "James Webb Space Telescope Field-of-Regard and Sky Coverage," 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/design/field-of-regard. [Accessed 20 March 2014].
[9] C. Roberts, "Long Term Missions at the Sun-Earth Libration Point L1: ACE, SOHO and WIND," in AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2011.
[10] K. Howell and H. Pernicka, "Stationkeeping Method for Libration Point Trajectories," J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 151-159, 1993. 19
[11] T. Pavlak and K. Howell, "Strategy for Optimal, Long-Term Stationkeeping of Libration Point Orbits in the Earth-Moon System," in AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Minneapolis MN, 2012.
[12] D. Folta, T. Pavlak, A. Haapala and K. Howell, "Earth-Moon Libration Point Stationkeeping: Theory, Modeling and Operations," in 1st IAA/AAS Conference on the Dynamics and Control of Space Systems, Porto, Portugal, 2012.
[13] M. Beckman and A. Delion, "James Webb Telescope Stationkeeping Analysis," in AGI User's Conference, 2003.
[14] L. Janes and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006.
[15] M. Hechler and J. Cobos, "Herschel, Planck and GAIA Orbit Design," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[16] C. Schiff, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Critical Design Review [Powerpoint charts]," 2006.
[17] D. Gidanian, "JWST Solar Torque Modeling," Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach CA, 2008.
[18] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Analysis Working Group, Apr 2013, 2013.
[19] T. Johnson and V. Coppola, "Solar Radiation Pressue Plugins," Analytical Graphics Inc., 2010.
[20] D. Folta, Interviewee, Personal communication on MAVEN mission. [Interview]. Mar 2013.
[21] C. Schiff and E. Dove, "Monte Carlo Simulatons of the Formation Flying Dynamics for the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) Mission," in TBD, TBD, TBD.
[22] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Spacecraft Critical Design Review, 2014.
[23] K. Gordon, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Science and Operations Center: Science Operations Design Reference Mission Revision C," Space Telescope Science Institute, 2012.
[24] M. Ziebart, "High Precision Analytical Solar Radiaton Pressure Modelling for GNSS Spacecraft," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of East London, London, 2001. 20 Appendix. Solar Pressure and Atmospheric Drag (SPAD) Modeling for JWST The SPAD tool was developed at NASA Goddard to compute SRP and
But the trim flap doesn't solve the the momentum problem.
Start reading. You might actually learn something for a change.
OK - I started with [8] and it had been retracted. Probably usual garbage.
How do you know it was “retracted”? It’s just not there. It’s from a course given at the institute 8 years ago.
In any case, 1 down, 23 more to go. Let us know when you’ve completed your reading.
You asked me to have a look of your evidence that a a trim/momentum flap is required to steer a space craft and there was none. Pls copy [14] L. Janes know and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006, about a trim/momentum flap a trim/momentum flap for station keeping. I know the location of the L2 point but not its speed through the Universe but I am curious to find out how a trim flap will keep me in location, when I am blown away by a solar wind of unknown force.
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
All is explained and calculated in here. Time for you to do some actual learning:
[1] S. Yoon, "Orbit Determinaton for the James Webb Space Telescope," in 24th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Laurel MD, 2014.
[2] NASA, "James Webb Space Telescope," NASA, [Online]. Available: jwst.nasa.gov. [Accessed 10 Mar 2014].
[3] J. Mather, "The James Webb Space Telescope and Future IR Space Telescopes," in Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 2004.
[4] D. Dunham and R. Farquhar, "Libration Point Missions, 1978-2002," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[5] J. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, Richmond VA: Willmann-Bell, 1998.
[6] R. Henry, W. Kinzel and M. Jordan, "JWST Scheduling with SODRM 2012, Preesnted to the JWST AWG," Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2014.
[7] W. Kinzel, "JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque Tables," Space Telescopt Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2007.
[8] Space Telescope Science Institute, "James Webb Space Telescope Field-of-Regard and Sky Coverage," 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/design/field-of-regard. [Accessed 20 March 2014].
[9] C. Roberts, "Long Term Missions at the Sun-Earth Libration Point L1: ACE, SOHO and WIND," in AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2011.
[10] K. Howell and H. Pernicka, "Stationkeeping Method for Libration Point Trajectories," J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 151-159, 1993. 19
[11] T. Pavlak and K. Howell, "Strategy for Optimal, Long-Term Stationkeeping of Libration Point Orbits in the Earth-Moon System," in AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Minneapolis MN, 2012.
[12] D. Folta, T. Pavlak, A. Haapala and K. Howell, "Earth-Moon Libration Point Stationkeeping: Theory, Modeling and Operations," in 1st IAA/AAS Conference on the Dynamics and Control of Space Systems, Porto, Portugal, 2012.
[13] M. Beckman and A. Delion, "James Webb Telescope Stationkeeping Analysis," in AGI User's Conference, 2003.
[14] L. Janes and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006.
[15] M. Hechler and J. Cobos, "Herschel, Planck and GAIA Orbit Design," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[16] C. Schiff, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Critical Design Review [Powerpoint charts]," 2006.
[17] D. Gidanian, "JWST Solar Torque Modeling," Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach CA, 2008.
[18] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Analysis Working Group, Apr 2013, 2013.
[19] T. Johnson and V. Coppola, "Solar Radiation Pressue Plugins," Analytical Graphics Inc., 2010.
[20] D. Folta, Interviewee, Personal communication on MAVEN mission. [Interview]. Mar 2013.
[21] C. Schiff and E. Dove, "Monte Carlo Simulatons of the Formation Flying Dynamics for the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) Mission," in TBD, TBD, TBD.
[22] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Spacecraft Critical Design Review, 2014.
[23] K. Gordon, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Science and Operations Center: Science Operations Design Reference Mission Revision C," Space Telescope Science Institute, 2012.
[24] M. Ziebart, "High Precision Analytical Solar Radiaton Pressure Modelling for GNSS Spacecraft," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of East London, London, 2001. 20 Appendix. Solar Pressure and Atmospheric Drag (SPAD) Modeling for JWST The SPAD tool was developed at NASA Goddard to compute SRP and
But the trim flap doesn't solve the the momentum problem.
Start reading. You might actually learn something for a change.
OK - I started with [8] and it had been retracted. Probably usual garbage.
How do you know it was “retracted”? It’s just not there. It’s from a course given at the institute 8 years ago.
In any case, 1 down, 23 more to go. Let us know when you’ve completed your reading.
You asked me to have a look of your evidence that a a trim/momentum flap is required to steer a space craft and there was none. Pls copy [14] L. Janes know and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006, about a trim/momentum flap a trim/momentum flap for station keeping. I know the location of the L2 point but not its speed through the Universe but I am curious to find out how a trim flap will keep me in location, when I am blown away by a solar wind of unknown force.
Keep reading.
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
All is explained and calculated in here. Time for you to do some actual learning:
[1] S. Yoon, "Orbit Determinaton for the James Webb Space Telescope," in 24th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Laurel MD, 2014.
[2] NASA, "James Webb Space Telescope," NASA, [Online]. Available: jwst.nasa.gov. [Accessed 10 Mar 2014].
[3] J. Mather, "The James Webb Space Telescope and Future IR Space Telescopes," in Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 2004.
[4] D. Dunham and R. Farquhar, "Libration Point Missions, 1978-2002," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[5] J. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, Richmond VA: Willmann-Bell, 1998.
[6] R. Henry, W. Kinzel and M. Jordan, "JWST Scheduling with SODRM 2012, Preesnted to the JWST AWG," Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2014.
[7] W. Kinzel, "JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque Tables," Space Telescopt Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2007.
[8] Space Telescope Science Institute, "James Webb Space Telescope Field-of-Regard and Sky Coverage," 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/design/field-of-regard. [Accessed 20 March 2014].
[9] C. Roberts, "Long Term Missions at the Sun-Earth Libration Point L1: ACE, SOHO and WIND," in AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2011.
[10] K. Howell and H. Pernicka, "Stationkeeping Method for Libration Point Trajectories," J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 151-159, 1993. 19
[11] T. Pavlak and K. Howell, "Strategy for Optimal, Long-Term Stationkeeping of Libration Point Orbits in the Earth-Moon System," in AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Minneapolis MN, 2012.
[12] D. Folta, T. Pavlak, A. Haapala and K. Howell, "Earth-Moon Libration Point Stationkeeping: Theory, Modeling and Operations," in 1st IAA/AAS Conference on the Dynamics and Control of Space Systems, Porto, Portugal, 2012.
[13] M. Beckman and A. Delion, "James Webb Telescope Stationkeeping Analysis," in AGI User's Conference, 2003.
[14] L. Janes and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006.
[15] M. Hechler and J. Cobos, "Herschel, Planck and GAIA Orbit Design," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[16] C. Schiff, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Critical Design Review [Powerpoint charts]," 2006.
[17] D. Gidanian, "JWST Solar Torque Modeling," Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach CA, 2008.
[18] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Analysis Working Group, Apr 2013, 2013.
[19] T. Johnson and V. Coppola, "Solar Radiation Pressue Plugins," Analytical Graphics Inc., 2010.
[20] D. Folta, Interviewee, Personal communication on MAVEN mission. [Interview]. Mar 2013.
[21] C. Schiff and E. Dove, "Monte Carlo Simulatons of the Formation Flying Dynamics for the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) Mission," in TBD, TBD, TBD.
[22] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Spacecraft Critical Design Review, 2014.
[23] K. Gordon, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Science and Operations Center: Science Operations Design Reference Mission Revision C," Space Telescope Science Institute, 2012.
[24] M. Ziebart, "High Precision Analytical Solar Radiaton Pressure Modelling for GNSS Spacecraft," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of East London, London, 2001. 20 Appendix. Solar Pressure and Atmospheric Drag (SPAD) Modeling for JWST The SPAD tool was developed at NASA Goddard to compute SRP and
But the trim flap doesn't solve the the momentum problem.
Start reading. You might actually learn something for a change.
OK - I started with [8] and it had been retracted. Probably usual garbage.
How do you know it was “retracted”? It’s just not there. It’s from a course given at the institute 8 years ago.
In any case, 1 down, 23 more to go. Let us know when you’ve completed your reading.
You asked me to have a look of your evidence that a a trim/momentum flap is required to steer a space craft and there was none. Pls copy [14] L. Janes know and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006, about a trim/momentum flap a trim/momentum flap for station keeping. I know the location of the L2 point but not its speed through the Universe but I am curious to find out how a trim flap will keep me in location, when I am blown away by a solar wind of unknown force.
Keep reading.
Have you sent [14] so I can read it?
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
All is explained and calculated in here. Time for you to do some actual learning:
[1] S. Yoon, "Orbit Determinaton for the James Webb Space Telescope," in 24th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Laurel MD, 2014.
[2] NASA, "James Webb Space Telescope," NASA, [Online]. Available: jwst.nasa.gov. [Accessed 10 Mar 2014].
[3] J. Mather, "The James Webb Space Telescope and Future IR Space Telescopes," in Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 2004.
[4] D. Dunham and R. Farquhar, "Libration Point Missions, 1978-2002," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[5] J. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, Richmond VA: Willmann-Bell, 1998.
[6] R. Henry, W. Kinzel and M. Jordan, "JWST Scheduling with SODRM 2012, Preesnted to the JWST AWG," Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2014.
[7] W. Kinzel, "JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque Tables," Space Telescopt Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2007.
[8] Space Telescope Science Institute, "James Webb Space Telescope Field-of-Regard and Sky Coverage," 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/design/field-of-regard. [Accessed 20 March 2014].
[9] C. Roberts, "Long Term Missions at the Sun-Earth Libration Point L1: ACE, SOHO and WIND," in AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2011.
[10] K. Howell and H. Pernicka, "Stationkeeping Method for Libration Point Trajectories," J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 151-159, 1993. 19
[11] T. Pavlak and K. Howell, "Strategy for Optimal, Long-Term Stationkeeping of Libration Point Orbits in the Earth-Moon System," in AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Minneapolis MN, 2012.
[12] D. Folta, T. Pavlak, A. Haapala and K. Howell, "Earth-Moon Libration Point Stationkeeping: Theory, Modeling and Operations," in 1st IAA/AAS Conference on the Dynamics and Control of Space Systems, Porto, Portugal, 2012.
[13] M. Beckman and A. Delion, "James Webb Telescope Stationkeeping Analysis," in AGI User's Conference, 2003.
[14] L. Janes and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006.
[15] M. Hechler and J. Cobos, "Herschel, Planck and GAIA Orbit Design," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[16] C. Schiff, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Critical Design Review [Powerpoint charts]," 2006.
[17] D. Gidanian, "JWST Solar Torque Modeling," Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach CA, 2008.
[18] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Analysis Working Group, Apr 2013, 2013.
[19] T. Johnson and V. Coppola, "Solar Radiation Pressue Plugins," Analytical Graphics Inc., 2010.
[20] D. Folta, Interviewee, Personal communication on MAVEN mission. [Interview]. Mar 2013.
[21] C. Schiff and E. Dove, "Monte Carlo Simulatons of the Formation Flying Dynamics for the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) Mission," in TBD, TBD, TBD.
[22] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Spacecraft Critical Design Review, 2014.
[23] K. Gordon, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Science and Operations Center: Science Operations Design Reference Mission Revision C," Space Telescope Science Institute, 2012.
[24] M. Ziebart, "High Precision Analytical Solar Radiaton Pressure Modelling for GNSS Spacecraft," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of East London, London, 2001. 20 Appendix. Solar Pressure and Atmospheric Drag (SPAD) Modeling for JWST The SPAD tool was developed at NASA Goddard to compute SRP and
But the trim flap doesn't solve the the momentum problem.
Start reading. You might actually learn something for a change.
OK - I started with [8] and it had been retracted. Probably usual garbage.
How do you know it was “retracted”? It’s just not there. It’s from a course given at the institute 8 years ago.
In any case, 1 down, 23 more to go. Let us know when you’ve completed your reading.
You asked me to have a look of your evidence that a a trim/momentum flap is required to steer a space craft and there was none. Pls copy [14] L. Janes know and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006, about a trim/momentum flap a trim/momentum flap for station keeping. I know the location of the L2 point but not its speed through the Universe but I am curious to find out how a trim flap will keep me in location, when I am blown away by a solar wind of unknown force.
Keep reading.
Have you sent [14] so I can read it?
You’ve got 23 papers/articles/chapters/books to go through, so you best get busy and do some learning.
-
Can anyone explain to me why the JWST spacecraft needs a "trim flap" to stay on course observing the beginning of the Universe, thanks.
. . . . . to stay on course
Of course - certainly - but a trim flap!?!?
All is explained and calculated in here. Time for you to do some actual learning:
[1] S. Yoon, "Orbit Determinaton for the James Webb Space Telescope," in 24th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Laurel MD, 2014.
[2] NASA, "James Webb Space Telescope," NASA, [Online]. Available: jwst.nasa.gov. [Accessed 10 Mar 2014].
[3] J. Mather, "The James Webb Space Telescope and Future IR Space Telescopes," in Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 2004.
[4] D. Dunham and R. Farquhar, "Libration Point Missions, 1978-2002," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[5] J. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, Richmond VA: Willmann-Bell, 1998.
[6] R. Henry, W. Kinzel and M. Jordan, "JWST Scheduling with SODRM 2012, Preesnted to the JWST AWG," Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2014.
[7] W. Kinzel, "JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque Tables," Space Telescopt Science Institute, Baltimore MD, 2007.
[8] Space Telescope Science Institute, "James Webb Space Telescope Field-of-Regard and Sky Coverage," 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/design/field-of-regard. [Accessed 20 March 2014].
[9] C. Roberts, "Long Term Missions at the Sun-Earth Libration Point L1: ACE, SOHO and WIND," in AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2011.
[10] K. Howell and H. Pernicka, "Stationkeeping Method for Libration Point Trajectories," J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 151-159, 1993. 19
[11] T. Pavlak and K. Howell, "Strategy for Optimal, Long-Term Stationkeeping of Libration Point Orbits in the Earth-Moon System," in AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Minneapolis MN, 2012.
[12] D. Folta, T. Pavlak, A. Haapala and K. Howell, "Earth-Moon Libration Point Stationkeeping: Theory, Modeling and Operations," in 1st IAA/AAS Conference on the Dynamics and Control of Space Systems, Porto, Portugal, 2012.
[13] M. Beckman and A. Delion, "James Webb Telescope Stationkeeping Analysis," in AGI User's Conference, 2003.
[14] L. Janes and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006.
[15] M. Hechler and J. Cobos, "Herschel, Planck and GAIA Orbit Design," in 7th International Conference on Libration Point Orbits and Their Applications, Parador d'Aiguablava, Girona, Spain, 2002.
[16] C. Schiff, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Critical Design Review [Powerpoint charts]," 2006.
[17] D. Gidanian, "JWST Solar Torque Modeling," Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach CA, 2008.
[18] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Analysis Working Group, Apr 2013, 2013.
[19] T. Johnson and V. Coppola, "Solar Radiation Pressue Plugins," Analytical Graphics Inc., 2010.
[20] D. Folta, Interviewee, Personal communication on MAVEN mission. [Interview]. Mar 2013.
[21] C. Schiff and E. Dove, "Monte Carlo Simulatons of the Formation Flying Dynamics for the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) Mission," in TBD, TBD, TBD.
[22] D. Dichmann, C. Alberding and K. Richon, "JWST Stationkeeping Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation Results," in JWST Spacecraft Critical Design Review, 2014.
[23] K. Gordon, "James Webb Space Telescope Mission Science and Operations Center: Science Operations Design Reference Mission Revision C," Space Telescope Science Institute, 2012.
[24] M. Ziebart, "High Precision Analytical Solar Radiaton Pressure Modelling for GNSS Spacecraft," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of East London, London, 2001. 20 Appendix. Solar Pressure and Atmospheric Drag (SPAD) Modeling for JWST The SPAD tool was developed at NASA Goddard to compute SRP and
But the trim flap doesn't solve the the momentum problem.
Start reading. You might actually learn something for a change.
OK - I started with [8] and it had been retracted. Probably usual garbage.
How do you know it was “retracted”? It’s just not there. It’s from a course given at the institute 8 years ago.
In any case, 1 down, 23 more to go. Let us know when you’ve completed your reading.
You asked me to have a look of your evidence that a a trim/momentum flap is required to steer a space craft and there was none. Pls copy [14] L. Janes know and M. Beckman, "Optimizing Stationkeeping Maneuvers for James Webb Space Telescope," in NASA Goddard Flight Mechanics Symposium, 2006, about a trim/momentum flap a trim/momentum flap for station keeping. I know the location of the L2 point but not its speed through the Universe but I am curious to find out how a trim flap will keep me in location, when I am blown away by a solar wind of unknown force.
Keep reading.
Have you sent [14] so I can read it?
You’ve got 23 papers/articles/chapters/books to go through, so you best get busy and do some learning.
It is just a list. I tried #5 and it didn't exist. Just explain how a trim flap works on the JWST spacecraft and I will be happy. So far I am told that the Sun creates a solar wind sweeping away things in space like the JWST from the Sun and that a trim flap can stop it. What is really a trim flap?
-
Just explain how a trim flap works on the JWST spacecraft and I will be happy.
It waves around and wiggles back and forth.
-
...Just explain how a trim flap works on the JWST spacecraft and I will be happy. So far I am told that the Sun creates a solar wind sweeping away things in space like the JWST from the Sun and that a trim flap can stop it. What is really a trim flap?
The shape of the solar shield, and position of the telescope equipment with respect to the shield are asymmetric. This asymmetry creates a torque on the satellite as result of solar pressure. As the satellite is pointed towards whatever the telescope is observing the torque imparted upon it changes. The flap counters the force if solar radiation to reduce the torque, and prevent unintentional rotation of the satellite.
-
...Just explain how a trim flap works on the JWST spacecraft and I will be happy. So far I am told that the Sun creates a solar wind sweeping away things in space like the JWST from the Sun and that a trim flap can stop it. What is really a trim flap?
The shape of the solar shield, and position of the telescope equipment with respect to the shield are asymmetric. This asymmetry creates a torque on the satellite as result of solar pressure. As the satellite is pointed towards whatever the telescope is observing the torque imparted upon it changes. The flap counters the force if solar radiation to reduce the torque, and prevent unintentional rotation of the satellite.
And how does the trim flap do it? The solar wind applies a force/torque on the JWST so it starts to move and rotate, and the trim flap applies a counter force/torque so it remains immobile and not rotating. I don't believe it. It is much simpler to observe the Universe from my window without a trim flap. I wonder why NASA cannot provide more details of the trim flap and its manufacturer and cost. National security reasons.
-
Maybe because they have more important things to do than explain shit to fucking morons who wish to disbelieve anything they say anyway?
-
...orbit for the desired 10.5-year mission lifetime.
It's actually expected to last upwards of 20 years now, which I'm willing to bet puts it still active at a time when you won't be observing anything the universe has to show. And it's a much more reliable narrator.
-
...orbit for the desired 10.5-year mission lifetime.
It's actually expected to last upwards of 20 years now, which I'm willing to bet puts it still active at a time when you won't be observing anything the universe has to show. And it's a much more reliable narrator.
I just look out of my window and am happy with it. But as a shipbuilder I am curious how this trim flap works.
-
...orbit for the desired 10.5-year mission lifetime.
It's actually expected to last upwards of 20 years now, which I'm willing to bet puts it still active at a time when you won't be observing anything the universe has to show. And it's a much more reliable narrator.
I just look out of my window and am happy with it. But as a shipbuilder I am curious how this trim flap works.
But not curious enough to do real research involving a library and scholarly articles right? Just enough to claim you sent emails and occasionally click a link provided to you.
-
...orbit for the desired 10.5-year mission lifetime.
It's actually expected to last upwards of 20 years now, which I'm willing to bet puts it still active at a time when you won't be observing anything the universe has to show. And it's a much more reliable narrator.
I just look out of my window and am happy with it. But as a shipbuilder I am curious how this trim flap works.
But not curious enough to do real research involving a library and scholarly articles right? Just enough to claim you sent emails and occasionally click a link provided to you.
Pls, I do real research since 1968. I think it is fun. There are plenty people producing fake science, etc. I like telling other people about them. It is fun.
-
...orbit for the desired 10.5-year mission lifetime.
It's actually expected to last upwards of 20 years now, which I'm willing to bet puts it still active at a time when you won't be observing anything the universe has to show. And it's a much more reliable narrator.
I just look out of my window and am happy with it. But as a shipbuilder I am curious how this trim flap works.
But not curious enough to do real research involving a library and scholarly articles right? Just enough to claim you sent emails and occasionally click a link provided to you.
Pls, I do real research since 1968. I think it is fun. There are plenty people producing fake science, etc. I like telling other people about them. It is fun.
Sure you do. /s yet you've shown multiple times that you can't even be bothered to read links that you get provided here. If you did actual research then you wouldn't be here. Just more LIES from Heiwa.
-
You’ve got 23 papers/articles/chapters/books to go through, so you best get busy and do some learning.
It is just a list. I tried #5 and it didn't exist. Just explain how a trim flap works on the JWST spacecraft and I will be happy. So far I am told that the Sun creates a solar wind sweeping away things in space like the JWST from the Sun and that a trim flap can stop it. What is really a trim flap?
It more than certainly exists. You're terrible at research. Number #5 exists and it's on its 2nd addition:
Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, 2nd Revised & Enlarged Edition (https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Celestial-Mechanics-Revised-Enlarged/dp/0943396204)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51MaUIHlvlL._SX318_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
It took me all of .03 seconds to find the source. How is it that you couldn't find it? Could you be more lazy? Now get to reading and learning.
-
...Just explain how a trim flap works on the JWST spacecraft and I will be happy. So far I am told that the Sun creates a solar wind sweeping away things in space like the JWST from the Sun and that a trim flap can stop it. What is really a trim flap?
The shape of the solar shield, and position of the telescope equipment with respect to the shield are asymmetric. This asymmetry creates a torque on the satellite as result of solar pressure. As the satellite is pointed towards whatever the telescope is observing the torque imparted upon it changes. The flap counters the force if solar radiation to reduce the torque, and prevent unintentional rotation of the satellite.
And how does the trim flap do it?
Pretty much the same way that a trim flap works on a sail boat or a trim tab on an airplane,
-
...Just explain how a trim flap works on the JWST spacecraft and I will be happy. So far I am told that the Sun creates a solar wind sweeping away things in space like the JWST from the Sun and that a trim flap can stop it. What is really a trim flap?
The shape of the solar shield, and position of the telescope equipment with respect to the shield are asymmetric. This asymmetry creates a torque on the satellite as result of solar pressure. As the satellite is pointed towards whatever the telescope is observing the torque imparted upon it changes. The flap counters the force if solar radiation to reduce the torque, and prevent unintentional rotation of the satellite.
And how does the trim flap do it?
Pretty much the same way that a trim flap works on a sail boat or a trim tab on an airplane,
Hm. But there is no air in space. Only vacuum. I have a feeling someone added the trim flap as a joke. The JWST is a joke!
-
Pretty much the same way that a trim flap works on a sail boat or a trim tab on an airplane,
Hm. But there is no air in space. Only vacuum.
And pressure from the sun's photons. Or do you believe that solar sails are only fiction too?
-
Pretty much the same way that a trim flap works on a sail boat or a trim tab on an airplane,
Hm. But there is no air in space. Only vacuum.
And pressure from the sun's photons. Or do you believe that solar sails are only fiction too?
Photons have no mass and move around at the speed of light and do not apply pressure on anything. When a photon arrives in my eye it simply disappears after I have seen it. Same when it hits my skin. I feel it and after that it is no more there. No trim flap can stop it.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
It seems the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun and the JWST flies around in space in an impossible trajectory orbiting nothing.
It seems we agree that the Moon doesn't orbit the Sun (but the Earth). I can see that from my window.
A simple explanation with some force diagrams.
-
Heiwa is a simpleton. And yet that explanation would still go right over his head
-
Pretty much the same way that a trim flap works on a sail boat or a trim tab on an airplane,
Hm. But there is no air in space. Only vacuum.
And pressure from the sun's photons. Or do you believe that solar sails are only fiction too?
Photons have no mass and move around at the speed of light and do not apply pressure on anything. When a photon arrives in my eye it simply disappears after I have seen it. Same when it hits my skin. I feel it and after that it is no more there. No trim flap can stop it.
Wow, you know next to nothing.
Radiation pressure (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure)
Radiation pressure is the mechanical pressure exerted upon any surface due to the exchange of momentum between the object and the electromagnetic field. This includes the momentum of light or electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that is absorbed, reflected, or otherwise emitted (e.g. black-body radiation) by matter on any scale (from macroscopic objects to dust particles to gas molecules).[1][2][3] The associated force is called the radiation pressure force, or sometimes just the force of light.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Sail-Force1.gif)
The forces generated by radiation pressure are generally too small to be noticed under everyday circumstances; however, they are important in some physical processes and technologies. This particularly includes objects in outer space, where it is usually the main force acting on objects besides gravity, and where the net effect of a tiny force may have a large cumulative effect over long periods of time. For example, had the effects of the Sun's radiation pressure on the spacecraft of the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have missed Mars' orbit by about 15,000 km (9,300 mi).[4]
-
A simple explanation with some force diagrams.
Awesome video! What a great explainer of some mind-blowing, super complex engineering.
-
Pretty much the same way that a trim flap works on a sail boat or a trim tab on an airplane,
Hm. But there is no air in space. Only vacuum.
And pressure from the sun's photons. Or do you believe that solar sails are only fiction too?
Photons have no mass and move around at the speed of light and do not apply pressure on anything. When a photon arrives in my eye it simply disappears after I have seen it. Same when it hits my skin. I feel it and after that it is no more there. No trim flap can stop it.
Wow, you know next to nothing.
Radiation pressure (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure)
Radiation pressure is the mechanical pressure exerted upon any surface due to the exchange of momentum between the object and the electromagnetic field. This includes the momentum of light or electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that is absorbed, reflected, or otherwise emitted (e.g. black-body radiation) by matter on any scale (from macroscopic objects to dust particles to gas molecules).[1][2][3] The associated force is called the radiation pressure force, or sometimes just the force of light.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Sail-Force1.gif)
The forces generated by radiation pressure are generally too small to be noticed under everyday circumstances; however, they are important in some physical processes and technologies. This particularly includes objects in outer space, where it is usually the main force acting on objects besides gravity, and where the net effect of a tiny force may have a large cumulative effect over long periods of time. For example, had the effects of the Sun's radiation pressure on the spacecraft of the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have missed Mars' orbit by about 15,000 km (9,300 mi).[4]
I tested your ideas about light moving things. I switched on the light in front of a mirror and ... the mirror didn't move. Same thing when the Sun rises outside my window every morning. Plenty light arrives at the speed of light but nothing moves.
-
A simple explanation with some force diagrams.
Awesome video! What a great explainer of some mind-blowing, super complex engineering.
Complete rubbish. The L2 point is moving all the time at high speed and can never be reached however you try to aim for it.
-
Pretty much the same way that a trim flap works on a sail boat or a trim tab on an airplane,
Hm. But there is no air in space. Only vacuum.
And pressure from the sun's photons. Or do you believe that solar sails are only fiction too?
Photons have no mass and move around at the speed of light and do not apply pressure on anything. When a photon arrives in my eye it simply disappears after I have seen it. Same when it hits my skin. I feel it and after that it is no more there. No trim flap can stop it.
Wow, you know next to nothing.
Radiation pressure (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure)
Radiation pressure is the mechanical pressure exerted upon any surface due to the exchange of momentum between the object and the electromagnetic field. This includes the momentum of light or electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that is absorbed, reflected, or otherwise emitted (e.g. black-body radiation) by matter on any scale (from macroscopic objects to dust particles to gas molecules).[1][2][3] The associated force is called the radiation pressure force, or sometimes just the force of light.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Sail-Force1.gif)
The forces generated by radiation pressure are generally too small to be noticed under everyday circumstances; however, they are important in some physical processes and technologies. This particularly includes objects in outer space, where it is usually the main force acting on objects besides gravity, and where the net effect of a tiny force may have a large cumulative effect over long periods of time. For example, had the effects of the Sun's radiation pressure on the spacecraft of the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have missed Mars' orbit by about 15,000 km (9,300 mi).[4]
I tested your ideas about light moving things. I switched on the light in front of a mirror and ... the mirror didn't move. Same thing when the Sun rises outside my window every morning. Plenty light arrives at the speed of light but nothing moves.
Ain’t my ideas, it’s called physics.
And yes, your reasoning above is exactly the depth of knowledge, research, and testing we all expect from you. Probably the same effort and depth you put into your failed “engineering” back in the day.
-
A simple explanation with some force diagrams.
Awesome video! What a great explainer of some mind-blowing, super complex engineering.
Complete rubbish. The L2 point is moving all the time at high speed and can never be reached however you try to aim for it.
We knew you’d get nothing out of science.
In the meantime, back up your claim. Show us why you have such an opinion. Just saying so isnt enough and is summarily dismissed.
-
A simple explanation with some force diagrams.
Awesome video! What a great explainer of some mind-blowing, super complex engineering.
Complete rubbish. The L2 point is moving all the time at high speed and can never be reached however you try to aim for it.
Show us why you have such an opinion.
Easy!
Planet Earth is moving in one direction at a certain spreed in 3D space and the Lagrange point L2 is also moving in same direction at another speed in 3D space. Both orbit the Sun at different distances. The distance between Earth and L2 is therefore fixed all the time.
It seems you just have to fly straight away from Planet Earth with the Sun behind you to reach L2, but then you are slowed down all the time due to Sun and Earth gravity forces, while always orbiting Earth.
Speed relative the Sun must be zero at arrival L2 in your orbit around Earth, but then you drop back to Earth again due to gravity. You cannot stop and orbit around L2. Only complete idiots believe so.
-
A simple explanation with some force diagrams.
Awesome video! What a great explainer of some mind-blowing, super complex engineering.
Complete rubbish. The L2 point is moving all the time at high speed and can never be reached however you try to aim for it.
Show us why you have such an opinion.
Easy!
Planet Earth is moving in one direction at a certain spreed in 3D space and the Lagrange point L2 is also moving in same direction at another speed in 3D space. Both orbit the Sun at different distances. The distance between Earth and L2 is therefore fixed all the time.
It seems you just have to fly straight away from Planet Earth with the Sun behind you to reach L2, but then you are slowed down all the time due to Sun and Earth gravity forces, while always orbiting Earth.
Speed relative the Sun must be zero at arrival L2 in your orbit around Earth, but then you drop back to Earth again due to gravity. You cannot stop and orbit around L2. Only complete idiots believe so.
“It can’t be done because I say so.”
Yawn.
You’re not very good at this.
-
You cannot stop and orbit around L2. Only complete idiots believe so.
I'd love to see the math you used to come to this conclusion.
I'm sure you wouldn't call the millions of people who understand orbital mechanics an idiot without some serious work.
You certainly wouldn't just spout nonsense with no actual understanding.
Oh wait. Neverminded. ::)
-
A simple explanation with some force diagrams.
Awesome video! What a great explainer of some mind-blowing, super complex engineering.
Complete rubbish. The L2 point is moving all the time at high speed and can never be reached however you try to aim for it.
Show us why you have such an opinion.
Easy!
Planet Earth is moving in one direction at a certain spreed in 3D space and the Lagrange point L2 is also moving in same direction at another speed in 3D space. Both orbit the Sun at different distances. The distance between Earth and L2 is therefore fixed all the time.
It seems you just have to fly straight away from Planet Earth with the Sun behind you to reach L2, but then you are slowed down all the time due to Sun and Earth gravity forces, while always orbiting Earth.
Speed relative the Sun must be zero at arrival L2 in your orbit around Earth, but then you drop back to Earth again due to gravity. You cannot stop and orbit around L2. Only complete idiots believe so.
“It can’t be done because I say so.”
Yawn.
You’re not very good at this.
More precisely, it can't be done because he doesn't understand it and refuses to learn.
-
A simple explanation with some force diagrams.
Awesome video! What a great explainer of some mind-blowing, super complex engineering.
Complete rubbish. The L2 point is moving all the time at high speed and can never be reached however you try to aim for it.
Show us why you have such an opinion.
Easy!
Planet Earth is moving in one direction at a certain spreed in 3D space and the Lagrange point L2 is also moving in same direction at another speed in 3D space. Both orbit the Sun at different distances. The distance between Earth and L2 is therefore fixed all the time.
It seems you just have to fly straight away from Planet Earth with the Sun behind you to reach L2, but then you are slowed down all the time due to Sun and Earth gravity forces, while always orbiting Earth.
Speed relative the Sun must be zero at arrival L2 in your orbit around Earth, but then you drop back to Earth again due to gravity. You cannot stop and orbit around L2. Only complete idiots believe so.
“It can’t be done because I say so.”
Yawn.
You’re not very good at this.
More precisely, it can't be done because he doesn't understand it and refuses to learn.
Plenty people say they can fly to the Moon that we see in the sky moving about at high speed. The Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun. It takes only five days one way, but nobody can say how it is done. Same with the invisible L2 point in space. Plenty people have sent spacecrafts to L2 but cannot really explain how it is done.
-
A simple explanation with some force diagrams.
Awesome video! What a great explainer of some mind-blowing, super complex engineering.
Complete rubbish. The L2 point is moving all the time at high speed and can never be reached however you try to aim for it.
Show us why you have such an opinion.
Easy!
Planet Earth is moving in one direction at a certain spreed in 3D space and the Lagrange point L2 is also moving in same direction at another speed in 3D space. Both orbit the Sun at different distances. The distance between Earth and L2 is therefore fixed all the time.
It seems you just have to fly straight away from Planet Earth with the Sun behind you to reach L2, but then you are slowed down all the time due to Sun and Earth gravity forces, while always orbiting Earth.
Speed relative the Sun must be zero at arrival L2 in your orbit around Earth, but then you drop back to Earth again due to gravity. You cannot stop and orbit around L2. Only complete idiots believe so.
“It can’t be done because I say so.”
Yawn.
You’re not very good at this.
More precisely, it can't be done because he doesn't understand it and refuses to learn.
Plenty people say they can fly to the Moon that we see in the sky moving about at high speed. The Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun. It takes only five days one way, but nobody can say how it is done. Same with the invisible L2 point in space. Plenty people have sent spacecrafts to L2 but cannot really explain how it is done.
Plenty people understand it. YOU are not one of those. Plenty people have tried to explain it to you but YOU refuse to try to understand. Plenty people laugh at you because all you have is argument from incredulity. Plus, I wasn't talking to you.
-
A simple explanation with some force diagrams.
Awesome video! What a great explainer of some mind-blowing, super complex engineering.
Complete rubbish. The L2 point is moving all the time at high speed and can never be reached however you try to aim for it.
Show us why you have such an opinion.
Easy!
Planet Earth is moving in one direction at a certain spreed in 3D space and the Lagrange point L2 is also moving in same direction at another speed in 3D space. Both orbit the Sun at different distances. The distance between Earth and L2 is therefore fixed all the time.
It seems you just have to fly straight away from Planet Earth with the Sun behind you to reach L2, but then you are slowed down all the time due to Sun and Earth gravity forces, while always orbiting Earth.
Speed relative the Sun must be zero at arrival L2 in your orbit around Earth, but then you drop back to Earth again due to gravity. You cannot stop and orbit around L2. Only complete idiots believe so.
“It can’t be done because I say so.”
Yawn.
You’re not very good at this.
More precisely, it can't be done because he doesn't understand it and refuses to learn.
Plenty people say they can fly to the Moon that we see in the sky moving about at high speed. The Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun. It takes only five days one way, but nobody can say how it is done. Same with the invisible L2 point in space. Plenty people have sent spacecrafts to L2 but cannot really explain how it is done.
Oh? So you agree now that plenty people HAVE sent spacecrafts to L2. Glad to see you’ve conceded that point. Since you still claim that nobody knows how this works, you’ll have to present evidence of how many people you’ve interviewed. Are you close to the requisite 7.9 billion?
-
A simple explanation with some force diagrams.
Awesome video! What a great explainer of some mind-blowing, super complex engineering.
Complete rubbish. The L2 point is moving all the time at high speed and can never be reached however you try to aim for it.
Show us why you have such an opinion.
Easy!
Planet Earth is moving in one direction at a certain spreed in 3D space and the Lagrange point L2 is also moving in same direction at another speed in 3D space. Both orbit the Sun at different distances. The distance between Earth and L2 is therefore fixed all the time.
It seems you just have to fly straight away from Planet Earth with the Sun behind you to reach L2, but then you are slowed down all the time due to Sun and Earth gravity forces, while always orbiting Earth.
Speed relative the Sun must be zero at arrival L2 in your orbit around Earth, but then you drop back to Earth again due to gravity. You cannot stop and orbit around L2. Only complete idiots believe so.
“It can’t be done because I say so.”
Yawn.
You’re not very good at this.
More precisely, it can't be done because he doesn't understand it and refuses to learn.
Plenty people say they can fly to the Moon that we see in the sky moving about at high speed. The Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun. It takes only five days one way, but nobody can say how it is done. Same with the invisible L2 point in space. Plenty people have sent spacecrafts to L2 but cannot really explain how it is done.
Oh? So you agree now that plenty people HAVE sent spacecrafts to L2. Glad to see you’ve conceded that point. Since you still claim that nobody knows how this works, you’ll have to present evidence of how many people you’ve interviewed. Are you close to the requisite 7.9 billion?
No, plenty people just say they have sent spacecrafts to L2, like the JWST hoax now orbiting L2. It is religious! They believe their nonsense.
-
“It can’t be done because I say so.”
Yawn.
You’re not very good at this.
-
No, plenty people just say they have sent spacecrafts to L2, like the JWST hoax now orbiting L2. It is religious! They believe their nonsense.
Unlike you, they have evidence to justify their belief.
-
No, plenty people just say they have sent spacecrafts to L2, like the JWST hoax now orbiting L2. It is religious! They believe their nonsense.
Unlike you, they have evidence to justify their belief.
They have no evidence of their fantasies.
-
No, plenty people just say they have sent spacecrafts to L2, like the JWST hoax now orbiting L2. It is religious! They believe their nonsense.
Unlike you, they have evidence to justify their belief.
They have no evidence of their fantasies.
My goodness, the delusions never cease to amaze me.
Independent corroboration all over the globe of sightings, imaging, video, tracking, communications, telemetry, etc. all evidence. Plus 1000s of articles, papers, books, calculations from people with actual knowledge from all around the world. All evidence of feasibility, design, engineering, and execution.
And what do you have for evidence? Literally nothing. Zero.
The only thing you have is just you saying so. As C&C said, yawn. You’re not very good at this.
-
No, plenty people just say they have sent spacecrafts to L2, like the JWST hoax now orbiting L2. It is religious! They believe their nonsense.
Unlike you, they have evidence to justify their belief.
They have no evidence of their fantasies.
My goodness, the delusions never cease to amaze me.
Independent corroboration all over the globe of sightings, imaging, video, tracking, communications, telemetry, etc. all evidence. Plus 1000s of articles, papers, books, calculations from people with actual knowledge from all around the world. All evidence of feasibility, design, engineering, and execution.
And what do you have for evidence? Literally nothing. Zero.
The only thing you have is just you saying so. As C&C said, yawn. You’re not very good at this.
The only person operating on faith is Heiwa and all he has to base his faith on is a bunch of bullshit.
-
No, plenty people just say they have sent spacecrafts to L2, like the JWST hoax now orbiting L2. It is religious! They believe their nonsense.
Unlike you, they have evidence to justify their belief.
They have no evidence of their fantasies.
My goodness, the delusions never cease to amaze me.
Independent corroboration all over the globe of sightings, imaging, video, tracking, communications, telemetry, etc. all evidence. Plus 1000s of articles, papers, books, calculations from people with actual knowledge from all around the world. All evidence of feasibility, design, engineering, and execution.
And what do you have for evidence? Literally nothing. Zero.
The only thing you have is just you saying so. As C&C said, yawn. You’re not very good at this.
No, I am just not aware of any independent corroboration of JWST arriving at L2 and starting orbiting it. Just plenty people suggesting it happened.
-
No, I am just not aware of any independent corroboration of JWST arriving at L2 and starting orbiting it. Just plenty people suggesting it happened.
You realize that just because you are not aware of something, that other people might be aware of that something, right? Or do you think you are the center of the universe and your beliefs/opinions/POV are the only things that matter to all of humanity?
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QHMQdP7WSFXPqBssdgcHEV-970-80.gif)
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/jwst_31dec2021_pw17_low.gif)
JWST on New Year's Eve 2021.
Gianluca Masi/Virtual Telescope Project
(https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/JWST_08jan2022_pw17_lowres.gif?x37618)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HAQ9XbwsuAg7Rayaaiotof-1024-80.jpg.webp)
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope is visible at L2 in this image, seen as a tiny white speck next to the arrow. (Image credit: Gianluca Masi/The Virtual Telescope Project)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P4jxvYerbHHoQgEFnxEkKg-970-80.jpg)
-
No, I am just not aware of any independent corroboration of JWST arriving at L2 and starting orbiting it. Just plenty people suggesting it happened.
You realize that just because you are not aware of something, that other people might be aware of that something, right? Or do you think you are the center of the universe and your beliefs/opinions/POV are the only things that matter to all of humanity?
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QHMQdP7WSFXPqBssdgcHEV-970-80.gif)
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/jwst_31dec2021_pw17_low.gif)
JWST on New Year's Eve 2021.
Gianluca Masi/Virtual Telescope Project
(https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/JWST_08jan2022_pw17_lowres.gif?x37618)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HAQ9XbwsuAg7Rayaaiotof-1024-80.jpg.webp)
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope is visible at L2 in this image, seen as a tiny white speck next to the arrow. (Image credit: Gianluca Masi/The Virtual Telescope Project)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P4jxvYerbHHoQgEFnxEkKg-970-80.jpg)
Yes, all fake pictures. Just a white dot moving towards L2. ROTFL.
-
No, I am just not aware of any independent corroboration of JWST arriving at L2 and starting orbiting it. Just plenty people suggesting it happened.
You realize that just because you are not aware of something, that other people might be aware of that something, right? Or do you think you are the center of the universe and your beliefs/opinions/POV are the only things that matter to all of humanity?
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QHMQdP7WSFXPqBssdgcHEV-970-80.gif)
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/jwst_31dec2021_pw17_low.gif)
JWST on New Year's Eve 2021.
Gianluca Masi/Virtual Telescope Project
(https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/JWST_08jan2022_pw17_lowres.gif?x37618)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HAQ9XbwsuAg7Rayaaiotof-1024-80.jpg.webp)
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope is visible at L2 in this image, seen as a tiny white speck next to the arrow. (Image credit: Gianluca Masi/The Virtual Telescope Project)
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P4jxvYerbHHoQgEFnxEkKg-970-80.jpg)
Yes, all fake pictures. Just a white dot moving towards L2. ROTFL.
Heiwa, "Fake! All fake, though I have zero evidence that they are fake..."
Boring.
-
No, plenty people just say they have sent spacecrafts to L2, like the JWST hoax now orbiting L2. It is religious! They believe their nonsense.
Actually, only a relative few spacecraft have been sent to L2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_objects_at_Lagrange_points#L2
-
No, plenty people just say they have sent spacecrafts to L2, like the JWST hoax now orbiting L2. It is religious! They believe their nonsense.
Actually, only a relative few spacecraft have been sent to L2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_objects_at_Lagrange_points#L2
But plenty people are behind those fake spacecrafts at L2. None of them can explain how to stop at L2 while orbiting Earth. Once in orbit always in orbit and if you stop in orbit, you drop back on what you orbited. It is basic astro-dynamics!
-
But plenty people are behind those fake spacecrafts at L2. None of them can explain how to stop at L2 while orbiting Earth. Once in orbit always in orbit and if you stop in orbit, you drop back on what you orbited. It is basic astro-dynamics!
No they can't explain, because it doesn't stop at L2. You say it stops there, but no one else is claiming that.
It orbits around the L2 point as it orbits around the Sun. It's not a difficult concept to understand, especially considering you have been shown multiple images of its orbit.
Show us where, in any credible scientific literature, it is stated that the JWST will stop at the L2 point.
-
lol Heiwa is in way over his head. He already sounded like a dumbarse in the other thread he claimed, but at least he had his story somewhat straight. He cant do anything but trip over his own trolling here. Go back to your other thread Heiwa. We know you're only joking and deliberately saying stupid shit to give yourself a rise. It's embarrassing for you
Geez, if your going to argue about a subject at least get the facts right about the subject you are arguing about. You cant even do that!!
-
lol Heiwa is in way over his head. He already sounded like a dumbarse in the other thread he claimed, but at least he had his story somewhat straight. He cant do anything but trip over his own trolling here. Go back to your other thread Heiwa. We know you're only joking and deliberately saying stupid shit to give yourself a rise. It's embarrassing for you
Geez, if your going to argue about a subject at least get the facts right about the subject you are arguing about. You cant even do that!!
What drugs are you on?
-
Here's what we've learned from Heiwa to date:
- The Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun. Yet somehow the Earth is the center of the universe, a universe that has no end, yet there is "center"
- Plenty of people have sent spacecrafts to L2 but they have no idea how they did it
Heiwa is presented with dozens of papers/articles/books/imagery/testing of how it's done from experts in the field(s) (He, obviously, is not an expert) from around the world, dependent and independent sources, and says, "It's all fake...I know it is because I can look out my window..."
And somehow he doesn't realize the idiocy of his statements. It's a remarkable level of hubris combined with patheticism I can't say I've ever encountered before.
-
Here's what we've learned from Heiwa to date:
- The Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun. Yet somehow the Earth is the center of the universe, a universe that has no end, yet there is "center"
- Plenty of people have sent spacecrafts to L2 but they have no idea how they did it
Heiwa is presented with dozens of papers/articles/books/imagery/testing of how it's done from experts in the field(s) (He, obviously, is not an expert) from around the world, dependent and independent sources, and says, "It's all fake...I know it is because I can look out my window..."
And somehow he doesn't realize the idiocy of his statements. It's a remarkable level of hubris combined with patheticism I can't say I've ever encountered before.
Better to quote me from my website. I do everything in writing under my own name to avoid being misunderstood.
-
Here's what we've learned from Heiwa to date:
- The Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun. Yet somehow the Earth is the center of the universe, a universe that has no end, yet there is "center"
- Plenty of people have sent spacecrafts to L2 but they have no idea how they did it
Heiwa is presented with dozens of papers/articles/books/imagery/testing of how it's done from experts in the field(s) (He, obviously, is not an expert) from around the world, dependent and independent sources, and says, "It's all fake...I know it is because I can look out my window..."
And somehow he doesn't realize the idiocy of his statements. It's a remarkable level of hubris combined with patheticism I can't say I've ever encountered before.
Better to quote me from my website. I do everything in writing under my own name to avoid being misunderstood.
Doesn't matter. There's literally nothing on your website that can even remotely compete with people that actually study, publish, and execute this stuff for a living.
You might as well just delete all of the nonsense you have there and just write, "I know this to be true because I look out my window."
-
Here's what we've learned from Heiwa to date:
- The Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun. Yet somehow the Earth is the center of the universe, a universe that has no end, yet there is "center"
- Plenty of people have sent spacecrafts to L2 but they have no idea how they did it
Heiwa is presented with dozens of papers/articles/books/imagery/testing of how it's done from experts in the field(s) (He, obviously, is not an expert) from around the world, dependent and independent sources, and says, "It's all fake...I know it is because I can look out my window..."
And somehow he doesn't realize the idiocy of his statements. It's a remarkable level of hubris combined with patheticism I can't say I've ever encountered before.
Better to quote me from my website. I do everything in writing under my own name to avoid being misunderstood.
Doesn't matter. There's literally nothing on your website that can even remotely compete with people that actually study, publish, and execute this stuff for a living.
You might as well just delete all of the nonsense you have there and just write, "I know this to be true because I look out my window."
It is just your opinion. i have a popular website where I present my findings. What do you have?
-
I have read some of your popular website (the one daily visitor your site has according to Alexa ranking is most likely me) and it is much the same as here - argument from incredulity sprinkled with just enough 'science' to sound credible to someone with no education in actual science.
-
Here's what we've learned from Heiwa to date:
- The Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun. Yet somehow the Earth is the center of the universe, a universe that has no end, yet there is "center"
- Plenty of people have sent spacecrafts to L2 but they have no idea how they did it
Heiwa is presented with dozens of papers/articles/books/imagery/testing of how it's done from experts in the field(s) (He, obviously, is not an expert) from around the world, dependent and independent sources, and says, "It's all fake...I know it is because I can look out my window..."
And somehow he doesn't realize the idiocy of his statements. It's a remarkable level of hubris combined with patheticism I can't say I've ever encountered before.
Better to quote me from my website. I do everything in writing under my own name to avoid being misunderstood.
Doesn't matter. There's literally nothing on your website that can even remotely compete with people that actually study, publish, and execute this stuff for a living.
You might as well just delete all of the nonsense you have there and just write, "I know this to be true because I look out my window."
It is just your opinion. i have a popular website where I present my findings. What do you have?
Hilarious. My opinion? You're one to talk. Ye of zero evidence and all opinion based upon your "findings" by just looking out your window.
More hilarity...I don't even have a website but it's just as popular than yours...
(https://i.imgur.com/x3ND1qb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Wd13xry.png)
-
Here's what we've learned from Heiwa to date:
- The Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun. Yet somehow the Earth is the center of the universe, a universe that has no end, yet there is "center"
- Plenty of people have sent spacecrafts to L2 but they have no idea how they did it
Heiwa is presented with dozens of papers/articles/books/imagery/testing of how it's done from experts in the field(s) (He, obviously, is not an expert) from around the world, dependent and independent sources, and says, "It's all fake...I know it is because I can look out my window..."
And somehow he doesn't realize the idiocy of his statements. It's a remarkable level of hubris combined with patheticism I can't say I've ever encountered before.
Better to quote me from my website. I do everything in writing under my own name to avoid being misunderstood.
Doesn't matter. There's literally nothing on your website that can even remotely compete with people that actually study, publish, and execute this stuff for a living.
You might as well just delete all of the nonsense you have there and just write, "I know this to be true because I look out my window."
It is just your opinion. i have a popular website where I present my findings. What do you have?
Hilarious. My opinion? You're one to talk. Ye of zero evidence and all opinion based upon your "findings" by just looking out your window.
More hilarity...I don't even have a website but it's just as popular than yours...
(https://i.imgur.com/x3ND1qb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Wd13xry.png)
Topic is the JWST and its trip in space to L2. I just show that it is a hoax using simple logic, i.e. that the experts (LOL) behind it cannot show how the JWST found the moving L2 spot in space. We all know that it is suggested that the L2 spot (A) orbits the Sun at one altitude/distance/direction/velocity and (B) orbits Earth at another altitude/distance/direction/velocity but (C) that an object cannot orbit two objects at the same time. Reason is that L2 is not an object.
-
We all know that it is suggested that the L2 spot (A) orbits the Sun at one altitude/distance/direction/velocity and (B) orbits Earth at another altitude/distance/direction/velocity but (C) that an object cannot orbit two objects at the same time. Reason is that L2 is not an object.
“An object cannot orbit two objects at the same time.”
Moon orbit Earth.
Moon orbits Sun.
Heiwa has stopped even trying.
-
We all know that it is suggested that the L2 spot (A) orbits the Sun at one altitude/distance/direction/velocity and (B) orbits Earth at another altitude/distance/direction/velocity but (C) that an object cannot orbit two objects at the same time. Reason is that L2 is not an object.
“An object cannot orbit two objects at the same time.”
Moon orbit Earth.
Moon orbits Sun.
Heiwa has stopped even trying.
The Moon does not orbit the Sun. Only planets orbit the Sun. I know that NASA says that the Moon orbits the Sun, but NASA says so because it is taught by schools and universities in the USA. And today the JWST orbits not only the Sun and the Earth but also L2. ROTFL.
-
Only planets orbit the Sun.
Interesting, earth is a planet. You’re saying it orbits the sun but at the same time is the center of a universe that has no end, no center.
You’re slipping.
I know that NASA says that the Moon orbits the Sun, but NASA says so because it is taught by schools and universities in the USA.
Only NASA says this? Only schools in the US teach such things? You need to get out more.
Ask the nurses if they can wheel you away from your window and take you outside, maybe to a local university and see what they have to say.
And today the JWST orbits not only the Sun and the Earth but also L2.
Yes, you’re right. I knew you would come around and snap out of your narcissistic delusions.
-
Only planets orbit the Sun.
What about asteroids and comets? Dont they orbit the sun too?
Also, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is orbiting the moon which is orbiting the Earth which is orbiting the Sun which is orbiting Sagittarius A* which itself is moving towards 'The Great Attractor'
-
Only planets orbit the Sun.
What about asteroids and comets? Dont they orbit the sun too?
Also, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is orbiting the moon which is orbiting the Earth which is orbiting the Sun which is orbiting Sagittarius A* which itself is moving towards 'The Great Attractor'
You are right. But the JWST doesn't orbit anything. It doesn't even fly in space and is just a hoax on Earth with plenty participants. People just see a rocket taking off and think that it 200 days later lands on planet Mars because they are told so, etc, etc.
-
You are right. But the JWST doesn't orbit anything. It doesn't even fly in space and is just a hoax on Earth with plenty participants. People just see a rocket taking off and think that it 200 days later lands on planet Mars because they are told so, etc, etc.
As I said before, this is why it's impossible to have a productive discussion with you. You keep asking for explanations for things that you either don't understand or will simply dismiss as fake. Why should anyone bother explaining anything to you?
-
You are right. But the JWST doesn't orbit anything. It doesn't even fly in space and is just a hoax on Earth with plenty participants. People just see a rocket taking off and think that it 200 days later lands on planet Mars because they are told so, etc, etc.
As I said before, this is why it's impossible to have a productive discussion with you. You keep asking for explanations for things that you either don't understand or will simply dismiss as fake. Why should anyone bother explaining anything to you?
And I just point out that ESA/NASA says that JWST starts orbiting Earth and arrives at L2 to watch the end of the Universe, when and where it starts to orbit the Sun! It is not possible as one object (JWST) cannot orbit two other objects at the same time. It is like (not) going to the Moon starting orbiting Earth and then changing orbit to orbit the Moon and then stop. My conclusion is that JWST is a hoax (like Apollo and many other NASA space trips).
-
Why do you say the end of the universe? They want to see what the universe looked like at the beginning
-
And I just point out that ESA/NASA says that JWST starts orbiting Earth and arrives at L2 to watch the end of the Universe, when and where it starts to orbit the Sun!
Everything in our solar system orbits the sun. Even your giant ego.
Lagrange point is just the area where the suns gravitational field and earths gravitational field are the same resulting in close to net zero acceleration.
Not that explaining simple concepts to simple minds will change any thoughts you have.
-
MaNaeSWolf is back! How's it going. You predicated 2022 would be the end of this forum. I think Hewia will be spamming his BS for as long as he's alive. Hmmm. 2022 might be it then :(
-
And I just point out that ESA/NASA says that JWST starts orbiting Earth and arrives at L2 to watch the end of the Universe, when and where it starts to orbit the Sun!
Everything in our solar system orbits the sun. Even your giant ego.
Lagrange point is just the area where the suns gravitational field and earths gravitational field are the same resulting in close to net zero acceleration.
Not that explaining simple concepts to simple minds will change any thoughts you have.
According to the heliocentric theory everything in our solar system orbits the Sun. According to the geocentric theory everything orbits Earth, which is the center of the Universe. I like the geocentric Universe that I can watch from the windows of my penthouse.
Lagrange Point L2 is a location in space where the gravitational forces of the Sun and Earth produce enhanced attraction, i.e. the Sun attracts Earth and together they attract an orbiting object X at L2 with a great combined force. X orbiting Earth will not drop back on Earth at L2 as it is also moving around the Sun. Of course no object can stop at L2. I can watch L2 at midnight. L2 is moving all the time and nothing can stop there.
-
Of course no object can stop at L2.
Please indicate where in this thread anyone has claimed that the JWST will stop at L2. Better still, where a NASA/ESA documents states that.
-
Of course no object can stop at L2.
Please indicate where in this thread anyone has claimed that the JWST will stop at L2. Better still, where a NASA/ESA documents states that.
Better you ask ESA/NASA. They just told me JWST has arrived at L2 and started to orbit L2 at once and is now orbiting L2, i.e. not stopped at all anywhere. L2 is moving around in space but it is just a point of nothing.
-
Of course no object can stop at L2.
Please indicate where in this thread anyone has claimed that the JWST will stop at L2. Better still, where a NASA/ESA documents states that.
Better you ask ESA/NASA. They just told me JWST has arrived at L2 and started to orbit L2 at once and is now orbiting L2, i.e. not stopped at all anywhere. L2 is moving around in space but it is just a point of nothing.
You have been arguing the impossibility of JWST stopping at L2 and hence JWST being fake.
Seriously, do you enjoy taking a contrary opinion just to rile people? I see neither rhyme nor reason to you arguments.
-
Of course no object can stop at L2.
Please indicate where in this thread anyone has claimed that the JWST will stop at L2. Better still, where a NASA/ESA documents states that.
Better you ask ESA/NASA. They just told me JWST has arrived at L2 and started to orbit L2 at once and is now orbiting L2, i.e. not stopped at all anywhere. L2 is moving around in space but it is just a point of nothing.
You have been arguing the impossibility of JWST stopping at L2 and hence JWST being fake.
Seriously, do you enjoy taking a contrary opinion just to rile people? I see neither rhyme nor reason to you arguments.
You are right that I do not believe in the JWST at L2 and I have given my reasons for it. And nobody has shown I am wrong. Pls try yourself. Can really an object in space orbit two (or three?) different bodies at the same time?
-
You are right that I do not believe in the JWST at L2 and I have given my reasons for it. And nobody has shown I am wrong. Pls try yourself. Can really an object in space orbit two (or three?) different bodies at the same time?
As I look out my window, I can see the waxing crescent Moon approximately 15o above my horizon. It orbits the Earth, and as the Earth orbits the Sun, it orbits both the Earth and the Sun
If you would prefer an example of one body orbiting two, may I present to you Kepler-47c, a p-type circumbinary exoplanet orbiting two stars, Kepler-47A - a G type main sequence star, and Kepler-47B - a red dwarf star.
But then you can't see that from your window, so I guess I'm bullshitting.
May I present to you instead .... the Earth.
The Earth is orbiting the common centre of mass of the Sun, Mercury and Venus.
-
It is basic astro-dynamics!
I'm saving this one for my collection.
-
It's 'astro-dynamics' for the win!
-
You are right that I do not believe in the JWST at L2 and I have given my reasons for it. And nobody has shown I am wrong. Pls try yourself. Can really an object in space orbit two (or three?) different bodies at the same time?
As I look out my window, I can see the waxing crescent Moon approximately 15o above my horizon. It orbits the Earth, and as the Earth orbits the Sun, it orbits both the Earth and the Sun
No, the Moon only orbits Earth and Earth only orbits the Sun (or vice versa), so the Moon does not orbit the Sun at all.
It is simple - the Moon can only orbit one other celestial body, in this case Earth. The Moon cannot possibly orbit another object, e.g, the Sun.
Same with the JWST. We all agree, it orbits Earth and that this orbit of the JWST pass the L2 point at a certain time. The JWST cannot stop at the L2 point, as it must continue in its orbit around Earth.
The Moon is same! It cannot stop in its orbit of Earth. The Moon must carry on in the orbit around Earth. Have you ever seen the Moon stop in orbit?
Same for JWST. When it orbits Earth, it cannot suddenly stop at L2 and start orbiting the Sun. No, it must continue orbiting Earth after passing the L2 point.
Try yourself. Throw a stone from your window. It will then orbit Earth for a short time until it crashes on Earth again. There is no way that the stone can stop in its orbit.
-
You are right that I do not believe in the JWST at L2 and I have given my reasons for it. And nobody has shown I am wrong. Pls try yourself. Can really an object in space orbit two (or three?) different bodies at the same time?
As I look out my window, I can see the waxing crescent Moon approximately 15o above my horizon. It orbits the Earth, and as the Earth orbits the Sun, it orbits both the Earth and the Sun
No, the Moon only orbits Earth and Earth only orbits the Sun (or vice versa), so the Moon does not orbit the Sun at all.
It is simple - the Moon can only orbit one other celestial body, in this case Earth. The Moon cannot possibly orbit another object, e.g, the Sun.
Same with the JWST. We all agree, it orbits Earth and that this orbit of the JWST pass the L2 point at a certain time. The JWST cannot stop at the L2 point, as it must continue in its orbit around Earth.
The Moon is same! It cannot stop in its orbit of Earth. The Moon must carry on in the orbit around Earth. Have you ever seen the Moon stop in orbit?
Same for JWST. When it orbits Earth, it cannot suddenly stop at L2 and start orbiting the Sun. No, it must continue orbiting Earth after passing the L2 point.
Try yourself. Throw a stone from your window. It will then orbit Earth for a short time until it crashes on Earth again. There is no way that the stone can stop in its orbit.
Show us your math. I'm afraid throwing a rock from your window just doesn't cut it.
-
and Earth only orbits the Sun (or vice versa),
Do you even know what vice versa means?
-
We all agree, it orbits Earth
Only you are saying that. The JWST orbits the Sun.
The JWST cannot stop at the L2 point, as it must continue in its orbit around Earth.
The Moon is same! It cannot stop in its orbit of Earth. The Moon must carry on in the orbit around Earth. Have you ever seen the Moon stop in orbit?
Same for JWST. When it orbits Earth, it cannot suddenly stop at L2 and start orbiting the Sun. No, it must continue orbiting Earth after passing the L2 point.
Again, where has anybody said JWST stops at L2, other than yourself?
You pull things out your ass, and argue against them. I would call it a straw man argument, but is more like a limp hay man argument.
-
We all agree, it orbits Earth
Only you are saying that. The JWST orbits the Sun.
The JWST cannot stop at the L2 point, as it must continue in its orbit around Earth.
The Moon is same! It cannot stop in its orbit of Earth. The Moon must carry on in the orbit around Earth. Have you ever seen the Moon stop in orbit?
Same for JWST. When it orbits Earth, it cannot suddenly stop at L2 and start orbiting the Sun. No, it must continue orbiting Earth after passing the L2 point.
Again, where has anybody said JWST stops at L2, other than yourself?
You pull things out your ass, and argue against them. I would call it a straw man argument, but is more like a limp hay man argument.
If you squint enough while thinking about it, the JWST sort of orbits the Earth once per year I guess?
-
If you squint enough while thinking about it, the JWST sort of orbits the Earth once per year I guess?
And get wrinkles? Not likely!
You are, of course, correct though.
-
You are right that I do not believe in the JWST at L2 and I have given my reasons for it. And nobody has shown I am wrong. Pls try yourself. Can really an object in space orbit two (or three?) different bodies at the same time?
As I look out my window, I can see the waxing crescent Moon approximately 15o above my horizon. It orbits the Earth, and as the Earth orbits the Sun, it orbits both the Earth and the Sun
No, the Moon only orbits Earth and Earth only orbits the Sun (or vice versa), so the Moon does not orbit the Sun at all.
It is simple - the Moon can only orbit one other celestial body, in this case Earth. The Moon cannot possibly orbit another object, e.g, the Sun.
Same with the JWST. We all agree, it orbits Earth and that this orbit of the JWST pass the L2 point at a certain time. The JWST cannot stop at the L2 point, as it must continue in its orbit around Earth.
The Moon is same! It cannot stop in its orbit of Earth. The Moon must carry on in the orbit around Earth. Have you ever seen the Moon stop in orbit?
Same for JWST. When it orbits Earth, it cannot suddenly stop at L2 and start orbiting the Sun. No, it must continue orbiting Earth after passing the L2 point.
Try yourself. Throw a stone from your window. It will then orbit Earth for a short time until it crashes on Earth again. There is no way that the stone can stop in its orbit.
It mite be better said that the Earth and Moon, form a pair, that orbits the sun.
-
You are right that I do not believe in the JWST at L2 and I have given my reasons for it. And nobody has shown I am wrong. Pls try yourself. Can really an object in space orbit two (or three?) different bodies at the same time?
As I look out my window, I can see the waxing crescent Moon approximately 15o above my horizon. It orbits the Earth, and as the Earth orbits the Sun, it orbits both the Earth and the Sun
No, the Moon only orbits Earth and Earth only orbits the Sun (or vice versa), so the Moon does not orbit the Sun at all.
It is simple - the Moon can only orbit one other celestial body, in this case Earth. The Moon cannot possibly orbit another object, e.g, the Sun.
Same with the JWST. We all agree, it orbits Earth and that this orbit of the JWST pass the L2 point at a certain time. The JWST cannot stop at the L2 point, as it must continue in its orbit around Earth.
The Moon is same! It cannot stop in its orbit of Earth. The Moon must carry on in the orbit around Earth. Have you ever seen the Moon stop in orbit?
Same for JWST. When it orbits Earth, it cannot suddenly stop at L2 and start orbiting the Sun. No, it must continue orbiting Earth after passing the L2 point.
Try yourself. Throw a stone from your window. It will then orbit Earth for a short time until it crashes on Earth again. There is no way that the stone can stop in its orbit.
Show us your math. I'm afraid throwing a rock from your window just doesn't cut it.
ESA/NASA says that by launching a rocket JWST arrives after a month at L2 and starts orbiting L2. We have seen a rocket taking off ... and that's all. No math shown! And now ESA/NASA has announced JWST is orbiting L2.
I agree that a rocket taking off from Earth orbits only Earth all the time. That rocket cannot start orbiting something else. It will always orbit Earth or, if it stops in its orbit, it will drop back on Earth. I can see that from my window.
I am sorry that ESA/NASA hasn't shown the math of the JWST space trip.
-
ESA/NASA says that by launching a rocket JWST arrives after a month at L2 and starts orbiting L2. We have seen a rocket taking off ... and that's all. No math shown! And now ESA/NASA has announced JWST is orbiting L2.
I agree that a rocket taking off from Earth orbits only Earth all the time. That rocket cannot start orbiting something else. It will always orbit Earth or, if it stops in its orbit, it will drop back on Earth. I can see that from my window.
I am sorry that ESA/NASA hasn't shown the math of the JWST space trip.
Show us your math. I'm afraid throwing a rock from your window just doesn't cut it.
-
ESA/NASA says that by launching a rocket JWST arrives after a month at L2 and starts orbiting L2. We have seen a rocket taking off ... and that's all. No math shown! And now ESA/NASA has announced JWST is orbiting L2.
I agree that a rocket taking off from Earth orbits only Earth all the time. That rocket cannot start orbiting something else. It will always orbit Earth or, if it stops in its orbit, it will drop back on Earth. I can see that from my window.
I am sorry that ESA/NASA hasn't shown the math of the JWST space trip.
Please provide one instance of a group, organization, institution, company, corporation, or agency that in their general communication with the public “shows the math” in a manner similar to your request. Do airlines “show the math” of airplane navigation? Do utility companies “show the math” of power grid distribution and allocation? Do cell phone carriers “show the math” of a phone call?
That you don’t know where to look for and find information doesn’t mean it does not exist. And that you choose to take simplified public information statements as rigorously accurate descriptions to be used in calculations (or in your case to “gotcha” NASA for being inconsistent) only shows that you don’t know the difference between a press release and an orbital insertion computation.
BTW, here’s a small taste of the published information that has been being worked on for 20 years in regards to “showing the math” and references to other aspects of the total orbit solution.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140008865/downloads/20140008865.pdf
Heiwa is shown to be a bloviating fool and laughable troll yet again.
-
ESA/NASA says that by launching a rocket JWST arrives after a month at L2 and starts orbiting L2. We have seen a rocket taking off ... and that's all. No math shown! And now ESA/NASA has announced JWST is orbiting L2.
I agree that a rocket taking off from Earth orbits only Earth all the time. That rocket cannot start orbiting something else. It will always orbit Earth or, if it stops in its orbit, it will drop back on Earth. I can see that from my window.
I am sorry that ESA/NASA hasn't shown the math of the JWST space trip.
BTW, here’s a small taste of the published information that has been being worked on for 20 years in regards to “showing the math” and references to other aspects of the total orbit solution.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140008865/downloads/20140008865.pdf
Heiwa is shown to be a bloviating fool and laughable troll yet again.
I have studied the ESA/NASA info about the alleged orbit around Earth that brings JWST from Earth to L2. Of course only Earth and L2 orbit the Sun. It is then the JWST that orbits the Earth, while the altitude above Earth is increased, so it can reach L2. L2 is just a moving point in space, where the gravity of Earth and Sun add up.
The velocity and its direction of the JWST in its elliptical orbit around Earth (and away from the Sun) approaching L2 can be calculated. The velocity is in fact being reduced from the escape velocity leaving Earth to the arrival velocity at L2 due to Earth and Sun gravity, while the direction is always away from the Sun and Earth towards moving L2.
Evidently JWSR cannot slow down and stop at L2. Only the JWST velocity away from the Sun relative Earth must come to zero at L2, while the JWST velocity/direction at L2 must be the same as the velocity/direction of L2 in its orbit around the Sun.
In way JWST must "dock" with L2, like the asstronuts do after taking taking off from Earth to dock with the famous ESA/NASA/Russian Fake/unmanned space station/balloon orbiting Earth in LEO since many years. All these dockings have been fake from the beginning.
So the JWST must slow down and change direction to "stop" at L2. Which is not possible. L2 has no mass and will not attract JWST. And JWST has no engines and fuel to change course and speed in its orbit around Earth. You cannot jump from one orbit around Earth to another orbit around the Sun.
To repeat - L2 is a point with no mass that always orbits the Sun. JWST is a spacecraft that orbits Earth. To change that orbit around Earth to an orbit around the Sun is simply not possible. Thus the JWST is a hoax.
-
I like the geocentric Universe that I can watch from the windows of my penthouse.
Sounds like more of an egocentric view of the universe.
-
I like the geocentric Universe that I can watch from the windows of my penthouse.
Sounds like more of an egocentric view of the universe.
Sorry to hear you have no windows in your house.
-
ESA/NASA says that by launching a rocket JWST arrives after a month at L2 and starts orbiting L2. We have seen a rocket taking off ... and that's all. No math shown! And now ESA/NASA has announced JWST is orbiting L2.
I agree that a rocket taking off from Earth orbits only Earth all the time. That rocket cannot start orbiting something else. It will always orbit Earth or, if it stops in its orbit, it will drop back on Earth. I can see that from my window.
I am sorry that ESA/NASA hasn't shown the math of the JWST space trip.
BTW, here’s a small taste of the published information that has been being worked on for 20 years in regards to “showing the math” and references to other aspects of the total orbit solution.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140008865/downloads/20140008865.pdf
Heiwa is shown to be a bloviating fool and laughable troll yet again.
I have studied the ESA/NASA info about the alleged orbit around Earth that brings JWST from Earth to L2. Of course only Earth and L2 orbit the Sun. It is then the JWST that orbits the Earth, while the altitude above Earth is increased, so it can reach L2. L2 is just a moving point in space, where the gravity of Earth and Sun add up.
The velocity and its direction of the JWST in its elliptical orbit around Earth (and away from the Sun) approaching L2 can be calculated. The velocity is in fact being reduced from the escape velocity leaving Earth to the arrival velocity at L2 due to Earth and Sun gravity, while the direction is always away from the Sun and Earth towards moving L2.
Evidently JWSR cannot slow down and stop at L2. Only the JWST velocity away from the Sun relative Earth must come to zero at L2, while the JWST velocity/direction at L2 must be the same as the velocity/direction of L2 in its orbit around the Sun.
In way JWST must "dock" with L2, like the asstronuts do after taking taking off from Earth to dock with the famous ESA/NASA/Russian Fake/unmanned space station/balloon orbiting Earth in LEO since many years. All these dockings have been fake from the beginning.
So the JWST must slow down and change direction to "stop" at L2. Which is not possible. L2 has no mass and will not attract JWST. And JWST has no engines and fuel to change course and speed in its orbit around Earth. You cannot jump from one orbit around Earth to another orbit around the Sun.
To repeat - L2 is a point with no mass that always orbits the Sun. JWST is a spacecraft that orbits Earth. To change that orbit around Earth to an orbit around the Sun is simply not possible. Thus the JWST is a hoax.
Show the math.
-
ESA/NASA says that by launching a rocket JWST arrives after a month at L2 and starts orbiting L2. We have seen a rocket taking off ... and that's all. No math shown! And now ESA/NASA has announced JWST is orbiting L2.
I agree that a rocket taking off from Earth orbits only Earth all the time. That rocket cannot start orbiting something else. It will always orbit Earth or, if it stops in its orbit, it will drop back on Earth. I can see that from my window.
I am sorry that ESA/NASA hasn't shown the math of the JWST space trip.
BTW, here’s a small taste of the published information that has been being worked on for 20 years in regards to “showing the math” and references to other aspects of the total orbit solution.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140008865/downloads/20140008865.pdf
Heiwa is shown to be a bloviating fool and laughable troll yet again.
I have studied the ESA/NASA info about the alleged orbit around Earth that brings JWST from Earth to L2. Of course only Earth and L2 orbit the Sun. It is then the JWST that orbits the Earth, while the altitude above Earth is increased, so it can reach L2. L2 is just a moving point in space, where the gravity of Earth and Sun add up.
The velocity and its direction of the JWST in its elliptical orbit around Earth (and away from the Sun) approaching L2 can be calculated. The velocity is in fact being reduced from the escape velocity leaving Earth to the arrival velocity at L2 due to Earth and Sun gravity, while the direction is always away from the Sun and Earth towards moving L2.
Evidently JWSR cannot slow down and stop at L2. Only the JWST velocity away from the Sun relative Earth must come to zero at L2, while the JWST velocity/direction at L2 must be the same as the velocity/direction of L2 in its orbit around the Sun.
In way JWST must "dock" with L2, like the asstronuts do after taking taking off from Earth to dock with the famous ESA/NASA/Russian Fake/unmanned space station/balloon orbiting Earth in LEO since many years. All these dockings have been fake from the beginning.
So the JWST must slow down and change direction to "stop" at L2. Which is not possible. L2 has no mass and will not attract JWST. And JWST has no engines and fuel to change course and speed in its orbit around Earth. You cannot jump from one orbit around Earth to another orbit around the Sun.
To repeat - L2 is a point with no mass that always orbits the Sun. JWST is a spacecraft that orbits Earth. To change that orbit around Earth to an orbit around the Sun is simply not possible. Thus the JWST is a hoax.
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
Show the math.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
That’s not math. You’re the one who is making the claims that are contrary to established orbital mechanics and insisting that showing the math is the way of determining legitimacy. So, show the math.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
Also, see above. Make up your mind. Is it easy? Is it not easy?
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
Also, see above. Make up your mind. Is it easy? Is it not easy?
It is not easy. But just ask the clowns at NASA or ESA to explain to you how space travel works. And report back. Don't blaim me that they cannot explain anything.
-
ESA/NASA says that by launching a rocket JWST arrives after a month at L2 and starts orbiting L2. We have seen a rocket taking off ... and that's all. No math shown! And now ESA/NASA has announced JWST is orbiting L2.
I agree that a rocket taking off from Earth orbits only Earth all the time. That rocket cannot start orbiting something else. It will always orbit Earth or, if it stops in its orbit, it will drop back on Earth. I can see that from my window.
I am sorry that ESA/NASA hasn't shown the math of the JWST space trip.
BTW, here’s a small taste of the published information that has been being worked on for 20 years in regards to “showing the math” and references to other aspects of the total orbit solution.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140008865/downloads/20140008865.pdf
Heiwa is shown to be a bloviating fool and laughable troll yet again.
I have studied the ESA/NASA info about the alleged orbit around Earth that brings JWST from Earth to L2. Of course only Earth and L2 orbit the Sun. It is then the JWST that orbits the Earth, while the altitude above Earth is increased, so it can reach L2. L2 is just a moving point in space, where the gravity of Earth and Sun add up.
The velocity and its direction of the JWST in its elliptical orbit around Earth (and away from the Sun) approaching L2 can be calculated. The velocity is in fact being reduced from the escape velocity leaving Earth to the arrival velocity at L2 due to Earth and Sun gravity, while the direction is always away from the Sun and Earth towards moving L2.
Evidently JWSR cannot slow down and stop at L2. Only the JWST velocity away from the Sun relative Earth must come to zero at L2, while the JWST velocity/direction at L2 must be the same as the velocity/direction of L2 in its orbit around the Sun.
In way JWST must "dock" with L2, like the asstronuts do after taking taking off from Earth to dock with the famous ESA/NASA/Russian Fake/unmanned space station/balloon orbiting Earth in LEO since many years. All these dockings have been fake from the beginning.
So the JWST must slow down and change direction to "stop" at L2. Which is not possible. L2 has no mass and will not attract JWST. And JWST has no engines and fuel to change course and speed in its orbit around Earth. You cannot jump from one orbit around Earth to another orbit around the Sun.
To repeat - L2 is a point with no mass that always orbits the Sun. JWST is a spacecraft that orbits Earth. To change that orbit around Earth to an orbit around the Sun is simply not possible. Thus the JWST is a hoax.
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
translation: I don't understand the math and because I don't understand it then it must be fake.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
This post here perfectly shows that you have NEVER bothered to study orbital mechanics and don't understand any of the concepts. But everyone here already knew that.
More LIES from Heiwa.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
This post here perfectly shows that you have NEVER bothered to study orbital mechanics and don't understand any of the concepts. But everyone here already knew that.
More LIES from Heiwa.
I have studied orbits >65 years, when I sent my first rocket into the air of the sky. My rocket took off at high speed and disappeared into a nearby lake after a short orbit. The fuel was a mixture of zinc and sulfure powder.
I can assure you that no object in an orbit can suddenly stop or change course or enter another orbit. You are an idiot.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
This post here perfectly shows that you have NEVER bothered to study orbital mechanics and don't understand any of the concepts. But everyone here already knew that.
More LIES from Heiwa.
I have studied orbits >65 years, when I sent my first rocket into the air of the sky. My rocket took off at high speed and disappeared into a nearby lake after a short orbit. The fuel was a mixture of zinc and sulfure powder.
I can assure you that no object in an orbit can suddenly stop or change course or enter another orbit. You are an idiot.
More LIES from Heiwa. And flinging insults when cornered as usual.
You have NOT studied orbits at all. If you had then you would not make absurd statements like "So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you". Nobody that understands orbits would EVER state that you "suddenly stop". That shows you have no clue how orbits work. All you've proven is your ignorance.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
This post here perfectly shows that you have NEVER bothered to study orbital mechanics and don't understand any of the concepts. But everyone here already knew that.
More LIES from Heiwa.
I have studied orbits >65 years, when I sent my first rocket into the air of the sky. My rocket took off at high speed and disappeared into a nearby lake after a short orbit. The fuel was a mixture of zinc and sulfure powder.
I can assure you that no object in an orbit can suddenly stop or change course or enter another orbit. You are an idiot.
More LIES from Heiwa. And flinging insults when cornered as usual.
You have NOT studied orbits at all. If you had then you would not make absurd statements like "So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you". Nobody that understands orbits would EVER state that you "suddenly stop". That shows you have no clue how orbits work. All you've proven is your ignorance.
Me ignorante???
It is ESA/NASA stating that their JWST rocket departed Earth straight away towards L2 and then a month later arrived at L2 starting orbiting L2 to watch the end of the Universe. L2 is between Earth and L2 with the Sun in the back. When flying to L2 from Earth the Sun is always behind you and you have to fly straight from the Sun!!! If JWST is in the right plane. JWST could also fly to Mars (200 days) or Venus (100 days) to watch the Universe from there but it was only 30 days to L2, but then you are out of plane? You have to be in the right plane going to L2. If not you may end up at Mars or Venus ... or nowhere. The Universe is big.
-
I love how you can actually tell when Heiwa has been googling immediately before posting
-
I love how you can actually tell when Heiwa has been googling immediately before posting
You don't have to google to be told that NASA is the greatest agency in the USA after the central one. Both are experts of fake space and intelligence. The Potus believes anything they invent.
-
Me ignorante???
Is that really a question?
Show the math. It's your claim. Show us what's wrong about this:
The location of L2 is the solution to the following equation, gravitation providing the centripetal force:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/32194e50b01461616bcc9c32145ec9fb8cddec4c)
with parameters defined as for the L1 case. Again, if the mass of the smaller object (M2) is much smaller than the mass of the larger object (M1) then L2 is at approximately the radius of the Hill sphere, given by:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/1175643479ba922598c78a6d4dfcf7fff160bfe7)
The same remarks about tidal influence and apparent size apply as for the L1 point. For example, the angular radius of the sun as viewed from L2 is arcsin(695.5×103/151.1×106) ≈ 0.264°, whereas that of the earth is arcsin(6371/1.5×106) ≈ 0.242°.
If the mass of the smaller body (e.g. the Earth) is m, and it orbits a heavier body (e.g. the Sun) of mass M with a semi-major axis a and an eccentricity of e, then the radius rH of the Hill sphere of the smaller body, calculated at the pericenter, is approximately[2]
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/a1a54895a2b9418dd7cf0401fa6c8e791df28ceb)
When eccentricity is negligible (the most favourable case for orbital stability), this becomes
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/4532f0ae55e77a1912c0de011353465277aefa33)
In the Earth-Sun example, the Earth (5.97×1024 kg) orbits the Sun (1.99×1030 kg) at a distance of 149.6 million km, or one astronomical unit (AU). The Hill sphere for Earth thus extends out to about 1.5 million km (0.01 AU). The Moon's orbit, at a distance of 0.384 million km from Earth, is comfortably within the gravitational sphere of influence of Earth and it is therefore not at risk of being pulled into an independent orbit around the Sun. All stable satellites of the Earth (those within the Earth's Hill sphere) must have an orbital period shorter than seven months.
The previous (eccentricity-ignoring) formula can be re-stated as follows:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f8ee09782e8a2c5754c184b924bf606681ab9475)
This expresses the relation in terms of the volume of the Hill sphere compared with the volume of the second body's orbit around the first; specifically, the ratio of the masses is three times the ratio of the volume of these two spheres.
Now show us your math - Back up your claims.
-
Me ignorante???
Is that really a question?
Show the math. It's your claim. Show us what's wrong about this:
The location of L2 is the solution to the following equation, gravitation providing the centripetal force:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/32194e50b01461616bcc9c32145ec9fb8cddec4c)
with parameters defined as for the L1 case. Again, if the mass of the smaller object (M2) is much smaller than the mass of the larger object (M1) then L2 is at approximately the radius of the Hill sphere, given by:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/1175643479ba922598c78a6d4dfcf7fff160bfe7)
The same remarks about tidal influence and apparent size apply as for the L1 point. For example, the angular radius of the sun as viewed from L2 is arcsin(695.5×103/151.1×106) ≈ 0.264°, whereas that of the earth is arcsin(6371/1.5×106) ≈ 0.242°.
If the mass of the smaller body (e.g. the Earth) is m, and it orbits a heavier body (e.g. the Sun) of mass M with a semi-major axis a and an eccentricity of e, then the radius rH of the Hill sphere of the smaller body, calculated at the pericenter, is approximately[2]
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/a1a54895a2b9418dd7cf0401fa6c8e791df28ceb)
When eccentricity is negligible (the most favourable case for orbital stability), this becomes
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/4532f0ae55e77a1912c0de011353465277aefa33)
In the Earth-Sun example, the Earth (5.97×1024 kg) orbits the Sun (1.99×1030 kg) at a distance of 149.6 million km, or one astronomical unit (AU). The Hill sphere for Earth thus extends out to about 1.5 million km (0.01 AU). The Moon's orbit, at a distance of 0.384 million km from Earth, is comfortably within the gravitational sphere of influence of Earth and it is therefore not at risk of being pulled into an independent orbit around the Sun. All stable satellites of the Earth (those within the Earth's Hill sphere) must have an orbital period shorter than seven months.
The previous (eccentricity-ignoring) formula can be re-stated as follows:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f8ee09782e8a2c5754c184b924bf606681ab9475)
This expresses the relation in terms of the volume of the Hill sphere compared with the volume of the second body's orbit around the first; specifically, the ratio of the masses is three times the ratio of the volume of these two spheres.
Now show us your math - Back up your claims.
No, you have to include the mass of the JWST in your calculations to reach L2 and then there is the JWST problem to leave the Earth orbit at L2 starting to orbit the Sun ... when it has to dock with L2. NASA forgot it. But do not worry! US troops have just landed in Poland to prevent the 3rd world war. Are you military?
-
Me ignorante???
Is that really a question?
Show the math. It's your claim. Show us what's wrong about this:
The location of L2 is the solution to the following equation, gravitation providing the centripetal force:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/32194e50b01461616bcc9c32145ec9fb8cddec4c)
with parameters defined as for the L1 case. Again, if the mass of the smaller object (M2) is much smaller than the mass of the larger object (M1) then L2 is at approximately the radius of the Hill sphere, given by:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/1175643479ba922598c78a6d4dfcf7fff160bfe7)
The same remarks about tidal influence and apparent size apply as for the L1 point. For example, the angular radius of the sun as viewed from L2 is arcsin(695.5×103/151.1×106) ≈ 0.264°, whereas that of the earth is arcsin(6371/1.5×106) ≈ 0.242°.
If the mass of the smaller body (e.g. the Earth) is m, and it orbits a heavier body (e.g. the Sun) of mass M with a semi-major axis a and an eccentricity of e, then the radius rH of the Hill sphere of the smaller body, calculated at the pericenter, is approximately[2]
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/a1a54895a2b9418dd7cf0401fa6c8e791df28ceb)
When eccentricity is negligible (the most favourable case for orbital stability), this becomes
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/4532f0ae55e77a1912c0de011353465277aefa33)
In the Earth-Sun example, the Earth (5.97×1024 kg) orbits the Sun (1.99×1030 kg) at a distance of 149.6 million km, or one astronomical unit (AU). The Hill sphere for Earth thus extends out to about 1.5 million km (0.01 AU). The Moon's orbit, at a distance of 0.384 million km from Earth, is comfortably within the gravitational sphere of influence of Earth and it is therefore not at risk of being pulled into an independent orbit around the Sun. All stable satellites of the Earth (those within the Earth's Hill sphere) must have an orbital period shorter than seven months.
The previous (eccentricity-ignoring) formula can be re-stated as follows:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f8ee09782e8a2c5754c184b924bf606681ab9475)
This expresses the relation in terms of the volume of the Hill sphere compared with the volume of the second body's orbit around the first; specifically, the ratio of the masses is three times the ratio of the volume of these two spheres.
Now show us your math - Back up your claims.
No, you have to include the mass of the JWST in your calculations to reach L2 and then there is the JWST problem to leave the Earth orbit at L2 starting to orbit the Sun ... when it has to dock with L2. NASA forgot it. But do not worry! US troops have just landed in Poland to prevent the 3rd world war. Are you military?
Show us the math.
-
Me ignorante???
Yes. And you prove it every time you try to act like you know anything about orbital mechanics.
It is ESA/NASA stating that their JWST rocket departed Earth straight away towards L2 and then a month later arrived at L2 starting orbiting L2 to watch the end of the Universe.
More LIES from Heiwa. I guarantee they NEVER said they go STRAIGHT towards L2
L2 is between Earth and L2 with the Sun in the back. When flying to L2 from Earth the Sun is always behind you and you have to fly straight from the Sun!!!
And AGAIN you show your ignorance of orbital mechanics. Plus your phrase of "L2 is between Earth and L2" is just gibberish.
-
I love how you can actually tell when Heiwa has been googling immediately before posting
And he still gets stuff wrong.
-
I like the geocentric Universe that I can watch from the windows of my penthouse.
Sounds like more of an egocentric view of the universe.
Sorry to hear you have no windows in your house.
Light pollution found in big cities makes meaningful astronomy from home windows pretty much impossible.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
This post here perfectly shows that you have NEVER bothered to study orbital mechanics and don't understand any of the concepts. But everyone here already knew that.
More LIES from Heiwa.
I have studied orbits >65 years, when I sent my first rocket into the air of the sky. My rocket took off at high speed and disappeared into a nearby lake after a short orbit. The fuel was a mixture of zinc and sulfure powder.
I can assure you that no object in an orbit can suddenly stop or change course or enter another orbit. You are an idiot.
Ah. This must some strange new usage of the word “study” of which I was previously unaware.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
This post here perfectly shows that you have NEVER bothered to study orbital mechanics and don't understand any of the concepts. But everyone here already knew that.
More LIES from Heiwa.
I have studied orbits >65 years, when I sent my first rocket into the air of the sky. My rocket took off at high speed and disappeared into a nearby lake after a short orbit. The fuel was a mixture of zinc and sulfure powder.
I can assure you that no object in an orbit can suddenly stop or change course or enter another orbit. You are an idiot.
Ah. This must some strange new usage of the word “study” of which I was previously unaware.
You know what I mean. To do calculations of orbits between the Sun and Earth/Moon and L2you have to know the masses of the Sun and the Earth and the Moon, which you don't. That the mass of L2 is zero is certain. Anyway, I consider the JWST a stupid hoax. I wonder what the asstrophysicians will invent next.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
This post here perfectly shows that you have NEVER bothered to study orbital mechanics and don't understand any of the concepts. But everyone here already knew that.
More LIES from Heiwa.
I have studied orbits >65 years, when I sent my first rocket into the air of the sky. My rocket took off at high speed and disappeared into a nearby lake after a short orbit. The fuel was a mixture of zinc and sulfure powder.
I can assure you that no object in an orbit can suddenly stop or change course or enter another orbit. You are an idiot.
Ah. This must some strange new usage of the word “study” of which I was previously unaware.
You know what I mean. To do calculations of orbits between the Sun and Earth/Moon and L2you have to know the masses of the Sun and the Earth and the Moon, which you don't. That the mass of L2 is zero is certain. Anyway, I consider the JWST a stupid hoax. I wonder what the asstrophysicians will invent next.
This explains everything. You spent 65+ years studying Orbital Mechanics without the masses of the Sun, Earth & Moon. Then what were you studying? For 6+ decades? You should have been done with your studying on day one, probably a Tuesday in 1957.
You spent almost 3/4 of a century studying nothing. Subsequently learning nothing. No wonder why your challenge is a sham and you know nothing about orbital mechanics. It all makes sense now.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
This post here perfectly shows that you have NEVER bothered to study orbital mechanics and don't understand any of the concepts. But everyone here already knew that.
More LIES from Heiwa.
I have studied orbits >65 years, when I sent my first rocket into the air of the sky. My rocket took off at high speed and disappeared into a nearby lake after a short orbit. The fuel was a mixture of zinc and sulfure powder.
I can assure you that no object in an orbit can suddenly stop or change course or enter another orbit. You are an idiot.
Ah. This must some strange new usage of the word “study” of which I was previously unaware.
You know what I mean. To do calculations of orbits between the Sun and Earth/Moon and L2you have to know the masses of the Sun and the Earth and the Moon, which you don't. That the mass of L2 is zero is certain. Anyway, I consider the JWST a stupid hoax. I wonder what the asstrophysicians will invent next.
I now understand your thinking. "No one in the world understands anything and they make everything up" because you don't understand anything and you make everything up.
-
Show the math.
No, you have to study what I explain above. The math is not easy. The gravity force acting on the JWST spacecraft going to L2 vary with the distance to Earth and the Sun, which changes all the time. Thus the force is stronger the closer JWST are to the Sun and the Earth. But to suggest that the JWST distance from Earth becomes more or less constant at L2 and that the JWST changes its elliptical orbit around Earth to a circular orbit around the Sun after reaching L2 is simply ridiculous. NASA has of course suggested similar things since going to the Moon >50 years ago, i.e. a space craft can jump from one orbit to another in space. But it is pure fake space news.
Show the math.
It is easy. Imagine you are on Earth and want to go to L2. L2 is above you in the sky and in the back is the Sun. So you just take off and go straight away from the Earth with the Sun behind you and, voilŕ! you arrive at L2 after at month. Speed is reduced all the time due to Earth and Sun gravity, so start with right speed. At arrival L2 you have to dock there, i.e. change direction and speed to that of L2. NASA has never shown any math of it, so why should I?
This post here perfectly shows that you have NEVER bothered to study orbital mechanics and don't understand any of the concepts. But everyone here already knew that.
More LIES from Heiwa.
I have studied orbits >65 years, when I sent my first rocket into the air of the sky. My rocket took off at high speed and disappeared into a nearby lake after a short orbit. The fuel was a mixture of zinc and sulfure powder.
I can assure you that no object in an orbit can suddenly stop or change course or enter another orbit. You are an idiot.
Ah. This must some strange new usage of the word “study” of which I was previously unaware.
You know what I mean. To do calculations of orbits between the Sun and Earth/Moon and L2you have to know the masses of the Sun and the Earth and the Moon, which you don't. That the mass of L2 is zero is certain. Anyway, I consider the JWST a stupid hoax. I wonder what the asstrophysicians will invent next.
I now understand your thinking. "No one in the world understands anything and they make everything up" because you don't understand anything and you make everything up.
No! I just peacefully present in writing my findings at my website that anyone can visit. If you don't agree, quote me and I'll explain more. I like being linked to by people promoting my findings, but that's all. I am just a source of information with facts I know.
-
No! I just peacefully present in writing my findings at my website that anyone can visit. If you don't agree, quote me and I'll explain more. I like being linked to by people promoting my findings, but that's all. I am just a source of information with facts I know.
Cool, show us the math as to why JWST can't orbit near L2?
-
No! I just peacefully present in writing my findings at my website that anyone can visit. If you don't agree, quote me and I'll explain more. I like being linked to by people promoting my findings, but that's all. I am just a source of information with facts I know.
Cool, show us the math as to why JWST can't orbit near L2?
That's simple. An orbit is the curved path of an object with mass like the JWST around a star, planet, or moon or whatever with another mass, e.g. planet Earth. L2 has no mass. It is just a point in space, where the combined Earth and Sun gravity is great. JWST cannot orbit around it. The JWST orbit is just around Earth.
-
No! I just peacefully present in writing my findings at my website that anyone can visit. If you don't agree, quote me and I'll explain more. I like being linked to by people promoting my findings, but that's all. I am just a source of information with facts I know.
Cool, show us the math as to why JWST can't orbit near L2?
That's simple. An orbit is the curved path of an object with mass like the JWST around a star, planet, or moon or whatever with another mass, e.g. planet Earth. L2 has no mass. It is just a point in space, where the combined Earth and Sun gravity is great. JWST cannot orbit around it. The JWST orbit is just around Earth.
show us the math
-
No! I just peacefully present in writing my findings at my website that anyone can visit. If you don't agree, quote me and I'll explain more. I like being linked to by people promoting my findings, but that's all. I am just a source of information with facts I know.
Cool, show us the math as to why JWST can't orbit near L2?
That's simple. An orbit is the curved path of an object with mass like the JWST around a star, planet, or moon or whatever with another mass, e.g. planet Earth. L2 has no mass. It is just a point in space, where the combined Earth and Sun gravity is great. JWST cannot orbit around it. The JWST orbit is just around Earth.
show us the math
It is not necessary. Do it yourself using basic asstrodynamics of three objets in space - Sun, Earth, JWST - with JWST moving between outside Sun and Earth after taking off from Earth and docking with point L2 after a month moving around. The mass of JWST is known but use correct masses of Sun and Earth, if you find them. And do not forget to correct for the Solar wind pushing you along all the time. And the "trim flap"!
-
show us the math
It is not necessary. Do it yourself using basic asstrodynamics of three objets in space - Sun, Earth, JWST - with JWST moving between outside Sun and Earth after taking off from Earth and docking with point L2 after a month moving around. The mass of JWST is known but use correct masses of Sun and Earth, if you find them. And do not forget to correct for the Solar wind pushing you along all the time. And the "trim flap"!
Ok, all done. Turns out the math works perfectly. Glad I could help.
-
show us the math
It is not necessary. Do it yourself using basic asstrodynamics of three objets in space - Sun, Earth, JWST - with JWST moving between outside Sun and Earth after taking off from Earth and docking with point L2 after a month moving around. The mass of JWST is known but use correct masses of Sun and Earth, if you find them. And do not forget to correct for the Solar wind pushing you along all the time. And the "trim flap"!
Ok, all done. Turns out the math works perfectly. Glad I could help.
Sounds too good to be true. How did you manage to dock with L2?
-
Sounds too good to be true. How did you manage to dock with L2?
Where is it stated by NASA or ESA that JWST "docks" at L2. I have only heard you say that.
-
show us the math
It is not necessary. Do it yourself using basic asstrodynamics of three objets in space - Sun, Earth, JWST - with JWST moving between outside Sun and Earth after taking off from Earth and docking with point L2 after a month moving around. The mass of JWST is known but use correct masses of Sun and Earth, if you find them. And do not forget to correct for the Solar wind pushing you along all the time. And the "trim flap"!
Ok, all done. Turns out the math works perfectly. Glad I could help.
Sounds too good to be true. How did you manage to dock with L2?
Do you often need to make shit up and argue against it to make a point Billy? How about using actual facts when mounting an argument instead of making it up as you go?
-
Sounds too good to be true. How did you manage to dock with L2?
Where is it stated by NASA or ESA that JWST "docks" at L2. I have only heard you say that.
ESA/NASA have repeatedly told the world that JWST has arrived at L2 and started to orbit around L2, even if L2 has no mass to be orbited around. I just understood it that JWST had stopped and docked at L2. Asking NASA/ESA for clarification is hopeless. No answers. Try yourself!
-
Sounds too good to be true. How did you manage to dock with L2?
Where is it stated by NASA or ESA that JWST "docks" at L2. I have only heard you say that.
ESA/NASA have repeatedly told the world that JWST has arrived at L2 and started to orbit around L2, even if L2 has no mass to be orbited around. I just understood it that JWST had stopped and docked at L2. Asking NASA/ESA for clarification is hopeless. No answers. Try yourself!
I am sure I would get nothing from them if I were also to ask them an absurd question.
There is no stopping, and no docking.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/ZeFj1JEhimdc4ngwVG/giphy.webp)
The blue line is Earth, and the yellow the JWST.
The JWST orbits the Sun at a faster speed than the Earth, such that its orbit (which is larger than the Earth) matches the Earth's, and remains at the same point (L2) relative to the Earth.
Under a geocentric model it would appear to have stopped at L2. The geocentric model is wrong. That you only accept a geocentric model is your problem, not NASA's, and hence them filing your question under spam.
-
Sounds too good to be true. How did you manage to dock with L2?
Where is it stated by NASA or ESA that JWST "docks" at L2. I have only heard you say that.
ESA/NASA have repeatedly told the world that JWST has arrived at L2 and started to orbit around L2, even if L2 has no mass to be orbited around. I just understood it that JWST had stopped and docked at L2. Asking NASA/ESA for clarification is hopeless. No answers. Try yourself!
I am sure I would get nothing from them if I were also to ask them an absurd question.
There is no stopping, and no docking.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/ZeFj1JEhimdc4ngwVG/giphy.webp)
The blue line is Earth, and the yellow the JWST.
The JWST orbits the Sun at a faster speed than the Earth, such that its orbit (which is larger than the Earth) matches the Earth's, and remains at the same point (L2) relative to the Earth.
Under a geocentric model it would appear to have stopped at L2. The geocentric model is wrong. That you only accept a geocentric model is your problem, not NASA's, and hence them filing your question under spam.
No, the JWST started from Earth orbiting it and has slowed down since then. The JWST has never orbited the Sun and will never orbit the Sun. According NASA/ESA JWST is today orbiting L2, but it is fanatsy. L2 has no mass and cannot be orbited around.
-
show us the math
It is not necessary. Do it yourself using basic asstrodynamics of three objets in space - Sun, Earth, JWST - with JWST moving between outside Sun and Earth after taking off from Earth and docking with point L2 after a month moving around. The mass of JWST is known but use correct masses of Sun and Earth, if you find them. And do not forget to correct for the Solar wind pushing you along all the time. And the "trim flap"!
Ok, all done. Turns out the math works perfectly. Glad I could help.
Sounds too good to be true. How did you manage to dock with L2?
Easily. I've got a strong grip, especially with my right hand.
-
No, the JWST started from Earth orbiting it and has slowed down since then.
Slowed down relative to what?
-
No, the JWST started from Earth orbiting it and has slowed down since then.
Slowed down relative to what?
Earth.
Trip is straight from Earth to L2. You take off from Earth upwards and after a month you arrive at L2, where you orbit L2. Sounds easy, but how to do it?
-
No, the JWST started from Earth orbiting it and has slowed down since then.
Slowed down relative to what?
Earth.
Trip is straight from Earth to L2. You take off from Earth upwards and after a month you arrive at L2, where you orbit L2. Sounds easy, but how to do it?
Look it up. 100's of papers on the subject.
https://scholar.google.com/
Here's a few pages from one:
James Webb Space Telescope Trajectory Design Overview (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210017338/downloads/astrocamp_jwst_WayneYu.pdf)
(https://i.imgur.com/GkGVSuQ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/5WT4v4L.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FOaDP0n.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Ba52GF1.png)
-
No, the JWST started from Earth orbiting it and has slowed down since then.
Slowed down relative to what?
Earth.
Trip is straight from Earth to L2. You take off from Earth upwards and after a month you arrive at L2, where you orbit L2. Sounds easy, but how to do it?
Look it up. 100's of papers on the subject.
https://scholar.google.com/
Here's a few pages from one:
James Webb Space Telescope Trajectory Design Overview (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210017338/downloads/astrocamp_jwst_WayneYu.pdf)
(https://i.imgur.com/GkGVSuQ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/5WT4v4L.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FOaDP0n.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Ba52GF1.png)
That takes actual research. Well beyond Heiwa's "skill".
-
No, the JWST started from Earth orbiting it and has slowed down since then.
Slowed down relative to what?
Earth.
Trip is straight from Earth to L2. You take off from Earth upwards and after a month you arrive at L2, where you orbit L2. Sounds easy, but how to do it?
Look it up. 100's of papers on the subject.
https://scholar.google.com/
Here's a few pages from one:
James Webb Space Telescope Trajectory Design Overview (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210017338/downloads/astrocamp_jwst_WayneYu.pdf)
(https://i.imgur.com/GkGVSuQ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/5WT4v4L.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FOaDP0n.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Ba52GF1.png)
That takes actual research. Well beyond Heiwa's "skill".
Not really. It is complete nonsense, as usual. Orbit around nothing (L2).
-
Heiwa keeps going on and on that you can’t orbit around L2 because there is no mass at L2 and you can’t orbit around nothing.
Apparently, according to Heiwa, the following is impossible:
(https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Movies/vb0anim.gif)
There is nothing at the green point. No mass.
Counterexample’s a bitch, ain’t it?
-
No, the JWST started from Earth orbiting it and has slowed down since then.
Slowed down relative to what?
Earth.
Trip is straight from Earth to L2. You take off from Earth upwards and after a month you arrive at L2, where you orbit L2. Sounds easy, but how to do it?
Look it up. 100's of papers on the subject.
https://scholar.google.com/
Here's a few pages from one:
James Webb Space Telescope Trajectory Design Overview (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210017338/downloads/astrocamp_jwst_WayneYu.pdf)
(https://i.imgur.com/GkGVSuQ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/5WT4v4L.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FOaDP0n.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Ba52GF1.png)
That takes actual research. Well beyond Heiwa's "skill".
Not really. It is complete nonsense, as usual. Orbit around nothing (L2).
and you just proved my point.
-
There is no way that an JWST space craft can take off from Earth heading towards L2 and a month later arrives at L2 and starts obiting around L2. You cannot leave an orbit around Earth and later start orbiting around something else. Conclusion? The JWST is just a hoax!
-
There is no way that an JWST space craft can take off from Earth heading towards L2 and a month later arrives at L2 and starts obiting around L2. You cannot leave an orbit around Earth and later start orbiting around something else. Conclusion? The JWST is just a hoax!
Who says there is no way?
-
There is no way that an JWST space craft can take off from Earth heading towards L2 and a month later arrives at L2 and starts obiting around L2. You cannot leave an orbit around Earth and later start orbiting around something else. Conclusion? The JWST is just a hoax!
Who says there is no way?
Heiwa does! It's all on his very popular website.
-
I wonder sometimes if Heiwa's very popular and modern website is more popular than the actual journals people publish real research in. I mean, his site is free, after all. And of course, he's very handsome and great at making friends. Plus, he actually flew Bullwinkle out to his penthouse suite for a week, where they enjoyed all the finest things in life. Fine coffee, fine women, fine dining, very safe yacht voyages, you get the idea. His website must be much more popular than anything you'd find in those silly scholarly journals about the lies the asstrophysicists would have guttersnipes believe.
-
Heiwa enjoying the company of fine women
(http://heiwaco.com/AB75.gif)
I'm guessing Bullwinkle took the photo. What happened next, well your imagination can take over
-
I wonder sometimes if Heiwa's very popular and modern website is more popular than the actual journals people publish real research in. I mean, his site is free, after all. And of course, he's very handsome and great at making friends. Plus, he actually flew Bullwinkle out to his penthouse suite for a week, where they enjoyed all the finest things in life. Fine coffee, fine women, fine dining, very safe yacht voyages, you get the idea. His website must be much more popular than anything you'd find in those silly scholarly journals about the lies the asstrophysicists would have guttersnipes believe.
Yes, it seems the Daily Page Views are down to 105.1 and that most visitors read about the 1994 Estonia sabotage/sinking, i.e. the ferry that sank like a stone killing ~1000 people, after it had lost its bow visor that nobody aboard noticed. A big wave had knocked off the visor. Reason is that it is forbidden by law to dive and look at the wreck but that people dive and have found that the visor was probably removed after sinking at the bottom of the sea (which I suggested back in 1994). Sweden shall dive again this summer and have a look.
-
I wonder sometimes if Heiwa's very popular and modern website is more popular than the actual journals people publish real research in. I mean, his site is free, after all. And of course, he's very handsome and great at making friends. Plus, he actually flew Bullwinkle out to his penthouse suite for a week, where they enjoyed all the finest things in life. Fine coffee, fine women, fine dining, very safe yacht voyages, you get the idea. His website must be much more popular than anything you'd find in those silly scholarly journals about the lies the asstrophysicists would have guttersnipes believe.
Yes, it seems the Daily Page Views are down to 105.1 and that most visitors read about the 1994 Estonia sabotage/sinking, i.e. the ferry that sank like a stone killing ~1000 people, after it had lost its bow visor that nobody aboard noticed. A big wave had knocked off the visor. Reason is that it is forbidden by law to dive and look at the wreck but that people dive and have found that the visor was probably removed after sinking at the bottom of the sea (which I suggested back in 1994). Sweden shall dive again this summer and have a look.
Lies! Sweden would never break the law. If it's illegal there is no way they will dive.
Don't slander my favorite country.
-
Behold! The glorious first image from jwst, the most advanced telescope humanity has ever created!
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aCMKHMrCpXxbrqY9ogLxUL-970-80.png.webp)
Okay. I know it's not very awe inspiring. It gets better though. Just check back in June.
-
Oh. Also a selfie.
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2E773DhoYF4mPuMpKHCRo4-970-80.png)
-
Typical Instascam culture; one of the first photos is a selfie.
-
The JWST shall study the beginning of the Universe at L2 but the formation and evolution of galaxies and numerical simulations in astrophysics for the study of large structures of the Universe is already done!! Just study http://heiwaco.com/NPD.htm
-
Won't the admins of this site ever update their anti-spambot protection? So sad to see this site going downhill under a flood of link spam.
-
Won't the admins of this site ever update their anti-spambot protection? So sad to see this site going downhill under a flood of link spam.
Heiwas post format is the exact same format as every spambot that's ever come here with a link. Heiwa is simply the bot we never deleted
I think the mods should finally rectify this issue
-
On the plus side, at least the first paragraph of the page summarises the document nicely:
...bla, bla, bla...
-
I cannot understand why ESA/NASA sends a telescope to L2 to watch the Universe, when you can study the Universe from Earth incl. my window. Of course most of the mass and energy of the Universe is invisible and can not be studied by a telescope, like JWST. Just study http://heiwaco.com/NPD.htm
-
I read the page. The usual mixture of misunderstood science and incredulity.
You reasons for declaring Stephen Hawking a clown?
-
Won't the admins of this site ever update their anti-spambot protection? So sad to see this site going downhill under a flood of link spam.
Heiwas post format is the exact same format as every spambot that's ever come here with a link. Heiwa is simply the bot we never deleted
I think the mods should finally rectify this issue
I've been saying that for years. All he does it make an outrageous statement, refer to his crappy website, spew insults, and RARELY responds to the actual text in a reply. "He'll" make replies but often does not address what "he" is replying to.
-
Won't the admins of this site ever update their anti-spambot protection? So sad to see this site going downhill under a flood of link spam.
Heiwas post format is the exact same format as every spambot that's ever come here with a link. Heiwa is simply the bot we never deleted
I think the mods should finally rectify this issue
I've been saying that for years. All he does it make an outrageous statement, refer to his crappy website, spew insults, and RARELY responds to the actual text in a reply. "He'll" make replies but often does not address what "he" is replying to.
Re outrageous statements:
The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) has capped off the first seven months of its survey run by smashing through all previous records for three-dimensional galaxy surveys, creating the largest and most detailed map of the universe ever."
https://www.desi.lbl.gov/
So DESI (on Earth) shows a detailed map of the Universe that JWST looks at from L2.
-
So DESI (on Earth) shows a detailed map of the Universe that JWST looks at from L2.
Yup. Go science!
-
So DESI (on Earth) shows a detailed map of the Universe that JWST looks at from L2.
Yup. Go science!
Yes, DESI has shown that the Universe is full of galaxies. And that's all. No need to fly to L2 and see the same thing, that I can see from my window.
-
So DESI (on Earth) shows a detailed map of the Universe that JWST looks at from L2.
Yup. Go science!
Yes, DESI has shown that the Universe is full of galaxies.
It has! Go science!
-
Won't the admins of this site ever update their anti-spambot protection? So sad to see this site going downhill under a flood of link spam.
Heiwas post format is the exact same format as every spambot that's ever come here with a link. Heiwa is simply the bot we never deleted
I think the mods should finally rectify this issue
I've been saying that for years. All he does it make an outrageous statement, refer to his crappy website, spew insults, and RARELY responds to the actual text in a reply. "He'll" make replies but often does not address what "he" is replying to.
Re outrageous statements:
The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) has capped off the first seven months of its survey run by smashing through all previous records for three-dimensional galaxy surveys, creating the largest and most detailed map of the universe ever."
https://www.desi.lbl.gov/
So DESI (on Earth) shows a detailed map of the Universe that JWST looks at from L2.
and he proves my point. Doesn't reply to being accused of being a bot and then just continues on with his arguments from incredulity.
-
Won't the admins of this site ever update their anti-spambot protection? So sad to see this site going downhill under a flood of link spam.
Heiwas post format is the exact same format as every spambot that's ever come here with a link. Heiwa is simply the bot we never deleted
I think the mods should finally rectify this issue
I've been saying that for years. All he does it make an outrageous statement, refer to his crappy website, spew insults, and RARELY responds to the actual text in a reply. "He'll" make replies but often does not address what "he" is replying to.
Re outrageous statements:
The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) has capped off the first seven months of its survey run by smashing through all previous records for three-dimensional galaxy surveys, creating the largest and most detailed map of the universe ever."
https://www.desi.lbl.gov/
So DESI (on Earth) shows a detailed map of the Universe that JWST looks at from L2.
and he proves my point. Doesn't reply to being accused of being a bot and then just continues on with his arguments from incredulity.
I just look out of my window and it is all there.
-
I just look out of my window and it is all there.
I also look out my window and see things.
-
So DESI (on Earth) shows a detailed map of the Universe that JWST looks at from L2.
Yup. Go science!
Yes, DESI has shown that the Universe is full of galaxies. And that's all. No need to fly to L2 and see the same thing, that I can see from my window.
So you can do spectral analysis of galaxies from your window? Cool story bro.
-
So DESI (on Earth) shows a detailed map of the Universe that JWST looks at from L2.
Yup. Go science!
Yes, DESI has shown that the Universe is full of galaxies. And that's all. No need to fly to L2 and see the same thing, that I can see from my window.
So you can do spectral analysis of galaxies from your window? Cool story bro.
No, I can only see galaxies from my window. DESI does the spectral analysis of all the galaxies in the Universe so no need for JWST to do it at L2.
-
So DESI (on Earth) shows a detailed map of the Universe that JWST looks at from L2.
Yup. Go science!
Yes, DESI has shown that the Universe is full of galaxies. And that's all. No need to fly to L2 and see the same thing, that I can see from my window.
So you can do spectral analysis of galaxies from your window? Cool story bro.
No, I can only see galaxies from my window.
Really, which ones?
-
Won't the admins of this site ever update their anti-spambot protection? So sad to see this site going downhill under a flood of link spam.
Heiwas post format is the exact same format as every spambot that's ever come here with a link. Heiwa is simply the bot we never deleted
I think the mods should finally rectify this issue
I've been saying that for years. All he does it make an outrageous statement, refer to his crappy website, spew insults, and RARELY responds to the actual text in a reply. "He'll" make replies but often does not address what "he" is replying to.
Re outrageous statements:
The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) has capped off the first seven months of its survey run by smashing through all previous records for three-dimensional galaxy surveys, creating the largest and most detailed map of the universe ever."
https://www.desi.lbl.gov/
So DESI (on Earth) shows a detailed map of the Universe that JWST looks at from L2.
and he proves my point. Doesn't reply to being accused of being a bot and then just continues on with his arguments from incredulity.
I just look out of my window and it is all there.
And AGAIN the bot proves my point.
-
No, I can only see galaxies from my window.
Do you even know the difference between a galaxy and a star?
DISA does the spectral analysis of all the galaxies in the Universe so no need for JWST to do it at L2.
Why would the Defense Information Systems Agency study galaxies? Maybe you're thinking of Samsung Galaxies.
-
No, I can only see galaxies from my window.
Do you even know the difference between a galaxy and a star?
DISA does the spectral analysis of all the galaxies in the Universe so no need for JWST to do it at L2.
Why would the Defense Information Systems Agency study galaxies? Maybe you're thinking of Samsung Galaxies.
There are plenty stars in a galaxy. Galaxies are studied since many years by DESI. DESI also studies invisible things in the Universe, which the JWST at L2 cannot see. Etc, etc. Thanks for asking.
-
There are plenty stars in a galaxy
I've been told there are many stars in a galaxy, not plenty. Look out your window and count them, I think you missed a few.
-
There are plenty stars in a galaxy
I've been told there are many stars in a galaxy, not plenty. Look out your window and count them, I think you missed a few.
Yes, all galaxies are full of stars but too many to count.
-
There are plenty stars in a galaxy
I've been told there are many stars in a galaxy, not plenty. Look out your window and count them, I think you missed a few.
Yes, all galaxies are full of stars but too many to count.
How high did you get when you tried?
-
I'm guessing a few joints and at least half a bottle of JD.
-
No, I just look out of the window at night and enjoy the Milky way and its many stars. And beyond that plenty more galaxies. I don't have to go to L2 for it. It seems ESA/NASA are still adjusting their telescope, so we haven't got any pictures yet. But I know what the JWST pictures will look like.
-
No, I just look out of the window at night and enjoy the Milky way and its many stars. And beyond that plenty more galaxies.
Which galaxies do you enjoy from your window? Are you they aren't smudges from your grubby fingers? Can you identify them?
-
But I know what the JWST pictures will look like.
No, you really don't. Even NASA and ESA don't know. That's why they're so excited.
-
No, I just look out of the window at night and enjoy the Milky way and its many stars. And beyond that plenty more galaxies.
Which galaxies do you enjoy from your window? Are you they aren't smudges from your grubby fingers? Can you identify them?
I enjoy all galaxies. And all pictures of them. Since >100 years.
-
No, I just look out of the window at night and enjoy the Milky way and its many stars. And beyond that plenty more galaxies.
Which galaxies do you enjoy from your window? Are you they aren't smudges from your grubby fingers? Can you identify them?
I enjoy all galaxies. And all pictures of them. Since >100 years.
I too enjoyed galaxies in my past life. What was your name and what planet did you live on?
-
No, I just look out of the window at night and enjoy the Milky way and its many stars. And beyond that plenty more galaxies.
Which galaxies do you enjoy from your window? Are you they aren't smudges from your grubby fingers? Can you identify them?
I enjoy all galaxies. And all pictures of them. Since >100 years.
I too enjoyed galaxies in my past life. What was your name and what planet did you live on?
I live on Earth and you are welcome for coffee if you are around.
-
No, I just look out of the window at night and enjoy the Milky way and its many stars. And beyond that plenty more galaxies.
Which galaxies do you enjoy from your window? Are you they aren't smudges from your grubby fingers? Can you identify them?
I enjoy all galaxies. And all pictures of them. Since >100 years.
I too enjoyed galaxies in my past life. What was your name and what planet did you live on?
I live on Earth and you are welcome for coffee if you are around.
I find it very unlikely you live on the same planet as I do. Nothing you describe matches.
-
No, I just look out of the window at night and enjoy the Milky way and its many stars. And beyond that plenty more galaxies.
Which galaxies do you enjoy from your window? Are you they aren't smudges from your grubby fingers? Can you identify them?
I enjoy all galaxies. And all pictures of them. Since >100 years.
I too enjoyed galaxies in my past life. What was your name and what planet did you live on?
I live on Earth and you are welcome for coffee if you are around.
I find it very unlikely you live on the same planet as I do. Nothing you describe matches.
Let's face it. There is only one planet in the Universe with people on it and that is Earth with me and you ++. Of course plenty fools believe otherwise and send JWST to L2 to look ... but they will find nothing from L2. Easier is just to look out from your window. Here it is gray and rain.
-
No, I just look out of the window at night and enjoy the Milky way and its many stars. And beyond that plenty more galaxies.
Which galaxies do you enjoy from your window? Are you they aren't smudges from your grubby fingers? Can you identify them?
I enjoy all galaxies. And all pictures of them. Since >100 years.
I too enjoyed galaxies in my past life. What was your name and what planet did you live on?
I live on Earth and you are welcome for coffee if you are around.
I find it very unlikely you live on the same planet as I do. Nothing you describe matches.
Let's face it. There is only one planet in the Universe with people on it and that is Earth with me and you ++. Of course plenty fools believe otherwise and send JWST to L2 to look ... but they will find nothing from L2. Easier is just to look out from your window. Here it is gray and rain.
I'm so bored I'm talking to a bot. Sadly it's on a loop so has lost the minimal entertainment it provided. Time to post to the number game again.
-
I'm so bored I'm talking to a bot. Sadly it's on a loop so has lost the minimal entertainment it provided. Time to post to the number game again.
But I am not a bot. I am having fun with people believing in the JWST nonsense. Imagine people think you can see the end of the Universe from L2, when I can see it from my window.
-
I'm so bored I'm talking to a bot. Sadly it's on a loop so has lost the minimal entertainment it provided. Time to post to the number game again.
But I am not a bot. I am having fun with people believing in the JWST nonsense. Imagine people think you can see the end of the Universe from L2, when I can see it from my window.
You are right, a bot would have access to a wider variety of generated responses. At least throw some tubes and magnets in there somewhere.
-
I'm so bored I'm talking to a bot. Sadly it's on a loop so has lost the minimal entertainment it provided. Time to post to the number game again.
But I am not a bot. I am having fun with people believing in the JWST nonsense. Imagine people think you can see the end of the Universe from L2, when I can see it from my window.
You are right, a bot would have access to a wider variety of generated responses. At least throw some tubes and magnets in there somewhere.
Isn't fun that NASA sends a very expensive JWST to L2 to look, that I can see from my window?
-
Isn't fun that NASA sends a very expensive JWST to L2 to look, that I can see from my window?
Except you can't.
The JWST observers in frequencies of infrared that are absorbed by the atmosphere, and are therefore unobservable from your, or anyone else's, window.
-
Isn't fun that NASA sends a very expensive JWST to L2 to look, that I can see from my window?
Except you can't.
The JWST observers in frequencies of infrared that are absorbed by the atmosphere, and are therefore unobservable from your, or anyone else's, window.
I just observe what I can see from my window and it is OK for me. There is no human life outside Earth. I know plenty people disagree, and I know why. They are paid liars and fake witnesses, etc. Doesn't cost much. Of course JWST can only observe in frequencies of infrared that are absorbed by the atmosphere ... so what? It isn't my fault. Pls prove that you can observe in frequencies of infrared that are absorbed by the atmosphere!
-
Isn't fun that NASA sends a very expensive JWST to L2 to look, that I can see from my window?
Except you can't.
The JWST observers in frequencies of infrared that are absorbed by the atmosphere, and are therefore unobservable from your, or anyone else's, window.
I just observe what I can see from my window and it is OK for me.
So whatever is good enough for you is good enough for the rest of humanity? Nothing more, nothing less? Interesting narcissistic perspective.
-
I just observe what I can see from my window and it is OK for me.
Then it's a good thing that JWST wasn't meant for you.
Of course JWST can only observe in frequencies of infrared that are absorbed by the atmosphere ... so what? It isn't my fault.
No one is blaming you for infrared light being absorbed by the atmosphere. We're blaming you for not wanting to understand why that's important.
Pls prove that you can observe in frequencies of infrared that are absorbed by the atmosphere!
Why do you keep saying such stupid things?
-
Yes, this JWST is a strange object. It has arrived at and docked with the L2 point, where it orbits both the Earth and the Sun at the same time. From L2 the Sun lights up the whole Universe incl. Earth with its Moon, so that the JWST can see all without being disturbed by an atmosphere. I can only see the Universe by looking out of my window where a visible Universe is there in the sky on a clear night all the time. However, before JWST can see anything at L2, it has to be adjusted. It will take some extra months.
But nobody is perfect. I cannot see the back of the Moon from my window, only the face of the Moon, as it orbits Earth. I wonder if JWST can see the back of the Moon from L2? Any ideas?
-
Anders, please stop trolling. Nobody gets that many things that obviously wrong and says so many stupid things by accident.
-
From L2 the Sun lights up the whole Universe incl.
Who claims that the Sun lights up the whole Universe? There's a lot bigger, brighter stuff out there...
But nobody is perfect. I cannot see the back of the Moon from my window, only the face of the Moon, as it orbits Earth. I wonder if JWST can see the back of the Moon from L2? Any ideas?
I think the intent is that JWST is pointed away from the Sun.
-
From L2 the Sun lights up the whole Universe incl.
Who claims that the Sun lights up the whole Universe? There's a lot bigger, brighter stuff out there...
But nobody is perfect. I cannot see the back of the Moon from my window, only the face of the Moon, as it orbits Earth. I wonder if JWST can see the back of the Moon from L2? Any ideas?
I think the intent is that JWST is pointed away from the Sun.
It is ESA/NASA that claims that the Sun lights up the Universe so that the JWST can see it from L2 in front of the Sun. There is not atmosphere to prevent watching the Universe there.
-
From L2 the Sun lights up the whole Universe incl.
Who claims that the Sun lights up the whole Universe? There's a lot bigger, brighter stuff out there...
But nobody is perfect. I cannot see the back of the Moon from my window, only the face of the Moon, as it orbits Earth. I wonder if JWST can see the back of the Moon from L2? Any ideas?
I think the intent is that JWST is pointed away from the Sun.
It is ESA/NASA that claims that the Sun lights up the Universe so that the JWST can see it from L2 in front of the Sun. There is not atmosphere to prevent watching the Universe there.
Where does ESA/NASA say the sun lights up the universe?
-
From L2 the Sun lights up the whole Universe incl.
Who claims that the Sun lights up the whole Universe? There's a lot bigger, brighter stuff out there...
But nobody is perfect. I cannot see the back of the Moon from my window, only the face of the Moon, as it orbits Earth. I wonder if JWST can see the back of the Moon from L2? Any ideas?
I think the intent is that JWST is pointed away from the Sun.
It is ESA/NASA that claims that the Sun lights up the Universe so that the JWST can see it from L2 in front of the Sun. There is not atmosphere to prevent watching the Universe there.
Where does ESA/NASA say the sun lights up the universe?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/main/index.html
-
From L2 the Sun lights up the whole Universe incl.
Who claims that the Sun lights up the whole Universe? There's a lot bigger, brighter stuff out there...
But nobody is perfect. I cannot see the back of the Moon from my window, only the face of the Moon, as it orbits Earth. I wonder if JWST can see the back of the Moon from L2? Any ideas?
I think the intent is that JWST is pointed away from the Sun.
It is ESA/NASA that claims that the Sun lights up the Universe so that the JWST can see it from L2 in front of the Sun. There is not atmosphere to prevent watching the Universe there.
Where does ESA/NASA say the sun lights up the universe?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/main/index.html
That's a page regarding the Solar Dynamics Observatory. Not JWST. And even there there's no mention or claim that the Sun "lights up the Universe". Yet another example of your ineptitude in regard to you comprehending, well, just about anything. Once again, you are wrong.
-
Any minute now we'll get the old argumentum ex fenestra to distract from another failure.
-
From L2 the Sun lights up the whole Universe incl.
Who claims that the Sun lights up the whole Universe? There's a lot bigger, brighter stuff out there...
But nobody is perfect. I cannot see the back of the Moon from my window, only the face of the Moon, as it orbits Earth. I wonder if JWST can see the back of the Moon from L2? Any ideas?
I think the intent is that JWST is pointed away from the Sun.
It is ESA/NASA that claims that the Sun lights up the Universe so that the JWST can see it from L2 in front of the Sun. There is not atmosphere to prevent watching the Universe there.
Where does ESA/NASA say the sun lights up the universe?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/main/index.html
That's a page regarding the Solar Dynamics Observatory. Not JWST. And even there there's no mention or claim that the Sun "lights up the Universe". Yet another example of your ineptitude in regard to you comprehending, well, just about anything. Once again, you are wrong.
No, according NASA the Sun is the center of our Solar system and all the planets around the Sun are lighted by the Sun. I can see some planets from my window. Same for all galaxies around our Solar system, i.e. the Sun lights up the Universe. I can see many galaxies, too. They look like stars. I don't need a JWST at L2 to look for more. Why do you get so upset about people not as intelligent as you knowing everything?
-
No, according NASA the Sun is the center of our Solar system and all the planets around the Sun are lighted by the Sun. I can see some planets from my window. Same for all galaxies around our Solar system, i.e. the Sun lights up the Universe. I can see many galaxies, too. They look like stars. I don't need a JWST at L2 to look for more. Why do you get so upset about people not as intelligent as you knowing everything?
NASA knows the difference between the solar system and the universe. Do you? Being a geocentrist, I suppose you wouldn’t.
-
No, according NASA the Sun is the center of our Solar system and all the planets around the Sun are lighted by the Sun. I can see some planets from my window. Same for all galaxies around our Solar system, i.e. the Sun lights up the Universe. I can see many galaxies, too. They look like stars. I don't need a JWST at L2 to look for more. Why do you get so upset about people not as intelligent as you knowing everything?
NASA knows the difference between the solar system and the universe. Do you? Being a geocentrist, I suppose you wouldn’t.
?? Looking out of my window on Earth, it is the center of the Solar system and the Universe. It is a geocentrist view, and I see no reason why it isn't correct. Nothing to get upset about. ESA/NASA is putting JWST at L2 and they will confirm it ... after adjusting the JWST.
What do you think. Earth is flying around somewhere with no purpose at all?
-
What do you think. Earth is flying around somewhere with no purpose at all?
Do you think that the earth is just sitting around like a lazy bum with no purpose at all?
-
No, according NASA the Sun is the center of our Solar system and all the planets around the Sun are lighted by the Sun. I can see some planets from my window. Same for all galaxies around our Solar system, i.e. the Sun lights up the Universe. I can see many galaxies, too. They look like stars. I don't need a JWST at L2 to look for more. Why do you get so upset about people not as intelligent as you knowing everything?
NASA knows the difference between the solar system and the universe. Do you? Being a geocentrist, I suppose you wouldn’t.
?? Looking out of my window on Earth, it is the center of the Solar system and the Universe. It is a geocentrist view, and I see no reason why it isn't correct. Nothing to get upset about. ESA/NASA is putting JWST at L2 and they will confirm it ... after adjusting the JWST.
What do you think. Earth is flying around somewhere with no purpose at all?
I suppose that's how you designed your failed egg tanker, by just looking out your window. Makes sense.
I can't quite figure out if you even know what geocentrism is. For you, is the Sun the center of the Universe or Earth?
-
No, according NASA the Sun is the center of our Solar system and all the planets around the Sun are lighted by the Sun. I can see some planets from my window. Same for all galaxies around our Solar system, i.e. the Sun lights up the Universe. I can see many galaxies, too. They look like stars. I don't need a JWST at L2 to look for more. Why do you get so upset about people not as intelligent as you knowing everything?
NASA knows the difference between the solar system and the universe. Do you? Being a geocentrist, I suppose you wouldn’t.
?? Looking out of my window on Earth, it is the center of the Solar system and the Universe. It is a geocentrist view, and I see no reason why it isn't correct. Nothing to get upset about. ESA/NASA is putting JWST at L2 and they will confirm it ... after adjusting the JWST.
What do you think. Earth is flying around somewhere with no purpose at all?
I suppose that's how you designed your failed egg tanker, by just looking out your window. Makes sense.
I can't quite figure out if you even know what geocentrism is. For you, is the Sun the center of the Universe or Earth?
Re the Egg tanker it is approved by United Nations IMO but it cannot enter US ports. It is based on accident statistics. USCG does not allow it! Re geocentrism the Earth is the center of the Universe with the Sun orbiting that center. Just look out of your window and you will see it, i.e. the Sun rising in the East and setting West.
-
Re the Egg tanker it is approved by United Nations IMO but it cannot enter US ports. It is based on accident statistics. USCG does not allow it!
Did you ever bother making a proof of concept demonstrator to show the safety of your design?
-
No, according NASA the Sun is the center of our Solar system and all the planets around the Sun are lighted by the Sun. I can see some planets from my window. Same for all galaxies around our Solar system, i.e. the Sun lights up the Universe. I can see many galaxies, too. They look like stars. I don't need a JWST at L2 to look for more. Why do you get so upset about people not as intelligent as you knowing everything?
NASA knows the difference between the solar system and the universe. Do you? Being a geocentrist, I suppose you wouldn’t.
?? Looking out of my window on Earth, it is the center of the Solar system and the Universe. It is a geocentrist view, and I see no reason why it isn't correct. Nothing to get upset about. ESA/NASA is putting JWST at L2 and they will confirm it ... after adjusting the JWST.
What do you think. Earth is flying around somewhere with no purpose at all?
I suppose that's how you designed your failed egg tanker, by just looking out your window. Makes sense.
I can't quite figure out if you even know what geocentrism is. For you, is the Sun the center of the Universe or Earth?
Re the Egg tanker it is approved by United Nations IMO but it cannot enter US ports. It is based on accident statistics. USCG does not allow it! Re geocentrism the Earth is the center of the Universe with the Sun orbiting that center. Just look out of your window and you will see it, i.e. the Sun rising in the East and setting West.
Looks like USCG made the right call in not selecting a tanker design engineered by simply looking out a window.
I'm just glad more learned folks don't rely on gazing out their windows to engineer all of the amazing things we have in the world. Move away from the window and get yourself a Foucault pendulum. Take a gander at that for a while and let us know what you think.
-
Re the Egg tanker it is approved by United Nations IMO but it cannot enter US ports. It is based on accident statistics. USCG does not allow it!
Did you ever bother making a proof of concept demonstrator to show the safety of your design?
Yes, of course. That was part of the IMO approval procedure. And I happened to work for one of the biggest and richest oil tanker owners in the world at the time and I knew most people in the biz. Some corrupt people in the USA didn't like it.
-
Well, Heiwa?
Heiwa keeps going on and on that you can’t orbit around L2 because there is no mass at L2 and you can’t orbit around nothing.
Apparently, according to Heiwa, the following is impossible:
(https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Movies/vb0anim.gif)
There is nothing at the green point. No mass.
Counterexample’s a bitch, ain’t it?
-
Well, Heiwa?
Heiwa keeps going on and on that you can’t orbit around L2 because there is no mass at L2 and you can’t orbit around nothing.
Apparently, according to Heiwa, the following is impossible:
(https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Movies/vb0anim.gif)
There is nothing at the green point. No mass.
Counterexample’s a bitch, ain’t it?
No, planet Earth is not orbiting anything! It is just the center of the Universe and is just rotating around itself to keep cool, etc. It is the Sun that orbits Earth, which I can see from my window. I have a great view of the Mediterranean Sea from there, where the Sun rises every morning at the horizon.
-
Well, Heiwa?
Heiwa keeps going on and on that you can’t orbit around L2 because there is no mass at L2 and you can’t orbit around nothing.
Apparently, according to Heiwa, the following is impossible:
(https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Movies/vb0anim.gif)
There is nothing at the green point. No mass.
Counterexample’s a bitch, ain’t it?
No, planet Earth is not orbiting anything! It is just the center of the Universe and is just rotating around itself to keep cool, etc. It is the Sun that orbits Earth, which I can see from my window. I have a great view of the Mediterranean Sea from there, where the Sun rises every morning at the horizon.
Is the Earth rotating?
Is the Universe infinite or finite?
-
Well, Heiwa?
Heiwa keeps going on and on that you can’t orbit around L2 because there is no mass at L2 and you can’t orbit around nothing.
Apparently, according to Heiwa, the following is impossible:
(https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Movies/vb0anim.gif)
There is nothing at the green point. No mass.
Counterexample’s a bitch, ain’t it?
No, planet Earth is not orbiting anything! It is just the center of the Universe and is just rotating around itself to keep cool, etc. It is the Sun that orbits Earth, which I can see from my window. I have a great view of the Mediterranean Sea from there, where the Sun rises every morning at the horizon.
Is the Earth rotating?
Is the Universe infinite or finite?
Yes, Earth + atmosphere is rotating 360°/24 hrs around its poles at the center of the Universe.
Universe is infinite in all directions from Earth.
Just look out of your window, and you'll see it.
-
Well, Heiwa?
Heiwa keeps going on and on that you can’t orbit around L2 because there is no mass at L2 and you can’t orbit around nothing.
Apparently, according to Heiwa, the following is impossible:
(https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Movies/vb0anim.gif)
There is nothing at the green point. No mass.
Counterexample’s a bitch, ain’t it?
No, planet Earth is not orbiting anything! It is just the center of the Universe and is just rotating around itself to keep cool, etc. It is the Sun that orbits Earth, which I can see from my window. I have a great view of the Mediterranean Sea from there, where the Sun rises every morning at the horizon.
Is the Earth rotating?
Is the Universe infinite or finite?
Yes, Earth + atmosphere is rotating 360°/24 hrs around its poles at the center of the Universe.
Universe is infinite in all directions from Earth.
Just look out of your window, and you'll see it.
So you're not really a full-blown geocentrist in the sense that don't those folks believe earth is absolutely stationary? As well, why would earth need to rotate if the Sun is orbiting it like geocentrists believe?
By definition there is no center in infinity. So how can earth be at the "center" of something that has no center?
-
So you're not really a full-blown geocentrist in the sense that don't those folks believe earth is absolutely stationary? As well, why would earth need to rotate if the Sun is orbiting it like geocentrists believe?
By definition there is no center in infinity. So how can earth be at the "center" of something that has no center?
Thanks for asking. Earth is rotating 360° in 24 hrs, so that we inhabitants on Earth can see the Universe in the sky above us without moving. Just look up on a clear night! Most astronomers agree Earth is rotating. It is why there are nights and days and so on.
The Universe is endless with no beginning nor end. Earth just happens to be in the middle of it. The JWST (topic) has left Earth some time ago to dock with point L2 in the Universe away from Earth to have a look and will confirm it after adjusting its telescope. I think JWST is complete nonsense like most ESA/NASA findings starting with asstronuts on the Moon. Like point L2. You cannot stop there and dock with it!
-
So you're not really a full-blown geocentrist in the sense that don't those folks believe earth is absolutely stationary? As well, why would earth need to rotate if the Sun is orbiting it like geocentrists believe?
By definition there is no center in infinity. So how can earth be at the "center" of something that has no center?
Thanks for asking. Earth is rotating 360° in 24 hrs, so that we inhabitants on Earth can see the Universe in the sky above us without moving. Just look up on a clear night! Most astronomers agree Earth is rotating. It is why there are nights and days and so on.
The Universe is endless with no beginning nor end. Earth just happens to be in the middle of it. The JWST (topic) has left Earth some time ago to dock with point L2 in the Universe away from Earth to have a look and will confirm it after adjusting its telescope. I think JWST is complete nonsense like most ESA/NASA findings starting with asstronuts on the Moon. Like point L2. You cannot stop there and dock with it!
Sorry, you can't be in the middle or center of something that has no end, no middle or center. That's an extremely basic concept where you fail, yet again.
And we know what your opinion is. But your opinion doesn't mean anything. Anyone whose opinion is that there were no planes on 9/11 is obviously beyond deluded. That's why you've been kicked out of every 9/11 forum, even the most ardent conspiracy minded ones. Because your delusions (of grandeur) are untenable and not based in any reality.
-
Well, Heiwa?
Heiwa keeps going on and on that you can’t orbit around L2 because there is no mass at L2 and you can’t orbit around nothing.
Apparently, according to Heiwa, the following is impossible:
(https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Movies/vb0anim.gif)
There is nothing at the green point. No mass.
Counterexample’s a bitch, ain’t it?
No, planet Earth is not orbiting anything! It is just the center of the Universe and is just rotating around itself to keep cool, etc. It is the Sun that orbits Earth, which I can see from my window. I have a great view of the Mediterranean Sea from there, where the Sun rises every morning at the horizon.
What nonsense are you on about? Can you not read?
No one said anything about Earth.
You said that an object can't orbit around nothing.
I have shown you objects orbiting around nothing.
Or do you, oh expert that has studied orbits for 60+ years, deny that the diagram shown is not how two given masses behave?
Is the diagram as shown impossible?
Or will you just go on about sunrises and sunsets?
-
Well, Heiwa?
Heiwa keeps going on and on that you can’t orbit around L2 because there is no mass at L2 and you can’t orbit around nothing.
Apparently, according to Heiwa, the following is impossible:
(https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Movies/vb0anim.gif)
There is nothing at the green point. No mass.
Counterexample’s a bitch, ain’t it?
No, planet Earth is not orbiting anything! It is just the center of the Universe and is just rotating around itself to keep cool, etc. It is the Sun that orbits Earth, which I can see from my window. I have a great view of the Mediterranean Sea from there, where the Sun rises every morning at the horizon.
I have shown you objects orbiting around nothing.
Or do you, oh expert that has studied orbits for 60+ years, deny that the diagram shown is not how two given masses behave?
Is the diagram as shown impossible?
Or will you just go on about sunrises and sunsets?
No, I just say that the Sun orbits Earth as seen from my window and that Earth is in the middle of the Universe also as seen from my window. Nothing to get upset about. I have a fantastic view of the Mediterranean Sea and the Universe from my windows. What is the view from your windows?
But topic is the little JWST. I cannot see it from my window (JWST is maybe behind the mountains in the back) but some eqsperts suggest it is orbiting a point in space called L2 without any mass as per your diagram with a green point in the middle. What is the green point? L2?
-
What is the green point? L2?
Barycentre.
Can you not see an encyclopedia from your window with a view of the Med?
-
What is the green point? L2?
Barycentre.
Can you not see an encyclopedia from your window with a view of the Med?
No, only the Med.
-
What is the green point? L2?
Barycentre.
Can you not see an encyclopedia from your window with a view of the Med?
No, only the Med.
No wonder you don't seem to understand anything.
-
What is the green point? L2?
Barycentre.
Can you not see an encyclopedia from your window with a view of the Med?
No, only the Med.
No wonder you don't seem to understand anything.
There is no encyclopedia in the Med that I see. It is water. Good for swimming in.
But I know what a barycenter is.
A barycenter is the center of the mass of two bodies that orbit one another in space and it is the point about which the two bodies orbit. In this case body #1 is Earth and body #2 is JWST and point L2 is the center of the two masses Earth/JWST. The Sun is far away. Why the JWST has to lift of from Earth to fly to L2 is beyond my understanding. Please explain what orbits what!
-
What is the green point? L2?
Barycentre.
Can you not see an encyclopedia from your window with a view of the Med?
No, only the Med.
No wonder you don't seem to understand anything.
There is no encyclopedia in the Med that I see. It is water. Good for swimming in.
But I know what a barycenter is.
A barycenter is the center of the mass of two bodies that orbit one another in space and it is the point about which the two bodies orbit. In this case body #1 is Earth and body #2 is JWST and point L2 is the center of the two masses Earth/JWST. The Sun is far away. Why the JWST has to lift of from Earth to fly to L2 is beyond my understanding. Please explain what orbits what!
-
What is the green point? L2?
Barycentre.
Can you not see an encyclopedia from your window with a view of the Med?
No, only the Med.
No wonder you don't seem to understand anything.
There is no encyclopedia in the Med that I see. It is water. Good for swimming in.
But I know what a barycenter is.
A barycenter is the center of the mass of two bodies that orbit one another in space and it is the point about which the two bodies orbit. In this case body #1 is Earth and body #2 is JWST and point L2 is the center of the two masses Earth/JWST. The Sun is far away. Why the JWST has to lift of from Earth to fly to L2 is beyond my understanding. Please explain what orbits what!
We all know what a Lagrange point L is relative Sun and Earth. The difficulty is to find L in space and dock with it or start orbiting it. As L has no mass you cannot orbit around L. And L is moving all the time, so JWST has to move too to stay at L. L2 is always in the shade of the Sun caused by Earth being in between. To suggest that JWST has docked with L2 is simply a joke that ESA/NASA is famous for. Furthermore it is suggested that there is no atmosphere at L2 to disturb the view of the telescope. But there is no sun light there, so the solar panels are useless. Anyway, there is no atmosphere in space away from Earth, so any location in space should be good for JWST to look for the end of the Universe. Only problem is that the Universe has no end. It is infinite. And full of Black Holes attracting light passing that will crunch the JWST at the end. I just feel sorry for people believing in L.
-
As L has no mass you cannot orbit around L.
That statement means that you are either talking crap now, or you were lying when you said this:
But I know what a barycenter is.
In a two body system where both bodies are of similar mass, both bodies will orbit a point that has no mass itself - the barycentre of the system.
You contradict yourself, again.
-
Why the JWST has to lift of from Earth to fly to L2 is beyond my understanding.
Yes, quite obviously. There are a few good reasons why L2 is a handy place to hang out. Among other things, it requires little energy to maintain its orbit around L2. Being a million miles further from the sun than the earth also means that it has a larger baseline for doing parallax measurements of distant stars. JWST's orbit also far enough from the the sun, earth and moon so that the sun shield can keep the infrared instruments very cold without the need for cryogenic coolants. The orbit around L2 also keeps JWST out of the earth's and moon's shadows so its thermally stable, which is a good thing for infrared astronomy.
Please explain what orbits what!
Quite simple. Sun-earth Lagrange points orbit the sun. Earth-moon Lagrange points orbit the earth. JWST orbits a sun-earth Lagrange point commonly referred to as L2.
-
Why the JWST has to lift of from Earth to fly to L2 is beyond my understanding.
Yes, quite obviously. There are a few good reasons why L2 is a handy place to hang out. Among other things, it requires little energy to maintain its orbit around L2. Being a million miles further from the sun than the earth also means that it has a larger baseline for doing parallax measurements of distant stars. JWST's orbit also far enough from the the sun, earth and moon so that the sun shield can keep the infrared instruments very cold without the need for cryogenic coolants. The orbit around L2 also keeps JWST out of the earth's and moon's shadows so its thermally stable, which is a good thing for infrared astronomy.
Please explain what orbits what!
Quite simple. Sun-earth Lagrange points orbit the sun. Earth-moon Lagrange points orbit the earth. JWST orbits a sun-earth Lagrange point commonly referred to as L2.
No, JWST took off from Earth and still orbits Earth all the time in a very elongated, variable speed/direction orbit in a certain plane around Earth that I doubt intercept any orbit of L2 around the Sun. Problem is to change the JWST orbit at L2 and dock with L2. It is very difficult as L2 moves all the time in another plane around the Sun. I think you don't know what you are talking about ... like ESA/NASA.
-
Problem is to change the JWST orbit at L2 and dock with L2. It is very difficult as L2 moves all the time in another plane around the Sun. I think you don't know what you are talking about ... like ESA/NASA.
You keep talking about JWST docking with L2 and you think that I don't know what I'm talking about? ROTFL
-
Why the JWST has to lift of from Earth to fly to L2 is beyond my understanding.
Yes, quite obviously. There are a few good reasons why L2 is a handy place to hang out. Among other things, it requires little energy to maintain its orbit around L2. Being a million miles further from the sun than the earth also means that it has a larger baseline for doing parallax measurements of distant stars. JWST's orbit also far enough from the the sun, earth and moon so that the sun shield can keep the infrared instruments very cold without the need for cryogenic coolants. The orbit around L2 also keeps JWST out of the earth's and moon's shadows so its thermally stable, which is a good thing for infrared astronomy.
Please explain what orbits what!
Quite simple. Sun-earth Lagrange points orbit the sun. Earth-moon Lagrange points orbit the earth. JWST orbits a sun-earth Lagrange point commonly referred to as L2.
No, JWST took off from Earth and still orbits Earth all the time in a very elongated, variable speed/direction orbit in a certain plane around Earth that I doubt intercept any orbit of L2 around the Sun. Problem is to change the JWST orbit at L2 and dock with L2. It is very difficult as L2 moves all the time in another plane around the Sun. I think you don't know what you are talking about ... like ESA/NASA.
Why don't you explain to us, in detail, how and why it's so very difficult. Just stating it's difficult is like me saying, "It's very difficult to climb Mt. Everest."
-
Why the JWST has to lift of from Earth to fly to L2 is beyond my understanding.
Yes, quite obviously. There are a few good reasons why L2 is a handy place to hang out. Among other things, it requires little energy to maintain its orbit around L2. Being a million miles further from the sun than the earth also means that it has a larger baseline for doing parallax measurements of distant stars. JWST's orbit also far enough from the the sun, earth and moon so that the sun shield can keep the infrared instruments very cold without the need for cryogenic coolants. The orbit around L2 also keeps JWST out of the earth's and moon's shadows so its thermally stable, which is a good thing for infrared astronomy.
Please explain what orbits what!
Quite simple. Sun-earth Lagrange points orbit the sun. Earth-moon Lagrange points orbit the earth. JWST orbits a sun-earth Lagrange point commonly referred to as L2.
No, JWST took off from Earth and still orbits Earth all the time in a very elongated, variable speed/direction orbit in a certain plane around Earth that I doubt intercept any orbit of L2 around the Sun. Problem is to change the JWST orbit at L2 and dock with L2. It is very difficult as L2 moves all the time in another plane around the Sun. I think you don't know what you are talking about ... like ESA/NASA.
Why don't you explain to us, in detail, how and why it's so very difficult. Just stating it's difficult is like me saying, "It's very difficult to climb Mt. Everest."
I think you don't know what you are talking about ... like ESA/NASA.
-
I think you don't know what you are talking about ... like ESA/NASA.
No, it's pretty obvious to all that you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.
-
I think you don't know what you are talking about ... like ESA/NASA.
No, it's pretty obvious to all that you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.
Regardless, I really look forward to the pictures of the Universe taken by the JWST at L2 after all adjustments have been made. Experts will probably say the pictures are fantastic and of great values to explain something ... that I don't understand. Haven't I heard that before.
-
I think you don't know what you are talking about ... like ESA/NASA.
No, it's pretty obvious to all that you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.
Regardless, I really look forward to the pictures of the Universe taken by the JWST at L2 after all adjustments have been made. Experts will probably say the pictures are fantastic and of great values to explain something ... that I don't understand. Haven't I heard that before.
Perhaps it would help if you were to open yourself to the possibility that there is more to astronomy than just looking at the night sky from your window.
-
I think you don't know what you are talking about ... like ESA/NASA.
No, it's pretty obvious to all that you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.
Regardless, I really look forward to the pictures of the Universe taken by the JWST at L2 after all adjustments have been made. Experts will probably say the pictures are fantastic and of great values to explain something ... that I don't understand. Haven't I heard that before.
Perhaps it would help if you were to open yourself to the possibility that there is more to astronomy than just looking at the night sky from your window.
I like looking myself to verify things I am told are happening. Just because a rocket takes off doesn't mean that it arrives at L2 after a month, etc, etc, bla, bla, bla.
-
etc, etc, bla, bla, bla.
-
etc, etc, bla, bla, bla.
Thanks. NASA thinks that rockets taking off Earth will reach the Moon, planet Mars, the international fake Space station and point L2 just because it says so. Isn't it fun?
-
Getting closer to getting the image properly aligned. But Heiwa probably sees this all the time when he's drunk posting.
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/62k54fUSfgnXQMa92YwqXD-970-80.jpg)
-
I like looking myself to verify things I am told are happening.
Do you have the proper tools to verify the things that your are told are happening?
No, I didn't think so.
-
etc, etc, bla, bla, bla.
Thanks. NASA thinks that rockets taking off Earth will reach the Moon, planet Mars, the international fake Space station and point L2 just because it says so. Isn't it fun?
Send me €20 and I'll agree with you.
-
etc, etc, bla, bla, bla.
Thanks. NASA thinks that rockets taking off Earth will reach the Moon, planet Mars, the international fake Space station and point L2 just because it says so. Isn't it fun?
Send me €20 and I'll agree with you.
?
-
etc, etc, bla, bla, bla.
Thanks. NASA thinks that rockets taking off Earth will reach the Moon, planet Mars, the international fake Space station and point L2 just because it says so. Isn't it fun?
Send me €20 and I'll agree with you.
?
I think I broke him.
-
explains a lot. It is hilarious! We get 16 blurry pictures of the Universe that is combined to one blurry picture from L2. I wonder what a JWST picture of planet Venus will look like from L2. I can see Venus passing my window now and then without going to L2.
-
explains a lot. It is hilarious! We get 16 blurry pictures of the Universe that is combined to one blurry picture from L2. I wonder what a JWST picture of planet Venus will look like from L2. I can see Venus passing my window now and then without going to L2.
Take a picture of Venus from your window and show us how clear it is.
Btw, here's what it looks like from your window right now. Looks kinda blurry to me.
(https://i.imgur.com/j5cwB6B.png)
-
explains a lot. It is hilarious! We get 16 blurry pictures of the Universe that is combined to one blurry picture from L2. I wonder what a JWST picture of planet Venus will look like from L2. I can see Venus passing my window now and then without going to L2.
Take a picture of Venus from your window and show us how clear it is.
Btw, here's what it looks like from your window right now. Looks kinda blurry to me.
(https://i.imgur.com/j5cwB6B.png)
It is pretty cloudy right now. The Nice telescope 18 km west cannot see anything too. Anyway, JWST can only see away from the Sun protected by its Sun shield behind the mirror. JWST must be kept in the ice+ cold shade of its shield to function properly. If JWST by mistake looks at the Sun, it will melt and become useless. As Venus is between JWST and the Sun, JWST cannot observe Venus, as I do from my window.
So JWST will capture the infrared light of the early Universe seeping in from far away, we are told. I really wonder what it looks like. I cannot see it, as infrared is filtered off by the atmosphere outside my window.
-
explains a lot. It is hilarious! We get 16 blurry pictures of the Universe that is combined to one blurry picture from L2. I wonder what a JWST picture of planet Venus will look like from L2. I can see Venus passing my window now and then without going to L2.
Take a picture of Venus from your window and show us how clear it is.
Btw, here's what it looks like from your window right now. Looks kinda blurry to me.
(https://i.imgur.com/j5cwB6B.png)
It is pretty cloudy right now. The Nice telescope 18 km west cannot see anything too. Anyway, JWST can only see away from the Sun protected by its Sun shield behind the mirror. JWST must be kept in the ice+ cold shade of its shield to function properly. If JWST by mistake looks at the Sun, it will melt and become useless. As Venus is between JWST and the Sun, JWST cannot observe Venus, as I do from my window.
So JWST will capture the infrared light of the early Universe seeping in from far away, we are told. I really wonder what it looks like. I cannot see it, as infrared is filtered off by the atmosphere outside my window.
Is the bot attempting to make a point?
-
explains a lot. It is hilarious! We get 16 blurry pictures of the Universe that is combined to one blurry picture from L2. I wonder what a JWST picture of planet Venus will look like from L2. I can see Venus passing my window now and then without going to L2.
Take a picture of Venus from your window and show us how clear it is.
Btw, here's what it looks like from your window right now. Looks kinda blurry to me.
(https://i.imgur.com/j5cwB6B.png)
It is pretty cloudy right now. The Nice telescope 18 km west cannot see anything too. Anyway, JWST can only see away from the Sun protected by its Sun shield behind the mirror. JWST must be kept in the ice+ cold shade of its shield to function properly. If JWST by mistake looks at the Sun, it will melt and become useless. As Venus is between JWST and the Sun, JWST cannot observe Venus, as I do from my window.
So JWST will capture the infrared light of the early Universe seeping in from far away, we are told. I really wonder what it looks like. I cannot see it, as infrared is filtered off by the atmosphere outside my window.
Is the bot attempting to make a point?
No, you simply cannot understand what I post.
-
And again, here we can see the result of Heiwa asking himself a question on the internet ("I wonder what a JWST picture of planet Venus will look like from L2"), googling to find an answer, and then posting that answer in a follow-up post as if he actually understood what he read. It's truly a marvel!
-
explains a lot. It is hilarious! We get 16 blurry pictures of the Universe that is combined to one blurry picture from L2.
Yes, they have been saying that it would take a few months to adjust and calibrate the mirrors to give clear images.
I wonder what a JWST picture of planet Venus will look like from L2.
Seeing as Venus is a hot planet near an even hotter sun and JWST is an infrared telescope, I would think that the pictures would be completely blank because the infrared sensors burned out.
I can see Venus passing my window now and then without going to L2.
Good for you. Who cares?
-
explains a lot. It is hilarious! We get 16 blurry pictures of the Universe that is combined to one blurry picture from L2.
Yes, they have been saying that it would take a few months to adjust and calibrate the mirrors to give clear images.
I wonder what a JWST picture of planet Venus will look like from L2.
Seeing as Venus is a hot planet near an even hotter sun and JWST is an infrared telescope, I would think that the pictures would be completely blank because the infrared sensors burned out.
I can see Venus passing my window now and then without going to L2.
Good for you. Who cares?
Thanks for comments. The JWST is just 16 mirrors that produce one image of what is looked at, incl. planet Venus. It will not melt then. Only looking at the Sun isn't possible. I on the other hand can see the visible universe by looking out of my window in clear weather. No adjustments required. But let's face it - the JWST is a hoax.
-
The JWST is just 16 mirrors that produce one image of what is looked at, incl. planet Venus.
Also used by your proctologist to view what a giant asshole you are.
-
The JWST is just 16 mirrors that produce one image of what is looked at, incl. planet Venus.
Also used by your proctologist to view what a giant asshole you are.
You sound like a loser with your foul language. There is no JWST at L2! It is a hoax!
-
There is no JWST at L2! It is a hoax!
Provide one piece of evidence whose source is not you to support this claim.
-
The JWST is just 16 mirrors that produce one image of what is looked at, incl. planet Venus. It will not melt then.
I didn't say that it would melt the mirrors. I said that it would probably burn out the very sensitive infrared sensors.
I on the other hand can see the visible universe by looking out of my window in clear weather.
Good for you. JWST will be able to see far more of the universe that is not visible from your window.
No adjustments required. But let's face it - the JWST is a hoax.
If that's how you feel about it, then every telescope that can see beyond the visible spectrum, terrestrial or space based, must also be a hoax. I suppose x-ray, radio and infrared astronomy must all be fake as well.
-
The JWST is just 16 mirrors
Is it, now? Fascinating. Your knack for engineering and keen attention to detail never cease to amaze!
-
The JWST is just 16 mirrors that produce one image of what is looked at, incl. planet Venus.
Heiwa is dactylly challenged and only has 4 digits on each hand and foot. That's why he can't count to 18.
Oh, yeah. He's also missing his dick.
-
The JWST is just 16 mirrors that produce one image of what is looked at, incl. planet Venus.
Heiwa is dactylly challenged and only has 4 digits on each hand and foot. That's why he can't count to 18.
Oh, yeah. He's also missing his dick.
Citation required.
-
The JWST is just 16 mirrors that produce one image of what is looked at, incl. planet Venus.
Heiwa is dactylly challenged and only has 4 digits on each hand and foot. That's why he can't count to 18.
Oh, yeah. He's also missing his dick.
Citation required.
Citation (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm)
-
The JWST is just 16 mirrors that produce one image of what is looked at, incl. planet Venus.
Heiwa is dactylly challenged and only has 4 digits on each hand and foot. That's why he can't count to 18.
Technically, its 3 mirrors with the primary mirror being made up of 18 segments.
What Kind of Telescope Is Webb?
Webb is what is known as a three mirror anastigmat telescope. In this configuration, the primary mirror is concave, the secondary is convex, and it works slightly off-axis. The tertiary removes the resulting astigmatism and also flattens the focal plane. This also allows for a wider field of view.
-
Each of those segments is a mirror. So I guess it's a 20-mirror telescope, and 18 of them just Megazord themselves.
-
Anyway the JWST mirrors reflect IR-light from the end of the Universe billions of light years away, when they are adjusted, and one day we will see a color picture of it. And then all is clear and explained.
It would have been easier to put the JWST on the Moon with its clear weather every day, but maybe it was too close to Earth then? No, L2 is the perfect location. ROTFL.
-
Anyway the JWST mirrors reflect IR-light from the end of the Universe
*beginning. One day, you'll get it. I'm proud of you, your efforts are going to pay off one day.
-
It would have been easier to put the JWST on the Moon with its clear weather every day, but maybe it was too close to Earth then?
Why would anyone in their right mind put an infrared telescope on the moon where it would receive daylight for 2 weeks at a time? Despite the name of the Pink Floyd album, there is no dark side of the moon.
-
It would have been easier to put the JWST on the Moon with its clear weather every day, but maybe it was too close to Earth then?
Why would anyone in their right mind put an infrared telescope on the moon where it would receive daylight for 2 weeks at a time? Despite the name of the Pink Floyd album, there is no dark side of the moon.
Hm, the Sun shines on the Moon all the time (except if Earth is in the way) and the universe around it. It is a perfect place to study the universe because there is no atmosphere filtering the light. If you are afraid of sun heat radiation, you just put a parasol/heat shield above the JWST as protection. And if you are afraid of the coldness, you fit a heater. I cannot understand why ESA/NASA chose L2 as viewing point. The Moon is much better ... if you can get there without crashing when landing.
-
thus spake Björkman . . .
-
Hm, the Sun shines on the Moon all the time (except if Earth is in the way) and the universe around it. It is a perfect place to study the universe because there is no atmosphere filtering the light. If you are afraid of sun heat radiation, you just put a parasol/heat shield above the JWST as protection.
Yep. If I want to cool my beer to -370F when the overhead sun is making my mug and all the surrounding landscape >200F, then I “just put a parasol” over it as protection.
Good thing those tanker designs don’t count on you for any thermal analysis.
-
Putting a parasol over a telescope kinda defeats the purpose.
-
Putting a parasol over a telescope kinda defeats the purpose.
No, the parasol stops the telescope from heating up by direct sun radiation. Ok, heat of the Sun is also reflected from the surface of the moon, so you have to consider that too.
-
Putting a parasol over a telescope kinda defeats the purpose.
No, the parasol stops the telescope from heating up by direct sun radiation. Ok, heat of the Sun is also reflected from the surface of the moon, so you have to consider that too.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
-
The JWST is just 16 mirrors that produce one image of what is looked at, incl. planet Venus.
Heiwa is dactylly challenged and only has 4 digits on each hand and foot. That's why he can't count to 18.
Oh, yeah. He's also missing his dick.
Citation required.
Citation (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm)
All seems to be in order here.
-
Putting a parasol over a telescope kinda defeats the purpose.
No, the parasol stops the telescope from heating up by direct sun radiation. Ok, heat of the Sun is also reflected from the surface of the moon, so you have to consider that too.
So you’ve just answered one aspect as to why put JWST at L2. The Moon is not an appropriate thermal environment. Neither is Earth orbit. L2 is.
-
Putting a parasol over a telescope kinda defeats the purpose.
No, the parasol stops the telescope from heating up by direct sun radiation. Ok, heat of the Sun is also reflected from the surface of the moon, so you have to consider that too.
So you’ve just answered one aspect as to why put JWST at L2. The Moon is not an appropriate thermal environment. Neither is Earth orbit. L2 is.
Not really. If L2 is really in the shadow of Earth/Moon, it very cold there with no need for a heat shield. Solar panels are useless at L2. But you'll no doubt say that JWST orbits L2! As soon it is exposed to the Sun, a parasol is enough protection as long as you look in the other direction. Never look at the Sun, when flying in space. Your eye will melt. I know that the asstronuts had sun glasses on the Moon, even if they were hard to fit with the gloves used.
-
If L2 is really in the shadow of Earth/Moon,
It's not.
-
Putting a parasol over a telescope kinda defeats the purpose.
No, the parasol stops the telescope from heating up by direct sun radiation. Ok, heat of the Sun is also reflected from the surface of the moon, so you have to consider that too.
So you’ve just answered one aspect as to why put JWST at L2. The Moon is not an appropriate thermal environment. Neither is Earth orbit. L2 is.
Not really. If L2 is really in the shadow of Earth/Moon, it very cold there with no need for a heat shield. Solar panels are useless at L2. But you'll no doubt say that JWST orbits L2! As soon it is exposed to the Sun, a parasol is enough protection as long as you look in the other direction.
You're beginning to have the basics of comprehension, but you don't remember what you said previously. Or what others have said previously.
By "at L2" yes I meant orbiting it so that solar panels will work. Yes, a parasol works there because in the other direction is 4 degree Kelvin space that heat can be radiated to and from which no incoming heat load exists. That is not the case in your example of JWST lounging under a parasol on the surface of the Moon. Or in orbit around the Moon. Or in orbit around the Earth.
Hopefully you've learned just a little bit more today and won't be such a doofus in future. We can hope.
-
If L2 is really in the shadow of Earth/Moon,
It's not.
It is.
-
No, it's not. It specifically avoids Earth's shadow to avoid thermal stress due changes in temperature. You have been told this before.
-
If L2 is really in the shadow of Earth/Moon,
It's not.
It is.
It's not.
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
(https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2022-01/WebbCirclingLangrangePoint2_1024.gif)
(https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/0Qy.IxyfCIQ4vma.L8Vx7g--~B/Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQyNTt3PTY3NTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-uploaded-images/2022-01/4cba13e0-7d58-11ec-9dda-c106c1e820aa.cf.webp)
-
If L2 is really in the shadow of Earth/Moon,
It's not.
It is.
It's not.
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
(https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2022-01/WebbCirclingLangrangePoint2_1024.gif)
(https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/0Qy.IxyfCIQ4vma.L8Vx7g--~B/Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQyNTt3PTY3NTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-uploaded-images/2022-01/4cba13e0-7d58-11ec-9dda-c106c1e820aa.cf.webp)
Heiwa is playing pedantic games. L2 is in Earth's shadow; JWST (and other spacecraft) trace a halo orbit around L2 and are not in Earth's shadow.
-
Hm, the Sun shines on the Moon all the time (except if Earth is in the way) and the universe around it. It is a perfect place to study the universe because there is no atmosphere filtering the light. If you are afraid of sun heat radiation, you just put a parasol/heat shield above the JWST as protection. And if you are afraid of the coldness, you fit a heater. I cannot understand why ESA/NASA chose L2 as viewing point. The Moon is much better ... if you can get there without crashing when landing.
You have no idea of the conditions required for infrared astronomy, do you?
BTW, doesn't one of your "challenges" say that it's impossible to land on the moon?
If L2 is really in the shadow of Earth/Moon,
It's not.
It is.
The L2 point is in earth's shadow. JWST's orbit around L2 is not.
-
Hm, the Sun shines on the Moon all the time (except if Earth is in the way) and the universe around it. It is a perfect place to study the universe because there is no atmosphere filtering the light. If you are afraid of sun heat radiation, you just put a parasol/heat shield above the JWST as protection. And if you are afraid of the coldness, you fit a heater. I cannot understand why ESA/NASA chose L2 as viewing point. The Moon is much better ... if you can get there without crashing when landing.
You have no idea of the conditions required for infrared astronomy, do you?
BTW, doesn't one of your "challenges" say that it's impossible to land on the moon?
If L2 is really in the shadow of Earth/Moon,
It's not.
It is.
The L2 point is in earth's shadow. JWST's orbit around L2 is not.
Thanks for questions and comments.
No, infrared astronomy is same as visible light astronomy, as far as I see from my window, even if my eyes cannot see IR light. I don't expect that the secrets of the Universe are in the IR range. Or anywhere. The Universe is infinite with no end.
Yes, landing on the Moon will result in a crash and is not a way to visit the Moon. Nobody has won my funny €1M Challenge about it. Nobody has ever landed on the Moon and survived. But plenty fools say they have done it.
L2 is just a point in the Universe in the shadow of planet Earth. You cannot orbit around such a shady point. But plenty fools say they do it right now in the heat of the Sun and are adjusting a telescope to watch the Universe in IR color. I think it is hilarious ... and a fraud/hoax.
-
infrared astronomy is same as visible light astronomy, as far as I see from my window, even if my eyes cannot see IR light.
Yes, you would see infrared light equally as well with your eyes looking from space as you would using them on Earth, but that's why this telescope can see different wavelengths than you can. It has better eyesight than you ever had in the visible AND infrared part if the spectrum, and a more isolated location to collect all those delicious photons.
-
infrared astronomy is same as visible light astronomy, as far as I see from my window, even if my eyes cannot see IR light.
Yes, you would see infrared light equally as well with your eyes looking from space as you would using them on Earth, but that's why this telescope can see different wavelengths than you can. It has better eyesight than you ever had in the visible AND infrared part if the spectrum, and a more isolated location to collect all those delicious photons.
I am sorry that I cannot go to L2 and from there watch the end and beginning of the Universe in IR using a telescope. Actually nothing can fly to L2 and watch anything from there. The JWST and it's handlers are a fraud and cannot explain anything of it.
-
I am sorry that I cannot go to L2
That's OK. As luck would have it, there's a piece of equipment that can see better than you could even in your younger days that recently arrived in that vicinity. All you have to do is sit back and wait for the images to start rolling in, then you can use your eyes to see the images it was able to capture. I'm sure they'll all be shared on a very popular website that gets many visitors.
-
I am sorry that I cannot go to L2
That's OK. As luck would have it, there's a piece of equipment that can see better than you could even in your younger days that recently arrived in that vicinity. All you have to do is sit back and wait for the images to start rolling in, then you can use your eyes to see the images it was able to capture. I'm sure they'll all be shared on a very popular website that gets many visitors.
I agree. Imagine! Pictures of the end and beginning of the Universe. In IR! Taken orbiting L2.
-
The Universe is infinite with no end.
How can Earth be at the center of the Universe if the Universe is infinite with no end therefore there is no center?
Is the bot really that stupid?
-
The Universe is infinite with no end.
How can Earth be at the center of the Universe if the Universe is infinite with no end therefore there is no center?
Is the bot really that stupid?
No, looking out of my window on a rotating Earth the universe is in all directions with no ends. Just look yourself. So Earth is the center. And some experts think it is L2 far away.
-
The Universe is infinite with no end.
How can Earth be at the center of the Universe if the Universe is infinite with no end therefore there is no center?
Is the bot really that stupid?
Judging from their answer, yes. Yes it is.
-
No, looking out of my window on a rotating Earth the universe is in all directions with no ends. Just look yourself. So Earth is the center.
If you can't see the ends of the universe, then how do you know that the earth is at the center? How do you know that the earth isn't somewhat left of center of the universe?
-
The Universe is infinite with no end.
How can Earth be at the center of the Universe if the Universe is infinite with no end therefore there is no center?
Is the bot really that stupid?
No, looking out of my window on a rotating Earth the universe is in all directions with no ends. Just look yourself. So Earth is the center. And some experts think it is L2 far away.
More LIES from the heiwabot. NOBODY think L2 is the center of the universe.
-
No, looking out of my window on a rotating Earth the universe is in all directions with no ends. Just look yourself. So Earth is the center.
If you can't see the ends of the universe, then how do you know that the earth is at the center? How do you know that the earth isn't somewhat left of center of the universe?
I just look out from my window. I have a great view of the sea where I see the Sun rising every morning in good weather. It is ESA/NASA that says that JWST can see the end and beginning of the Universe from L2. I consider ESA/NASA and their JWST a sad joke.
-
I just look out from my window. I have a great view of the sea where I see the Sun rising every morning in good weather.
Good for you. Who cares?
It is ESA/NASA that says that JWST can see the end and beginning of the Universe from L2.
No, I'm pretty sure that they never said anything like that. Please stop saying stupid things.
I consider ESA/NASA and their JWST a sad joke.
Interesting. There are quite a few who feel the same way about you.
-
I just quote ESA/NASA:
“The James Webb Space Telescope’s revolutionary technology will study every phase of cosmic history from within our solar system to the most distant observable galaxies in the early universe.
Webb’s infrared telescope will explore a wide range of science questions to help us understand the origins of the universe and our place in it.”
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/assets/documents/WebbFactSheet.pdf
I particularily love the revolutionary "momentum flap" fitted below the sun shields.
-
I just quote ESA/NASA:
“The James Webb Space Telescope’s revolutionary technology will study every phase of cosmic history from within our solar system to the most distant observable galaxies in the early universe.
Webb’s infrared telescope will explore a wide range of science questions to help us understand the origins of the universe and our place in it.”
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/assets/documents/WebbFactSheet.pdf
I particularily love the revolutionary "momentum flap" fitted below the sun shields.
The aft momentum flap helps minimize the fuel engineers will need to use throughout Webb’s lifetime, by helping to maintain the observatory’s orientation in orbit. As photons of sunlight hit the large sunshield surface, they will exert pressure on the sunshield, and if not properly balanced, this solar pressure would cause rotations of the observatory that must be accommodated by its reaction wheels. The aft momentum flap will sail on the pressure of these photons, balancing the sunshield and keeping the observatory steady.
-
I just quote ESA/NASA:
“The James Webb Space Telescope’s revolutionary technology will study every phase of cosmic history from within our solar system to the most distant observable galaxies in the early universe.
Webb’s infrared telescope will explore a wide range of science questions to help us understand the origins of the universe and our place in it.”
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/assets/documents/WebbFactSheet.pdf
I particularily love the revolutionary "momentum flap" fitted below the sun shields.
The aft momentum flap helps minimize the fuel engineers will need to use throughout Webb’s lifetime, by helping to maintain the observatory’s orientation in orbit. As photons of sunlight hit the large sunshield surface, they will exert pressure on the sunshield, and if not properly balanced, this solar pressure would cause rotations of the observatory that must be accommodated by its reaction wheels. The aft momentum flap will sail on the pressure of these photons, balancing the sunshield and keeping the observatory steady.
Thanks! Yes, the momentum flap is revolutionary. It minimize fuel needed to keep the "observatory" steady. Have you got any evidence for this nonsense?
-
I just quote ESA/NASA:
“The James Webb Space Telescope’s revolutionary technology will study every phase of cosmic history from within our solar system to the most distant observable galaxies in the early universe.
Webb’s infrared telescope will explore a wide range of science questions to help us understand the origins of the universe and our place in it.”
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/assets/documents/WebbFactSheet.pdf
I particularily love the revolutionary "momentum flap" fitted below the sun shields.
The aft momentum flap helps minimize the fuel engineers will need to use throughout Webb’s lifetime, by helping to maintain the observatory’s orientation in orbit. As photons of sunlight hit the large sunshield surface, they will exert pressure on the sunshield, and if not properly balanced, this solar pressure would cause rotations of the observatory that must be accommodated by its reaction wheels. The aft momentum flap will sail on the pressure of these photons, balancing the sunshield and keeping the observatory steady.
Thanks! Yes, the momentum flap is revolutionary. It minimize fuel needed to keep the "observatory" steady. Have you got any evidence for this nonsense?
Giuliano M., Rager R., Ferdous N., 2007, “Towards a Heuristic for Scheduling the James
Webb Space Telescope” In the Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference
on Automated Planning and Scheduling. Providence Rhode Island. Pages 160-167.
Kinzel, W. M., 2005(A), “Managing Angular Momentum Accumulation by Visit
Sequencing and Visit Roll Selection”, JWST-STScI-000713, SM-12, Baseline
Kinzel, W. M., 2005(B), “Using Spacecraft Roll to Control JWST Momentum Buildup”,
JWST-STScI-000729, SM-12, Baseline
Kinzel, W. M., 2007, “JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque
Tables”, JWST-STScI-001189, SM-12, Baseline
Long, K. S., 2005, “Comparisons of the random walk model to schedules generated with
planJ and JMS/Spike”, JWST-STScI-000663 – Rev. B
Markley, F. L., et al, 2007, “Momentum Management Working Group: Restart 1st and
2nd Pass Final Report”, 07-JWST-0210, 28 September 2007.
Mitchell, L., 2007, “Observation Efficiency Allocations Report”, JWST-RPT-004166
Rev C, June 8, 2007
Petro, L., 2005, “JWST Science Operations Design Reference Mission (SODRM) Data
Products”, Version 1.1 (S&OC-DRD OP-01), JWST-OPS-003257, October 25, 2005.
Petro et al. 2005, “Planning to Minimize Angular Momentum”, JWST-STScI-000645 –
Rev A.
Rager R., Giuliano M., 2006, “Evaluating Scheduling Strategies for JWST Momentum
Scheduling” In the Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Planning and
Scheduling for Space. Baltimore, MD. Pages 82-91.
Simmons, D.F., et al. 2005, Momentum Management Trade Study Final Report”, 05-
JWST-0402, 26, October, 2005.
Stockman 2005, “Maximum Allowable Solar Torque Architecture for JWST, JWSTSTScI-000583
Stockman & Long 2005, A Statistical Analysis of Angular Momentum Buildup and its
impact of the JWST Science Mission, STSCI-JWST-TM-2005-0208
-
I just quote ESA/NASA:
“The James Webb Space Telescope’s revolutionary technology will study every phase of cosmic history from within our solar system to the most distant observable galaxies in the early universe.
Webb’s infrared telescope will explore a wide range of science questions to help us understand the origins of the universe and our place in it.”
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/assets/documents/WebbFactSheet.pdf
I particularily love the revolutionary "momentum flap" fitted below the sun shields.
The aft momentum flap helps minimize the fuel engineers will need to use throughout Webb’s lifetime, by helping to maintain the observatory’s orientation in orbit. As photons of sunlight hit the large sunshield surface, they will exert pressure on the sunshield, and if not properly balanced, this solar pressure would cause rotations of the observatory that must be accommodated by its reaction wheels. The aft momentum flap will sail on the pressure of these photons, balancing the sunshield and keeping the observatory steady.
Thanks! Yes, the momentum flap is revolutionary. It minimize fuel needed to keep the "observatory" steady. Have you got any evidence for this nonsense?
Giuliano M., Rager R., Ferdous N., 2007, “Towards a Heuristic for Scheduling the James
Webb Space Telescope” In the Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference
on Automated Planning and Scheduling. Providence Rhode Island. Pages 160-167.
Kinzel, W. M., 2005(A), “Managing Angular Momentum Accumulation by Visit
Sequencing and Visit Roll Selection”, JWST-STScI-000713, SM-12, Baseline
Kinzel, W. M., 2005(B), “Using Spacecraft Roll to Control JWST Momentum Buildup”,
JWST-STScI-000729, SM-12, Baseline
Kinzel, W. M., 2007, “JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque
Tables”, JWST-STScI-001189, SM-12, Baseline
Long, K. S., 2005, “Comparisons of the random walk model to schedules generated with
planJ and JMS/Spike”, JWST-STScI-000663 – Rev. B
Markley, F. L., et al, 2007, “Momentum Management Working Group: Restart 1st and
2nd Pass Final Report”, 07-JWST-0210, 28 September 2007.
Mitchell, L., 2007, “Observation Efficiency Allocations Report”, JWST-RPT-004166
Rev C, June 8, 2007
Petro, L., 2005, “JWST Science Operations Design Reference Mission (SODRM) Data
Products”, Version 1.1 (S&OC-DRD OP-01), JWST-OPS-003257, October 25, 2005.
Petro et al. 2005, “Planning to Minimize Angular Momentum”, JWST-STScI-000645 –
Rev A.
Rager R., Giuliano M., 2006, “Evaluating Scheduling Strategies for JWST Momentum
Scheduling” In the Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Planning and
Scheduling for Space. Baltimore, MD. Pages 82-91.
Simmons, D.F., et al. 2005, Momentum Management Trade Study Final Report”, 05-
JWST-0402, 26, October, 2005.
Stockman 2005, “Maximum Allowable Solar Torque Architecture for JWST, JWSTSTScI-000583
Stockman & Long 2005, A Statistical Analysis of Angular Momentum Buildup and its
impact of the JWST Science Mission, STSCI-JWST-TM-2005-0208
Nothing about momentum flaps 2022.
-
Yeah, strangely it seems most of the research about how to successfully deploy JWST was performed prior to launch. Those big silly scientists and their strange way of doing things, amirite?
-
All you have to know about a momentum flap !!!
“As photons of sunlight hit the large sunshield surface, they will exert pressure on the sunshield, and if not properly balanced, this solar pressure would cause rotations of the JWST observatory that must be accommodated by its reaction wheels. The aft momentum flap will sail on the pressure of these photons, balancing the sunshield and keeping the JWST observatory steady. Just as a ship’s mast must be set in position and the rigging established before the ship unfurls its sails, Webb’s pallet structures, momentum flap, and mid-booms will soon all be in place for Webb’s silver sunshield to unfold. ”
Don’t ask me what the JWST reaction wheels are!
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2021/12/30/webbs-aft-momentum-flap-deployed/
-
All you have to know about a momentum flap !!!
No, you need to know a lot more. Here's a starter package for you:
Kinzel, W. M., 2005(A), “Managing Angular Momentum Accumulation by Visit
Sequencing and Visit Roll Selection”, JWST-STScI-000713, SM-12, Baseline
Kinzel, W. M., 2005(B), “Using Spacecraft Roll to Control JWST Momentum Buildup”,
JWST-STScI-000729, SM-12, Baseline
Kinzel, W. M., 2007, “JWST Angular Momentum Management with Pass 1 and 2 Torque
Tables”, JWST-STScI-001189, SM-12, Baseline
Long, K. S., 2005, “Comparisons of the random walk model to schedules generated with
planJ and JMS/Spike”, JWST-STScI-000663 – Rev. B
Markley, F. L., et al, 2007, “Momentum Management Working Group: Restart 1st and
2nd Pass Final Report”, 07-JWST-0210, 28 September 2007.
Mitchell, L., 2007, “Observation Efficiency Allocations Report”, JWST-RPT-004166
Rev C, June 8, 2007
Petro, L., 2005, “JWST Science Operations Design Reference Mission (SODRM) Data
Products”, Version 1.1 (S&OC-DRD OP-01), JWST-OPS-003257, October 25, 2005.
Petro et al. 2005, “Planning to Minimize Angular Momentum”, JWST-STScI-000645 –
Rev A.
Rager R., Giuliano M., 2006, “Evaluating Scheduling Strategies for JWST Momentum
Scheduling” In the Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Planning and
Scheduling for Space. Baltimore, MD. Pages 82-91.
Simmons, D.F., et al. 2005, Momentum Management Trade Study Final Report”, 05-
JWST-0402, 26, October, 2005.
Stockman 2005, “Maximum Allowable Solar Torque Architecture for JWST, JWSTSTScI-000583
Stockman & Long 2005, A Statistical Analysis of Angular Momentum Buildup and its
impact of the JWST Science Mission, STSCI-JWST-TM-2005-0208
Don’t ask me what the JWST reaction wheels are!
The ACS uses sun sensors, star trackers, and gyroscopes to sense the observatory orientation and movement, as well as reaction wheels and/or thrusters to apply force or torque to the observatory for pointing control or maneuvers. The reaction wheels provide the control torques needed to maintain attitude and pointing as well as to slew. The spacecraft's star trackers provide stellar inertial attitude reference for 3-axis coarse pointing control. The ACS points the telescope boresight to within 8″ (1-σ, per axis) of the commanded position prior to guide star acquisition, without any position reference or input from the Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS).
Control of the roll orientation about the telescope's optical axis is provided by input from the spacecraft's 2 star trackers. The star trackers each have a ~16° diameter FOV, projected on to a 512 × 512 pixel CCD detector. They are oriented over 45° from the telescope boresight and each other. The star trackers compare the observed positions of bright stars (V < 6) to an internal star catalog. This allows the use of a single star for fine guidance within the FGS field of view (FOV) while still maintaining roll control.
The duration of slews is a function of the length of the motion. The rate of motion is determined in part by the need to keep settling times within certain limits as well as the desire to reach the new pointing as soon as possible. For slews between 25" and 3°, the slew rate is slower than for shorter or longer slews, to avoid exciting slosh modes of the propellant in the tanks. Once excited, propellant slosh can take a long time to damp (more than 20 minutes in some cases).
Fine guidance is a closed loop system, in which a guide star in the FGS FOV is used to stabilize the observatory during science exposures. The FGS makes measurements of the guide star position in the plane of the sky and sends these to the ACS every 64 ms. Using the FGS data, the ACS determines the telescope pointing error to be removed, using a combination of the fine steering mirror (FSM) and the spacecraft's reaction wheels.
Each science visit uses a single guide star. Pointing changes within the FGS FOV (dithers, target acquisition motions, etc.) are specified to the spacecraft in terms of the change in the guide star location (Delta X, Delta Y) in the FGS FOV, and the change in the position angle (Delta PA) about the guide star's position.
For stationary targets, the ACS controls the FSM and reaction wheels so that the guide star remains at a fixed location in the FGS detector.
In order to change the telescope pointing orientation by more than one FGS pixel (about 0.06"), the ACS must exit the "Fine Guide" mode, execute the pointing change, and then reestablish fine guidance. Very small offsets <0.06" can be executed by the FSM, while the ACS remains in closed-loop fine guidance control.
Nothing about momentum flaps 2022.
As Boydster pointed out, does the Heiwabot really think the engineering, design, calculations for momentum flap guidance was done the day of launch in 2022? Would a Heiwabot design a tanker rudder the day it was launched into the sea? The Heiwabot really needs to upgrade from decades old idiocy and infancy.
-
Would a Heiwabot design a tanker rudder the day it was launched into the sea?
All the evidence points to yes. Yes he would.
-
My problems are the ACS, the FSM and the reaction wheels. I simply don't believe they work. Wheels on a space craft!?!? ROTFL
-
It's a flywheel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_wheel
Seriously, what did you read for your M.Sc.?
-
My problems are the ACS, the FSM and the reaction wheels. I simply don't believe they work. Wheels on a space craft!?!? ROTFL
A SURVEY OF REACTION WHEEL DISTURBANCE MODELING APPROACHES FOR SPACECRAFT LINE-OF-SIGHT JITTER PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-SURVEY-OF-REACTION-WHEEL-DISTURBANCE-MODELING-FOR-Dennehy/7dce81c520221d26b65308c0b9fa8c8c801590b4)
(https://i.imgur.com/ocrL7md.png)
Here's what they look like:
(https://i.imgur.com/X4YsNPw.png)
The Heiwabot is an idiot and thinks reaction wheels are these:
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/pmx0908119a-1591389137.jpg?crop=0.501xw:1.00xh;0.212xw,0&resize=980:*)
-
It's a flywheel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_wheel
Seriously, what did you read for your M.Sc.?
I know that the reaction wheels provide the control torques needed to maintain (1) attitude and (2) pointing as well as (3) to slew when you are orbiting L2. Luckily I don't need them looking out of my window.
-
It's a flywheel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_wheel
Seriously, what did you read for your M.Sc.?
I know that the reaction wheels provide the control torques needed to maintain (1) attitude and (2) pointing as well as (3) to slew when you are orbiting L2. Luckily I don't need them looking out of my window.
That's why you weren't launched into space.
-
It's a flywheel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_wheel
Seriously, what did you read for your M.Sc.?
It would seem he did all his research on graduation day.
-
I just quote ESA/NASA:
Yes, and then you mangle, misrepresent and outright lie about what they actually said.
-
I just quote ESA/NASA:
Yes, and then you mangle, misrepresent and outright lie about what they actually said.
No, just study:
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/j/jwst
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
Note that plenty links are missing.
Regardless – there are plenty steps before we get any pictures at all from the JWST at L2. So better is just to look out from my window.
-
Regardless – there are plenty steps before we get any pictures at all from the JWST at L2. So better is just to look out from my window.
No, better to keep using Hubble Space Telescope. That is unless you can see this from your window.
(https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01EVT1KG6QRFHEHHA14GT3FR0G.png)
-
All you have to know about a momentum flap !!!
Foreskin?
-
I just quote ESA/NASA:
Yes, and then you mangle, misrepresent and outright lie about what they actually said.
No, just study:
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/j/jwst
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
Note that plenty links are missing.
Regardless – there are plenty steps before we get any pictures at all from the JWST at L2. So better is just to look out from my window.
It helps if the Heiwabot™ was smart enough to go to the right link - Apparently, the Heiwabot™ is an idiot - No links are broken:
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/j/jwst
Spacecraft bus and sunshield
The JWST spacecraft bus provides the necessary support functions for the operation of the JWST observatory. The bus is the home for six major subsystems: 125)
• ACS (Attitude Control Subsystem)
• EPS (Electrical Power Subsystem)
• C&DHS (Command and Data Handling Subsystem)
• RF communications subsystem
• Propulsion subsystem
• TCS (Thermal Control Subsystem)
The spacecraft is 3-axis stabilized. Two star trackers (+ 1 for redundancy) point the observatory toward the science target prior to guide star acquisition, and they provide roll stability about the telescope line of sight (V1 axis.) Six reaction wheels (two are redundant) are mounted on isolators near the center of gravity of the bus to reduce disturbances to the observatory. These reaction wheels offload the fine steering control (operation from a 16 Hz update from the FGS) to maintain the fine steering mirror near its central position to limit differential distortion-induced blurring onto the target star. 126) 127)
(https://eoportal.org/ftp/satellite-missions/j/JWST_140222/JWST_Auto8.jpeg)
Figure 76: Top view of the JWST spacecraft bus
(https://eoportal.org/ftp/satellite-missions/j/JWST_140222/JWST_Auto7.jpeg)
Figure 77: Observatory schematic block diagram
-
The spacecraft is 3-axis stabilized. Two star trackers (+ 1 for redundancy) point the observatory toward the science target prior to guide star acquisition, and they provide roll stability about the telescope line of sight (V1 axis.) Six reaction wheels (two are redundant) are mounted on isolators near the center of gravity of the bus to reduce disturbances to the observatory.
Obviously you make shit up as you go along.
Do you have no need for a bigilliun award units?
I don't thing you are even trying . . .
::)
-
I just quote ESA/NASA:
Yes, and then you mangle, misrepresent and outright lie about what they actually said.
No, just study:
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/j/jwst
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
Note that plenty links are missing.
Regardless – there are plenty steps before we get any pictures at all from the JWST at L2. So better is just to look out from my window.
It helps if the Heiwabot™ was smart enough to go to the right link - Apparently, the Heiwabot™ is an idiot - No links are broken:
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/j/jwst
Spacecraft bus and sunshield
The JWST spacecraft bus provides the necessary support functions for the operation of the JWST observatory. The bus is the home for six major subsystems: 125)
• ACS (Attitude Control Subsystem)
• EPS (Electrical Power Subsystem)
• C&DHS (Command and Data Handling Subsystem)
• RF communications subsystem
• Propulsion subsystem
• TCS (Thermal Control Subsystem)
The spacecraft is 3-axis stabilized. Two star trackers (+ 1 for redundancy) point the observatory toward the science target prior to guide star acquisition, and they provide roll stability about the telescope line of sight (V1 axis.) Six reaction wheels (two are redundant) are mounted on isolators near the center of gravity of the bus to reduce disturbances to the observatory. These reaction wheels offload the fine steering control (operation from a 16 Hz update from the FGS) to maintain the fine steering mirror near its central position to limit differential distortion-induced blurring onto the target star. 126) 127)
(https://eoportal.org/ftp/satellite-missions/j/JWST_140222/JWST_Auto8.jpeg)
Figure 76: Top view of the JWST spacecraft bus
(https://eoportal.org/ftp/satellite-missions/j/JWST_140222/JWST_Auto7.jpeg)
Figure 77: Observatory schematic block diagram
Fantastic! But what about the momentum flap?
-
But what about the momentum flap?
Sounds like a sex thing.
-
But what about the momentum flap?
Sounds like a sex thing.
Not at all! It is a rudder that steers a spaceship in a universe full of photons originating from the Sun. Just flap it and you turn right/left/up/down and arrive at your destination, so you can stop and dock. How the flap stops and reverses you, is not clear. It is secret!
-
But what about the momentum flap?
Sounds like a sex thing.
Not at all! It is a rudder that steers a spaceship in a universe full of photons originating from the Sun. Just flap it and you turn right/left/up/down and arrive at your destination, so you can stop and dock. How the flap stops and reverses you, is not clear. It is secret!
You talk some real crap.
-
Heiwa is having tremendous fun.
So are all of you.
Just enjoy the game.
-
Actually the JWST lost its momentum flap just after take off - some NASA/ESA expert/engineer had forgotten to secure it - so JWST took off in the wrong direction and is now on the way to the end of the universe ..
-
But what about the momentum flap?
Sounds like a sex thing.
Not at all! It is a rudder that steers a spaceship in a universe full of photons originating from the Sun.
No. It's closer to a trim tab that helps stabilize the orientation of the telescope.
-
Actually the JWST lost its momentum flap just after take off - some NASA/ESA expert/engineer had forgotten to secure it - so JWST took off in the wrong direction and is now on the way to the end of the universe ..
What's it like to be so smart?
-
But what about the momentum flap?
Sounds like a sex thing.
Not at all! It is a rudder that steers a spaceship in a universe full of photons originating from the Sun. Just flap it and you turn right/left/up/down and arrive at your destination, so you can stop and dock. How the flap stops and reverses you, is not clear. It is secret!
The momentum flap is a noun, not a verb. The flap doesn't flap.
The "trim tab", "momentum flap", whatever you want to call it, is not new tech. It's used to aid stabilization on the GOES satellites as well.
Performance analysis of the GOES trim tab solar pressure torque angular momentum control (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996SPIE.2812..741H/abstract)
The GOES I/M series of geostationary weather satellites are 3-axis stabilized and incorporate an optical trim surface, or 'trim tab', to balance solar radiation pressure torque between the south moment arm, formed by a single solar array, and the north moment arm, formed by a solar sail on an extended boom. This design minimizes the need for active roll/yaw momentum management from thrusters or magnetic dipoles and provides margin for uncertainties and changes such as center of mass shift and degradation of surface optical properties. The trim tab has one rotational degree of freedom and is actuated vie open loop ground command to a motor on the rotation axis. Normal operational procedure is to command a small incremental trim tab slew daily to track the change in north/south solar radiation pressure torque with Sun declination. Proper management of the trim tab is critical to spacecraft roll/yaw pointing performance and the open loop design of the system requires sophisticated ground based algorithms to determine trim tab position error and developed a daily commanding profile. Flight experience with the GOES-8 and GOES-9 spacecraft has proven the feasibility of the trim tab design and has led to refinement of the ground based trim tab analysis algorithm. This paper summarizes the performance of the trim tab roll/yaw momentum control system and describes analysis methods developed by the GOES mission operations team to support trim tab operations.
Attitude Stabilization and Control Using Trim Tabs for Spacecraft with Sun Shields (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Attitude-Stabilization-and-Control-Using-Trim-Tabs-Lim/bf0e9ba392eadd07f961df1314bcc53eb897eca7)
Solar radiation torque harnessed by large exposed surfaces such as sun shields and solar panels is of major concern for spacecraft operating at GEO and L2 orbits. The geometry and optical properties of these surfaces need to be designed to ensure attitude stability for the entire mission duration while mitigating solar radiation torque and thus momentum build-up. Using a conceptual spacecraft with a large sun shield, which contains similar characteristics of the James Webb Space Telescope, the relationships among the sun angle, sun shield geometry, surface optical properties, and vehicle center of mass are examined to define conditions that are required to provide passive attitude stability and to minimize solar radiation torque. Due primarily to optical property degradation over time, finding optimum sun shield properties that can be effective for the entire mission duration is not feasible with fixed sun shield geometry. It is shown in this paper that trim tabs can be employed effectively to augment the stability and to help maintain minimal solar radiation torque over the entire mission duration. The process of sizing the trim tabs and selecting their optical properties is presented to conduct these functions. A linearized control law for the trim tab is developed to generate commanded control torque by adjusting its deflection angles. Closed-loop attitude control examples using the conceptual spacecraft are provided to illustrate the process of employing the trim tabs to neutralize the solar radiation torque generated by the sun shield and to demonstrate the attitude stabilization capability of the trim tab control.
-
But what about the momentum flap?
Sounds like a sex thing.
Not at all! It is a rudder that steers a spaceship in a universe full of photons originating from the Sun. Just flap it and you turn right/left/up/down and arrive at your destination, so you can stop and dock. How the flap stops and reverses you, is not clear. It is secret!
The momentum flap is a noun, not a verb. The flap doesn't flap.
The "trim tab", "momentum flap", whatever you want to call it, is not new tech. It's used to aid stabilization on the GOES satellites as well.
Is it?
-
sex
-
sex
religion
-
But what about the momentum flap?
Sounds like a sex thing.
Not at all! It is a rudder that steers a spaceship in a universe full of photons originating from the Sun. Just flap it and you turn right/left/up/down and arrive at your destination, so you can stop and dock. How the flap stops and reverses you, is not clear. It is secret!
The momentum flap is a noun, not a verb. The flap doesn't flap.
The "trim tab", "momentum flap", whatever you want to call it, is not new tech. It's used to aid stabilization on the GOES satellites as well.
Is it?
Does the Heiwabot™ not know how to read anymore?
The momentum flap is a noun, not a verb. The flap doesn't flap.
The "trim tab", "momentum flap", whatever you want to call it, is not new tech. It's used to aid stabilization on the GOES satellites as well.
Performance analysis of the GOES trim tab solar pressure torque angular momentum control (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996SPIE.2812..741H/abstract)
The GOES I/M series of geostationary weather satellites are 3-axis stabilized and incorporate an optical trim surface, or 'trim tab', to balance solar radiation pressure torque between the south moment arm, formed by a single solar array, and the north moment arm, formed by a solar sail on an extended boom. This design minimizes the need for active roll/yaw momentum management from thrusters or magnetic dipoles and provides margin for uncertainties and changes such as center of mass shift and degradation of surface optical properties. The trim tab has one rotational degree of freedom and is actuated vie open loop ground command to a motor on the rotation axis. Normal operational procedure is to command a small incremental trim tab slew daily to track the change in north/south solar radiation pressure torque with Sun declination. Proper management of the trim tab is critical to spacecraft roll/yaw pointing performance and the open loop design of the system requires sophisticated ground based algorithms to determine trim tab position error and developed a daily commanding profile. Flight experience with the GOES-8 and GOES-9 spacecraft has proven the feasibility of the trim tab design and has led to refinement of the ground based trim tab analysis algorithm. This paper summarizes the performance of the trim tab roll/yaw momentum control system and describes analysis methods developed by the GOES mission operations team to support trim tab operations.
Attitude Stabilization and Control Using Trim Tabs for Spacecraft with Sun Shields (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Attitude-Stabilization-and-Control-Using-Trim-Tabs-Lim/bf0e9ba392eadd07f961df1314bcc53eb897eca7)
Solar radiation torque harnessed by large exposed surfaces such as sun shields and solar panels is of major concern for spacecraft operating at GEO and L2 orbits. The geometry and optical properties of these surfaces need to be designed to ensure attitude stability for the entire mission duration while mitigating solar radiation torque and thus momentum build-up. Using a conceptual spacecraft with a large sun shield, which contains similar characteristics of the James Webb Space Telescope, the relationships among the sun angle, sun shield geometry, surface optical properties, and vehicle center of mass are examined to define conditions that are required to provide passive attitude stability and to minimize solar radiation torque. Due primarily to optical property degradation over time, finding optimum sun shield properties that can be effective for the entire mission duration is not feasible with fixed sun shield geometry. It is shown in this paper that trim tabs can be employed effectively to augment the stability and to help maintain minimal solar radiation torque over the entire mission duration. The process of sizing the trim tabs and selecting their optical properties is presented to conduct these functions. A linearized control law for the trim tab is developed to generate commanded control torque by adjusting its deflection angles. Closed-loop attitude control examples using the conceptual spacecraft are provided to illustrate the process of employing the trim tabs to neutralize the solar radiation torque generated by the sun shield and to demonstrate the attitude stabilization capability of the trim tab control.
-
According the JWST experts photons (light) from the Sun affect the direction and balance of the space telescope and the momentum flap trim tab ensures that direction and balance are maintained. I simply do not believe it. I consider the complete JWST a hoax!
-
According the JWST experts photons (light) from the Sun affect the direction and balance of the space telescope and the momentum flap trim tab ensures that direction and balance are maintained. I simply do not believe it. I consider the complete JWST a hoax!
Has more to do with the reaction wheels and thrusters. Try and keep up. What you "consider" matters not.
-
According the JWST experts photons (light) from the Sun affect the direction and balance of the space telescope and the momentum flap trim tab ensures that direction and balance are maintained. I simply do not believe it. I consider the complete JWST a hoax!
Has more to do with the reaction wheels and thrusters. Try and keep up. What you "consider" matters not.
It matters to you, apparently.
-
According the JWST experts photons (light) from the Sun affect the direction and balance of the space telescope and the momentum flap trim tab ensures that direction and balance are maintained. I simply do not believe it. I consider the complete JWST a hoax!
Has more to do with the reaction wheels and thrusters. Try and keep up. What you "consider" matters not.
It matters to you, apparently.
The only thing that matters is continually showing that this Heiwabot is and idiot.
-
I simply do not believe it. I consider the complete JWST a hoax!
After reading all of your nonsense and clear attempts to troll, I consider your persona to be a hoax. Please come back with a genuine one.
-
According the JWST experts photons (light) from the Sun affect the direction and balance of the space telescope and the momentum flap trim tab ensures that direction and balance are maintained. I simply do not believe it. I consider the complete JWST a hoax!
What part do you not believe? Do you not believe that photons can impart momentum on objects?
-
According the JWST experts photons (light) from the Sun affect the direction and balance of the space telescope and the momentum flap trim tab ensures that direction and balance are maintained. I simply do not believe it. I consider the complete JWST a hoax!
What part do you not believe? Do you not believe that photons can impart momentum on objects?
Photons have no mass and can only heat you up. They are pretty funny. They move at the speed of light. Imagine that. I see plenty photons every morning, when the Sun rises at the horizon outside my window. The photons come from the Sun, etc.
-
According the JWST experts photons (light) from the Sun affect the direction and balance of the space telescope and the momentum flap trim tab ensures that direction and balance are maintained. I simply do not believe it. I consider the complete JWST a hoax!
What part do you not believe? Do you not believe that photons can impart momentum on objects?
Photons have no mass and can only heat you up. They are pretty funny. They move at the speed of light. Imagine that. I see plenty photons every morning, when the Sun rises at the horizon outside my window. The photons come from the Sun, etc.
My goodness, the Heiwabot is ignorant as all get-out.
Experiment: Laser light (photons) perturbs (moves) an object in a vacuum:
(https://i.imgur.com/k4rhr0c.gif)
-
Photons have no mass and can only heat you up.
Photons have no mass, but they do have momentum. That's the sort of thing that an engineer is supposed to know.
-
Photons have no mass and can only heat you up.
Photons have no mass, but they do have momentum. That's the sort of thing that an engineer is supposed to know
Thanks, of course momentum of a photon equal to the product of its mass (zero) and velocity (that of light), so, when you see a photon approaching, you better put on your sun lotion and glasses, if you are in vacuum space at L2. Topic is of course the JWST allegedly orbiting L2 being exposed to sun light pushing it away from L2, but a momentum flap or trim tab on JWST fixes it easily, i.e. pushes JWST back into orbit. Isn't it funny? Some crazy people believe it. Anyway, I really look forward to the first JWST pictures of the universe taken from L2 orbit. I wonder if they are different from what I see from my window.
-
Photons have no mass and can only heat you up.
Photons have no mass, but they do have momentum. That's the sort of thing that an engineer is supposed to know
Thanks, of course momentum of a photon equal to the product of its mass (zero) and velocity (that of light), so, when you see a photon approaching, you better put on your sun lotion and glasses, if you are in vacuum space at L2. Topic is of course the JWST allegedly orbiting L2 being exposed to sun light pushing it away from L2, but a momentum flap or trim tab on JWST fixes it easily, i.e. pushes JWST back into orbit. Isn't it funny? Some crazy people believe it. Anyway, I really look forward to the first JWST pictures of the universe taken from L2 orbit. I wonder if they are different from what I see from my window.
It's good that the Heiwabot has come around to reality and agrees that photons can impart momentum on objects. The bot is actually learning. It must of had an AI update or something.
And I'm sure that the images that come back from JWST will look exactly like what one can see out their window. Just like all other telescope in the world produce images just like what one can see from their window. Come to think of it, why do we even have telescopes? All we need are windows.
-
Photons have no mass and can only heat you up.
Photons have no mass, but they do have momentum. That's the sort of thing that an engineer is supposed to know
Thanks, of course momentum of a photon equal to the product of its mass (zero) and velocity (that of light), so, when you see a photon approaching, you better put on your sun lotion and glasses, if you are in vacuum space at L2. Topic is of course the JWST allegedly orbiting L2 being exposed to sun light pushing it away from L2, but a momentum flap or trim tab on JWST fixes it easily, i.e. pushes JWST back into orbit. Isn't it funny? Some crazy people believe it. Anyway, I really look forward to the first JWST pictures of the universe taken from L2 orbit. I wonder if they are different from what I see from my window.
It's good that the Heiwabot has come around to reality and agrees that photons can impart momentum on objects. The bot is actually learning. It must of had an AI update or something.
And I'm sure that the images that come back from JWST will look exactly like what one can see out their window. Just like all other telescope in the world produce images just like what one can see from their window. Come to think of it, why do we even have telescopes? All we need are windows.
No, photons cannot impart momentum on objects. Photons can only impart energy on objects in the form of heat, i.e. photons warm up objects, e.g. me when I see the Sun rise outside my window.
-
No, photons cannot impart momentum on objects. Photons can only impart energy on objects in the form of heat, i.e. photons warm up objects, e.g. me when I see the Sun rise outside my window.
Hoax persona = hoax info.
Photons have momentum.
Typical hoax nonsense spewed by Heiwa. As always, disregard.
-
Photons have no mass and can only heat you up.
Photons have no mass, but they do have momentum. That's the sort of thing that an engineer is supposed to know
Thanks, of course momentum of a photon equal to the product of its mass (zero) and velocity (that of light), so, when you see a photon approaching, you better put on your sun lotion and glasses, if you are in vacuum space at L2. Topic is of course the JWST allegedly orbiting L2 being exposed to sun light pushing it away from L2, but a momentum flap or trim tab on JWST fixes it easily, i.e. pushes JWST back into orbit. Isn't it funny? Some crazy people believe it. Anyway, I really look forward to the first JWST pictures of the universe taken from L2 orbit. I wonder if they are different from what I see from my window.
It's good that the Heiwabot has come around to reality and agrees that photons can impart momentum on objects. The bot is actually learning. It must of had an AI update or something.
And I'm sure that the images that come back from JWST will look exactly like what one can see out their window. Just like all other telescope in the world produce images just like what one can see from their window. Come to think of it, why do we even have telescopes? All we need are windows.
No, photons cannot impart momentum on objects. Photons can only impart energy on objects in the form of heat, i.e. photons warm up objects, e.g. me when I see the Sun rise outside my window.
Well the Heiwabot is wrong again. I literally posted a video demonstrating photons imparting momentum on an object. It's right in front of your eyes. Just like objects outside the window.
What evidence might the bot have to say the contrary? Oh yeah, none. The Heiwabot never deals in facts, I forgot.
Why do we need any telescopes if we can just look out our windows?
-
Photons have no mass and can only heat you up.
Photons have no mass, but they do have momentum. That's the sort of thing that an engineer is supposed to know
Thanks, of course momentum of a photon equal to the product of its mass (zero) and velocity (that of light), so, when you see a photon approaching, you better put on your sun lotion and glasses, if you are in vacuum space at L2. Topic is of course the JWST allegedly orbiting L2 being exposed to sun light pushing it away from L2, but a momentum flap or trim tab on JWST fixes it easily, i.e. pushes JWST back into orbit. Isn't it funny? Some crazy people believe it. Anyway, I really look forward to the first JWST pictures of the universe taken from L2 orbit. I wonder if they are different from what I see from my window.
It's good that the Heiwabot has come around to reality and agrees that photons can impart momentum on objects. The bot is actually learning. It must of had an AI update or something.
And I'm sure that the images that come back from JWST will look exactly like what one can see out their window. Just like all other telescope in the world produce images just like what one can see from their window. Come to think of it, why do we even have telescopes? All we need are windows.
No, photons cannot impart momentum on objects. Photons can only impart energy on objects in the form of heat, i.e. photons warm up objects, e.g. me when I see the Sun rise outside my window.
Well the Heiwabot is wrong again. I literally posted a video demonstrating photons imparting momentum on an object. It's right in front of your eyes. Just like objects outside the window.
What evidence might the bot have to say the contrary? Oh yeah, none. The Heiwabot never deals in facts, I forgot.
Why do we need any telescopes if we can just look out our windows?
The evidence is the Sun and it's light (photons). It doesn't impart momentum! It just heats up objects it encounters. After that the photons are gone! But don't ask me how the Sun works. Fusion? No. What is the mass of the Sun? I have no idea! I think planet Earth orbits the Sun as seen from my window and, when doing so, Earth rotates 360°/24 hrs, so there are days/nights. I know religious people have other ideas but I prefer what I see from my window.
-
Thanks, of course momentum of a photon equal to the product of its mass (zero) and velocity (that of light)...
How are you an engineer? Photons have no mass, but they have energy which is equivalent to mass.
... so, when you see a photon approaching...
::)
Anyway, I really look forward to the first JWST pictures of the universe taken from L2 orbit. I wonder if they are different from what I see from my window.
I promise you that they will be.
-
Photons have no mass and can only heat you up.
Photons have no mass, but they do have momentum. That's the sort of thing that an engineer is supposed to know
Thanks, of course momentum of a photon equal to the product of its mass (zero) and velocity (that of light), so, when you see a photon approaching, you better put on your sun lotion and glasses, if you are in vacuum space at L2. Topic is of course the JWST allegedly orbiting L2 being exposed to sun light pushing it away from L2, but a momentum flap or trim tab on JWST fixes it easily, i.e. pushes JWST back into orbit. Isn't it funny? Some crazy people believe it. Anyway, I really look forward to the first JWST pictures of the universe taken from L2 orbit. I wonder if they are different from what I see from my window.
It's good that the Heiwabot has come around to reality and agrees that photons can impart momentum on objects. The bot is actually learning. It must of had an AI update or something.
And I'm sure that the images that come back from JWST will look exactly like what one can see out their window. Just like all other telescope in the world produce images just like what one can see from their window. Come to think of it, why do we even have telescopes? All we need are windows.
No, photons cannot impart momentum on objects. Photons can only impart energy on objects in the form of heat, i.e. photons warm up objects, e.g. me when I see the Sun rise outside my window.
Well the Heiwabot is wrong again. I literally posted a video demonstrating photons imparting momentum on an object. It's right in front of your eyes. Just like objects outside the window.
What evidence might the bot have to say the contrary? Oh yeah, none. The Heiwabot never deals in facts, I forgot.
Why do we need any telescopes if we can just look out our windows?
The evidence is the Sun and it's light (photons). It doesn't impart momentum!
How is the sun & photons "evidence"? There is a demonstration a few posts up where light imparts momentum on an object. The object moves when a laser light is pointed at it. It doesn't get any clearer than that. That would be considered evidence. There is no evidence presented here to the contrary.
It just heats up objects it encounters. After that the photons are gone! But don't ask me how the Sun works. Fusion? No. What is the mass of the Sun? I have no idea! I think planet Earth orbits the Sun as seen from my window and, when doing so, Earth rotates 360°/24 hrs, so there are days/nights. I know religious people have other ideas but I prefer what I see from my window.
Like I asked, do we even need any telescopes anywhere if all one needs is to look out a window?
-
How is the sun & photons "evidence"? There is a demonstration a few posts up where light imparts momentum on an object. The object moves when a laser light is pointed at it. It doesn't get any clearer than that. That would be considered evidence. There is no evidence presented here to the contrary.
Like I asked, do we even need any telescopes anywhere if all one needs is to look out a window?
I don't need a telescope to see the Sun rise at the horizon from my window. If I used a telescope for it, the telescope would be destroyed. Only complete idiots use telescopes to watch the Sun. But I have a strong flash light to see objects in the dark. I can assure you that the objects do not move, when I flash light on them. Anyway, the JWST (topic) orbiting L2 should soon be able to flash pictures of the end/beginning of the universe back to Earth. I wonder what they will look like.
-
How is the sun & photons "evidence"? There is a demonstration a few posts up where light imparts momentum on an object. The object moves when a laser light is pointed at it. It doesn't get any clearer than that. That would be considered evidence. There is no evidence presented here to the contrary.
Like I asked, do we even need any telescopes anywhere if all one needs is to look out a window?
I don't need a telescope to see the Sun rise at the horizon from my window. If I used a telescope for it, the telescope would be destroyed. Only complete idiots use telescopes to watch the Sun. But I have a strong flash light to see objects in the dark. I can assure you that the objects do not move, when I flash light on them. Anyway, the JWST (topic) orbiting L2 should soon be able to flash pictures of the end/beginning of the universe back to Earth. I wonder what they will look like.
No one has ever looked at the Sun through a telescope before, ever? Ever heard of a solar filter? It typically looks like this:
(https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/observing/img/SunFilter_1_300x260.jpg)
Has any one ever seen an eclipse through a telescope or camera lens?
Your bot really is quite ignorant.
If you watched the video, you would understand why a strong flashlight doesn't have the photon strength to move an object. But with a laser, the demonstration showed the light moving an abject plain as day. See, here it is, right before your very eyes:
(https://i.imgur.com/k4rhr0c.gif)
Considering your bot has nothing contrary to that evidence, your bot remains an idiot.
-
I am sorry that my strong flashlight didn't have the photon strength to move an object. Where can I get a stronger one?
I thought all photons are same - no mass but speed of light. Only frequency/rotation differs, i.e. mysterious heat/energy content.
But photons can physically move JWST upon contact, according NASA/ESA experts. I doubt it. Photons hitting JWST either bounce off or heats it up.
-
I am sorry that my strong flashlight didn't have the photon strength to move an object. Where can I get a stronger one?
I thought all photons are same - no mass but speed of light. Only frequency/rotation differs, i.e. mysterious heat/energy content.
But photons can physically move JWST upon contact, according NASA/ESA experts. I doubt it. Photons hitting JWST either bounce off or heats it up.
Wow, the Heiwabot really is stupid.
Lasers:
Monochromatic
The light emitted from a laser is monochromatic, that is, it is of one wavelength (color). In contrast, ordinary white light is a combination of many different wavelengths (colors).
Directional
Lasers emit light that is highly directional. Laser light is emitted as a relatively narrow beam in a specific direction. Ordinary light, such as coming from the sun, a light bulb, or a candle, is emitted in many directions away from the source.
Coherent
The light from a laser is said to be coherent, which means the wavelengths of the laser light are in phase in space and time.
These three properties of laser light are what make it more of a hazard than ordinary light. Laser light can deposit a great deal of energy within a very small area.
Your "doubt" is irrelevant.
Laser light > Photons > Move objects
(https://i.imgur.com/k4rhr0c.gif)
-
Topic is the JWST in the Sun light and not photons and laser light. I see Sun light and photons from my window and, if anyone sends laser light in front of my window, i might see it, BUT, my window is not pushed away by the light. To suggest that light and photons push things away like a wave at sea is ... stupid.
-
You saying something is stupid means nothing. If you really think so, you may want to avert your eyes from this demonstrating how wrong you are.
(https://i.imgur.com/k4rhr0c.gif)
-
Really long, but really interesting. The Smarter Every Day guy's Dad was part of the JWST sun shield team and walks him through everything about it - In the clean room with the actual JWST shield. Crazy what all has to go into this one, yet vital component.
Why Does the James Webb Sunshield Have HOLES? (w/ My Dad) - Smarter Every Day 270
-
To suggest that laser light can deposit energy on and pushing objects like the JWST with sun shields at L2 away from the Sun is simply lacking of ordinary activity of a human mind and tediously uninteresting.
-
To suggest that laser light can deposit energy on and pushing objects like the JWST with sun shields at L2 away from the Sun is simply lacking of ordinary activity of a human mind and tediously uninteresting.
Whether you find facts and evidence tedious or uninteresting is neither here nor there. Your bot is woefully ignorant.
-
To suggest that laser light can deposit energy on and pushing objects like the JWST with sun shields at L2 away from the Sun is simply lacking of ordinary activity of a human mind and tediously uninteresting.
You've already acknowledged that photons (which have momentum) can transfer energy to other objects. What do you think radiative heating is, if not an object absorbing energy from an infrared photon?
Are you trying to say Conservation of Momentum isn't a thing? That's a bold claim, if that's where you are headed, and I can't wait to see how you back it up.
-
To suggest that laser light can deposit energy on and pushing objects like the JWST with sun shields at L2 away from the Sun is simply lacking of ordinary activity of a human mind and tediously uninteresting.
The momentum imparted by solar photons is not in the ordinary activity of human minds. It takes a sufficient understanding of mass/energy equivalence to properly understand the effects of those photons on JWST's sun shield. If you find that tediously uninteresting, then perhaps you shouldn't be participating in this discussion.
-
Really long, but really interesting. The Smarter Every Day ...
Heiwa is completely unfamiliar with the concept of "smarter every day".
-
Destin is a great communicator, I really like him
-
Radiometer, dumb fuck . . .
I'll buy you one because I feel sorry for you.
https://www.amazon.com/TEDCO-01800-Radiometer/dp/B0007YFJI2
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Crookes_radiometer_moving.gif)
-
To suggest that laser light can deposit energy on and pushing objects like the JWST with sun shields at L2 away from the Sun is simply lacking of ordinary activity of a human mind and tediously uninteresting.
The momentum imparted by solar photons is not in the ordinary activity of human minds. It takes a sufficient understanding of mass/energy equivalence to properly understand the effects of those photons on JWST's sun shield. If you find that tediously uninteresting, then perhaps you shouldn't be participating in this discussion.
It seems we all agree that a photon has no mass, when it flies away from the Sun at the speed of light, which I see every morning, when the weather is good, and when the Sun rises outside my window. After my having observed the photon in question, the photon is gone! It doesn't exist any more! POUFF! Gone! It didn't apply any momentum to me and my window. And same applies to the JWST orbiting L2. Many ignorant people do not understand what a photon is and that it can just magically disappear - POUFF - into nothing.
-
It seems we all agree that a photon has no mass, when it flies away from the Sun at the speed of light, which I see every morning, when the weather is good, and when the Sun rises outside my window.
What makes you think photons don’t have mass? How did you learn that?
-
It seems we all agree that a photon has no mass, when it flies away from the Sun at the speed of light, which I see every morning, when the weather is good, and when the Sun rises outside my window.
What makes you think photons don’t have mass? How did you learn that?
Some "experts" told me.
-
It seems we all agree that a photon has no mass, when it flies away from the Sun at the speed of light, which I see every morning, when the weather is good, and when the Sun rises outside my window.
What makes you think photons don’t have mass? How did you learn that?
Some "experts" told me.
Why don’t you believe the same experts when they, with factual experimentation, demonstration, and calculations, show that massless photons can impart momentum on an object? The same as they show and demonstrate that photons are massless?
-
It seems we all agree that a photon has no mass, when it flies away from the Sun at the speed of light, which I see every morning, when the weather is good, and when the Sun rises outside my window.
What makes you think photons don’t have mass? How did you learn that?
Some "experts" told me.
Why don’t you believe the same experts when they, with factual experimentation, demonstration, and calculations, show that massless photons can impart momentum on an object? The same as they show and demonstrate that photons are massless?
Why? I just look out of my window and see the photons arrive and ... POUFF ... disappear without imparting anything. Topic is JWST orbiting L2! Where are the pictures of the end or beginning of the universe??? And the holy shit ...
-
It seems we all agree that a photon has no mass, when it flies away from the Sun at the speed of light, which I see every morning, when the weather is good, and when the Sun rises outside my window.
What makes you think photons don’t have mass? How did you learn that?
Some "experts" told me.
Why don’t you believe the same experts when they, with factual experimentation, demonstration, and calculations, show that massless photons can impart momentum on an object? The same as they show and demonstrate that photons are massless?
Why? I just look out of my window and see the photons arrive and ... POUFF ... disappear without imparting anything. Topic is JWST orbiting L2! Where are the pictures of the end or beginning of the universe??? And the holy shit ...
So we don't need any telescopes ever, anywhere, because you can just look out your window?
-
It seems we all agree that a photon has no mass, when it flies away from the Sun at the speed of light, which I see every morning, when the weather is good, and when the Sun rises outside my window.
What makes you think photons don’t have mass? How did you learn that?
Some "experts" told me.
Why don’t you believe the same experts when they, with factual experimentation, demonstration, and calculations, show that massless photons can impart momentum on an object? The same as they show and demonstrate that photons are massless?
Why? I just look out of my window and see the photons arrive and ... POUFF ... disappear without imparting anything. Topic is JWST orbiting L2! Where are the pictures of the end or beginning of the universe??? And the holy shit ...
So we don't need any telescopes ever, anywhere, because you can just look out your window?
No, I am happy to watch the Sun, the Moon, some planets and the Milky way galaxy from my window. A telescope just enlarges objects. To see the end and beginning of the universe with a telescope incl. JWST at L2 is not possible as the universe is infinite in all directions and has always existed. Our planet Earth is in the center of it. Of course there are people suggesting the universe was created 14 billion years ago out of nothing in a big bang but there is no evidence for it. Same people just make things up, like Earth orbiting the Sun in a year. From my window I see the Sun orbiting Earth in a year and no telescope is required, etc. Just look yourself.
-
A telescope just enlarges objects.
You're an idiot. Maybe you should stop embarrassing yourself
-
It seems we all agree that a photon has no mass, when it flies away from the Sun at the speed of light, which I see every morning, when the weather is good, and when the Sun rises outside my window.
What makes you think photons don’t have mass? How did you learn that?
Some "experts" told me.
Why don’t you believe the same experts when they, with factual experimentation, demonstration, and calculations, show that massless photons can impart momentum on an object? The same as they show and demonstrate that photons are massless?
Why? I just look out of my window and see the photons arrive and ... POUFF ... disappear without imparting anything. Topic is JWST orbiting L2! Where are the pictures of the end or beginning of the universe??? And the holy shit ...
So we don't need any telescopes ever, anywhere, because you can just look out your window?
No, I am happy to watch the Sun, the Moon, some planets and the Milky way galaxy from my window. A telescope just enlarges objects. To see the end and beginning of the universe with a telescope incl. JWST at L2 is not possible as the universe is infinite in all directions and has always existed. Our planet Earth is in the center of it. Of course there are people suggesting the universe was created 14 billion years ago out of nothing in a big bang but there is no evidence for it. Same people just make things up, like Earth orbiting the Sun in a year. From my window I see the Sun orbiting Earth in a year and no telescope is required, etc. Just look yourself.
I'm not asking about your happiness. So now you think telescopes in general are pointless?
-
It seems we all agree that a photon has no mass, when it flies away from the Sun at the speed of light, which I see every morning, when the weather is good, and when the Sun rises outside my window.
What makes you think photons don’t have mass? How did you learn that?
Some "experts" told me.
Why don’t you believe the same experts when they, with factual experimentation, demonstration, and calculations, show that massless photons can impart momentum on an object? The same as they show and demonstrate that photons are massless?
Why? I just look out of my window and see the photons arrive and ... POUFF ... disappear without imparting anything. Topic is JWST orbiting L2! Where are the pictures of the end or beginning of the universe??? And the holy shit ...
So we don't need any telescopes ever, anywhere, because you can just look out your window?
No, I am happy to watch the Sun, the Moon, some planets and the Milky way galaxy from my window. A telescope just enlarges objects. To see the end and beginning of the universe with a telescope incl. JWST at L2 is not possible as the universe is infinite in all directions and has always existed. Our planet Earth is in the center of it. Of course there are people suggesting the universe was created 14 billion years ago out of nothing in a big bang but there is no evidence for it. Same people just make things up, like Earth orbiting the Sun in a year. From my window I see the Sun orbiting Earth in a year and no telescope is required, etc. Just look yourself.
I'm not asking about your happiness. So now you think telescopes in general are pointless?
Not at all. Telescopes just enlarge objects in the universe as seen from Earth. Using telescopes on Earth it is easy to see that Earth is the lonely, magic center of the complete universe around us. I am happy with the view of it from my window, reason being I have a view of the sea in one direction and mountains in the back with the sky above. Only complete fools go to L2 for another look.
-
Radiometer, dumb fuck . . .
I'll buy you one because I feel sorry for you.
https://www.amazon.com/TEDCO-01800-Radiometer/dp/B0007YFJI2
Radiometers do not work by light pressure (photons transferring momentum to the van) if that's what you're implying. Black side of vane heats up more; sparse air molecules in bulb are kicked away faster when they interact with black side; equal and opposite forces make black side overpower white side; vanes spin away from black side.
-
Why? I just look out of my window and see the photons arrive and ... POUFF ... disappear without imparting anything.
Yes, the photon did impart its momentum to you. It's just that the amount of momentum imparted is too small for you to notice. However, in the largely gravity and friction free environment of deep space, the constant stream of high energy photons from the sun can and will impart a meaningful amount of momentum to JWST's tennis court size sun shield. Also, don't forget that the sun emits many photons that are at much higher energy levels than the visible photons that you see coming.
-
Why? I just look out of my window and see the photons arrive and ... POUFF ... disappear without imparting anything.
Yes, the photon did impart its momentum to you. It's just that the amount of momentum imparted is too small for you to notice. However, in the largely gravity and friction free environment of deep space, the constant stream of high energy photons from the sun can and will impart a meaningful amount of momentum to JWST's tennis court size sun shield. Also, don't forget that the sun emits many photons that are at much higher energy levels than the visible photons that you see coming.
It is always my fault. I don't see and and feel the photons other people or objects see and feel at ... L2 with their tennis court size heat shields. Anyway, I look forward to seeing some JWST pictures of whatever it sees when orbiting L2. Actually my house is quite big and every morning when the Sun rises, it is hit by plenty photons at the speed of light. But my house is only heated up.
Clicking around looking for pictures of the Universe I came across :
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/colorized_wright_mons_cropped.png
Researchers on NASA's New Horizons mission have discovered evidence on Pluto for what appears to be two cryovolcanoes—volcanoes built out of frozen ice that once oozed molten ice from the inside of the dwarf planet.
Imagine what nonsense that will come from the JWST. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/about/index.html hasn’t been updated for years!
-
It is always my fault.
no shit?
. . . my house is quite big and every morning when the Sun rises, it is hit by plenty photons at the speed of light
And like a cow in the field, it's a brand new surprise.
The sun set last night, fuck, here it is again.
Total surprise.
I envy you, Hiewa.
Bathtub is the Mediterranean, oatmeal is caviar, internet is carnivorous.
Hahaha, I actually salute you.
I think you're awesome.
-
On a clear and dark night sky (no light pollution) an observer with good eyesight might see around 2000 stars. That's an entire field of view. Out of a window, you might be limited to a few dozen stars.
Telescopes in space aren't affected by daylight or weather events. They also have an entire field of view and they can see not just a few thousand stars limited to a small area around Earth, but almost every star in our galaxy and many galaxies beyond our own. And exo planets. And even the composition of other stars and planets. And nebulae and other anomalies and looking back to a time just after the birth of the universe.
Heiwa might be content with the few dozen he sees out his window and I'm sure Heiwa and his limited intelligence gets a real kick every time he sees it but it there is so much more to see and learn.
You could get the worlds brightest minds and teachers and try to explain science and the universe to a budgerigar. It still wont learn anything because its mind is too small. Heiwa is the same. No matter how much information you tell him it will never sink in. His mind is just too small
-
On a clear and dark night sky (no light pollution) an observer with good eyesight might see around 2000 stars. That's an entire field of view. Out of a window, you might be limited to a few dozen stars.
Telescopes in space aren't affected by daylight or weather events. They also have an entire field of view and they can see not just a few thousand stars limited to a small area around Earth, but almost every star in our galaxy and many galaxies beyond our own. And exo planets. And even the composition of other stars and planets. And nebulae and other anomalies and looking back to a time just after the birth of the universe.
Heiwa might be content with the few dozen he sees out his window and I'm sure Heiwa and his limited intelligence gets a real kick every time he sees it but it there is so much more to see and learn.
You could get the worlds brightest minds and teachers and try to explain science and the universe to a budgerigar. It still wont learn anything because its mind is too small. Heiwa is the same. No matter how much information you tell him it will never sink in. His mind is just too small
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end. Only idiots and asstronomers look for some God or whatever in the sky using the JWStelescope orbiting L2. What to do? Study your self! You are a human with no idea, who put you on Earth and how you function there. It is mystery magic. You haven't got any idea, why you are there! But there are plenty professors and preachers and doctors, bla, bla, knowing it and everything else. And you believe them. I just laugh at you and them. Why waste time with such idiots?
-
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end.
If the Universe has no end, Earth can't be at its center because there is no center at which to be.
-
I can see plenty stars from my window...
But can you study them in any meaningful way?
-
I can see plenty stars from my window...
But can you study them in any meaningful way?
Just tell me the details/diameter of the L2 orbit around the Sun and at what speed it takes place. Then provide same details of the JWST orbit around L2, i.e. diameter and velocity, so I know where JWST is at any time. Then inform the solar wind/photon forces applied on the JWST and how the JWST balances them with its own rocket engines to remain in orbit around L2 ... and we can discuss. Add also details how the JWST managed to leave its original orbit around Earth and started to orbit L2 after some magic docking.
It seems the NASA/ESA experts have problems with such simple details.
-
Listen to some NASA clowns !
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/main/index.html
https://www.nasa.gov/mediacast/gravity-assist-using-webb-to-trace-galactic-histories-with-aaron-yung
… we’re waiting for the JWST images …
… so that's why we want to go back in time and look at these early galaxies …
… instead of orbiting Earth like Hubble does, Webb is at an orbit 1 million miles away from us, and to keep it cool from the Sun's radiation, Webb is also equipped with a sunshield that is the size of a tennis court …
… a lot of people know a lot about the Hubble Space Telescope. And now we have the JWST telescope almost operational …
… JWST was then successfully inserted into his target orbits the second Lagrangian point, and would go through a six month long commissioning process …
… the first gravity assist that changed my life trajectory happened in my undergrad …
… having direct access to the people that work closely with JWST, and the Roman Space Telescope is really setting me up to continue …
… we continue our journey to look under the hood at NASA and see how we do what we do …
-
I can see plenty stars from my window...
But can you study them in any meaningful way?
Just tell me the details/diameter of the L2 orbit around the Sun and at what speed it takes place. Then provide same details of the JWST orbit around L2, i.e. diameter and velocity, so I know where JWST is at any time. Then inform the solar wind/photon forces applied on the JWST and how the JWST balances them with its own rocket engines to remain in orbit around L2 ... and we can discuss. Add also details how the JWST managed to leave its original orbit around Earth and started to orbit L2 after some magic docking.
It seems the NASA/ESA experts have problems with such simple details.
You have access to the internet, right? Not hard to find (More info on the page linked):
JWST Orbit (https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-observatory-characteristics/jwst-orbit)
Rationale for the orbit dimensions
JWST will be placed in an orbit about the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrange point located about 1.5 million km from Earth, which is four times the distance between the Earth and the Moon.
It is incorrect to say that JWST "will be at L2." Rather, JWST will orbit around L2.
The distance of JWST from the L2 point varies between 250,000 to 832,000 km, as shown in Figure 1. The period of the orbit is about 6 months. The maximum excursion above or below the ecliptic plane is 520,000 km. The maximum distance from the Earth is 1.8 million km, and the maximum Earth-Sun angle is <33°.
L2 is a saddle point in the gravitational potential of the Solar System. Because saddle points are not stable, JWST will need to regularly fire onboard thrusters to maintain its orbit around L2. These station-keeping maneuvers will be performed every 21 days.
To maintain solar power, the orbit is designed such that JWST is never in the shadow of the Earth or the Moon during the mission.
(https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/files/97976978/97976979/1/1596073035306/JWSTorbit.jpg)
Here's where it is:
WHERE IS WEBB? (https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html)
Here are all of the JWST solar radiation calculations and such - 130 pages worth, have fun:
SOLAR RADIATION PRESSURE EFFECTS ON THE ORBITAL MOTION AT SEL2 FOR THE JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190029609/downloads/20190029609.pdf)
-
So we all agree that Earth orbits the Sun (or vice versa).
But then? JWST took off from and orbited Earth, until it arrived in the vicinity of L2 that orbits the Sun. Then JWST started to orbit L2 instead.
Questions remain (1) how JWST managed to arrive in the vicinity of L2 after a trip in space and then (2) got out of orbiting Earth to start orbiting L2 instead and (3) what is a Rotating Libration Point (RLP)?
I think orbits in space are just possible around objects with a mass like the Sun and Earth, but L2 has no mass. How can JWST orbit around L2? I have never heard of RLP! I only know what an RLP coordinate system is (https://help.agi.com/stk/11.0.1/Content/gator/eq-rlp.htm), but where is the rotating libration point? Is it L2? How can a point rotate? And where is L2 relative this RLP unless it is the same?
-
So we all agree that Earth orbits the Sun (or vice versa).
But then? JWST took off from and orbited Earth, until it arrived in the vicinity of L2 that orbits the Sun. Then JWST started to orbit L2 instead.
Questions remain (1) how JWST managed to arrive in the vicinity of L2 after a trip in space and then (2) got out of orbiting Earth to start orbiting L2 instead and (3) what is a Rotating Libration Point (RLP)?
I think orbits in space are just possible around objects with a mass like the Sun and Earth, but L2 has no mass. How can JWST orbit around L2? I have never heard of RLP! I only know what an RLP coordinate system is (https://help.agi.com/stk/11.0.1/Content/gator/eq-rlp.htm), but where is the rotating libration point? Is it L2? How can a point rotate? And where is L2 relative this RLP unless it is the same?
All of your questions have been answered.
-
So we all agree that Earth orbits the Sun (or vice versa).
But then? JWST took off from and orbited Earth, until it arrived in the vicinity of L2 that orbits the Sun. Then JWST started to orbit L2 instead.
Questions remain (1) how JWST managed to arrive in the vicinity of L2 after a trip in space and then (2) got out of orbiting Earth to start orbiting L2 instead and (3) what is a Rotating Libration Point (RLP)?
I think orbits in space are just possible around objects with a mass like the Sun and Earth, but L2 has no mass. How can JWST orbit around L2? I have never heard of RLP! I only know what an RLP coordinate system is (https://help.agi.com/stk/11.0.1/Content/gator/eq-rlp.htm), but where is the rotating libration point? Is it L2? How can a point rotate? And where is L2 relative this RLP unless it is the same?
All of your questions have been answered.
No. The NASA experts just invent more nonsense like an RLP coordinate system. What a joke.
-
So we all agree that Earth orbits the Sun (or vice versa).
But then? JWST took off from and orbited Earth, until it arrived in the vicinity of L2 that orbits the Sun. Then JWST started to orbit L2 instead.
Questions remain (1) how JWST managed to arrive in the vicinity of L2 after a trip in space and then (2) got out of orbiting Earth to start orbiting L2 instead and (3) what is a Rotating Libration Point (RLP)?
I think orbits in space are just possible around objects with a mass like the Sun and Earth, but L2 has no mass. How can JWST orbit around L2? I have never heard of RLP! I only know what an RLP coordinate system is (https://help.agi.com/stk/11.0.1/Content/gator/eq-rlp.htm), but where is the rotating libration point? Is it L2? How can a point rotate? And where is L2 relative this RLP unless it is the same?
All of your questions have been answered.
No. The NASA experts just invent more nonsense like an RLP coordinate system. What a joke.
What's wrong with the equations? You must know in order to claim it's a joke. Otherwise it's just your ignorance on display.
-
So we all agree that Earth orbits the Sun (or vice versa).
But then? JWST took off from and orbited Earth, until it arrived in the vicinity of L2 that orbits the Sun. Then JWST started to orbit L2 instead.
Questions remain (1) how JWST managed to arrive in the vicinity of L2 after a trip in space and then (2) got out of orbiting Earth to start orbiting L2 instead and (3) what is a Rotating Libration Point (RLP)?
I think orbits in space are just possible around objects with a mass like the Sun and Earth, but L2 has no mass. How can JWST orbit around L2? I have never heard of RLP! I only know what an RLP coordinate system is (https://help.agi.com/stk/11.0.1/Content/gator/eq-rlp.htm), but where is the rotating libration point? Is it L2? How can a point rotate? And where is L2 relative this RLP unless it is the same?
All of your questions have been answered.
No. The NASA experts just invent more nonsense like an RLP coordinate system. What a joke.
What's wrong with the equations? You must know in order to claim it's a joke. Otherwise it's just your ignorance on display.
They are just nonsense! An academic joke. Many students at universities present similar things as research of some kind to fool their professors.
-
So we all agree that Earth orbits the Sun (or vice versa).
But then? JWST took off from and orbited Earth, until it arrived in the vicinity of L2 that orbits the Sun. Then JWST started to orbit L2 instead.
Questions remain (1) how JWST managed to arrive in the vicinity of L2 after a trip in space and then (2) got out of orbiting Earth to start orbiting L2 instead and (3) what is a Rotating Libration Point (RLP)?
I think orbits in space are just possible around objects with a mass like the Sun and Earth, but L2 has no mass. How can JWST orbit around L2? I have never heard of RLP! I only know what an RLP coordinate system is (https://help.agi.com/stk/11.0.1/Content/gator/eq-rlp.htm), but where is the rotating libration point? Is it L2? How can a point rotate? And where is L2 relative this RLP unless it is the same?
All of your questions have been answered.
No. The NASA experts just invent more nonsense like an RLP coordinate system. What a joke.
What's wrong with the equations? You must know in order to claim it's a joke. Otherwise it's just your ignorance on display.
They are just nonsense! An academic joke. Many students at universities present similar things as research of some kind to fool their professors.
What's wrong with the equations? You must know in order to claim it's a joke. Otherwise it's just your ignorance on display.
-
So we all agree that Earth orbits the Sun (or vice versa).
But then? JWST took off from and orbited Earth, until it arrived in the vicinity of L2 that orbits the Sun. Then JWST started to orbit L2 instead.
Questions remain (1) how JWST managed to arrive in the vicinity of L2 after a trip in space and then (2) got out of orbiting Earth to start orbiting L2 instead and (3) what is a Rotating Libration Point (RLP)?
I think orbits in space are just possible around objects with a mass like the Sun and Earth, but L2 has no mass. How can JWST orbit around L2? I have never heard of RLP! I only know what an RLP coordinate system is (https://help.agi.com/stk/11.0.1/Content/gator/eq-rlp.htm), but where is the rotating libration point? Is it L2? How can a point rotate? And where is L2 relative this RLP unless it is the same?
All of your questions have been answered.
No. The NASA experts just invent more nonsense like an RLP coordinate system. What a joke.
What's wrong with the equations? You must know in order to claim it's a joke. Otherwise it's just your ignorance on display.
They are just nonsense! An academic joke. Many students at universities present similar things as research of some kind to fool their professors.
What's wrong with the equations? You must know in order to claim it's a joke. Otherwise it's just your ignorance on display.
They are nonsense! Academic jokes. Many students at universities present similar things as research of some kind to fool their professors.
-
So we all agree that Earth orbits the Sun (or vice versa).
But then? JWST took off from and orbited Earth, until it arrived in the vicinity of L2 that orbits the Sun. Then JWST started to orbit L2 instead.
Questions remain (1) how JWST managed to arrive in the vicinity of L2 after a trip in space and then (2) got out of orbiting Earth to start orbiting L2 instead and (3) what is a Rotating Libration Point (RLP)?
I think orbits in space are just possible around objects with a mass like the Sun and Earth, but L2 has no mass. How can JWST orbit around L2? I have never heard of RLP! I only know what an RLP coordinate system is (https://help.agi.com/stk/11.0.1/Content/gator/eq-rlp.htm), but where is the rotating libration point? Is it L2? How can a point rotate? And where is L2 relative this RLP unless it is the same?
All of your questions have been answered.
No. The NASA experts just invent more nonsense like an RLP coordinate system. What a joke.
What's wrong with the equations? You must know in order to claim it's a joke. Otherwise it's just your ignorance on display.
They are just nonsense! An academic joke. Many students at universities present similar things as research of some kind to fool their professors.
What's wrong with the equations? You must know in order to claim it's a joke. Otherwise it's just your ignorance on display.
They are nonsense! Academic jokes. Many students at universities present similar things as research of some kind to fool their professors.
What's wrong with the equations? You must know in order to claim it's a joke. Otherwise it's just your ignorance on display.
-
On a clear and dark night sky (no light pollution) an observer with good eyesight might see around 2000 stars. That's an entire field of view. Out of a window, you might be limited to a few dozen stars.
Telescopes in space aren't affected by daylight or weather events. They also have an entire field of view and they can see not just a few thousand stars limited to a small area around Earth, but almost every star in our galaxy and many galaxies beyond our own. And exo planets. And even the composition of other stars and planets. And nebulae and other anomalies and looking back to a time just after the birth of the universe.
Heiwa might be content with the few dozen he sees out his window and I'm sure Heiwa and his limited intelligence gets a real kick every time he sees it but it there is so much more to see and learn.
You could get the worlds brightest minds and teachers and try to explain science and the universe to a budgerigar. It still wont learn anything because its mind is too small. Heiwa is the same. No matter how much information you tell him it will never sink in. His mind is just too small
I have a 4-10 for budgerigars.
-
A telescope simply magnifies. It does not see farther into the distance, it just magnifies what is in that distance. It certainly does not see into the past.
-
A telescope simply magnifies. It does not see farther into the distance, it just magnifies what is in that distance. It certainly does not see into the past.
Your basic home telescope magnifies. The ones in space are a little more advanced with sensors that see much more of the EM spectrum
Don't forget increased resolution that our eyes are pretty shit with.
No one claims time travel. But the speed of light in a vacuum is known. When we see a galaxy a billion light years away, we see it as it was a billion years ago. It is looking in the past. Hell, even looking at your feet is looking in the past, albiet not very long in the past 8)
-
A telescope simply magnifies. It does not see farther into the distance, it just magnifies what is in that distance. It certainly does not see into the past.
Your basic home telescope magnifies. The ones in space are a little more advanced with sensors that see much more of the EM spectrum
Don't forget increased resolution that our eyes are pretty shit with.
No one claims time travel. But the speed of light in a vacuum is known. When we see a galaxy a billion light years away, we see it as it was a billion years ago. It is looking in the past. Hell, even looking at your feet is looking in the past, albiet not very long in the past 8)
So I can see a billion light years away from my window and JWST can see further away, e.g. 14 billion light years away. According experts the Universe didn't exist then so ... what will JWST see?
-
A telescope simply magnifies. It does not see farther into the distance, it just magnifies what is in that distance. It certainly does not see into the past.
Your basic home telescope magnifies. The ones in space are a little more advanced with sensors that see much more of the EM spectrum
Don't forget increased resolution that our eyes are pretty shit with.
No one claims time travel. But the speed of light in a vacuum is known. When we see a galaxy a billion light years away, we see it as it was a billion years ago. It is looking in the past. Hell, even looking at your feet is looking in the past, albiet not very long in the past 8)
So we can see a billion light years away from my window, and the JWST can see further, e.g. 14 billion light years away, i.e. before the Universe started. I really wonder what JWST will see? Nothing?
-
A telescope simply magnifies. It does not see farther into the distance, it just magnifies what is in that distance. It certainly does not see into the past.
Your basic home telescope magnifies. The ones in space are a little more advanced with sensors that see much more of the EM spectrum
Don't forget increased resolution that our eyes are pretty shit with.
No one claims time travel. But the speed of light in a vacuum is known. When we see a galaxy a billion light years away, we see it as it was a billion years ago. It is looking in the past. Hell, even looking at your feet is looking in the past, albiet not very long in the past 8)
So we can see a billion light years away from my window, and the JWST can see further, e.g. 14 billion light years away, i.e. before the Universe started. I really wonder what JWST will see? Nothing?
No. You dont see a billion light years distance from your window and the JWST wont see 'before the universe started'. Everything you say is wrong.
-
A telescope simply magnifies. It does not see farther into the distance, it just magnifies what is in that distance. It certainly does not see into the past.
Your basic home telescope magnifies. The ones in space are a little more advanced with sensors that see much more of the EM spectrum
Don't forget increased resolution that our eyes are pretty shit with.
No one claims time travel. But the speed of light in a vacuum is known. When we see a galaxy a billion light years away, we see it as it was a billion years ago. It is looking in the past. Hell, even looking at your feet is looking in the past, albiet not very long in the past 8)
So we can see a billion light years away from my window, and the JWST can see further, e.g. 14 billion light years away, i.e. before the Universe started. I really wonder what JWST will see? Nothing?
No. You dont see a billion light years distance from your window and the JWST wont see 'before the universe started'. Everything you say is wrong.
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window. They are small and looks like stars but they are galaxies and some are 1 billion years old, I am told. When I look further, I see other galaxies that are 20 billion years old, but then some experts like you get upset, and say I cannot see them, as they didn't exist then. Well, come around and look from my window. Everything I see is right in front of me. You talk a lot of nonsense.
-
A telescope simply magnifies. It does not see farther into the distance, it just magnifies what is in that distance. It certainly does not see into the past.
Your basic home telescope magnifies. The ones in space are a little more advanced with sensors that see much more of the EM spectrum
Don't forget increased resolution that our eyes are pretty shit with.
No one claims time travel. But the speed of light in a vacuum is known. When we see a galaxy a billion light years away, we see it as it was a billion years ago. It is looking in the past. Hell, even looking at your feet is looking in the past, albiet not very long in the past 8)
So we can see a billion light years away from my window, and the JWST can see further, e.g. 14 billion light years away, i.e. before the Universe started. I really wonder what JWST will see? Nothing?
No. You dont see a billion light years distance from your window and the JWST wont see 'before the universe started'. Everything you say is wrong.
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window. They are small and looks like stars but they are galaxies and some are 1 billion years old, I am told. When I look further, I see other galaxies that are 20 billion years old, but then some experts like you get upset, and say I cannot see them, as they didn't exist then. Well, come around and look from my window. Everything I see is right in front of me. You talk a lot of nonsense.
You're trolling would be next level if it wasn't so obvious and you weren't so stupid....
-
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window. They are small and looks like stars but they are galaxies and some are 1 billion years old, I am told.
But, do you believe it?
-
A telescope simply magnifies. It does not see farther into the distance, it just magnifies what is in that distance. It certainly does not see into the past.
Your basic home telescope magnifies. The ones in space are a little more advanced with sensors that see much more of the EM spectrum
Don't forget increased resolution that our eyes are pretty shit with.
No one claims time travel. But the speed of light in a vacuum is known. When we see a galaxy a billion light years away, we see it as it was a billion years ago. It is looking in the past. Hell, even looking at your feet is looking in the past, albiet not very long in the past 8)
So we can see a billion light years away from my window, and the JWST can see further, e.g. 14 billion light years away, i.e. before the Universe started. I really wonder what JWST will see? Nothing?
No. You dont see a billion light years distance from your window and the JWST wont see 'before the universe started'. Everything you say is wrong.
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window. They are small and looks like stars but they are galaxies and some are 1 billion years old, I am told. When I look further, I see other galaxies that are 20 billion years old, but then some experts like you get upset, and say I cannot see them, as they didn't exist then. Well, come around and look from my window. Everything I see is right in front of me. You talk a lot of nonsense.
You're trolling would be next level if it wasn't so obvious and you weren't so stupid....
Why would I troll about the NASA JWST nonsense? I describe it at my website http://heiwaco.com since >20 years. And people suggest that I am stupid.
-
And people suggest that I am stupid.
Ummm, suggest?
-
And people suggest that I am stupid.
Ummm, suggest?
All ample anonymous antagonists, amen
-
And people suggest that I am stupid.
Ummm, suggest?
All ample anonymous antagonists, amen
I think you're awesome.
-
And people suggest that I am stupid.
Ummm, suggest?
All ample anonymous antagonists, amen
I think you're awesome.
Thanks, I know I am.
-
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window.
Name 5 galaxies that you can see from your window.
-
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window.
Name 5 galaxies that you can see from your window.
Thanks for asking. I can see the Andromeda galaxy, the Whirlpool galaxy, the Triangulum galaxy, the Sombrero galaxy and the M104 galaxy.
-
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window.
Name 5 galaxies that you can see from your window.
Thanks for asking. I can see the Andromeda galaxy, the Whirlpool galaxy, the Triangulum galaxy, the Sombrero galaxy and the M104 galaxy.
How big is your telescope?
-
Heiwa couldn't point out the Milky Way.
-
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window.
Name 5 galaxies that you can see from your window.
Thanks for asking. I can see the Andromeda galaxy, the Whirlpool galaxy, the Triangulum galaxy, the Sombrero galaxy and the M104 galaxy.
The Triangulum galaxy, also known as Messier 33, is sometimes said to be the farthest object visible with the unaided eye. But you'll need perfect dark sky conditions – and good eyesight – to see it. Even with binoculars and a telescope, this pinwheel-shaped spiral galaxy is not easy to spot...It’s about 2.7 million light-years away.
As well, the Whirpool Galaxy is 31 million light-years away from Earth.
How can you see the Sombrero galaxy from your window when it's 31.1 million light-years? And btw, M104 is the Sombrero galaxy.
Do you have a pictures of these galaxies?
-
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window.
Name 5 galaxies that you can see from your window.
Thanks for asking. I can see the Andromeda galaxy, the Whirlpool galaxy, the Triangulum galaxy, the Sombrero galaxy and the M104 galaxy.
The Triangulum galaxy, also known as Messier 33, is sometimes said to be the farthest object visible with the unaided eye. But you'll need perfect dark sky conditions – and good eyesight – to see it. Even with binoculars and a telescope, this pinwheel-shaped spiral galaxy is not easy to spot...It’s about 2.7 million light-years away.
As well, the Whirpool Galaxy is 31 million light-years away from Earth.
How can you see the Sombrero galaxy from your window when it's 31.1 million light-years? And btw, M104 is the Sombrero galaxy.
Do you have a pictures of these galaxies?
Yes, but they are just bright dots on photos. Maybe I should get a better camera? Anyway, I just enjoy the view from my window and I am happy not having to go to L2 for a view of the same thing.
-
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window.
Name 5 galaxies that you can see from your window.
Thanks for asking. I can see the Andromeda galaxy, the Whirlpool galaxy, the Triangulum galaxy, the Sombrero galaxy and the M104 galaxy.
The Triangulum galaxy, also known as Messier 33, is sometimes said to be the farthest object visible with the unaided eye. But you'll need perfect dark sky conditions – and good eyesight – to see it. Even with binoculars and a telescope, this pinwheel-shaped spiral galaxy is not easy to spot...It’s about 2.7 million light-years away.
As well, the Whirpool Galaxy is 31 million light-years away from Earth.
How can you see the Sombrero galaxy from your window when it's 31.1 million light-years? And btw, M104 is the Sombrero galaxy.
Do you have a pictures of these galaxies?
Of course "he" doesn't. Just more LIES from the heiwabot.
-
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window.
Name 5 galaxies that you can see from your window.
Thanks for asking. I can see the Andromeda galaxy, the Whirlpool galaxy, the Triangulum galaxy, the Sombrero galaxy and the M104 galaxy.
The Triangulum galaxy, also known as Messier 33, is sometimes said to be the farthest object visible with the unaided eye. But you'll need perfect dark sky conditions – and good eyesight – to see it. Even with binoculars and a telescope, this pinwheel-shaped spiral galaxy is not easy to spot...It’s about 2.7 million light-years away.
As well, the Whirpool Galaxy is 31 million light-years away from Earth.
How can you see the Sombrero galaxy from your window when it's 31.1 million light-years? And btw, M104 is the Sombrero galaxy.
Do you have a pictures of these galaxies?
Of course "he" doesn't. Just more LIES from the heiwabot.
Actually I now and then take selfies with the galaxies in the back = me and the whole universe. I am in the center!
-
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window.
Name 5 galaxies that you can see from your window.
Thanks for asking. I can see the Andromeda galaxy, the Whirlpool galaxy, the Triangulum galaxy, the Sombrero galaxy and the M104 galaxy.
The Triangulum galaxy, also known as Messier 33, is sometimes said to be the farthest object visible with the unaided eye. But you'll need perfect dark sky conditions – and good eyesight – to see it. Even with binoculars and a telescope, this pinwheel-shaped spiral galaxy is not easy to spot...It’s about 2.7 million light-years away.
As well, the Whirpool Galaxy is 31 million light-years away from Earth.
How can you see the Sombrero galaxy from your window when it's 31.1 million light-years? And btw, M104 is the Sombrero galaxy.
Do you have a pictures of these galaxies?
Yes, but they are just bright dots on photos. Maybe I should get a better camera? Anyway, I just enjoy the view from my window and I am happy not having to go to L2 for a view of the same thing.
So your pictures of the Triangulum galaxy don't look like this?
(https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic1901a.jpg)
-
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window.
Name 5 galaxies that you can see from your window.
Thanks for asking. I can see the Andromeda galaxy, the Whirlpool galaxy, the Triangulum galaxy, the Sombrero galaxy and the M104 galaxy.
The Triangulum galaxy, also known as Messier 33, is sometimes said to be the farthest object visible with the unaided eye. But you'll need perfect dark sky conditions – and good eyesight – to see it. Even with binoculars and a telescope, this pinwheel-shaped spiral galaxy is not easy to spot...It’s about 2.7 million light-years away.
As well, the Whirpool Galaxy is 31 million light-years away from Earth.
How can you see the Sombrero galaxy from your window when it's 31.1 million light-years? And btw, M104 is the Sombrero galaxy.
Do you have a pictures of these galaxies?
Yes, but they are just bright dots on photos. Maybe I should get a better camera? Anyway, I just enjoy the view from my window and I am happy not having to go to L2 for a view of the same thing.
So your pictures of the Triangulum galaxy don't look like this?
(https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic1901a.jpg)
No. But similar. Anyway, I have a splendid view from my window. But the end of the universe is not in sight.
-
Hm, I see plenty galaxies from my window.
Name 5 galaxies that you can see from your window.
Thanks for asking. I can see the Andromeda galaxy, the Whirlpool galaxy, the Triangulum galaxy, the Sombrero galaxy and the M104 galaxy.
The Triangulum galaxy, also known as Messier 33, is sometimes said to be the farthest object visible with the unaided eye. But you'll need perfect dark sky conditions – and good eyesight – to see it. Even with binoculars and a telescope, this pinwheel-shaped spiral galaxy is not easy to spot...It’s about 2.7 million light-years away.
As well, the Whirpool Galaxy is 31 million light-years away from Earth.
How can you see the Sombrero galaxy from your window when it's 31.1 million light-years? And btw, M104 is the Sombrero galaxy.
Do you have a pictures of these galaxies?
Yes, but they are just bright dots on photos. Maybe I should get a better camera? Anyway, I just enjoy the view from my window and I am happy not having to go to L2 for a view of the same thing.
So your pictures of the Triangulum galaxy don't look like this?
(https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic1901a.jpg)
No. But similar. Anyway, I have a splendid view from my window. But the end of the universe is not in sight.
Your view may look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/B5hhN9S.png)
Which is nothing similar to this:
(https://www.messier-objects.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Messier-33.jpg)
-
Yes, a close-up of a galaxy 30 million light years away looks like that, and it looks just like a star from my window. And now JWST shall look at another 1000 galaxies from L2 to find out more about the history of the universe. What a complete waste of money. JWST is just a hoax and not at L2 at all.
-
Yes, a close-up of a galaxy 30 million light years away looks like that, and it looks just like a star from my window.
Can you tell us what the magnitude of said 'star' is?
-
Yes, a close-up of a galaxy 30 million light years away looks like that, and it looks just like a star from my window.
Can you tell us what the magnitude of said 'star' is?
I just look out from my window and see a tot of things in the sky when it is clear. Stars, galaxies you know! I don't have to travel to L2 to look for them.
-
Yes, a close-up of a galaxy 30 million light years away looks like that, and it looks just like a star from my window. And now JWST shall look at another 1000 galaxies from L2 to find out more about the history of the universe. What a complete waste of money. JWST is just a hoax and not at L2 at all.
What's your evidence that it's a hoax? I mean it's not against any of the things you made up that you have an issue with, e.g., manned, returning to earth, etc.
Is just because you don't understand orbital mechanics, Lagrange points, station-keeping, solar radiation, any of the calculations? Is it that you are just daft and all you can muster is to lazily look out your window? Is it that you are just an idiot who refuses to examine anything thoughtfully and instead just stomps your feet crying hoax without even a smidge of evidence or personal credibility? Is that everywhere you go around the web everyone eviscerates everything you ever type to the point of utter embarrassment, exposing the incredible lack of depth and truth to any and all of your arguments? Is it that you can't even get basic middle-school math right and make up your own math that has no basis in reality, no relation to astrodynamics? Or is it all of the above?
The Heiwabot is so stupid it can’t even tell the difference between
2400^2 - 1500^2 = 3,510,000
And this
(2400-1500)^2 = 810,000
The Heiwabot is a very, very sad and broken collection of worthless algorithms.
-
Yes, a close-up of a galaxy 30 million light years away looks like that, and it looks just like a star from my window. And now JWST shall look at another 1000 galaxies from L2 to find out more about the history of the universe. What a complete waste of money. JWST is just a hoax and not at L2 at all.
What's your evidence that it's a hoax? I mean it's not against any of the things you made up that you have an issue with, e.g., manned, returning to earth, etc.
Is just because you don't understand orbital mechanics, Lagrange points, station-keeping, solar radiation, any of the calculations? Is it that you are just daft and all you can muster is to lazily look out your window? Is it that you are just an idiot who refuses to examine anything thoughtfully and instead just stomps your feet crying hoax without even a smidge of evidence or personal credibility? Is that everywhere you go around the web everyone eviscerates everything you ever type to the point of utter embarrassment, exposing the incredible lack of depth and truth to any and all of your arguments? Is it that you can't even get basic middle-school math right and make up your own math that has no basis in reality, no relation to astrodynamics? Or is it all of the above?
The Heiwabot is so stupid it can’t even tell the difference between
2400^2 - 1500^2 = 3,510,000
And this
(2400-1500)^2 = 810,000
The Heiwabot is a very, very sad and broken collection of worthless algorithms.
A hoax is just a practical joke to fool people (and make money). NASA is joking since mid 1950's. I just have a good laugh. Imagine millions of people believing in human space travel and that you can find the truth about the universe (and life) by looking in the sky. It is hilarious.
-
A hoax is just a practical joke to fool people (and make money). NASA is joking since mid 1950's. I just have a good laugh. Imagine millions of people believing in human space travel and that you can find the truth about the universe (and life) by looking in the sky. It is hilarious.
No apostrophe necessary in 1950s. No wonder you have trouble imagining, when simple things, such as apostrophes, defeat you.
-
A hoax is just a practical joke to fool people (and make money). NASA is joking since mid 1950's. I just have a good laugh. Imagine millions of people believing in human space travel and that you can find the truth about the universe (and life) by looking in the sky. It is hilarious.
No apostrophe necessary in 1950s. No wonder you have trouble imagining, when simple things, such as apostrophes, defeat you.
No really, I just omitted more than one letter/number in the word. Why do you shit/piss your pants about it?
-
Yes, a close-up of a galaxy 30 million light years away looks like that, and it looks just like a star from my window.
Can you tell us what the magnitude of said 'star' is?
I just look out from my window and see a tot of things in the sky when it is clear. Stars, galaxies you know! I don't have to travel to L2 to look for them.
The whirlpool galaxy has an apparent magnitude of 8.4. Meaning there is no way in hell an old fogie looking out his window in an urban environment is going to see it.
Even if you were in the middle of a desert on a moonless night, and knew precisely where to look, without a visual aid like a telescope, you won't see shit. Lie to yourself, but dont expect anyone else to believe your nonsense.
No one can see any object without help with a magnitude of 8.4. Uranus has a magnitude of 5.68 and borders on believability in perfect star gazing conditions without visual aids. Neptune is 7.69 and is impossible to see with the naked eye.
And here is old man Heiwa, claiming to see objects with an apparant magnitude 8.4 out his urban city window
You're a joke. If you're going to troll at least make it believable.
-
Yes, a close-up of a galaxy 30 million light years away looks like that, and it looks just like a star from my window.
Can you tell us what the magnitude of said 'star' is?
I just look out from my window and see a tot of things in the sky when it is clear. Stars, galaxies you know! I don't have to travel to L2 to look for them.
The whirlpool galaxy has an apparent magnitude of 8.4. Meaning there is no way in hell an old fogie looking out his window in an urban environment is going to see it.
Even if you were in the middle of a desert on a moonless night, and knew precisely where to look, without a visual aid like a telescope, you won't see shit. Lie to yourself, but dont expect anyone else to believe your nonsense.
No one can see any object without help with a magnitude of 8.4. Uranus has a magnitude of 5.68 and borders on believability in perfect star gazing conditions without visual aids. Neptune is 7.69 and is impossible to see with the naked eye.
And here is old man Heiwa, claiming to see objects with an apparant magnitude 8.4 out his urban city window
You're a joke. If you're going to troll at least make it believable.
Why do you get so upset? Jealous that I have good eyes? With a window with a good view? Urban? It is just the Mediterranean Sea in front of me. I am just a fogy ... and proud of it.
-
Yes, a close-up of a galaxy 30 million light years away looks like that, and it looks just like a star from my window.
Can you tell us what the magnitude of said 'star' is?
I just look out from my window and see a tot of things in the sky when it is clear. Stars, galaxies you know! I don't have to travel to L2 to look for them.
The whirlpool galaxy has an apparent magnitude of 8.4. Meaning there is no way in hell an old fogie looking out his window in an urban environment is going to see it.
Even if you were in the middle of a desert on a moonless night, and knew precisely where to look, without a visual aid like a telescope, you won't see shit. Lie to yourself, but dont expect anyone else to believe your nonsense.
No one can see any object without help with a magnitude of 8.4. Uranus has a magnitude of 5.68 and borders on believability in perfect star gazing conditions without visual aids. Neptune is 7.69 and is impossible to see with the naked eye.
And here is old man Heiwa, claiming to see objects with an apparant magnitude 8.4 out his urban city window
You're a joke. If you're going to troll at least make it believable.
So in other words, more LIES from the heiwabot.
-
Yes, a close-up of a galaxy 30 million light years away looks like that, and it looks just like a star from my window.
Can you tell us what the magnitude of said 'star' is?
I just look out from my window and see a tot of things in the sky when it is clear. Stars, galaxies you know! I don't have to travel to L2 to look for them.
The whirlpool galaxy has an apparent magnitude of 8.4. Meaning there is no way in hell an old fogie looking out his window in an urban environment is going to see it.
Even if you were in the middle of a desert on a moonless night, and knew precisely where to look, without a visual aid like a telescope, you won't see shit. Lie to yourself, but dont expect anyone else to believe your nonsense.
No one can see any object without help with a magnitude of 8.4. Uranus has a magnitude of 5.68 and borders on believability in perfect star gazing conditions without visual aids. Neptune is 7.69 and is impossible to see with the naked eye.
And here is old man Heiwa, claiming to see objects with an apparant magnitude 8.4 out his urban city window
You're a joke. If you're going to troll at least make it believable.
So in other words, more LIES from the heiwabot.
No, topic is the JWST orbiting L2 in space. I just think JWST is hoax/joke.
-
A hoax is just a practical joke to fool people (and make money). NASA is joking since mid 1950's. I just have a good laugh. Imagine millions of people believing in human space travel and that you can find the truth about the universe (and life) by looking in the sky. It is hilarious.
No apostrophe necessary in 1950s. No wonder you have trouble imagining, when simple things, such as apostrophes, defeat you.
No really, I just omitted more than one letter/number in the word.
No you didn't. You added an extra character that didn't belong. That's kind of the exact opposite of what you just said.
-
A hoax is just a practical joke to fool people (and make money). NASA is joking since mid 1950's. I just have a good laugh. Imagine millions of people believing in human space travel and that you can find the truth about the universe (and life) by looking in the sky. It is hilarious.
No apostrophe necessary in 1950s. No wonder you have trouble imagining, when simple things, such as apostrophes, defeat you.
No really, I just omitted more than one letter/number in the word.
No you didn't. You added an extra character that didn't belong. That's kind of the exact opposite of what you just said.
No, I omitted some letters/numbers by adding an ' to improve/shorten my reply about the JWST fraud.
-
A hoax is just a practical joke to fool people (and make money). NASA is joking since mid 1950's. I just have a good laugh. Imagine millions of people believing in human space travel and that you can find the truth about the universe (and life) by looking in the sky. It is hilarious.
No apostrophe necessary in 1950s. No wonder you have trouble imagining, when simple things, such as apostrophes, defeat you.
No really, I just omitted more than one letter/number in the word.
No you didn't. You added an extra character that didn't belong. That's kind of the exact opposite of what you just said.
No, I omitted some letters/numbers by adding an ' to improve/shorten my reply about the JWST fraud.
No, you added an apostrophe where one did not belong. Adding an extra character is the opposite of omitting some letters/numbers. Is this a difficult concept for you to grasp?
-
Yes, a close-up of a galaxy 30 million light years away looks like that, and it looks just like a star from my window.
Can you tell us what the magnitude of said 'star' is?
I just look out from my window and see a tot of things in the sky when it is clear. Stars, galaxies you know! I don't have to travel to L2 to look for them.
The whirlpool galaxy has an apparent magnitude of 8.4. Meaning there is no way in hell an old fogie looking out his window in an urban environment is going to see it.
Even if you were in the middle of a desert on a moonless night, and knew precisely where to look, without a visual aid like a telescope, you won't see shit. Lie to yourself, but dont expect anyone else to believe your nonsense.
No one can see any object without help with a magnitude of 8.4. Uranus has a magnitude of 5.68 and borders on believability in perfect star gazing conditions without visual aids. Neptune is 7.69 and is impossible to see with the naked eye.
And here is old man Heiwa, claiming to see objects with an apparant magnitude 8.4 out his urban city window
You're a joke. If you're going to troll at least make it believable.
Why do you get so upset? Jealous that I have good eyes? With a window with a good view? Urban? It is just the Mediterranean Sea in front of me. I am just a fogy ... and proud of it.
Why would I believe you have good eyes? You're a liar. No one can see stars, planets or galaxies with an apparant magnitude of 8.4. No one.
Even a magnitude of 6 is bordering on the impossible and that's with perfect star gazing conditions (perfect weather, zero light pollution, no moon in sky)
Out your window? Ha!
Please tell us what part of the sky your window faces and when you can next apparently see the whirlpool galaxy out from it.
-
Please tell us what part of the sky your window faces and when you can next apparently see the whirlpool galaxy out from it.
It's just a poster from the cell across the hall...
-
Please tell us what part of the sky your window faces and when you can next apparently see the whirlpool galaxy out from it.
It's just a poster from the cell across the hall...
Just visit my web site http://heiwaco.com and you'll find my full style and view from my office and its window facing East and Corsica in the back below the horizon ... but sometimes above (!!) it .... Yes, I can see below the horizon! The sky with all the galaxies are above.
Note that in "you'll" I have omitted wi and replaced it with an '. Or I omitted sha?
-
Please tell us what part of the sky your window faces and when you can next apparently see the whirlpool galaxy out from it.
It's just a poster from the cell across the hall...
Just visit my web site http://heiwaco.com and you'll find my full style and view from my office and its window facing East and Corsica in the back below the horizon ... but sometimes above (!!) it .... Yes, I can see below the horizon! The sky with all the galaxies are above.
Note that in "you'll" I have omitted wi and replaced it with an '. Or I omitted sha?
Can you see objects with an apparent magnitude of 8.4 without any visual aids? Yes or no
-
Yes, a close-up of a galaxy 30 million light years away looks like that, and it looks just like a star from my window.
Can you tell us what the magnitude of said 'star' is?
I just look out from my window and see a tot of things in the sky when it is clear. Stars, galaxies you know! I don't have to travel to L2 to look for them.
The whirlpool galaxy has an apparent magnitude of 8.4. Meaning there is no way in hell an old fogie looking out his window in an urban environment is going to see it.
Even if you were in the middle of a desert on a moonless night, and knew precisely where to look, without a visual aid like a telescope, you won't see shit. Lie to yourself, but dont expect anyone else to believe your nonsense.
No one can see any object without help with a magnitude of 8.4. Uranus has a magnitude of 5.68 and borders on believability in perfect star gazing conditions without visual aids. Neptune is 7.69 and is impossible to see with the naked eye.
And here is old man Heiwa, claiming to see objects with an apparant magnitude 8.4 out his urban city window
You're a joke. If you're going to troll at least make it believable.
So in other words, more LIES from the heiwabot.
No, topic is the JWST orbiting L2 in space. I just think JWST is hoax/joke.
First, I wasn't talking to you. Second, what Masalang pointed out was indeed a LIE from you. Third, your reply has NOTHING to do with either of our posts. For someone that insists you aren't a bot you don't seem to be able to follow posts.
-
Yes, a close-up of a galaxy 30 million light years away looks like that, and it looks just like a star from my window.
Can you tell us what the magnitude of said 'star' is?
I just look out from my window and see a tot of things in the sky when it is clear. Stars, galaxies you know! I don't have to travel to L2 to look for them.
The whirlpool galaxy has an apparent magnitude of 8.4. Meaning there is no way in hell an old fogie looking out his window in an urban environment is going to see it.
Even if you were in the middle of a desert on a moonless night, and knew precisely where to look, without a visual aid like a telescope, you won't see shit. Lie to yourself, but dont expect anyone else to believe your nonsense.
No one can see any object without help with a magnitude of 8.4. Uranus has a magnitude of 5.68 and borders on believability in perfect star gazing conditions without visual aids. Neptune is 7.69 and is impossible to see with the naked eye.
And here is old man Heiwa, claiming to see objects with an apparant magnitude 8.4 out his urban city window
You're a joke. If you're going to troll at least make it believable.
Why do you get so upset? Jealous that I have good eyes? With a window with a good view? Urban? It is just the Mediterranean Sea in front of me. I am just a fogy ... and proud of it.
Why would I believe you have good eyes? You're a liar. No one can see stars, planets or galaxies with an apparant magnitude of 8.4. No one.
Even a magnitude of 6 is bordering on the impossible and that's with perfect star gazing conditions (perfect weather, zero light pollution, no moon in sky)
Out your window? Ha!
Please tell us what part of the sky your window faces and when you can next apparently see the whirlpool galaxy out from it.
I doubt "he" understands apparent magnitudes. And it is highly likely "he" is just a bot.
-
The Bull Shit Catalogue, also known as the Yale Catalogue of Bull Shit, Yale Bull Shit Catalogue, or just YBS, is a shitty catalogue that lists all shit of stellar magnitude 6.5 or brighter, which is roughly every star visible to the naked eye from Earth.
-
I doubt "he" understands apparent magnitudes.
I doubt he understands much of anything about astronomy.
-
The Bull Shit Catalogue, also known as the Yale Catalogue of Bull Shit, Yale Bull Shit Catalogue, or just YBS, is a shitty catalogue that lists all shit of stellar magnitude 6.5 or brighter, which is roughly every star visible to the naked eye from Earth.
Perhaps you should have researched more before you trolled on the subject. I mean, you had you dumb moon conspiracy thread but at least you weren't as hoccing nonsense as you went along. You branched out to this thread and are clearly just making shit up.
So can you, or can you not, see the whirlpool galaxy with the naked eye, out your window. Yes or no
-
The Bull Shit Catalogue, also known as the Yale Catalogue of Bull Shit, Yale Bull Shit Catalogue, or just YBS, is a shitty catalogue that lists all shit of stellar magnitude 6.5 or brighter, which is roughly every star visible to the naked eye from Earth.
Perhaps you should have researched more before you trolled on the subject. I mean, you had you dumb moon conspiracy thread but at least you weren't as hoccing nonsense as you went along. You branched out to this thread and are clearly just making shit up.
So can you, or can you not, see the whirlpool galaxy with the naked eye, out your window. Yes or no
Just study my previous comments on this thread. I just question the wisdom of sending an expensive space telescope to L2, when I can (actually not) see the same things from my window, i.e, the end of the universe isn't visible (as it doesn't exist). The JWST is just a sad hoax to keep previous lies about the universe alive.
-
The Bull Shit Catalogue, also known as the Yale Catalogue of Bull Shit, Yale Bull Shit Catalogue, or just YBS, is a shitty catalogue that lists all shit of stellar magnitude 6.5 or brighter, which is roughly every star visible to the naked eye from Earth.
Perhaps you should have researched more before you trolled on the subject. I mean, you had you dumb moon conspiracy thread but at least you weren't as hoccing nonsense as you went along. You branched out to this thread and are clearly just making shit up.
So can you, or can you not, see the whirlpool galaxy with the naked eye, out your window. Yes or no
Just study my previous comments on this thread. I just question the wisdom of sending an expensive space telescope to L2, when I can (actually not) see the same things from my window, i.e, the end of the universe isn't visible (as it doesn't exist). The JWST is just a sad hoax to keep previous lies about the universe alive.
So judging by your 'previous comments', you stand by your BS claim you can see the whirlpool galaxy unaided and in an area with 'light pollution' and to top it off, out of a house window which would only fuck up the optical clarity even more. Rightio....
The JWST isn't looking to see the end of the universe. Our observable portion of the universe is well known. It's not looking to see beyond that. The entire premise of your beliefs and justification for the 'wisdom' of sending a telescope to the L2 point is wrong.
Maybe you should do some study before you assert your stupid beliefs and your own brand of 'wisdom'
-
The Bull Shit Catalogue, also known as the Yale Catalogue of Bull Shit, Yale Bull Shit Catalogue, or just YBS, is a shitty catalogue that lists all shit of stellar magnitude 6.5 or brighter, which is roughly every star visible to the naked eye from Earth.
Perhaps you should have researched more before you trolled on the subject. I mean, you had you dumb moon conspiracy thread but at least you weren't as hoccing nonsense as you went along. You branched out to this thread and are clearly just making shit up.
So can you, or can you not, see the whirlpool galaxy with the naked eye, out your window. Yes or no
Just study my previous comments on this thread. I just question the wisdom of sending an expensive space telescope to L2, when I can (actually not) see the same things from my window, i.e, the end of the universe isn't visible (as it doesn't exist). The JWST is just a sad hoax to keep previous lies about the universe alive.
So judging by your 'previous comments', you stand by your BS claim you can see the whirlpool galaxy unaided and in an area with 'light pollution' and to top it off, out of a house window which would only fuck up the optical clarity even more. Rightio....
The JWST isn't looking to see the end of the universe. Our observable portion of the universe is well known. It's not looking to see beyond that. The entire premise of your beliefs and justification for the 'wisdom' of sending a telescope to the L2 point is wrong.
Maybe you should do some study before you assert your stupid beliefs and your own brand of 'wisdom'
There are plenty things I can see in the sky from my window! Right now clouds. NASA/ESA have stated that the JWST could look back to when the universe was created out of nothing and some "experts" suggest they can see further than that I just suggest that the JWST is complete nonsense and that it isn't even possible to send it to L2 and 'orbit' L2. L2 has no mass and is just a point of nothing moving around the Sun.
-
Just study my previous comments on this thread. I just question the wisdom of sending an expensive space telescope to L2, when I can (actually not) see the same things from my window, i.e, the end of the universe isn't visible (as it doesn't exist).
Why don't you study JWST's actual mission?
Mission Objectives
JWST's investigations will cover questions such as: What did the early Universe look like? When did the first stars and galaxies emerge? How did the first galaxies evolve over time? What can we learn about dark matter and dark energy? How and where do stars form? What determines how many of them form and their individual masses? How do stars die and how does their death impact the surrounding medium? Where and how do planetary systems form and evolve?
The JWST is just a sad hoax to keep previous lies about the universe alive.
Sounds to me like you're the sad hoax.
-
The real problem is:-
"The James Webb Space Telescope honors NASA's second administrator, James E. Webb, who headed the agency from February 1961 to October 1968, at the time of the Apollo program."
I consider the 1961/72 Apollo program with human in space 100% fake and produced by Hollywood under the direction of James E. Webb. Logically a space telescope named after him must also be fake. Everything NASA does with humans in space is fake or rather invented fantasies and fiction to entertain us. No scientific value at all.
Best way to study the universe is from my window.
-
The real problem is:-
"The James Webb Space Telescope honors NASA's second administrator, James E. Webb, who headed the agency from February 1961 to October 1968, at the time of the Apollo program."
I consider the 1961/72 Apollo program with human in space 100% fake and produced by Hollywood under the direction of James E. Webb. Logically a space telescope named after him must also be fake.
No, that would be a logical fallacy.
Everything NASA does with humans in space is fake or rather invented fantasies and fiction to entertain us. No scientific value at all.
Irrelevant and off topic.
Best way to study the universe is from my window.
You must be using a different definition of the word "study" than the rest of the English speaking world.
-
When the JWST is up and running at L2 producing photos and whatever of the universe, I'll study them and comment. In the meantime I just study the universe from my window.
-
In the meantime I just study the universe from my window.
LOL, so what have you learnt that scientists the world over haven't?
-
In the meantime I just study the universe from my window.
LOL, so what have you learnt that scientists the world over haven't?
That his ego is the center of the universe.
-
In the meantime I just study the universe from my window.
LOL, so what have you learnt that scientists the world over haven't?
From my window planet Earth is the center of the Universe, etc. https://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb1.htm
-
This is how dumb the Heiwabot is:
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end.
If the Universe has no end, Earth can't be at its center because there is no center at which to be.
-
This is how dumb the Heiwabot is:
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end.
If the Universe has no end, Earth can't be at its center because there is no center at which to be.
But what if his ego also has no end?
-
This is how dumb the Heiwabot is:
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end.
If the Universe has no end, Earth can't be at its center because there is no center at which to be.
The Universe is a mystery.
-
This is how dumb the Heiwabot is:
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end.
If the Universe has no end, Earth can't be at its center because there is no center at which to be.
The Universe is a mystery.
Your bot seems pretty sure about very specific things and then says, it's a mystery. Your bot is broken.
-
This is how dumb the Heiwabot is:
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end.
If the Universe has no end, Earth can't be at its center because there is no center at which to be.
The Universe is a mystery.
Your bot seems pretty sure about very specific things and then says, it's a mystery. Your bot is broken.
? NASA & Co. with its JWST nonsense thinks that there are plenty mysteries in the Universe that will soon be solved by a telescope + instruments at L2. Pictures will soon be available, etc. In the meantime I just enjoy the view from my window.
-
Heiwa's actual view . . .
(https://i.imgur.com/mUTLDVk.jpg?1)
-
This is how dumb the Heiwabot is:
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end.
If the Universe has no end, Earth can't be at its center because there is no center at which to be.
The Universe is a mystery.
Some of which are being unlocked by the use of tools - you know, like the telescopes you like to shit all over.
-
This is how dumb the Heiwabot is:
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end.
If the Universe has no end, Earth can't be at its center because there is no center at which to be.
The Universe is a mystery.
Some of which are being unlocked by the use of tools - you know, like the telescopes you like to shit all over.
I am not against telescopes, as long they are used from my window. Sending telescopes to L2 is just criminal nonsense.
-
This is how dumb the Heiwabot is:
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end.
If the Universe has no end, Earth can't be at its center because there is no center at which to be.
The Universe is a mystery.
Some of which are being unlocked by the use of tools - you know, like the telescopes you like to shit all over.
I am not against telescopes, as long they are used from my window. Sending telescopes to L2 is just criminal nonsense.
What about my window? Or land based observatories?
-
This is how dumb the Heiwabot is:
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end.
If the Universe has no end, Earth can't be at its center because there is no center at which to be.
The Universe is a mystery.
Some of which are being unlocked by the use of tools - you know, like the telescopes you like to shit all over.
I am not against telescopes, as long they are used from my window. Sending telescopes to L2 is just criminal nonsense.
What about my window? Or land based observatories?
I don't know about your window. Land based observatories are OK. I don't like ship based ones at sea though, or a space based one at L2
-
This is how dumb the Heiwabot is:
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end.
If the Universe has no end, Earth can't be at its center because there is no center at which to be.
The Universe is a mystery.
Some of which are being unlocked by the use of tools - you know, like the telescopes you like to shit all over.
I am not against telescopes, as long they are used from my window. Sending telescopes to L2 is just criminal nonsense.
What about my window? Or land based observatories?
I don't know about your window. Land based observatories are OK. I don't like ship based ones at sea though, or a space based one at L2
Still, a telescope that doesn't have to worry about day/night cycles, light pollution or weather events is even more desirable, wouldn't you agree?
Why do you have such a personal gripe with space based telescopes? It's not like your tax dollars was spent on them. As non Americans, we let them pay and do all the hard work and we reap all the benefits without spending a cent!
-
This is how dumb the Heiwabot is:
I can see plenty stars from my window but not the end of the Universe behind them, because the Universe has no end.
If the Universe has no end, Earth can't be at its center because there is no center at which to be.
The Universe is a mystery.
Some of which are being unlocked by the use of tools - you know, like the telescopes you like to shit all over.
I am not against telescopes, as long they are used from my window. Sending telescopes to L2 is just criminal nonsense.
What about my window? Or land based observatories?
I don't know about your window. Land based observatories are OK. I don't like ship based ones at sea though, or a space based one at L2
Still, a telescope that doesn;t have to worry about day/night cycles, light pollution or weather events is even more desirable, wouldn't you agree?
Why do you have such a personal gripe with space based telescopes? It's not like your tax dollars was spent on them. As non Americans, we let them pay and do all the hard work and we reap all the benefits without spending a cent!
I just think that a space based telescope at L2 (topic) is criminal nonsense. And it seems to be a joint venture. I just enjoy the bullshit from my window.
-
I just think that a space based telescope at L2 (topic) is criminal nonsense. And it seems to be a joint venture.
Then file a criminal complaint with the proper legal authorities.
-
I just think that a space based telescope at L2 (topic) is criminal nonsense. And it seems to be a joint venture.
Then file a criminal complaint with the proper legal authorities.
No, I just feel sorry for the fake scientists participating in the nonsense. They produce nothing. They are not even funny. The first kosmonaut, J. Gagarin, was funny. He knew his trip was just communist propaganda and the girls loved him, maybe because he had a car. And the first female ass/kossmonut was cute. I loved her. Until she opened her mouth.
If you believe in the NASA space nonsense, do believe. I just feel sorry for you.
-
I just think that a space based telescope at L2 (topic) is criminal nonsense. And it seems to be a joint venture.
Then file a criminal complaint with the proper legal authorities.
No, I just feel sorry for the fake scientists participating in the nonsense. They produce nothing. They are not even funny. The first kosmonaut, J. Gagarin, was funny. He knew his trip was just communist propaganda and the girls loved him, maybe because he had a car. And the first female ass/kossmonut was cute. I loved her. Until she opened her mouth.
If you believe in the NASA space nonsense, do believe. I just feel sorry for you.
10's of thousands of scientists, engineers, and designers don't care if a lone conspiracy theorist in France feels sorry for them. The Heiwabot means nothing to them.
-
I just think that a space based telescope at L2 (topic) is criminal nonsense. And it seems to be a joint venture.
Then file a criminal complaint with the proper legal authorities.
No, I just feel sorry for the fake scientists participating in the nonsense. They produce nothing. They are not even funny. The first kosmonaut, J. Gagarin, was funny. He knew his trip was just communist propaganda and the girls loved him, maybe because he had a car. And the first female ass/kossmonut was cute. I loved her. Until she opened her mouth.
If you believe in the NASA space nonsense, do believe. I just feel sorry for you.
10's of thousands of scientists, engineers, and designers don't care if a lone conspiracy theorist in France feels sorry for them.
I know! I just laugh at them "experts" producing garbage and nonsense.
-
I just laugh at them "experts" producing garbage and nonsense.
What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than so many experts in so many fields that you know nothing about. ::)
-
I just laugh at them "experts" producing garbage and nonsense.
What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than so many experts in so many fields that you know nothing about. ::)
Well, that is your opinion. I never boast about being smarter than anyone at http://heiwaco.com . Why should I? I just publish my findings about various things, where other people suggest otherwise.
-
I just laugh at them "experts" producing garbage and nonsense.
What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than so many experts in so many fields that you know nothing about. ::)
Well, that is your opinion. I never boast about being smarter than anyone at http://heiwaco.com . Why should I? I just publish my findings about various things, where other people suggest otherwise.
What a burden it must be to post findings about various things that so many experts in so many fields know infinitely more about than a conspiracy theory bot that only a handful of people know exists. - And those that do, don't take seriously at all. Quite sad really.
-
I just laugh at them "experts" producing garbage and nonsense.
What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than so many experts in so many fields that you know nothing about. ::)
Well, that is your opinion. I never boast about being smarter than anyone at http://heiwaco.com . Why should I? I just publish my findings about various things, where other people suggest otherwise.
What a burden it must be to post findings about various things that so many experts in so many fields know infinitely more about than a conspiracy theory bot that only a handful of people know exists. - And those that do, don't take seriously at all. Quite sad really.
It is not a burden. It is just fun. And no conspiracy. But topic is the JWST nonsense. I wonder what the first news will be?
-
I just laugh at them "experts" producing garbage and nonsense.
What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than so many experts in so many fields that you know nothing about. ::)
Well, that is your opinion. I never boast about being smarter than anyone at http://heiwaco.com . Why should I? I just publish my findings about various things, where other people suggest otherwise.
What a burden it must be to post findings about various things that so many experts in so many fields know infinitely more about than a conspiracy theory bot that only a handful of people know exists. - And those that do, don't take seriously at all. Quite sad really.
ot
It is not a burden. It is just fun. And no conspiracy. But topic is the JWST nonsense. I wonder what the first news will be?
Definition of conspiracy theorist
: a person (or bot) who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory
Definition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Heiwabot: "JWST is a hoax"
The very definition of a conspiracy theory. Therefore the Heiwabot is coded to be a conspiracy theorist. There's no way around it.
-
I never boast about being smarter than anyone...
Of course you do. You must be smarter than all of the so called experts who are too stupid to realize that there is no JWST orbiting L2 or any astronauts aboard the ISS or so many of the other things that you call fake. You practically shout it from the rooftops.
Why should I?
You shouldn't. You really shouldn't.
-
I just laugh at them "experts" producing garbage and nonsense.
What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than so many experts in so many fields that you know nothing about. ::)
Well, that is your opinion. I never boast about being smarter than anyone at http://heiwaco.com . Why should I? I just publish my findings about various things, where other people suggest otherwise.
What a burden it must be to post findings about various things that so many experts in so many fields know infinitely more about than a conspiracy theory bot that only a handful of people know exists. - And those that do, don't take seriously at all. Quite sad really.
ot
It is not a burden. It is just fun. And no conspiracy. But topic is the JWST nonsense. I wonder what the first news will be?
Definition of conspiracy theorist
: a person (or bot) who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory
Definition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Heiwabot: "JWST is a hoax"
The very definition of a conspiracy theory. Therefore the Heiwabot is coded to be a conspiracy theorist. There's no way around it.
No, JWST is just a practical joke or a hoax. Not very funny. A conspiracy is an evil or unlawful plot with people involved that I am not joking about or making theories about, e.g. a NASA/ESA rocket or space ship taking off to 'dock' with nothing in space, L2, and then orbiting around it (L2). It is pure science fiction or fraud. Like TITANIC colliding with an iceberg 1912 or ESTONIA losing its bow visor 1994. Insurance fraud!
-
I never boast about being smarter than anyone...
Of course you do. You must be smarter than all of the so called experts who are too stupid to realize that there is no JWST orbiting L2 or any astronauts aboard the ISS or so many of the other things that you call fake. You practically shout it from the rooftops.
Why should I?
You shouldn't. You really shouldn't.
Well, if you think I am smarter than some 'experts', it is your problem. And the asstronuts aboard the ISS! Just look at them lying about taking off from Earth and then returning to Earth via a magic 're-entry' invented by Dr. Buzz a long time ago. Dr. Buzz? The alcoholic asstronot doing it the first time after having pissed on the Moon while planting strawberries there 1969.
-
Well, if you think I am smarter than some 'experts', it is your problem.
Then it's a good thing that I don't think that you're smarter than a 5th grader, let alone an aerospace expert.
And the asstronuts aboard the ISS! Just look at them lying about taking off from Earth and then returning to Earth via a magic 're-entry' invented by Dr. Buzz a long time ago. Dr. Buzz? The alcoholic asstronot doing it the first time after having pissed on the Moon while planting strawberries there 1969.
See. There you go again bragging about how you're smarter an astronaut while showing how stupid you really are.
-
Well, if you think I am smarter than some 'experts', it is your problem.
Then it's a good thing that I don't think that you're smarter than a 5th grader, let alone an aerospace expert.
And the asstronuts aboard the ISS! Just look at them lying about taking off from Earth and then returning to Earth via a magic 're-entry' invented by Dr. Buzz a long time ago. Dr. Buzz? The alcoholic asstronot doing it the first time after having pissed on the Moon while planting strawberries there 1969.
See. There you go again bragging about how you're smarter an astronaut while showing how stupid you really are.
?? Me bragging myself about being smart? I just publish my findings at my website for anyone to study. If you find anything wrong, just quote me and I will explain.
-
I just laugh at them "experts" producing garbage and nonsense.
What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than so many experts in so many fields that you know nothing about. ::)
Well, that is your opinion. I never boast about being smarter than anyone at http://heiwaco.com . Why should I? I just publish my findings about various things, where other people suggest otherwise.
What a burden it must be to post findings about various things that so many experts in so many fields know infinitely more about than a conspiracy theory bot that only a handful of people know exists. - And those that do, don't take seriously at all. Quite sad really.
ot
It is not a burden. It is just fun. And no conspiracy. But topic is the JWST nonsense. I wonder what the first news will be?
Definition of conspiracy theorist
: a person (or bot) who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory
Definition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Heiwabot: "JWST is a hoax"
The very definition of a conspiracy theory. Therefore the Heiwabot is coded to be a conspiracy theorist. There's no way around it.
No, JWST is just a practical joke or a hoax. Not very funny. A conspiracy is an evil or unlawful plot with people involved that I am not joking about or making theories about, e.g. a NASA/ESA rocket or space ship taking off to 'dock' with nothing in space, L2, and then orbiting around it (L2). It is pure science fiction or fraud. Like TITANIC colliding with an iceberg 1912 or ESTONIA losing its bow visor 1994. Insurance fraud!
Sorry, your bot is the very definition of a conspiracy theorist.
If JWST is a “hoax” that means space agencies are misallocating funds and claiming something false. That would be fraud. Fraud is unlawful. As well, many, many individuals would have to be involved in the fraudulent coverup. I.e. a conspiracy. Therefore you believe there is a conspiracy afoot to defraud taxpayers. Making you and your bot conspiracy theorists. No way around that fact. As well, quite often conspiracy theorist don’t present any facts or data, just opinion. Considering that you and your bot can’t provide any failure in the calculations for JWST’s orbit, and just claim “hoax!”, no evidence means no consideration for just unfounded opinions. You and your bot are dismissed as just a lone crank conspiracy theorist with no evidence. Quite simple really.
-
I just laugh at them "experts" producing garbage and nonsense.
What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than so many experts in so many fields that you know nothing about. ::)
Well, that is your opinion. I never boast about being smarter than anyone at http://heiwaco.com . Why should I? I just publish my findings about various things, where other people suggest otherwise.
What a burden it must be to post findings about various things that so many experts in so many fields know infinitely more about than a conspiracy theory bot that only a handful of people know exists. - And those that do, don't take seriously at all. Quite sad really.
ot
It is not a burden. It is just fun. And no conspiracy. But topic is the JWST nonsense. I wonder what the first news will be?
Definition of conspiracy theorist
: a person (or bot) who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory
Definition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Heiwabot: "JWST is a hoax"
The very definition of a conspiracy theory. Therefore the Heiwabot is coded to be a conspiracy theorist. There's no way around it.
No, JWST is just a practical joke or a hoax. Not very funny. A conspiracy is an evil or unlawful plot with people involved that I am not joking about or making theories about, e.g. a NASA/ESA rocket or space ship taking off to 'dock' with nothing in space, L2, and then orbiting around it (L2). It is pure science fiction or fraud. Like TITANIC colliding with an iceberg 1912 or ESTONIA losing its bow visor 1994. Insurance fraud!
Sorry, your bot is the very definition of a conspiracy theorist.
If JWST is a “hoax” that means space agencies are misallocating funds and claiming something false. That would be fraud. Fraud is unlawful. As well, many, many individuals would have to be involved in the fraudulent coverup. I.e. a conspiracy. Therefore you believe there is a conspiracy afoot to defraud taxpayers. Making you and your bot conspiracy theorists. No way around that fact. As well, quite often conspiracy theorist don’t present any facts or data, just opinion. Considering that you and your bot can’t provide any failure in the calculations for JWST’s orbit, and just claim “hoax!”, no evidence means no consideration for just unfounded opinions. You and your bot are dismissed as just a lone crank conspiracy theorist with no evidence. Quite simple really.
Well, you seem to get upset about a lone crank, blah, blah. I am in good shape with a popular website and far from being lonely. You are just jealous! Or sick. Or covid vaxxed five times. Then you are really stupid.
-
Or covid vaxxed five times. Then you are really stupid.
I'm covid vaxxed 3 times. What does that make me?
-
I just laugh at them "experts" producing garbage and nonsense.
What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than so many experts in so many fields that you know nothing about. ::)
Well, that is your opinion. I never boast about being smarter than anyone at http://heiwaco.com . Why should I? I just publish my findings about various things, where other people suggest otherwise.
What a burden it must be to post findings about various things that so many experts in so many fields know infinitely more about than a conspiracy theory bot that only a handful of people know exists. - And those that do, don't take seriously at all. Quite sad really.
ot
It is not a burden. It is just fun. And no conspiracy. But topic is the JWST nonsense. I wonder what the first news will be?
Definition of conspiracy theorist
: a person (or bot) who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory
Definition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Heiwabot: "JWST is a hoax"
The very definition of a conspiracy theory. Therefore the Heiwabot is coded to be a conspiracy theorist. There's no way around it.
No, JWST is just a practical joke or a hoax. Not very funny. A conspiracy is an evil or unlawful plot with people involved that I am not joking about or making theories about, e.g. a NASA/ESA rocket or space ship taking off to 'dock' with nothing in space, L2, and then orbiting around it (L2). It is pure science fiction or fraud. Like TITANIC colliding with an iceberg 1912 or ESTONIA losing its bow visor 1994. Insurance fraud!
Sorry, your bot is the very definition of a conspiracy theorist.
If JWST is a “hoax” that means space agencies are misallocating funds and claiming something false. That would be fraud. Fraud is unlawful. As well, many, many individuals would have to be involved in the fraudulent coverup. I.e. a conspiracy. Therefore you believe there is a conspiracy afoot to defraud taxpayers. Making you and your bot conspiracy theorists. No way around that fact. As well, quite often conspiracy theorist don’t present any facts or data, just opinion. Considering that you and your bot can’t provide any failure in the calculations for JWST’s orbit, and just claim “hoax!”, no evidence means no consideration for just unfounded opinions. You and your bot are dismissed as just a lone crank conspiracy theorist with no evidence. Quite simple really.
Well, you seem to get upset about a lone crank, blah, blah. I am in good shape with a popular website and far from being lonely. You are just jealous! Or sick. Or covid vaxxed five times. Then you are really stupid.
You may be in great shape, still a lone crank conspiracy theorist with no evidence for your opinions. As far as the popularity of your site, another hilarious delusional lie:
(https://i.imgur.com/Wd13xry.png)
-
I just laugh at them "experts" producing garbage and nonsense.
What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than so many experts in so many fields that you know nothing about. ::)
Well, that is your opinion. I never boast about being smarter than anyone at http://heiwaco.com . Why should I? I just publish my findings about various things, where other people suggest otherwise.
What a burden it must be to post findings about various things that so many experts in so many fields know infinitely more about than a conspiracy theory bot that only a handful of people know exists. - And those that do, don't take seriously at all. Quite sad really.
ot
It is not a burden. It is just fun. And no conspiracy. But topic is the JWST nonsense. I wonder what the first news will be?
Definition of conspiracy theorist
: a person (or bot) who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory
Definition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Heiwabot: "JWST is a hoax"
The very definition of a conspiracy theory. Therefore the Heiwabot is coded to be a conspiracy theorist. There's no way around it.
No, JWST is just a practical joke or a hoax. Not very funny. A conspiracy is an evil or unlawful plot with people involved that I am not joking about or making theories about, e.g. a NASA/ESA rocket or space ship taking off to 'dock' with nothing in space, L2, and then orbiting around it (L2). It is pure science fiction or fraud. Like TITANIC colliding with an iceberg 1912 or ESTONIA losing its bow visor 1994. Insurance fraud!
Sorry, your bot is the very definition of a conspiracy theorist.
If JWST is a “hoax” that means space agencies are misallocating funds and claiming something false. That would be fraud. Fraud is unlawful. As well, many, many individuals would have to be involved in the fraudulent coverup. I.e. a conspiracy. Therefore you believe there is a conspiracy afoot to defraud taxpayers. Making you and your bot conspiracy theorists. No way around that fact. As well, quite often conspiracy theorist don’t present any facts or data, just opinion. Considering that you and your bot can’t provide any failure in the calculations for JWST’s orbit, and just claim “hoax!”, no evidence means no consideration for just unfounded opinions. You and your bot are dismissed as just a lone crank conspiracy theorist with no evidence. Quite simple really.
Well, you seem to get upset about a lone crank, blah, blah. I am in good shape with a popular website and far from being lonely. You are just jealous! Or sick. Or covid vaxxed five times. Then you are really stupid.
You may be in great shape, still a lone crank conspiracy theorist with no evidence for your opinions. As far as the popularity of your site, another hilarious delusional lie:
(https://i.imgur.com/Wd13xry.png)
?? Me a lone crank conspiracy theorist with no evidence for my opinions? I just publish my correct findings at my website for anyone to study. If you find anything wrong, just quote me and I will explain.
-
I just laugh at them "experts" producing garbage and nonsense.
What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than so many experts in so many fields that you know nothing about. ::)
Well, that is your opinion. I never boast about being smarter than anyone at http://heiwaco.com . Why should I? I just publish my findings about various things, where other people suggest otherwise.
What a burden it must be to post findings about various things that so many experts in so many fields know infinitely more about than a conspiracy theory bot that only a handful of people know exists. - And those that do, don't take seriously at all. Quite sad really.
ot
It is not a burden. It is just fun. And no conspiracy. But topic is the JWST nonsense. I wonder what the first news will be?
Definition of conspiracy theorist
: a person (or bot) who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory
Definition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Heiwabot: "JWST is a hoax"
The very definition of a conspiracy theory. Therefore the Heiwabot is coded to be a conspiracy theorist. There's no way around it.
No, JWST is just a practical joke or a hoax. Not very funny. A conspiracy is an evil or unlawful plot with people involved that I am not joking about or making theories about, e.g. a NASA/ESA rocket or space ship taking off to 'dock' with nothing in space, L2, and then orbiting around it (L2). It is pure science fiction or fraud. Like TITANIC colliding with an iceberg 1912 or ESTONIA losing its bow visor 1994. Insurance fraud!
Sorry, your bot is the very definition of a conspiracy theorist.
If JWST is a “hoax” that means space agencies are misallocating funds and claiming something false. That would be fraud. Fraud is unlawful. As well, many, many individuals would have to be involved in the fraudulent coverup. I.e. a conspiracy. Therefore you believe there is a conspiracy afoot to defraud taxpayers. Making you and your bot conspiracy theorists. No way around that fact. As well, quite often conspiracy theorist don’t present any facts or data, just opinion. Considering that you and your bot can’t provide any failure in the calculations for JWST’s orbit, and just claim “hoax!”, no evidence means no consideration for just unfounded opinions. You and your bot are dismissed as just a lone crank conspiracy theorist with no evidence. Quite simple really.
Well, you seem to get upset about a lone crank, blah, blah. I am in good shape with a popular website and far from being lonely. You are just jealous! Or sick. Or covid vaxxed five times. Then you are really stupid.
You may be in great shape, still a lone crank conspiracy theorist with no evidence for your opinions. As far as the popularity of your site, another hilarious delusional lie:
(https://i.imgur.com/Wd13xry.png)
?? Me a lone crank conspiracy theorist with no evidence for my opinions? I just publish my correct findings at my website for anyone to study. If you find anything wrong, just quote me and I will explain.
The only thing your lone crank conspiracy theorist bot has "published" regarding JWST is, "It's a joke, a hoax!" "The calculations are FAKE"! "I feel sorry for the 1000's of scientists & engineers who worked on it!"
You consider those "findings"? To be expected from a lone crank conspiracy theorist. Laughable & pathetic at best.
-
The only thing your lone crank conspiracy theorist bot has "published" regarding JWST is, "It's a joke, a hoax!" "The calculations are FAKE"! "I feel sorry for the 1000's of scientists & engineers who worked on it!"
You consider those "findings"? To be expected from a lone crank conspiracy theorist. Laughable & pathetic at best.
Re JWST I just suggest that the docking with nothing at L2 and then starting orbiting nothing is a joke. Not very funny. Like James Webb himself putting humans in space in the 1960's. James Webb thought humans were much better than robots in space. But James Webb forgot the toilets.
-
I think we can all agree Heiwa is just ad hoccing BS. Always has, always will. He hasn't a clue what he is on about. Maybe he should stick to his dumbarse MS Estonia sinking conspiracy and leave the realm of science to actual scientists.
-
Ya'll feel good about taking turns rushing Heiwa and getting your nads kicked?
Heiwa and I laugh at you all while you re-blabber the same old shit for thousands of posts.
May be time for you to stand up, zip up your pants and demand Heiwa stop fucking you.
Hahaha, that's not going to happen.
You all believe you're next post will destroy him.
On the other hand, Y'all are trying to entertain each other with junior high quibble.
Can someone be artistically creative?
Make it fun for the rest of us . . .
-
Ya'll feel good about taking turns rushing Heiwa and getting your nads kicked?
Heiwa and I laugh at you all while you re-blabber the same old shit for thousands of posts.
May be time for you to stand up, zip up your pants and demand Heiwa stop fucking you.
Hahaha, that's not going to happen.
You all believe you're next post will destroy him.
On the other hand, Y'all are trying to entertain each other with junior high quibble.
Can someone be artistically creative?
Make it fun for the rest of us . . .
You've tried sticking up for Heiwa before to get a free flight over to France. It doesn't work. I'm afraid you're going to have to hope your government lets you save enough money to stump up the funds yourself
-
You've tried sticking up for Heiwa before to get a free flight over to France. It doesn't work. I'm afraid you're going to have to hope your government lets you save enough money to stump up the funds yourself
Not sure what that stump up the funds means.
I have enough money to get there and back.
Hiewa does not.
I actually feel for him.
-
You've tried sticking up for Heiwa before to get a free flight over to France. It doesn't work. I'm afraid you're going to have to hope your government lets you save enough money to stump up the funds yourself
Not sure what that stump up the funds means.
I have enough money to get there and back.
Hiewa does not.
I actually feel for him.
Stump up, as in get and use your own cash instead of trying to get someone who is clearly impoverished to do it
If you have enough, maybe you should go and give him some company. You clearly feel legit sorry for the poor bastard who is clearly in a state of cognitive decline. I mean, he seems like he's always been a loopy moron but this thread really showcases he's lost the plot
-
You've tried sticking up for Heiwa before to get a free flight over to France. It doesn't work. I'm afraid you're going to have to hope your government lets you save enough money to stump up the funds yourself
Not sure what that stump up the funds means.
I have enough money to get there and back.
Hiewa does not.
I actually feel for him.
Actually my money is in luxury items of all sorts, airplane construction/sales and public works, etc, in France, which are always in high demand. I have a good life with plenty fun.
-
Finished coarse phasing...
(https://i.imgur.com/N783EOy.png)
-
If you wonder - Coarse Phasing (LOL) measures and corrects the vertical displacement (piston difference) of the mirror segments. Using a technology known as Dispersed Fringe Sensing, NASA uses NIRCam to capture light spectra from 20 separate pairings of mirror segments. The spectrum will resemble a barber pole pattern (ROTFL) with a slope (or angle) determined by the piston difference of the two segments in the pairing. It takes several months so we have to wait for real pictures of the universe … that I see from my window free of charge.
-
If you wonder - Coarse Phasing (LOL) measures and corrects the vertical displacement (piston difference) of the mirror segments. Using a technology known as Dispersed Fringe Sensing, NASA uses NIRCam to capture light spectra from 20 separate pairings of mirror segments. The spectrum will resemble a barber pole pattern (ROTFL) with a slope (or angle) determined by the piston difference of the two segments in the pairing. It takes several months so we have to wait for real pictures of the universe … that I see from my window free of charge.
Yep, it's getting there. Just a few months away, 1 million miles away. Definitely looking forward to the first images.
-
Actually coarse phasing is a vulgar, not refined, harsh, lacking in delicacy, composition of inferior, faulty quality parts into one view of a thing, e.g. the end of the universe, that doesn’t exist. It is a joke. At L2!
-
JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE Coarse Phasing for Accuracy Smaller Than Wavelength of Light
Coarse phasing has been successfully completed. Now Fine phasing has begun:
JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE Fine Phasing Measure and Correct the Alignment Errors in Mirrors
-
JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE Coarse Phasing for Accuracy Smaller Than Wavelength of Light
Coarse phasing has been successfully completed. Now Fine phasing has begun:
JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE Fine Phasing Measure and Correct the Alignment Errors in Mirrors
Actually coarse phasing is a vulgar, not refined, harsh, lacking in delicacy, composition of inferior, faulty quality parts into one view of a thing, e.g. the end of the universe, that doesn’t exist. It is a joke. At L2!
Fine Phasing is the same shit.
-
JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE Coarse Phasing for Accuracy Smaller Than Wavelength of Light
Coarse phasing has been successfully completed. Now Fine phasing has begun:
JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE Fine Phasing Measure and Correct the Alignment Errors in Mirrors
Actually coarse phasing is a vulgar, not refined, harsh, lacking in delicacy, composition of inferior, faulty quality parts into one view of a thing, e.g. the end of the universe, that doesn’t exist. It is a joke. At L2!
Fine Phasing is the same shit.
Looking forward to fine phasing being completed and getting to telescope alignment.
-
Actually coarse phasing Anders Björkman is a vulgar, not refined, harsh, lacking in delicacy, composition of inferior, faulty quality parts into one view of a thing...
FTFY
-
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LFP2BcJRZt759y2dNW3HyE-970-80.jpg)
Nice image of a star that is roughly 100x too dim to see with the naked eye. This is getting exciting. You can see tons of much dimmer galaxies behind it too.
-
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LFP2BcJRZt759y2dNW3HyE-970-80.jpg)
Nice image of a star that is roughly 100x too dim to see with the naked eye. This is getting exciting. You can see tons of much dimmer galaxies behind it too.
Yes, an unnamed star blocks the view of the end of the universe. I assume it isn't an image by the JWST. It is just an image of any star!
-
"The new image centers on a star called 2MASS J17554042+6551277, according to the statement. That represents a new target for the observatory: Previous steps of the commissioning process centered on HD 84406, a star in the constellation Ursa Major that is located about 241 light-years from Earth."
-
"The new image centers on a star called 2MASS J17554042+6551277, according to the statement. That represents a new target for the observatory: Previous steps of the commissioning process centered on HD 84406, a star in the constellation Ursa Major that is located about 241 light-years from Earth."
Aha, JWST is still only looking at a little star in the our own Milky Way galaxy a small 241 light years away, that I can see from my window. The Milky Way galaxy is pretty big, i.e. its radius is >100 000 light years, with a Black Hole in the center, I am told. I cannot see that Black Hole from my window, though. Anyway, the JWST is designed to look further, >100 million light years away to find out what the end of the universe is. I wonder what it looks like!
-
“This star is one of many stars we use throughout the commissioning process of Webb... they’re generally picked not because they’re special stars, but because they’re the right brightness in the right parts of the sky for our engineering tests.”
-
“This star is one of many stars we use throughout the commissioning process of Webb... they’re generally picked not because they’re special stars, but because they’re the right brightness in the right parts of the sky for our engineering tests.”
ROTFL - But the star is just around the corner. I can see it from my window.
-
"The new image centers on a star called 2MASS J17554042+6551277, according to the statement. That represents a new target for the observatory: Previous steps of the commissioning process centered on HD 84406, a star in the constellation Ursa Major that is located about 241 light-years from Earth."
Aha, JWST is still only looking at a little star in the our own Milky Way galaxy
Yes, that's how they are getting everything aligned and tuned. An engineer would know this. And even better, it's a star you can't see out your window. Neat, huh?
-
"The new image centers on a star called 2MASS J17554042+6551277, according to the statement. That represents a new target for the observatory: Previous steps of the commissioning process centered on HD 84406, a star in the constellation Ursa Major that is located about 241 light-years from Earth."
Aha, JWST is still only looking at a little star in the our own Milky Way galaxy
Yes, that's how they are getting everything aligned and tuned. An engineer would know this. And even better, it's a star you can't see out your window. Neat, huh?
I just look out of my window at clear nights and see the Milky Way and its stars above me. No need for me to fly to L2 doing it. Only complete idiots fly into space as there is no safe return. Much better stay on Earth.
-
"The new image centers on a star called 2MASS J17554042+6551277, according to the statement. That represents a new target for the observatory: Previous steps of the commissioning process centered on HD 84406, a star in the constellation Ursa Major that is located about 241 light-years from Earth."
Aha, JWST is still only looking at a little star in the our own Milky Way galaxy
Yes, that's how they are getting everything aligned and tuned. An engineer would know this. And even better, it's a star you can't see out your window. Neat, huh?
I just look out of my window at clear nights and see the Milky Way and its stars above me.
But not that star.
-
"The new image centers on a star called 2MASS J17554042+6551277, according to the statement. That represents a new target for the observatory: Previous steps of the commissioning process centered on HD 84406, a star in the constellation Ursa Major that is located about 241 light-years from Earth."
Aha, JWST is still only looking at a little star in the our own Milky Way galaxy
Yes, that's how they are getting everything aligned and tuned. An engineer would know this. And even better, it's a star you can't see out your window. Neat, huh?
I just look out of my window at clear nights and see the Milky Way and its stars above me.
But not that star.
There are billions of stars just in the Milky Way galaxy. But only one Sun/star with a planet - Earth.
-
"The new image centers on a star called 2MASS J17554042+6551277, according to the statement. That represents a new target for the observatory: Previous steps of the commissioning process centered on HD 84406, a star in the constellation Ursa Major that is located about 241 light-years from Earth."
Aha, JWST is still only looking at a little star in the our own Milky Way galaxy
Yes, that's how they are getting everything aligned and tuned. An engineer would know this. And even better, it's a star you can't see out your window. Neat, huh?
I just look out of my window at clear nights and see the Milky Way and its stars above me.
But not that star.
There are billions of stars just in the Milky Way galaxy. But only one Sun/star with a planet - Earth.
2MASS J17554042+6551277 can't be seen with the naked eye through a window. It's too far away and too faint.
-
There are billions of stars just in the Milky Way galaxy.
Yes, but you can only see a few thousand from your window.
But only one Sun/star with a planet - Earth.
Wrong and wrong. There are lots of stars with planets (which you can't see from your window) and earth is not a sun/star.
-
Wrong and wrong. There are lots of stars with planets (which you can't see from your window) and earth is not a sun/star.
This is where he says something supremely silly like "Oh those are just exoplanets, totally different" without even a passing moment to consider it has nothing to do with composition and everything to do with humanity having Main Character Syndrome for our own solar system.
-
There are billions of stars just in the Milky Way galaxy.
Yes, but you can only see a few thousand from your window.
But only one Sun/star with a planet - Earth.
Wrong and wrong. There are lots of stars with planets (which you can't see from your window) and earth is not a sun/star.
Well, I can see the Milky Way galaxy from my window, and I am happy with it. I don't have to fly to L2 and watch it. JWST has so far taken one photo of a star to adjust its focus but it sounds like a joke.
-
There are billions of stars just in the Milky Way galaxy.
Yes, but you can only see a few thousand from your window.
But only one Sun/star with a planet - Earth.
Wrong and wrong. There are lots of stars with planets (which you can't see from your window) and earth is not a sun/star.
Well, I can see the Milky Way galaxy from my window, and I am happy with it. I don't have to fly to L2 and watch it. JWST has so far taken one photo of a star to adjust its focus but it sounds like a joke.
Why would anyone care what you’re happy with or not? What does your happiness have to do with JWST?
-
An absolutely elated astrophysicist talking about the latest image from JWST. Her enthusiasm is infectious.
-
An absolutely elated astrophysicist talking about the latest image from JWST. Her enthusiasm is infectious.
She's been a blast to watch since even before it launched, so much so that I turned on notifications for when her videos drop so I don't miss them. And that video was a great way to hear about that image.
-
An absolutely elated astrophysicist talking about the latest image from JWST. Her enthusiasm is infectious.
She's been a blast to watch since even before it launched, so much so that I turned on notifications for when her videos drop so I don't miss them. And that video was a great way to hear about that image.
I just smacked the bell on her channel. Digging her vids.
-
An absolutely elated astrophysicist talking about the latest image from JWST. Her enthusiasm is infectious.
She's been a blast to watch since even before it launched, so much so that I turned on notifications for when her videos drop so I don't miss them. And that video was a great way to hear about that image.
I just smacked the bell on her channel. Digging her vids.
I think she is talking nonsense about a telescope in the vicinity of L2 have taking a look at and a photo of a star nearby, which I can see from my window. I think she is a fraud and standard disinformation by NASA/ESA. One reason is of course that JWST cannot orbit L2 under any circumstances.
-
An absolutely elated astrophysicist talking about the latest image from JWST. Her enthusiasm is infectious.
She's been a blast to watch since even before it launched, so much so that I turned on notifications for when her videos drop so I don't miss them. And that video was a great way to hear about that image.
I just smacked the bell on her channel. Digging her vids.
I think she is talking nonsense about a telescope in the vicinity of L2 have taking a look at and a photo of a star nearby, which I can see from my window. I think she is a fraud and standard disinformation by NASA/ESA. One reason is of course that JWST cannot orbit L2 under any circumstances.
A) You can't see that particular star with just your eyeballs. So no, you can't see it from your window.
B) Your personal assessment of the astrophysicist's qualifications is meaningless. You're obviously free to think what you want, but no one cares what your unfounded opinion is. Especially considering you can't even get middle school math right, let alone the complexity of orbital mechanics regarding Lagrange Points.
C) If all you have to offer is, "It's a fraud" over and over again, maybe you should bail out of this thread. The topic is what JWST is doing, not what you think it is not doing. But if you just want to keep stomping your feet and exclaiming, "It's a fraud", without a shred of evidence, have at it. You'll just be dismissed like everywhere else you've tried to peddle your schtick.
-
An absolutely elated astrophysicist talking about the latest image from JWST. Her enthusiasm is infectious.
She's been a blast to watch since even before it launched, so much so that I turned on notifications for when her videos drop so I don't miss them. And that video was a great way to hear about that image.
I just smacked the bell on her channel. Digging her vids.
I think she is talking nonsense about a telescope in the vicinity of L2 have taking a look at and a photo of a star nearby, which I can see from my window. I think she is a fraud and standard disinformation by NASA/ESA. One reason is of course that JWST cannot orbit L2 under any circumstances.
How about you do a video debunking her BS then. Your website is so 90s. YouTube and social media is what gets exposure. I guarantee you could get more hits on a YouTube video in a week then your site has ever gotten since you launched it
Do it.
-
An absolutely elated astrophysicist talking about the latest image from JWST. Her enthusiasm is infectious.
She's been a blast to watch since even before it launched, so much so that I turned on notifications for when her videos drop so I don't miss them. And that video was a great way to hear about that image.
I just smacked the bell on her channel. Digging her vids.
I think she is talking nonsense about a telescope in the vicinity of L2 have taking a look at and a photo of a star nearby, which I can see from my window. I think she is a fraud and standard disinformation by NASA/ESA. One reason is of course that JWST cannot orbit L2 under any circumstances.
A) You can't see that particular star with just your eyeballs. So no, you can't see it from your window.
B) Your personal assessment of the astrophysicist's qualifications is meaningless. You're obviously free to think what you want, but no one cares what your unfounded opinion is. Especially considering you can't even get middle school math right, let alone the complexity of orbital mechanics regarding Lagrange Points.
C) If all you have to offer is, "It's a fraud" over and over again, maybe you should bail out of this thread. The topic is what JWST is doing, not what you think it is not doing. But if you just want to keep stomping your feet and exclaiming, "It's a fraud", without a shred of evidence, have at it. You'll just be dismissed like everywhere else you've tried to peddle your schtick.
Hm, so far the JWST has produced nothing as it still needs adjustments, etc. OK, there is one photo of a star near by in the Milky Way galaxy but that's all. A photo of a star! ROTFL. As I say I can see the same thing from my window a clear night. No, I look forward to the JWST view of the end of the universe and beyond, as promised.
-
An absolutely elated astrophysicist talking about the latest image from JWST. Her enthusiasm is infectious.
She's been a blast to watch since even before it launched, so much so that I turned on notifications for when her videos drop so I don't miss them. And that video was a great way to hear about that image.
I just smacked the bell on her channel. Digging her vids.
I think she is talking nonsense about a telescope in the vicinity of L2 have taking a look at and a photo of a star nearby, which I can see from my window. I think she is a fraud and standard disinformation by NASA/ESA. One reason is of course that JWST cannot orbit L2 under any circumstances.
How about you do a video debunking her BS then. Your website is so 90s. YouTube and social media is what gets exposure. I guarantee you could get more hits on a YouTube video in a week then your site has ever gotten since you launched it
Do it.
No, I present my findings in writing at my website. Easy to copy/paste, if there are errors, that I always correct.
-
An absolutely elated astrophysicist talking about the latest image from JWST. Her enthusiasm is infectious.
She's been a blast to watch since even before it launched, so much so that I turned on notifications for when her videos drop so I don't miss them. And that video was a great way to hear about that image.
I just smacked the bell on her channel. Digging her vids.
I think she is talking nonsense about a telescope in the vicinity of L2 have taking a look at and a photo of a star nearby, which I can see from my window. I think she is a fraud and standard disinformation by NASA/ESA. One reason is of course that JWST cannot orbit L2 under any circumstances.
A) You can't see that particular star with just your eyeballs. So no, you can't see it from your window.
B) Your personal assessment of the astrophysicist's qualifications is meaningless. You're obviously free to think what you want, but no one cares what your unfounded opinion is. Especially considering you can't even get middle school math right, let alone the complexity of orbital mechanics regarding Lagrange Points.
C) If all you have to offer is, "It's a fraud" over and over again, maybe you should bail out of this thread. The topic is what JWST is doing, not what you think it is not doing. But if you just want to keep stomping your feet and exclaiming, "It's a fraud", without a shred of evidence, have at it. You'll just be dismissed like everywhere else you've tried to peddle your schtick.
Hm, so far the JWST has produced nothing as it still needs adjustments, etc. OK, there is one photo of a star near by in the Milky Way galaxy but that's all. A photo of a star! ROTFL. As I say I can see the same thing from my window a clear night. No, I look forward to the JWST view of the end of the universe and beyond, as promised.
Did you see all the galaxies in that photo? Actual galaxies with the resolution to even see their shape?
Of course you did. Just the usual trolling bullshit from you.
-
Hm, so far the JWST has produced nothing
Except the several images it has already sent back during the alignment process, including the one I dropped the image of here and Stash showed you a video about.
As I say I can see the same thing from my window a clear night.
Except, you can't.
end of the universe
You are the only person saying this.
-
An absolutely elated astrophysicist talking about the latest image from JWST. Her enthusiasm is infectious.
She's been a blast to watch since even before it launched, so much so that I turned on notifications for when her videos drop so I don't miss them. And that video was a great way to hear about that image.
I just smacked the bell on her channel. Digging her vids.
I think she is talking nonsense about a telescope in the vicinity of L2 have taking a look at and a photo of a star nearby, which I can see from my window. I think she is a fraud and standard disinformation by NASA/ESA. One reason is of course that JWST cannot orbit L2 under any circumstances.
A) You can't see that particular star with just your eyeballs. So no, you can't see it from your window.
B) Your personal assessment of the astrophysicist's qualifications is meaningless. You're obviously free to think what you want, but no one cares what your unfounded opinion is. Especially considering you can't even get middle school math right, let alone the complexity of orbital mechanics regarding Lagrange Points.
C) If all you have to offer is, "It's a fraud" over and over again, maybe you should bail out of this thread. The topic is what JWST is doing, not what you think it is not doing. But if you just want to keep stomping your feet and exclaiming, "It's a fraud", without a shred of evidence, have at it. You'll just be dismissed like everywhere else you've tried to peddle your schtick.
Hm, so far the JWST has produced nothing as it still needs adjustments, etc. OK, there is one photo of a star near by in the Milky Way galaxy but that's all. A photo of a star! ROTFL. As I say I can see the same thing from my window a clear night. No, I look forward to the JWST view of the end of the universe and beyond, as promised.
Did you see all the galaxies in that photo? Actual galaxies with the resolution to even see their shape?
Of course you did.
Yes, the galaxies I see from my window are behind the Milky Way galaxy in front. They look like stars. Why are you so upset about it. Topic is the JWST orbiting L2. How can anything orbit nothing like L2 in space?
-
Yes, the galaxies I see from my window are behind the Milky Way galaxy in front.
But those are different than the ones you see in the photo that was shared. You seem to be having some trouble understanding this. Maybe you can ask one of your engineer friends to help you out here, it's not that complicated.
-
Yes, the galaxies I see from my window are behind the Milky Way galaxy in front.
But those are different than the ones you see in the photo that was shared. You seem to be having some trouble understanding this. Maybe you can ask one of your engineer friends to help you out here, it's not that complicated.
He has no trouble understanding - he's a troll, plain and simple. He posts things he knows will provoke a reaction. It's all rather puerile and boring.
-
Hm, so far the JWST has produced nothing as it still needs adjustments, etc. OK, there is one photo of a star near by in the Milky Way galaxy but that's all. A photo of a star!
No, that isn't all. It's a very bright picture of dim star and lots of galaxies in the background.
As I say I can see the same thing from my window a clear night.
No, you most certainly cannot see the same thing from your window.
No, I look forward to the JWST view of the end of the universe and beyond, as promised.
And I look forward to you to stop saying stupid things that nobody ever promised.
-
Hm, so far the JWST has produced nothing as it still needs adjustments, etc. OK, there is one photo of a star near by in the Milky Way galaxy but that's all. A photo of a star!
No, that isn't all. It's a very bright picture of dim star and lots of galaxies in the background.
As I say I can see the same thing from my window a clear night.
No, you most certainly cannot see the same thing from your window.
No, I look forward to the JWST view of the end of the universe and beyond, as promised.
And I look forward to you to stop saying stupid things that nobody ever promised.
I know. And then "over the next six weeks, the team will proceed through the remaining alignment steps before final science instrument preparations. The team will further align the telescope to include the Near-Infrared Spectrograph, Mid-Infrared Instrument, and Near InfraRed Imager and Slitless Spectrograph. In this phase of the process, an algorithm will evaluate the performance of each instrument and then calculate the final corrections needed to achieve a well-aligned telescope across all science instruments. Following this, Webb’s final alignment step will begin, and the team will adjust any small, residual positioning errors in the mirror segments, bla, bla, bla". And it is still cooling down. 14/54° C in the sunny side and -230/4° C in the shade. And after some months "it is ready to study every phase in the history of our Universe". Complete NASA-nonsense in my opinion. What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
Most everything in the universe.
-
Using a technology known as Dispersed Fringe Sensing, . . .
That's how we know when you show up. ;)
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
For you, nothing. For astronomers, everything.
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
For you, nothing. For astronomers, everything.
It seems you suffer from ch! http://heiwaco.com/ch.htm
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
Most everything in the universe.
But I already know what the universe is all about! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
Most everything in the universe.
But I already know what the universe is all about! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Are you saying that everything on your site is everything that everyone on the planet needs to know about the universe?
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
Most everything in the universe.
But I already know what the universe is all about! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Are you saying that everything on your site is everything that everyone on the planet needs to know about the universe?
No, just study the link above and maybe you'll understand what I write and see from my window.
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
For you, nothing. For astronomers, everything.
It seems you suffer from ch!
It seems you suffer from Dunning-Kruger.
https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
For you, nothing. For astronomers, everything.
It seems you suffer from ch!
It seems you suffer from Dunning-Kruger.
https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740
Not at all! All I do is in writing on my web page/internet for people to study. They can copy/paste, what they think is wrong, so it can be corrected. I am quite famous for my various €1M Challenges to encourage people to show how smart and capable they are. It seems you have failed them.
-
Heiwa,
Awesome how you can stay in character for so many years.You are great.
-
Heiwa,
Awesome how you can stay in character for so many years.You are great.
Thanks, but you are off topic, the JWST! I just have my doubts about the JWST orbiting L2. There is no doubt that the Universe exists in space - I can see it from my window - but I have serious doubts about the JWST in space ... and many other things like nuclear weapons, 911 Arabs, marine insurance claims of all sorts, etc.
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
Most everything in the universe.
But I already know what the universe is all about! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Are you saying that everything on your site is everything that everyone on the planet needs to know about the universe?
No, just study the link above and maybe you'll understand what I write and see from my window.
So what's on your site is all YOU need to know about the Universe?
-
I'm starting to think Hiawa might be a nut job.
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
Most everything in the universe.
But I already know what the universe is all about! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Are you saying that everything on your site is everything that everyone on the planet needs to know about the universe?
No, just study the link above and maybe you'll understand what I write and see from my window.
So what's on your site is all YOU need to know about the Universe?
Yes, start with http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm . I like real, humans observations and not photos taken by JWST. Photos are so easy to shop!
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
Most everything in the universe.
But I already know what the universe is all about! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Are you saying that everything on your site is everything that everyone on the planet needs to know about the universe?
No, just study the link above and maybe you'll understand what I write and see from my window.
So what's on your site is all YOU need to know about the Universe?
Yes, start with http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm . I like real, humans observations and not photos taken by JWST. Photos are so easy to shop!
So what’s on your site is all YOU need to know about the universe. But not all everyone else needs to know about the universe like you said before.
If your site doesn’t have everything everyone needs to know about the universe then they seek out more and other sources of information, right? Because you’ve already said that your site has everything YOU need, but not everything everyone else needs, right? But then you say all others sources about the universe are wrong, or fake, etc. So which is it? Is your site all you need for you or is it also all everyone needs?
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
Most everything in the universe.
But I already know what the universe is all about! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Are you saying that everything on your site is everything that everyone on the planet needs to know about the universe?
No, just study the link above and maybe you'll understand what I write and see from my window.
So what's on your site is all YOU need to know about the Universe?
Yes, start with http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm . I like real, humans observations and not photos taken by JWST. Photos are so easy to shop!
So what’s on your site is all YOU need to know about the universe. But not all everyone else needs to know about the universe like you said before.
If your site doesn’t have everything everyone needs to know about the universe then they seek out more and other sources of information, right? Because you’ve already said that your site has everything YOU need, but not everything everyone else needs, right? But then you say all others sources about the universe are wrong, or fake, etc. So which is it? Is your site all you need for you or is it also all everyone needs?
Yes, the universe is just full of galaxies, where ever I look from my window. Nothing else. The JWST (topic) will not take more photos of it than that. Only complete nut cases think they will find something else in the universe. My site is generally about about serious safety and environmental protection at sea on Earth. I pay two ISPs a little $$ for it. Visitors can access it free. I have plenty visitors. This JWST/universe shit is just for fun.
-
I just have my doubts about the JWST orbiting L2.
Doubt and denial are not the same thing.
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
Most everything in the universe.
But I already know what the universe is all about! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Are you saying that everything on your site is everything that everyone on the planet needs to know about the universe?
No, just study the link above and maybe you'll understand what I write and see from my window.
So what's on your site is all YOU need to know about the Universe?
Yes, start with http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm . I like real, humans observations and not photos taken by JWST. Photos are so easy to shop!
So what’s on your site is all YOU need to know about the universe. But not all everyone else needs to know about the universe like you said before.
If your site doesn’t have everything everyone needs to know about the universe then they seek out more and other sources of information, right? Because you’ve already said that your site has everything YOU need, but not everything everyone else needs, right? But then you say all others sources about the universe are wrong, or fake, etc. So which is it? Is your site all you need for you or is it also all everyone needs?
Yes, the universe is just full of galaxies, where ever I look from my window. Nothing else. The JWST (topic) will not take more photos of it than that. Only complete nut cases think they will find something else in the universe.
Find "something else" like what?
My site is generally about about serious safety and environmental protection at sea on Earth. I pay two ISPs a little $$ for it. Visitors can access it free. I have plenty visitors. This JWST/universe shit is just for fun.
You have little to no visitors. I guess that must be "plenty" to you, which is odd.
(https://i.imgur.com/Wd13xry.png)
You're still not answering the question, so let's broaden it since you continually bring up your site. Which, I might add, your site has nothing to do with the topic at all so you really shouldn't be bringing it up. But anyway, is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site the only things everyone needs to know?
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
Most everything in the universe.
But I already know what the universe is all about! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Are you saying that everything on your site is everything that everyone on the planet needs to know about the universe?
No, just study the link above and maybe you'll understand what I write and see from my window.
So what's on your site is all YOU need to know about the Universe?
Yes, start with http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm . I like real, humans observations and not photos taken by JWST. Photos are so easy to shop!
So what’s on your site is all YOU need to know about the universe. But not all everyone else needs to know about the universe like you said before.
If your site doesn’t have everything everyone needs to know about the universe then they seek out more and other sources of information, right? Because you’ve already said that your site has everything YOU need, but not everything everyone else needs, right? But then you say all others sources about the universe are wrong, or fake, etc. So which is it? Is your site all you need for you or is it also all everyone needs?
Yes, the universe is just full of galaxies, where ever I look from my window. Nothing else. The JWST (topic) will not take more photos of it than that. Only complete nut cases think they will find something else in the universe.
Find "something else" like what?
My site is generally about about serious safety and environmental protection at sea on Earth. I pay two ISPs a little $$ for it. Visitors can access it free. I have plenty visitors. This JWST/universe shit is just for fun.
You have little to no visitors. I guess that must be "plenty" to you, which is odd.
(https://i.imgur.com/Wd13xry.png)
You're still not answering the question, so let's broaden it since you continually bring up your site. Which, I might add, your site has nothing to do with the topic at all so you really shouldn't be bringing it up. But anyway, is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site the only things everyone needs to know?
According NASA from L2 in space the JWST looks for the beginning or end of the universe. JWST will take a photo of it. I have already seen it from my window. It is nothing.
-
What is there to study in the universe that I cannot see from my window?
Most everything in the universe.
But I already know what the universe is all about! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Are you saying that everything on your site is everything that everyone on the planet needs to know about the universe?
No, just study the link above and maybe you'll understand what I write and see from my window.
So what's on your site is all YOU need to know about the Universe?
Yes, start with http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm . I like real, humans observations and not photos taken by JWST. Photos are so easy to shop!
So what’s on your site is all YOU need to know about the universe. But not all everyone else needs to know about the universe like you said before.
If your site doesn’t have everything everyone needs to know about the universe then they seek out more and other sources of information, right? Because you’ve already said that your site has everything YOU need, but not everything everyone else needs, right? But then you say all others sources about the universe are wrong, or fake, etc. So which is it? Is your site all you need for you or is it also all everyone needs?
Yes, the universe is just full of galaxies, where ever I look from my window. Nothing else. The JWST (topic) will not take more photos of it than that. Only complete nut cases think they will find something else in the universe.
Find "something else" like what?
My site is generally about about serious safety and environmental protection at sea on Earth. I pay two ISPs a little $$ for it. Visitors can access it free. I have plenty visitors. This JWST/universe shit is just for fun.
You have little to no visitors. I guess that must be "plenty" to you, which is odd.
(https://i.imgur.com/Wd13xry.png)
You're still not answering the question, so let's broaden it since you continually bring up your site. Which, I might add, your site has nothing to do with the topic at all so you really shouldn't be bringing it up. But anyway, is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site the only things everyone needs to know?
According NASA from L2 in space the JWST looks for the beginning or end of the universe. JWST will take a photo of it. I have already seen it from my window. It is nothing.
You're still not answering the question, so let's broaden it since you continually bring up your site. Which, I might add, your site has nothing to do with the topic at all so you really shouldn't be bringing it up. But anyway, is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site the only things everyone needs to know?
-
You're still not answering the question, so let's broaden it since you continually bring up your site. Which, I might add, your site has nothing to do with the topic at all so you really shouldn't be bringing it up. But anyway, is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site the only things everyone needs to know?
If you visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm you'll find bottom left a number which indicate the number of visitors. It seems I have >130 / day. Not bad, in my opinion. Topic is of course what JWST shall study, which seems to be nothing but galaxies.
-
You're still not answering the question, so let's broaden it since you continually bring up your site. Which, I might add, your site has nothing to do with the topic at all so you really shouldn't be bringing it up. But anyway, is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site the only things everyone needs to know?
If you visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm you'll find bottom left a number which indicate the number of visitors. It seems I have >130 / day. Not bad, in my opinion. Topic is of course what JWST shall study, which seems to be nothing but galaxies.
Show us images of your statcounter dashboard. Just pagecounts is like 1996 methodology when it comes to assessing site traffic. We've gone way, way beyond that in 25+ years. 130 hits a day is probably 10 from me and 120 from bots and spiders. 130 a day, even 25 years ago is nothing, at best. What's your time on site stats? drop-off pages? Link backs, etc. All the things that measure traffic. Pagecounts is so basic it's only used by grandma's knitting tips & tricks sites and the like.
What does google analytics report for your site?
How many challenge submissions have you received in the past year? If you have received any, why not share them in a new thread. It would be interesting to see.
And you're still not answering the question, so let's broaden it since you continually bring up your site. Which, I might add, your site has nothing to do with the topic at all so you really shouldn't be bringing it up. But anyway, is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site the only things everyone needs to know?
-
You're still not answering the question, so let's broaden it since you continually bring up your site. Which, I might add, your site has nothing to do with the topic at all so you really shouldn't be bringing it up. But anyway, is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site the only things everyone needs to know?
If you visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm you'll find bottom left a number which indicate the number of visitors. It seems I have >130 / day. Not bad, in my opinion. Topic is of course what JWST shall study, which seems to be nothing but galaxies.
Show us images of your statcounter dashboard. Just pagecounts is like 1996 methodology when it comes to assessing site traffic. We've gone way, way beyond that in 25+ years. 130 hits a day is probably 10 from me and 120 from bots and spiders. 130 a day, even 25 years ago is nothing, at best. What's your time on site stats? drop-off pages? Link backs, etc. All the things that measure traffic. Pagecounts is so basic it's only used by grandma's knitting tips & tricks sites and the like.
What does google analytics report for your site?
How many challenge submissions have you received in the past year? If you have received any, why not share them in a new thread. It would be interesting to see.
And you're still not answering the question, so let's broaden it since you continually bring up your site. Which, I might add, your site has nothing to do with the topic at all so you really shouldn't be bringing it up. But anyway, is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site the only things everyone needs to know?
You sound worried about my popular web site, but it is another topic. Here we discuss the JWST spacecraft taking pictures of the universe from an orbit around L2. I watch the universe from my window and report about it at my web site, i.e. the universe is only galaxies with Earth in the center. Nothing else!
Other popular topics at my site are (1) nuclear weapons 1945 onward and (2) the M/S Estonia sabotage and sinking 1994 onward. Both are FAKE NEWS. Atomic bombs cannot ignite as Putin knows and the story of a lost bow visor is fantasy to hide a crime. Public authorities don't like it.
-
You're still not answering the question, so let's broaden it since you continually bring up your site. Which, I might add, your site has nothing to do with the topic at all so you really shouldn't be bringing it up. But anyway, is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site the only things everyone needs to know?
If you visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm you'll find bottom left a number which indicate the number of visitors. It seems I have >130 / day. Not bad, in my opinion. Topic is of course what JWST shall study, which seems to be nothing but galaxies.
Show us images of your statcounter dashboard. Just pagecounts is like 1996 methodology when it comes to assessing site traffic. We've gone way, way beyond that in 25+ years. 130 hits a day is probably 10 from me and 120 from bots and spiders. 130 a day, even 25 years ago is nothing, at best. What's your time on site stats? drop-off pages? Link backs, etc. All the things that measure traffic. Pagecounts is so basic it's only used by grandma's knitting tips & tricks sites and the like.
What does google analytics report for your site?
How many challenge submissions have you received in the past year? If you have received any, why not share them in a new thread. It would be interesting to see.
And you're still not answering the question, so let's broaden it since you continually bring up your site. Which, I might add, your site has nothing to do with the topic at all so you really shouldn't be bringing it up. But anyway, is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site the only things everyone needs to know?
You sound worried about my popular web site, but it is another topic.
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the fact that your site is by no means "popular" as anyone can see. If you think so, that would be considered delusional. Since you don't understand how the web works in 2022, it's very difficult to separate your delusions.
Here we discuss the JWST spacecraft taking pictures of the universe from an orbit around L2. I watch the universe from my window and report about it at my web site, i.e. the universe is only galaxies with Earth in the center. Nothing else!
Earth can't be at the center according to your own statements that the Universe is endless. If endless, by definition, there is no center. You can't have it both ways. I don't know why you can't understand that simple fact of logic. Perhaps this is a delusion of yours as well. Again, hard to take you seriously when you can't grasp something so simple.
Other popular topics at my site are (1) nuclear weapons 1945 onward and (2) the M/S Estonia sabotage and sinking 1994 onward. Both are FAKE NEWS. Atomic bombs cannot ignite as Putin knows and the story of a lost bow visor is fantasy to hide a crime. Public authorities don't like it.
As for other topics on your site, since you mention them, why won't you answer the simple question: Is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site, Universe included, the only things everyone needs to know?
-
As for other topics on your site, since you mention them, why won't you answer the simple question: Is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site, Universe included, the only things everyone needs to know?
I just publish my findings in writing at my site for anyone to study. When there are new findings I publish them too. Re the universe some findings are based on what I see from my window in the middle of an endless universe. I don't need a space telescope like JWST (topic) taking pictures of the universe from an orbit around L2. In all directions there are only galaxies. NASA asstronomers and cossmologists suggest there is more but cannot say what. Black energy is invisible they think. Like black holes. I feel sorry for them. Next comedy show is the NASA Artemis project to send human beings to the Moon and look for water. Human beings are much better than robots, NASA thinks, to look around. And water on the Moon??? Where would it come from? I can see the Moon from my window but I haven't seen any water there.
-
As for other topics on your site, since you mention them, why won't you answer the simple question: Is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site, Universe included, the only things everyone needs to know?
I just publish my findings in writing at my site for anyone to study. When there are new findings I publish them too. Re the universe some findings are based on what I see from my window in the middle of an endless universe.
How can something be in the middle of endlessness? Explain.
I don't need a space telescope like JWST (topic) taking pictures of the universe from an orbit around L2
If you don’t need something does that mean no one else should need it either? Are your needs the only needs that matter to everyone?
Or are you saying that the info on your site is really just for you?
It’s difficult to understand your perspective. Is the info, your “findings”, all anyone needs? If so, why?
Additionally, I can’t find any of your JWST “findings”. There are none of your “findings” here and none on your site.
-
As for other topics on your site, since you mention them, why won't you answer the simple question: Is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site, Universe included, the only things everyone needs to know?
I just publish my findings in writing at my site for anyone to study. When there are new findings I publish them too. Re the universe some findings are based on what I see from my window in the middle of an endless universe.
How can something be in the middle of endlessness? Explain.
I don't need a space telescope like JWST (topic) taking pictures of the universe from an orbit around L2
If you don’t need something does that mean no one else should need it either? Are your needs the only needs that matter to everyone?
Or are you saying that the info on your site is really just for you?
It’s difficult to understand your perspective. Is the info, your “findings”, all anyone needs? If so, why?
Additionally, I can’t find any of your JWST “findings”. There are none of your “findings” here and none on your site.
Thanks for asking and using my findings of my website. I look up, down, right, left, back and straight away from my window and I see no end of the universe. So I think I am in the middle of it. I use my eyes to observe things and I don't need a telescope. If you don't find something at my website, look again.
-
As for other topics on your site, since you mention them, why won't you answer the simple question: Is everything anyone needs to know about the topics on your site, Universe included, the only things everyone needs to know?
I just publish my findings in writing at my site for anyone to study. When there are new findings I publish them too. Re the universe some findings are based on what I see from my window in the middle of an endless universe.
How can something be in the middle of endlessness? Explain.
I don't need a space telescope like JWST (topic) taking pictures of the universe from an orbit around L2
If you don’t need something does that mean no one else should need it either? Are your needs the only needs that matter to everyone?
Or are you saying that the info on your site is really just for you?
It’s difficult to understand your perspective. Is the info, your “findings”, all anyone needs? If so, why?
Additionally, I can’t find any of your JWST “findings”. There are none of your “findings” here and none on your site.
Thanks for asking and using my findings of my website. I look up, down, right, left, back and straight away from my window and I see no end of the universe. So I think I am in the middle of it.
You do realize that there is no middle of something endless? If you're standing in the Sahara and all you can see is sand in every direction, nothing else, how would you know you are in the middle of the desert? It's weird, you're not making any logical sense.
I use my eyes to observe things and I don't need a telescope.
You feel you don't need a telescope, great. Does that mean it's wrong for others that do? If you don’t need something does that mean no one else should need it either? Are your needs the only needs that matter to everyone?
If you don't find something at my website, look again.
I looked again. I can’t find any of your JWST “findings”. There are none of your “findings” here and none on your site. There are no "findings" for me to "use" so I'm not sure why you are thanking me. Where are your "findings" regarding JWST?
-
You do realize that there is no middle of something endless? If you're standing in the Sahara and all you can see is sand in every direction, nothing else, how would you know you are in the middle of the desert? It's weird, you're not making any logical sense.
I use my eyes to observe things and I don't need a telescope.
You feel you don't need a telescope, great. Does that mean it's wrong for others that do? If you don’t need something does that mean no one else should need it either? Are your needs the only needs that matter to everyone?
If you don't find something at my website, look again.
I looked again. I can’t find any of your JWST “findings”. There are none of your “findings” here and none on your site. There are no "findings" for me to "use" so I'm not sure why you are thanking me. Where are your "findings" regarding JWST?
Thanks for comments.
Yes, I know something endless is difficult to imagine, but I am in the middle/center of it. I just look out of my window. The Sahara desert is far away.
No, I don't feel about telescopes. I just consider the JWStelescope nonsense orbiting L2. Much better to look myself out of the window.
Did you really look, yourself. You sound sick or deranged. Try to consult a doctor.
-
Little known fact: From the L2 point, an observer with an ability to resolve visual data comparable to the human eye would observe there to be equally as many people on Earth as stats seem to indicate regularly visit Heiwa's website.
-
You do realize that there is no middle of something endless? If you're standing in the Sahara and all you can see is sand in every direction, nothing else, how would you know you are in the middle of the desert? It's weird, you're not making any logical sense.
I use my eyes to observe things and I don't need a telescope.
You feel you don't need a telescope, great. Does that mean it's wrong for others that do? If you don’t need something does that mean no one else should need it either? Are your needs the only needs that matter to everyone?
If you don't find something at my website, look again.
I looked again. I can’t find any of your JWST “findings”. There are none of your “findings” here and none on your site. There are no "findings" for me to "use" so I'm not sure why you are thanking me. Where are your "findings" regarding JWST?
Thanks for comments.
Yes, I know something endless is difficult to imagine, but I am in the middle/center of it. I just look out of my window. The Sahara desert is far away.
No, I don't feel about telescopes. I just consider the JWStelescope nonsense orbiting L2. Much better to look myself out of the window.
Did you really look, yourself. You sound sick or deranged. Try to consult a doctor.
None of your "findings" are here. And I've checked your chall2.htm page (Moon/Mars travel), your moontravel.htm page (NASA bashing), and your home page. There are no JWST "findings" anywhere. So where are these "findings" you say you have? Or are you lying and you have no "findings"?
-
You do realize that there is no middle of something endless? If you're standing in the Sahara and all you can see is sand in every direction, nothing else, how would you know you are in the middle of the desert? It's weird, you're not making any logical sense.
I use my eyes to observe things and I don't need a telescope.
You feel you don't need a telescope, great. Does that mean it's wrong for others that do? If you don’t need something does that mean no one else should need it either? Are your needs the only needs that matter to everyone?
If you don't find something at my website, look again.
I looked again. I can’t find any of your JWST “findings”. There are none of your “findings” here and none on your site. There are no "findings" for me to "use" so I'm not sure why you are thanking me. Where are your "findings" regarding JWST?
Thanks for comments.
Yes, I know something endless is difficult to imagine, but I am in the middle/center of it. I just look out of my window. The Sahara desert is far away.
No, I don't feel about telescopes. I just consider the JWStelescope nonsense orbiting L2. Much better to look myself out of the window.
Did you really look, yourself. You sound sick or deranged. Try to consult a doctor.
None of your "findings" are here. And I've checked your chall2.htm page (Moon/Mars travel), your moontravel.htm page (NASA bashing), and your home page. There are no JWST "findings" anywhere. So where are these "findings" you say you have? Or are you lying and you have no "findings"?
Just look again. And thanks for visiting my website. Try http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
-
You do realize that there is no middle of something endless? If you're standing in the Sahara and all you can see is sand in every direction, nothing else, how would you know you are in the middle of the desert? It's weird, you're not making any logical sense.
I use my eyes to observe things and I don't need a telescope.
You feel you don't need a telescope, great. Does that mean it's wrong for others that do? If you don’t need something does that mean no one else should need it either? Are your needs the only needs that matter to everyone?
If you don't find something at my website, look again.
I looked again. I can’t find any of your JWST “findings”. There are none of your “findings” here and none on your site. There are no "findings" for me to "use" so I'm not sure why you are thanking me. Where are your "findings" regarding JWST?
Thanks for comments.
Yes, I know something endless is difficult to imagine, but I am in the middle/center of it. I just look out of my window. The Sahara desert is far away.
No, I don't feel about telescopes. I just consider the JWStelescope nonsense orbiting L2. Much better to look myself out of the window.
Did you really look, yourself. You sound sick or deranged. Try to consult a doctor.
None of your "findings" are here. And I've checked your chall2.htm page (Moon/Mars travel), your moontravel.htm page (NASA bashing), and your home page. There are no JWST "findings" anywhere. So where are these "findings" you say you have? Or are you lying and you have no "findings"?
Just look again. And thanks for visiting my website. Try http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
There are no "findings" regarding JWST on that page. There's no mention of JWST on that page. Where are your JWST "findings"?
And btw, you can't get to the above link from your site. There's no navigation to "moontravelb1.htm", only "moontravel.htm". No 'b1'.
-
I don't need a space telescope like JWST (topic) taking pictures of the universe from an orbit around L2.
Then it's a good thing that JWST isn't intended for your modest needs
-
You do realize that there is no middle of something endless? If you're standing in the Sahara and all you can see is sand in every direction, nothing else, how would you know you are in the middle of the desert? It's weird, you're not making any logical sense.
I use my eyes to observe things and I don't need a telescope.
You feel you don't need a telescope, great. Does that mean it's wrong for others that do? If you don’t need something does that mean no one else should need it either? Are your needs the only needs that matter to everyone?
If you don't find something at my website, look again.
I looked again. I can’t find any of your JWST “findings”. There are none of your “findings” here and none on your site. There are no "findings" for me to "use" so I'm not sure why you are thanking me. Where are your "findings" regarding JWST?
Thanks for comments.
Yes, I know something endless is difficult to imagine, but I am in the middle/center of it. I just look out of my window. The Sahara desert is far away.
No, I don't feel about telescopes. I just consider the JWStelescope nonsense orbiting L2. Much better to look myself out of the window.
Did you really look, yourself. You sound sick or deranged. Try to consult a doctor.
None of your "findings" are here. And I've checked your chall2.htm page (Moon/Mars travel), your moontravel.htm page (NASA bashing), and your home page. There are no JWST "findings" anywhere. So where are these "findings" you say you have? Or are you lying and you have no "findings"?
Just look again. And thanks for visiting my website. Try http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
There are no "findings" regarding JWST on that page. There's no mention of JWST on that page. Where are your JWST "findings"?
And btw, you can't get to the above link from your site. There's no navigation to "moontravelb1.htm", only "moontravel.htm". No 'b1'.
Try http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . It is about another NASA space fraud. Copy paste anything you find wrong!
-
Try http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . It is about another NASA space fraud. Copy paste anything you find wrong!
"July 1969 NASA presented the Apollo 11 show explained below. It was a 100% Hollywood production and Fake News bullshit! "
This is wrong. Please correct it.
-
You do realize that there is no middle of something endless? If you're standing in the Sahara and all you can see is sand in every direction, nothing else, how would you know you are in the middle of the desert? It's weird, you're not making any logical sense.
I use my eyes to observe things and I don't need a telescope.
You feel you don't need a telescope, great. Does that mean it's wrong for others that do? If you don’t need something does that mean no one else should need it either? Are your needs the only needs that matter to everyone?
If you don't find something at my website, look again.
I looked again. I can’t find any of your JWST “findings”. There are none of your “findings” here and none on your site. There are no "findings" for me to "use" so I'm not sure why you are thanking me. Where are your "findings" regarding JWST?
Thanks for comments.
Yes, I know something endless is difficult to imagine, but I am in the middle/center of it. I just look out of my window. The Sahara desert is far away.
No, I don't feel about telescopes. I just consider the JWStelescope nonsense orbiting L2. Much better to look myself out of the window.
Did you really look, yourself. You sound sick or deranged. Try to consult a doctor.
None of your "findings" are here. And I've checked your chall2.htm page (Moon/Mars travel), your moontravel.htm page (NASA bashing), and your home page. There are no JWST "findings" anywhere. So where are these "findings" you say you have? Or are you lying and you have no "findings"?
Just look again. And thanks for visiting my website. Try http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
There are no "findings" regarding JWST on that page. There's no mention of JWST on that page. Where are your JWST "findings"?
And btw, you can't get to the above link from your site. There's no navigation to "moontravelb1.htm", only "moontravel.htm". No 'b1'.
Try http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . It is about another NASA space fraud. Copy paste anything you find wrong!
The topic is JWST as you've mentioned many times yourself. You say you have "findings" regarding JWST, yet I can't find any here or on the pages you reference. Manned Moon travel has nothing to do with JWST. Where are your JWST "findings"?
-
Try http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . It is about another NASA space fraud. Copy paste anything you find wrong!
"July 1969 NASA presented the Apollo 11 show explained below. It was a 100% Hollywood production and Fake News bullshit! "
This is wrong. Please correct it.
Hm, NASA should first first provide the drawings of the Saturn rockets that were used to get people into space. And the Apollo asstronuts still alive should testify under oath that they actually landed on the Moon. Same applies to all people saying they have visited the ISS, etc. It is time NASA is stopped lying about it.
-
And the Apollo asstronuts still alive should testify under oath that they actually landed on the Moon. Same applies to all people saying they have visited the ISS, etc. It is time NASA is stopped lying about it.
As shown in the video, Sibrel also was able to interview astronauts Alan Bean, Eugene Cernan and Edgar Mitchell about the Apollo project. Bean, for instance, states that the "all-up" testing[7] of the Saturn V rocket cut months off the schedule and was an impetus in reaching the Moon before decade's end. Cernan describes an experiment on his Moon mission, Apollo 17, that was specifically designed to study the radiation of the Van Allen radiation belts. The interviews end with the request to swear an oath on Sibrel's Bible. He asks them to "swear and affirm, under penalty of eternal damnation, perjury and treason" that the astronauts really went to the Moon. Cernan and Mitchell testify that they did indeed walk on the Moon, taking the whole oath as Sibrel states it to them. Alan Bean is also willing to swear on Sibrel's Bible, though Sibrel shows him as unwilling to swear under penalty of treason.[1]
Later, Mitchell had the following to say about his encounter: "Sibrel faked his way into my home with false History Channel credentials for an interview. After about 3–4 minutes, he popped the bible question. Realizing who he was, I maintained my cool enough to swear on his bible, then ended the interview and tossed him out of the house, with a boot in his rear."[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronauts_Gone_Wild
Hm, NASA should first first provide the drawings of the Saturn rockets that were used to get people into space.
What do you mean "NASA should first first provide the drawings of the Saturn rockets”? Why are you so bad at this - It took me all of 30 seconds to find tons of Saturn V schematics and written documentation.
Some Schematics of the Saturn V:
(https://i.imgur.com/rvkJbfG.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/wmkTGTo.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/oAX1bbh.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0vDqvIK.jpg)
Some Apollo F1 Engine Scematics from the 83 page Rocketdyne F-1 ENGINE FAMILIARIZATION TRAINING MANUAL (https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/10/21/rocketdyne-f1-engine-manual/rocketdyne-f1-engine-manual.pdf)
(https://i.imgur.com/luEqTbI.jpg)
Why do you blatantly lie?
-
And the Apollo asstronuts still alive should testify under oath that they actually landed on the Moon. Same applies to all people saying they have visited the ISS, etc. It is time NASA is stopped lying about it.
As shown in the video, Sibrel also was able to interview astronauts Alan Bean, Eugene Cernan and Edgar Mitchell about the Apollo project. Bean, for instance, states that the "all-up" testing[7] of the Saturn V rocket cut months off the schedule and was an impetus in reaching the Moon before decade's end. Cernan describes an experiment on his Moon mission, Apollo 17, that was specifically designed to study the radiation of the Van Allen radiation belts. The interviews end with the request to swear an oath on Sibrel's Bible. He asks them to "swear and affirm, under penalty of eternal damnation, perjury and treason" that the astronauts really went to the Moon. Cernan and Mitchell testify that they did indeed walk on the Moon, taking the whole oath as Sibrel states it to them. Alan Bean is also willing to swear on Sibrel's Bible, though Sibrel shows him as unwilling to swear under penalty of treason.[1]
Later, Mitchell had the following to say about his encounter: "Sibrel faked his way into my home with false History Channel credentials for an interview. After about 3–4 minutes, he popped the bible question. Realizing who he was, I maintained my cool enough to swear on his bible, then ended the interview and tossed him out of the house, with a boot in his rear."[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronauts_Gone_Wild
Hm, NASA should first first provide the drawings of the Saturn rockets that were used to get people into space.
What do you mean "NASA should first first provide the drawings of the Saturn rockets”? Why are you so bad at this - It took me all of 30 seconds to find tons of Saturn V schematics and written documentation.
Some Schematics of the Saturn V:
(https://i.imgur.com/rvkJbfG.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/wmkTGTo.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/oAX1bbh.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0vDqvIK.jpg)
Some Apollo F1 Engine Scematics from the 83 page Rocketdyne F-1 ENGINE FAMILIARIZATION TRAINING MANUAL (https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/10/21/rocketdyne-f1-engine-manual/rocketdyne-f1-engine-manual.pdf)
(https://i.imgur.com/luEqTbI.jpg)
Why do you blatantly lie?
Because bots and trolls are unable to do actual research.
-
Why are we allowing the mental midget Anders here hijack another topic to spam his stupidity when he already has a topic dedicated to his stupidity?
-
You're right. I should have posted it in the other stupid thread, but I thought maybe not to bring that one back to life. But yeah, he shits up the place no matter what thread with his, "But I can see out my window" idiocy and the like.
-
Apollo 1969/72 was a hoax and now Artemis ( https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/ ) is the next one. Listen : “NASA will build an Artemis Base Camp on the surface of the Moon and put the Gateway in lunar orbit. These elements will allow NASA robots and astronuts to explore more and conduct more science than ever before.”
Imagine the science behind all that! It is worse than the JWST (topic) taking photos of the universe orbiting L2.
-
Apollo 1969/72 was a hoax and now Artemis is the next one.
And neither are the topic of this thread (the JWST hoax).
-
Apollo 1969/72 was a hoax and now Artemis is the next one.
And neither are the topic of this thread (the JWST hoax).
The common factor is the NASA joke.
-
Apollo 1969/72 was a hoax and now Artemis is the next one.
And neither are the topic of this thread (the JWST hoax).
The common factor is the NASA joke.
After your years of "research" you claim there are no schematics for Apollo. 30 seconds of effort reveals a ton of them. After years of your "research" you demand astronauts testify they did what they say they did. 30 seconds of effort reveals some did. The joke is your "research". As well as being a lie.
Considering all that, your "research" of JWST is a joke as well. Where is your JWST research anyway? Where are your "findings" you say you have? Yet another lie.
Wow, talk about a hoax. The hoax and joke is your research. And it's plain to see for everyone. Sad really.
-
Apollo 1969/72 was a hoax and now Artemis is the next one.
And neither are the topic of this thread (the JWST hoax).
The common factor is the NASA joke.
After your years of "research" you claim there are no schematics for Apollo. 30 seconds of effort reveals a ton of them. After years of your "research" you demand astronauts testify they did what they say they did. 30 seconds of effort reveals some did. The joke is your "research". As well as being a lie.
Considering all that, your "research" of JWST is a joke as well. Where is your JWST research anyway? Where are your "findings" you say you have? Yet another lie.
Wow, talk about a hoax. The hoax and joke is your research. And it's plain to see for everyone. Sad really.
I have seen the schematics of Saturn rockets 50 years ago. They were not technical drawings for production. It is like the JWST. Just schematics. A fantasy sketch of something that will never work and one built secretly by fantastic experts and sent to L2 for testing taking one photo of a nearby star. A NASA standard joke.
-
Spitzer Space Telescope versus JWST, same star. And JWST is only optimized up to fine phasing. Still needs a couple of months for final mirror alignment. The JWST resolution and clarity is going to be amazing:
(https://i.imgur.com/BmVpXDZ.gif)
-
Apollo 1969/72 was a hoax and now Artemis is the next one.
And neither are the topic of this thread (the JWST hoax).
The common factor is the NASA joke.
After your years of "research" you claim there are no schematics for Apollo. 30 seconds of effort reveals a ton of them. After years of your "research" you demand astronauts testify they did what they say they did. 30 seconds of effort reveals some did. The joke is your "research". As well as being a lie.
Considering all that, your "research" of JWST is a joke as well. Where is your JWST research anyway? Where are your "findings" you say you have? Yet another lie.
Wow, talk about a hoax. The hoax and joke is your research. And it's plain to see for everyone. Sad really.
now the bot is claiming he needs to see the technical drawings for production. First I doubt he would understand them. Second, NASA doesn't own them, the contractors that built the equipment do. Third, these would amount to thousands of pages. Fourth, he'd just move the goalposts AGAIN like he does every time. Leave the bot alone.
-
Apollo 1969/72 was a hoax and now Artemis is the next one.
And neither are the topic of this thread (the JWST hoax).
The common factor is the NASA joke.
After your years of "research" you claim there are no schematics for Apollo. 30 seconds of effort reveals a ton of them. After years of your "research" you demand astronauts testify they did what they say they did. 30 seconds of effort reveals some did. The joke is your "research". As well as being a lie.
Considering all that, your "research" of JWST is a joke as well. Where is your JWST research anyway? Where are your "findings" you say you have? Yet another lie.
Wow, talk about a hoax. The hoax and joke is your research. And it's plain to see for everyone. Sad really.
now the bot is claiming he needs to see the technical drawings for production. First I doubt he would understand them. Second, NASA doesn't own them, the contractors that built the equipment do. Third, these would amount to thousands of pages. Fourth, he'd just move the goalposts AGAIN like he does every time. Leave the bot alone.
No, that was twenty years ago. NASA had no drawings of anything. The contractors? All bankrupt, if they ever existed. Sad story. Not funny. Just a photo of a star. I see plenty stars from my window.
-
Apollo 1969/72 was a hoax and now Artemis is the next one.
And neither are the topic of this thread (the JWST hoax).
The common factor is the NASA joke.
After your years of "research" you claim there are no schematics for Apollo. 30 seconds of effort reveals a ton of them. After years of your "research" you demand astronauts testify they did what they say they did. 30 seconds of effort reveals some did. The joke is your "research". As well as being a lie.
Considering all that, your "research" of JWST is a joke as well. Where is your JWST research anyway? Where are your "findings" you say you have? Yet another lie.
Wow, talk about a hoax. The hoax and joke is your research. And it's plain to see for everyone. Sad really.
now the bot is claiming he needs to see the technical drawings for production. First I doubt he would understand them. Second, NASA doesn't own them, the contractors that built the equipment do. Third, these would amount to thousands of pages. Fourth, he'd just move the goalposts AGAIN like he does every time. Leave the bot alone.
No, that was twenty years ago. NASA had no drawings of anything. The contractors? All bankrupt, if they ever existed. Sad story. Not funny. Just a photo of a star. I see plenty stars from my window.
First, I wasn't talking to you. Learn how to read.
Second, are you seriously claiming now that Boeing, Grumman, Douglas, and North American didn't exist? Or was your "research" so inept that you didn't know they were the contractors? Which is it?
And I said NOTHING about the view from your window. But then AGAIN, I wasn't talking to you.we all know you're likely suffering from dementia and have trouble actually following the discussion but you don't have to prove it with every post.
More LIES from the Heiwabot!
-
Apollo 1969/72 was a hoax and now Artemis is the next one.
And neither are the topic of this thread (the JWST hoax).
The common factor is the NASA joke.
After your years of "research" you claim there are no schematics for Apollo. 30 seconds of effort reveals a ton of them. After years of your "research" you demand astronauts testify they did what they say they did. 30 seconds of effort reveals some did. The joke is your "research". As well as being a lie.
Considering all that, your "research" of JWST is a joke as well. Where is your JWST research anyway? Where are your "findings" you say you have? Yet another lie.
Wow, talk about a hoax. The hoax and joke is your research. And it's plain to see for everyone. Sad really.
now the bot is claiming he needs to see the technical drawings for production. First I doubt he would understand them. Second, NASA doesn't own them, the contractors that built the equipment do. Third, these would amount to thousands of pages. Fourth, he'd just move the goalposts AGAIN like he does every time. Leave the bot alone.
No, that was twenty years ago. NASA had no drawings of anything. The contractors? All bankrupt, if they ever existed. Sad story. Not funny. Just a photo of a star. I see plenty stars from my window.
First, I wasn't talking to you. Learn how to read.
Second, are you seriously claiming now that Boeing, Grumman, Douglas, and North American didn't exist? Or was your "research" so inept that you didn't know they were the contractors? Which is it?
And I said NOTHING about the view from your window. But then AGAIN, I wasn't talking to you.we all know you're likely suffering from dementia and have trouble actually following the discussion but you don't have to prove it with every post.
More LIES from the Heiwabot!
Hm, the Saturn rockets were secretly built at Louisiana by some secret companies and brought to Florida by sea. Start with https://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm for full story.
-
Apollo 1969/72 was a hoax and now Artemis is the next one.
And neither are the topic of this thread (the JWST hoax).
The common factor is the NASA joke.
After your years of "research" you claim there are no schematics for Apollo. 30 seconds of effort reveals a ton of them. After years of your "research" you demand astronauts testify they did what they say they did. 30 seconds of effort reveals some did. The joke is your "research". As well as being a lie.
Considering all that, your "research" of JWST is a joke as well. Where is your JWST research anyway? Where are your "findings" you say you have? Yet another lie.
Wow, talk about a hoax. The hoax and joke is your research. And it's plain to see for everyone. Sad really.
now the bot is claiming he needs to see the technical drawings for production. First I doubt he would understand them. Second, NASA doesn't own them, the contractors that built the equipment do. Third, these would amount to thousands of pages. Fourth, he'd just move the goalposts AGAIN like he does every time. Leave the bot alone.
No, that was twenty years ago. NASA had no drawings of anything. The contractors? All bankrupt, if they ever existed. Sad story. Not funny. Just a photo of a star. I see plenty stars from my window.
First, I wasn't talking to you. Learn how to read.
Second, are you seriously claiming now that Boeing, Grumman, Douglas, and North American didn't exist? Or was your "research" so inept that you didn't know they were the contractors? Which is it?
And I said NOTHING about the view from your window. But then AGAIN, I wasn't talking to you.we all know you're likely suffering from dementia and have trouble actually following the discussion but you don't have to prove it with every post.
More LIES from the Heiwabot!
Hm, the Saturn rockets were secretly built at Louisiana by some secret companies and brought to Florida by sea. Start with https://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm for full story.
More LIES from the heiwabot. Boeing, Grumman, Douglas, and North American are now secret companies? You just can't help but to LIE, can you? Is it pathological or just a troll/bad programming?
-
If I didn't know better I'd say this new release video from PBS Space Time was made to troll Heiwa.
A pity Heiwa doesn't have the mental capacity or attention span to get through the first 10 seconds
-
Heiwa you have your own thread to shit up. Stop dragging this one off topic.
-
Heiwa you have your own thread to shit up. Stop dragging this one off topic.
Topic is that on 25 December last year JWST was launched in less than three hours which happened. A rocket with JWST took off and we are then told that it has arrived in the vicinity of L2, which it now orbits. It has sent one photo of star nearby while cooling down and getting in shape. And we discuss all that. I think most comments are more or less on topic. We are still awaiting photos of the end of the universe and billions of galaxies in between that JWST shall provide. My contribution is that I can see the same things from my window.
-
Heiwa you have your own thread to shit up. Stop dragging this one off topic.
Topic is that on 25 December last year JWST was launched in less than three hours which happened. A rocket with JWST took off and we are then told that it has arrived in the vicinity of L2, which it now orbits. It has sent one photo of star nearby while cooling down and getting in shape. And we discuss all that. I think most comments are more or less on topic. We are still awaiting photos of the end of the universe and billions of galaxies in between that JWST shall provide. My contribution is that I can see the same things from my window.
Yes, now that I removed all that other garbage it sort of looks that way, doesn't it? But you're still ignoring the fact that you can't see any of the stars or galaxies in the photo from JWST shared earlier out your window. So no, you can't see the same things. You can see precisely none of the things that it specifically caught in that image.
-
An ode to the humble Hubble in the wake of the expected, stunning, JWST:
Hubble’s Most Used Camera Celebrates 20 Years of Incredible Discoveries (https://petapixel.com/2022/03/23/hubbles-most-used-camera-celebrates-20-years-of-incredible-discoveries/?utm_source=digg)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/03/Hubble-ACS-camera-celebrates-20-years.jpeg)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/03/heic0617b-1834x2048.jpeg)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/03/heic0206e-1893x2048.jpeg)
-
Are you sure that those pictures weren't taken from Heiwa's window?
-
Heiwa you have your own thread to shit up. Stop dragging this one off topic.
Topic is that on 25 December last year JWST was launched in less than three hours which happened. A rocket with JWST took off and we are then told that it has arrived in the vicinity of L2, which it now orbits. It has sent one photo of star nearby while cooling down and getting in shape. And we discuss all that. I think most comments are more or less on topic. We are still awaiting photos of the end of the universe and billions of galaxies in between that JWST shall provide. My contribution is that I can see the same things from my window.
Yes, now that I removed all that other garbage it sort of looks that way, doesn't it? But you're still ignoring the fact that you can't see any of the stars or galaxies in the photo from JWST shared earlier out your window. So no, you can't see the same things. You can see precisely none of the things that it specifically caught in that image.
I don't agree. We have so far seen only one incredible photo of a star in the vicinity of L2 used to focus the JWST , etc. but no peer reviewed explanation how the JWST managed to dock with L2 and then started to orbit L2. L2 is just a point in the our Solar System without a mass of any kind that is a very small part of the Milky Way galaxy. Question still is how you can orbit something without mass? The JWST was originally orbiting Earth and then started to orbit L2. How did it change orbits? Same with the 'solar wind' pushing the JWST out of this incredible orbit of L2. What kind of "wind" is it? Is it the photons of the Sun pushing JWST? I can see the photons of the Sun from my window and they push nothing! When I see them, they cease to exist. POUFF!
-
Are you sure that those pictures weren't taken from Heiwa's window?
I haven't seen any strangers taking photos from my window. And what's wrong just using your eyes? And brains?
-
I don't agree.
Irrelevant.
We have so far seen only one incredible photo of a star in the vicinity of L2 used to focus the JWST
A photo of a star that you cannot see from your window. And a whole host of galaxies even further behind it. Neither that star nor the galaxies in view are anywhere even remotely close to being "in the vicinity of L2" though.
but no peer reviewed explanation how the JWST managed to dock with L2 and then started to orbit L2 blah blah heiwa stuff
Also irrelevant. Look at that, you wrote one clause that was on topic and accurate (not even the entire sentence, but it's a start). Let's shoot for two next time, huh?
-
I don't agree.
Irrelevant.
We have so far seen only one incredible photo of a star in the vicinity of L2 used to focus the JWST
A photo of a star that you cannot see from your window. And a whole host of galaxies even further behind it. Neither that star nor the galaxies in view are anywhere even remotely close to being "in the vicinity of L2" though.
but no peer reviewed explanation how the JWST managed to dock with L2 and then started to orbit L2 blah blah heiwa stuff
Also irrelevant. Look at that, you wrote one clause that was on topic and accurate (not even the entire sentence, but it's a start). Let's shoot for two next time, huh?
Hm, I alone can see plenty stars from my window in the Milky Way galaxy with other galaxies in the background and I am quite happy with it. But that's all. Any nonsensical telescope (JWST - topic) orbiting L2 in the solar wind cannot do better than that. But complete fools suggest that they have been at my window and seen nothing. Typical lying blinds. Anyway, the end of the Universe is very cold - 273°C - so it cannot be seen! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm
-
I don't agree.
Irrelevant.
We have so far seen only one incredible photo of a star in the vicinity of L2 used to focus the JWST
A photo of a star that you cannot see from your window. And a whole host of galaxies even further behind it. Neither that star nor the galaxies in view are anywhere even remotely close to being "in the vicinity of L2" though.
but no peer reviewed explanation how the JWST managed to dock with L2 and then started to orbit L2 blah blah heiwa stuff
Also irrelevant. Look at that, you wrote one clause that was on topic and accurate (not even the entire sentence, but it's a start). Let's shoot for two next time, huh?
Hm, I alone can see plenty stars from my window in the Milky Way galaxy with other galaxies in the background and I am quite happy with it. But that's all. Any nonsensical telescope (JWST - topic) orbiting L2 in the solar wind cannot do better than that. But complete fools suggest that they have been at my window and seen nothing. Typical lying blinds. Anyway, the end of the Universe is very cold - 273°C - so it cannot be seen! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm
Okay then, look out your window and takes some pictures like this.
An ode to the humble Hubble in the wake of the expected, stunning, JWST:
Hubble’s Most Used Camera Celebrates 20 Years of Incredible Discoveries (https://petapixel.com/2022/03/23/hubbles-most-used-camera-celebrates-20-years-of-incredible-discoveries/?utm_source=digg)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/03/Hubble-ACS-camera-celebrates-20-years.jpeg)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/03/heic0617b-1834x2048.jpeg)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/03/heic0206e-1893x2048.jpeg)
-
I don't agree.
Irrelevant.
We have so far seen only one incredible photo of a star in the vicinity of L2 used to focus the JWST
A photo of a star that you cannot see from your window. And a whole host of galaxies even further behind it. Neither that star nor the galaxies in view are anywhere even remotely close to being "in the vicinity of L2" though.
but no peer reviewed explanation how the JWST managed to dock with L2 and then started to orbit L2 blah blah heiwa stuff
Also irrelevant. Look at that, you wrote one clause that was on topic and accurate (not even the entire sentence, but it's a start). Let's shoot for two next time, huh?
Hm, I alone can see plenty stars from my window in the Milky Way galaxy with other galaxies in the background and I am quite happy with it. But that's all. Any nonsensical telescope (JWST - topic) orbiting L2 in the solar wind cannot do better than that. But complete fools suggest that they have been at my window and seen nothing. Typical lying blinds. Anyway, the end of the Universe is very cold - 273°C - so it cannot be seen! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm
Okay then, look out your window and takes some pictures like this.
An ode to the humble Hubble in the wake of the expected, stunning, JWST:
Hubble’s Most Used Camera Celebrates 20 Years of Incredible Discoveries (https://petapixel.com/2022/03/23/hubbles-most-used-camera-celebrates-20-years-of-incredible-discoveries/?utm_source=digg)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/03/Hubble-ACS-camera-celebrates-20-years.jpeg)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/03/heic0617b-1834x2048.jpeg)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/03/heic0206e-1893x2048.jpeg)
of
I just look from my window. Of course I have a camera but it cannot take pictures of things millions light years away. Can you recommend a camera that can?
-
I just look from my window. Of course I have a camera but it cannot take pictures of things millions light years away. Can you recommend a camera that can?
Sure thing! The JWST was purpose-built for just a task, and luckily for you, it's results will be made widely available!
-
I just look from my window. Of course I have a camera but it cannot take pictures of things millions light years away. Can you recommend a camera that can?
Sure. Go pick up one of these:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/HST-SM4.jpeg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/JWST_spacecraft_model_2.png)
-
I'm sure he can afford one too. He has all of his challenges and money to back them up. He's super successful.
-
I just look from my window. Of course I have a camera but it cannot take pictures of things millions light years away. Can you recommend a camera that can?
Sure. Go pick up one of these:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/HST-SM4.jpeg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/JWST_spacecraft_model_2.png)
Thanks. But I don't need a camera. I can see the end or beginning of the universe from my window. It is nothing to take a photo of.
-
Thanks. But I don't need a camera. I can see the end or beginning of the universe from my window. It is nothing to take a photo of.
Apparently, and even by your own admission, you can't. That's why you asked for a recommendation on a camera that was up for the job, remember?
-
Remember...
Of course I have a camera but it cannot take pictures of things millions light years away.
-
I don't agree.
Irrelevant.
We have so far seen only one incredible photo of a star in the vicinity of L2 used to focus the JWST
A photo of a star that you cannot see from your window. And a whole host of galaxies even further behind it. Neither that star nor the galaxies in view are anywhere even remotely close to being "in the vicinity of L2" though.
but no peer reviewed explanation how the JWST managed to dock with L2 and then started to orbit L2 blah blah heiwa stuff
Also irrelevant. Look at that, you wrote one clause that was on topic and accurate (not even the entire sentence, but it's a start). Let's shoot for two next time, huh?
Hm, I alone can see plenty stars from my window in the Milky Way galaxy with other galaxies in the background and I am quite happy with it. But that's all. Any nonsensical telescope (JWST - topic) orbiting L2 in the solar wind cannot do better than that. But complete fools suggest that they have been at my window and seen nothing. Typical lying blinds. Anyway, the end of the Universe is very cold - 273°C - so it cannot be seen! http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm
Okay then, look out your window and takes some pictures like this.
An ode to the humble Hubble in the wake of the expected, stunning, JWST:
Hubble’s Most Used Camera Celebrates 20 Years of Incredible Discoveries (https://petapixel.com/2022/03/23/hubbles-most-used-camera-celebrates-20-years-of-incredible-discoveries/?utm_source=digg)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/03/Hubble-ACS-camera-celebrates-20-years.jpeg)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/03/heic0617b-1834x2048.jpeg)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/03/heic0206e-1893x2048.jpeg)
of
I just look from my window. Of course I have a camera but it cannot take pictures of things millions light years away. Can you recommend a camera that can?
I just look from my window. Of course I have a camera but it cannot take pictures of things millions light years away. Can you recommend a camera that can?
Sure. Go pick up one of these:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/HST-SM4.jpeg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/JWST_spacecraft_model_2.png)
Thanks. But I don't need a camera. I can see the end or beginning of the universe from my window. It is nothing to take a photo of.
You seem to be contradicting yourself a bit here.
-
So the JWST at L2 will be in the shade of the Earth when looking at the end of the Universe far away.
Who told you that JWST will be looking at the end of the universe? If anything, it will be collecting light from very near the beginning of the universe.
But I have never understood why I have to go to point L2 to find out.
They didn't "have to" put JWST in orbit around L2, but there are advantages that make it worth the effort.
So why send Webb to orbit Sun-Earth L2? Because it is an ideal location for an infrared observatory. At Sun-Earth L2, the Sun and Earth (and Moon, too) are always on one side of space, allowing Webb to keep its telescope optics and instruments perpetually shaded. This enables them to get cold for infrared sensitivity, yet still access nearly half the sky at any given moment for observations.
I just look out of my window on Earth to study the end of the Universe above me. Of course today it is cloudy between me and the end of the Universe, but it will clear up.
Space based telescopes don't have to worry about cloudy nights or light pollution from city lights. In fact, they don't even have to worry about waiting for night, so they can make observations 24 hours a day.
Additionally, they don't have to deal with the atmphsere getting in the way, this is particuallry important for a telescope that's meant to bee looking in Infra-red, as significant portions of the Infra-red spectrum are strongly absorbed by the atmosphere.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
It seems the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun and the JWST flies around in space in an impossible trajectory orbiting nothing.
What makes it impossible? Do tell us. You're about 250 years behind the times in regard to orbital mechanics.
MECHANICS OF HALO SATELLITES (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TN%20D-6365.pdf)
A. Motion in the Vicinity of the Translunar Libration Point
As was shown by Lagrange in 1772, there are five points in the earth-moon gravitational field with the interesting property that if a satellite were placed at one of them with the proper velocity, it would be in equilibrium because the gravitational accelerations acting on the satellite would be counterbalanced by its centripetal acceleration (i.e., accelerations are balanced in the rotating reference frame). These 11libration points 11 are all located in the moon's orbital plane, and their general configuration is depicted in Figure 2. This paper will be primarily concerned with the translunar libration point L 2
(https://i.imgur.com/wdzRah8.png)
The third-order solution for the nominal path in the vicinity of L 2 is given in Appendix B. Traces of this solution for a one-year period are showJl in Figures 3 and 4. Because the period of the oscillatory motion in the moon's orbital plane is 14.65 days, while the out-of-plane period is 15. 23 days, the yz-projection of the nominal path is a Lissajous curve.
Show us your calculations versus those contained within the document. I'm sure your calculations make it impossible.
Just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean that someone else hasn't figured it out.
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
Prove it, show your maths to shows it so be impossible.
And this time, actually bother to post it here instead of just linking to your website and expecting us to find it.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
It seems the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun and the JWST flies around in space in an impossible trajectory orbiting nothing.
What makes it impossible? Do tell us. You're about 250 years behind the times in regard to orbital mechanics.
MECHANICS OF HALO SATELLITES (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TN%20D-6365.pdf)
A. Motion in the Vicinity of the Translunar Libration Point
As was shown by Lagrange in 1772, there are five points in the earth-moon gravitational field with the interesting property that if a satellite were placed at one of them with the proper velocity, it would be in equilibrium because the gravitational accelerations acting on the satellite would be counterbalanced by its centripetal acceleration (i.e., accelerations are balanced in the rotating reference frame). These 11libration points 11 are all located in the moon's orbital plane, and their general configuration is depicted in Figure 2. This paper will be primarily concerned with the translunar libration point L 2
(https://i.imgur.com/wdzRah8.png)
The third-order solution for the nominal path in the vicinity of L 2 is given in Appendix B. Traces of this solution for a one-year period are showJl in Figures 3 and 4. Because the period of the oscillatory motion in the moon's orbital plane is 14.65 days, while the out-of-plane period is 15. 23 days, the yz-projection of the nominal path is a Lissajous curve.
Show us your calculations versus those contained within the document. I'm sure your calculations make it impossible.
Just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean that someone else hasn't figured it out.
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
Prove it, show your maths to shows it so be impossible.
And this time, actually bother to post it here instead of just linking to your website and expecting us to find it.
I know what the Lagrange liberation (?) points Lx are. They are just locations orbiting the Sun where gravity forces of the Moon, Earth and Sun cancel out. They have no mass. To suggest that a fourth object, e.g. the JWST spacecraft can orbit such locations as a 'halo-satellite' is complete nonsense.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
It seems the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun and the JWST flies around in space in an impossible trajectory orbiting nothing.
What makes it impossible? Do tell us. You're about 250 years behind the times in regard to orbital mechanics.
MECHANICS OF HALO SATELLITES (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TN%20D-6365.pdf)
A. Motion in the Vicinity of the Translunar Libration Point
As was shown by Lagrange in 1772, there are five points in the earth-moon gravitational field with the interesting property that if a satellite were placed at one of them with the proper velocity, it would be in equilibrium because the gravitational accelerations acting on the satellite would be counterbalanced by its centripetal acceleration (i.e., accelerations are balanced in the rotating reference frame). These 11libration points 11 are all located in the moon's orbital plane, and their general configuration is depicted in Figure 2. This paper will be primarily concerned with the translunar libration point L 2
(https://i.imgur.com/wdzRah8.png)
The third-order solution for the nominal path in the vicinity of L 2 is given in Appendix B. Traces of this solution for a one-year period are showJl in Figures 3 and 4. Because the period of the oscillatory motion in the moon's orbital plane is 14.65 days, while the out-of-plane period is 15. 23 days, the yz-projection of the nominal path is a Lissajous curve.
Show us your calculations versus those contained within the document. I'm sure your calculations make it impossible.
Just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean that someone else hasn't figured it out.
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
Prove it, show your maths to shows it so be impossible.
And this time, actually bother to post it here instead of just linking to your website and expecting us to find it.
I know what the Lagrange liberation (?) points Lx are. They are just locations orbiting the Sun where gravity forces of the Moon, Earth and Sun cancel out. They have no mass. To suggest that a fourth object, e.g. the JWST spacecraft can orbit such locations as a 'halo-satellite' is complete nonsense.
Complete nonsense based upon what? You just saying so? Why don't you show us your calculations that show it is nonsense? Otherwise it's just one lone conspiracy theorist stomping his feet exclaiming, "No, it's nonsense..." Not a very credible or persuasive argument. Your "opinion" is irrelevant.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
It seems the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun and the JWST flies around in space in an impossible trajectory orbiting nothing.
What makes it impossible? Do tell us. You're about 250 years behind the times in regard to orbital mechanics.
MECHANICS OF HALO SATELLITES (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TN%20D-6365.pdf)
A. Motion in the Vicinity of the Translunar Libration Point
As was shown by Lagrange in 1772, there are five points in the earth-moon gravitational field with the interesting property that if a satellite were placed at one of them with the proper velocity, it would be in equilibrium because the gravitational accelerations acting on the satellite would be counterbalanced by its centripetal acceleration (i.e., accelerations are balanced in the rotating reference frame). These 11libration points 11 are all located in the moon's orbital plane, and their general configuration is depicted in Figure 2. This paper will be primarily concerned with the translunar libration point L 2
(https://i.imgur.com/wdzRah8.png)
The third-order solution for the nominal path in the vicinity of L 2 is given in Appendix B. Traces of this solution for a one-year period are showJl in Figures 3 and 4. Because the period of the oscillatory motion in the moon's orbital plane is 14.65 days, while the out-of-plane period is 15. 23 days, the yz-projection of the nominal path is a Lissajous curve.
Show us your calculations versus those contained within the document. I'm sure your calculations make it impossible.
Just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean that someone else hasn't figured it out.
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
Prove it, show your maths to shows it so be impossible.
And this time, actually bother to post it here instead of just linking to your website and expecting us to find it.
I know what the Lagrange liberation (?) points Lx are. They are just locations orbiting the Sun where gravity forces of the Moon, Earth and Sun cancel out. They have no mass. To suggest that a fourth object, e.g. the JWST spacecraft can orbit such locations as a 'halo-satellite' is complete nonsense.
Complete nonsense based upon what? You just saying so? Why don't you show us your calculations that show it is nonsense? Otherwise it's just one lone conspiracy theorist stomping his feet exclaiming, "No, it's nonsense..." Not a very credible or persuasive argument. Your "opinion" is irrelevant.
It seems we all agree that the Moon orbits Earth in one plane and that Earth orbits the Sun as per Newton in another plane in 3D universe. All three celestial mass bodies attract each other by gravity forces at Lagrange locations L1-5, while orbiting, where these gravity forces add up in different ways. To suggest that a fourth celestial body - the JWST - that orbits Earth in another plane can suddenly dock with location L2 and start orbiting mass less location L2 in another plane, while orbiting the Sun in 3D-space as per the illustration is just astrosciencefiction nonsense. Thus JWST is a hoax!
-
To suggest that a fourth celestial body - the JWST - that orbits Earth in another plane can suddenly dock with location L2 and start orbiting mass less location L2 in another plane, while orbiting the Sun in 3D-space as per the illustration is just astrosciencefiction nonsense. Thus JWST is a hoax!
Astrosciencefiction nonsense based upon what? You just saying so? Why don't you show us your calculations that show it is nonsense? Otherwise it's just one lone conspiracy theorist stomping his feet exclaiming, "No, it's nonsense..." Not a very credible or persuasive argument. For a self-proclaimed “engineer” you sure don’t like dealing with facts. It’s really odd.
Your "opinion" is irrelevant. Show us your calculations.
-
To suggest that a fourth celestial body - the JWST - that orbits Earth in another plane can suddenly dock with location L2 and start orbiting mass less location L2 in another plane, while orbiting the Sun in 3D-space as per the illustration is just astrosciencefiction nonsense. Thus JWST is a hoax!
Astrosciencefiction nonsense based upon what? You just saying so? Why don't you show us your calculations that show it is nonsense? Otherwise it's just one lone conspiracy theorist stomping his feet exclaiming, "No, it's nonsense..." Not a very credible or persuasive argument. For a self-proclaimed “engineer” you sure don’t like dealing with facts. It’s really odd.
Your "opinion" is irrelevant. Show us your calculations.
Yes, just win one of my Challenges, http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm and we can discuss. And pls, do not mention lone conspiracy theorist stomping, etc.
-
To suggest that a fourth celestial body - the JWST - that orbits Earth in another plane can suddenly dock with location L2 and start orbiting mass less location L2 in another plane, while orbiting the Sun in 3D-space as per the illustration is just astrosciencefiction nonsense. Thus JWST is a hoax!
Astrosciencefiction nonsense based upon what? You just saying so? Why don't you show us your calculations that show it is nonsense? Otherwise it's just one lone conspiracy theorist stomping his feet exclaiming, "No, it's nonsense..." Not a very credible or persuasive argument. For a self-proclaimed “engineer” you sure don’t like dealing with facts. It’s really odd.
Your "opinion" is irrelevant. Show us your calculations.
Yes, just win one of my Challenges, http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm and we can discuss. And pls, do not mention lone conspiracy theorist stomping, etc.
It doesn’t work like that. You need to show why it’s nonsense. There’s nothing in your silly fraudulent challenge that addresses why JWST orbiting L2 is “nonsense”. Other than you stomping your feet as a lone conspiracy theorist and just saying it is. Your opinion is irrelevant. Show us your calculations, otherwise you are irrelevant as well.
I’ll side with the physicists and their calculations before I would listen to just some lone conspiracy theorist with no calculations, no evidence, no knowledge, no expertise, just whining that, “It’s nonsense I tell you! Nonsense!” Pathetique.
-
To suggest that a fourth celestial body - the JWST - that orbits Earth in another plane can suddenly dock with location L2 and start orbiting mass less location L2 in another plane, while orbiting the Sun in 3D-space as per the illustration is just astrosciencefiction nonsense. Thus JWST is a hoax!
Astrosciencefiction nonsense based upon what? You just saying so? Why don't you show us your calculations that show it is nonsense? Otherwise it's just one lone conspiracy theorist stomping his feet exclaiming, "No, it's nonsense..." Not a very credible or persuasive argument. For a self-proclaimed “engineer” you sure don’t like dealing with facts. It’s really odd.
Your "opinion" is irrelevant. Show us your calculations.
Yes, just win one of my Challenges, http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm and we can discuss. And pls, do not mention lone conspiracy theorist stomping, etc.
It doesn’t work like that. You need to show why it’s nonsense. There’s nothing in your silly fraudulent challenge that addresses why JWST orbiting L2 is “nonsense”. Other than you stomping your feet as a lone conspiracy theorist and just saying it is. Your opinion is irrelevant. Show us your calculations, otherwise you are irrelevant as well.
I’ll side with the physicists and their calculations before I would listen to just some lone conspiracy theorist with no calculations, no evidence, no knowledge, no expertise, just whining that, “It’s nonsense I tell you! Nonsense!” Pathetique.
No, just win one of my Challenges, http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm and we can discuss. And pls, do not mention lone conspiracy theorist stomping, etc. You are a loser.
-
To suggest that a fourth celestial body - the JWST - that orbits Earth in another plane can suddenly dock with location L2 and start orbiting mass less location L2 in another plane, while orbiting the Sun in 3D-space as per the illustration is just astrosciencefiction nonsense. Thus JWST is a hoax!
Astrosciencefiction nonsense based upon what? You just saying so? Why don't you show us your calculations that show it is nonsense? Otherwise it's just one lone conspiracy theorist stomping his feet exclaiming, "No, it's nonsense..." Not a very credible or persuasive argument. For a self-proclaimed “engineer” you sure don’t like dealing with facts. It’s really odd.
Your "opinion" is irrelevant. Show us your calculations.
Yes, just win one of my Challenges, http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm and we can discuss. And pls, do not mention lone conspiracy theorist stomping, etc.
It doesn’t work like that. You need to show why it’s nonsense. There’s nothing in your silly fraudulent challenge that addresses why JWST orbiting L2 is “nonsense”. Other than you stomping your feet as a lone conspiracy theorist and just saying it is. Your opinion is irrelevant. Show us your calculations, otherwise you are irrelevant as well.
I’ll side with the physicists and their calculations before I would listen to just some lone conspiracy theorist with no calculations, no evidence, no knowledge, no expertise, just whining that, “It’s nonsense I tell you! Nonsense!” Pathetique.
No, just win one of my Challenges, http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm and we can discuss. And pls, do not mention lone conspiracy theorist stomping, etc. You are a loser.
Why no? What’s the issue? You won’t provide any evidence, just opinion, until someone wins your challenge which has nothing to do with this topic. You should really stay on topic. Your opinion is irrelevant.
By definition you are a conspiracy theorist. There’s no way around that. Look it up. Your self portrait on your site should be attached to the definition in Webster dictionary. And as far as being lone, yeah, it’s just you or your lone bot typing So yeah, you’re a lone conspiracy theorist. If you can’t handle that factual description then you should stop posting your conspiracy theories about buildings, bombs, and space and saying that 1000’s of people are lying.
-
To suggest that a fourth celestial body - the JWST - that orbits Earth in another plane can suddenly dock with location L2 and start orbiting mass less location L2 in another plane, while orbiting the Sun in 3D-space as per the illustration is just astrosciencefiction nonsense. Thus JWST is a hoax!
Astrosciencefiction nonsense based upon what? You just saying so? Why don't you show us your calculations that show it is nonsense? Otherwise it's just one lone conspiracy theorist stomping his feet exclaiming, "No, it's nonsense..." Not a very credible or persuasive argument. For a self-proclaimed “engineer” you sure don’t like dealing with facts. It’s really odd.
Your "opinion" is irrelevant. Show us your calculations.
Yes, just win one of my Challenges, http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm and we can discuss. And pls, do not mention lone conspiracy theorist stomping, etc.
It doesn’t work like that. You need to show why it’s nonsense. There’s nothing in your silly fraudulent challenge that addresses why JWST orbiting L2 is “nonsense”. Other than you stomping your feet as a lone conspiracy theorist and just saying it is. Your opinion is irrelevant. Show us your calculations, otherwise you are irrelevant as well.
I’ll side with the physicists and their calculations before I would listen to just some lone conspiracy theorist with no calculations, no evidence, no knowledge, no expertise, just whining that, “It’s nonsense I tell you! Nonsense!” Pathetique.
No, just win one of my Challenges, http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm and we can discuss. And pls, do not mention lone conspiracy theorist stomping, etc. You are a loser.
Why no? What’s the issue? You won’t provide any evidence, just opinion, until someone wins your challenge which has nothing to do with this topic. You should really stay on topic. Your opinion is irrelevant.
By definition you are a conspiracy theorist. There’s no way around that. Look it up. Your self portrait on your site should be attached to the definition in Webster dictionary. And as far as being lone, yeah, it’s just you or your lone bot typing So yeah, you’re a lone conspiracy theorist. If you can’t handle that factual description then you should stop posting your conspiracy theories about buildings, bombs, and space and saying that 1000’s of people are lying.
Topic is the JWST wonder taking photos of the beginning and end of the Universe. So far we have seen a photo of a star. When will we see the end?
-
Only Heiwa says anything about seeing the end of the universe. Yawn.
-
To suggest that a fourth celestial body - the JWST - that orbits Earth in another plane can suddenly dock with location L2 and start orbiting mass less location L2 in another plane, while orbiting the Sun in 3D-space as per the illustration is just astrosciencefiction nonsense. Thus JWST is a hoax!
Astrosciencefiction nonsense based upon what? You just saying so? Why don't you show us your calculations that show it is nonsense? Otherwise it's just one lone conspiracy theorist stomping his feet exclaiming, "No, it's nonsense..." Not a very credible or persuasive argument. For a self-proclaimed “engineer” you sure don’t like dealing with facts. It’s really odd.
Your "opinion" is irrelevant. Show us your calculations.
Yes, just win one of my Challenges, http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm and we can discuss. And pls, do not mention lone conspiracy theorist stomping, etc.
It doesn’t work like that. You need to show why it’s nonsense. There’s nothing in your silly fraudulent challenge that addresses why JWST orbiting L2 is “nonsense”. Other than you stomping your feet as a lone conspiracy theorist and just saying it is. Your opinion is irrelevant. Show us your calculations, otherwise you are irrelevant as well.
I’ll side with the physicists and their calculations before I would listen to just some lone conspiracy theorist with no calculations, no evidence, no knowledge, no expertise, just whining that, “It’s nonsense I tell you! Nonsense!” Pathetique.
No, just win one of my Challenges, http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm and we can discuss. And pls, do not mention lone conspiracy theorist stomping, etc. You are a loser.
We both know that you have no intention of ever paying up those challenges, regardless of what evidence your presented with.
I seriously doubt that you even have the money in the first place.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
It seems the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun and the JWST flies around in space in an impossible trajectory orbiting nothing.
What makes it impossible? Do tell us. You're about 250 years behind the times in regard to orbital mechanics.
MECHANICS OF HALO SATELLITES (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TN%20D-6365.pdf)
A. Motion in the Vicinity of the Translunar Libration Point
As was shown by Lagrange in 1772, there are five points in the earth-moon gravitational field with the interesting property that if a satellite were placed at one of them with the proper velocity, it would be in equilibrium because the gravitational accelerations acting on the satellite would be counterbalanced by its centripetal acceleration (i.e., accelerations are balanced in the rotating reference frame). These 11libration points 11 are all located in the moon's orbital plane, and their general configuration is depicted in Figure 2. This paper will be primarily concerned with the translunar libration point L 2
(https://i.imgur.com/wdzRah8.png)
The third-order solution for the nominal path in the vicinity of L 2 is given in Appendix B. Traces of this solution for a one-year period are showJl in Figures 3 and 4. Because the period of the oscillatory motion in the moon's orbital plane is 14.65 days, while the out-of-plane period is 15. 23 days, the yz-projection of the nominal path is a Lissajous curve.
Show us your calculations versus those contained within the document. I'm sure your calculations make it impossible.
Just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean that someone else hasn't figured it out.
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
Prove it, show your maths to shows it so be impossible.
And this time, actually bother to post it here instead of just linking to your website and expecting us to find it.
I know what the Lagrange liberation (?) points Lx are. They are just locations orbiting the Sun where gravity forces of the Moon, Earth and Sun cancel out. They have no mass. To suggest that a fourth object, e.g. the JWST spacecraft can orbit such locations as a 'halo-satellite' is complete nonsense.
No, the maths has been done and confirms that it can be done, this has been backed up with computer simulaitons.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
It seems the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun and the JWST flies around in space in an impossible trajectory orbiting nothing.
What makes it impossible? Do tell us. You're about 250 years behind the times in regard to orbital mechanics.
MECHANICS OF HALO SATELLITES (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TN%20D-6365.pdf)
A. Motion in the Vicinity of the Translunar Libration Point
As was shown by Lagrange in 1772, there are five points in the earth-moon gravitational field with the interesting property that if a satellite were placed at one of them with the proper velocity, it would be in equilibrium because the gravitational accelerations acting on the satellite would be counterbalanced by its centripetal acceleration (i.e., accelerations are balanced in the rotating reference frame). These 11libration points 11 are all located in the moon's orbital plane, and their general configuration is depicted in Figure 2. This paper will be primarily concerned with the translunar libration point L 2
(https://i.imgur.com/wdzRah8.png)
The third-order solution for the nominal path in the vicinity of L 2 is given in Appendix B. Traces of this solution for a one-year period are showJl in Figures 3 and 4. Because the period of the oscillatory motion in the moon's orbital plane is 14.65 days, while the out-of-plane period is 15. 23 days, the yz-projection of the nominal path is a Lissajous curve.
Show us your calculations versus those contained within the document. I'm sure your calculations make it impossible.
Just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean that someone else hasn't figured it out.
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
Prove it, show your maths to shows it so be impossible.
And this time, actually bother to post it here instead of just linking to your website and expecting us to find it.
I know what the Lagrange liberation (?) points Lx are. They are just locations orbiting the Sun where gravity forces of the Moon, Earth and Sun cancel out. They have no mass. To suggest that a fourth object, e.g. the JWST spacecraft can orbit such locations as a 'halo-satellite' is complete nonsense.
No, the maths has been done and confirms that it can be done, this has been backed up with computer simulaitons.
ROTFL. Computer simulations! ROTFL.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
It seems the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun and the JWST flies around in space in an impossible trajectory orbiting nothing.
What makes it impossible? Do tell us. You're about 250 years behind the times in regard to orbital mechanics.
MECHANICS OF HALO SATELLITES (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TN%20D-6365.pdf)
A. Motion in the Vicinity of the Translunar Libration Point
As was shown by Lagrange in 1772, there are five points in the earth-moon gravitational field with the interesting property that if a satellite were placed at one of them with the proper velocity, it would be in equilibrium because the gravitational accelerations acting on the satellite would be counterbalanced by its centripetal acceleration (i.e., accelerations are balanced in the rotating reference frame). These 11libration points 11 are all located in the moon's orbital plane, and their general configuration is depicted in Figure 2. This paper will be primarily concerned with the translunar libration point L 2
(https://i.imgur.com/wdzRah8.png)
The third-order solution for the nominal path in the vicinity of L 2 is given in Appendix B. Traces of this solution for a one-year period are showJl in Figures 3 and 4. Because the period of the oscillatory motion in the moon's orbital plane is 14.65 days, while the out-of-plane period is 15. 23 days, the yz-projection of the nominal path is a Lissajous curve.
Show us your calculations versus those contained within the document. I'm sure your calculations make it impossible.
Just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean that someone else hasn't figured it out.
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
Prove it, show your maths to shows it so be impossible.
And this time, actually bother to post it here instead of just linking to your website and expecting us to find it.
I know what the Lagrange liberation (?) points Lx are. They are just locations orbiting the Sun where gravity forces of the Moon, Earth and Sun cancel out. They have no mass. To suggest that a fourth object, e.g. the JWST spacecraft can orbit such locations as a 'halo-satellite' is complete nonsense.
No, the maths has been done and confirms that it can be done, this has been backed up with computer simulaitons.
ROTFL. Computer simulations! ROTFL.
Translation: I don't understand any of that. Must be fake!
-
If anyone can explain how JWST orbits both the Sun and L2 at the same time as per animation above I will be happy. Where does the annimation come from?
-
If anyone can explain how JWST orbits both the Sun and L2 at the same time as per animation above I will be happy.
How does the moon orbit the earth and the sun at the same time?
(https://files.mtstatic.com/site_4038/6224/0?Expires=1648324966&Signature=CsyKfhMhJwBfHWELsKYuhXs8cpuBUiE5iLhs6ZpxIU6FwX8Fdrbe5gzu-zVOyEJ53ZxfYxN9ywC4~wr11WaZhbwdbKXcfYFSqqY-eVOb3VKcapZw6EtRC24E41GuoPdQffcZbppGKRzj1h99QESwEQUzJ4wUvkKQlehwd76x0e0_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJ5Y6AV4GI7A555NA)
-
If anyone can explain how JWST orbits both the Sun and L2 at the same time as per animation above I will be happy.
How does the moon orbit the earth and the sun at the same time?
(https://files.mtstatic.com/site_4038/6224/0?Expires=1648324966&Signature=CsyKfhMhJwBfHWELsKYuhXs8cpuBUiE5iLhs6ZpxIU6FwX8Fdrbe5gzu-zVOyEJ53ZxfYxN9ywC4~wr11WaZhbwdbKXcfYFSqqY-eVOb3VKcapZw6EtRC24E41GuoPdQffcZbppGKRzj1h99QESwEQUzJ4wUvkKQlehwd76x0e0_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJ5Y6AV4GI7A555NA)
Thanks, I can see the Moon orbiting Earth from my window on Earth that also orbits the Sun. No problem at all. But it does not explain ho JWST orbits a location of nothing - L2 - in space - that orbits the Sun.
-
But it does not explain ho JWST orbits a location of nothing - L2 - in space - that orbits the Sun.
Here you go:
2.2.3. Analytical Computation of Halo Orbits (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=edt)
The halo orbit is a family of three dimensional periodic orbits existed around the collinear libration points of CR3BP. The spacecraft inserted on halo orbit does not maintain the periodic trajectory naturally because of the instability of collinear libation points .� 20
Hence, the control acceleration is required to maintain the desired periodic trajectory. The different type of orbits in halo family was studied (Davis et al., 2018; Folta et al., 2014; Shirobokov et al., 2017). The stationkeeping strategy involves controlling the spacecraft to a halo orbit which is of sufficient amplitude to satisfy certain mission constraints. The particular halo orbits are constructed using analytical and numerical methods. The analytical computation of halo orbit is difficult because of the non linearity in the dynamics of CR3BP. Different approximation methods were studied to compute the solution of nonlinear differential equation of motion (Akiyama et al., 2015; Ceccaroni et al., 2016; Kumar & Kushvah, 2020; D. L. Richardson, 1980).
The method is used in current work is expressed by Richardson (R. Farquhar et al., 1977; D. Richardson, 1980; D. L. Richardson, 1978, 1980). It was used by ISEE-3 mission designed personnel to study the characteristics of L1 halo orbit. The actual mission orbit was constructed numerically using differential correction procedure by analytical approximation (D. L. Richardson, 1980). The analytical solution is obtained by application of successive approximations in conjunction with a form of Lindsedt Poincare method. The ´ method finds third order approximation to the non-linear equation of motion in a neighborhood of the equilibrium point.
(https://i.imgur.com/tF3tx5e.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/D0Wv8yR.png)
Feel free to check the calculations for the Lagrange Point Halo Orbit Station-keeping. As well as all the references in the paper that support the orbital mechanics employed. Let us know what your results are.
-
How ya doing Heiwa?
Just shameful what these people are doing to you.
We need to have a conference in your private Shangri-La.Need my personals again?
-
But it does not explain ho JWST orbits a location of nothing - L2 - in space - that orbits the Sun.
Here you go:
2.2.3. Analytical Computation of Halo Orbits (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=edt)
The halo orbit is a family of three dimensional periodic orbits existed around the collinear libration points of CR3BP. The spacecraft inserted on halo orbit does not maintain the periodic trajectory naturally because of the instability of collinear libation points .� 20
Hence, the control acceleration is required to maintain the desired periodic trajectory. The different type of orbits in halo family was studied (Davis et al., 2018; Folta et al., 2014; Shirobokov et al., 2017). The stationkeeping strategy involves controlling the spacecraft to a halo orbit which is of sufficient amplitude to satisfy certain mission constraints. The particular halo orbits are constructed using analytical and numerical methods. The analytical computation of halo orbit is difficult because of the non linearity in the dynamics of CR3BP. Different approximation methods were studied to compute the solution of nonlinear differential equation of motion (Akiyama et al., 2015; Ceccaroni et al., 2016; Kumar & Kushvah, 2020; D. L. Richardson, 1980).
The method is used in current work is expressed by Richardson (R. Farquhar et al., 1977; D. Richardson, 1980; D. L. Richardson, 1978, 1980). It was used by ISEE-3 mission designed personnel to study the characteristics of L1 halo orbit. The actual mission orbit was constructed numerically using differential correction procedure by analytical approximation (D. L. Richardson, 1980). The analytical solution is obtained by application of successive approximations in conjunction with a form of Lindsedt Poincare method. The ´ method finds third order approximation to the non-linear equation of motion in a neighborhood of the equilibrium point.
(https://i.imgur.com/tF3tx5e.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/D0Wv8yR.png)
Feel free to check the calculations for the Lagrange Point Halo Orbit Station-keeping. As well as all the references in the paper that support the orbital mechanics employed. Let us know what your results are.
It is an academic joke and not very funny. A space craft taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot start orbiting something else, e.g. the Moon. It is the reason why you cannot travel to the Moon.
-
But it does not explain ho JWST orbits a location of nothing - L2 - in space - that orbits the Sun.
Here you go:
2.2.3. Analytical Computation of Halo Orbits (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=edt)
The halo orbit is a family of three dimensional periodic orbits existed around the collinear libration points of CR3BP. The spacecraft inserted on halo orbit does not maintain the periodic trajectory naturally because of the instability of collinear libation points .� 20
Hence, the control acceleration is required to maintain the desired periodic trajectory. The different type of orbits in halo family was studied (Davis et al., 2018; Folta et al., 2014; Shirobokov et al., 2017). The stationkeeping strategy involves controlling the spacecraft to a halo orbit which is of sufficient amplitude to satisfy certain mission constraints. The particular halo orbits are constructed using analytical and numerical methods. The analytical computation of halo orbit is difficult because of the non linearity in the dynamics of CR3BP. Different approximation methods were studied to compute the solution of nonlinear differential equation of motion (Akiyama et al., 2015; Ceccaroni et al., 2016; Kumar & Kushvah, 2020; D. L. Richardson, 1980).
The method is used in current work is expressed by Richardson (R. Farquhar et al., 1977; D. Richardson, 1980; D. L. Richardson, 1978, 1980). It was used by ISEE-3 mission designed personnel to study the characteristics of L1 halo orbit. The actual mission orbit was constructed numerically using differential correction procedure by analytical approximation (D. L. Richardson, 1980). The analytical solution is obtained by application of successive approximations in conjunction with a form of Lindsedt Poincare method. The ´ method finds third order approximation to the non-linear equation of motion in a neighborhood of the equilibrium point.
(https://i.imgur.com/tF3tx5e.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/D0Wv8yR.png)
Feel free to check the calculations for the Lagrange Point Halo Orbit Station-keeping. As well as all the references in the paper that support the orbital mechanics employed. Let us know what your results are.
It is an academic joke and not very funny. A space craft taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot start orbiting something else, e.g. the Moon. It is the reason why you cannot travel to the Moon.
JWST traveled roughly 750+k miles farther than the Moon. The Moon is irrelevant to the topic. Try and stay on topic.
We all await your calculations as to why not. The opinion of a lone conspiracy theorist just saying so is irrelevant and of no merit.
-
You're OK Heiwa, don't let these monsters attack your information base.
They just refuse to acknowledge you are an eminent bufu in your kitchen.
-
But it does not explain ho JWST orbits a location of nothing - L2 - in space - that orbits the Sun.
Here you go:
2.2.3. Analytical Computation of Halo Orbits (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=edt)
The halo orbit is a family of three dimensional periodic orbits existed around the collinear libration points of CR3BP. The spacecraft inserted on halo orbit does not maintain the periodic trajectory naturally because of the instability of collinear libation points .� 20
Hence, the control acceleration is required to maintain the desired periodic trajectory. The different type of orbits in halo family was studied (Davis et al., 2018; Folta et al., 2014; Shirobokov et al., 2017). The stationkeeping strategy involves controlling the spacecraft to a halo orbit which is of sufficient amplitude to satisfy certain mission constraints. The particular halo orbits are constructed using analytical and numerical methods. The analytical computation of halo orbit is difficult because of the non linearity in the dynamics of CR3BP. Different approximation methods were studied to compute the solution of nonlinear differential equation of motion (Akiyama et al., 2015; Ceccaroni et al., 2016; Kumar & Kushvah, 2020; D. L. Richardson, 1980).
The method is used in current work is expressed by Richardson (R. Farquhar et al., 1977; D. Richardson, 1980; D. L. Richardson, 1978, 1980). It was used by ISEE-3 mission designed personnel to study the characteristics of L1 halo orbit. The actual mission orbit was constructed numerically using differential correction procedure by analytical approximation (D. L. Richardson, 1980). The analytical solution is obtained by application of successive approximations in conjunction with a form of Lindsedt Poincare method. The ´ method finds third order approximation to the non-linear equation of motion in a neighborhood of the equilibrium point.
(https://i.imgur.com/tF3tx5e.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/D0Wv8yR.png)
Feel free to check the calculations for the Lagrange Point Halo Orbit Station-keeping. As well as all the references in the paper that support the orbital mechanics employed. Let us know what your results are.
It is an academic joke and not very funny. A space craft taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot start orbiting something else, e.g. the Moon. It is the reason why you cannot travel to the Moon.
JWST traveled roughly 750+k miles farther than the Moon. The Moon is irrelevant to the topic. Try and stay on topic.
We all await your calculations as to why not. The opinion of a lone conspiracy theorist just saying so is irrelevant and of no merit.
My calculations are very simple. A spacecraft like JWST taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot dock with an empty location L2 in space and start orbiting L2. It is basic astrophysics.
-
According to https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric it is freezing cold at the L2 point, except when you are exposed to the Sun far away, which you are not at the L2 point, which is in the shade of the Earth. So why do you need to cool down anything. Maybe ESA/NASA means heating up? The Universe is a pretty cold place.
How many times are you going to get this wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/FdDw76b.gif)
It seems the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun and the JWST flies around in space in an impossible trajectory orbiting nothing.
What makes it impossible? Do tell us. You're about 250 years behind the times in regard to orbital mechanics.
MECHANICS OF HALO SATELLITES (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TN%20D-6365.pdf)
A. Motion in the Vicinity of the Translunar Libration Point
As was shown by Lagrange in 1772, there are five points in the earth-moon gravitational field with the interesting property that if a satellite were placed at one of them with the proper velocity, it would be in equilibrium because the gravitational accelerations acting on the satellite would be counterbalanced by its centripetal acceleration (i.e., accelerations are balanced in the rotating reference frame). These 11libration points 11 are all located in the moon's orbital plane, and their general configuration is depicted in Figure 2. This paper will be primarily concerned with the translunar libration point L 2
(https://i.imgur.com/wdzRah8.png)
The third-order solution for the nominal path in the vicinity of L 2 is given in Appendix B. Traces of this solution for a one-year period are showJl in Figures 3 and 4. Because the period of the oscillatory motion in the moon's orbital plane is 14.65 days, while the out-of-plane period is 15. 23 days, the yz-projection of the nominal path is a Lissajous curve.
Show us your calculations versus those contained within the document. I'm sure your calculations make it impossible.
Just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean that someone else hasn't figured it out.
I am not against Lagrange points. I just suggest that a space craft ejected from Earth only orbits Earth and nothing else and that a return to Earth by such a space craft (re-entry) is not possible. You cannot orbit Earth and then start orbiting something else or land somewhere, i.e. travel around in space between planets or moons in space. Including Lagrange points. It is just NASA fantasies to enable asstronuts on the Moon.
Prove it, show your maths to shows it so be impossible.
And this time, actually bother to post it here instead of just linking to your website and expecting us to find it.
I know what the Lagrange liberation (?) points Lx are. They are just locations orbiting the Sun where gravity forces of the Moon, Earth and Sun cancel out. They have no mass. To suggest that a fourth object, e.g. the JWST spacecraft can orbit such locations as a 'halo-satellite' is complete nonsense.
No, the maths has been done and confirms that it can be done, this has been backed up with computer simulaitons.
ROTFL. Computer simulations! ROTFL.
Computer simulations are vastly stronger evidence then mere theorising or thought experiments.
Like comparing an ocean to a puddle.
Though of actually putting a satellite in space, (every instance of which you have claimed is fake.) it's the strongest possible conceivable evidence that can be provided.
-
If anyone can explain how JWST orbits both the Sun and L2 at the same time as per animation above I will be happy. Where does the annimation come from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point
-
But it does not explain ho JWST orbits a location of nothing - L2 - in space - that orbits the Sun.
Here you go:
2.2.3. Analytical Computation of Halo Orbits (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=edt)
The halo orbit is a family of three dimensional periodic orbits existed around the collinear libration points of CR3BP. The spacecraft inserted on halo orbit does not maintain the periodic trajectory naturally because of the instability of collinear libation points .� 20
Hence, the control acceleration is required to maintain the desired periodic trajectory. The different type of orbits in halo family was studied (Davis et al., 2018; Folta et al., 2014; Shirobokov et al., 2017). The stationkeeping strategy involves controlling the spacecraft to a halo orbit which is of sufficient amplitude to satisfy certain mission constraints. The particular halo orbits are constructed using analytical and numerical methods. The analytical computation of halo orbit is difficult because of the non linearity in the dynamics of CR3BP. Different approximation methods were studied to compute the solution of nonlinear differential equation of motion (Akiyama et al., 2015; Ceccaroni et al., 2016; Kumar & Kushvah, 2020; D. L. Richardson, 1980).
The method is used in current work is expressed by Richardson (R. Farquhar et al., 1977; D. Richardson, 1980; D. L. Richardson, 1978, 1980). It was used by ISEE-3 mission designed personnel to study the characteristics of L1 halo orbit. The actual mission orbit was constructed numerically using differential correction procedure by analytical approximation (D. L. Richardson, 1980). The analytical solution is obtained by application of successive approximations in conjunction with a form of Lindsedt Poincare method. The ´ method finds third order approximation to the non-linear equation of motion in a neighborhood of the equilibrium point.
(https://i.imgur.com/tF3tx5e.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/D0Wv8yR.png)
Feel free to check the calculations for the Lagrange Point Halo Orbit Station-keeping. As well as all the references in the paper that support the orbital mechanics employed. Let us know what your results are.
It is an academic joke and not very funny. A space craft taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot start orbiting something else, e.g. the Moon. It is the reason why you cannot travel to the Moon.
Of course, when provided with mathematical proof you just ignore it.
But it does not explain ho JWST orbits a location of nothing - L2 - in space - that orbits the Sun.
Here you go:
2.2.3. Analytical Computation of Halo Orbits (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=edt)
The halo orbit is a family of three dimensional periodic orbits existed around the collinear libration points of CR3BP. The spacecraft inserted on halo orbit does not maintain the periodic trajectory naturally because of the instability of collinear libation points .� 20
Hence, the control acceleration is required to maintain the desired periodic trajectory. The different type of orbits in halo family was studied (Davis et al., 2018; Folta et al., 2014; Shirobokov et al., 2017). The stationkeeping strategy involves controlling the spacecraft to a halo orbit which is of sufficient amplitude to satisfy certain mission constraints. The particular halo orbits are constructed using analytical and numerical methods. The analytical computation of halo orbit is difficult because of the non linearity in the dynamics of CR3BP. Different approximation methods were studied to compute the solution of nonlinear differential equation of motion (Akiyama et al., 2015; Ceccaroni et al., 2016; Kumar & Kushvah, 2020; D. L. Richardson, 1980).
The method is used in current work is expressed by Richardson (R. Farquhar et al., 1977; D. Richardson, 1980; D. L. Richardson, 1978, 1980). It was used by ISEE-3 mission designed personnel to study the characteristics of L1 halo orbit. The actual mission orbit was constructed numerically using differential correction procedure by analytical approximation (D. L. Richardson, 1980). The analytical solution is obtained by application of successive approximations in conjunction with a form of Lindsedt Poincare method. The ´ method finds third order approximation to the non-linear equation of motion in a neighborhood of the equilibrium point.
(https://i.imgur.com/tF3tx5e.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/D0Wv8yR.png)
Feel free to check the calculations for the Lagrange Point Halo Orbit Station-keeping. As well as all the references in the paper that support the orbital mechanics employed. Let us know what your results are.
It is an academic joke and not very funny. A space craft taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot start orbiting something else, e.g. the Moon. It is the reason why you cannot travel to the Moon.
JWST traveled roughly 750+k miles farther than the Moon. The Moon is irrelevant to the topic. Try and stay on topic.
We all await your calculations as to why not. The opinion of a lone conspiracy theorist just saying so is irrelevant and of no merit.
My calculations are very simple. A spacecraft like JWST taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot dock with an empty location L2 in space and start orbiting L2. It is basic astrophysics.
Prove it then, provide your calculations.
-
But it does not explain ho JWST orbits a location of nothing - L2 - in space - that orbits the Sun.
Here you go:
2.2.3. Analytical Computation of Halo Orbits (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=edt)
The halo orbit is a family of three dimensional periodic orbits existed around the collinear libration points of CR3BP. The spacecraft inserted on halo orbit does not maintain the periodic trajectory naturally because of the instability of collinear libation points .� 20
Hence, the control acceleration is required to maintain the desired periodic trajectory. The different type of orbits in halo family was studied (Davis et al., 2018; Folta et al., 2014; Shirobokov et al., 2017). The stationkeeping strategy involves controlling the spacecraft to a halo orbit which is of sufficient amplitude to satisfy certain mission constraints. The particular halo orbits are constructed using analytical and numerical methods. The analytical computation of halo orbit is difficult because of the non linearity in the dynamics of CR3BP. Different approximation methods were studied to compute the solution of nonlinear differential equation of motion (Akiyama et al., 2015; Ceccaroni et al., 2016; Kumar & Kushvah, 2020; D. L. Richardson, 1980).
The method is used in current work is expressed by Richardson (R. Farquhar et al., 1977; D. Richardson, 1980; D. L. Richardson, 1978, 1980). It was used by ISEE-3 mission designed personnel to study the characteristics of L1 halo orbit. The actual mission orbit was constructed numerically using differential correction procedure by analytical approximation (D. L. Richardson, 1980). The analytical solution is obtained by application of successive approximations in conjunction with a form of Lindsedt Poincare method. The ´ method finds third order approximation to the non-linear equation of motion in a neighborhood of the equilibrium point.
(https://i.imgur.com/tF3tx5e.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/D0Wv8yR.png)
Feel free to check the calculations for the Lagrange Point Halo Orbit Station-keeping. As well as all the references in the paper that support the orbital mechanics employed. Let us know what your results are.
It is an academic joke and not very funny. A space craft taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot start orbiting something else, e.g. the Moon. It is the reason why you cannot travel to the Moon.
Of course, when provided with mathematical proof you just ignore it.
But it does not explain ho JWST orbits a location of nothing - L2 - in space - that orbits the Sun.
Here you go:
2.2.3. Analytical Computation of Halo Orbits (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=edt)
The halo orbit is a family of three dimensional periodic orbits existed around the collinear libration points of CR3BP. The spacecraft inserted on halo orbit does not maintain the periodic trajectory naturally because of the instability of collinear libation points .� 20
Hence, the control acceleration is required to maintain the desired periodic trajectory. The different type of orbits in halo family was studied (Davis et al., 2018; Folta et al., 2014; Shirobokov et al., 2017). The stationkeeping strategy involves controlling the spacecraft to a halo orbit which is of sufficient amplitude to satisfy certain mission constraints. The particular halo orbits are constructed using analytical and numerical methods. The analytical computation of halo orbit is difficult because of the non linearity in the dynamics of CR3BP. Different approximation methods were studied to compute the solution of nonlinear differential equation of motion (Akiyama et al., 2015; Ceccaroni et al., 2016; Kumar & Kushvah, 2020; D. L. Richardson, 1980).
The method is used in current work is expressed by Richardson (R. Farquhar et al., 1977; D. Richardson, 1980; D. L. Richardson, 1978, 1980). It was used by ISEE-3 mission designed personnel to study the characteristics of L1 halo orbit. The actual mission orbit was constructed numerically using differential correction procedure by analytical approximation (D. L. Richardson, 1980). The analytical solution is obtained by application of successive approximations in conjunction with a form of Lindsedt Poincare method. The ´ method finds third order approximation to the non-linear equation of motion in a neighborhood of the equilibrium point.
(https://i.imgur.com/tF3tx5e.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/D0Wv8yR.png)
Feel free to check the calculations for the Lagrange Point Halo Orbit Station-keeping. As well as all the references in the paper that support the orbital mechanics employed. Let us know what your results are.
It is an academic joke and not very funny. A space craft taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot start orbiting something else, e.g. the Moon. It is the reason why you cannot travel to the Moon.
JWST traveled roughly 750+k miles farther than the Moon. The Moon is irrelevant to the topic. Try and stay on topic.
We all await your calculations as to why not. The opinion of a lone conspiracy theorist just saying so is irrelevant and of no merit.
My calculations are very simple. A spacecraft like JWST taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot dock with an empty location L2 in space and start orbiting L2. It is basic astrophysics.
Prove it then, provide your calculations.
But I have. Anything taking off from Earth orbits Earth. No calculations required.
-
Anything taking off from Earth orbits Earth.
Until it doesn't.
-
Anything taking off from Earth orbits Earth.
Until it doesn't.
atin
Yes, it docks at high speed with a high speed "location" L2 in the Universe orbiting the Sun and it then starts orbiting L2. It is like Oswald 1963. He first shot the governor. And then missed completely but the third shot killed JFK, so that Oswald could return home, change clothes, kill a curious cop in the street before going to the movies to relax.
-
Yes, it docks at high speed with a high speed "location" L2...
No one here, except for you, has claimed that. Why must you keep saying such stupid things?
-
Yes, it docks at high speed with a high speed "location" L2...
No one here, except for you, has claimed that. Why must you keep saying such stupid things?
?? NASA has informed me that the JWST arrived at L2 to start orbiting L2 and to cool down, bla, bla, bla. I think NASA is stupid.
-
this one time at band camp . . . . .
-
Yes, it docks at high speed with a high speed "location" L2...
No one here, except for you, has claimed that. Why must you keep saying such stupid things?
?? NASA has informed me that the JWST arrived at L2 to start orbiting L2 and to cool down, bla, bla, bla.
When did NASA, or anyone else, ever say that JWST docked with L2?
I think NASA is stupid.
I think NASA feels the same way about you. I know that I do.
-
I think NASA feels the same way about you. I know that I do.
Ditto. Also, "NASA" gives less than a ferocious crap about idiots.
-
But it does not explain ho JWST orbits a location of nothing - L2 - in space - that orbits the Sun.
Here you go:
2.2.3. Analytical Computation of Halo Orbits (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=edt)
The halo orbit is a family of three dimensional periodic orbits existed around the collinear libration points of CR3BP. The spacecraft inserted on halo orbit does not maintain the periodic trajectory naturally because of the instability of collinear libation points .� 20
Hence, the control acceleration is required to maintain the desired periodic trajectory. The different type of orbits in halo family was studied (Davis et al., 2018; Folta et al., 2014; Shirobokov et al., 2017). The stationkeeping strategy involves controlling the spacecraft to a halo orbit which is of sufficient amplitude to satisfy certain mission constraints. The particular halo orbits are constructed using analytical and numerical methods. The analytical computation of halo orbit is difficult because of the non linearity in the dynamics of CR3BP. Different approximation methods were studied to compute the solution of nonlinear differential equation of motion (Akiyama et al., 2015; Ceccaroni et al., 2016; Kumar & Kushvah, 2020; D. L. Richardson, 1980).
The method is used in current work is expressed by Richardson (R. Farquhar et al., 1977; D. Richardson, 1980; D. L. Richardson, 1978, 1980). It was used by ISEE-3 mission designed personnel to study the characteristics of L1 halo orbit. The actual mission orbit was constructed numerically using differential correction procedure by analytical approximation (D. L. Richardson, 1980). The analytical solution is obtained by application of successive approximations in conjunction with a form of Lindsedt Poincare method. The ´ method finds third order approximation to the non-linear equation of motion in a neighborhood of the equilibrium point.
(https://i.imgur.com/tF3tx5e.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/D0Wv8yR.png)
Feel free to check the calculations for the Lagrange Point Halo Orbit Station-keeping. As well as all the references in the paper that support the orbital mechanics employed. Let us know what your results are.
But I have. Anything taking off from Earth orbits Earth. No calculations required.
Well, there we have it. Definitive proof you're not an engineer. No engineer of any sort would ever say, "No calculations required."
Thanks for finally clearing that up.
-
This may help -
-
This may help -
You obviously didn't even watch the video. He says, "There's no neat equations for the perimeter of an ellipse." And then, however, goes on to explain that there are approximate equations/calculations that are used to define the perimeter of ellipses that are used the world over, including orbits. Much like, as he explains, π (pi) is an approximation and any equation using it is technically an approximation. Are you now going to say you don't need an equation for finding the circumference of a circle???
He even cites the widely used and very accurate Ramanujan equation for ellipse perimeters:
(https://i.imgur.com/YROCVVl.png)
So yes, equations, calculations are required for orbital mechanics. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Just more proof you are obviously not an engineer if you think equations/calculations are not needed.
-
This may help -
You obviously didn't even watch the video. He says, "There's no neat equations for the perimeter of an ellipse." And then, however, goes on to explain that there are approximate equations/calculations that are used to define the perimeter of ellipses that are used the world over, including orbits. Much like, as he explains, π (pi) is an approximation and any equation using it is technically an approximation. Are you now going to say you don't need an equation for finding the circumference of a circle???
He even cites the widely used and very accurate Ramanujan equation for ellipse perimeters:
(https://i.imgur.com/YROCVVl.png)
So yes, equations, calculations are required for orbital mechanics. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Just more proof you are obviously not an engineer if you think equations/calculations are not needed.
Orbital mechanics need masses to orbit and L2 has no mass = no orbit. Actually JWST can only orbit Earth like the Moon.
-
This may help -
You obviously didn't even watch the video. He says, "There's no neat equations for the perimeter of an ellipse." And then, however, goes on to explain that there are approximate equations/calculations that are used to define the perimeter of ellipses that are used the world over, including orbits. Much like, as he explains, π (pi) is an approximation and any equation using it is technically an approximation. Are you now going to say you don't need an equation for finding the circumference of a circle???
He even cites the widely used and very accurate Ramanujan equation for ellipse perimeters:
(https://i.imgur.com/YROCVVl.png)
So yes, equations, calculations are required for orbital mechanics. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Just more proof you are obviously not an engineer if you think equations/calculations are not needed.
Orbital mechanics need masses to orbit and L2 has no mass = no orbit. Actually JWST can only orbit Earth like the Moon.
You've been shown the calculations for a halo orbit around L2 now show us why, with your calculations, your orbital mechanics says you need a mass to orbit. Otherwise, it's just you saying so with no evidence. Just your unfounded opinion, that of a lone conspiracy theorist up against known astrophysics. You're obviously not an engineer, let alone an astro physicist as you believe no calculations are required. No engineer would ever say that. Only a conspiracy theroist would. Go ahead, show us what you have rather than just saying so.
-
This may help -
Expect for stuff like this.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/3e202a234c19a28620ecf9c6d260eb21b1bd7aa0)
Which converges pretty quickly unless e is very close to 1.
-
But it does not explain ho JWST orbits a location of nothing - L2 - in space - that orbits the Sun.
Here you go:
2.2.3. Analytical Computation of Halo Orbits (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=edt)
The halo orbit is a family of three dimensional periodic orbits existed around the collinear libration points of CR3BP. The spacecraft inserted on halo orbit does not maintain the periodic trajectory naturally because of the instability of collinear libation points .� 20
Hence, the control acceleration is required to maintain the desired periodic trajectory. The different type of orbits in halo family was studied (Davis et al., 2018; Folta et al., 2014; Shirobokov et al., 2017). The stationkeeping strategy involves controlling the spacecraft to a halo orbit which is of sufficient amplitude to satisfy certain mission constraints. The particular halo orbits are constructed using analytical and numerical methods. The analytical computation of halo orbit is difficult because of the non linearity in the dynamics of CR3BP. Different approximation methods were studied to compute the solution of nonlinear differential equation of motion (Akiyama et al., 2015; Ceccaroni et al., 2016; Kumar & Kushvah, 2020; D. L. Richardson, 1980).
The method is used in current work is expressed by Richardson (R. Farquhar et al., 1977; D. Richardson, 1980; D. L. Richardson, 1978, 1980). It was used by ISEE-3 mission designed personnel to study the characteristics of L1 halo orbit. The actual mission orbit was constructed numerically using differential correction procedure by analytical approximation (D. L. Richardson, 1980). The analytical solution is obtained by application of successive approximations in conjunction with a form of Lindsedt Poincare method. The ´ method finds third order approximation to the non-linear equation of motion in a neighborhood of the equilibrium point.
(https://i.imgur.com/tF3tx5e.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/D0Wv8yR.png)
Feel free to check the calculations for the Lagrange Point Halo Orbit Station-keeping. As well as all the references in the paper that support the orbital mechanics employed. Let us know what your results are.
It is an academic joke and not very funny. A space craft taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot start orbiting something else, e.g. the Moon. It is the reason why you cannot travel to the Moon.
Of course, when provided with mathematical proof you just ignore it.
But it does not explain ho JWST orbits a location of nothing - L2 - in space - that orbits the Sun.
Here you go:
2.2.3. Analytical Computation of Halo Orbits (https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=edt)
The halo orbit is a family of three dimensional periodic orbits existed around the collinear libration points of CR3BP. The spacecraft inserted on halo orbit does not maintain the periodic trajectory naturally because of the instability of collinear libation points .� 20
Hence, the control acceleration is required to maintain the desired periodic trajectory. The different type of orbits in halo family was studied (Davis et al., 2018; Folta et al., 2014; Shirobokov et al., 2017). The stationkeeping strategy involves controlling the spacecraft to a halo orbit which is of sufficient amplitude to satisfy certain mission constraints. The particular halo orbits are constructed using analytical and numerical methods. The analytical computation of halo orbit is difficult because of the non linearity in the dynamics of CR3BP. Different approximation methods were studied to compute the solution of nonlinear differential equation of motion (Akiyama et al., 2015; Ceccaroni et al., 2016; Kumar & Kushvah, 2020; D. L. Richardson, 1980).
The method is used in current work is expressed by Richardson (R. Farquhar et al., 1977; D. Richardson, 1980; D. L. Richardson, 1978, 1980). It was used by ISEE-3 mission designed personnel to study the characteristics of L1 halo orbit. The actual mission orbit was constructed numerically using differential correction procedure by analytical approximation (D. L. Richardson, 1980). The analytical solution is obtained by application of successive approximations in conjunction with a form of Lindsedt Poincare method. The ´ method finds third order approximation to the non-linear equation of motion in a neighborhood of the equilibrium point.
(https://i.imgur.com/tF3tx5e.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/D0Wv8yR.png)
Feel free to check the calculations for the Lagrange Point Halo Orbit Station-keeping. As well as all the references in the paper that support the orbital mechanics employed. Let us know what your results are.
It is an academic joke and not very funny. A space craft taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot start orbiting something else, e.g. the Moon. It is the reason why you cannot travel to the Moon.
JWST traveled roughly 750+k miles farther than the Moon. The Moon is irrelevant to the topic. Try and stay on topic.
We all await your calculations as to why not. The opinion of a lone conspiracy theorist just saying so is irrelevant and of no merit.
My calculations are very simple. A spacecraft like JWST taking off from Earth always orbits Earth. It cannot dock with an empty location L2 in space and start orbiting L2. It is basic astrophysics.
Prove it then, provide your calculations.
But I have. Anything taking off from Earth orbits Earth. No calculations required.
You never actually have provided any calculations whatsoever.
And you have provided no evidence for this claim, tell me this, if an object is launched away from the earth at a velocity slightly greater then that of escape velocity (12-14 km/s) what will evenutally happen to said object.
-
You never actually have provided any calculations whatsoever.
And you have provided no evidence for this claim, tell me this, if an object is launched away from the earth at a velocity slightly greater then that of escape velocity (12-14 km/s) what will evenutally happen to said object.
Thanks for your comment and question. When an object is launched away from our planet Earth and it's ground at any speed, it will only orbit the Earth. Pls improve your spelling.
-
You never actually have provided any calculations whatsoever.
And you have provided no evidence for this claim, tell me this, if an object is launched away from the earth at a velocity slightly greater then that of escape velocity (12-14 km/s) what will evenutally happen to said object.
Thanks for your comment and question. When an object is launched away from our planet Earth and it's ground at any speed, it will only orbit the Earth. Pls improve your spelling.
Really? Even in the case where it's launched at a velocity greater then escape velocity?
What happend once said object is a few dozen million kilometers away from earth?
-
You never actually have provided any calculations whatsoever.
And you have provided no evidence for this claim, tell me this, if an object is launched away from the earth at a velocity slightly greater then that of escape velocity (12-14 km/s) what will evenutally happen to said object.
Thanks for your comment and question. When an object is launched away from our planet Earth and it's ground at any speed, it will only orbit the Earth. Pls improve your spelling.
Really? Even in the case where it's launched at a velocity greater then escape velocity?
What happened once said object is a few dozen million kilometers away from earth?
It still orbits Earth. It's orbit is still an elongated orbit, where you don't know where you are. There is no way NASA can send a JWST to L2 or anywhere. It is a joke. Since 1958!
-
You never actually have provided any calculations whatsoever.
And you have provided no evidence for this claim, tell me this, if an object is launched away from the earth at a velocity slightly greater then that of escape velocity (12-14 km/s) what will evenutally happen to said object.
Thanks for your comment and question. When an object is launched away from our planet Earth and it's ground at any speed, it will only orbit the Earth. Pls improve your spelling.
Really? Even in the case where it's launched at a velocity greater then escape velocity?
What happened once said object is a few dozen million kilometers away from earth?
It still orbits Earth. It's orbit is still an elongated orbit, where you don't know where you are. There is no way NASA can send a JWST to L2 or anywhere. It is a joke. Since 1958!
Really, even when it's closer to the sun?
-
You never actually have provided any calculations whatsoever.
And you have provided no evidence for this claim, tell me this, if an object is launched away from the earth at a velocity slightly greater then that of escape velocity (12-14 km/s) what will evenutally happen to said object.
Thanks for your comment and question. When an object is launched away from our planet Earth and it's ground at any speed, it will only orbit the Earth. Pls improve your spelling.
Really? Even in the case where it's launched at a velocity greater then escape velocity?
What happened once said object is a few dozen million kilometers away from earth?
It still orbits Earth. It's orbit is still an elongated orbit, where you don't know where you are. There is no way NASA can send a JWST to L2 or anywhere. It is a joke. Since 1958!
Show us why. Just saying so is irrelevant. You have no calculations on your website. No reason why not. You're acting like one of those disheveled crazed conspiracy theorists standing on a street corner just barking out bizarre ramblings. Some powerful meds may be in order.
-
You never actually have provided any calculations whatsoever.
And you have provided no evidence for this claim, tell me this, if an object is launched away from the earth at a velocity slightly greater then that of escape velocity (12-14 km/s) what will evenutally happen to said object.
Thanks for your comment and question. When an object is launched away from our planet Earth and it's ground at any speed, it will only orbit the Earth. Pls improve your spelling.
Really? Even in the case where it's launched at a velocity greater then escape velocity?
What happened once said object is a few dozen million kilometers away from earth?
It still orbits Earth. It's orbit is still an elongated orbit, where you don't know where you are. There is no way NASA can send a JWST to L2 or anywhere. It is a joke. Since 1958!
Show us why. Just saying so is irrelevant. You have no calculations on your website. No reason why not. You're acting like one of those disheveled crazed conspiracy theorists standing on a street corner just barking out bizarre ramblings. Some powerful meds may be in order.
It is not possible to calculate variable speeds/directions orbit trajectories in 3D space of space crafts and, thus, fly around there. Only result is obnoxious replies by fools like you. Do you get happy by it?
-
Why has this thread become an extention of Heiwa's bullshit?
This thread was started under the assumption that space travel, halo orbits, and the JWST are fact. It was not posted as a debate.
Instead of looking forward to the mission and the data it will provide, the thread has become a monotonous cycle of 'No, it doesn't. Yes, it does.', which was dull enough in primary school.
-
Why has this thread become an extention of Heiwa's bullshit?
It's a mystery.
In any case, here's where we are now:
(https://i.imgur.com/Pdt6Ddp.png)
-
Why has this thread become an extention of Heiwa's bullshit?
It's a mystery.
In any case, here's where we are now:
(https://i.imgur.com/Pdt6Ddp.png)
I just made a comment as #8 of this thread some months ago. Of course the JWST is complete NASA shit.
-
Why has this thread become an extention of Heiwa's bullshit?
It's a mystery.
In any case, here's where we are now:
(https://i.imgur.com/Pdt6Ddp.png)
I just made a comment as #8 of this thread some months ago. Of course the JWST is complete NASA shit.
Your opinions have been duly noted and dismissed as they are irrelevant. Moving on.
(https://i.imgur.com/hRUP5Tl.png)
-
Orbital mechanics need masses to orbit and L2 has no mass = no orbit. Actually JWST can only orbit Earth like the Moon.
Actually, orbital mechanics needs gravity to orbit. Granted, there is no gravity at L2, but JWST is about 1 million miles away from L2 where there is gravity from the sun, earth and moon.
-
Orbital mechanics need masses to orbit and L2 has no mass = no orbit. Actually JWST can only orbit Earth like the Moon.
Actually, orbital mechanics needs gravity to orbit. Granted, there is no gravity at L2, but JWST is about 1 million miles away from L2 where there is gravity from the sun, earth and moon.
Almost correct. JWST is just orbiting Earth all the time, which has a mass of unknown order. The JWST orbit/trajectory is a circle around Earth. Like the Moon. Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician. BTW the Sun also orbits the Earth or vice versa. It is a mystery. I think there are other forces at play than gravity. Ever heard of Hannes Alfvén? http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
-
Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” -- Arthur C. Clarke
-
Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” -- Arthur C. Clarke
So what advanced, magic technology is JWST using to orbit L2?
-
Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” -- Arthur C. Clarke
y
So what advanced, magic technology is JWST using to orbit L2?
Just regular orbital mechanics that’s too advanced for you.
-
Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” -- Arthur C. Clarke
y
So what advanced, magic technology is JWST using to orbit L2?
Just regular orbital mechanics that’s too advanced for you.
Not really! JWST took of from Earth one day (topic) and started orbiting Earth at a certain altitude. I agree! Then another rocket increased the altitude of JWST in orbit, to where L2 is, so JWST orbits today Earth ... not L2 ... beyond the Moon that also orbits Earth. It is just regular orbital dynamics of one body, JWST, that orbits another body, Earth, governed by invisible gravity forces between the two bodies. Newton can explain it. What I cannot understand is that NASA insists that JWST started to orbit L2 instead, where ii is then pushed away by a solar wind, etc, etc. It doesn't make any sense.
-
What I cannot understand is that NASA insists that JWST started to orbit L2 instead, where ii is then pushed away by a solar wind, etc, etc. It doesn't make any sense.
Only YOU are saying that load of bullshit. Here is what NASA actually says
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2. What is special about this orbit is that it lets the telescope stay in line with the Earth as it moves around the Sun. This allows the satellite's large sunshield to protect the telescope from the light and heat of the Sun and Earth (and Moon).
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
Took all of 2 seconds to debunk your bullshit. As usual, you are wrong. Stick to the other thread you hijacked or at least stay on point and on truth in this thread
-
What I cannot understand is that NASA insists that JWST started to orbit L2 instead, where ii is then pushed away by a solar wind, etc, etc. It doesn't make any sense.
Only YOU are saying that load of bullshit. Here is what NASA actually says
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2. What is special about this orbit is that it lets the telescope stay in line with the Earth as it moves around the Sun. This allows the satellite's large sunshield to protect the telescope from the light and heat of the Sun and Earth (and Moon).
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
Took all of 2 seconds to debunk your bullshit. As usual, you are wrong. Stick to the other thread you hijacked or at least stay on point and on truth in this thread
Sorry Masalang the Torpedo. No spacecraft of any kind incl. the JWST bullshit can stop orbiting Earth and start orbiting the Sun. Do you really know what an orbit is?
-
What I cannot understand is that NASA insists that JWST started to orbit L2 instead, where ii is then pushed away by a solar wind, etc, etc. It doesn't make any sense.
Only YOU are saying that load of bullshit. Here is what NASA actually says
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2. What is special about this orbit is that it lets the telescope stay in line with the Earth as it moves around the Sun. This allows the satellite's large sunshield to protect the telescope from the light and heat of the Sun and Earth (and Moon).
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
Took all of 2 seconds to debunk your bullshit. As usual, you are wrong. Stick to the other thread you hijacked or at least stay on point and on truth in this thread
Sorry Masalang the Torpedo. No spacecraft of any kind incl. the JWST bullshit can stop orbiting Earth and start orbiting the Sun. Do you really know what an orbit is?
I have this inclination that Anders here uses the Sceptimatic approach to words and definitions.
-
What I cannot understand is that NASA insists that JWST started to orbit L2 instead, where ii is then pushed away by a solar wind, etc, etc. It doesn't make any sense.
Only YOU are saying that load of bullshit. Here is what NASA actually says
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2. What is special about this orbit is that it lets the telescope stay in line with the Earth as it moves around the Sun. This allows the satellite's large sunshield to protect the telescope from the light and heat of the Sun and Earth (and Moon).
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
Took all of 2 seconds to debunk your bullshit. As usual, you are wrong. Stick to the other thread you hijacked or at least stay on point and on truth in this thread
Sorry Masalang the Torpedo. No spacecraft of any kind incl. the JWST bullshit can stop orbiting Earth and start orbiting the Sun. Do you really know what an orbit is?
I have this inclination that Anders here uses the Sceptimatic approach to words and definitions.
Interesting ... but OT.
-
I have this inclination that Anders here uses the Sceptimatic approach to words and definitions.
Except that Sceptimatic displayed imagination. Heiwa does not.
-
Orbital mechanics need masses to orbit and L2 has no mass = no orbit. Actually JWST can only orbit Earth like the Moon.
Actually, orbital mechanics needs gravity to orbit. Granted, there is no gravity at L2, but JWST is about 1 million miles away from L2 where there is gravity from the sun, earth and moon.
Almost correct. JWST is just orbiting Earth all the time, which has a mass of unknown order. The JWST orbit/trajectory is a circle around Earth. Like the Moon. Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician. BTW the Sun also orbits the Earth or vice versa. It is a mystery. I think there are other forces at play than gravity. Ever heard of Hannes Alfvén? http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Explain mathenmatically exactly what makes orbiting another object impossible?
-
Orbital mechanics need masses to orbit and L2 has no mass = no orbit. Actually JWST can only orbit Earth like the Moon.
Actually, orbital mechanics needs gravity to orbit. Granted, there is no gravity at L2, but JWST is about 1 million miles away from L2 where there is gravity from the sun, earth and moon.
Almost correct. JWST is just orbiting Earth all the time, which has a mass of unknown order. The JWST orbit/trajectory is a circle around Earth. Like the Moon. Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician. BTW the Sun also orbits the Earth or vice versa. It is a mystery. I think there are other forces at play than gravity. Ever heard of Hannes Alfvén? http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Explain mathematically exactly what makes orbiting another object impossible?
Thanks for asking. Your question is OT! But anyway. Any object, e.g. a satellite, JWST or space craft being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, can only orbit Earth. Nothing else. It cannot start orbiting the Sun or the Moon and land on the Moon or similar, incl. L2. Reason is that the speed, when being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, is too big to change the orbit later. You cannot carry the energy with you to stop or change your orbital trajectory.
You can of course just go straight up into space until you run out of fuel. No orbit. After a while you stop and drop down back on Earth. End of trip. NASA and ESA experts disagree of course with me, but they cannot explain how to change orbits in space with available energy/fuel aboard. That is why all space trips are one-way only with no safe return. It means that humans cannot travel in space. Much better to send robots. Robots do not need toilets. Only NASA and ESA train asstronuts to go to the International Space Station, ISS, to be weightless clowns on TV and get famous. But there is no toilet on the ISS. Guess why!
-
Orbital mechanics need masses to orbit and L2 has no mass = no orbit. Actually JWST can only orbit Earth like the Moon.
Actually, orbital mechanics needs gravity to orbit. Granted, there is no gravity at L2, but JWST is about 1 million miles away from L2 where there is gravity from the sun, earth and moon.
Almost correct. JWST is just orbiting Earth all the time, which has a mass of unknown order. The JWST orbit/trajectory is a circle around Earth. Like the Moon. Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician. BTW the Sun also orbits the Earth or vice versa. It is a mystery. I think there are other forces at play than gravity. Ever heard of Hannes Alfvén? http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Explain mathematically exactly what makes orbiting another object impossible?
Thanks for asking. Your question is OT! But anyway. Any object, e.g. a satellite, JWST or space craft being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, can only orbit Earth. Nothing else. It cannot start orbiting the Sun or the Moon and land on the Moon or similar, incl. L2. Reason is that the speed, when being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, is too big to change the orbit later. You cannot carry the energy with you to stop or change your orbital trajectory.
You can of course just go straight up into space until you run out of fuel. No orbit. After a while you stop and drop down back on Earth. End of trip. NASA and ESA experts disagree of course with me, but they cannot explain how to change orbits in space with available energy/fuel aboard. That is why all space trips are one-way only with no safe return. It means that humans cannot travel in space. Much better to send robots. Robots do not need toilets. Only NASA and ESA train asstronuts to go to the International Space Station, ISS, to be weightless clowns on TV and get famous. But there is no toilet on the ISS. Guess why!
It wasn't off topic, as it was specifically related to your comment about the JWST. You decided to drag it more off topic though, because Heiwa I guess, and still not answer. How about a vacation, eh?
-
Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” -- Arthur C. Clarke
y
So what advanced, magic technology is JWST using to orbit L2?
Just regular orbital mechanics that’s too advanced for you.
Not really! JWST took of from Earth one day (topic) and started orbiting Earth at a certain altitude. I agree! Then another rocket increased the altitude of JWST in orbit, to where L2 is, so JWST orbits today Earth ... not L2 ... beyond the Moon that also orbits Earth. It is just regular orbital dynamics of one body, JWST, that orbits another body, Earth, governed by invisible gravity forces between the two bodies. Newton can explain it. What I cannot understand is that NASA insists that JWST started to orbit L2 instead, where ii is then pushed away by a solar wind, etc, etc. It doesn't make any sense.
As I said, you don’t understand it, so equate it with magic.
-
Why has this thread become an extention of Heiwa's bullshit?
I have been informed, on multiple occasion it is because he is a troll. This has been confirmed by a vast amount of experimental evidence.
He can copy-paste his crazy all day long, and anyone who reads more than 3 of his replies in a row can see that arguing gets you know where. I'm surprised he hasn't done this to all the threads, but the man has to have time for his naps I suppose.
I have also been informed not to feed the trolls.
But it's fun to yell at him. I try not to, but every few weeks I still have to poke in one of the threads he has derailed, like this one.
Anyway.
I wonder what the first pictures are going to be. NASA is keeping the targets secret, which is a good PR move. Has everyone eagerly awaiting what cool stuff we will be seeing. Something showy and well known I bet. Moons of Jupiter and Saturn would be cool, aside from all the deep space objects.
-
Orbital mechanics need masses to orbit and L2 has no mass = no orbit. Actually JWST can only orbit Earth like the Moon.
Actually, orbital mechanics needs gravity to orbit. Granted, there is no gravity at L2, but JWST is about 1 million miles away from L2 where there is gravity from the sun, earth and moon.
Almost correct. JWST is just orbiting Earth all the time, which has a mass of unknown order. The JWST orbit/trajectory is a circle around Earth. Like the Moon. Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician. BTW the Sun also orbits the Earth or vice versa. It is a mystery. I think there are other forces at play than gravity. Ever heard of Hannes Alfvén? http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Explain mathematically exactly what makes orbiting another object impossible?
Thanks for asking. Your question is OT! But anyway. Any object, e.g. a satellite, JWST or space craft being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, can only orbit Earth. Nothing else. It cannot start orbiting the Sun or the Moon and land on the Moon or similar, incl. L2. Reason is that the speed, when being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, is too big to change the orbit later. You cannot carry the energy with you to stop or change your orbital trajectory.
You can of course just go straight up into space until you run out of fuel. No orbit. After a while you stop and drop down back on Earth. End of trip. NASA and ESA experts disagree of course with me, but they cannot explain how to change orbits in space with available energy/fuel aboard. That is why all space trips are one-way only with no safe return. It means that humans cannot travel in space. Much better to send robots. Robots do not need toilets. Only NASA and ESA train asstronuts to go to the International Space Station, ISS, to be weightless clowns on TV and get famous. But there is no toilet on the ISS. Guess why!
translation: I don't understand it so it must be fake!
-
translation: I don't understand it so it must be fake!
What's your favorite instrument on the JWST?
I like the Slitless Spectrograph due to it being able to get high quality readings of planetary atmospheres and other cool stuff it can do.
-
Orbital mechanics need masses to orbit and L2 has no mass = no orbit. Actually JWST can only orbit Earth like the Moon.
Actually, orbital mechanics needs gravity to orbit. Granted, there is no gravity at L2, but JWST is about 1 million miles away from L2 where there is gravity from the sun, earth and moon.
Almost correct. JWST is just orbiting Earth all the time, which has a mass of unknown order. The JWST orbit/trajectory is a circle around Earth. Like the Moon. Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician. BTW the Sun also orbits the Earth or vice versa. It is a mystery. I think there are other forces at play than gravity. Ever heard of Hannes Alfvén? http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Explain mathematically exactly what makes orbiting another object impossible?
Thanks for asking. Your question is OT! But anyway. Any object, e.g. a satellite, JWST or space craft being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, can only orbit Earth. Nothing else. It cannot start orbiting the Sun or the Moon and land on the Moon or similar, incl. L2. Reason is that the speed, when being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, is too big to change the orbit later. You cannot carry the energy with you to stop or change your orbital trajectory.
You can of course just go straight up into space until you run out of fuel. No orbit. After a while you stop and drop down back on Earth. End of trip. NASA and ESA experts disagree of course with me, but they cannot explain how to change orbits in space with available energy/fuel aboard. That is why all space trips are one-way only with no safe return. It means that humans cannot travel in space. Much better to send robots. Robots do not need toilets. Only NASA and ESA train asstronuts to go to the International Space Station, ISS, to be weightless clowns on TV and get famous. But there is no toilet on the ISS. Guess why!
One, they do explain how, two you cane "carry energy with you" in the form of fuel. "Reason is that the speed, when being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, is too big to change the orbit later." What evidence do you have for this assertion.
There are simulations when you can make a rocket undergo orbital changes (e.g. Kerbal space program)
FInally, I noitce no mathematics.
-
One, they do explain how, two you cane "carry energy with you" in the form of fuel.
I read the JWST has a "potential" way to refuel it via robot drones, which tells me NASA has absolutely designed that functionality into it but isn't willing to say so because they never commit unless they are 100% sure something is going to work.
I'd be willing to bet they can refuel it, what do you think?
-
Orbital mechanics need masses to orbit and L2 has no mass = no orbit. Actually JWST can only orbit Earth like the Moon.
Actually, orbital mechanics needs gravity to orbit. Granted, there is no gravity at L2, but JWST is about 1 million miles away from L2 where there is gravity from the sun, earth and moon.
Almost correct. JWST is just orbiting Earth all the time, which has a mass of unknown order. The JWST orbit/trajectory is a circle around Earth. Like the Moon. Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician. BTW the Sun also orbits the Earth or vice versa. It is a mystery. I think there are other forces at play than gravity. Ever heard of Hannes Alfvén? http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Explain mathematically exactly what makes orbiting another object impossible?
Thanks for asking. Your question is OT! But anyway. Any object, e.g. a satellite, JWST or space craft being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, can only orbit Earth. Nothing else. It cannot start orbiting the Sun or the Moon and land on the Moon or similar, incl. L2. Reason is that the speed, when being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, is too big to change the orbit later. You cannot carry the energy with you to stop or change your orbital trajectory.
You can of course just go straight up into space until you run out of fuel. No orbit. After a while you stop and drop down back on Earth. End of trip. NASA and ESA experts disagree of course with me, but they cannot explain how to change orbits in space with available energy/fuel aboard. That is why all space trips are one-way only with no safe return. It means that humans cannot travel in space. Much better to send robots. Robots do not need toilets. Only NASA and ESA train asstronuts to go to the International Space Station, ISS, to be weightless clowns on TV and get famous. But there is no toilet on the ISS. Guess why!
One, they do explain how, two you cane "carry energy with you" in the form of fuel. "Reason is that the speed, when being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, is too big to change the orbit later." What evidence do you have for this assertion.
There are simulations when you can make a rocket undergo orbital changes (e.g. Kerbal space program)
FInally, I noitce no mathematics.
Heiwa's whole thing, specifically about Apollo but applied to anything leaving LEO, is about fuel consumption and not being able to carry enough to do so.
But he has some bonkers calculations that have been destroyed by every forum going back a dozen or so years. And he has been banned from every forum, the likes of Apollo hoax, 911 truthers, general skeptics, across the web with the exception of this one, because he won't listen to anyone that calls him out on his ignorance.
All of this from I think the ApolloHoax.net forum a decade or so ago:
1) Heiwa kicks off his posts with his own “simplified” fuel calculations with, "Evidently it changes when fuel is consumed - but I keep it constant…”. Absolutely hilarious. Calculations based upon no change in mass due to fuel consumption pretty much blows up the his entire premise right out of the starting gate.
2) Astrodynamics professionals try and explain that no, his “simple” equations are incorrect. "There are no "my" equations; there are only the proper equations. Your "simplifications" based on your obviously limited knowledge of astrodynamics do not suffice. I've given you the hint: you must consider the natural logarithm of the ratio of start and end masses.” Again, hilarious. Just making up his own calculations with no connection to reality.
3) He gets called out with not being able to perform a simple middle school calculation:
Heiwa's: 2400^2 - 1500^2 = 3,510,000
And this
Reality: (2400-1500)^2 = 810,000
It goes on and on. On that forum alone there are dozens of pages where actual astrophysicists and aeronautics professionals try and teach him, but he would have none of it. Eventually banned. Same for every other forum. And it seems universal that no one believes he's an actual engineer, the notion defies logic given the uselessness of what he throws out.
I think that's why he says things like, "Calculations aren't needed," etc. Because he knows his are nonsense.
-
Eventually banned.
Can you be banned from requesting time on the Hubble, and now the JWST?
Like submitting a request like "I want to take a picture of that ugly-ass star in the Big Dipper which should be called the Large Bobber as explained on my website".
I wonder if someone at NASA is debating if they should cancel all the requests from Russian astronomers? They had to have at least had a meeting about it I guess?
-
Orbital mechanics need masses to orbit and L2 has no mass = no orbit. Actually JWST can only orbit Earth like the Moon.
Actually, orbital mechanics needs gravity to orbit. Granted, there is no gravity at L2, but JWST is about 1 million miles away from L2 where there is gravity from the sun, earth and moon.
Almost correct. JWST is just orbiting Earth all the time, which has a mass of unknown order. The JWST orbit/trajectory is a circle around Earth. Like the Moon. Try to get out of it and start orbiting something else, e.g. L2 with no mass, you are a magician. BTW the Sun also orbits the Earth or vice versa. It is a mystery. I think there are other forces at play than gravity. Ever heard of Hannes Alfvén? http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb1.htm
Explain mathematically exactly what makes orbiting another object impossible?
Thanks for asking. Your question is OT! But anyway. Any object, e.g. a satellite, JWST or space craft being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, can only orbit Earth. Nothing else. It cannot start orbiting the Sun or the Moon and land on the Moon or similar, incl. L2. Reason is that the speed, when being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, is too big to change the orbit later. You cannot carry the energy with you to stop or change your orbital trajectory.
You can of course just go straight up into space until you run out of fuel. No orbit. After a while you stop and drop down back on Earth. End of trip. NASA and ESA experts disagree of course with me, but they cannot explain how to change orbits in space with available energy/fuel aboard. That is why all space trips are one-way only with no safe return. It means that humans cannot travel in space. Much better to send robots. Robots do not need toilets. Only NASA and ESA train asstronuts to go to the International Space Station, ISS, to be weightless clowns on TV and get famous. But there is no toilet on the ISS. Guess why!
One, they do explain how, two you cane "carry energy with you" in the form of fuel. "Reason is that the speed, when being ejected from Earth into an orbit in space, is too big to change the orbit later." What evidence do you have for this assertion.
There are simulations when you can make a rocket undergo orbital changes (e.g. Kerbal space program)
FInally, I noitce no mathematics.
Heiwa's whole thing, specifically about Apollo but applied to anything leaving LEO, is about fuel consumption and not being able to carry enough to do so.
But he has some bonkers calculations that have been destroyed by every forum going back a dozen or so years. And he has been banned from every forum, the likes of Apollo hoax, 911 truthers, general skeptics, across the web with the exception of this one, because he won't listen to anyone that calls him out on his ignorance.
All of this from I think the ApolloHoax.net forum a decade or so ago:
1) Heiwa kicks off his posts with his own “simplified” fuel calculations with, "Evidently it changes when fuel is consumed - but I keep it constant…”. Absolutely hilarious. Calculations based upon no change in mass due to fuel consumption pretty much blows up the his entire premise right out of the starting gate.
2) Astrodynamics professionals try and explain that no, his “simple” equations are incorrect. "There are no "my" equations; there are only the proper equations. Your "simplifications" based on your obviously limited knowledge of astrodynamics do not suffice. I've given you the hint: you must consider the natural logarithm of the ratio of start and end masses.” Again, hilarious. Just making up his own calculations with no connection to reality.
3) He gets called out with not being able to perform a simple middle school calculation:
Heiwa's: 2400^2 - 1500^2 = 3,510,000
And this
Reality: (2400-1500)^2 = 810,000
It goes on and on. On that forum alone there are dozens of pages where actual astrophysicists and aeronautics professionals try and teach him, but he would have none of it. Eventually banned. Same for every other forum. And it seems universal that no one believes he's an actual engineer, the notion defies logic given the uselessness of what he throws out.
I think that's why he says things like, "Calculations aren't needed," etc. Because he knows his are nonsense.
there was all of that and then multiple times where he was caught multiple times changing the rules of his fraudulent "challenges" when people that knew what they were talking about were able to supply the information. Also, even back on apollohoax.net he was accused of being a bot but it is only recently here that he's tried to refute it.
-
More of humble Hubble:
Meet Earendel, the most distant star ever detected (https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/30/23002980/earendel-hubble-most-distant-star-gravitational-lensing-jwst?utm_source=digg)
The star, imaged by the Hubble telescope, shone just 900 million years after the Big Bang
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/R5CV3wXXorgUR2EkuZSjExQQH8k=/0x0:720x720/2420x1613/filters:focal(303x303:417x417):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70689512/sunrisearc_unlabeled.0.png)
Can't wait to see what JWST brings to the table.
-
More of humble Hubble:
Meet Earendel, the most distant star ever detected (https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/30/23002980/earendel-hubble-most-distant-star-gravitational-lensing-jwst?utm_source=digg)
The star, imaged by the Hubble telescope, shone just 900 million years after the Big Bang
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/R5CV3wXXorgUR2EkuZSjExQQH8k=/0x0:720x720/2420x1613/filters:focal(303x303:417x417):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70689512/sunrisearc_unlabeled.0.png)
Can't wait to see what JWST brings to the table.
I'm going to bet that the JWST will be imaging that star with various instruments.
-
More of humble Hubble:
Meet Earendel, the most distant star ever detected (https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/30/23002980/earendel-hubble-most-distant-star-gravitational-lensing-jwst?utm_source=digg)
The star, imaged by the Hubble telescope, shone just 900 million years after the Big Bang
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/R5CV3wXXorgUR2EkuZSjExQQH8k=/0x0:720x720/2420x1613/filters:focal(303x303:417x417):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70689512/sunrisearc_unlabeled.0.png)
Can't wait to see what JWST brings to the table.
I'm going to bet that the JWST will be imaging that star with various instruments.
For sure. I'm just glad Hubble still has some tricks up it's sleeve. And JWST will be exponentially even better.
-
But let's not forget that "fully 12.8 billion years passed before the light reached the Hubble Space Telescope, magnified by a lucky trick of gravity to appear as a tiny smudge of photons on Hubble’s image sensor. Earendel is 8.2 billion years older than the Sun and Earth and 12.1 billion years older than our planet’s first animals."
“This galaxy appears magnified and stretched into a long, thin crescent shape due to the gravitational lensing effect of a massive cluster of galaxies in the foreground,” said Brian Welch, a Johns Hopkins University astronomer and lead author of the Nature paper.
And now JWST shall detect even older photons from the beginning of the Universe! I wonder what they will look like. How will the JWST handle the lensing effect?
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving. 8 minutes from the Sun, 14 billion years from the End of the Universe. I have already seen them. Nothing new there!
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving. 8 minutes from the Sun, 14 billion years from the End of the Universe. I have already seen them. Nothing new there!
You could have used your 3 day ban to think of a new shtick. Your window is tired.
Where do you get 14 billion years to the end of the Universe, as no scientific literature makes such a claim?
You argue from pure fabrication.
-
The human eye is not going to detect photons from 14 billion light years away, or should we say from 14 billion years ago and thanks to expansion they are now much further than 14 billion light years distant and shifted out of the visible light spectrum and into the far infra-red and beyond. Heiwas ignorance knows no bounds.
Look out your window and you won't see more than a few hundred light years away. Too much light pollution and shitty field of view to even see a fraction of 1% of the stars in our own galaxy
Keep at your staring window though. I hear a room with a window is a luxury for old fogies in a hospice
-
The human eye is not going to detect photons from 14 billion light years away, or should we say from 14 billion years ago and thanks to expansion they are now much further than 14 billion light years distant and shifted out of the visible light spectrum and into the far infra-red and beyond. Heiwas ignorance knows no bounds.
Look out your window and you won't see more than a few hundred light years away. Too much light pollution and shitty field of view to even see a fraction of 1% of the stars in our own galaxy
Keep at your staring window though. I hear a room with a window is a luxury for old fogies in a hospice
A year is time (seconds) and a light year is distance (meters). I have plenty time to look out and watch the Mediterranean Sea outside. What can you see from your place?
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving.
No, you won't. Those 12 billion year old photons are too few and far between to be seen on earth.
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving.
No, you won't. Those 12 billion year old photons are too few and far between to be seen on earth.
OK, I am blind! But tell me about photons. Do they get old and disappear?
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving. 8 minutes from the Sun, 14 billion years from the End of the Universe. I have already seen them. Nothing new there!
Thanks for telling us your plans, although no one asked. You just keep staring out your window. The rest of us will look forward to the results from JWST.
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving.
No, you won't. Those 12 billion year old photons are too few and far between to be seen on earth.
OK, I am blind! But tell me about photons. Do they get old and disappear?
What are you on about? I didn't say anything about your eyesight or photons disappearing. I'm just saying that there aren't enough of those photons reaching your eye to be able to see, You do understand the implications of the distance square rule and how it applies to light from distant stars, don't you?
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving.
No, you won't. Those 12 billion year old photons are too few and far between to be seen on earth.
OK, I am blind! But tell me about photons. Do they get old and disappear?
No but you and your crap is old and should disappear.
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
I'm waiting for the first month of images, I'm expecting them to be spectacular. I'm sure NASA is going to front-load the viewing slots with stuff suitable for ooohs and ahhhs to justify the price tag.
Then when the media gets bored they will do boring stuff like taking spectrographs of stuff.
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving. 8 minutes from the Sun, 14 billion years from the End of the Universe. I have already seen them. Nothing new there!
Are you claiming to be able to see infrared radiation? Because if you cant, then you’re not going to be able to see those 14 billion year old photons.
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving. 8 minutes from the Sun, 14 billion years from the End of the Universe. I have already seen them. Nothing new there!
Are you claiming to be able to see infrared radiation? Because if you cant, then you’re not going to be able to see those 14 billion year old photons.
This morning around 07.00 am local time I observed the Sun rising outside my window at the horizon far away. Not a cloud in the sky. Plenty photons arrived with all sorts of radiation. I am told it takes a photon 8 light minutes to to travel to me from the Sun. I like to see and feel the real thing. A photo by the JWST of the beginning of the Universe 14 billion light years old and away is nothing. Anyone can photo shop it.
-
This morning around 07.00 am local time I observed the Sun rising outside my window at the horizon far away. Not a cloud in the sky. Plenty photons arrived with all sorts of radiation. I am told it takes a photon 8 light minutes to to travel to me from the Sun. I like to see and feel the real thing. A photo by the JWST of the beginning of the Universe 14 billion light years old and away is nothing. Anyone can photo shop it.
Repetition of the same flawed argument ad nauseam.
-
This morning around 07.00 am local time I observed the Sun rising outside my window at the horizon far away. Not a cloud in the sky. Plenty photons arrived with all sorts of radiation. I am told it takes a photon 8 light minutes to to travel to me from the Sun. I like to see and feel the real thing. A photo by the JWST of the beginning of the Universe 14 billion light years old and away is nothing. Anyone can photo shop it.
Repetition of the same flawed argument ad nauseam.
No, it was a great morning and the Sun is still shining. Most of the photons are of course absorbed by the Mediterranean sea in front of me. It will then warm it up so I can go swimming in it later. I like photons. They heat my house at no cost for me.
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving. 8 minutes from the Sun, 14 billion years from the End of the Universe. I have already seen them. Nothing new there!
Are you claiming to be able to see infrared radiation? Because if you cant, then you’re not going to be able to see those 14 billion year old photons.
This morning around 07.00 am local time I observed the Sun rising outside my window at the horizon far away. Not a cloud in the sky. Plenty photons arrived with all sorts of radiation. I am told it takes a photon 8 light minutes to to travel to me from the Sun. I like to see and feel the real thing. A photo by the JWST of the beginning of the Universe 14 billion light years old and away is nothing. Anyone can photo shop it.
The photons that are from the Early universe have all been strongly redshifted. The hubble Ultra deep feild was looking at redshifts of up to z≈12, the James webb telescope will be looking at up to z≈20.
You can't see infra red photons. And some infrared frequencies can't even reach the ground.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Atmospheric_Transmission-en.svg/1280px-Atmospheric_Transmission-en.svg.png
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving. 8 minutes from the Sun, 14 billion years from the End of the Universe. I have already seen them. Nothing new there!
Are you claiming to be able to see infrared radiation? Because if you cant, then you’re not going to be able to see those 14 billion year old photons.
This morning around 07.00 am local time I observed the Sun rising outside my window at the horizon far away. Not a cloud in the sky. Plenty photons arrived with all sorts of radiation. I am told it takes a photon 8 light minutes to to travel to me from the Sun. I like to see and feel the real thing. A photo by the JWST of the beginning of the Universe 14 billion light years old and away is nothing. Anyone can photo shop it.
The photons that are from the Early universe have all been strongly redshifted. The hubble Ultra deep feild was looking at redshifts of up to z≈12, the James webb telescope will be looking at up to z≈20.
You can't see infra red photons. And some infrared frequencies can't even reach the ground.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Atmospheric_Transmission-en.svg/1280px-Atmospheric_Transmission-en.svg.png
Please! A photon is always a photon according certain experts. It is a very mysterious particle of no mass that flies around at the speed of light, etc. There is no evidence that it exists in spite of people getting sun burnt on beaches by it, etc. I have never seen a photon from my window. I just have other ideas about it. Nothing to get upset about.
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving. 8 minutes from the Sun, 14 billion years from the End of the Universe. I have already seen them. Nothing new there!
Are you claiming to be able to see infrared radiation? Because if you cant, then you’re not going to be able to see those 14 billion year old photons.
This morning around 07.00 am local time I observed the Sun rising outside my window at the horizon far away. Not a cloud in the sky. Plenty photons arrived with all sorts of radiation. I am told it takes a photon 8 light minutes to to travel to me from the Sun. I like to see and feel the real thing. A photo by the JWST of the beginning of the Universe 14 billion light years old and away is nothing. Anyone can photo shop it.
The photons that are from the Early universe have all been strongly redshifted. The hubble Ultra deep feild was looking at redshifts of up to z≈12, the James webb telescope will be looking at up to z≈20.
You can't see infra red photons. And some infrared frequencies can't even reach the ground.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Atmospheric_Transmission-en.svg/1280px-Atmospheric_Transmission-en.svg.png
Please! A photon is always a photon according certain experts. It is a very mysterious particle of no mass that flies around at the speed of light, etc. There is no evidence that it exists in spite of people getting sun burnt on beaches by it, etc. I have never seen a photon from my window. I just have other ideas about it. Nothing to get upset about.
It's not mysterious and doesn't 'fly around'
I guess not only does heiwas super vision let him distinguish light at magnitude 8.4 (whirlpool galaxy), but now claims to see far infra-red rays too. Probably radio and microwaves if you ask him as well
All a load of bullshit. The funny part is heiwa trolls this nonsense thinking people would fall for it.
Take a guess heiwa what people think of you and what you think you know....
-
I have never seen a photon from my window. I just have other ideas about it. Nothing to get upset about.
If I could not see photons from my window, then I would be very upset.
-
I have never seen a photon from my window. I just have other ideas about it. Nothing to get upset about.
If I could not see photons from my window, then I would be very upset.
Tell me what a photon looks like! I think light is just electromagnetic energy radiation without mass, etc. No photons at all.
-
I have never seen a photon from my window.
Have you ever seen a molecule or atom from your window?
-
Tell me what a photon looks like!
It looks like a small bit of light.
-
Photons look like light. This thread on the other hand; it looks more like shite.
-
This thread should be about one of the biggest feats of human ingenuity and engineering - the JWST. Instead Heiwa has derailed it again to debating about photons. Just next level WTF
If Heiwa has nothing intelligent to talk about, he should either stick to the other thread he derailed to be all about himself and his challenges or just STFU
-
This thread should be about one of the biggest feats of human ingenuity and engineering - the JWST. Instead Heiwa has derailed it again to debating about photons. Just next level WTF
If Heiwa has nothing intelligent to talk about, he should either stick to the other thread he derailed to be all about himself and his challenges or just STFU
I second this motion.
-
This thread should be about one of the biggest feats of human ingenuity and engineering - the JWST. Instead Heiwa has derailed it again to debating about photons. Just next level WTF
If Heiwa has nothing intelligent to talk about, he should either stick to the other thread he derailed to be all about himself and his challenges or just STFU
I tried for a while replying to people and asking serious questions about the JWST but nobody paid attention. :D
Sad when we're the voices of reason when it comes to responding to trolls. What's the world coming to?
-
I third the motion.
-
To be fair, until the instruments finish their cool down and final adjustments, there really isn't that much else to talk about.
-
To be fair, until the instruments finish their cool down and final adjustments, there really isn't that much else to talk about.
There's always something we could talk about. Or even talk about its history - or the Hubble it's replacing. Or even its limitations and what we'd like to see in a future space telescope. I don't see how debating whether photons exist, deliberately misrepresentating what it's supposed to do or how it does it, talking about some fake challenge or looking out some French window is at all relevant. Silence until the first photos are taken is better
-
I have never seen a photon from my window.
Have you ever seen a molecule or atom from your window?
Yes, when it is raining outside. But there is no rain or water in vacuum space universe except on the Moon poles and in the planet Mars crust. The other Moon and Mars water in our Solar System evaporated billion years ago according 'experts'. So the JWST is not looking for water in space. I still haven't understood what the JWST looks for. Stars? Galaxies? Black Holes? Gravity waves?
-
Update:
The commissioning stages of the James Webb Space Telescope just ticked off yet another phase.
Engineers have successfully aligned all but one of the instruments on the $10 billion space telescope for the first time as Webb continues to cool to deep-space temperatures after launching Dec. 25, 2021.
The interim instrument adjustment was so successful that engineers determined they don't need to realign the secondary mirror of Webb, which was an option if they determined anything was out of line. One last phase of "multi-instrument alignment," as NASA terms the process, will place after the telescope's final instrument cools. The cooling milestone should happen in the "weeks ahead," the agency stated.
-
The JWST looks it infrared, human eyes cannot see Infrared.
Evidence of Photons. https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=29176&t=how-do-we-prove-that-photons-exist
There's also to photo-electric effect.
-
Yes, when it is raining outside. But there is no rain or water in vacuum space universe except on the Moon poles and in the planet Mars crust. The other Moon and Mars water in our Solar System evaporated billion years ago according 'experts'. So the JWST is not looking for water in space. I still haven't understood what the JWST looks for. Stars? Galaxies? Black Holes? Gravity waves?
Wrong, again, Heiwa.
Water has been found in many places in the Universe; on exoplanets, surrounding stars, and even within the interstellar medium.
Tell me, in your 'expert' opinion (in case you missed it, expert is here used pejoratively), where did the water go after evaporating from the Moon and Mars? Did it cease to exist?
-
Yes, when it is raining outside. But there is no rain or water in vacuum space universe except on the Moon poles and in the planet Mars crust. The other Moon and Mars water in our Solar System evaporated billion years ago according 'experts'. So the JWST is not looking for water in space. I still haven't understood what the JWST looks for. Stars? Galaxies? Black Holes? Gravity waves?
Wrong, again, Heiwa.
Water has been found in many places in the Universe; on exoplanets, surrounding stars, and even within the interstellar medium.
Tell me, in your 'expert' opinion (in case you missed it, expert is here used pejoratively), where did the water go after evaporating from the Moon and Mars? Did it cease to exist?
I just suggest there is no rain or water in vacuum space universe, when I look out of my window. H2O molecules are probably around in the Universe but JWST (topic) is not looking for them. JWST just look for something infra-red and water isn't infra-red.
-
Yes, when it is raining outside. But there is no rain or water in vacuum space universe except on the Moon poles and in the planet Mars crust. The other Moon and Mars water in our Solar System evaporated billion years ago according 'experts'. So the JWST is not looking for water in space. I still haven't understood what the JWST looks for. Stars? Galaxies? Black Holes? Gravity waves?
Wrong, again, Heiwa.
Water has been found in many places in the Universe; on exoplanets, surrounding stars, and even within the interstellar medium.
Tell me, in your 'expert' opinion (in case you missed it, expert is here used pejoratively), where did the water go after evaporating from the Moon and Mars? Did it cease to exist?
I just suggest there is no rain or water in vacuum space universe, when I look out of my window. H2O molecules are probably around in the Universe but JWST (topic) is not looking for them. JWST just look for something infra-red and water isn't infra-red.
You introduced the subject of water. You erroneously stated "no ... water in the vacuum of space." You then used water as a straw man against the JWST.
You take something and twist it into bullshit you then proceed to argue against.
I see nothing of value in any post you make. This is what I see:
SHIT FILTER ACTIVATED
-
Yes, when it is raining outside. But there is no rain or water in vacuum space universe except on the Moon poles and in the planet Mars crust. The other Moon and Mars water in our Solar System evaporated billion years ago according 'experts'. So the JWST is not looking for water in space. I still haven't understood what the JWST looks for. Stars? Galaxies? Black Holes? Gravity waves?
Wrong, again, Heiwa.
Water has been found in many places in the Universe; on exoplanets, surrounding stars, and even within the interstellar medium.
Tell me, in your 'expert' opinion (in case you missed it, expert is here used pejoratively), where did the water go after evaporating from the Moon and Mars? Did it cease to exist?
I just suggest there is no rain or water in vacuum space universe, when I look out of my window. H2O molecules are probably around in the Universe but JWST (topic) is not looking for them. JWST just look for something infra-red and water isn't infra-red.
You introduced the subject of water. You erroneously stated "no ... water in the vacuum of space." You then used water as a straw man against the JWST.
You take something and twist it into bullshit you then proceed to argue against.
I see nothing of value in any post you make. This is what I see:
SHIT FILTER ACTIVATED
What is the question or comment?
-
Yes, when it is raining outside. But there is no rain or water in vacuum space universe except on the Moon poles and in the planet Mars crust. The other Moon and Mars water in our Solar System evaporated billion years ago according 'experts'. So the JWST is not looking for water in space. I still haven't understood what the JWST looks for. Stars? Galaxies? Black Holes? Gravity waves?
Wrong, again, Heiwa.
Water has been found in many places in the Universe; on exoplanets, surrounding stars, and even within the interstellar medium.
Tell me, in your 'expert' opinion (in case you missed it, expert is here used pejoratively), where did the water go after evaporating from the Moon and Mars? Did it cease to exist?
I just suggest there is no rain or water in vacuum space universe, when I look out of my window. H2O molecules are probably around in the Universe but JWST (topic) is not looking for them. JWST just look for something infra-red and water isn't infra-red.
You introduced the subject of water. You erroneously stated "no ... water in the vacuum of space." You then used water as a straw man against the JWST.
You take something and twist it into bullshit you then proceed to argue against.
I see nothing of value in any post you make. This is what I see:
SHIT FILTER ACTIVATED
What is the question or comment?
Heiwa Translator: Me Retard. Me Throw Shit Wall, Sticks to Hands.
-
No, topic is the JWST going to examine the end/beginning of the Universe with a telescope orbiting L2, that I can watch from my window.
-
No, topic is the JWST going to examine the end/beginning of the Universe with a telescope orbiting L2, that I can watch from my window.
Can you explain more about how you watch the end/beginning of the Universe from your window.
-
No, topic is the JWST going to examine the end/beginning of the Universe with a telescope orbiting L2, that I can watch from my window.
Can you explain more about how you watch the end/beginning of the Universe from your window.
I just look. I don't need a JWST to look for me. Of course I know that there is no end/beginning of the Universe.
-
No, topic is the JWST going to examine the end/beginning of the Universe with a telescope orbiting L2, that I can watch from my window.
Can you explain more about how you watch the end/beginning of the Universe from your window.
I just look. I don't need a JWST to look for me. Of course I know that there is no end/beginning of the Universe.
You don't need JWST and JWST doesn't need you, a lone crank conspiracy theorist in France. Glad we got that cleared up.
-
No, topic is the JWST going to examine the end/beginning of the Universe with a telescope orbiting L2, that I can watch from my window.
Can you explain more about how you watch the end/beginning of the Universe from your window.
I just look. I don't need a JWST to look for me. Of course I know that there is no end/beginning of the Universe.
You don't need JWST and JWST doesn't need you, a lone crank conspiracy theorist in France. Glad we got that cleared up.
You are just jealous lacking my window view, where the Sun rises every morning heating my building and the Mediterranean Sea with its photons all free of charge. Actually it is just electromagnetic radiation, but who cares? Nobody knows what's going on inside the Sun. I just watch it from my window and the JWST cannot watch it at all, as it looks in the wrong direction.
-
You are just jealous lacking my window view, where the Sun rises every morning heating my building and the Mediterranean Sea with its photons all free of charge. Actually it is just electromagnetic radiation, but who cares? Nobody knows what's going on inside the Sun. I just watch it from my window and the JWST cannot watch it at all, as it looks in the wrong direction.
No one cares about your Mediterranean view. Many millions of people live within view of the Med, across many countries. Your care home is not special or unique.
The physics of the interior of Sun are well understood. That you cannot understand (or that you reject it, as it contradicts the rubbish you spout) is neither here nor there.
-
No, topic is the JWST going to examine the end/beginning of the Universe with a telescope orbiting L2, that I can watch from my window.
Can you explain more about how you watch the end/beginning of the Universe from your window.
I just look. I don't need a JWST to look for me. Of course I know that there is no end/beginning of the Universe.
You don't need JWST and JWST doesn't need you, a lone crank conspiracy theorist in France. Glad we got that cleared up.
You are just jealous lacking my window view, where the Sun rises every morning heating my building and the Mediterranean Sea with its photons all free of charge. Actually it is just electromagnetic radiation, but who cares? Nobody knows what's going on inside the Sun. I just watch it from my window and the JWST cannot watch it at all, as it looks in the wrong direction.
Wow, you sound like a crazy old shut-in who is never let outside with the constant "Oh, I look out my window..." stuff - It's like the ramblings of some crank conspiracy theorist gone mad from only having a pane of glass as his closest comfort. Get back on your meds. You've gone full narcissistic delusions of grandeur and don't even know what's real anymore. No wonder why every other forum has banned you, you're so far gone you can't even communicate on a rational level.
-
The physics of the interior of Sun are well understood. That you cannot understand (or that you reject it, as it contradicts the rubbish you spout) is neither here nor there.
Please, tell me more! What happens inside the Sun? I can just see it outside my window.
-
The physics of the interior of Sun are well understood. That you cannot understand (or that you reject it, as it contradicts the rubbish you spout) is neither here nor there.
Please, tell me more! What happens inside the Sun? I can just see it outside my window.
Thanks for confirming my previous assessment of your severely degraded mental state.
-
The physics of the interior of Sun are well understood. That you cannot understand (or that you reject it, as it contradicts the rubbish you spout) is neither here nor there.
Please, tell me more! What happens inside the Sun? I can just see it outside my window.
Thanks for confirming my previous assessment of your severely degraded mental state.
Please, tell me more! What happens inside my mental state?
-
The physics of the interior of Sun are well understood. That you cannot understand (or that you reject it, as it contradicts the rubbish you spout) is neither here nor there.
Please, tell me more! What happens inside the Sun? I can just see it outside my window.
Nuclear fusion.
-
The physics of the interior of Sun are well understood. That you cannot understand (or that you reject it, as it contradicts the rubbish you spout) is neither here nor there.
Please, tell me more! What happens inside the Sun? I can just see it outside my window.
Nuclear fusion.
I can see the Sun as an orange ball rising over the horizon in the sky every morning outside my window and soon after I can feel its radiation of heat. So fusion occurs inside the Sun? Any evidence for it? Can you do fusion in a laboratory on Earth? It seems not! I am told that fusion is the reaction in which two atoms of hydrogen combine together, or fuse, to form an atom of helium. In the process some of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. But I cannot see that from my window. I think you are just making it up!
-
The physics of the interior of Sun are well understood. That you cannot understand (or that you reject it, as it contradicts the rubbish you spout) is neither here nor there.
Please, tell me more! What happens inside the Sun? I can just see it outside my window.
Nuclear fusion.
Can you do fusion in a laboratory on Earth? It seems not!
Wrong again:
Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60312633)
The UK-based JET laboratory has smashed its own world record for the amount of energy it can extract by squeezing together two forms of hydrogen.
If nuclear fusion can be successfully recreated on Earth it holds out the potential of virtually unlimited supplies of low-carbon, low-radiation energy.
The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11 megawatts of power).
This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.
It's not a massive energy output - only enough to boil about 60 kettles' worth of water. But the significance is that it validates design choices that have been made for an even bigger fusion reactor now being constructed in France.
I'll go with actual physicists and experimentation rather than listen to a lone crank conspiracy theorist.
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Heiwa can't see one from his window, so one cannot exist.
Babies grasp the concept of object permanence around 7 months, but alas, Heiwa never developed to this point.
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Yes, it is off topic but to start fusion you have to heat up the machine and then it melts = no fusion!!! Just confusion.
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Yes, it is off topic but to start fusion you have to heat up the machine and then it melts = no fusion!!! Just confusion.
Says who? You? You've already demonstrated you know next to nothing. The French reactor didn't melt. In fact, they have a solution:
No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, to achieve fusion in a lab, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field.
Try and get with the 21st century. You're stuck in about 1943.
-
But let's not forget that "fully 12.8 billion years passed before the light reached the Hubble Space Telescope, magnified by a lucky trick of gravity to appear as a tiny smudge of photons on Hubble’s image sensor. Earendel is 8.2 billion years older than the Sun and Earth and 12.1 billion years older than our planet’s first animals."
“This galaxy appears magnified and stretched into a long, thin crescent shape due to the gravitational lensing effect of a massive cluster of galaxies in the foreground,” said Brian Welch, a Johns Hopkins University astronomer and lead author of the Nature paper.
And now JWST shall detect even older photons from the beginning of the Universe! I wonder what they will look like. How will the JWST handle the lensing effect?
Ugh, it's just, um, kinda like, you know, you don't understand shit.I know it's just an act because you're super smart.
What side are you on . . . Ukraine or Russia?
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Yes, it is off topic but to start fusion you have to heat up the machine and then it melts = no fusion!!! Just confusion.
Says who? You? You've already demonstrated you know next to nothing. The French reactor didn't melt. In fact, they have a solution:
No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, to achieve fusion in a lab, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field.
Try and get with the 21st century. You're stuck in about 1943.
The French reactor down the road from me is April 2022 not yet ready in spite of enormous cost and time overruns. I follow it since many years. And that the plasma can protect the reactor from melting is yet to be proven in both a lab and full scale. It is the suggested that the temperature will be >1 000 000 K in the plasma and that that heat shall in turn heat up water to high pressure steam in a heat exchanger. Sounds optimistic.
-
But let's not forget that "fully 12.8 billion years passed before the light reached the Hubble Space Telescope, magnified by a lucky trick of gravity to appear as a tiny smudge of photons on Hubble’s image sensor. Earendel is 8.2 billion years older than the Sun and Earth and 12.1 billion years older than our planet’s first animals."
“This galaxy appears magnified and stretched into a long, thin crescent shape due to the gravitational lensing effect of a massive cluster of galaxies in the foreground,” said Brian Welch, a Johns Hopkins University astronomer and lead author of the Nature paper.
And now JWST shall detect even older photons from the beginning of the Universe! I wonder what they will look like. How will the JWST handle the lensing effect?
Ugh, it's just, um, kinda like, you know, you don't understand shit.I know it's just an act because you're super smart.
What side are you on . . . Ukraine or Russia?
I am just looking out of my window studying the universe ... and the weather. Re the special operations going on in Ukraine I am of course on the winning side.
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Yes, it is off topic but to start fusion you have to heat up the machine and then it melts = no fusion!!! Just confusion.
Says who? You? You've already demonstrated you know next to nothing. The French reactor didn't melt. In fact, they have a solution:
No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, to achieve fusion in a lab, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field.
Try and get with the 21st century. You're stuck in about 1943.
The French reactor down the road from me is not yet ready in spite of enormous cost and time overruns. I follow it since many years. And that the plasma can protect the reactor from melting is yet to be proven in a lab and full scale. It is the suggested that the temperature will be >1 000 000C in the plasma and that that heat shall in turn heat up water to high pressure steam in a heat exchanger. Sounds optimistic.
It is optimistic, especially on a large scale. But it was done in a lab, which you said couldn’t happen. But it did. And it didn’t melt like you claimed. From the article:
Many technical challenges remain, however. In Europe, these challenges are being worked on by the Eurofusion consortium, which comprises some 5,000 science and engineering experts from across the EU, Switzerland and Ukraine.
"It's a landmark because they demonstrated stability of the plasma over five seconds. That doesn't sound very long, but on a nuclear timescale, it's a very, very long time indeed. And it's very easy then to go from five seconds to five minutes, or five hours, or even longer."
In other words, we’re probably a couple of generations away from actual large scale applications. But that doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist or can’t be done. As evidenced here, it can be done and has been done.
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Yes, it is off topic but to start fusion you have to heat up the machine and then it melts = no fusion!!! Just confusion.
Says who? You? You've already demonstrated you know next to nothing. The French reactor didn't melt. In fact, they have a solution:
No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, to achieve fusion in a lab, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field.
Try and get with the 21st century. You're stuck in about 1943.
The French reactor down the road from me is not yet ready in spite of enormous cost and time overruns. I follow it since many years. And that the plasma can protect the reactor from melting is yet to be proven in a lab and full scale. It is the suggested that the temperature will be >1 000 000C in the plasma and that that heat shall in turn heat up water to high pressure steam in a heat exchanger. Sounds optimistic.
It is optimistic, especially on a large scale. But it was done in a lab, which you said couldn’t happen. But it did. And it didn’t melt like you claimed. From the article:
Many technical challenges remain, however. In Europe, these challenges are being worked on by the Eurofusion consortium, which comprises some 5,000 science and engineering experts from across the EU, Switzerland and Ukraine.
"It's a landmark because they demonstrated stability of the plasma over five seconds. That doesn't sound very long, but on a nuclear timescale, it's a very, very long time indeed. And it's very easy then to go from five seconds to five minutes, or five hours, or even longer."
In other words, we’re probably a couple of generations away from actual large scale applications. But that doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist or can’t be done. As evidenced here, it can be done and has been done.
I was not talking about the Eurofusion consortium at CEA Cadarache Centre but the ITER next door. None of them has created high heat in a plasma that has been converted to steam and energy. ITER is just a joke! It will never work. It is pure fraud.
The Institute for Magnetic Fusion Research (Institut de Recherche sur la Fusion par confinement Magnétique, IRFM) is one of the 15 Institutes that make up the Fundamental Research Division in the CEA (Direction de la Recherche Fondamentale, DRF). For almost 60 years, its responsibility has been to carry out research on thermonuclear magnetically-confined fusion at the CEA in association with the Euratom Fusion Programme. Since the beginning of the Tore Supra programme in the late 80s, it has been located at the CEA Research Centre of Cadarache in the department of the Bouches-du-Rhône. To fulfill its missions, IRFM gathers three departments (and within them, groups), with various objectives expanding from engineering to physics to platform operation.
Result so far? 0!
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Yes, it is off topic but to start fusion you have to heat up the machine and then it melts = no fusion!!! Just confusion.
Says who? You? You've already demonstrated you know next to nothing. The French reactor didn't melt. In fact, they have a solution:
No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, to achieve fusion in a lab, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field.
Try and get with the 21st century. You're stuck in about 1943.
The French reactor down the road from me is not yet ready in spite of enormous cost and time overruns. I follow it since many years. And that the plasma can protect the reactor from melting is yet to be proven in a lab and full scale. It is the suggested that the temperature will be >1 000 000C in the plasma and that that heat shall in turn heat up water to high pressure steam in a heat exchanger. Sounds optimistic.
It is optimistic, especially on a large scale. But it was done in a lab, which you said couldn’t happen. But it did. And it didn’t melt like you claimed. From the article:
Many technical challenges remain, however. In Europe, these challenges are being worked on by the Eurofusion consortium, which comprises some 5,000 science and engineering experts from across the EU, Switzerland and Ukraine.
"It's a landmark because they demonstrated stability of the plasma over five seconds. That doesn't sound very long, but on a nuclear timescale, it's a very, very long time indeed. And it's very easy then to go from five seconds to five minutes, or five hours, or even longer."
In other words, we’re probably a couple of generations away from actual large scale applications. But that doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist or can’t be done. As evidenced here, it can be done and has been done.
I was not talking about the Eurofusion consortium at CEA Cadarache Centre but the ITER next door. None of them has created high heat in a plasma that has been converted to steam and energy. ITER is just a joke! It will never work. It is pure fraud.
The Institute for Magnetic Fusion Research (Institut de Recherche sur la Fusion par confinement Magnétique, IRFM) is one of the 15 Institutes that make up the Fundamental Research Division in the CEA (Direction de la Recherche Fondamentale, DRF). For almost 60 years, its responsibility has been to carry out research on thermonuclear magnetically-confined fusion at the CEA in association with the Euratom Fusion Programme. Since the beginning of the Tore Supra programme in the late 80s, it has been located at the CEA Research Centre of Cadarache in the department of the Bouches-du-Rhône. To fulfill its missions, IRFM gathers three departments (and within them, groups), with various objectives expanding from engineering to physics to platform operation.
Result so far? 0!
The successful fission experiment was performed at the JET lab in England:
The Joint European Torus (JET), sited at Culham in Oxfordshire, has been pioneering this fusion approach for nearly 40 years.
I don’t know what it has to do with your France labs other than they are all a part of the consortium.
In any case, you're wrong. The JET lab got to 5 seconds, didn’t melt. If you have an issue with some French lab, I don’t care. It’s irrelevant.
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Yes, it is off topic but to start fusion you have to heat up the machine and then it melts = no fusion!!! Just confusion.
Says who? You? You've already demonstrated you know next to nothing. The French reactor didn't melt. In fact, they have a solution:
No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, to achieve fusion in a lab, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field.
Try and get with the 21st century. You're stuck in about 1943.
The French reactor down the road from me is not yet ready in spite of enormous cost and time overruns. I follow it since many years. And that the plasma can protect the reactor from melting is yet to be proven in a lab and full scale. It is the suggested that the temperature will be >1 000 000C in the plasma and that that heat shall in turn heat up water to high pressure steam in a heat exchanger. Sounds optimistic.
It is optimistic, especially on a large scale. But it was done in a lab, which you said couldn’t happen. But it did. And it didn’t melt like you claimed. From the article:
Many technical challenges remain, however. In Europe, these challenges are being worked on by the Eurofusion consortium, which comprises some 5,000 science and engineering experts from across the EU, Switzerland and Ukraine.
"It's a landmark because they demonstrated stability of the plasma over five seconds. That doesn't sound very long, but on a nuclear timescale, it's a very, very long time indeed. And it's very easy then to go from five seconds to five minutes, or five hours, or even longer."
In other words, we’re probably a couple of generations away from actual large scale applications. But that doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist or can’t be done. As evidenced here, it can be done and has been done.
I was not talking about the Eurofusion consortium at CEA Cadarache Centre but the ITER next door. None of them has created high heat in a plasma that has been converted to steam and energy. ITER is just a joke! It will never work. It is pure fraud.
The Institute for Magnetic Fusion Research (Institut de Recherche sur la Fusion par confinement Magnétique, IRFM) is one of the 15 Institutes that make up the Fundamental Research Division in the CEA (Direction de la Recherche Fondamentale, DRF). For almost 60 years, its responsibility has been to carry out research on thermonuclear magnetically-confined fusion at the CEA in association with the Euratom Fusion Programme. Since the beginning of the Tore Supra programme in the late 80s, it has been located at the CEA Research Centre of Cadarache in the department of the Bouches-du-Rhône. To fulfill its missions, IRFM gathers three departments (and within them, groups), with various objectives expanding from engineering to physics to platform operation.
Result so far? 0!
The successful fission experiment was performed at the JET lab in England:
The Joint European Torus (JET), sited at Culham in Oxfordshire, has been pioneering this fusion approach for nearly 40 years.
I don’t know what it has to do with your France labs other than they are all a part of the consortium.
In any case, you're wrong. The JET lab got to 5 seconds, didn’t melt. If you have an issue with some French lab, I don’t care. It’s irrelevant.
The Joint European Torus (JET) has not been able to to do any fusion and fission work of value ever!
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Yes, it is off topic but to start fusion you have to heat up the machine and then it melts = no fusion!!! Just confusion.
Says who? You? You've already demonstrated you know next to nothing. The French reactor didn't melt. In fact, they have a solution:
No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, to achieve fusion in a lab, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field.
Try and get with the 21st century. You're stuck in about 1943.
The French reactor down the road from me is not yet ready in spite of enormous cost and time overruns. I follow it since many years. And that the plasma can protect the reactor from melting is yet to be proven in a lab and full scale. It is the suggested that the temperature will be >1 000 000C in the plasma and that that heat shall in turn heat up water to high pressure steam in a heat exchanger. Sounds optimistic.
It is optimistic, especially on a large scale. But it was done in a lab, which you said couldn’t happen. But it did. And it didn’t melt like you claimed. From the article:
Many technical challenges remain, however. In Europe, these challenges are being worked on by the Eurofusion consortium, which comprises some 5,000 science and engineering experts from across the EU, Switzerland and Ukraine.
"It's a landmark because they demonstrated stability of the plasma over five seconds. That doesn't sound very long, but on a nuclear timescale, it's a very, very long time indeed. And it's very easy then to go from five seconds to five minutes, or five hours, or even longer."
In other words, we’re probably a couple of generations away from actual large scale applications. But that doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist or can’t be done. As evidenced here, it can be done and has been done.
I was not talking about the Eurofusion consortium at CEA Cadarache Centre but the ITER next door. None of them has created high heat in a plasma that has been converted to steam and energy. ITER is just a joke! It will never work. It is pure fraud.
The Institute for Magnetic Fusion Research (Institut de Recherche sur la Fusion par confinement Magnétique, IRFM) is one of the 15 Institutes that make up the Fundamental Research Division in the CEA (Direction de la Recherche Fondamentale, DRF). For almost 60 years, its responsibility has been to carry out research on thermonuclear magnetically-confined fusion at the CEA in association with the Euratom Fusion Programme. Since the beginning of the Tore Supra programme in the late 80s, it has been located at the CEA Research Centre of Cadarache in the department of the Bouches-du-Rhône. To fulfill its missions, IRFM gathers three departments (and within them, groups), with various objectives expanding from engineering to physics to platform operation.
Result so far? 0!
The successful fission experiment was performed at the JET lab in England:
The Joint European Torus (JET), sited at Culham in Oxfordshire, has been pioneering this fusion approach for nearly 40 years.
I don’t know what it has to do with your France labs other than they are all a part of the consortium.
In any case, you're wrong. The JET lab got to 5 seconds, didn’t melt. If you have an issue with some French lab, I don’t care. It’s irrelevant.
The Joint European Torus (JET) has not been able to to do any fusion and fission work of value ever!
Says who?
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Yes, it is off topic but to start fusion you have to heat up the machine and then it melts = no fusion!!! Just confusion.
Says who? You? You've already demonstrated you know next to nothing. The French reactor didn't melt. In fact, they have a solution:
No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, to achieve fusion in a lab, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field.
Try and get with the 21st century. You're stuck in about 1943.
The French reactor down the road from me is not yet ready in spite of enormous cost and time overruns. I follow it since many years. And that the plasma can protect the reactor from melting is yet to be proven in a lab and full scale. It is the suggested that the temperature will be >1 000 000C in the plasma and that that heat shall in turn heat up water to high pressure steam in a heat exchanger. Sounds optimistic.
It is optimistic, especially on a large scale. But it was done in a lab, which you said couldn’t happen. But it did. And it didn’t melt like you claimed. From the article:
Many technical challenges remain, however. In Europe, these challenges are being worked on by the Eurofusion consortium, which comprises some 5,000 science and engineering experts from across the EU, Switzerland and Ukraine.
"It's a landmark because they demonstrated stability of the plasma over five seconds. That doesn't sound very long, but on a nuclear timescale, it's a very, very long time indeed. And it's very easy then to go from five seconds to five minutes, or five hours, or even longer."
In other words, we’re probably a couple of generations away from actual large scale applications. But that doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist or can’t be done. As evidenced here, it can be done and has been done.
I was not talking about the Eurofusion consortium at CEA Cadarache Centre but the ITER next door. None of them has created high heat in a plasma that has been converted to steam and energy. ITER is just a joke! It will never work. It is pure fraud.
The Institute for Magnetic Fusion Research (Institut de Recherche sur la Fusion par confinement Magnétique, IRFM) is one of the 15 Institutes that make up the Fundamental Research Division in the CEA (Direction de la Recherche Fondamentale, DRF). For almost 60 years, its responsibility has been to carry out research on thermonuclear magnetically-confined fusion at the CEA in association with the Euratom Fusion Programme. Since the beginning of the Tore Supra programme in the late 80s, it has been located at the CEA Research Centre of Cadarache in the department of the Bouches-du-Rhône. To fulfill its missions, IRFM gathers three departments (and within them, groups), with various objectives expanding from engineering to physics to platform operation.
Result so far? 0!
The successful fission experiment was performed at the JET lab in England:
The Joint European Torus (JET), sited at Culham in Oxfordshire, has been pioneering this fusion approach for nearly 40 years.
I don’t know what it has to do with your France labs other than they are all a part of the consortium.
In any case, you're wrong. The JET lab got to 5 seconds, didn’t melt. If you have an issue with some French lab, I don’t care. It’s irrelevant.
The Joint European Torus (JET) has not been able to to do any fusion and fission work of value ever!
Says who?
The Joint European Torus (JET) itself. Check its website.
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Yes, it is off topic but to start fusion you have to heat up the machine and then it melts = no fusion!!! Just confusion.
Says who? You? You've already demonstrated you know next to nothing. The French reactor didn't melt. In fact, they have a solution:
No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, to achieve fusion in a lab, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field.
Try and get with the 21st century. You're stuck in about 1943.
The French reactor down the road from me is not yet ready in spite of enormous cost and time overruns. I follow it since many years. And that the plasma can protect the reactor from melting is yet to be proven in a lab and full scale. It is the suggested that the temperature will be >1 000 000C in the plasma and that that heat shall in turn heat up water to high pressure steam in a heat exchanger. Sounds optimistic.
It is optimistic, especially on a large scale. But it was done in a lab, which you said couldn’t happen. But it did. And it didn’t melt like you claimed. From the article:
Many technical challenges remain, however. In Europe, these challenges are being worked on by the Eurofusion consortium, which comprises some 5,000 science and engineering experts from across the EU, Switzerland and Ukraine.
"It's a landmark because they demonstrated stability of the plasma over five seconds. That doesn't sound very long, but on a nuclear timescale, it's a very, very long time indeed. And it's very easy then to go from five seconds to five minutes, or five hours, or even longer."
In other words, we’re probably a couple of generations away from actual large scale applications. But that doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist or can’t be done. As evidenced here, it can be done and has been done.
I was not talking about the Eurofusion consortium at CEA Cadarache Centre but the ITER next door. None of them has created high heat in a plasma that has been converted to steam and energy. ITER is just a joke! It will never work. It is pure fraud.
The Institute for Magnetic Fusion Research (Institut de Recherche sur la Fusion par confinement Magnétique, IRFM) is one of the 15 Institutes that make up the Fundamental Research Division in the CEA (Direction de la Recherche Fondamentale, DRF). For almost 60 years, its responsibility has been to carry out research on thermonuclear magnetically-confined fusion at the CEA in association with the Euratom Fusion Programme. Since the beginning of the Tore Supra programme in the late 80s, it has been located at the CEA Research Centre of Cadarache in the department of the Bouches-du-Rhône. To fulfill its missions, IRFM gathers three departments (and within them, groups), with various objectives expanding from engineering to physics to platform operation.
Result so far? 0!
The successful fission experiment was performed at the JET lab in England:
The Joint European Torus (JET), sited at Culham in Oxfordshire, has been pioneering this fusion approach for nearly 40 years.
I don’t know what it has to do with your France labs other than they are all a part of the consortium.
In any case, you're wrong. The JET lab got to 5 seconds, didn’t melt. If you have an issue with some French lab, I don’t care. It’s irrelevant.
The Joint European Torus (JET) has not been able to to do any fusion and fission work of value ever!
Says who?
The Joint European Torus (JET) itself. Check its website.
I just checked:
1978 JET construction starts
1983 First plasma in JET
1991 First experiments with tritium
1997 High performance full deuterium-tritium experiments. JET achieves world record fusion power of 16.1 MW.
2009/10 JET installs a new beryllium/tungsten plasma facing wall to test this configuration for ITER.
2019/20 Preparations well advanced for new deuterium-tritium experiments, designed to sustain high fusion performance for longer periods.
2022 Landmark results from EUROfusion scientists and engineers at world-leading UK Atomic Energy Authority’s Joint European Torus (JET) facility in Oxford - Record-breaking 59 megajoules of sustained fusion energy demonstrates powerplant potential and strengthens case for ITER
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Yes, it is off topic but to start fusion you have to heat up the machine and then it melts = no fusion!!! Just confusion.
Says who? You? You've already demonstrated you know next to nothing. The French reactor didn't melt. In fact, they have a solution:
No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, to achieve fusion in a lab, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field.
Try and get with the 21st century. You're stuck in about 1943.
The French reactor down the road from me is not yet ready in spite of enormous cost and time overruns. I follow it since many years. And that the plasma can protect the reactor from melting is yet to be proven in a lab and full scale. It is the suggested that the temperature will be >1 000 000C in the plasma and that that heat shall in turn heat up water to high pressure steam in a heat exchanger. Sounds optimistic.
It is optimistic, especially on a large scale. But it was done in a lab, which you said couldn’t happen. But it did. And it didn’t melt like you claimed. From the article:
Many technical challenges remain, however. In Europe, these challenges are being worked on by the Eurofusion consortium, which comprises some 5,000 science and engineering experts from across the EU, Switzerland and Ukraine.
"It's a landmark because they demonstrated stability of the plasma over five seconds. That doesn't sound very long, but on a nuclear timescale, it's a very, very long time indeed. And it's very easy then to go from five seconds to five minutes, or five hours, or even longer."
In other words, we’re probably a couple of generations away from actual large scale applications. But that doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist or can’t be done. As evidenced here, it can be done and has been done.
I was not talking about the Eurofusion consortium at CEA Cadarache Centre but the ITER next door. None of them has created high heat in a plasma that has been converted to steam and energy. ITER is just a joke! It will never work. It is pure fraud.
The Institute for Magnetic Fusion Research (Institut de Recherche sur la Fusion par confinement Magnétique, IRFM) is one of the 15 Institutes that make up the Fundamental Research Division in the CEA (Direction de la Recherche Fondamentale, DRF). For almost 60 years, its responsibility has been to carry out research on thermonuclear magnetically-confined fusion at the CEA in association with the Euratom Fusion Programme. Since the beginning of the Tore Supra programme in the late 80s, it has been located at the CEA Research Centre of Cadarache in the department of the Bouches-du-Rhône. To fulfill its missions, IRFM gathers three departments (and within them, groups), with various objectives expanding from engineering to physics to platform operation.
Result so far? 0!
The successful fission experiment was performed at the JET lab in England:
The Joint European Torus (JET), sited at Culham in Oxfordshire, has been pioneering this fusion approach for nearly 40 years.
I don’t know what it has to do with your France labs other than they are all a part of the consortium.
In any case, you're wrong. The JET lab got to 5 seconds, didn’t melt. If you have an issue with some French lab, I don’t care. It’s irrelevant.
The Joint European Torus (JET) has not been able to to do any fusion and fission work of value ever!
Says who?
The Joint European Torus (JET) itself. Check its website.
I just checked:
1978 JET construction starts
1983 First plasma in JET
1991 First experiments with tritium
1997 High performance full deuterium-tritium experiments. JET achieves world record fusion power of 16.1 MW.
2009/10 JET installs a new beryllium/tungsten plasma facing wall to test this configuration for ITER.
2019/20 Preparations well advanced for new deuterium-tritium experiments, designed to sustain high fusion performance for longer periods.
2022 Landmark results from EUROfusion scientists and engineers at world-leading UK Atomic Energy Authority’s Joint European Torus (JET) facility in Oxford - Record-breaking 59 megajoules of sustained fusion energy demonstrates powerplant potential and strengthens case for ITER
I know. After 44 years of various tests JET got its machine started and produced 59MJ of sustained fusion energy during a few seconds. And then the whole thing melted. Fiasco!
But topic is the JWST looking for the end of the Universe 14 billion light years away. But it seems Hubble in HEO has just beaten JWST and seen a star 28 billion light years away!! Through a gravity lens!!
-
You can even build a fusion reactor for yourself, right at home. It's not the easiest thing in the world, or the cheapest, but it's possible for someone as well educated, funded, and connected as Heiwa is to make this and rejoice in the wonders of nuclear fusion.
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
It's also another great diversion from Heiwa, completely off topic.
Yes, it is off topic but to start fusion you have to heat up the machine and then it melts = no fusion!!! Just confusion.
Says who? You? You've already demonstrated you know next to nothing. The French reactor didn't melt. In fact, they have a solution:
No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, to achieve fusion in a lab, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field.
Try and get with the 21st century. You're stuck in about 1943.
The French reactor down the road from me is not yet ready in spite of enormous cost and time overruns. I follow it since many years. And that the plasma can protect the reactor from melting is yet to be proven in a lab and full scale. It is the suggested that the temperature will be >1 000 000C in the plasma and that that heat shall in turn heat up water to high pressure steam in a heat exchanger. Sounds optimistic.
It is optimistic, especially on a large scale. But it was done in a lab, which you said couldn’t happen. But it did. And it didn’t melt like you claimed. From the article:
Many technical challenges remain, however. In Europe, these challenges are being worked on by the Eurofusion consortium, which comprises some 5,000 science and engineering experts from across the EU, Switzerland and Ukraine.
"It's a landmark because they demonstrated stability of the plasma over five seconds. That doesn't sound very long, but on a nuclear timescale, it's a very, very long time indeed. And it's very easy then to go from five seconds to five minutes, or five hours, or even longer."
In other words, we’re probably a couple of generations away from actual large scale applications. But that doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist or can’t be done. As evidenced here, it can be done and has been done.
I was not talking about the Eurofusion consortium at CEA Cadarache Centre but the ITER next door. None of them has created high heat in a plasma that has been converted to steam and energy. ITER is just a joke! It will never work. It is pure fraud.
The Institute for Magnetic Fusion Research (Institut de Recherche sur la Fusion par confinement Magnétique, IRFM) is one of the 15 Institutes that make up the Fundamental Research Division in the CEA (Direction de la Recherche Fondamentale, DRF). For almost 60 years, its responsibility has been to carry out research on thermonuclear magnetically-confined fusion at the CEA in association with the Euratom Fusion Programme. Since the beginning of the Tore Supra programme in the late 80s, it has been located at the CEA Research Centre of Cadarache in the department of the Bouches-du-Rhône. To fulfill its missions, IRFM gathers three departments (and within them, groups), with various objectives expanding from engineering to physics to platform operation.
Result so far? 0!
The successful fission experiment was performed at the JET lab in England:
The Joint European Torus (JET), sited at Culham in Oxfordshire, has been pioneering this fusion approach for nearly 40 years.
I don’t know what it has to do with your France labs other than they are all a part of the consortium.
In any case, you're wrong. The JET lab got to 5 seconds, didn’t melt. If you have an issue with some French lab, I don’t care. It’s irrelevant.
The Joint European Torus (JET) has not been able to to do any fusion and fission work of value ever!
Says who?
The Joint European Torus (JET) itself. Check its website.
I just checked:
1978 JET construction starts
1983 First plasma in JET
1991 First experiments with tritium
1997 High performance full deuterium-tritium experiments. JET achieves world record fusion power of 16.1 MW.
2009/10 JET installs a new beryllium/tungsten plasma facing wall to test this configuration for ITER.
2019/20 Preparations well advanced for new deuterium-tritium experiments, designed to sustain high fusion performance for longer periods.
2022 Landmark results from EUROfusion scientists and engineers at world-leading UK Atomic Energy Authority’s Joint European Torus (JET) facility in Oxford - Record-breaking 59 megajoules of sustained fusion energy demonstrates powerplant potential and strengthens case for ITER
I know. After 44 years of various tests JET got its machine started and produced 59MJ of sustained fusion energy during a few seconds. And then the whole thing melted. Fiasco!
What melted?
But topic is the JWST looking for the end of the Universe 14 billion light years away. But it seems Hubble in HEO has just beaten JWST and seen a star 28 billion light years away!! Through a gravity lens!!
Yep, Hubble still rocks. It's kinda hard for JWST to best Hubble when it's still a couple of months away from actually being online. Try and apply some logic every now and again.
-
Space telescopes are just toys for boys!
-
Space telescopes are just toys for boys!
Apparently, so is the coulombi egg tanker. Just a failed idea that some merely toyed with as none have ever sailed. Relegated to the dusty crates of forgotten flights of fancy.
(https://i.imgur.com/q9tyKuo.png)
-
Space telescopes are just toys for boys!
Apparently, so is the coulombi egg tanker. Just a failed idea that some merely toyed with as none have ever sailed. Relegated to the dusty crates of forgotten flights of fancy.
(https://i.imgur.com/q9tyKuo.png)
No, how to make oil transport at sea with reduced risk of oil spills was discussed by United Nations 1990/7. The USA suggested double hull but in the end United Nations, incl. USA, unanimously adopted autumn 1997 other ideas, rules and criteria, incl. my Coulombi Egg tanker concept, which is explained on the Internet. However, the next day some USCG admiral explained that Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports, etc. The matter was and has been discussed in the US Congress that decided to investigate further with the result ... no result. But the Coulombi Egg tanker is approved and not a failed idea and used, even if the CE tankers cannot enter US ports. What this has to do with topic - JWST in space - is beyond me. I just have a great view of an ocean outside my window.
-
As much as Heiwa is trolling this thread and filling it with his own brand of BS, it is clear Heiwa has taken a keen interest in the JWST, even if he doesn't want to admit he's looking forward to what it discovers and even if he doesn't want to admit that it's real and it's happening
-
As much as Heiwa is trolling this thread and filling it with his own brand of BS, it is clear Heiwa has taken a keen interest in the JWST, even if he doesn't want to admit he's looking forward to what it discovers and even if he doesn't want to admit that it's real and it's happening
No, I just made a comment - see reply #8 on: December 26, 2021, 03:22:11 AM . Pls read it again.
I know what JWST will find in the Universe with no beginning nor end. Absolutely nothing of interest.
-
As much as Heiwa is trolling this thread and filling it with his own brand of BS, it is clear Heiwa has taken a keen interest in the JWST, even if he doesn't want to admit he's looking forward to what it discovers and even if he doesn't want to admit that it's real and it's happening
No, I just made a comment - see reply #8 on: December 26, 2021, 03:22:11 AM . Pls read it again.
I know what JWST will find in the Universe with no beginning nor end. Absolutely nothing of interest.
No one cares what you personally find interesting or not. This endeavour is not for you. Sorry if that deflates your ego
-
As much as Heiwa is trolling this thread and filling it with his own brand of BS, it is clear Heiwa has taken a keen interest in the JWST, even if he doesn't want to admit he's looking forward to what it discovers and even if he doesn't want to admit that it's real and it's happening
No, I just made a comment - see reply #8 on: December 26, 2021, 03:22:11 AM . Pls read it again.
I know what JWST will find in the Universe with no beginning nor end. Absolutely nothing of interest.
No one cares what you personally find interesting or not. This endeavour is not for you. Sorry if that deflates your ego
I just commented that I could study the Universe from my window just like the JWST without a telescope. So far I have seen nothing of interest in the Universe. Only billions of stars and galaxies of little interest.
-
Space telescopes are just toys for boys!
Apparently, so is the coulombi egg tanker. Just a failed idea that some merely toyed with as none have ever sailed. Relegated to the dusty crates of forgotten flights of fancy.
(https://i.imgur.com/q9tyKuo.png)
No, how to make oil transport at sea with reduced risk of oil spills was discussed by United Nations 1990/7. The USA suggested double hull but in the end United Nations, incl. USA, unanimously adopted autumn 1997 other ideas, rules and criteria, incl. my Coulombi Egg tanker concept, which is explained on the Internet. However, the next day some USCG admiral explained that Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports, etc. The matter was and has been discussed in the US Congress that decided to investigate further with the result ... no result. But the Coulombi Egg tanker is approved and not a failed idea and used, even if the CE tankers cannot enter US ports. What this has to do with topic - JWST in space - is beyond me. I just have a great view of an ocean outside my window.
HAHAHA... Anders thinks what the UN says matters.
-
As much as Heiwa is trolling this thread and filling it with his own brand of BS, it is clear Heiwa has taken a keen interest in the JWST, even if he doesn't want to admit he's looking forward to what it discovers and even if he doesn't want to admit that it's real and it's happening
No, I just made a comment - see reply #8 on: December 26, 2021, 03:22:11 AM . Pls read it again.
I know what JWST will find in the Universe with no beginning nor end. Absolutely nothing of interest.
No one cares what you personally find interesting or not. This endeavour is not for you. Sorry if that deflates your ego
I just commented that I could study the Universe from my window just like the JWST without a telescope. So far I have seen nothing of interest in the Universe. Only billions of stars and galaxies of little interest.
You have not seen 'billions of stars'. Only hundreds. And even then, you have zero information about any of them other than they look like a 'white dot in the sky'
You dont know what type of star they are, about planets orbiting them, their distance or literally anything to do with astronomy at all. Your window observations suck. If that's all you're after, good for you. The rest of us inquisitive minds want a lot more. And the telescope will provide. No one cares about what you think or your stupid trolling efforts. No one cares about your ignorance. No one cares about your window. And no one cares when you finally kick the bucket.
-
As much as Heiwa is trolling this thread and filling it with his own brand of BS, it is clear Heiwa has taken a keen interest in the JWST, even if he doesn't want to admit he's looking forward to what it discovers and even if he doesn't want to admit that it's real and it's happening
No, I just made a comment - see reply #8 on: December 26, 2021, 03:22:11 AM . Pls read it again.
I know what JWST will find in the Universe with no beginning nor end. Absolutely nothing of interest.
No one cares what you personally find interesting or not. This endeavour is not for you. Sorry if that deflates your ego
I just commented that I could study the Universe from my window just like the JWST without a telescope. So far I have seen nothing of interest in the Universe. Only billions of stars and galaxies of little interest.
You have not seen 'billions of stars'. Only hundreds. And even then, you have zero information about any of them other than they look like a 'white dot in the sky'
You dont know what type of star they are, about planets orbiting them, their distance or literally anything to do with astronomy at all. Your window observations suck. If that's all you're after, good for you. The rest of us inquisitive minds want a lot more. And the telescope will provide. No one cares about what you think or your stupid trolling efforts. No one cares about your ignorance. No one cares about your window. And no one cares when you finally kick the bucket.
OK, so far JWST has provided one photo of a nearby star in our Milky Way galaxy to adjust the scope. There are then billions of other galaxies to look at with plenty stars in each of them for inquisitive minds to study. Good luck. What do you expect to find? The end/beginning of the Universe? Only sick people waste time looking at stars and galaxies.
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving. 8 minutes from the Sun, 14 billion years from the End of the Universe. I have already seen them. Nothing new there!
Only sick people waste time look at stars and galaxies.
Thanks for finally admitting you are a sick person.
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving. 8 minutes from the Sun, 14 billion years from the End of the Universe. I have already seen them. Nothing new there!
Only sick people waste time look at stars and galaxies.
Thanks for finally admitting you are a sick person.
No, I just happen to have windows facing the sky.
-
You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out.
No, I just look out through my window and see all these photons arriving. 8 minutes from the Sun, 14 billion years from the End of the Universe. I have already seen them. Nothing new there!
Only sick people waste time look at stars and galaxies.
Thanks for finally admitting you are a sick person.
No, I just happen to have windows facing the sky.
So they don't face the ocean like you just recently stated?
I just have a great view of an ocean outside my window.
-
Space telescopes are just toys for boys!
Apparently, so is the coulombi egg tanker. Just a failed idea that some merely toyed with as none have ever sailed. Relegated to the dusty crates of forgotten flights of fancy.
(https://i.imgur.com/q9tyKuo.png)
No, how to make oil transport at sea with reduced risk of oil spills was discussed by United Nations 1990/7. The USA suggested double hull but in the end United Nations, incl. USA, unanimously adopted autumn 1997 other ideas, rules and criteria, incl. my Coulombi Egg tanker concept, which is explained on the Internet. However, the next day some USCG admiral explained that Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports, etc. The matter was and has been discussed in the US Congress that decided to investigate further with the result ... no result. But the Coulombi Egg tanker is approved and not a failed idea and used, even if the CE tankers cannot enter US ports.
It was rejected because the design is terrible for low speed shallow collisions which are the majority of tanker incidents.
It's not hard to understand, looking at the design I can see the reasoning. It has no protection for the lower tanks, any hull damage to the bottom will leak, unlike a double hull design which is clearly the superior option.
The reason nobody ever built one is because it's a bad idea.
-
Space telescopes are just toys for boys!
The difference between the men and the boys is the price of their toys.
-
Space telescopes are just toys for boys!
The difference between the men and the boys is the price of their toys.
You are right again. I cannot argue about it.
-
Space telescopes are just toys for boys!
The difference between the men and the boys is the price of their toys.
You are right again. I cannot argue about it.
And yet you do.
-
Space telescopes are just toys for boys!
The difference between the men and the boys is the price of their toys.
You are right again. I cannot argue about it.
And yet you do.
Yes, but I watch the Universe from my window and I do not need a fake telescope in space doing it for me.
-
Yes, but I watch the Universe from my window and I do not need a fake telescope in space doing it for me.
Good for you. That means that you won't be stealing any telescope time from real astronomers who do need space telescopes.
-
Yes, but I watch the Universe from my window and I do not need a fake telescope in space doing it for me.
Good for you. That means that you won't be stealing any telescope time from real astronomers who do need space telescopes.
Correct. And no asstronmers will sit and watch anything in space through the JWST tube. The JWST, if it exists, just take photos in infrarred of objects in the Universe, that are then sent to Earth for examination. It is all automatic and remote controlled.
-
Yes, but I watch the Universe from my window and I do not need a fake telescope in space doing it for me.
Good for you. That means that you won't be stealing any telescope time from real astronomers who do need space telescopes.
Correct. And no asstronmers will sit and watch anything in space through the JWST tube. The JWST, if it exists, just take photos in infrarred of objects in the Universe, that are then sent to Earth for examination. It is all automatic and remote controlled.
That doesn't mean that the time required to do observations isn't meticulously scheduled and allocated, and that none of that precious resource would ever be given to someone with less than minimum adequate credentials.
-
Yes, but I watch the Universe from my window and I do not need a fake telescope in space doing it for me.
Good for you. That means that you won't be stealing any telescope time from real astronomers who do need space telescopes.
Correct. And no asstronmers will sit and watch anything in space through the JWST tube. The JWST, if it exists, just take photos in infrarred of objects in the Universe, that are then sent to Earth for examination. It is all automatic and remote controlled.
That doesn't mean that the time required to do observations isn't meticulously scheduled and allocated, and that none of that precious resource would ever be given to someone with less than minimum adequate credentials.
Please, the JWST just takes pictures of objects like the beginning and end of the Universe and what's in between, which I can see from my window without any credentials at all. Nobody observes anything from the JWST, if it exists. I haven't even seen a waiting list to observe anything from the JWST.
-
The JWST, if it exists, just take photos in infrarred of objects in the Universe, that are then sent to Earth for examination.
"Just take photographs" is a gross oversimplification of what JWST's science instruments will be doing.
-
The JWST, if it exists, just take photos in infrarred of objects in the Universe, that are then sent to Earth for examination.
"Just take photographs" is a gross oversimplification of what JWST's science instruments will be doing.
?? What else will it do than taking photos?
-
The JWST, if it exists, just take photos in infrarred of objects in the Universe, that are then sent to Earth for examination.
"Just take photographs" is a gross oversimplification of what JWST's science instruments will be doing.
?? What else will it do than taking photos?
It's not so much that it's taking photos, but the types of photos and the scientific data that they will provide that's important and can't possibly be collected from your window.
https://sci.esa.int/web/jwst/-/45752-jwst-instruments
-
The JWST, if it exists, just take photos in infrarred of objects in the Universe, that are then sent to Earth for examination.
"Just take photographs" is a gross oversimplification of what JWST's science instruments will be doing.
?? What else will it do than taking photos?
It's not so much that it's taking photos, but the types of photos and the scientific data that they will provide that's important and can't possibly be collected from your window.
https://sci.esa.int/web/jwst/-/45752-jwst-instruments
No, there are only four instruments on the JWST that can measure mysterious things that I can measure from my window, bla, bla And important??? Why are they so important? Isn't it enough that I observe things from my window? Do I need a telescope in space for it? NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time. At least you reply. Thanks.
-
No, there are only four instruments on the JWST that can measure mysterious things that I can measure from my window, bla, bla
No, you can't measure infrared light from billions of light years away from your window.
And important??? Why are they so important?
Because they can help scientists better understand the nature and origin of the universe. If you don't think that's important, then that's your problem.
Isn't it enough that I observe things from my window? Do I need a telescope in space for it?
If your observations of the universe from your window is enough for you, then fine. I keep telling you that JWST is not meant for your needs, but for the needs of astronomers and astrophysicists. Why is that so hard for you to understand or accept?
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time. At least you reply. Thanks.
That's alright, I consider you too stupid and not worth the time too. I just reply because I'm bored.
-
No, there are only four instruments on the JWST that can measure mysterious things that I can measure from my window, bla, bla
No, you can't measure infrared light from billions of light years away from your window.
And important??? Why are they so important?
Because they can help scientists better understand the nature and origin of the universe. If you don't think that's important, then that's your problem.
Isn't it enough that I observe things from my window? Do I need a telescope in space for it?
If your observations of the universe from your window is enough for you, then fine. I keep telling you that JWST is not meant for your needs, but for the needs of astronomers and astrophysicists. Why is that so hard for you to understand or accept?
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time. At least you reply. Thanks.
That's alright, I consider you too stupid and not worth the time too. I just reply because I'm bored.
Thanks for comments.
I can see a lot from my window. Of course you, Markjo, know better, without having been at it. ...
Scientists understand more than I about it and it is my problem.
Anyway, you agree with me that the JWST is not for me. It is for asstronomers and asstrophysicstis. Why not? I just look out of my window. You consider me too stupid and not worth …
Why do you bother to reply??
Have you ever looked out of a window?
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
-
Anyway, you agree with me that the JWST is not for me. It is for asstronomers and asstrophysicstis. Why not? I just look out of my window. You consider me too stupid and not worth …
Why do you bother to reply??
Have you ever looked out of a window?
If JWST is not for you, why do you reply?
-
Anyway, you agree with me that the JWST is not for me. It is for asstronomers and asstrophysicstis. Why not? I just look out of my window. You consider me too stupid and not worth …
Why do you bother to reply??
Have you ever looked out of a window?
If JWST is not for you, why do you reply?
I just think that the JWST is a joke!
-
I just think that the JWST is a joke!
Why should anyone care what you think?
-
Anyway, you agree with me that the JWST is not for me. It is for asstronomers and asstrophysicstis. Why not? I just look out of my window. You consider me too stupid and not worth …
Why do you bother to reply??
Have you ever looked out of a window?
If JWST is not for you, why do you reply?
I just think that the JWST is a joke!
Good for you. Noted, Heiwa thinks JWST is a joke. Powerful stuff coming from a little-known conspiracy theorist relying simply on what he "thinks". The rest of us look forward to whatever may come out the other end of that thing and be in awe just like were when Hubble started imaging the cosmos like we had never been able to see before.
-
Anyway, you agree with me that the JWST is not for me. It is for asstronomers and asstrophysicstis. Why not? I just look out of my window. You consider me too stupid and not worth …
Why do you bother to reply??
Have you ever looked out of a window?
If JWST is not for you, why do you reply?
I just think that the JWST is a joke!
Good for you. Noted, Heiwa thinks JWST is a joke. Powerful stuff coming from a little-known conspiracy theorist relying simply on what he "thinks". The rest of us look forward to whatever may come out the other end of that thing and be in awe just like were when Hubble started imaging the cosmos like we had never been able to see before.
Well, if you are happy with new photos shopped of the Cosmos, why not? They will tell you nothing. Zero. It isn't even a conspiracy. It just a silly joke. It keeps science fiction asstronomicphysic assholes busy inventing new things like sailing assisted by a solar wind, etc.
-
Anyway, you agree with me that the JWST is not for me. It is for asstronomers and asstrophysicstis. Why not? I just look out of my window. You consider me too stupid and not worth …
Why do you bother to reply??
Have you ever looked out of a window?
If JWST is not for you, why do you reply?
I just think that the JWST is a joke!
Good for you. Noted, Heiwa thinks JWST is a joke. Powerful stuff coming from a little-known conspiracy theorist relying simply on what he "thinks". The rest of us look forward to whatever may come out the other end of that thing and be in awe just like were when Hubble started imaging the cosmos like we had never been able to see before.
Well, if you are happy with new photos shopped of the Cosmos, why not? They will tell you nothing. Zero. It isn't even a conspiracy. It just a silly joke. It keeps science fiction asstronomicphysic assholes busy inventing new things like sailing assisted by a solar wind, etc.
Yeah, we got it, you personally think JWST is a joke. So what?
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
-
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time.
Why don't you show us copies of these questions you are asking them. I'm guessing that yes, they don't consider replying to conspiracy theorist rants worth their time.
-
Anyway, you agree with me that the JWST is not for me. It is for asstronomers and asstrophysicstis. Why not? I just look out of my window. You consider me too stupid and not worth …
Why do you bother to reply??
Have you ever looked out of a window?
If JWST is not for you, why do you reply?
Because he can't help but troll.
-
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time.
Why don't you show us copies of these questions you are asking them. I'm guessing that yes, they don't consider replying to conspiracy theorist rants worth their time.
It is better you yourself ask NASA and ESA to prove the validity of their info.
-
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time.
Why don't you show us copies of these questions you are asking them. I'm guessing that yes, they don't consider replying to conspiracy theorist rants worth their time.
It is better you yourself ask NASA and ESA to prove the validity of their info.
Translation: He can't show you the questions because he's never actually asked them. Just more LIES from the Heiwabot
-
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time.
Why don't you show us copies of these questions you are asking them. I'm guessing that yes, they don't consider replying to conspiracy theorist rants worth their time.
It is better you yourself ask NASA and ESA to prove the validity of their info.
I have and they did.
-
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Just out of curiosity, where did you earn your degree in astronomy?
-
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Just out of curiosity, where did you earn your degree in astronomy?
I graduated from Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden 1969 ... but not in asstronomy. It is just a hobby when looking out of my window.
-
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time.
Why don't you show us copies of these questions you are asking them. I'm guessing that yes, they don't consider replying to conspiracy theorist rants worth their time.
According NASA/ESA the JWST is designed to answer outstanding questions about the Universe and to make breakthrough discoveries in all fields of astronomy. It is good! Questions will be answered. Webb will see farther into our origins: from the formation of stars and planets, to the birth of the first galaxies in the early Universe. Imagine that!
Within the first year of operations, the JWST will help researchers complete a more detailed sketch (?) of the stellar life cycle with high-resolution infrared-light images of 19 galaxies. The missing elements, which the JWST will fill in, are largely in areas of the galaxies that are obscured by dust – regions, where stars are actively beginning to form. Imagine, the JWST can see through dust!
I have asked NASA/ESA how a telescope can see through dust.
-
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time.
Why don't you show us copies of these questions you are asking them. I'm guessing that yes, they don't consider replying to conspiracy theorist rants worth their time.
According NASA/ESA the JWST is designed to answer outstanding questions about the Universe and to make breakthrough discoveries in all fields of astronomy. It is good! Questions will be answered. Webb will see farther into our origins: from the formation of stars and planets, to the birth of the first galaxies in the early Universe. Imagine that!
Within the first year of operations, the JWST will help researchers complete a more detailed sketch (?) of the stellar life cycle with high-resolution infrared-light images of 19 galaxies. The missing elements, which the JWST will fill in, are largely in areas of the galaxies that are obscured by dust – regions, where stars are actively beginning to form. Imagine, the JWST can see through dust!
I have asked NASA/ESA how a telescope can see through dust.
How did you ask them?
-
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time.
Why don't you show us copies of these questions you are asking them. I'm guessing that yes, they don't consider replying to conspiracy theorist rants worth their time.
According NASA/ESA the JWST is designed to answer outstanding questions about the Universe and to make breakthrough discoveries in all fields of astronomy. It is good! Questions will be answered. Webb will see farther into our origins: from the formation of stars and planets, to the birth of the first galaxies in the early Universe. Imagine that!
Within the first year of operations, the JWST will help researchers complete a more detailed sketch (?) of the stellar life cycle with high-resolution infrared-light images of 19 galaxies. The missing elements, which the JWST will fill in, are largely in areas of the galaxies that are obscured by dust – regions, where stars are actively beginning to form. Imagine, the JWST can see through dust!
I have asked NASA/ESA how a telescope can see through dust.
How did you ask them?
Cheapest is a written email. Phone is expensive. Normal letter? The US postmaster is dead. No, I just publish via my own website.
-
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time.
Why don't you show us copies of these questions you are asking them. I'm guessing that yes, they don't consider replying to conspiracy theorist rants worth their time.
According NASA/ESA the JWST is designed to answer outstanding questions about the Universe and to make breakthrough discoveries in all fields of astronomy. It is good! Questions will be answered. Webb will see farther into our origins: from the formation of stars and planets, to the birth of the first galaxies in the early Universe. Imagine that!
Within the first year of operations, the JWST will help researchers complete a more detailed sketch (?) of the stellar life cycle with high-resolution infrared-light images of 19 galaxies. The missing elements, which the JWST will fill in, are largely in areas of the galaxies that are obscured by dust – regions, where stars are actively beginning to form. Imagine, the JWST can see through dust!
I have asked NASA/ESA how a telescope can see through dust.
How did you ask them?
Cheapest is a written email. Phone is expensive. Normal letter? The US postmaster is dead. No, I just publish via my own website.
Let me get this straight - you publish your questions to NASA on your site (the one that Alexa rating says has essentially zero visits), and expect them to find it and respond?
Ah, I see what you do.
"I asked NASA for an answer and they couldn't give me one. HA! Proof it's all a joke."
Which translates to:
"I published a question on my site, that no-one from NASA even knows exists. Because no-one knows about the question, no one can answer it. I can now lie, and claim that I asked NASA a question they couldn't answer, and HA! I now have proof it's a joke."
You're so smart, Heiwa.
-
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time.
Why don't you show us copies of these questions you are asking them. I'm guessing that yes, they don't consider replying to conspiracy theorist rants worth their time.
According NASA/ESA the JWST is designed to answer outstanding questions about the Universe and to make breakthrough discoveries in all fields of astronomy. It is good! Questions will be answered. Webb will see farther into our origins: from the formation of stars and planets, to the birth of the first galaxies in the early Universe. Imagine that!
Within the first year of operations, the JWST will help researchers complete a more detailed sketch (?) of the stellar life cycle with high-resolution infrared-light images of 19 galaxies. The missing elements, which the JWST will fill in, are largely in areas of the galaxies that are obscured by dust – regions, where stars are actively beginning to form. Imagine, the JWST can see through dust!
I have asked NASA/ESA how a telescope can see through dust.
How did you ask them?
Cheapest is a written email. Phone is expensive. Normal letter? The US postmaster is dead. No, I just publish via my own website.
Let me get this straight - you publish your questions to NASA on your site (the one that Alexa rating says has essentially zero visits), and expect them to find it and respond?
Ah, I see what you do.
"I asked NASA for an answer and they couldn't give me one. HA! Proof it's all a joke."
Which translates to:
"I published a question on my site, that no-one from NASA even knows exists. Because no-one knows about the question, no one can answer it. I can now lie, and claim that I asked NASA a question they couldn't answer, and HA! I now have proof it's a joke."
You're so smart, Heiwa.
Thanks, of, course I am smart, rich and good looking. What about you?
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
-
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time.
Why don't you show us copies of these questions you are asking them. I'm guessing that yes, they don't consider replying to conspiracy theorist rants worth their time.
According NASA/ESA the JWST is designed to answer outstanding questions about the Universe and to make breakthrough discoveries in all fields of astronomy. It is good! Questions will be answered. Webb will see farther into our origins: from the formation of stars and planets, to the birth of the first galaxies in the early Universe. Imagine that!
Within the first year of operations, the JWST will help researchers complete a more detailed sketch (?) of the stellar life cycle with high-resolution infrared-light images of 19 galaxies. The missing elements, which the JWST will fill in, are largely in areas of the galaxies that are obscured by dust – regions, where stars are actively beginning to form. Imagine, the JWST can see through dust!
I have asked NASA/ESA how a telescope can see through dust.
How did you ask them?
Cheapest is a written email. Phone is expensive. Normal letter? The US postmaster is dead. No, I just publish via my own website.
Let me get this straight - you publish your questions to NASA on your site (the one that Alexa rating says has essentially zero visits), and expect them to find it and respond?
Ah, I see what you do.
"I asked NASA for an answer and they couldn't give me one. HA! Proof it's all a joke."
Which translates to:
"I published a question on my site, that no-one from NASA even knows exists. Because no-one knows about the question, no one can answer it. I can now lie, and claim that I asked NASA a question they couldn't answer, and HA! I now have proof it's a joke."
You're so smart, Heiwa.
And "he" also apparently doesn't understand sarcasm. But then "he" is likely a bot so that isn't surprising.
So I was correct before. "He" hasn't actually asked so it is just more LIES from the heiwabot.
-
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time.
Why don't you show us copies of these questions you are asking them. I'm guessing that yes, they don't consider replying to conspiracy theorist rants worth their time.
According NASA/ESA the JWST is designed to answer outstanding questions about the Universe and to make breakthrough discoveries in all fields of astronomy. It is good! Questions will be answered. Webb will see farther into our origins: from the formation of stars and planets, to the birth of the first galaxies in the early Universe. Imagine that!
Within the first year of operations, the JWST will help researchers complete a more detailed sketch (?) of the stellar life cycle with high-resolution infrared-light images of 19 galaxies. The missing elements, which the JWST will fill in, are largely in areas of the galaxies that are obscured by dust – regions, where stars are actively beginning to form. Imagine, the JWST can see through dust!
I have asked NASA/ESA how a telescope can see through dust.
How did you ask them?
Cheapest is a written email. Phone is expensive. Normal letter? The US postmaster is dead. No, I just publish via my own website.
Let me get this straight - you publish your questions to NASA on your site (the one that Alexa rating says has essentially zero visits), and expect them to find it and respond?
Ah, I see what you do.
"I asked NASA for an answer and they couldn't give me one. HA! Proof it's all a joke."
Which translates to:
"I published a question on my site, that no-one from NASA even knows exists. Because no-one knows about the question, no one can answer it. I can now lie, and claim that I asked NASA a question they couldn't answer, and HA! I now have proof it's a joke."
You're so smart, Heiwa.
Thanks, of, course I am smart, rich and good looking. What about you?
You are none of those.
Smart people don't treat nonlinear equations as linear by ignoring change in mass due to fuel consumption. Smart people don't add smiley faces to their proofs. Smart people construct arguments without the need to refer to their window.
Rich people don't spend their time on a backwater FE website repeating the same circular arguments. Rich people have a myriad ways of entertaining themselves rather than trolling. Rich people have more to look at than their window.
Good looking?
(https://media.tenor.com/images/4d089b88a62be2f601f384f765613399/tenor.gif)
-
NASA/ESA never replies. It seems they consider me too stupid and not worth the time.
Why don't you show us copies of these questions you are asking them. I'm guessing that yes, they don't consider replying to conspiracy theorist rants worth their time.
According NASA/ESA the JWST is designed to answer outstanding questions about the Universe and to make breakthrough discoveries in all fields of astronomy. It is good! Questions will be answered. Webb will see farther into our origins: from the formation of stars and planets, to the birth of the first galaxies in the early Universe. Imagine that!
Within the first year of operations, the JWST will help researchers complete a more detailed sketch (?) of the stellar life cycle with high-resolution infrared-light images of 19 galaxies. The missing elements, which the JWST will fill in, are largely in areas of the galaxies that are obscured by dust – regions, where stars are actively beginning to form. Imagine, the JWST can see through dust!
I have asked NASA/ESA how a telescope can see through dust.
How did you ask them?
Cheapest is a written email. Phone is expensive. Normal letter? The US postmaster is dead. No, I just publish via my own website.
Let me get this straight - you publish your questions to NASA on your site (the one that Alexa rating says has essentially zero visits), and expect them to find it and respond?
Ah, I see what you do.
"I asked NASA for an answer and they couldn't give me one. HA! Proof it's all a joke."
Which translates to:
"I published a question on my site, that no-one from NASA even knows exists. Because no-one knows about the question, no one can answer it. I can now lie, and claim that I asked NASA a question they couldn't answer, and HA! I now have proof it's a joke."
You're so smart, Heiwa.
Thanks, of, course I am smart, rich and good looking. What about you?
You are none of those.
Smart people don't treat nonlinear equations as linear by ignoring change in mass due to fuel consumption. Smart people don't add smiley faces to their proofs. Smart people construct arguments without the need to refer to their window.
Rich people don't spend their time on a backwater FE website repeating the same circular arguments. Rich people have a myriad ways of entertaining themselves rather than trolling. Rich people have more to look at than their window.
Good looking?
(https://media.tenor.com/images/4d089b88a62be2f601f384f765613399/tenor.gif)
I cannot argue with that nonsense. Re being rich, I agree. What to do with surplus money when you are smart, rich and good looking like me? Give it to the poor? ROTFL!
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
No, I use a thermometer to measure temperature. Or my finger.
No, in darkness I cannot see a thing. I use my eyes when there is lightning and light. Do you see in darkness?
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
No, I use a thermometer to measure temperature. Or my finger.
No, in darkness I cannot see a thing. I use my eyes when there is lightning and light. Do you see in darkness?
So you admit that the JWST can see things that you can't.
Because The JWST can see infrared light with wavelengeths of up to 30 micrometers.
Room temperature object peak at around 10.
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
No, I use a thermometer to measure temperature. Or my finger.
No, in darkness I cannot see a thing. I use my eyes when there is lightning and light. Do you see in darkness?
So you admit that the JWST can see things that you can't.
Because The JWST can see infrared light with wavelengeths of up to 30 micrometers.
Room temperature object peak at around 10.
?? NASA/ESA says JWST can take pictures, which I can do from my window because I have a camera. What camera JWST has is not clear. If I put IR film in my camera, it can take IR photos.
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
No, I use a thermometer to measure temperature. Or my finger.
No, in darkness I cannot see a thing. I use my eyes when there is lightning and light. Do you see in darkness?
So you admit that the JWST can see things that you can't.
Because The JWST can see infrared light with wavelengeths of up to 30 micrometers.
Room temperature object peak at around 10.
?? NASA/ESA says JWST can take pictures, which I can do from my window because I have a camera. What camera JWST has is not clear. If I put IR film in my camera, it can take IR photos.
What's your maximum focal length for your film camera?
-
?? NASA/ESA says JWST can take pictures, which I can do from my window because I have a camera. What camera JWST has is not clear. If I put IR film in my camera, it can take IR photos.
No, you can't. You're ignorance is showing, again.
An "IR film" in you camera would be exposed to all the IR radiation emanating from the camera itself, due to its ambient temperature. Your "IR film" would be overexposed and you would have a beautiful image of the temperature of your camera.
Fortunately, having the camera situated in a cold environment, such as in space shielded from sunlight, prevents this.
Funny how that's where the JWST is currently situated.
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
No, I use a thermometer to measure temperature. Or my finger.
No, in darkness I cannot see a thing. I use my eyes when there is lightning and light. Do you see in darkness?
So you admit that the JWST can see things that you can't.
Because The JWST can see infrared light with wavelengeths of up to 30 micrometers.
Room temperature object peak at around 10.
?? NASA/ESA says JWST can take pictures, which I can do from my window because I have a camera. What camera JWST has is not clear. If I put IR film in my camera, it can take IR photos.
What's your maximum focal length for your film camera?
I have a Nikon F2 from 1973 with different lenses. Still works fine. Problem is the film.
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
No, I use a thermometer to measure temperature. Or my finger.
No, in darkness I cannot see a thing. I use my eyes when there is lightning and light. Do you see in darkness?
So you admit that the JWST can see things that you can't.
Because The JWST can see infrared light with wavelengeths of up to 30 micrometers.
Room temperature object peak at around 10.
?? NASA/ESA says JWST can take pictures, which I can do from my window because I have a camera. What camera JWST has is not clear. If I put IR film in my camera, it can take IR photos.
What's your maximum focal length for your film camera?
I have a Nikon F2 from 1973 with different lenses. Still works fine. Problem is the film.
What's the maximum focal length of a lens you have for your Nikon F2?
-
I have a Nikon F2 from 1973 with different lenses. Still works fine. Problem is the film.
What's the maximum focal length of a lens you have for your Nikon F2?
Haven't got a clue. Topic is JWST that I film in the sky from my window at L2 with a digital camera.
-
I have a Nikon F2 from 1973 with different lenses. Still works fine. Problem is the film.
What's the maximum focal length of a lens you have for your Nikon F2?
Haven't got a clue.
Explains a lot.
If you have a lens with a super long focal length, like you see in those massive lenses at sporting events, you're looking at about 1200MM max. That's millimeters. The JWST main camera focal length is 131.4 meters. That's METERS! Not millimeters.
So no, your camera doesn't even remotely compare to JWST's. Any idiot can see that.
Topic is JWST that I film in the sky from my window at L2 with a digital camera.
Yes, the topic is JWST, not your window. So why do youu keep talking about your window when it's off-topic?
-
I have a Nikon F2 from 1973 with different lenses. Still works fine. Problem is the film.
What's the maximum focal length of a lens you have for your Nikon F2?
Haven't got a clue.
Explains a lot.
If you have a lens with a super long focal length, like you see in those massive lenses at sporting events, you're looking at about 1200MM max. That's millimeters. The JWST main camera focal length is 131.4 meters. That's METERS! Not millimeters.
So no, your camera doesn't even remotely compare to JWST's. Any idiot can see that.
Topic is JWST that I film in the sky from my window at L2 with a digital camera.
Yes, the topic is JWST, not your window. So why do you keep talking about your window when it's off-topic?
I just watch JWST, the sky and the Universe from my window. And take pictures. So now it is clear that JWST just take pictures and doesn't watch anything.
-
I have a Nikon F2 from 1973 with different lenses. Still works fine. Problem is the film.
What's the maximum focal length of a lens you have for your Nikon F2?
Haven't got a clue.
Explains a lot.
If you have a lens with a super long focal length, like you see in those massive lenses at sporting events, you're looking at about 1200MM max. That's millimeters. The JWST main camera focal length is 131.4 meters. That's METERS! Not millimeters.
So no, your camera doesn't even remotely compare to JWST's. Any idiot can see that.
Topic is JWST that I film in the sky from my window at L2 with a digital camera.
Yes, the topic is JWST, not your window. So why do you keep talking about your window when it's off-topic?
I just watch JWST, the sky and the Universe from my window. And take pictures. So now it is clear that JWST just take pictures and doesn't watch anything.
You can't see JWST from your window. And yes, JWST takes pictures.
-
I have asked NASA/ESA how a telescope can see through dust.
Here is NASA's answer:
https://science.nasa.gov/ems/07_infraredwaves
SEEING THROUGH DUST
Infrared waves have longer wavelengths than visible light and can pass through dense regions of gas and dust in space with less scattering and absorption. Thus, infrared energy can also reveal objects in the universe that cannot be seen in visible light using optical telescopes. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has three infrared instruments to help study the origins of the universe and the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets.
Here is an example of the difference between visible light and infrared astronomy:
(https://science.nasa.gov/science-pink/s3fs-public/styles/large/public/thumbnails/image/infrared-7.jpg?itok=L1GxAsPD)
What can you see from your window?
-
I have asked NASA/ESA how a telescope can see through dust.
Here is NASA's answer:
https://science.nasa.gov/ems/07_infraredwaves
SEEING THROUGH DUST
Infrared waves have longer wavelengths than visible light and can pass through dense regions of gas and dust in space with less scattering and absorption. Thus, infrared energy can also reveal objects in the universe that cannot be seen in visible light using optical telescopes. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has three infrared instruments to help study the origins of the universe and the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets.
Here is an example of the difference between visible light and infrared astronomy:
(https://science.nasa.gov/science-pink/s3fs-public/styles/large/public/thumbnails/image/infrared-7.jpg?itok=L1GxAsPD)
What can you see from your window?
When dust blocks the view from my window, I just see the dust. It happens when there are sand storms in north Africa.
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
No, I use a thermometer to measure temperature. Or my finger.
No, in darkness I cannot see a thing. I use my eyes when there is lightning and light. Do you see in darkness?
So you admit that the JWST can see things that you can't.
Because The JWST can see infrared light with wavelengeths of up to 30 micrometers.
Room temperature object peak at around 10.
?? NASA/ESA says JWST can take pictures, which I can do from my window because I have a camera. What camera JWST has is not clear. If I put IR film in my camera, it can take IR photos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosfaerisk_spredning.png
Some portions of the IR spectrum can't even reach the surface.
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
No, I use a thermometer to measure temperature. Or my finger.
No, in darkness I cannot see a thing. I use my eyes when there is lightning and light. Do you see in darkness?
So you admit that the JWST can see things that you can't.
Because The JWST can see infrared light with wavelengeths of up to 30 micrometers.
Room temperature object peak at around 10.
?? NASA/ESA says JWST can take pictures, which I can do from my window because I have a camera. What camera JWST has is not clear. If I put IR film in my camera, it can take IR photos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosfaerisk_spredning.png
Some portions of the IR spectrum can't even reach the surface.
Color Infrared film captures invisible infrared light from the red end of the spectrum, light that’s not visible to the naked eye and characteristically turning green vegetation a bright red. Shooting analog infrared used to be complicated and expensive, results unpredictable and not making it worth the trouble. Then with commercially available infrared films and a color filters, anyone could experiment, creating artful science fiction landscapes. This I did 40 years ago for fun. But I can assure you that, if there were dust between the camera and object to be filmed, you filmed nothing. NASA/ESA suggest that the JWST can film through dust in space to watch the origins of stars, galaxies and the Universe itself, but it is utterly ridiculous. That's why I consider the JWST complete nonsense.
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
No, I use a thermometer to measure temperature. Or my finger.
No, in darkness I cannot see a thing. I use my eyes when there is lightning and light. Do you see in darkness?
So you admit that the JWST can see things that you can't.
Because The JWST can see infrared light with wavelengeths of up to 30 micrometers.
Room temperature object peak at around 10.
?? NASA/ESA says JWST can take pictures, which I can do from my window because I have a camera. What camera JWST has is not clear. If I put IR film in my camera, it can take IR photos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosfaerisk_spredning.png
Some portions of the IR spectrum can't even reach the surface.
Color Infrared film captures invisible infrared light from the red end of the spectrum, light that’s not visible to the naked eye and characteristically turning green vegetation a bright red. Shooting analog infrared used to be complicated and expensive, results unpredictable and not making it worth the trouble. Then with commercially available infrared films and a color filters, anyone could experiment, creating artful science fiction landscapes. This I did 40 years ago for fun. But I can assure you that, if there were dust between the camera and object to be filmed, you filmed nothing. NASA/ESA suggest that the JWST can film through dust in space to watch the origins of stars, galaxies and the Universe itself, but it is utterly ridiculous. That's why I consider the JWST complete nonsense.
You thinking that it’s ridiculous means nothing
-
You thinking that it’s ridiculous means nothing
Only to you. Happy?
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
No, I use a thermometer to measure temperature. Or my finger.
No, in darkness I cannot see a thing. I use my eyes when there is lightning and light. Do you see in darkness?
So you admit that the JWST can see things that you can't.
Because The JWST can see infrared light with wavelengeths of up to 30 micrometers.
Room temperature object peak at around 10.
?? NASA/ESA says JWST can take pictures, which I can do from my window because I have a camera. What camera JWST has is not clear. If I put IR film in my camera, it can take IR photos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosfaerisk_spredning.png
Some portions of the IR spectrum can't even reach the surface.
Color Infrared film captures invisible infrared light from the red end of the spectrum, light that’s not visible to the naked eye and characteristically turning green vegetation a bright red. Shooting analog infrared used to be complicated and expensive, results unpredictable and not making it worth the trouble. Then with commercially available infrared films and a color filters, anyone could experiment, creating artful science fiction landscapes. This I did 40 years ago for fun. But I can assure you that, if there were dust between the camera and object to be filmed, you filmed nothing. NASA/ESA suggest that the JWST can film through dust in space to watch the origins of stars, galaxies and the Universe itself, but it is utterly ridiculous. That's why I consider the JWST complete nonsense.
Why is it ridiculous.
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
No, I use a thermometer to measure temperature. Or my finger.
No, in darkness I cannot see a thing. I use my eyes when there is lightning and light. Do you see in darkness?
So you admit that the JWST can see things that you can't.
Because The JWST can see infrared light with wavelengeths of up to 30 micrometers.
Room temperature object peak at around 10.
?? NASA/ESA says JWST can take pictures, which I can do from my window because I have a camera. What camera JWST has is not clear. If I put IR film in my camera, it can take IR photos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosfaerisk_spredning.png
Some portions of the IR spectrum can't even reach the surface.
Color Infrared film captures invisible infrared light from the red end of the spectrum, light that’s not visible to the naked eye and characteristically turning green vegetation a bright red. Shooting analog infrared used to be complicated and expensive, results unpredictable and not making it worth the trouble. Then with commercially available infrared films and a color filters, anyone could experiment, creating artful science fiction landscapes. This I did 40 years ago for fun. But I can assure you that, if there were dust between the camera and object to be filmed, you filmed nothing. NASA/ESA suggest that the JWST can film through dust in space to watch the origins of stars, galaxies and the Universe itself, but it is utterly ridiculous. That's why I consider the JWST complete nonsense.
Why is it ridiculous.
Read what I write. NASA/ESA suggest that the JWST can take IR pictures of stars hidden by dust in space. Don't you think it is ridiculous? When I take a picture by something hidden by dust, the picture is just dust!
-
When I take a picture by something hidden by dust, the picture is just dust!
Try taking a picture of something warm, hidden by dust, with a FLIR camera.
-
You thinking that it’s ridiculous means nothing
Only to you. Happy?
No, pretty much everyone you've ever encountered. You've been banned from every conceivable forum except for this one. Zero people take you seriously.
From just one such forum:
There are a number of professional engineers in this thread, some of whom actually work in aerospace. Please explain why any of us should pay any attention to your (HEIWA) opinion, when you have repeatedly demonstrated ignorance of even the most basic aspects of space flight and an inability to grasp even the most fundamental principles involved.
Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2013, 03:14:22 AM
Another:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
And another:
It has been repeatedly demonstrated how Apollo went to the Moon and back. And quite frankly, I'm getting tired of seeing you waste people's time by ignoring their explanations. I don't see much point in keeping you around if you are going to keep repeating the same errors despite our best efforts to educate you.
I have no doubt that you actually believe you are correct, but you are not. Your arrogance does not allow you to admit you are wrong, so I can only foresee this discussion going in circles forever.
So what does everyone think? Is it time for me to ban Heiwa if he doesn't start showing some willingness to learn? Or are you happy to keep using Heiwa's ignorance for your own self education?
That's just one forum. Every other one out there has exactly the same response. So no, it's not "only to you". It's to everyone. Ridiculous trolling. For years. That's the only impressive part - How long this idiocy has been kept up. Fortunately it's just a bot we're dealing with. An actual human would be embarrassed by the behavior.
-
Hm, I just publish my findings in writing about various things at my website, which originally, around 1993, were about better protection of the marine environment against oil spills and safety at sea, etc. And there we are. I am quite happy. I reply to all comments I receive about what I find. Why I get banned at various discussion forums is beyond me.
They don’t like discussions? They love censorship? Some people say I have no money. But I have plenty. Then there are the heroic American clowns having been pissing on the Moon 196972. If you ask them how much fuel they used, no reply. They had 400 000 experts helping them to fake it. What a stupid show! And so on. It is all my fault due to my website that search engines find.
-
Why I get banned at various discussion forums is beyond me.
That pretty much explains it. The reasons why, since you haven't figured it out, is:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
-
Why I get banned at various discussion forums is beyond me.
That pretty much explains it. The reasons why, since you haven't figured it out, is:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
You sound mentally ill. Pls provide me your full style, name, address, telephones, etc, and may recommend some doctor or hospital nearby. Or sue me at the criminal court at Nice, France.
-
Why I get banned at various discussion forums is beyond me.
That pretty much explains it. The reasons why, since you haven't figured it out, is:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
You sound mentally ill. Pls provide me your full style, name, address, telephones, etc, and may recommend some doctor or hospital nearby. Or sue me at the criminal court at Nice, France.
Why would I waste my time to sue you? So I could get your half century old camera and a quarter century old web software package from you? That's about all you got. The fact remains, as many, many others across the web have stated:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
I mean you admitted that your fuel "calculations" don't include a draw down of mass as fuel is expended. Pretty much the core of any orbital mechanics assumption. And then ask people to give you the correct calculations in some sort of fraudulent challenge. When they do, you just say, "No, your calculations don't match my (incorrect) ones." That's not a challenge. That is just arrogance, idiocy, and lunacy.
-
We're not going to start demanding people share personal info or file suit on these boards, Heiwa. That will be shut down quickly if it persists.
-
I was just watching the video below about the actuators that control the positioning of the mirrors, they can make adjustments at 2nm over a range of 2cm which is just crazy, all with one motor. That's insane precision over such a large range, and I have a large collection of micrometers and motors and gearings, nothing I have comes close to that. Six of them allow the mirrors to be adjusted at any angle and in any direction. I had wondered how they actually moved them and now I know. Fascinating.
And it makes me feel sad for people who look at all this amazing technology and clever engineering and just angerly call it fake. I can't even imagine living in a world like that where there is no wonder or satisfaction at humanities achievements, just anger and resentment at all the imagined conspiracies and lies.
-
I was just watching the video below about the actuators that control the positioning of the mirrors, they can make adjustments at 2nm over a range of 2cm which is just crazy, all with one motor. That's insane precision over such a large range, and I have a large collection of micrometers and motors and gearings, nothing I have comes close to that. Six of them allow the mirrors to be adjusted at any angle and in any direction. I had wondered how they actually moved them and now I know. Fascinating.
And it makes me feel sad for people who look at all this amazing technology and clever engineering and just angerly call it fake. I can't even imagine living in a world like that where there is no wonder or satisfaction at humanities achievements, just anger and resentment at all the imagined conspiracies and lies.
Yeah, just crazy about the tech involved. I've watched a bunch of the 'Smarter Everyday' engineer guy on YouTube. It turns out his Dad was part of the team that did the critical measuring and such for the sunshield. It's a long video, but it's great to see the Son and Dad geek out about the tech in front of the actual thing that's now 1m miles from here.
-
Why I get banned at various discussion forums is beyond me.
That pretty much explains it. The reasons why, since you haven't figured it out, is:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
You sound mentally ill. Pls provide me your full style, name, address, telephones, etc, and may recommend some doctor or hospital nearby. Or sue me at the criminal court at Nice, France.
Why would I waste my time to sue you? So I could get your half century old camera and a quarter century old web software package from you? That's about all you got. The fact remains, as many, many others across the web have stated:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
I mean you admitted that your fuel "calculations" don't include a draw down of mass as fuel is expended. Pretty much the core of any orbital mechanics assumption. And then ask people to give you the correct calculations in some sort of fraudulent challenge. When they do, you just say, "No, your calculations don't match my (incorrect) ones." That's not a challenge. That is just arrogance, idiocy, and lunacy.
It seems you don't believe me and my Challenge and are upset about it. You are not alone. It is your fault. You cannot do a proper astrophysical calculation how to jump from one orbit to another (from around the Earth to around the Moon, etc). This JWST object is the latest NASA fraud. It is supposed to have left Earth one time in an orbit that includes a moving location L2 beyond the Moon. Arriving at location L2 it is said to start orbiting (!!??) location L2 instead, etc. But there is no way to calculate the trajectory (orbit) to L2, incl. time, speed, direction, when arriving/docking with L2. And L2 has no mass. It is nothing in space. But NASA says you can orbit it!!! And when orbiting L2, NASA says JWST can see other objects in space that are hidden by dust in space, etc, etc. Infrared light is not affected by dust! Then there is the solar wind! It is bringing JWST out of its orbit around L2. I know what the solar wind is. It is energy/photons ejected from the Sun that heats up the object they encounter, e.g. me sunbathing on my roof. But it does not heat up JWST!! Instead JWST cools down in its orbit around L2. And you believe all that bullshit?
-
Have you ever looked out of a window?
Oh, I've done better than that. I've actually gone outside to look at the stars. But I can't say that I've seen infrared light from galaxies billions of light years away. Maybe your eyes are better than mine.
Why do you bother replying with nonsense bullshit. You should go up on the roof of where you lodge and see ... the same shit. And then start to think.
Can you see, Infrared red? No you can't, can you see galaxies billions of light years away? No you can't.
I just look out of my window. I have a very nice view. And apart from eyes I use my brain. Try it!
Do you really believe that you can see IR photons?
?? I just use my eyes. And this morning the Sun photons at 06.59 h hit me when the Sun rose outside my window. It was a nice sun rise. The light is very, very strong.
Can you tell an objects temperature just by looking at it?
Can you see in total darkness?
No, I use a thermometer to measure temperature. Or my finger.
No, in darkness I cannot see a thing. I use my eyes when there is lightning and light. Do you see in darkness?
So you admit that the JWST can see things that you can't.
Because The JWST can see infrared light with wavelengeths of up to 30 micrometers.
Room temperature object peak at around 10.
?? NASA/ESA says JWST can take pictures, which I can do from my window because I have a camera. What camera JWST has is not clear. If I put IR film in my camera, it can take IR photos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosfaerisk_spredning.png
Some portions of the IR spectrum can't even reach the surface.
Color Infrared film captures invisible infrared light from the red end of the spectrum, light that’s not visible to the naked eye and characteristically turning green vegetation a bright red. Shooting analog infrared used to be complicated and expensive, results unpredictable and not making it worth the trouble. Then with commercially available infrared films and a color filters, anyone could experiment, creating artful science fiction landscapes. This I did 40 years ago for fun. But I can assure you that, if there were dust between the camera and object to be filmed, you filmed nothing. NASA/ESA suggest that the JWST can film through dust in space to watch the origins of stars, galaxies and the Universe itself, but it is utterly ridiculous. That's why I consider the JWST complete nonsense.
Why is it ridiculous.
Read what I write. NASA/ESA suggest that the JWST can take IR pictures of stars hidden by dust in space. Don't you think it is ridiculous? When I take a picture by something hidden by dust, the picture is just dust!
That's because your taking the picutre in visible light, they're using infrared.
Buildings block visible light, builidngs don't block long wavelength radio waves.
Dust blocks visible light, it doesn't block photons with wavelengths larger then the size of the dust particles, Look up difraction.
-
Why I get banned at various discussion forums is beyond me.
That pretty much explains it. The reasons why, since you haven't figured it out, is:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
You sound mentally ill. Pls provide me your full style, name, address, telephones, etc, and may recommend some doctor or hospital nearby. Or sue me at the criminal court at Nice, France.
Why would I waste my time to sue you? So I could get your half century old camera and a quarter century old web software package from you? That's about all you got. The fact remains, as many, many others across the web have stated:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
I mean you admitted that your fuel "calculations" don't include a draw down of mass as fuel is expended. Pretty much the core of any orbital mechanics assumption. And then ask people to give you the correct calculations in some sort of fraudulent challenge. When they do, you just say, "No, your calculations don't match my (incorrect) ones." That's not a challenge. That is just arrogance, idiocy, and lunacy.
It seems you don't believe me and my Challenge and are upset about it. You are not alone. It is your fault. You cannot do a proper astrophysical calculation how to jump from one orbit to another (from around the Earth to around the Moon, etc). This JWST object is the latest NASA fraud. It is supposed to have left Earth one time in an orbit that includes a moving location L2 beyond the Moon. Arriving at location L2 it is said to start orbiting (!!??) location L2 instead, etc. But there is no way to calculate the trajectory (orbit) to L2, incl. time, speed, direction, when arriving/docking with L2. And L2 has no mass. It is nothing in space. But NASA says you can orbit it!!! And when orbiting L2, NASA says JWST can see other objects in space that are hidden by dust in space, etc, etc. Infrared light is not affected by dust! Then there is the solar wind! It is bringing JWST out of its orbit around L2. I know what the solar wind is. It is energy/photons ejected from the Sun that heats up the object they encounter, e.g. me sunbathing on my roof. But it does not heat up JWST!! Instead JWST cools down in its orbit around L2. And you believe all that bullshit?
There is a way to calculate it, people do it all the time. The mathematics of orbits langrangian points are well understood, you have been presented with them multiple times, and yet you have ignored them each time.
They have also been backed up with computer simulations.
-
Why I get banned at various discussion forums is beyond me.
That pretty much explains it. The reasons why, since you haven't figured it out, is:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
You sound mentally ill. Pls provide me your full style, name, address, telephones, etc, and may recommend some doctor or hospital nearby. Or sue me at the criminal court at Nice, France.
Why would I waste my time to sue you? So I could get your half century old camera and a quarter century old web software package from you? That's about all you got. The fact remains, as many, many others across the web have stated:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
I mean you admitted that your fuel "calculations" don't include a draw down of mass as fuel is expended. Pretty much the core of any orbital mechanics assumption. And then ask people to give you the correct calculations in some sort of fraudulent challenge. When they do, you just say, "No, your calculations don't match my (incorrect) ones." That's not a challenge. That is just arrogance, idiocy, and lunacy.
It seems you don't believe me and my Challenge and are upset about it. You are not alone. It is your fault. You cannot do a proper astrophysical calculation how to jump from one orbit to another (from around the Earth to around the Moon, etc). This JWST object is the latest NASA fraud. It is supposed to have left Earth one time in an orbit that includes a moving location L2 beyond the Moon. Arriving at location L2 it is said to start orbiting (!!??) location L2 instead, etc. But there is no way to calculate the trajectory (orbit) to L2, incl. time, speed, direction, when arriving/docking with L2. And L2 has no mass. It is nothing in space. But NASA says you can orbit it!!! And when orbiting L2, NASA says JWST can see other objects in space that are hidden by dust in space, etc, etc. Infrared light is not affected by dust! Then there is the solar wind! It is bringing JWST out of its orbit around L2. I know what the solar wind is. It is energy/photons ejected from the Sun that heats up the object they encounter, e.g. me sunbathing on my roof. But it does not heat up JWST!! Instead JWST cools down in its orbit around L2. And you believe all that bullshit?
There is a way to calculate it, people do it all the time. The mathematics of orbits langrangian points are well understood, you have been presented with them multiple times, and yet you have ignored them each time.
They have also been backed up with computer simulations.
Thanks. Computer simulations? You have to do better than that. JWST took off from Earth and entered an orbit around Earth ... or was it the Sun? ... and then arrived at location L2 after a certain time. How you calculate your location, speed and direction in such a trajectory in 3D space is not possible, so there is no way to arrive at L2 at all. L2 is of course not fixed. It is moving in 3D space all the time. After "docking" with L2, JWST started orbiting L2. Fantastic! Some clown says it is possible and some audience applauds. So JWST is today orbiting nothing, i.e. L2, while cooling down in the Sun. Of course the JWST is exposed to the Sun all the time, but in spite of this, it is cooling down ... 0 K! Ridiculous!
-
How you calculate your location, speed and direction in such a trajectory in 3D space is not possible, so there is no way to arrive at L2 at all.
An engineer who never studied calculus. Lamentable.
-
How you calculate your location, speed and direction in such a trajectory in 3D space is not possible, so there is no way to arrive at L2 at all.
An engineer who never studied calculus. Lamentable.
No, it wasn't possible.
-
Why I get banned at various discussion forums is beyond me.
That pretty much explains it. The reasons why, since you haven't figured it out, is:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
You sound mentally ill. Pls provide me your full style, name, address, telephones, etc, and may recommend some doctor or hospital nearby. Or sue me at the criminal court at Nice, France.
Why would I waste my time to sue you? So I could get your half century old camera and a quarter century old web software package from you? That's about all you got. The fact remains, as many, many others across the web have stated:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
I mean you admitted that your fuel "calculations" don't include a draw down of mass as fuel is expended. Pretty much the core of any orbital mechanics assumption. And then ask people to give you the correct calculations in some sort of fraudulent challenge. When they do, you just say, "No, your calculations don't match my (incorrect) ones." That's not a challenge. That is just arrogance, idiocy, and lunacy.
It seems you don't believe me and my Challenge and are upset about it. You are not alone. It is your fault. You cannot do a proper astrophysical calculation how to jump from one orbit to another (from around the Earth to around the Moon, etc). This JWST object is the latest NASA fraud. It is supposed to have left Earth one time in an orbit that includes a moving location L2 beyond the Moon. Arriving at location L2 it is said to start orbiting (!!??) location L2 instead, etc. But there is no way to calculate the trajectory (orbit) to L2, incl. time, speed, direction, when arriving/docking with L2. And L2 has no mass. It is nothing in space. But NASA says you can orbit it!!! And when orbiting L2, NASA says JWST can see other objects in space that are hidden by dust in space, etc, etc. Infrared light is not affected by dust! Then there is the solar wind! It is bringing JWST out of its orbit around L2. I know what the solar wind is. It is energy/photons ejected from the Sun that heats up the object they encounter, e.g. me sunbathing on my roof. But it does not heat up JWST!! Instead JWST cools down in its orbit around L2. And you believe all that bullshit?
There is a way to calculate it, people do it all the time. The mathematics of orbits langrangian points are well understood, you have been presented with them multiple times, and yet you have ignored them each time.
They have also been backed up with computer simulations.
Thanks. Computer simulations? You have to do better than that. JWST took off from Earth and entered an orbit around Earth ... or was it the Sun? ... and then arrived at location L2 after a certain time. How you calculate your location, speed and direction in such a trajectory in 3D space is not possible, so there is no way to arrive at L2 at all. L2 is of course not fixed. It is moving in 3D space all the time. After "docking" with L2, JWST started orbiting L2. Fantastic! Some clown says it is possible and some audience applauds. So JWST is today orbiting nothing, i.e. L2, while cooling down in the Sun. Of course the JWST is exposed to the Sun all the time, but in spite of this, it is cooling down ... 0 K! Ridiculous!
What's wrong with computer simulations.
The ONLY thing as good or better then computer simulations is actually doing it real. So no, I don't have to do better then that, what i've given you is more than sufficient.
Doing the calculations for such trajectories is not difficult, it's simply kinematics. If it weren't possible, the simulaitons wouldn't even be able to run.
-
Why I get banned at various discussion forums is beyond me.
That pretty much explains it. The reasons why, since you haven't figured it out, is:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
You sound mentally ill. Pls provide me your full style, name, address, telephones, etc, and may recommend some doctor or hospital nearby. Or sue me at the criminal court at Nice, France.
Why would I waste my time to sue you? So I could get your half century old camera and a quarter century old web software package from you? That's about all you got. The fact remains, as many, many others across the web have stated:
1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication. Your challenge is fraudulent.
2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances. Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance. Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.
I mean you admitted that your fuel "calculations" don't include a draw down of mass as fuel is expended. Pretty much the core of any orbital mechanics assumption. And then ask people to give you the correct calculations in some sort of fraudulent challenge. When they do, you just say, "No, your calculations don't match my (incorrect) ones." That's not a challenge. That is just arrogance, idiocy, and lunacy.
It seems you don't believe me and my Challenge and are upset about it. You are not alone. It is your fault. You cannot do a proper astrophysical calculation how to jump from one orbit to another (from around the Earth to around the Moon, etc). This JWST object is the latest NASA fraud. It is supposed to have left Earth one time in an orbit that includes a moving location L2 beyond the Moon. Arriving at location L2 it is said to start orbiting (!!??) location L2 instead, etc. But there is no way to calculate the trajectory (orbit) to L2, incl. time, speed, direction, when arriving/docking with L2. And L2 has no mass. It is nothing in space. But NASA says you can orbit it!!! And when orbiting L2, NASA says JWST can see other objects in space that are hidden by dust in space, etc, etc. Infrared light is not affected by dust! Then there is the solar wind! It is bringing JWST out of its orbit around L2. I know what the solar wind is. It is energy/photons ejected from the Sun that heats up the object they encounter, e.g. me sunbathing on my roof. But it does not heat up JWST!! Instead JWST cools down in its orbit around L2. And you believe all that bullshit?
There is a way to calculate it, people do it all the time. The mathematics of orbits langrangian points are well understood, you have been presented with them multiple times, and yet you have ignored them each time.
They have also been backed up with computer simulations.
Thanks. Computer simulations? You have to do better than that. JWST took off from Earth and entered an orbit around Earth ... or was it the Sun? ... and then arrived at location L2 after a certain time. How you calculate your location, speed and direction in such a trajectory in 3D space is not possible, so there is no way to arrive at L2 at all. L2 is of course not fixed. It is moving in 3D space all the time. After "docking" with L2, JWST started orbiting L2. Fantastic! Some clown says it is possible and some audience applauds. So JWST is today orbiting nothing, i.e. L2, while cooling down in the Sun. Of course the JWST is exposed to the Sun all the time, but in spite of this, it is cooling down ... 0 K! Ridiculous!
What's wrong with computer simulations.
The ONLY thing as good or better then computer simulations is actually doing it real. So no, I don't have to do better then that, what i've given you is more than sufficient.
Doing the calculations for such trajectories is not difficult, it's simply kinematics. If it weren't possible, the simulaitons wouldn't even be able to run.
It is not so simple.
-
How you calculate your location, speed and direction in such a trajectory in 3D space is not possible, so there is no way to arrive at L2 at all.
An engineer who never studied calculus. Lamentable.
No, it wasn't possible.
It wasn’t possible to learn calculus, or you just failed at it?
-
How you calculate your location, speed and direction in such a trajectory in 3D space is not possible, so there is no way to arrive at L2 at all.
An engineer who never studied calculus. Lamentable.
No, it wasn't possible.
It wasn’t possible to learn calculus, or you just failed at it?
Neither. It is not possible to calculate the trajectory of an object's orbit in space. Reason is that it changes all the time due to to other objects orbiting around.
-
How you calculate your location, speed and direction in such a trajectory in 3D space is not possible, so there is no way to arrive at L2 at all.
An engineer who never studied calculus. Lamentable.
No, it wasn't possible.
It wasn’t possible to learn calculus, or you just failed at it?
Neither. It is not possible to calculate the trajectory of an object's orbit in space. Reason is that it changes all the time due to to other objects orbiting around.
That doesn't make it impossible at all, the physics and maths are well understood, and the gravity of at most a couple objects and often only one normally need to be factored in for reasonably accurate results.
And if you really want REALLY accurate results, then theres always the simple brute force approach.
billions of calculations a second is more then enough for almost all purposes.
-
I'm pretty sure Heiwa read the preamble to the Wikipedia page for n-body problems, got confused, lost, and decided that solving them is just not possible.
-
How you calculate your location, speed and direction in such a trajectory in 3D space is not possible, so there is no way to arrive at L2 at all.
An engineer who never studied calculus. Lamentable.
No, it wasn't possible.
It wasn’t possible to learn calculus, or you just failed at it?
Neither. It is not possible to calculate the trajectory of an object's orbit in space. Reason is that it changes all the time due to to other objects orbiting around.
That doesn't make it impossible at all, the physics and maths are well understood, and the gravity of at most a couple objects and often only one normally need to be factored in for reasonably accurate results.
And if you really want REALLY accurate results, then theres always the simple brute force approach.
billions of calculations a second is more then enough for almost all purposes.
Of course you can send space crafts into orbits, but you cannot ensure that they will arrive anywhere. Space trips are always one-way. And this JWST orbiting L2 is the latest nonsense.
-
How you calculate your location, speed and direction in such a trajectory in 3D space is not possible, so there is no way to arrive at L2 at all.
An engineer who never studied calculus. Lamentable.
No, it wasn't possible.
It wasn’t possible to learn calculus, or you just failed at it?
Neither. It is not possible to calculate the trajectory of an object's orbit in space. Reason is that it changes all the time due to to other objects orbiting around.
That doesn't make it impossible at all, the physics and maths are well understood, and the gravity of at most a couple objects and often only one normally need to be factored in for reasonably accurate results.
And if you really want REALLY accurate results, then theres always the simple brute force approach.
billions of calculations a second is more then enough for almost all purposes.
Of course you can send space crafts into orbits, but you cannot ensure that they will arrive anywhere. Space trips are always one-way. And this JWST orbiting L2 is the latest nonsense.
What's your evidence/calculations that a spacecraft can't "arrive anywhere"? I don't see any evidence on your site. Or is it just your opinion?
-
How you calculate your location, speed and direction in such a trajectory in 3D space is not possible, so there is no way to arrive at L2 at all.
An engineer who never studied calculus. Lamentable.
No, it wasn't possible.
It wasn’t possible to learn calculus, or you just failed at it?
Neither. It is not possible to calculate the trajectory of an object's orbit in space. Reason is that it changes all the time due to to other objects orbiting around.
That doesn't make it impossible at all, the physics and maths are well understood, and the gravity of at most a couple objects and often only one normally need to be factored in for reasonably accurate results.
And if you really want REALLY accurate results, then theres always the simple brute force approach.
billions of calculations a second is more then enough for almost all purposes.
Of course you can send space crafts into orbits, but you cannot ensure that they will arrive anywhere. Space trips are always one-way. And this JWST orbiting L2 is the latest nonsense.
What's your evidence/calculations that a spacecraft can't "arrive anywhere"? I don't see any evidence on your site. Or is it just your opinion?
Evidence? I just suggest that any spacecraft leaving planet Earth just orbits Earth and nothing else and cannot start orbiting something else.
-
How you calculate your location, speed and direction in such a trajectory in 3D space is not possible, so there is no way to arrive at L2 at all.
An engineer who never studied calculus. Lamentable.
No, it wasn't possible.
It wasn’t possible to learn calculus, or you just failed at it?
Neither. It is not possible to calculate the trajectory of an object's orbit in space. Reason is that it changes all the time due to to other objects orbiting around.
That doesn't make it impossible at all, the physics and maths are well understood, and the gravity of at most a couple objects and often only one normally need to be factored in for reasonably accurate results.
And if you really want REALLY accurate results, then theres always the simple brute force approach.
billions of calculations a second is more then enough for almost all purposes.
Of course you can send space crafts into orbits, but you cannot ensure that they will arrive anywhere. Space trips are always one-way. And this JWST orbiting L2 is the latest nonsense.
What's your evidence/calculations that a spacecraft can't "arrive anywhere"? I don't see any evidence on your site. Or is it just your opinion?
Evidence? I just suggest that any spacecraft leaving planet Earth just orbits Earth and nothing else and cannot start orbiting something else.
Got it, so it's just your suggestion based upon your opinion with no real facts or evidence.
-
Evidence? I just suggest that any spacecraft leaving planet Earth just orbits Earth and nothing else and cannot start orbiting something else.
Your suggestion has been noted and after considerable consideration it has been determined that you don't know what you're talking about.
-
Evidence? I just suggest that any spacecraft leaving planet Earth just orbits Earth and nothing else and cannot start orbiting something else.
Your suggestion has been noted and after considerable consideration it has been determined that you don't know what you're talking about.
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
-
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
I love Hewia's debating techniques which involve simply repeating what he is told but with bad grammar and a bunch of extra explanation points.
I remember having equally challenging debates with Eliza when I was in high school.
-
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
I love Hewia's debating techniques which involve simply repeating what he is told but with bad grammar and a bunch of extra explanation points.
I remember having equally challenging debates with Eliza when I was in high school.
The JWST took off from Earth late December 2021 and so far it has only presented a photo of a nearby star. I really look forward to some new stuff by the JWST
-
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
I love Hewia's debating techniques which involve simply repeating what he is told but with bad grammar and a bunch of extra explanation points.
I remember having equally challenging debates with Eliza when I was in high school.
The JWST took off from Earth late December 2021 and so far it has only presented a photo of a nearby star. I really look forward to some new stuff by the JWST
Thank you for once again, simply commenting on what the JWST is doing and reminding us about this amazing machine.
Yes, it did take off from Earth in December and has now adjusted all the primary mirrors to get a first star image. I am also looking forward to new pictures.
Perhaps you, being an advanced engineer can comment on the mirrors actuators that can adjust it in 2 nanometer increments. Pretty amazing, right? What do you think of it's simple yet extremely accurate deflection adjustment?
-
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
I love Hewia's debating techniques which involve simply repeating what he is told but with bad grammar and a bunch of extra explanation points.
I remember having equally challenging debates with Eliza when I was in high school.
The JWST took off from Earth late December 2021 and so far it has only presented a photo of a nearby star. I really look forward to some new stuff by the JWST
Thank you for once again, simply commenting on what the JWST is doing and reminding us about this amazing machine.
Yes, it did take off from Earth in December and has now adjusted all the primary mirrors to get a first star image. I am also looking forward to new pictures.
Perhaps you, being an advanced engineer can comment on the mirrors actuators that can adjust it in 2 nanometer increments. Pretty amazing, right? What do you think of it's simple yet extremely accurate deflection adjustment?
Thanks for your comment. No, I have no knowledge of the JWST mirrors actuators that can adjust it in 2 nanometer increments, etc. I just consider the JWST a hoax and complete nonsense to fool people?
-
10:42:42 - April 13, 2022
WEBB MEETS CRUCIAL TEMPERATURE MILESTONE
The James Webb Space Telescope's Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) finally reached the super-cold temperature needed to operate as designed. Because the instrument targets infrared light, which manifests as heat, the instrument must remain under 7 degrees Kelvin, which is equivalent to minus 447 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 266 degrees Celsius). And after a complicated, careful cooling process, that milestone has been reached, according to NASA.
-
10:42:42 - April 13, 2022
WEBB MEETS CRUCIAL TEMPERATURE MILESTONE
The James Webb Space Telescope's Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) finally reached the super-cold temperature needed to operate as designed. Because the instrument targets infrared light, which manifests as heat, the instrument must remain under 7 degrees Kelvin, which is equivalent to minus 447 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 266 degrees Celsius). And after a complicated, careful cooling process, that milestone has been reached, according to NASA.
(https://c.tenor.com/QUwQri4WHtQAAAAC/very-excite-and-they-were-childhood-friends.gif)
Things are about to get pretty awesome now. I really can't wait for the Webb Deep Field, where they take an area within the Hubble Deep Field that looks like a complete void, and show us all the really good stuff that's been hiding from view. Or whatever else they do with it, I don't even care, I'm just excited to see what images it can show us.
-
We're getting closer. Only a couple+ months away from some of the first full images:
Full calibration will wait until Cycle 1, the first round of early science, which is expected to take place after the six-month mark of the mission, around June 25. This means the instruments will be fully readied for operations amid this data collection, she said. (A sample of Cycle 1 observations include coronagraphic observations of debris desks around some brighter stars, and a star that has a transiting super-Earth planet.)
Around the same time will come an early release of observations, including the first images. There will be a set of showcase images "designed to be on the front pages of media all around the world," Rigby said. But all the commissioning data will go public at that time, including "the good, the bad, and the ugly." The Webb team has been quiet about exactly which images will be released at this time.
-
Evidence? I just suggest that any spacecraft leaving planet Earth just orbits Earth and nothing else and cannot start orbiting something else.
Your suggestion has been noted and after considerable consideration it has been determined that you don't know what you're talking about.
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f
Top of page 14.
"The particles can be hard or soft and come in many different shapes, but their size is usually less than 1 micron (one thousandth of a millimetre). The wavelength of visible light is much the same size as many dust particles, so it is easily blocked (scattered) by the dust, whereas longer-wavelength infrared radiation passes through unhindered and dust is therefore transparent to it. And in the far-infrared, we see the 'glow' from dust itself."
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/More_about_the_infrared
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342774/reason-for-using-infrared-for-capturing-cosmic-images
Radio waves can travel from one side of a city to another, even if there's a whole bunch of builidngs in the way simply by diffraction.
-
Evidence? I just suggest that any spacecraft leaving planet Earth just orbits Earth and nothing else and cannot start orbiting something else.
Your suggestion has been noted and after considerable consideration it has been determined that you don't know what you're talking about.
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f
Top of page 14.
"The particles can be hard or soft and come in many different shapes, but their size is usually less than 1 micron (one thousandth of a millimetre). The wavelength of visible light is much the same size as many dust particles, so it is easily blocked (scattered) by the dust, whereas longer-wavelength infrared radiation passes through unhindered and dust is therefore transparent to it. And in the far-infrared, we see the 'glow' from dust itself."
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/More_about_the_infrared
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342774/reason-for-using-infrared-for-capturing-cosmic-images
Radio waves can travel from one side of a city to another, even if there's a whole bunch of builidngs in the way simply by diffraction.
Thanks!
Outer space is often imagined to be completely empty, but there is in fact matter between the stars. Asstronomers call this matter the interstellar medium or ISM for short. Dust sounds dirty and not clean.
The ISM is very cold and much less dense than any vacuum created in a laboratory. Imagine that there are many different vacuums in space.
The temperature of the dust is typically 100 K, while the gas can be as cold as 10 K. Because of the low temperature of the ISM in order to observe it directly it is necessary to use telescopes that are able to detect light at wavelengths that are longer than visible light (infrared and radio).
Since part of the light is lost, a star will also look fainter than expected. This phenomenon is known as optical extinction.
So light is lost in the Universe due to dust and gas! That was news to me!
Dust grains only absorb and scatter light whose wavelength is similar to their size; longer or shorter wavelengths are not affected and simply pass through the dust. How gas absorbs light is not clear.
The Milky Way galaxy, where we are in, has a diameter of at least 100 000 light years, and the Sun is actually quite far from the centre, at a distance of about 26 500 light years.
The JWST is just some light minutes away from Earth and Sun and the beginning of the Universe is billions of light years away. I doubt the JWST will see it. It will be lost on the way.
-
Evidence? I just suggest that any spacecraft leaving planet Earth just orbits Earth and nothing else and cannot start orbiting something else.
Your suggestion has been noted and after considerable consideration it has been determined that you don't know what you're talking about.
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f
Top of page 14.
"The particles can be hard or soft and come in many different shapes, but their size is usually less than 1 micron (one thousandth of a millimetre). The wavelength of visible light is much the same size as many dust particles, so it is easily blocked (scattered) by the dust, whereas longer-wavelength infrared radiation passes through unhindered and dust is therefore transparent to it. And in the far-infrared, we see the 'glow' from dust itself."
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/More_about_the_infrared
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342774/reason-for-using-infrared-for-capturing-cosmic-images
Radio waves can travel from one side of a city to another, even if there's a whole bunch of builidngs in the way simply by diffraction.
Thanks!
Outer space is often imagined to be completely empty, but there is in fact matter between the stars. Asstronomers call this matter the interstellar medium or ISM for short. Dust sounds dirty and not clean.
The ISM is very cold and much less dense than any vacuum created in a laboratory. Imagine that there are many different vacuums in space.
The temperature of the dust is typically 100 K, while the gas can be as cold as 10 K. Because of the low temperature of the ISM in order to observe it directly it is necessary to use telescopes that are able to detect light at wavelengths that are longer than visible light (infrared and radio).
Since part of the light is lost, a star will also look fainter than expected. This phenomenon is known as optical extinction.
So light is lost in the Universe due to dust and gas! That was news to me!
Dust grains only absorb and scatter light whose wavelength is similar to their size; longer or shorter wavelengths are not affected and simply pass through the dust. How gas absorbs light is not clear.
The Milky Way galaxy, where we are in, has a diameter of at least 100 000 light years, and the Sun is actually quite far from the centre, at a distance of about 26 500 light years.
The JWST is just some light minutes away from Earth and Sun and the beginning of the Universe is billions of light years away. I doubt the JWST will see it. It will be lost on the way.
Glad to see you are trying to learn something considering you plagiarized the above, word-for-word, page 5, paragraphs 1 & 2, from:
Exploring the Interstellar Medium
Studying the gas and dust between the stars - Student Guide (https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f)
-
Evidence? I just suggest that any spacecraft leaving planet Earth just orbits Earth and nothing else and cannot start orbiting something else.
Your suggestion has been noted and after considerable consideration it has been determined that you don't know what you're talking about.
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f
Top of page 14.
"The particles can be hard or soft and come in many different shapes, but their size is usually less than 1 micron (one thousandth of a millimetre). The wavelength of visible light is much the same size as many dust particles, so it is easily blocked (scattered) by the dust, whereas longer-wavelength infrared radiation passes through unhindered and dust is therefore transparent to it. And in the far-infrared, we see the 'glow' from dust itself."
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/More_about_the_infrared
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342774/reason-for-using-infrared-for-capturing-cosmic-images
Radio waves can travel from one side of a city to another, even if there's a whole bunch of builidngs in the way simply by diffraction.
Thanks!
Outer space is often imagined to be completely empty, but there is in fact matter between the stars. Asstronomers call this matter the interstellar medium or ISM for short. Dust sounds dirty and not clean.
The ISM is very cold and much less dense than any vacuum created in a laboratory. Imagine that there are many different vacuums in space.
The temperature of the dust is typically 100 K, while the gas can be as cold as 10 K. Because of the low temperature of the ISM in order to observe it directly it is necessary to use telescopes that are able to detect light at wavelengths that are longer than visible light (infrared and radio).
Since part of the light is lost, a star will also look fainter than expected. This phenomenon is known as optical extinction.
So light is lost in the Universe due to dust and gas! That was news to me!
Dust grains only absorb and scatter light whose wavelength is similar to their size; longer or shorter wavelengths are not affected and simply pass through the dust. How gas absorbs light is not clear.
The Milky Way galaxy, where we are in, has a diameter of at least 100 000 light years, and the Sun is actually quite far from the centre, at a distance of about 26 500 light years.
The JWST is just some light minutes away from Earth and Sun and the beginning of the Universe is billions of light years away. I doubt the JWST will see it. It will be lost on the way.
Glad to see you are trying to learn something considering you plagiarized the above, word-for-word, page 5, paragraphs 1 & 2, from:
Exploring the Interstellar Medium
Studying the gas and dust between the stars - Student Guide (https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f)
You are 95% right. Most of it is complete nonsense. A Universe full of dust and gas at different temperatures and optical extinctions making light disappear, etc. And now the JWST shall take photos of it. And that's all. LOL!
-
Evidence? I just suggest that any spacecraft leaving planet Earth just orbits Earth and nothing else and cannot start orbiting something else.
Your suggestion has been noted and after considerable consideration it has been determined that you don't know what you're talking about.
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f
Top of page 14.
"The particles can be hard or soft and come in many different shapes, but their size is usually less than 1 micron (one thousandth of a millimetre). The wavelength of visible light is much the same size as many dust particles, so it is easily blocked (scattered) by the dust, whereas longer-wavelength infrared radiation passes through unhindered and dust is therefore transparent to it. And in the far-infrared, we see the 'glow' from dust itself."
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/More_about_the_infrared
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342774/reason-for-using-infrared-for-capturing-cosmic-images
Radio waves can travel from one side of a city to another, even if there's a whole bunch of builidngs in the way simply by diffraction.
Thanks!
Outer space is often imagined to be completely empty, but there is in fact matter between the stars. Asstronomers call this matter the interstellar medium or ISM for short. Dust sounds dirty and not clean.
The ISM is very cold and much less dense than any vacuum created in a laboratory. Imagine that there are many different vacuums in space.
The temperature of the dust is typically 100 K, while the gas can be as cold as 10 K. Because of the low temperature of the ISM in order to observe it directly it is necessary to use telescopes that are able to detect light at wavelengths that are longer than visible light (infrared and radio).
Since part of the light is lost, a star will also look fainter than expected. This phenomenon is known as optical extinction.
So light is lost in the Universe due to dust and gas! That was news to me!
Dust grains only absorb and scatter light whose wavelength is similar to their size; longer or shorter wavelengths are not affected and simply pass through the dust. How gas absorbs light is not clear.
The Milky Way galaxy, where we are in, has a diameter of at least 100 000 light years, and the Sun is actually quite far from the centre, at a distance of about 26 500 light years.
The JWST is just some light minutes away from Earth and Sun and the beginning of the Universe is billions of light years away. I doubt the JWST will see it. It will be lost on the way.
Glad to see you are trying to learn something considering you plagiarized the above, word-for-word, page 5, paragraphs 1 & 2, from:
Exploring the Interstellar Medium
Studying the gas and dust between the stars - Student Guide (https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f)
You are 95% right. Most of it is complete nonsense. A Universe full of dust and gas at different temperatures and optical extinctions making light disappear, etc. And now the JWST shall take photos of it. And that's all. LOL!
Proof that it’s nonsense.
-
Evidence? I just suggest that any spacecraft leaving planet Earth just orbits Earth and nothing else and cannot start orbiting something else.
Your suggestion has been noted and after considerable consideration it has been determined that you don't know what you're talking about.
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f
Top of page 14.
"The particles can be hard or soft and come in many different shapes, but their size is usually less than 1 micron (one thousandth of a millimetre). The wavelength of visible light is much the same size as many dust particles, so it is easily blocked (scattered) by the dust, whereas longer-wavelength infrared radiation passes through unhindered and dust is therefore transparent to it. And in the far-infrared, we see the 'glow' from dust itself."
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/More_about_the_infrared
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342774/reason-for-using-infrared-for-capturing-cosmic-images
Radio waves can travel from one side of a city to another, even if there's a whole bunch of builidngs in the way simply by diffraction.
Thanks!
Outer space is often imagined to be completely empty, but there is in fact matter between the stars. Asstronomers call this matter the interstellar medium or ISM for short. Dust sounds dirty and not clean.
The ISM is very cold and much less dense than any vacuum created in a laboratory. Imagine that there are many different vacuums in space.
The temperature of the dust is typically 100 K, while the gas can be as cold as 10 K. Because of the low temperature of the ISM in order to observe it directly it is necessary to use telescopes that are able to detect light at wavelengths that are longer than visible light (infrared and radio).
Since part of the light is lost, a star will also look fainter than expected. This phenomenon is known as optical extinction.
So light is lost in the Universe due to dust and gas! That was news to me!
Dust grains only absorb and scatter light whose wavelength is similar to their size; longer or shorter wavelengths are not affected and simply pass through the dust. How gas absorbs light is not clear.
The Milky Way galaxy, where we are in, has a diameter of at least 100 000 light years, and the Sun is actually quite far from the centre, at a distance of about 26 500 light years.
The JWST is just some light minutes away from Earth and Sun and the beginning of the Universe is billions of light years away. I doubt the JWST will see it. It will be lost on the way.
Glad to see you are trying to learn something considering you plagiarized the above, word-for-word, page 5, paragraphs 1 & 2, from:
Exploring the Interstellar Medium
Studying the gas and dust between the stars - Student Guide (https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f)
You are 95% right. Most of it is complete nonsense. A Universe full of dust and gas at different temperatures and optical extinctions making light disappear, etc. And now the JWST shall take photos of it. And that's all. LOL!
Proof that it’s nonsense.
He has none, neither here or on his site. He's just a cranky old conspiracy theorist who has been kicked out of every forum except this one for his ludicrous egomaniacal nonsense, thinking his opinion is the only one that matters on the planet. I mean he got banned from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth because even they thought he was an off-his-rocker jackass. No planes on 9/11? That's some psychopath level shit.
-
Evidence? I just suggest that any spacecraft leaving planet Earth just orbits Earth and nothing else and cannot start orbiting something else.
Your suggestion has been noted and after considerable consideration it has been determined that you don't know what you're talking about.
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f
Top of page 14.
"The particles can be hard or soft and come in many different shapes, but their size is usually less than 1 micron (one thousandth of a millimetre). The wavelength of visible light is much the same size as many dust particles, so it is easily blocked (scattered) by the dust, whereas longer-wavelength infrared radiation passes through unhindered and dust is therefore transparent to it. And in the far-infrared, we see the 'glow' from dust itself."
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/More_about_the_infrared
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342774/reason-for-using-infrared-for-capturing-cosmic-images
Radio waves can travel from one side of a city to another, even if there's a whole bunch of builidngs in the way simply by diffraction.
Thanks!
Outer space is often imagined to be completely empty, but there is in fact matter between the stars. Asstronomers call this matter the interstellar medium or ISM for short. Dust sounds dirty and not clean.
The ISM is very cold and much less dense than any vacuum created in a laboratory. Imagine that there are many different vacuums in space.
The temperature of the dust is typically 100 K, while the gas can be as cold as 10 K. Because of the low temperature of the ISM in order to observe it directly it is necessary to use telescopes that are able to detect light at wavelengths that are longer than visible light (infrared and radio).
Since part of the light is lost, a star will also look fainter than expected. This phenomenon is known as optical extinction.
So light is lost in the Universe due to dust and gas! That was news to me!
Dust grains only absorb and scatter light whose wavelength is similar to their size; longer or shorter wavelengths are not affected and simply pass through the dust. How gas absorbs light is not clear.
The Milky Way galaxy, where we are in, has a diameter of at least 100 000 light years, and the Sun is actually quite far from the centre, at a distance of about 26 500 light years.
The JWST is just some light minutes away from Earth and Sun and the beginning of the Universe is billions of light years away. I doubt the JWST will see it. It will be lost on the way.
Glad to see you are trying to learn something considering you plagiarized the above, word-for-word, page 5, paragraphs 1 & 2, from:
Exploring the Interstellar Medium
Studying the gas and dust between the stars - Student Guide (https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f)
You are 95% right. Most of it is complete nonsense. A Universe full of dust and gas at different temperatures and optical extinctions making light disappear, etc. And now the JWST shall take photos of it. And that's all. LOL!
Proof that it’s nonsense.
He has none, neither here or on his site. He's just a cranky old conspiracy theorist who has been kicked out of every forum except this one for his ludicrous egomaniacal nonsense, thinking his opinion is the only one that matters on the planet. I mean he got banned from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth because even they thought he was an off-his-rocker jackass. No planes on 9/11? That's some psychopath level shit.
Not really. The NY WTC was destroyed from bottom up, while US media broadcasted a movie of Arabs attacking it. LOL. Visit my website about it. My full style is there.
-
Evidence? I just suggest that any spacecraft leaving planet Earth just orbits Earth and nothing else and cannot start orbiting something else.
Your suggestion has been noted and after considerable consideration it has been determined that you don't know what you're talking about.
Topic is the JWSpaceTelescope that is cooling down and shortly will present fantastic photos of the beginning of the dusty Universe where stars are born, etc. The telescope can see through the dust!!
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f
Top of page 14.
"The particles can be hard or soft and come in many different shapes, but their size is usually less than 1 micron (one thousandth of a millimetre). The wavelength of visible light is much the same size as many dust particles, so it is easily blocked (scattered) by the dust, whereas longer-wavelength infrared radiation passes through unhindered and dust is therefore transparent to it. And in the far-infrared, we see the 'glow' from dust itself."
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/More_about_the_infrared
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342774/reason-for-using-infrared-for-capturing-cosmic-images
Radio waves can travel from one side of a city to another, even if there's a whole bunch of builidngs in the way simply by diffraction.
Thanks!
Outer space is often imagined to be completely empty, but there is in fact matter between the stars. Asstronomers call this matter the interstellar medium or ISM for short. Dust sounds dirty and not clean.
The ISM is very cold and much less dense than any vacuum created in a laboratory. Imagine that there are many different vacuums in space.
The temperature of the dust is typically 100 K, while the gas can be as cold as 10 K. Because of the low temperature of the ISM in order to observe it directly it is necessary to use telescopes that are able to detect light at wavelengths that are longer than visible light (infrared and radio).
Since part of the light is lost, a star will also look fainter than expected. This phenomenon is known as optical extinction.
So light is lost in the Universe due to dust and gas! That was news to me!
Dust grains only absorb and scatter light whose wavelength is similar to their size; longer or shorter wavelengths are not affected and simply pass through the dust. How gas absorbs light is not clear.
The Milky Way galaxy, where we are in, has a diameter of at least 100 000 light years, and the Sun is actually quite far from the centre, at a distance of about 26 500 light years.
The JWST is just some light minutes away from Earth and Sun and the beginning of the Universe is billions of light years away. I doubt the JWST will see it. It will be lost on the way.
Glad to see you are trying to learn something considering you plagiarized the above, word-for-word, page 5, paragraphs 1 & 2, from:
Exploring the Interstellar Medium
Studying the gas and dust between the stars - Student Guide (https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/401090/1742873/Exploring+the+ISM+Student+Guide/f9b672c6-dee4-b14f-2a56-b82700b9db0f)
You are 95% right. Most of it is complete nonsense. A Universe full of dust and gas at different temperatures and optical extinctions making light disappear, etc. And now the JWST shall take photos of it. And that's all. LOL!
Proof that it’s nonsense.
He has none, neither here or on his site. He's just a cranky old conspiracy theorist who has been kicked out of every forum except this one for his ludicrous egomaniacal nonsense, thinking his opinion is the only one that matters on the planet. I mean he got banned from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth because even they thought he was an off-his-rocker jackass. No planes on 9/11? That's some psychopath level shit.
Not really. The NY WTC was destroyed from bottom up, while US media broadcasted a movie of Arabs attacking it. LOL. Visit my website about it. My full style is there.
All you have there is a bunch of unsupported claims, with no evidence for them.
The Twin towers were the tallest buildings in the city. There's going to be large numbers of people observing them at any time, Especially after a terrorist attack against one of them is reported.
If the Towers collapsed without planes, there would be videos that support that, there would be videos of of the south tower going from fine to damaged without anything hitting it.
Tens of thousands of people work in each tower, the attacks happened during the work day. There were tens of thousands of people who escaped the tower.
If you want to claim they were prevented from entering, there there absolutely WOULD be evidence of this.
-
What is the fascination with arguing with a moron? You know nothing you say will get anything except a confused word salad.
I struggle with this question myself.
-
What is the fascination with arguing with a moron? You know nothing you say will get anything except a confused word salad.
I struggle with this question myself.
I just want him to have an aneurysm. He gets mighty butthurt when you question his tanker design and the M/S Estonia.
-
MIRI has cooled down. This component is a beast of technology.
IN DEPTH: Technical Details For MIRI
The MIRI has three Arsenic-doped Silicon (Si:As) detector arrays. The camera module provides wide-field broadband imagery, and the spectrograph module provides medium-resolution spectroscopy over a smaller field of view compared to the imager. The nominal operating temperature for the MIRI is 7K. This level of cooling cannot be attained using the passive cooling provided by the Thermal Management Subsystem. Webb carries an innovative "cryocooler" that is dedicated to cooling MIRI's detectors. Instead, there is a two-step process: A Pulse Tube precooler gets the instrument down to 18K; and a Joule-Thomson Loop heat exchanger knocks it down to 7K.
(https://webb.nasa.gov/images3/instrumentranges.jpg)
June can't come soon enough.
-
MIRI has cooled down. This component is a beast of technology.
IN DEPTH: Technical Details For MIRI
The MIRI has three Arsenic-doped Silicon (Si:As) detector arrays. The camera module provides wide-field broadband imagery, and the spectrograph module provides medium-resolution spectroscopy over a smaller field of view compared to the imager. The nominal operating temperature for the MIRI is 7K. This level of cooling cannot be attained using the passive cooling provided by the Thermal Management Subsystem. Webb carries an innovative "cryocooler" that is dedicated to cooling MIRI's detectors. Instead, there is a two-step process: A Pulse Tube precooler gets the instrument down to 18K; and a Joule-Thomson Loop heat exchanger knocks it down to 7K.
June can't come soon enough.
I can't wait, going to be as exciting as when the Hubble launched.
-
Jwst totally needs an onlyfans account!
-
I was just watching the video below about the actuators that control the positioning of the mirrors, they can make adjustments at 2nm over a range of 2cm which is just crazy, . . .
Apparently you haven't seen my d!ck pics. )
-
I was just watching the video below about the actuators that control the positioning of the mirrors, they can make adjustments at 2nm over a range of 2cm which is just crazy, . . .
Apparently you haven't seen my d!ck pics. )
Are you sure about that?
-
All you have there is a bunch of unsupported claims, with no evidence for them.
The Twin towers were the tallest buildings in the city. There's going to be large numbers of people observing them at any time, Especially after a terrorist attack against one of them is reported.
If the Towers collapsed without planes, there would be videos that support that, there would be videos of of the south tower going from fine to damaged without anything hitting it.
Tens of thousands of people work in each tower, the attacks happened during the work day. There were tens of thousands of people who escaped the tower.
If you want to claim they were prevented from entering, there there absolutely WOULD be evidence of this.
Not really. Many people watched the complete WTC at New York being destroyed live on TV and it was a nice show ... but it was a show. I had earlier visited the office of the American Bureau of Shipping in one of the towers and it looked deserted already then. ABS moved out to the suburbs and nobody died. Like the JWST that took off from Earth in December and moved to space and which is now cooling down at L2 ready to send pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. People think it is fantastic. I think it is a hoax.
-
All you have there is a bunch of unsupported claims, with no evidence for them.
The Twin towers were the tallest buildings in the city. There's going to be large numbers of people observing them at any time, Especially after a terrorist attack against one of them is reported.
If the Towers collapsed without planes, there would be videos that support that, there would be videos of of the south tower going from fine to damaged without anything hitting it.
Tens of thousands of people work in each tower, the attacks happened during the work day. There were tens of thousands of people who escaped the tower.
If you want to claim they were prevented from entering, there there absolutely WOULD be evidence of this.
Not really. Many people watched the complete WTC at New York being destroyed live on TV and it was a nice show ... but it was a show. I had earlier visited the office of the American Bureau of Shipping in one of the towers and it looked deserted already then. ABS moved out to the suburbs and nobody died. Like the JWST that took off from Earth in December and moved to space and which is now cooling down at L2 ready to send pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. People think it is fantastic. I think it is a hoax.
So you think that throwing in a sentence about the JWST gets you off the hook to ramble about your stupid conspiracy theory challenge nonsense? 9/11 WTC 'a nice show'? You're a sick, sick loser
-
All you have there is a bunch of unsupported claims, with no evidence for them.
The Twin towers were the tallest buildings in the city. There's going to be large numbers of people observing them at any time, Especially after a terrorist attack against one of them is reported.
If the Towers collapsed without planes, there would be videos that support that, there would be videos of of the south tower going from fine to damaged without anything hitting it.
Tens of thousands of people work in each tower, the attacks happened during the work day. There were tens of thousands of people who escaped the tower.
If you want to claim they were prevented from entering, there there absolutely WOULD be evidence of this.
Not really. Many people watched the complete WTC at New York being destroyed live on TV and it was a nice show ... but it was a show. I had earlier visited the office of the American Bureau of Shipping in one of the towers and it looked deserted already then. ABS moved out to the suburbs and nobody died. Like the JWST that took off from Earth in December and moved to space and which is now cooling down at L2 ready to send pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. People think it is fantastic. I think it is a hoax.
And thousands of people watched it in real life. In fact, there were likely thousands who’s offices were situated in such a way that they would have the towers in their field of vew while they were working.
-
All you have there is a bunch of unsupported claims, with no evidence for them.
The Twin towers were the tallest buildings in the city. There's going to be large numbers of people observing them at any time, Especially after a terrorist attack against one of them is reported.
If the Towers collapsed without planes, there would be videos that support that, there would be videos of of the south tower going from fine to damaged without anything hitting it.
Tens of thousands of people work in each tower, the attacks happened during the work day. There were tens of thousands of people who escaped the tower.
If you want to claim they were prevented from entering, there there absolutely WOULD be evidence of this.
Not really. Many people watched the complete WTC at New York being destroyed live on TV and it was a nice show ... but it was a show. I had earlier visited the office of the American Bureau of Shipping in one of the towers and it looked deserted already then. ABS moved out to the suburbs and nobody died. Like the JWST that took off from Earth in December and moved to space and which is now cooling down at L2 ready to send pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. People think it is fantastic. I think it is a hoax.
And thousands of people watched it in real life. In fact, there were likely thousands who’s offices were situated in such a way that they would have the towers in their field of vew while they were working.
Yes I know. I visited ABS in one of the WTC towers 1998 to discuss the Coulombi Egg tanker design (see other thread) and they were relocating and moving out to New Jersey. It seemed the tower was empty when I was there but do not tell FBI that. The two towers were structurally just like a bird cage with floors and full of air, top of which could not crush down the bottom as suggested by various structural engineers afterwards. I have myself written a scientific, peer reviewed paper about progressive structural collapses at the request of Northwestern University, Chicagb. But when I was going to present it 2013, it seemed FBI called the university and stopped my presentation - EMI - Evanston, 8/2013. Since then I do not visit USA any longer. It is not safe.
-
All you have there is a bunch of unsupported claims, with no evidence for them.
The Twin towers were the tallest buildings in the city. There's going to be large numbers of people observing them at any time, Especially after a terrorist attack against one of them is reported.
If the Towers collapsed without planes, there would be videos that support that, there would be videos of of the south tower going from fine to damaged without anything hitting it.
Tens of thousands of people work in each tower, the attacks happened during the work day. There were tens of thousands of people who escaped the tower.
If you want to claim they were prevented from entering, there there absolutely WOULD be evidence of this.
Not really. Many people watched the complete WTC at New York being destroyed live on TV and it was a nice show ... but it was a show. I had earlier visited the office of the American Bureau of Shipping in one of the towers and it looked deserted already then. ABS moved out to the suburbs and nobody died. Like the JWST that took off from Earth in December and moved to space and which is now cooling down at L2 ready to send pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. People think it is fantastic. I think it is a hoax.
And thousands of people watched it in real life. In fact, there were likely thousands who’s offices were situated in such a way that they would have the towers in their field of vew while they were working.
Yes I know. I visited ABS in one of the WTC towers 1998 to discuss the Coulombi Egg tanker design (see other thread) and they were relocating and moving out to New Jersey. It seemed the tower was empty when I was there but do not tell FBI that. The two towers were structurally just like a bird cage with floors and full of air, top of which could not crush down the bottom as suggested by various structural engineers afterwards. I have myself written a scientific, peer reviewed paper about progressive structural collapses at the request of Northwestern University, Chicagb. But when I was going to present it 2013, it seemed FBI called the university and stopped my presentation - EMI - Evanston, 8/2013. Since then I do not visit USA any longer. It is not safe.
Then you'll have no trouble linking to this paper.
-
Blade, you may want to resurrect this thread:
Banned by the EMI - Anders Bjorkman's lost paper (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62539.0/)
It’s pure comedy and lies aplenty.
-
Blade, you may want to resurrect this thread:
Banned by the EMI - Anders Bjorkman's lost paper (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62539.0/)
It’s pure comedy and lies aplenty.
No, I was never banned. I was invited by EMI to present http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm and then the EMI told me I couldn't come, etc. Me? I don't really care. Anyone can read my paper on the Internet.
-
Didn't you just get banned for shilling your bulshit website?
-
Didn't you just get banned for shilling your bulshit website?
No, the matter (911) was discussed here 2015 without problems. Now we discuss JWST taking pictures of the beginning or end of the Universe from L2. I just consider it a hoax. If you don't agree, forget it. Why would you bother?
-
I'm looking forward to the 40MP images from the main NIRCam imaging sensor.
The various science instruments are cool but I want to see the pretty pictures. :)
-
Blade, you may want to resurrect this thread:
Banned by the EMI - Anders Bjorkman's lost paper (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62539.0/)
It’s pure comedy and lies aplenty.
No, I was never banned. I was invited by EMI to present http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm and then the EMI told me I couldn't come, etc. Me? I don't really care. Anyone can read my paper on the Internet.
This thread is about JWST. It's not about your website. It's not about the WTC. You were quite literally just serving a 3-day ban for derailing threads and shilling your website. Since returning, you made 4 posts before you fell back into shilling your website. And unsurprisingly, your second post after returning from the ban was completely off topic in the thread you were posting in.
It's easy enough to summarize the points you have attempted to make here. JWST is a hoax, visit your website, you're a very important person with lots of money living in splendor. That's pretty much it. You can stop it now. If you find yourself about to post something, and that something can be distilled down to one of those talking points you seem to be stuck on, don't click the post button.
-
Blade, you may want to resurrect this thread:
Banned by the EMI - Anders Bjorkman's lost paper (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62539.0/)
It’s pure comedy and lies aplenty.
No, I was never banned. I was invited by EMI to present http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm and then the EMI told me I couldn't come, etc. Me? I don't really care. Anyone can read my paper on the Internet.
This thread is about JWST. It's not about your website. It's not about the WTC. You were quite literally just serving a 3-day ban for derailing threads and shilling your website. Since returning, you made 4 posts before you fell back into shilling your website. And unsurprisingly, your second post after returning from the ban was completely off topic in the thread you were posting in.
It's easy enough to summarize the points you have attempted to make here. JWST is a hoax, visit your website, you're a very important person with lots of money living in splendor. That's pretty much it. You can stop it now. If you find yourself about to post something, and that something can be distilled down to one of those talking points you seem to be stuck on, don't click the post button.
Topic is the JWST and soon it will provide us with pictures of the beginning of the Universe, etc. Let's wait and have a look at these pictures.
-
Hot side hot, Cold side brrrr...
(https://i.imgur.com/wC9xo9E.png)
-
Hot side hot, Cold side brrrr...
The JWST at L2 looks in 360° directions, i.e. up/down/right/left/forward/aft to make a photo of the origin of the Universe ... in all directions. It is magic.
-
Hot side hot, Cold side brrrr...
The JWST at L2 looks in 360° directions, i.e. up/down/right/left/forward/aft to make a photo of the origin of the Universe ... in all directions. It is magic.
That would 720°
-
Hot side hot, Cold side brrrr...
The JWST at L2 looks in 360° directions, i.e. up/down/right/left/forward/aft to make a photo of the origin of the Universe ... in all directions. It is magic.
Yes, it really is almost magical how the orbit of the L2 point allows the JWST to look in any direction it needs to just by waiting for the orbit to carry it into the proper orientation. It's also rotating at about 0.000002 RPM to keep the sunshield between itself and the Sun.
-
All you have there is a bunch of unsupported claims, with no evidence for them.
The Twin towers were the tallest buildings in the city. There's going to be large numbers of people observing them at any time, Especially after a terrorist attack against one of them is reported.
If the Towers collapsed without planes, there would be videos that support that, there would be videos of of the south tower going from fine to damaged without anything hitting it.
Tens of thousands of people work in each tower, the attacks happened during the work day. There were tens of thousands of people who escaped the tower.
If you want to claim they were prevented from entering, there there absolutely WOULD be evidence of this.
Not really. Many people watched the complete WTC at New York being destroyed live on TV and it was a nice show ... but it was a show. I had earlier visited the office of the American Bureau of Shipping in one of the towers and it looked deserted already then. ABS moved out to the suburbs and nobody died. Like the JWST that took off from Earth in December and moved to space and which is now cooling down at L2 ready to send pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. People think it is fantastic. I think it is a hoax.
And thousands of people watched it in real life. In fact, there were likely thousands who’s offices were situated in such a way that they would have the towers in their field of vew while they were working.
Yes I know. I visited ABS in one of the WTC towers 1998 to discuss the Coulombi Egg tanker design (see other thread) and they were relocating and moving out to New Jersey. It seemed the tower was empty when I was there but do not tell FBI that. The two towers were structurally just like a bird cage with floors and full of air, top of which could not crush down the bottom as suggested by various structural engineers afterwards. I have myself written a scientific, peer reviewed paper about progressive structural collapses at the request of Northwestern University, Chicagb. But when I was going to present it 2013, it seemed FBI called the university and stopped my presentation - EMI - Evanston, 8/2013. Since then I do not visit USA any longer. It is not safe.
Are you real? Where was the paper reviewed? Where can it be accessed?
Could you not provide a link?
-
All you have there is a bunch of unsupported claims, with no evidence for them.
The Twin towers were the tallest buildings in the city. There's going to be large numbers of people observing them at any time, Especially after a terrorist attack against one of them is reported.
If the Towers collapsed without planes, there would be videos that support that, there would be videos of of the south tower going from fine to damaged without anything hitting it.
Tens of thousands of people work in each tower, the attacks happened during the work day. There were tens of thousands of people who escaped the tower.
If you want to claim they were prevented from entering, there there absolutely WOULD be evidence of this.
Not really. Many people watched the complete WTC at New York being destroyed live on TV and it was a nice show ... but it was a show. I had earlier visited the office of the American Bureau of Shipping in one of the towers and it looked deserted already then. ABS moved out to the suburbs and nobody died. Like the JWST that took off from Earth in December and moved to space and which is now cooling down at L2 ready to send pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. People think it is fantastic. I think it is a hoax.
And thousands of people watched it in real life. In fact, there were likely thousands who’s offices were situated in such a way that they would have the towers in their field of vew while they were working.
Yes I know. I visited ABS in one of the WTC towers 1998 to discuss the Coulombi Egg tanker design (see other thread) and they were relocating and moving out to New Jersey. It seemed the tower was empty when I was there but do not tell FBI that. The two towers were structurally just like a bird cage with floors and full of air, top of which could not crush down the bottom as suggested by various structural engineers afterwards. I have myself written a scientific, peer reviewed paper about progressive structural collapses at the request of Northwestern University, Chicagb. But when I was going to present it 2013, it seemed FBI called the university and stopped my presentation - EMI - Evanston, 8/2013. Since then I do not visit USA any longer. It is not safe.
Are you real? Where was the paper reviewed? Where can it be accessed?
Could you not provide a link?
I'm sure Heiwa is being totally honest and not misrepresenting things here. Totally and completely on the up-and-up, that Heiwa. I'm equally certain he's not going to post another link to his website, which is not a peer review journal, nor is he going to instruct or invite anyone to visit his website to find said paper. That's the Heiwa of the past. The New and Improved Heiwa Formula is definitely going to result in a Heiwa that will read what people have written, see the request for some sort of link to a peer review journal that his paper was published in, and share said link. I believe in him.
-
The JWST's communication systems are capable of transmitting 270 Gb a day.
Crazy to think we have a 10Mb/s out to a satellite in L2 when large sections of our own planet don't have that kind of speed.
-
All you have there is a bunch of unsupported claims, with no evidence for them.
The Twin towers were the tallest buildings in the city. There's going to be large numbers of people observing them at any time, Especially after a terrorist attack against one of them is reported.
If the Towers collapsed without planes, there would be videos that support that, there would be videos of of the south tower going from fine to damaged without anything hitting it.
Tens of thousands of people work in each tower, the attacks happened during the work day. There were tens of thousands of people who escaped the tower.
If you want to claim they were prevented from entering, there there absolutely WOULD be evidence of this.
Not really. Many people watched the complete WTC at New York being destroyed live on TV and it was a nice show ... but it was a show. I had earlier visited the office of the American Bureau of Shipping in one of the towers and it looked deserted already then. ABS moved out to the suburbs and nobody died. Like the JWST that took off from Earth in December and moved to space and which is now cooling down at L2 ready to send pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. People think it is fantastic. I think it is a hoax.
And thousands of people watched it in real life. In fact, there were likely thousands who’s offices were situated in such a way that they would have the towers in their field of vew while they were working.
Yes I know. I visited ABS in one of the WTC towers 1998 to discuss the Coulombi Egg tanker design (see other thread) and they were relocating and moving out to New Jersey. It seemed the tower was empty when I was there but do not tell FBI that. The two towers were structurally just like a bird cage with floors and full of air, top of which could not crush down the bottom as suggested by various structural engineers afterwards. I have myself written a scientific, peer reviewed paper about progressive structural collapses at the request of Northwestern University, Chicagb. But when I was going to present it 2013, it seemed FBI called the university and stopped my presentation - EMI - Evanston, 8/2013. Since then I do not visit USA any longer. It is not safe.
Are you real? Where was the paper reviewed? Where can it be accessed?
Could you not provide a link?
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
-
The JWST's communication systems are capable of transmitting 270 Gb a day.
Crazy to think we have a 10Mb/s out to a satellite in L2 when large sections of our own planet don't have that kind of speed.
It's really a testament to what we're capable of when we really set our sights on a target
-
The JWST's communication systems are capable of transmitting 270 Gb a day.
Crazy to think we have a 10Mb/s out to a satellite in L2 when large sections of our own planet don't have that kind of speed.
Isn't 270 Gb a day 3,125 Mb/s?
-
All you have there is a bunch of unsupported claims, with no evidence for them.
The Twin towers were the tallest buildings in the city. There's going to be large numbers of people observing them at any time, Especially after a terrorist attack against one of them is reported.
If the Towers collapsed without planes, there would be videos that support that, there would be videos of of the south tower going from fine to damaged without anything hitting it.
Tens of thousands of people work in each tower, the attacks happened during the work day. There were tens of thousands of people who escaped the tower.
If you want to claim they were prevented from entering, there there absolutely WOULD be evidence of this.
Not really. Many people watched the complete WTC at New York being destroyed live on TV and it was a nice show ... but it was a show. I had earlier visited the office of the American Bureau of Shipping in one of the towers and it looked deserted already then. ABS moved out to the suburbs and nobody died. Like the JWST that took off from Earth in December and moved to space and which is now cooling down at L2 ready to send pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. People think it is fantastic. I think it is a hoax.
And thousands of people watched it in real life. In fact, there were likely thousands who’s offices were situated in such a way that they would have the towers in their field of vew while they were working.
Yes I know. I visited ABS in one of the WTC towers 1998 to discuss the Coulombi Egg tanker design (see other thread) and they were relocating and moving out to New Jersey. It seemed the tower was empty when I was there but do not tell FBI that. The two towers were structurally just like a bird cage with floors and full of air, top of which could not crush down the bottom as suggested by various structural engineers afterwards. I have myself written a scientific, peer reviewed paper about progressive structural collapses at the request of Northwestern University, Chicagb. But when I was going to present it 2013, it seemed FBI called the university and stopped my presentation - EMI - Evanston, 8/2013. Since then I do not visit USA any longer. It is not safe.
Are you real? Where was the paper reviewed? Where can it be accessed?
Could you not provide a link?
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Stop linking to your shitty site, link to the paper.
-
All you have there is a bunch of unsupported claims, with no evidence for them.
The Twin towers were the tallest buildings in the city. There's going to be large numbers of people observing them at any time, Especially after a terrorist attack against one of them is reported.
If the Towers collapsed without planes, there would be videos that support that, there would be videos of of the south tower going from fine to damaged without anything hitting it.
Tens of thousands of people work in each tower, the attacks happened during the work day. There were tens of thousands of people who escaped the tower.
If you want to claim they were prevented from entering, there there absolutely WOULD be evidence of this.
Not really. Many people watched the complete WTC at New York being destroyed live on TV and it was a nice show ... but it was a show. I had earlier visited the office of the American Bureau of Shipping in one of the towers and it looked deserted already then. ABS moved out to the suburbs and nobody died. Like the JWST that took off from Earth in December and moved to space and which is now cooling down at L2 ready to send pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. People think it is fantastic. I think it is a hoax.
And thousands of people watched it in real life. In fact, there were likely thousands who’s offices were situated in such a way that they would have the towers in their field of vew while they were working.
Yes I know. I visited ABS in one of the WTC towers 1998 to discuss the Coulombi Egg tanker design (see other thread) and they were relocating and moving out to New Jersey. It seemed the tower was empty when I was there but do not tell FBI that. The two towers were structurally just like a bird cage with floors and full of air, top of which could not crush down the bottom as suggested by various structural engineers afterwards. I have myself written a scientific, peer reviewed paper about progressive structural collapses at the request of Northwestern University, Chicago. But when I was going to present it 2013, it seemed FBI called the university and stopped my presentation - EMI - Evanston, 8/2013. Since then I do not visit USA any longer. It is not safe.
Are you real? Where was the paper reviewed? Where can it be accessed?
Could you not provide a link?
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Stop linking to your shitty site, link to the paper.
Well, I sent the paper to the EMI c/o Northwestern University, Chicago, and it was approved and published on their website but then suddenly all info/website/EMI disappeared and I had to cancel my trip ... and you have to read about it at my site. The paper is there. And I wrote it much earlier. Richard Gage, A&E 911 Truth, got an early copy, etc, etc.
-
From your site:
Mr. Bjorkman:
We regret to inform you that, after further technical evaluation, the EMI 2013 conference organization found your abstract not meeting the standards of the conference. Hence, we withdraw acceptance of your abstract which will not be featured in the conference program and book of abstracts. We apologize for this very late notice due to an oversight on our side and we will process full reimbursement of your registration.
In addition, we would like to clarify that the EMI 2013 conference organization does not support and does not endorse any of the opinions you express in your website http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm . Hence, please, refrain yourself from using the EMI 2013 logo which is copyrighted material from our EMI 2013 conference website.
Finally, it is important to point out that, contrarily to what is stated in your website, the EMI 2013 conference organization
(1) did not peer review any full paper containing the material discussed in the aforementioned website (the EMI 2013 conference does not feature full-paper proceedings) ;
(2) your abstract was not submitted upon our invitation but rather it was one of the several hundreds of unsolicited submissions we received.
Gianluca Cusatis
EMI 2013 Conference Chair
So, essentially, you sent them an unsolicited "paper" that was so bad that they didn't even make it past the abstract. It wasn’t even rejected due technical deficiencies - the introduction was bad enough.
Also note that they specifically state, contrary to your claim, your paper has not been peer reviewed.
They wanted nothing to do with your bull.
What an amazing fail! ::)
-
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.9326&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Heiwa, you might want to read this.
-
From your site:
Mr. Bjorkman:
We regret to inform you that, after further technical evaluation, the EMI 2013 conference organization found your abstract not meeting the standards of the conference. Hence, we withdraw acceptance of your abstract which will not be featured in the conference program and book of abstracts. We apologize for this very late notice due to an oversight on our side and we will process full reimbursement of your registration.
In addition, we would like to clarify that the EMI 2013 conference organization does not support and does not endorse any of the opinions you express in your website http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm . Hence, please, refrain yourself from using the EMI 2013 logo which is copyrighted material from our EMI 2013 conference website.
Finally, it is important to point out that, contrarily to what is stated in your website, the EMI 2013 conference organization
(1) did not peer review any full paper containing the material discussed in the aforementioned website (the EMI 2013 conference does not feature full-paper proceedings) ;
(2) your abstract was not submitted upon our invitation but rather it was one of the several hundreds of unsolicited submissions we received.
Gianluca Cusatis
EMI 2013 Conference Chair
So, essentially, you sent them an unsolicited "paper" that was so bad that they didn't even make it past the abstract. It wasn’t even rejected due technical deficiencies - the introduction was bad enough.
Also note that they specifically state, contrary to your claim, your paper has not been peer reviewed.
approved
They wanted nothing to do with your bull.
What an amazing fail! ::)
Can't you read? EMI contacted me! My paper was approved by EMI and put on the EMI programme and website. I prepared my trip to Evanstone/Chicago. And suddenly EMI cancelled the whole lot. My paper was and is brilliant.
-
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.9326&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Heiwa, you might want to read this.
I have read it years ago. Complete nonsense by Greening, e.g. we (i.e. Greening) have shown in this report that because of the failure of just one floor, a sequential collapse of all remaining 109 floors were inevitable. ROTFL Try to show it in a laboratory.
-
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.9326&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Heiwa, you might want to read this.
I have read it years ago. Complete nonsense by Greening, e.g. we (i.e. Greening) have shown in this report that because of the failure of just one floor, a sequential collapse of all remaining 109 floors were inevitable. ROTFL Try to show it in a laboratory.
The author did a whole lot of calculations to back the conclusion of the paper, you have nothing.
What exactly is nonsense about this paper?
What mistakes did they make?
-
The JWST's communication systems are capable of transmitting 270 Gb a day.
Crazy to think we have a 10Mb/s out to a satellite in L2 when large sections of our own planet don't have that kind of speed.
Isn't 270 Gb a day 3,125 Mb/s?
Yes, you have managed to properly divide two numbers. Do you have a further point to make?
-
Lets me ask you this question Scepti.
We have a thin wooden beam capable of holding up 500kg. It is capable of bending by 10cm before breaking.
If we drop a 10kg obect from 3 meter on to it, will it break? What about 20kg?
-
Can't you read? EMI contacted me! My paper was approved by EMI and put on the EMI programme and website. I prepared my trip to Evanstone/Chicago. And suddenly EMI cancelled the whole lot. My paper was and is brilliant.
Yes, I can read, very well, thank you. I am also adept at reading the meaning of things, not just the plain text.
Their letter to you says one thing to me: they had it checked by an actual engineer who reported back that it's garbage.
If your paper were brilliant they would not have later rejected it. That they initially accepted is of no consequence, if that acceptance is later withdrawn. This is not success.
It is failure.
-
Can't you read? EMI contacted me! My paper was approved by EMI and put on the EMI programme and website. I prepared my trip to Evanstone/Chicago. And suddenly EMI cancelled the whole lot. My paper was and is brilliant.
Yes, I can read, very well, thank you. I am also adept at reading the meaning of things, not just the plain text.
Their letter to you says one thing to me: they had it checked by an actual engineer who reported back that it's garbage.
If your paper were brilliant they would not have later rejected it. That they initially accepted is of no consequence, if that acceptance is later withdrawn. This is not success.
It is failure.
Read again the letter EMI sent to me. EMI contacted me earlier. I sent them my scientific paper . It was accepted and put on the EMI program and I was ready to go to the conference. And then all was cancelled and the EMI website disappeared, etc.
-
Read again the letter EMI sent to me. EMI contacted me earlier. I sent them my scientific paper . It was accepted and put on the EMI program and I was ready to go to the conference. And then all was cancelled and the EMI website disappeared, etc.
They did not contact you earlier, before you submitted your abstract.
(2) your abstract was not submitted upon our invitation but rather it was one of the several hundreds of unsolicited submissions we received.
Such a simple lie to disprove, but OK, I'll read it again. Here is the pertinent section:
We regret to inform you that, after further technical evaluation, the EMI 2013 conference organization found your abstract not meeting the standards of the conference. Hence, we withdraw acceptance of your abstract which will not be featured in the conference program and book of abstracts. We apologize for this very late notice due to an oversight on our side and we will process full reimbursement of your registration.
How else can one read this other than your abstract was initially accepted, but upon further inspection was deemed unacceptable?
They clearly reread your abstract, had a look at your website, and immediately realised you are a crank.
This can be evidenced by:
In addition, we would like to clarify that the EMI 2013 conference organization does not support and does not endorse any of the opinions you express in your website http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm . Hence, please, refrain yourself from using the EMI 2013 logo which is copyrighted material from our EMI 2013 conference website.
So, not only did they reject your abstract, they explicitly rejected the very foundation of your abstract.
Not only is your abstract a failure; your website, in the eyes of EMI, is also a failure.
-
Read again the letter EMI sent to me. EMI contacted me earlier. I sent them my scientific paper . It was accepted and put on the EMI program and I was ready to go to the conference. And then all was cancelled and the EMI website disappeared, etc.
They did not contact you earlier, before you submitted your abstract.
(2) your abstract was not submitted upon our invitation but rather it was one of the several hundreds of unsolicited submissions we received.
Such a simple lie to disprove, but OK, I'll read it again. Here is the pertinent section:
We regret to inform you that, after further technical evaluation, the EMI 2013 conference organization found your abstract not meeting the standards of the conference. Hence, we withdraw acceptance of your abstract which will not be featured in the conference program and book of abstracts. We apologize for this very late notice due to an oversight on our side and we will process full reimbursement of your registration.
How else can one read this other than your abstract was initially accepted, but upon further inspection was deemed unacceptable?
They clearly reread your abstract, had a look at your website, and immediately realised you are a crank.
This can be evidenced by:
In addition, we would like to clarify that the EMI 2013 conference organization does not support and does not endorse any of the opinions you express in your website http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm . Hence, please, refrain yourself from using the EMI 2013 logo which is copyrighted material from our EMI 2013 conference website.
So, not only did they reject your abstract, they explicitly rejected the very foundation of your abstract.
Not only is your abstract a failure; your website, in the eyes of EMI, is also a failure.
Here we discuss JWST 2022 (a hoax) and you start to discuss my invitation to the EMI 2013 conference about structural collapses by terrorists 2001. Why do you change the topic/subject?
-
Lets me ask you this question Heiwa
We have a thin wooden beam capable of holding up 500kg. It is capable of bending by 10cm before breaking.
If we drop a 10kg obect from 3 meter on to it, will it break? What about 20kg?
-
Lets me ask you this question Heiwa
We have a thin wooden beam capable of holding up 500kg. It is capable of bending by 10cm before breaking.
If we drop a 10kg obect from 3 meter on to it, will it break? What about 20kg?
You don't need to keep quoting yourself. He can't reply for a few more days. I forgot to update the ban list thread in AR, but that's why he isn't replying right now.
-
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-alignment-complete
Looks like they finished aligning the mirrors and have finishes with the focusing stage. Now we start getting the pretty pictures!
Mirrors are nearly cooled down to their planned operating levels as well.
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VivyVd9nZdbL9wbLrR6FxU-970-80.png.webp)
-
Lets me ask you this question Heiwa
We have a thin wooden beam capable of holding up 500kg. It is capable of bending by 10cm before breaking.
If we drop a 10kg obect from 3 meter on to it, will it break? What about 20kg?
You don't need to keep quoting yourself. He can't reply for a few more days. I forgot to update the ban list thread in AR, but that's why he isn't replying right now.
Topic is the JWST taking pictures of the end of the Universe, where stars are born, etc. I have just updated http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm recommending the JWST to take a picture of planet Pluto in our Solar system as a start.
-
All of this weeks space exploration updates including JWST's latest alignment:
A lot is going on up there.
-
Lets me ask you this question Heiwa
We have a thin wooden beam capable of holding up 500kg. It is capable of bending by 10cm before breaking.
If we drop a 10kg obect from 3 meter on to it, will it break? What about 20kg?
You don't need to keep quoting yourself. He can't reply for a few more days. I forgot to update the ban list thread in AR, but that's why he isn't replying right now.
Topic is the JWST taking pictures of the end of the Universe, where stars are born, etc. I have just updated http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm recommending the JWST to take a picture of planet Pluto in our Solar system as a start.
New horizons already took pictures in more detail then the JWST did.
-
Lets me ask you this question Heiwa
We have a thin wooden beam capable of holding up 500kg. It is capable of bending by 10cm before breaking.
If we drop a 10kg obect from 3 meter on to it, will it break? What about 20kg?
You don't need to keep quoting yourself. He can't reply for a few more days. I forgot to update the ban list thread in AR, but that's why he isn't replying right now.
Topic is the JWST taking pictures of the end of the Universe, where stars are born, etc. I have just updated http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm recommending the JWST to take a picture of planet Pluto in our Solar system as a start.
New horizons already took pictures in more detail then the JWST did.
Yes, it took New Horizons seven years to do it. JWST has still not managed it even if I asked NASA to do it as a test.
-
Lets me ask you this question Heiwa
We have a thin wooden beam capable of holding up 500kg. It is capable of bending by 10cm before breaking.
If we drop a 10kg obect from 3 meter on to it, will it break? What about 20kg?
You don't need to keep quoting yourself. He can't reply for a few more days. I forgot to update the ban list thread in AR, but that's why he isn't replying right now.
Topic is the JWST taking pictures of the end of the Universe, where stars are born, etc. I have just updated http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm recommending the JWST to take a picture of planet Pluto in our Solar system as a start.
New horizons already took pictures in more detail then the JWST did.
Yes, it took New Horizons seven years to do it. JWST has still not managed it even if I asked NASA to do it as a test.
You didn't ask NASA. You made a post on a website that only bots visit. NASA isn't paying attention. Why don't you just sit back and wait to see the great images JWST shares?
-
Yes, it took New Horizons seven years to do it. JWST has still not managed it even if I asked NASA to do it as a test.
NASA takes imaging requests from professional astronomers who submit their requests through proper channels, not from random internet conspiracy theory nutters like you.
-
Yes, it took New Horizons seven years to do it. JWST has still not managed it even if I asked NASA to do it as a test.
NASA takes imaging requests from professional astronomers who submit their requests through proper channels, not from random internet conspiracy theory nutters like you.
I doubt it. Planet Pluto is flying around only 5.5 light minutes away from JWST and and a photo of it is a must as a test. The closest star is light years away in the Milky Way galaxy. But the purpose of the JWST is to check the dark end of Universe billions of light years away, which I wonder how JWST can see. It is really far away. BTW I am not a conspiracy nutter. I simply don't believe in people having watched/witnessed/survived nuclear bombs exploding above them in Japan 1945, or US heroes saying that they have been in space and pissed on the Moon. I know they are liars.
-
It seems we have to wait another two months for some real data from JWST:
Alignment of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope is now complete. After full review, the observatory has been confirmed to be capable of capturing crisp, well-focused images with each of its four powerful onboard and science instruments. Upon completing the seventh and final stage of telescope alignment, the team held a set of key decision meetings and unanimously agreed that Webb is ready to move forward into its next and final series of preparations, known as science instrument commissioning. This process will take about two months before scientific operations begin in the summer.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/04/28/nasas-webb-in-full-focus-ready-for-instrument-commissioning/
-
Yes, it took New Horizons seven years to do it. JWST has still not managed it even if I asked NASA to do it as a test.
NASA takes imaging requests from professional astronomers who submit their requests through proper channels, not from random internet conspiracy theory nutters like you.
I doubt it. Planet Pluto is flying around only 5.5 light minutes away from JWST and and a photo of it is a must as a test.
Says who? I think we'll leave the decision regarding tests to the professionals, not a conspiracy nutter such as yourself.
I am not a conspiracy nutter.
Yes you are.
I know they are liars.
No you don't.
-
Yes, it took New Horizons seven years to do it. JWST has still not managed it even if I asked NASA to do it as a test.
NASA takes imaging requests from professional astronomers who submit their requests through proper channels, not from random internet conspiracy theory nutters like you.
I doubt it. Planet Pluto is flying around only 5.5 light minutes away from JWST and and a photo of it is a must as a test.
Says who? I think we'll leave the decision regarding tests to the professionals, not a conspiracy nutter such as yourself.
I am not a conspiracy nutter.
Yes you are.
I know they are liars.
No you don't.
Some years back I met some US asstronuts (?) at the Monaco Yacht Club that told us that they had visited the International Space Station 400 kms above us. I asked them why they never filmed their visits to the toilet up there. They had no answers. It was obvious they had never been there. Paid actors.
-
Says who? I think we'll leave the decision regarding tests to the professionals, not a conspiracy nutter such as yourself.
They do sometimes open them up to non-professionals which is cool. NASA and other large telescopes sometimes hold open house events where they ask for suggestions from the audience and in real time point some of the big telescopes at them. I've been to one of them and it's very cool to get to see how things function as well as actually get to direct it.
-
Says who? I think we'll leave the decision regarding tests to the professionals, not a conspiracy nutter such as yourself.
They do sometimes open them up to non-professionals which is cool. NASA and other large telescopes sometimes hold open house events where they ask for suggestions from the audience and in real time point some of the big telescopes at them. I've been to one of them and it's very cool to get to see how things function as well as actually get to direct it.
Yes, it is cool to look into a telescope 20 billion light years back to the end of the Universe. But there is nothing there.
-
I doubt it. Planet Pluto is flying around only 5.5 light minutes away from JWST and and a photo of it is a must as a test. The closest star is light years away in the Milky Way galaxy. But the purpose of the JWST is to check the dark end of Universe billions of light years away, which I wonder how JWST can see. It is really far away.
If you can see the ends of the universe from your window, then why shouldn't JWST be able to see it from space? ???
BTW I am not a conspiracy nutter. I simply don't believe in people having watched/witnessed/survived nuclear bombs exploding above them in Japan 1945, or US heroes saying that they have been in space and pissed on the Moon. I know they are liars.
That's pretty much the definition of a conspiracy nutter.
-
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/james-webb-space-telescope-expectations/
Caution. Not safe for work.
(https://bigthink.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/FRjH4MvXMAIBzwP.jpg?lb=1024,576)
God damn baby! Look at the size of those stellar bodies!
-
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/james-webb-space-telescope-expectations/ (https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/james-webb-space-telescope-expectations/)
Caution. Not safe for work.
(https://bigthink.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/FRjH4MvXMAIBzwP.jpg?lb=1024,576)
God damn baby! Look at the size of those stellar bodies!
I think I found the clitoris . . .
-
We're getting close...
The James Webb Space Telescope is almost ready to start blowing our minds (http://phpbb.com)
After sailing more than a million miles away from Earth, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is now only two months away from beginning scientific operations. NASA announced on April 28 that the powerful spacecraft is about to wrap up the final phase of preparations, a process called science instrument commissioning.
The new phase involves confirming each of the instrument’s functions, assessing their performance, and calibrating their systems to ensure essential operation sequences can be followed all the way through. This stage is crucial to make sure all future data collection runs smoothly. “Everybody wants to get to the science as quickly as possible, but we do have to make sure that the instruments actually are able to deliver that science,” Pontoppidan says.
Some of the evaluations on the JWST’s checklist include a moving target test which will be used to track an asteroid through space, and making sure it can recognize the signatures of planets beyond our solar system, or exoplanets. Another test will involve pointing the telescope at different portions of the sky, specifically the Large Magellanic Cloud, to measure and then correct any optical distortions its instruments might have.
(https://www.popsci.com/uploads/2022/05/05/webb_img_sharpness_details_v2-1.png)
-
I doubt it. Planet Pluto is flying around only 5.5 light minutes away from JWST and and a photo of it is a must as a test. The closest star is light years away in the Milky Way galaxy. But the purpose of the JWST is to check the dark end of Universe billions of light years away, which I wonder how JWST can see. It is really far away.
If you can see the ends of the universe from your window, then why shouldn't JWST be able to see it from space? ???
Thanks for asking. Yes, I can see the end of the Universe from my window. It is nothing. So I just wonder what JWST will see from L2?
-
Thanks for asking. Yes, I can see the end of the Universe from my window. It is nothing.
How can you see all that nothing at the end of the universe with all of those stars and galaxies in the way?
So I just wonder what JWST will see from L2?
Well, we are starting to get some hints from the pictures posted above.
-
Thanks for asking. Yes, I can see the end of the Universe from my window. It is nothing.
How can you see all that nothing at the end of the universe with all of those stars and galaxies in the way?
I use (1) my eyes and (2) my brains.
-
Thanks for asking. Yes, I can see the end of the Universe from my window. It is nothing.
How can you see all that nothing at the end of the universe with all of those stars and galaxies in the way?
I use (1) my eyes and (2) my brains.
Your eyes suck. How much of the EM spectrum can they see? And what about observations on sunny days and cloudy nights?
You don't see people flocking to you or your website for answers or pretty pictures because you have none. No one knows you or cares about your view on things. That is the sad reality for you. People do flock to NASA's website though and they see many photos
Tell you what you take a photo from your staring window and show us. We'll hold it side by side with NASA's photos and compare which one offers greater information
OK............. Go!
-
Thanks for asking. Yes, I can see the end of the Universe from my window. It is nothing.
How can you see all that nothing at the end of the universe with all of those stars and galaxies in the way?
I use (1) my eyes and (2) my brains.
Your eyes suck. How much of the EM spectrum can they see? And what about observations on sunny days and cloudy nights?
You don't see people flocking to you or your website for answers or pretty pictures because you have none. No one knows you or cares about your view on things. That is the sad reality for you. People do flock to NASA's website though and they see many photos
Tell you what you take a photo from your staring window and show us. We'll hold it side by side with NASA's photos and compare which one offers greater information
OK............. Go!
Hm, my eyes are very good. And my website works fine. And thanks for caring about me. And a photo from my window. http://ratemypoo.com Hope you recover. You really sound sick. Have you tried to consult a doctor?
-
Can you put the photo up using the [img] tags so that you dont spam us your website? You would have thought you would have learned by now...
-
Can you put the photo up using the [img] tags so that you dont spam us your website? You would have thought you would have learned by now...
https://heiwaco.tripod.com/AB75.gif
the end of the universe is in the sky in the back!!! I am in the middle in the front.
-
This is not out your window and not a photo of any stars or astronomical objects. This is you just trolling off topic nonsense. If you dont want to talk about astronomy then dont bother with the thread. Some of us want to talk about actual science and discovery.
-
This is not out your window and not a photo of any stars or astronomical objects. This is you just trolling off topic nonsense. If you dont want to talk about astronomy then dont bother with the thread. Some of us want to talk about actual science and discovery.
Sorry, it is my roof garden in the open with plenty windows in the walls around it and with the Mediterranean Sea in the back. Sometimes I sit on/in it and observe the Universe around me or when the Sun appears to rise (it is the Earth rotating). Actual science and discovery is always by observation, even if plenty people just invent things like nuclear bombs and space travel.
-
We're getting close...
The James Webb Space Telescope is almost ready to start blowing our minds (http://phpbb.com)
After sailing more than a million miles away from Earth, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is now only two months away from beginning scientific operations. NASA announced on April 28 that the powerful spacecraft is about to wrap up the final phase of preparations, a process called science instrument commissioning.
The new phase involves confirming each of the instrument’s functions, assessing their performance, and calibrating their systems to ensure essential operation sequences can be followed all the way through. This stage is crucial to make sure all future data collection runs smoothly. “Everybody wants to get to the science as quickly as possible, but we do have to make sure that the instruments actually are able to deliver that science,” Pontoppidan says.
Some of the evaluations on the JWST’s checklist include a moving target test which will be used to track an asteroid through space, and making sure it can recognize the signatures of planets beyond our solar system, or exoplanets. Another test will involve pointing the telescope at different portions of the sky, specifically the Large Magellanic Cloud, to measure and then correct any optical distortions its instruments might have.
(https://www.popsci.com/uploads/2022/05/05/webb_img_sharpness_details_v2-1.png)
Amazing. They don’t want to see then end of the Universe!!!
“With the completion of telescope alignment and half a lifetime’s worth of effort, my role on the James Webb Space Telescope mission has come to an end,” said Scott Acton, Webb wave front sensing and controls scientist, Ball Aerospace. “These images have profoundly changed the way I see the universe. We are surrounded by a symphony of creation; there are galaxies everywhere! It is my hope that everyone in the world can see them.”
Though telescope alignment is complete, some telescope calibration activities remain: As part of scientific instrument commissioning, the telescope will be commanded to point to different areas in the sky where the total amount of solar radiation hitting the observatory will vary to confirm thermal stability when changing targets. Furthermore, ongoing maintenance observations every two days will monitor the mirror alignment and, when needed, apply corrections to keep the mirrors in their aligned locations.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/04/28/nasas-webb-in-full-focus-ready-for-instrument-commissioning/
-
Amazing. They don’t want to see then end of the Universe!!!
That's right. They want to see the beginning of the universe.
-
Amazing. They don’t want to see then end of the Universe!!!
That's right. They want to see the beginning of the universe.
Or rather "probe the mysterious structures and origins of our universe and our place in it. " I do it from my roof garden using my eyes sipping a good wine and see neither a beginning nor end of it. Reason is that it - the universe - has always existed. So no telescope can see any beginning or end.
-
Amazing. They don’t want to see then end of the Universe!!!
That's right. They want to see the beginning of the universe.
Or rather "probe the mysterious structures and origins of our universe and our place in it. " I do it from my roof garden using my eyes sipping a good wine and see neither a beginning nor end of it. Reason is that it - the universe - has always existed. So no telescope can see any beginning or end.
Enjoy your wine. The rest of the civilized world will enjoy JWST.
-
Amazing. They don’t want to see then end of the Universe!!!
That's right. They want to see the beginning of the universe.
Or rather "probe the mysterious structures and origins of our universe and our place in it. " I do it from my roof garden using my eyes sipping a good wine and see neither a beginning nor end of it. Reason is that it - the universe - has always existed. So no telescope can see any beginning or end.
ca
Enjoy your wine. The rest of the civilized world will enjoy JWST.
Thanks. The rest of the world can enjoy JWST galaxies in all directions in the sky. What a show.
-
Amazing. They don’t want to see then end of the Universe!!!
That's right. They want to see the beginning of the universe.
Or rather "probe the mysterious structures and origins of our universe and our place in it. " I do it from my roof garden using my eyes sipping a good wine and see neither a beginning nor end of it. Reason is that it - the universe - has always existed. So no telescope can see any beginning or end.
ca
Enjoy your wine. The rest of the civilized world will enjoy JWST.
Thanks. The rest of the world can enjoy JWST galaxies in all directions in the sky. What a show.
Agreed. Looking forward to it.
-
Amazing. They don’t want to see then end of the Universe!!!
That's right. They want to see the beginning of the universe.
Or rather "probe the mysterious structures and origins of our universe and our place in it. " I do it from my roof garden using my eyes sipping a good wine and see neither a beginning nor end of it. Reason is that it - the universe - has always existed. So no telescope can see any beginning or end.
ca
Enjoy your wine. The rest of the civilized world will enjoy JWST.
Thanks. The rest of the world can enjoy JWST galaxies in all directions in the sky. What a show.
Agreed. Looking forward to it.
Don't get excited. There are just stars and galaxies everywhere billion light years away in the sky above us/JWST. Try the reverse with a super super microscope watching virus copulating at nano-scale inside your cells making you sick with Covid on Earth instead. Do you believe getting jabbed will make you live on Earth?
Use your brain instead!
-
Nope. You're not derailing this thread again to talk about other nonsense. You can stop right there, thanks.
-
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/05/05/examining-the-heart-of-webb-the-final-phase-of-commissioning/
“… we have more work to do before Webb is fully ready to embark on the ambitious science observations that will reveal the secrets of the universe.” …
"... Calibrating this distortion is required to precisely place the science targets on the instruments’ field of view. For example, to get the spectra of a hundred galaxies simultaneously using the NIRSpec microshutter assembly, the telescope must be pointed so that each galaxy is in the proper shutter, and there are a quarter of a million shutters!."
“...We are now in the last two months of Webb’s commissioning before it is fully ready for its scientific mission. We still have important properties and capabilities of the instruments to test, measure, and demonstrate. When these are complete, we will be ready to begin the great science programs that astronomers and the public alike have been eagerly awaiting. We are almost there.”
– Scott Friedman, lead commissionin
-
"... Calibrating this distortion is required to precisely place the science targets on the instruments’ field of view. For example, to get the spectra of a hundred galaxies simultaneously using the NIRSpec microshutter assembly, the telescope must be pointed so that each galaxy is in the proper shutter, and there are a quarter of a million shutters!."
Watching Hewia trying to figure out how they could fit a so many shutters on a telescope is like watching one of those dog videos where it's trying to get a stick through a door.
Do you think he's imagining a telescope with a 250,000 window shutters hot-glued to it in a giant ball?
What a weird place the inside of his head has to be.
-
"... Calibrating this distortion is required to precisely place the science targets on the instruments’ field of view. For example, to get the spectra of a hundred galaxies simultaneously using the NIRSpec microshutter assembly, the telescope must be pointed so that each galaxy is in the proper shutter, and there are a quarter of a million shutters!."
Watching Hewia trying to figure out how they could fit a so many shutters on a telescope is like watching one of those dog videos where it's trying to get a stick through a door.
Do you think he's imagining a telescope with a 250,000 window shutters hot-glued to it in a giant ball?
What a weird place the inside of his head has to be.
Thanks for comment. Try to spell my name right. It should be clear to anyone that I consider the JWST utter nonsense and of no value at all. But I like to discuss it and its quarter of a million shutters here. What is a JWST shutter?
-
Thanks for comment. Try to spell my name right.
I've been told by flat earthers before that pointing out spelling mistakes is racist. Just an FYI, Hawaii.
It should be clear to anyone that I consider the JWST utter nonsense and of no value at all. But I like to discuss it and its quarter of a million shutters here. What is a JWST shutter?
So let me get this straight, you have no idea what a JWST shutter is, but you're sure it has to be fake. Because you have no idea what it is.
The level of ignorance on display here is astounding. So is the fact I'm still even having this conversation. :P
-
Thanks for comment. Try to spell my name right.
I've been told by flat earthers before that pointing out spelling mistakes is racist. Just an FYI, Hawaii.
It should be clear to anyone that I consider the JWST utter nonsense and of no value at all. But I like to discuss it and its quarter of a million shutters here. What is a JWST shutter?
So let me get this straight, you have no idea what a JWST shutter is, but you're sure it has to be fake. Because you have no idea what it is.
The level of ignorance on display here is astounding. So is the fact I'm still even having this conversation. :P
Thanks AJAJ,
Topic is Jwst and it's quarter of a million shutters. Can anyone explain why JWST need so many shutters to explore the universe?
-
Thanks for comment. Try to spell my name right.
I've been told by flat earthers before that pointing out spelling mistakes is racist. Just an FYI, Hawaii.
It should be clear to anyone that I consider the JWST utter nonsense and of no value at all. But I like to discuss it and its quarter of a million shutters here. What is a JWST shutter?
So let me get this straight, you have no idea what a JWST shutter is, but you're sure it has to be fake. Because you have no idea what it is.
The level of ignorance on display here is astounding. So is the fact I'm still even having this conversation. :P
Thanks AJAJ,
Topic is Jwst and it's quarter of a million shutters. Can anyone explain why JWST need so many shutters to explore the universe?
NIRSPEC'S MICRO-SHUTTER ARRAY (https://sci.esa.int/web/jwst/-/45591-nirspec-s-micro-shutter-array)
The Micro-Shutter Array (MSA), provided by NASA, is key to NIRSpec's ability to perform simultaneous, multi-object spectroscopy of 100’s of celestial targets.
The array is composed of four independent quadrants, each one housing a Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) array, made up of 365 x 171 shutters, whose dimensions are only 80 µm x 180 µm. There are more than 1000 electrical connections obtained with bump bonding and hair-thin wire bonding techniques between each array and its quadrant. Each quadrant also houses four electronic chip controls and monitors the functionality of the shutters.
Each of the quarter of a million shutters can be addressed independently to obtain any pattern of opened/closed 'slits'. A narrow, strong quadrupole magnet, mounted on a linear moving arm, sweeps up/down across the magnetically sensitive shutters pushing them open. Electrical signals, synchronised with the sweep, are applied to the shutters and to their side walls causing them to electrostatically latch open against the walls. On the return sweep of the magnet, the desired pattern of open shutters is achieved by allowing walls that are not required for the slit pattern to discharge and to gently close the shutters by the dampening magnetic force.
-
Thanks AJAJ,
Topic is Jwst and it's quarter of a million shutters. Can anyone explain why JWST need so many shutters to explore the universe?
Yes, NASA can. It's all over their web site.
Can anyone explain why you are unable to look up information on your own, and just make up bullshit instead?
I've got a few guesses. ;D
-
Thanks for comment. Try to spell my name right.
I've been told by flat earthers before that pointing out spelling mistakes is racist. Just an FYI, Hawaii.
It should be clear to anyone that I consider the JWST utter nonsense and of no value at all. But I like to discuss it and its quarter of a million shutters here. What is a JWST shutter?
So let me get this straight, you have no idea what a JWST shutter is, but you're sure it has to be fake. Because you have no idea what it is.
The level of ignorance on display here is astounding. So is the fact I'm still even having this conversation. :P
Thanks AJAJ,
Topic is Jwst and it's quarter of a million shutters. Can anyone explain why JWST need so many shutters to explore the universe?
NIRSPEC'S MICRO-SHUTTER ARRAY (https://sci.esa.int/web/jwst/-/45591-nirspec-s-micro-shutter-array)
The Micro-Shutter Array (MSA), provided by NASA, is key to NIRSpec's ability to perform simultaneous, multi-object spectroscopy of 100’s of celestial targets.
The array is composed of four independent quadrants, each one housing a Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) array, made up of 365 x 171 shutters, whose dimensions are only 80 µm x 180 µm. There are more than 1000 electrical connections obtained with bump bonding and hair-thin wire bonding techniques between each array and its quadrant. Each quadrant also houses four electronic chip controls and monitors the functionality of the shutters.
Each of the quarter of a million shutters can be addressed independently to obtain any pattern of opened/closed 'slits'. A narrow, strong quadrupole magnet, mounted on a linear moving arm, sweeps up/down across the magnetically sensitive shutters pushing them open. Electrical signals, synchronised with the sweep, are applied to the shutters and to their side walls causing them to electrostatically latch open against the walls. On the return sweep of the magnet, the desired pattern of open shutters is achieved by allowing walls that are not required for the slit pattern to discharge and to gently close the shutters by the dampening magnetic force.
Thanks,
so to watch the whole universe via JWST I have to open a quarter of a million shutters and then ??? I am confused. Can anyone at NASA explain it?
-
Thanks AJAJ,
Topic is Jwst and it's quarter of a million shutters. Can anyone explain why JWST need so many shutters to explore the universe?
Yes, NASA can. It's all over their web site.
Can anyone explain why you are unable to look up information on your own, and just make up bullshit instead?
I've got a few guesses. ;D
I have visited the NASA website ... but it doesn't make any sense. It looks like bullshit to me.
-
Thanks AJAJ,
Topic is Jwst and it's quarter of a million shutters. Can anyone explain why JWST need so many shutters to explore the universe?
Yes, NASA can. It's all over their web site.
Can anyone explain why you are unable to look up information on your own, and just make up bullshit instead?
I've got a few guesses. ;D
I have visited the NASA website ... but it doesn't make any sense. It looks like bullshit to me.
I visited the NASA website too and it made perfect sense to me.
As always, your lack of understanding and comprehension does not defacto mean something is bullshit. It just means, in this case, you lack understanding and comprehension. Quite simple really.
-
Thanks,
so to watch the whole universe via JWST I have to open a quarter of a million shutters and then ???
No, there are other people working on where to point it, and software to control the shutters. All you need to do is sit back and wait for the incredible images they will begin sharing soon. It's easy! It's exciting! And you don't have to do any of the heavy lifting!
-
I have visited the NASA website ... but it doesn't make any sense.
Yes, we all know you can't seem to understand anything.
I'm sure you can't figure out how they fit 10 million moving mirrors into your TV either. But a DLP is real, no matter how confused it makes you.
-
“The Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) is Webb's primary imager that will cover the infrared wavelength range 0.6 to 5 microns. NIRCam will detect light from: the earliest stars and galaxies in the process of formation, the population of stars in nearby galaxies, as well as young stars in the Milky Way and Kuiper Belt objects.”
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/observatory/instruments/nircam.html
It seems that the Webb camera cannot take any pictures of the end/beginning of the Universe billions of light years away but only snap shots of nearby objects. Personally I am just interested in a photo of planet Pluto that I cannot see from my window.
-
Thanks for comment. Try to spell my name right. It should be clear to anyone that I consider the JWST utter nonsense and of no value at all.
I keep telling you that JWST wasn't made for you. It was made for professional astronomers who can get value from it.
-
It seems that the Webb camera cannot take any pictures of the end/beginning of the Universe billions of light years away but only snap shots of nearby objects.
It seems that you don't understand what "near infrared" means. ::)
Personally I am just interested in a photo of planet Pluto that I cannot see from my window.
That's what the New Horizons mission was for.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/new-horizons/in-depth/
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c6QvNgFjkjNNTTMLLStJ7Z.jpg)
-
It seems that the Webb camera cannot take any pictures of the end/beginning of the Universe billions of light years away but only snap shots of nearby objects.
It seems that you don't understand what "near infrared" means. ::)
Personally I am just interested in a photo of planet Pluto that I cannot see from my window.
That's what the New Horizons mission was for.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/new-horizons/in-depth/
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c6QvNgFjkjNNTTMLLStJ7Z.jpg)
Thanks, but I have already seen that photo of Pluto with rivers and sand bottoms, blablabli. Now I want a new photo of Pluto by JWST to see if Pluto hasn't changed.
-
It seems that the Webb camera cannot take any pictures of the end/beginning of the Universe billions of light years away but only snap shots of nearby objects.
It seems that you don't understand what "near infrared" means. ::)
I am laughing my ass off at that one. That's a new low, even for him.
Near infrared sensors can't take pictures of things far away. Brilliant.
-
Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is a spectroscopic method that uses the near-infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum (from 780 nm to 2500 nm). I wonder what it has to do with topic ... JWST?
Near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy is based on molecular overtone and combination vibrations. Such transitions are forbidden by the selection rules of quantum mechanics.
As a result, the molar absorptivity (!!!) in the near-IR region is typically quite small. One advantage is that NIR can typically penetrate much further into a sample than mid infrared radiation. Near-infrared spectroscopy is, therefore, not a particularly sensitive technique, but it can be very useful in probing bulk material with little or no sample preparation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-infrared_spectroscopy
-
Pretty complex stuff:
-
Spitzer versus JWST:
(https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/wp-content/uploads/sites/326/2022/05/spitzer_vs_webb_LMC.gif)
The Large Magellanic Cloud blooms into clarity as this image transitions from what Spitzer saw to what Webb sees.
-
It seems that the Webb camera cannot take any pictures of the end/beginning of the Universe billions of light years away but only snap shots of nearby objects.
It seems that you don't understand what "near infrared" means. ::)
Personally I am just interested in a photo of planet Pluto that I cannot see from my window.
That's what the New Horizons mission was for.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/new-horizons/in-depth/
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c6QvNgFjkjNNTTMLLStJ7Z.jpg)
Thanks, but I have already seen that photo of Pluto with rivers and sand bottoms, blablabli. Now I want a new photo of Pluto by JWST to see if Pluto hasn't changed.
They can take photos of it with Hubble or other telescopes, not as much detail, by good enough for most purposes
-
New Horizons versus humble Hubble:
(https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/web/assets/pictures/20180425_pluto-comparison-bordered.jpg)
-
New Horizons versus humble Hubble:
(https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/web/assets/pictures/20180425_pluto-comparison-bordered.jpg)
So when will we see a picture of Pluto by the JWST?
-
New Horizons versus humble Hubble:
(https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/web/assets/pictures/20180425_pluto-comparison-bordered.jpg)
So when will we see a picture of Pluto by the JWST?
How would I know?
-
New Horizons versus humble Hubble:
(https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/web/assets/pictures/20180425_pluto-comparison-bordered.jpg)
So when will we see a picture of Pluto by the JWST?
Soon. It's schedule to be released when we see pictures of Uranus.
-
I am personally not interested in Uranus, which I can see from my window. It looks like star, but as it orbits the Sun, it is a planet. It, or its atmosphere, just reflects the light from the Sun, so it can be seen by me. What is below the Uranus atmosphere, nobody knows except some asstroexperts that believe it is frozen liquids. How Uranus came about is also unknown by the same experts. I think it has always existed like the rest of the universe. The JWST will not find anything new by taking a photo of Uranus.
-
I am personally not interested in Uranus, which I can see from my window. It looks like star, but as it orbits the Sun, it is a planet. It, or its atmosphere, just reflects the light from the Sun, so it can be seen by me. What is below the Uranus atmosphere, nobody knows except some asstroexperts that believe it is frozen liquids. How Uranus came about is also unknown by the same experts. I think it has always existed like the rest of the universe. The JWST will not find anything new by taking a photo of Uranus.
I'm pretty sure you are not qualified to determine what can be learned or not regarding the cosmos. I'm going to leave that up to the experts. Of which you are not one as you are a lone conspiracy theorist with little to no knowledge regarding the topic at hand. Hardly the credentials required to make such statements credible.
-
I am personally not interested in Uranus, which I can see from my window. It looks like star, but as it orbits the Sun, it is a planet. It, or its atmosphere, just reflects the light from the Sun, so it can be seen by me. What is below the Uranus atmosphere, nobody knows except some asstroexperts that believe it is frozen liquids. How Uranus came about is also unknown by the same experts. I think it has always existed like the rest of the universe. The JWST will not find anything new by taking a photo of Uranus.
I'm pretty sure you are not qualified to determine what can be learned or not regarding the cosmos. I'm going to leave that up to the experts. Of which you are not one as you are a lone conspiracy theorist with little to no knowledge regarding the topic at hand. Hardly the credentials required to make such statements credible.
Let's face it. The Hubble space telescope hasn't found anything explaining the origin of the universe. And now JWST (topic) shall do it, as it has better equipment, etc. But there is nothing to explain. The universe is just full of galaxies that are full of stars in all directions where ever you look ... and that's all. No Black Holes. No end. No beginning. Only us on Earth - at the center of it. I like it just looking out of my window.
-
I am personally not interested in Uranus, which I can see from my window. It looks like star, but as it orbits the Sun, it is a planet. It, or its atmosphere, just reflects the light from the Sun, so it can be seen by me. What is below the Uranus atmosphere, nobody knows except some asstroexperts that believe it is frozen liquids. How Uranus came about is also unknown by the same experts. I think it has always existed like the rest of the universe. The JWST will not find anything new by taking a photo of Uranus.
I'm pretty sure you are not qualified to determine what can be learned or not regarding the cosmos. I'm going to leave that up to the experts. Of which you are not one as you are a lone conspiracy theorist with little to no knowledge regarding the topic at hand. Hardly the credentials required to make such statements credible.
Let's face it. The Hubble space telescope hasn't found anything explaining the origin of the universe. And now JWST (topic) shall do it, as it has better equipment, etc. But there is nothing to explain. The universe is just full of galaxies that are full of stars in all directions where ever you look ... and that's all. No Black Holes. No end. No beginning. Only us on Earth - at the center of it. I like it just looking out of my window.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure you are not qualified to determine what can be learned or not regarding the cosmos. I'm going to leave that up to the experts. Of which you are not one as you are a lone conspiracy theorist with little to no knowledge regarding the topic at hand. Hardly the credentials required to make such statements credible.
-
Why do you suggest that I am a lone conspiracy theorist with little to no knowledge regarding the topic at hand? There is no conspiracy about JWST or cosmos. I just happen to doubt in writing what NASA/ESA has to say about it and the money used by them to explore the cosmos, i.e. there is plenty ‘fake news’ around to fool us.
-
Why do you suggest that I am a lone conspiracy theorist with little to no knowledge regarding the topic at hand? There is no conspiracy about JWST or cosmos. I just happen to doubt in writing what NASA/ESA has to say about it and the money used by them to explore the cosmos, i.e. there is plenty ‘fake news’ around to fool us.
For one, you are a lone conspiracy theorist. The absolute definition of one. And to doubt the capabilities of JWST requires a conspiracy of lies to be at play. Ergo, that makes you a conspiracy theorist. Period.
For two, you've already expressed that your belief is that JWST is a conspiratorial lie. We get it. That's your opinion. Why do you feel the need to keep writing that over and over again, especially with no knowledge or evidence applied. Your opinion has been duly noted. Why keep being boring? You offer nothing new, informational, or interesting, just, "JWST can't do what 1000's of learned people say it can do and we don't need it anyway because I have a window and I know more than 1000's of learned people who work/worked on it and will use it for its intended purposes for the next decade or so..." Boring and useless. Your opinion is irrelevant. Especially when you just keep droning on about the same things you know nothing about.
Simple as that.
-
Why do you suggest that I am a lone conspiracy theorist with little to no knowledge regarding the topic at hand? There is no conspiracy about JWST or cosmos. I just happen to doubt in writing what NASA/ESA has to say about it and the money used by them to explore the cosmos, i.e. there is plenty ‘fake news’ around to fool us.
OK. You doubt what they say. Good for you. Why are you interested in this thread then? Go troll mikeman's thread you hijacked to make about you
-
Why do you suggest that I am a lone conspiracy theorist with little to no knowledge regarding the topic at hand?
You have demonstrated countless times your ignorance on even the basic facts of things you comment on.
You being a conspiracy theorist with little to no knowledge is simply a proven fact at this point. :)
The subject is the Jwst and visit my website.
-
Why do you suggest that I am a lone conspiracy theorist with little to no knowledge regarding the topic at hand? There is no conspiracy about JWST or cosmos. I just happen to doubt in writing what NASA/ESA has to say about it and the money used by them to explore the cosmos, i.e. there is plenty ‘fake news’ around to fool us.
For one, you are a lone conspiracy theorist. The absolute definition of one. And to doubt the capabilities of JWST requires a conspiracy of lies to be at play. Ergo, that makes you a conspiracy theorist. Period.
For two, you've already expressed that your belief is that JWST is a conspiratorial lie. We get it. That's your opinion. Why do you feel the need to keep writing that over and over again, especially with no knowledge or evidence applied. Your opinion has been duly noted. Why keep being boring? You offer nothing new, informational, or interesting, just, "JWST can't do what 1000's of learned people say it can do and we don't need it anyway because I have a window and I know more than 1000's of learned people who work/worked on it and will use it for its intended purposes for the next decade or so..." Boring and useless. Your opinion is irrelevant. Especially when you just keep droning on about the same things you know nothing about.
Simple as that.
No, the definition of a conspiracy is a secret plan by a group of people to do something unlawful or harmful and here some NASA clowns are just producing nonsense about the cosmos and the JWST = no conspiracy. They do it for the money. Like Hollywood. Entertainment. You seem to believe that their nonsense is real. I look out of my window and know it is nonsense. Like the US Space Shuttle - https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&p=2416158&sid=0a336ebcb43619f124592624c57bc894#p2416158
-
Why do you suggest that I am a lone conspiracy theorist with little to no knowledge regarding the topic at hand? There is no conspiracy about JWST or cosmos. I just happen to doubt in writing what NASA/ESA has to say about it and the money used by them to explore the cosmos, i.e. there is plenty ‘fake news’ around to fool us.
For one, you are a lone conspiracy theorist. The absolute definition of one. And to doubt the capabilities of JWST requires a conspiracy of lies to be at play. Ergo, that makes you a conspiracy theorist. Period.
For two, you've already expressed that your belief is that JWST is a conspiratorial lie. We get it. That's your opinion. Why do you feel the need to keep writing that over and over again, especially with no knowledge or evidence applied. Your opinion has been duly noted. Why keep being boring? You offer nothing new, informational, or interesting, just, "JWST can't do what 1000's of learned people say it can do and we don't need it anyway because I have a window and I know more than 1000's of learned people who work/worked on it and will use it for its intended purposes for the next decade or so..." Boring and useless. Your opinion is irrelevant. Especially when you just keep droning on about the same things you know nothing about.
Simple as that.
No, the definition of a conspiracy is a secret plan by a group of people to do something unlawful or harmful and here some NASA clowns are just producing nonsense about the cosmos and the JWST = no conspiracy. They do it for the money. Like Hollywood. Entertainment. You seem to believe that their nonsense is real. I look out of my window and know it is nonsense. Like the US Space Shuttle - https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&p=2416158&sid=0a336ebcb43619f124592624c57bc894#p2416158
You really don't know much about anything, do you?
Let me lay it out for you...
Your thing is that the JWST project is a fraud and doesn't do anything that people claim it does. It took a massive "group" of people to design, engineer, build, test and operate it. And the "group" is lying about it all and its capabilities.
- "Group" lying - The first part of your conspiracy definition
You contend that they are doing it for the money. I.e., making false claims about its capabilities for money. That is known as "fraud".
- "Fraud" - Unlawful, the second part of your conspiracy definition.
By definition, to you, JWST is a conspiracy by a group committing fraud. That's your opinion, your theory. That makes you a conspiracy theorist. Get over it, that's literally what you are.
Not to mention the fact that you have no evidence for a conspiracy, just your opinion. Which makes you one of those lame nutty conspiracy theorists just yelling on a street corner.
So, where does that leave us? You, a conspiracy theorist, believes everyone involved is lying about JWST capabilities and defrauding citizens of their tax dollars spent on a lie. Again, we get it. That's your opinion without and facts. Fine. Do you want to just keep stomping your feet and posting the same conspiracy theory opinion over, and over, and over again? Why? It's boring. And no one believes anytjhing you say is credible anyway. What's your point? What's your purpose?
Maybe I should just create a thread that says, "Heiwa has a window and that's all he needs to understand everything about the cosmos and thinks JWST is a conspiratorial fraud". Then you can just keep typing posts into it about your window for as long as you want. That's literally all you're doing here. You've got some screws loose or you're just a really boring, one-note person. There's no dimension to what you add. Completely flat, desperately lacking in facts, knowledge, intellect, and ingenuity. Just the tired old mantra about your window. It's really quite sad.
In the mean time, I can't wait for more images like this and even better:
(https://i.imgur.com/j5MeYB7.gif)
-
Can’t you read what I write ? A conspiracy is unlawful and harmful. The JWST is just stupid bullshit of design, engineering, building, testing and operation of a 2022 model space telescope. It cannot possibly take a picture of the beginning/end of the Universe 15 billion light years away. It is like the gravity assist kicks to explore our little Solar system in the past - https://heiwaco.com/moontravelc.htm - complete nonsense. Imagine it took NASA spacecraft Voyager 2 12 years just to fly to Neptunus and pass it … to take one picture. Fantastic.
-
Can’t you read what I write ? A conspiracy is unlawful and harmful. The JWST is just stupid bullshit of design, engineering, building, testing and operation of a 2022 model space telescope. It cannot possibly take a picture of the beginning/end of the Universe 15 billion light years away. It is like the gravity assist kicks to explore our little Solar system in the past - https://heiwaco.com/moontravelc.htm - complete nonsense. Imagine it took NASA spacecraft Voyager 2 12 years just to fly to Neptunus and pass it … to take one picture. Fantastic.
There's nothing about a conspiracy theory that requires it be "harmful". You fit the definition of a conspiracy theorist to a tee. That is what is known as a fact. Something you seem to have no regard for. That's just the sad truth.
And, ummm, Voyager didn't take just 1 picture of Neptune. Wow, you really don't know much about anything.
Lastly, we're talking about JWST. Not Voyager, not the moon, or any of your other conspiracy theories. So, reporting you for spamming your site, again, that is chock full of off-topic conspiracy theories.
-
Can’t you read what I write ? A conspiracy is unlawful and harmful. The JWST is just stupid bullshit of design, engineering, building, testing and operation of a 2022 model space telescope. It cannot possibly take a picture of the beginning/end of the Universe 15 billion light years away. It is like the gravity assist kicks to explore our little Solar system in the past - https://heiwaco.com/moontravelc.htm - complete nonsense. Imagine it took NASA spacecraft Voyager 2 12 years just to fly to Neptunus and pass it … to take one picture. Fantastic.
There's nothing about a conspiracy theory that requires it be "harmful". You fit the definition of a conspiracy theorist to a tee. That is what is known as a fact. Something you seem to have no regard for. That's just the sad truth.
And, ummm, Voyager didn't take just 1 picture of Neptune. Wow, you really don't know much about anything.
Lastly, we're talking about JWST. Not Voyager, not the moon, or any of your other conspiracy theories. So, reporting you for spamming your site, again, that is chock full of off-topic conspiracy theories.
Thanks for comments. Topic is JWST that I believe is a stupid hoax by NASA as usual, which I explain at my website since many, many years. The search engines find it, so spamming is not needed. I don't sell anything. My info is free of charge. If you want me to inspect ships, it costs as usual. But I am happily retired in Southern France, and quite rich, so I just comment the US space jokes for fun.
-
Can’t you read what I write ? A conspiracy is unlawful and harmful.
You mean, can't we read what random things you copy-paste? Here is the actual definition.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy
conspiracy - noun
1: the act of conspiring together
2a: an agreement among conspirators
b: a group of conspirators
Now, what YOU are quoting is further down on that page... LOL. You never cease to amuse.
Kids Definition of conspiracy
1: a secret agreement to do something harmful or unlawful
2: the act of plotting with others to do something harmful or unlawful
3: a group of conspirators
Thanks for comments. Topic is JWST, visit my website.
-
Can’t you read what I write ? A conspiracy is unlawful and harmful.
You mean, can't we read what random things you copy-paste? Here is the actual definition.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy
conspiracy - noun
1: the act of conspiring together
2a: an agreement among conspirators
b: a group of conspirators
Now, what YOU are quoting is further down on that page... LOL. You never cease to amuse.
Kids Definition of conspiracy
1: a secret agreement to do something harmful or unlawful
2: the act of plotting with others to do something harmful or unlawful
3: a group of conspirators
Thanks for comments. Topic is JWST, visit my website.
Thanks, the JWST is what it is by definition. But what is it?
-
Thanks, the JWST is what it is by definition. But what is it?
It's something far too complex for you to understand, apparently.
Thanks for comments. Topic is JWST, visit my website.
-
Thanks, the JWST is what it is by definition. But what is it?
It's something far too complex for you to understand, apparently.
Thanks for comments. Topic is JWST, visit my website.
Yes, topic is JWST but where is the evidence that JWST is in space and at L2? I have seen some JWST pictures but compared from my window they are not from L2. The look copypaste from LEO.
-
Thanks, the JWST is what it is by definition. But what is it?
It's something far too complex for you to understand, apparently.
Thanks for comments. Topic is JWST, visit my website.
Yes, topic is JWST but where is the evidence that JWST is in space and at L2? I have seen some JWST pictures but compared from my window they are not from L2. The look copypaste from LEO.
Thanks for comments. Topic is JWST, visit my website. My window shows what the JWST is looking at, space! I see pasta.
-
Cool explainer of all the instruments onboard - More detailed info behind the link:
Seventeen Modes to Discovery: Webb’s Final Commissioning Activities (https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/05/12/seventeen-modes-to-discovery-webbs-final-commissioning-activities/)
1. Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) imaging.
- An example target in a Webb cycle 1 program using this mode: the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field.
2. NIRCam wide field slitless spectroscopy.
- Example target: distant quasars.
3. NIRCam coronagraphy.
- Example target: the gas giant exoplanet HIP 65426 b.
4. NIRCam time series observations – imaging.
- Example target: a pulsing white dwarf star called a magnetar.
5. NIRCam time series observations – grism.
- Example target: lava rain on the super-Earth-size exoplanet 55 Cancri e.
6. Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) multi-object spectroscopy.
Example target: the Extended Groth Strip deep field.
7. NIRSpec fixed slit spectroscopy.
- Example target: detecting light from a gravitational-wave source known as a kilonova.
8. NIRSpec integral field unit spectroscopy.
- Example target: a distant galaxy boosted by gravitational lensing.
9. NIRSpec bright object time series.
- Example target: following a hot super-Earth-size exoplanet for a full orbit to map the planet’s temperature.
10. Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS) single object slitless spectroscopy.
- Example target: small, potentially rocky exoplanets TRAPPIST-1b and 1c.
11. NIRISS wide field slitless spectroscopy. NIRISS includes a slitless spectroscopy mode optimized for finding and studying distant galaxies.
- Example target: pure parallel search for active star-forming galaxies.
12. NIRISS aperture masking interferometry.
- Example target: a binary star with colliding stellar winds.
13. NIRISS imaging.
- Example target: a Hubble Frontier Field gravitational lensing galaxy cluster.
14. Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) imaging.
- Example target: the nearby galaxy Messier 33.
15. MIRI low-resolution spectroscopy.
- Example target: Pluto’s moon Charon.
16. MIRI medium-resolution spectroscopy.
- Example targets: molecules in planet-forming disks.
17. MIRI coronagraphic imaging. MIRI has two types of coronagraphy: a spot that blocks light and three four-quadrant phase mask coronagraphs.
- Example target: searching for planets around our nearest neighbor star Alpha Centauri A.
-
Cool explainer of all the instruments onboard - More detailed info behind the link:
Seventeen Modes to Discovery: Webb’s Final Commissioning Activities (https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/05/12/seventeen-modes-to-discovery-webbs-final-commissioning-activities/)
1. Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) imaging.
- An example target in a Webb cycle 1 program using this mode: the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field.
2. NIRCam wide field slitless spectroscopy.
- Example target: distant quasars.
3. NIRCam coronagraphy.
- Example target: the gas giant exoplanet HIP 65426 b.
4. NIRCam time series observations – imaging.
- Example target: a pulsing white dwarf star called a magnetar.
5. NIRCam time series observations – grism.
- Example target: lava rain on the super-Earth-size exoplanet 55 Cancri e.
6. Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) multi-object spectroscopy.
Example target: the Extended Groth Strip deep field.
7. NIRSpec fixed slit spectroscopy.
- Example target: detecting light from a gravitational-wave source known as a kilonova.
8. NIRSpec integral field unit spectroscopy.
- Example target: a distant galaxy boosted by gravitational lensing.
9. NIRSpec bright object time series.
- Example target: following a hot super-Earth-size exoplanet for a full orbit to map the planet’s temperature.
10. Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS) single object slitless spectroscopy.
- Example target: small, potentially rocky exoplanets TRAPPIST-1b and 1c.
11. NIRISS wide field slitless spectroscopy. NIRISS includes a slitless spectroscopy mode optimized for finding and studying distant galaxies.
- Example target: pure parallel search for active star-forming galaxies.
12. NIRISS aperture masking interferometry.
- Example target: a binary star with colliding stellar winds.
13. NIRISS imaging.
- Example target: a Hubble Frontier Field gravitational lensing galaxy cluster.
14. Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) imaging.
- Example target: the nearby galaxy Messier 33.
15. MIRI low-resolution spectroscopy.
- Example target: Pluto’s moon Charon.
16. MIRI medium-resolution spectroscopy.
- Example targets: molecules in planet-forming disks.
17. MIRI coronagraphic imaging. MIRI has two types of coronagraphy: a spot that blocks light and three four-quadrant phase mask coronagraphs.
- Example target: searching for planets around our nearest neighbor star Alpha Centauri A.
Very good that all these JWST instruments are soon up and running from L2. I really look forward to see a good picture of planet Pluto and its moon Charon. They are no far away, but I cannot see them from my window. Planet Uranus is also of interest to me but difficult to see with its atmosphere blocking most of it. The rest of the universe outside our Solar system and the Milky way galaxy with billions of galaxies in all directions, I don't care much about. There is nothing there to see.
Re Pluto I am told that the JWST will map the albedo and methane ice distribution on planet Pluto with resolution comparable to HST visible imaging, providing key tests for volatile transport models.
JWST MIRI imaging (6 visits, 4 filters) will yield separate thermal light curves of Pluto and its moon Charon, determining the surface thermal and energetical properties and further constraining Pluto's distribution of terrains. These JWST data will also provide a definite test of the scenario of haze control of Pluto's atmosphere thermal structure.
A deep JWST MIRI/MRS spectrum will give new insights on Pluto's atmosphere composition, including yet undetected species (e.g. C3H8, C4H2), which are expected from photochemical-microphysical models, with additional implications for the atmosphere radiative balance.
JWST MIRI/MRS will also reveal the 5-15 micron reflected spectrum of the dark/red units of Pluto, where bands due to hydrocarbon ices and irradiation products are expected; a similar study will be performed on Charon using JWST MIRI/LRS, searching for non-H2O ice signatures. Observational results will be interpreted in the framework of self-consistent and validated atmospheric and climatic models.
It sounds good. Of course it has nothing to do with beginning and end of the Universe, but anyway.
-
The rest of the universe outside our Solar system and the Milky way galaxy with billions of galaxies in all directions, I don't care much about. There is nothing there to see.
That really is one of the saddest things I've read.
Like having an beautiful ocean view apartment and keeping the blinds closed because you think there is nothing out there, never even opening them to look.
-
Can’t you read what I write ? A conspiracy is unlawful and harmful.
Are you saying that multi-billion dollar fraud is lawful? ???
-
Can’t you read what I write ? A conspiracy is unlawful and harmful.
Are you saying that multi-billion dollar fraud is lawful? ???
No! Topic is the JWST now in orbit around L2, where the instruments are being checked and trimmed. I look forward of the latest pictures of planet Pluto. Pluto has been filmed before by a passing space craft which then missed to record the albedo and methane ice distribution on it. Surface albedo is defined as the ratio of radiosity Je to the irradiance Ee (flux per unit area) received by a surface. Hopefully JWST has instruments to record these interesting information, which I cannot see when looking at the sky from my window or penthouse roof garden where the albedo is good.
-
How can you look forward to JWST measuring the albedo of Pluto if you don't think that JWST is real?
-
How can you look forward to JWST measuring the albedo of Pluto if you don't think that JWST is real?
Self Predetermination. I'm sure there is an actual psychiatric condition for what it's called, but I'm not sure of the name.
He's inflating his conspiracy ego by making statements that he knows are unlikely to occur, then when they don't occur, he'll use them to justify his original claim that JWST is fake because his conspiracies are real.
-
How can you look forward to JWST measuring the albedo of Pluto if you don't think that JWST is real?
The distance between JWST and Pluto varies as both objects are very small and moving, but say it is about 8 light minutes. Taking a photo of a planet at that distance isn't easy. So far JWST has taken a photo of part of the Milky way galaxy with 100's of stars light years apart and that photo doesn't tell me anything except that there are plenty stars in the Milky way, which I can see from my window.
-
How can you look forward to JWST measuring the albedo of Pluto if you don't think that JWST is real?
The distance between JWST and Pluto varies as both objects are very small and moving, but say it is about 8 light minutes. Taking a photo of a planet at that distance isn't easy. So far JWST has taken a photo of part of the Milky way galaxy with 100's of stars light years apart and that photo doesn't tell me anything except that there are plenty stars in the Milky way, which I can see from my window.
You can't see the stars it took pictures of.
-
How can you look forward to JWST measuring the albedo of Pluto if you don't think that JWST is real?
The distance between JWST and Pluto varies as both objects are very small and moving, but say it is about 8 light minutes. Taking a photo of a planet at that distance isn't easy. So far JWST has taken a photo of part of the Milky way galaxy with 100's of stars light years apart and that photo doesn't tell me anything except that there are plenty stars in the Milky way, which I can see from my window.
You can't see the stars it took pictures of.
No, I can see the Milky way galaxy from my window at night.
-
So far JWST has taken a photo of part of the Milky way galaxy with 100's of stars light years apart and that photo doesn't tell me anything except that there are plenty stars in the Milky way, which I can see from my window.
Your inability to understand astronomy really has nothing to do with the JWST.
-
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3e91c2ae51a5587e872e0c624a8cb59a.webp)
In that circle are the stars visible to the naked eye
Also keep in mind because you are located ON the Earth itself, a good half of them are unavailable from your vantage point
And because you are looking out a small window from inside a house, even less are available. Light pollution renders even more out of sight
When I was in Korea, I counted ~4 stars at night. The sky was a dark blue colour. That's light pollution for you
So I think the JWST has a much better vantage point and far more sensitive instruments that our eye cant detect. It also doesn't have to worry about the weather, city lights or waiting for nightfall to look at the stars.
Heiwa embarrasses himself with every post. It's amusing to see him regurgitate facts about the JWST he got from elsewhere (eg NASA) and then post it like he knows what he is talking about and then dump on its legitimacy as if he knows better.
-
Here's a cool dynamic light pollution map (https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/#zoom=1.54&lat=14.7492&lon=0.0994&layers=B0FFFFFFFTFFFFFFFFFFF).
(https://i.imgur.com/FPLDVsl.jpg)
Yeah, you can't see dick in the sky in Europe. Way too bright.
-
Here's a cool dynamic light pollution map (https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/#zoom=1.54&lat=14.7492&lon=0.0994&layers=B0FFFFFFFTFFFFFFFFFFF).
(https://i.imgur.com/FPLDVsl.jpg)
Yeah, you can't see dick in the sky in Europe. Way too bright.
There are ways to overcome light pollution.
-
Here's a cool dynamic light pollution map (https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/#zoom=1.54&lat=14.7492&lon=0.0994&layers=B0FFFFFFFTFFFFFFFFFFF).
(https://i.imgur.com/FPLDVsl.jpg)
Yeah, you can't see dick in the sky in Europe. Way too bright.
There are ways to overcome light pollution.
In Heiwas case, living in France, short of doing a cross country drive back to the unpopulated areas of his home country in Sweden, he's shit out of luck to escape it. Telescopes help filter it but his whole point is seeing all the stars in the galaxy and he even thinks he can see the Whirlpool galaxy (magnitude 8.4) from out his window with the naked eye.
I'm not sure even he expected anyone to believe him. Perhaps this is senile old man humour?
-
Here's a cool dynamic light pollution map (https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/#zoom=1.54&lat=14.7492&lon=0.0994&layers=B0FFFFFFFTFFFFFFFFFFF).
(https://i.imgur.com/FPLDVsl.jpg)
Yeah, you can't see dick in the sky in Europe. Way too bright.
There are ways to overcome light pollution.
In Heiwas case, living in France, short of doing a cross country drive back to the unpopulated areas of his home country in Sweden, he's shit out of luck to escape it. Telescopes help filter it but his whole point is seeing all the stars in the galaxy and he even thinks he can see the Whirlpool galaxy (magnitude 8.4) from out his window with the naked eye.
I'm not sure even he expected anyone to believe him. Perhaps this is senile old man humour?
I live just around the corner of OCA (https://www.oca.eu/en/ ) with a great view of the sky from my penthouse roof garden. Also good place to sip champagne!
-
Can’t you read what I write ? A conspiracy is unlawful and harmful.
Are you saying that multi-billion dollar fraud is lawful? ???
Multi? Isn't one too much?
https://www.space.com/21925-james-webb-space-telescope-jwst.html
I simply think it is a waste of money. Much better to watch it from Earth.
-
Can’t you read what I write ? A conspiracy is unlawful and harmful.
Are you saying that multi-billion dollar fraud is lawful? ???
Multi? Isn't one too much?
https://www.space.com/21925-james-webb-space-telescope-jwst.html
I simply think it is a waste of money. Much better to watch it from Earth.
Fair enough. A waste of money. Others believe it not to be.
I believe the US air forces’s F-35 Raptor at $117M each is a waste of money, but I assume others do not agree with me.
-
Can’t you read what I write ? A conspiracy is unlawful and harmful.
Are you saying that multi-billion dollar fraud is lawful? ???
Multi? Isn't one too much?
https://www.space.com/21925-james-webb-space-telescope-jwst.html
I simply think it is a waste of money. Much better to watch it from Earth.
Fair enough. A waste of money. Others believe it not to be.
I believe the US air forces’s F-35 Raptor at $117M each is a waste of money, but I assume others do not agree with me.
Topic is JWST and not the US military industrial complex. JWST was put together by one company and some engineers and put at L2 by a French company using solid fuel rocket fire works and it couldn't have cost US$ 1b. So where did the money go?
-
“(JWST) is expected to cost NASA $9.7 billion over 24 years. Of that amount, $8.8 billion was spent on spacecraft development between 2003 and 2021; $861 million is planned to support five years of operations. Adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars, the lifetime cost to NASA will be approximately $10.8 billion.”
-
“(JWST) is expected to cost NASA $9.7 billion over 24 years. Of that amount, $8.8 billion was spent on spacecraft development between 2003 and 2021; $861 million is planned to support five years of operations. Adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars, the lifetime cost to NASA will be approximately $10.8 billion.”
Do you really believe what JWST tells you? $9.7b to watch the end of the universe?
-
“(JWST) is expected to cost NASA $9.7 billion over 24 years. Of that amount, $8.8 billion was spent on spacecraft development between 2003 and 2021; $861 million is planned to support five years of operations. Adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars, the lifetime cost to NASA will be approximately $10.8 billion.”
Do you really believe what JWST tells you? $9.7b to watch the end of the universe?
You keep coming up with this 'end of the universe' bullshit when that's not what it's looking for either in the context of time or space. WTF is wrong with you?
Also, the money doesn't go down a black hole. A large part of it is spent on staff who then spend in the economy. Materials also cost a lot of money but someone is getting paid at the end of the day for that supply too.
-
“(JWST) is expected to cost NASA $9.7 billion over 24 years. Of that amount, $8.8 billion was spent on spacecraft development between 2003 and 2021; $861 million is planned to support five years of operations. Adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars, the lifetime cost to NASA will be approximately $10.8 billion.”
Do you really believe what JWST tells you? $9.7b to watch the end of the universe?
Seems like it's designed to do a smidge more than just that?
Seventeen Modes to Discovery: Webb’s Final Commissioning Activities (https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/05/12/seventeen-modes-to-discovery-webbs-final-commissioning-activities/)
1. Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) imaging.
- An example target in a Webb cycle 1 program using this mode: the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field.
2. NIRCam wide field slitless spectroscopy.
- Example target: distant quasars.
3. NIRCam coronagraphy.
- Example target: the gas giant exoplanet HIP 65426 b.
4. NIRCam time series observations – imaging.
- Example target: a pulsing white dwarf star called a magnetar.
5. NIRCam time series observations – grism.
- Example target: lava rain on the super-Earth-size exoplanet 55 Cancri e.
6. Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) multi-object spectroscopy.
Example target: the Extended Groth Strip deep field.
7. NIRSpec fixed slit spectroscopy.
- Example target: detecting light from a gravitational-wave source known as a kilonova.
8. NIRSpec integral field unit spectroscopy.
- Example target: a distant galaxy boosted by gravitational lensing.
9. NIRSpec bright object time series.
- Example target: following a hot super-Earth-size exoplanet for a full orbit to map the planet’s temperature.
10. Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS) single object slitless spectroscopy.
- Example target: small, potentially rocky exoplanets TRAPPIST-1b and 1c.
11. NIRISS wide field slitless spectroscopy. NIRISS includes a slitless spectroscopy mode optimized for finding and studying distant galaxies.
- Example target: pure parallel search for active star-forming galaxies.
12. NIRISS aperture masking interferometry.
- Example target: a binary star with colliding stellar winds.
13. NIRISS imaging.
- Example target: a Hubble Frontier Field gravitational lensing galaxy cluster.
14. Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) imaging.
- Example target: the nearby galaxy Messier 33.
15. MIRI low-resolution spectroscopy.
- Example target: Pluto’s moon Charon.
16. MIRI medium-resolution spectroscopy.
- Example targets: molecules in planet-forming disks.
17. MIRI coronagraphic imaging. MIRI has two types of coronagraphy: a spot that blocks light and three four-quadrant phase mask coronagraphs.
- Example target: searching for planets around our nearest neighbor star Alpha Centauri A.
-
“(JWST) is expected to cost NASA $9.7 billion over 24 years. Of that amount, $8.8 billion was spent on spacecraft development between 2003 and 2021; $861 million is planned to support five years of operations. Adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars, the lifetime cost to NASA will be approximately $10.8 billion.”
Do you really believe what JWST tells you? $9.7b to watch the end of the universe?
Seems like it's designed to do a smidge more than just that?
Seventeen Modes to Discovery: Webb’s Final Commissioning Activities (https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/05/12/seventeen-modes-to-discovery-webbs-final-commissioning-activities/)
1. Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) imaging.
- An example target in a Webb cycle 1 program using this mode: the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field.
2. NIRCam wide field slitless spectroscopy.
- Example target: distant quasars.
3. NIRCam coronagraphy.
- Example target: the gas giant exoplanet HIP 65426 b.
4. NIRCam time series observations – imaging.
- Example target: a pulsing white dwarf star called a magnetar.
5. NIRCam time series observations – grism.
- Example target: lava rain on the super-Earth-size exoplanet 55 Cancri e.
6. Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) multi-object spectroscopy.
Example target: the Extended Groth Strip deep field.
7. NIRSpec fixed slit spectroscopy.
- Example target: detecting light from a gravitational-wave source known as a kilonova.
8. NIRSpec integral field unit spectroscopy.
- Example target: a distant galaxy boosted by gravitational lensing.
9. NIRSpec bright object time series.
- Example target: following a hot super-Earth-size exoplanet for a full orbit to map the planet’s temperature.
10. Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS) single object slitless spectroscopy.
- Example target: small, potentially rocky exoplanets TRAPPIST-1b and 1c.
11. NIRISS wide field slitless spectroscopy. NIRISS includes a slitless spectroscopy mode optimized for finding and studying distant galaxies.
- Example target: pure parallel search for active star-forming galaxies.
12. NIRISS aperture masking interferometry.
- Example target: a binary star with colliding stellar winds.
13. NIRISS imaging.
- Example target: a Hubble Frontier Field gravitational lensing galaxy cluster.
14. Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) imaging.
- Example target: the nearby galaxy Messier 33.
15. MIRI low-resolution spectroscopy.
- Example target: Pluto’s moon Charon.
16. MIRI medium-resolution spectroscopy.
- Example targets: molecules in planet-forming disks.
17. MIRI coronagraphic imaging. MIRI has two types of coronagraphy: a spot that blocks light and three four-quadrant phase mask coronagraphs.
- Example target: searching for planets around our nearest neighbor star Alpha Centauri A.
Thanks for your funny JWST fake space really small news.
Re 14 the - nearby Messier 33 galaxy is only 2.73 million light years away from JWST, if it can find it and anything in it. Messier 33 is bigger than our Milky way galaxy. But seen by JWST it looks pretty small. MIRI cannot see anything inside Messier 33!
Re 15 Charon is only 6 light hours away at the end of our Solar system but it is pretty small too, so I doubt JWST will even find it. But it is nothing to see on Charon.
It is much easier to look at the universe from my window sipping a good wine.
-
I simply think it is a waste of money. Much better to watch it from Earth.
Yes, it would be much better if it wasn't for that pesky atmosphere absorbing the very wavelengths of light that they're most interested in. ::)
-
“(JWST) is expected to cost NASA $9.7 billion over 24 years. Of that amount, $8.8 billion was spent on spacecraft development between 2003 and 2021; $861 million is planned to support five years of operations. Adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars, the lifetime cost to NASA will be approximately $10.8 billion.”
Do you really believe what JWST tells you? $9.7b to watch the end of the universe?
Seems like it's designed to do a smidge more than just that?
Seventeen Modes to Discovery: Webb’s Final Commissioning Activities (https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/05/12/seventeen-modes-to-discovery-webbs-final-commissioning-activities/)
1. Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) imaging.
- An example target in a Webb cycle 1 program using this mode: the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field.
2. NIRCam wide field slitless spectroscopy.
- Example target: distant quasars.
3. NIRCam coronagraphy.
- Example target: the gas giant exoplanet HIP 65426 b.
4. NIRCam time series observations – imaging.
- Example target: a pulsing white dwarf star called a magnetar.
5. NIRCam time series observations – grism.
- Example target: lava rain on the super-Earth-size exoplanet 55 Cancri e.
6. Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) multi-object spectroscopy.
Example target: the Extended Groth Strip deep field.
7. NIRSpec fixed slit spectroscopy.
- Example target: detecting light from a gravitational-wave source known as a kilonova.
8. NIRSpec integral field unit spectroscopy.
- Example target: a distant galaxy boosted by gravitational lensing.
9. NIRSpec bright object time series.
- Example target: following a hot super-Earth-size exoplanet for a full orbit to map the planet’s temperature.
10. Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS) single object slitless spectroscopy.
- Example target: small, potentially rocky exoplanets TRAPPIST-1b and 1c.
11. NIRISS wide field slitless spectroscopy. NIRISS includes a slitless spectroscopy mode optimized for finding and studying distant galaxies.
- Example target: pure parallel search for active star-forming galaxies.
12. NIRISS aperture masking interferometry.
- Example target: a binary star with colliding stellar winds.
13. NIRISS imaging.
- Example target: a Hubble Frontier Field gravitational lensing galaxy cluster.
14. Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) imaging.
- Example target: the nearby galaxy Messier 33.
15. MIRI low-resolution spectroscopy.
- Example target: Pluto’s moon Charon.
16. MIRI medium-resolution spectroscopy.
- Example targets: molecules in planet-forming disks.
17. MIRI coronagraphic imaging. MIRI has two types of coronagraphy: a spot that blocks light and three four-quadrant phase mask coronagraphs.
- Example target: searching for planets around our nearest neighbor star Alpha Centauri A.
Thanks for your funny JWST fake space really small news.
Re 14 the - nearby Messier 33 galaxy is only 2.73 million light years away from JWST, if it can find it and anything in it. Messier 33 is bigger than our Milky way galaxy. But seen by JWST it looks pretty small. MIRI cannot see anything inside Messier 33!
Re 15 Charon is only 6 light hours away at the end of our Solar system but it is pretty small too, so I doubt JWST will even find it. But it is nothing to see on Charon.
It is much easier to look at the universe from my window sipping a good wine.
Interesting that you can see in Infrared. And have an organic biological zoom capability greater than Hubble and equal to JWST. Impressive. I'm guessing you think eye glasses are a hoax too. Or anything that can enhance human vision. Because, I guess, you think you are special. Again, impressive.
-
It is much easier to look at the universe from my window sipping a good wine.
Interesting that you can see in Infrared. And have an organic biological zoom capability greater than Hubble and equal to JWST. Impressive. I'm guessing you think eye glasses are a hoax too. Or anything that can enhance human vision. Because, I guess, you think you are special. Again, impressive.
Read what I write. I just suggest observing the Universe from planet Earth is cheaper, etc. Nothing special about it. Most info of the heaven is just fake space news anyway, IMHO. I summarize at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm . Imagine what "experts" on Earth can make up!
-
I just suggest observing the Universe from planet Earth is cheaper, etc.
Cheaper, but not better.
-
Certain wavelengths of infrared can’t penetrate the atmosphere, some of those wavelengths are used by the James Webb telescope.
-
It is much easier to look at the universe from my window sipping a good wine.
Interesting that you can see in Infrared. And have an organic biological zoom capability greater than Hubble and equal to JWST. Impressive. I'm guessing you think eye glasses are a hoax too. Or anything that can enhance human vision. Because, I guess, you think you are special. Again, impressive.
Read what I write. I just suggest observing the Universe from planet Earth is cheaper, etc. Nothing special about it. Most info of the heaven is just fake space news anyway, IMHO. I summarize at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm . Imagine what "experts" on Earth can make up!
Reported for spamming your site again.
-
I just suggest observing the Universe from planet Earth is cheaper, etc.
Cheaper, but not better.
But US$ 10.9 billion to watch the Universe from L2 and what is the result so far? O!
-
(https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/wp-content/uploads/sites/326/2022/05/spitzer_vs_webb_LMC.gif)
The Large Magellanic Cloud blooms into clarity as this image transitions from what Spitzer saw to what Webb sees.
-
(https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/wp-content/uploads/sites/326/2022/05/spitzer_vs_webb_LMC.gif)
The Large Magellanic Cloud blooms into clarity as this image transitions from what Spitzer saw to what Webb sees.
Nice picture of 1000's stars. I can see the same from my window. But where is Pluto?? And the Black Hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy?
-
I can see the same from my window.
No, you can't. You cannot see those same stars from your window. You already know this.
-
I can see the same from my window.
No, you can't. You cannot see those same stars from your window. You already know this.
Well, there are plenty stars above me and, I agree, I cannot keep them apart. Nor can JWST (topic). But I look forward to a USD 9 billion JWST picture of Pluto that I cannot see from my window. When can I see it?
-
The JWST will not find anything new by taking a photo of Uranus.
I would hope not.
-
The JWST will not find anything new by taking a photo of Uranus.
I would hope not.
You sound like an American claiming USA won the Vietnam 1954/74 and Afghanistan 2001/2021 wars after USA put men on the Moon 1969. Topic is what JWST shall do and not what you are hoping for. So far JWST has only taken a clear picture of a large Magellanic cloud of stars in space. I didn't know there were clouds in space.
-
The JWST will not find anything new by taking a photo of Uranus.
I would hope not.
You sound like an American claiming USA won the Vietnam 1954/74 and Afghanistan 2001/2021 wars after USA put men on the Moon 1969. Topic is what JWST shall do and not what you are hoping for. So far JWST has only taken a clear picture of a large Magellanic cloud of stars in space. I didn't know there were clouds in space.
Operative words..."so far".
-
The JWST will not find anything new by taking a photo of Uranus.
I would hope not.
You sound like an American claiming USA won the Vietnam 1954/74 and Afghanistan 2001/2021 wars after USA put men on the Moon 1969. Topic is what JWST shall do and not what you are hoping for. So far JWST has only taken a clear picture of a large Magellanic cloud of stars in space. I didn't know there were clouds in space.
It was a your anus joke.
-
I didn't know there were clouds in space.
LOL ignorance on full display
Well it's not your fault. You only trust what your limited eye balls can see. Just as well there is a telescope out there that can see and discover so much more than your or anyone's eyes can
-
The JWST will not find anything new by taking a photo of Uranus.
I would hope not.
You sound like an American claiming USA won the Vietnam 1954/74 and Afghanistan 2001/2021 wars after USA put men on the Moon 1969. Topic is what JWST shall do and not what you are hoping for. So far JWST has only taken a clear picture of a large Magellanic cloud of stars in space. I didn't know there were clouds in space.
Can someone reboot the bot? I think it's having even more issues than normal.
-
I didn't know there were clouds in space.
LOL ignorance on full display
Well it's not your fault. You only trust what your limited eye balls can see. Just as well there is a telescope out there that can see and discover so much more than your or anyone's eyes can
No, it was the JWST that (topic) that filmed plenty stars in the Magellian cloud in the Universe to test the camera. I see also clouds from my window. But no stars in them. Some times rain ...
-
I didn't know there were clouds in space.
LOL ignorance on full display
Well it's not your fault. You only trust what your limited eye balls can see. Just as well there is a telescope out there that can see and discover so much more than your or anyone's eyes can
No, it was the JWST that (topic) that filmed plenty stars in the Magellian cloud in the Universe to test the camera. I see also clouds from my window. But no stars in them. Some times rain ...
Can you see the clouds in space though? You said you didn't know space could have clouds lol
Talking to you really is like talking to a dementia patient. You seem fascinated at the most basic knowledge that even a kid in kindergarten has already grasped.
For the record, there are many clouds in space. Heard of a nebula? Have you ever heard how stars and planets form?
And look at this! A giant cloud of water vapor in space that your eyes must have missed but thankfully the telescopes didn't
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/universe20110722.html
Two teams of astronomers have discovered the largest and farthest reservoir of water ever detected in the universe. The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole, called a quasar, more than 12 billion light-years away.
"The environment around this quasar is very unique in that it's producing this huge mass of water," said Matt Bradford, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "It's another demonstration that water is pervasive throughout the universe, even at the very earliest times." Bradford leads one of the teams that made the discovery. His team's research is partially funded by NASA and appears in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Guess you must have missed that when you were sipping your wine
-
I didn't know there were clouds in space.
LOL ignorance on full display
Well it's not your fault. You only trust what your limited eye balls can see. Just as well there is a telescope out there that can see and discover so much more than your or anyone's eyes can
No, it was the JWST that (topic) that filmed plenty stars in the Magellian cloud in the Universe to test the camera. I see also clouds from my window. But no stars in them. Some times rain ...
Can you see the clouds in space though? You said you didn't know space could have clouds lol
Talking to you really is like talking to a dementia patient. You seem fascinated at the most basic knowledge that even a kid in kindergarten has already grasped.
For the record, there are many clouds in space. Heard of a nebula? Have you ever heard how stars and planets form?
And look at this! A giant cloud of water vapor in space that your eyes must have missed but thankfully the telescopes didn't
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/universe20110722.html
Two teams of astronomers have discovered the largest and farthest reservoir of water ever detected in the universe. The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole, called a quasar, more than 12 billion light-years away.
"The environment around this quasar is very unique in that it's producing this huge mass of water," said Matt Bradford, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "It's another demonstration that water is pervasive throughout the universe, even at the very earliest times." Bradford leads one of the teams that made the discovery. His team's research is partially funded by NASA and appears in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Guess you must have missed that when you were sipping your wine
I just watch the Universe from my window and roof top penthouse garden in peace and quiet. + a sip of good wine. The only clouds I see are the clouds in the Earth's atmosphere above me. I know that JPL, Pasadena, CA, has found rain, clouds and water else where in the Universe but I fear they were all dead drunk and drugged/doped then. Poor lot.
-
I just watch the Universe from my window and roof top penthouse garden in peace and quiet. + a sip of good wine.
I'm guessing it's WAY more than a sip...
-
I just watch the Universe from my window and roof top penthouse garden in peace and quiet. + a sip of good wine.
I'm guessing it's WAY more than a sip...
Please, topic is JWST. I just checked up the NASA website and there is no news news about JWST.
-
I just watch the Universe from my window and roof top penthouse garden in peace and quiet. + a sip of good wine.
I'm guessing it's WAY more than a sip...
Please, topic is JWST. I just checked up the NASA website and there is no news news about JWST.
So? Last update was on May 9th. Are you that narcissistic to think Anders deserves daily updates?
-
Please, topic is JWST. I just checked up the NASA website and there is no news news about JWST.
Evidently the topic has changed to how little you know about astronomy.
-
I just watch the Universe from my window and roof top penthouse garden in peace and quiet. + a sip of good wine.
I'm guessing it's WAY more than a sip...
Please, topic is JWST. I just checked up the NASA website and there is no news news about JWST.
How many bottles are we at today?
-
I just watch the Universe from my window and roof top penthouse garden in peace and quiet. + a sip of good wine.
I'm guessing it's WAY more than a sip...
Please, topic is JWST. I just checked up the NASA website and there is no news news about JWST.
How many bottles are we at today?
https://globalnews.ca/news/8823501/james-webb-space-telescope-new-images-large-magellanic-cloud/ doesn't report much progress in space. At my window the sun is blazing so I sip a good rosé.
-
I just watch the Universe from my window and roof top penthouse garden in peace and quiet. + a sip of good wine.
I'm guessing it's WAY more than a sip...
Please, topic is JWST. I just checked up the NASA website and there is no news news about JWST.
How many bottles are we at today?
https://globalnews.ca/news/8823501/james-webb-space-telescope-new-images-large-magellanic-cloud/ doesn't report much progress in space. At my window the sun is blazing so I sip a good rosé.
Have you thought about rehab?
-
Have we thought about keeping on topic?
-
Have we thought about keeping on topic?
Please, topic is JWST. I explain it all on my website.
-
Have we thought about keeping on topic?
Please, topic is JWST. I explain it all on my website.
And NASA on https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/news.html .
-
Or this:
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/news.html
-
Have we thought about keeping on topic?
Please, topic is JWST. I explain it all on my website.
And NASA on https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/news.html .
And NASA on https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/ .
-
Or this:
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
-
Speaking of telescopes here's the Super Flower Blood Moon is stunning "fisheye" time-lapse that also provides an amazing view of the Milky Way. Imagine what a space based telescope can see:
From the NOIRLab facilities in Arizona and Chile took advantage of clear skies to capture the event.
-
Or this:
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
Or this nonsense - https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/education/JWST-Lesson_Plan-RHannahoe-PDetterline.pdf
-
Or this:
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
Or this nonsense - https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/education/JWST-Lesson_Plan-RHannahoe-PDetterline.pdf
Or this:
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/education/JWST-Lesson_Plan-RHannahoe-PDetterline.pdf
-
I was looking for some JWST news incl. new pictures of the universe but there was none except that NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope Program Director Gregory Robinson has been named to the TIME100, the magazine’s annual list of the 100 most influential leaders. I had never heard of Gregory Robinson. Why is he so influential?
-
Maybe you should read the Time article. Just an idea.
-
Maybe you should read the Time article. Just an idea.
Can't find the Time article.
-
Maybe you should read the Time article. Just an idea.
Can't find the Time article.
Unable to understand how to click on a website, yet knows the secrets of the universe better than NASA. Truly an idiot savant.
-
Maybe you should read the Time article. Just an idea.
Can't find the Time article.
Took me all of 10 seconds:
https://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2022/6177835/gregory-l-robinson/
"Unable to understand how to click on a website, yet knows the secrets of the universe better than NASA. Truly an idiot savant."
-
Maybe you should read the Time article. Just an idea.
Can't find the Time article.
Took me all of 10 seconds:
https://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2022/6177835/gregory-l-robinson/
"Unable to understand how to click on a website, yet knows the secrets of the universe better than NASA. Truly an idiot."
FTFY
-
JWST adjacent...
Hubble identifies unusual wrinkle in expansion rate of the universe (https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/world/hubble-universe-expansion-rate-scn/index.html)
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/220523144102-composite-image-of-galaxies-exlarge-169.jpg)
Measuring the expansion rate of the universe was one of the Hubble Space Telescope's main goals when it was launched in 1990.
Over the past 30 years, the space observatory has helped scientists discover and refine that accelerating rate -- as well as uncover a mysterious wrinkle that only brand-new physics may solve.
Hubble has observed more than 40 galaxies that include pulsating stars as well as exploding stars called supernovae to measure even greater cosmic distances. Both of these phenomena help astronomers to mark astronomical distances like mile markers, which have pointed to the expansion rate.
-
Topic is NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope whose Program Director Gregory Robinson has been named to the TIME100, the magazine’s annual list of the 100 most influential leaders. I had never heard of Gregory Robinson. Why is he so influential? TIME cannot say except Gregory has spent >30 years at NASA getting JWST in place in space. Result so far? 0! I always feel sorry for people taking pictures of the Universe using a space telescope believing they will find anything there, that I cannot see from looking out of my window.
-
Topic is NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope whose Program Director Gregory Robinson has been named to the TIME100, the magazine’s annual list of the 100 most influential leaders. I had never heard of Gregory Robinson. Why is he so influential? TIME cannot say except Gregory has spent >30 years at NASA getting JWST in place in space.
Here are the people in Time's 100 under the "Pioneer" heading:
Candace Parker
Frances Haugen
Ahmir "Questlove" Thompson
Sônia Guajajara
Stéphane Bancel
Emily Oster
Valérie Masson-Delmotte and Panmao Zhai
Eileen Gu
Tulio de Oliveira and Sikhulile Moyo
Nan Goldin
Mazen Darwish and Anwar Al Bunni
Emmett Schelling
Cristina Villarreal Velásquez and Ana Cristina González Vélez
Gregory L. Robinson
I don't know who any of those people are. Never heard of any of them. Does it mean anything that I don't know who any of those people are? No. Should it mean anything to you that you don't know who someone is that is on the list? No. Why is this a "thing" for you?
Result so far? 0!
How'd you arrive at 0?
This is just from launch, but the achievements go back 10 ,years:
- NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) launched on Dec 25, 2021, from ESA's launch site at Kourou in French Guiana, at 7:20 a.m. EST (1220 GMT; 9:20 a.m. local time in Kourou), aboard an Arianespace Ariane 5 rocket.
- The James Webb Space Telescope deployed and tested a key antenna on Dec. 26, 2021
- On Dec. 31, 2021, Webb successfully unfurled its massive sunshield.
- Then on Jan, 8. 2022, NASA announced that the James Webb Space Telescope had successfully unfolded the giant primary mirror and is now fully deployed.
- The James Webb Space Telescope reached its final destination: L2, the second sun-Earth Lagrange point, which it will orbit, on Jan, 24. 2022 after traveling nearly a million miles
- On Feb, 11. NASA announced that The James Webb Space Telescope had captured its first images of starlight.
- On Feb, 18. NASA released a new and improved image of HD84406, bringing 18 unfocused copies of a star into a deliberate hexagonal formation.
- On April 28, NASA announced in a statement that the James Webb Space Telescope had finished its alignment phase after demonstrating it can capture "crisp, well-focused images" will all four of its scientific instruments.
Hardly seems like zero and I'm sure more than you've accompished in the same amount of time.
I always feel sorry for people taking pictures of the Universe using a space telescope believing they will find anything there, that I cannot see from looking out of my window.
Is there anything you can't see from your window?
-
How'd you arrive at 0?
This is just from launch, but the achievements go back 10 ,years:
- NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) launched on Dec 25, 2021, from ESA's launch site at Kourou in French Guiana, at 7:20 a.m. EST (1220 GMT; 9:20 a.m. local time in Kourou), aboard an Arianespace Ariane 5 rocket.
- The James Webb Space Telescope deployed and tested a key antenna on Dec. 26, 2021
- On Dec. 31, 2021, Webb successfully unfurled its massive sunshield.
- Then on Jan, 8. 2022, NASA announced that the James Webb Space Telescope had successfully unfolded the giant primary mirror and is now fully deployed.
- The James Webb Space Telescope reached its final destination: L2, the second sun-Earth Lagrange point, which it will orbit, on Jan, 24. 2022 after traveling nearly a million miles
- On Feb, 11. NASA announced that The James Webb Space Telescope had captured its first images of starlight.
- On Feb, 18. NASA released a new and improved image of HD84406, bringing 18 unfocused copies of a star into a deliberate hexagonal formation.
- On April 28, NASA announced in a statement that the James Webb Space Telescope had finished its alignment phase after demonstrating it can capture "crisp, well-focused images" will all four of its scientific instruments.
Hardly seems like zero and I'm sure more than you've accompished in the same amount of time.
Thanks, I am just retired studying the universe by looking out of my window. It seems I have seen more than the $10.8 billion JWST so far, which gets 0 for JWST.
-
How'd you arrive at 0?
This is just from launch, but the achievements go back 10 ,years:
- NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) launched on Dec 25, 2021, from ESA's launch site at Kourou in French Guiana, at 7:20 a.m. EST (1220 GMT; 9:20 a.m. local time in Kourou), aboard an Arianespace Ariane 5 rocket.
- The James Webb Space Telescope deployed and tested a key antenna on Dec. 26, 2021
- On Dec. 31, 2021, Webb successfully unfurled its massive sunshield.
- Then on Jan, 8. 2022, NASA announced that the James Webb Space Telescope had successfully unfolded the giant primary mirror and is now fully deployed.
- The James Webb Space Telescope reached its final destination: L2, the second sun-Earth Lagrange point, which it will orbit, on Jan, 24. 2022 after traveling nearly a million miles
- On Feb, 11. NASA announced that The James Webb Space Telescope had captured its first images of starlight.
- On Feb, 18. NASA released a new and improved image of HD84406, bringing 18 unfocused copies of a star into a deliberate hexagonal formation.
- On April 28, NASA announced in a statement that the James Webb Space Telescope had finished its alignment phase after demonstrating it can capture "crisp, well-focused images" will all four of its scientific instruments.
Hardly seems like zero and I'm sure more than you've accompished in the same amount of time.
Thanks, I am just retarted studying the universe by looking out of my window. It seems I have seen more than the $10.8 billion JWST so far, which gets 0 for JWST.
You spelled retarted wrong. I fixed it for you.
-
How'd you arrive at 0?
This is just from launch, but the achievements go back 10 ,years:
- NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) launched on Dec 25, 2021, from ESA's launch site at Kourou in French Guiana, at 7:20 a.m. EST (1220 GMT; 9:20 a.m. local time in Kourou), aboard an Arianespace Ariane 5 rocket.
- The James Webb Space Telescope deployed and tested a key antenna on Dec. 26, 2021
- On Dec. 31, 2021, Webb successfully unfurled its massive sunshield.
- Then on Jan, 8. 2022, NASA announced that the James Webb Space Telescope had successfully unfolded the giant primary mirror and is now fully deployed.
- The James Webb Space Telescope reached its final destination: L2, the second sun-Earth Lagrange point, which it will orbit, on Jan, 24. 2022 after traveling nearly a million miles
- On Feb, 11. NASA announced that The James Webb Space Telescope had captured its first images of starlight.
- On Feb, 18. NASA released a new and improved image of HD84406, bringing 18 unfocused copies of a star into a deliberate hexagonal formation.
- On April 28, NASA announced in a statement that the James Webb Space Telescope had finished its alignment phase after demonstrating it can capture "crisp, well-focused images" will all four of its scientific instruments.
Hardly seems like zero and I'm sure more than you've accompished in the same amount of time.
Thanks, I am just retarted studying the universe by looking out of my window. It seems I have seen more than the $10.8 billion JWST so far, which gets 0 for JWST.
You spelled retarted wrong. I fixed it for you.
Thanks! Why don't you also contact NASA about the lack of news about JWST? https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/news.html
-
Thanks! Why don't you also contact NASA about the lack of news about JWST? https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/news.html
Why? Nobody cares but you about how often NASA updates their blog. ::)
-
How'd you arrive at 0?
This is just from launch, but the achievements go back 10 ,years:
- NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) launched on Dec 25, 2021, from ESA's launch site at Kourou in French Guiana, at 7:20 a.m. EST (1220 GMT; 9:20 a.m. local time in Kourou), aboard an Arianespace Ariane 5 rocket.
- The James Webb Space Telescope deployed and tested a key antenna on Dec. 26, 2021
- On Dec. 31, 2021, Webb successfully unfurled its massive sunshield.
- Then on Jan, 8. 2022, NASA announced that the James Webb Space Telescope had successfully unfolded the giant primary mirror and is now fully deployed.
- The James Webb Space Telescope reached its final destination: L2, the second sun-Earth Lagrange point, which it will orbit, on Jan, 24. 2022 after traveling nearly a million miles
- On Feb, 11. NASA announced that The James Webb Space Telescope had captured its first images of starlight.
- On Feb, 18. NASA released a new and improved image of HD84406, bringing 18 unfocused copies of a star into a deliberate hexagonal formation.
- On April 28, NASA announced in a statement that the James Webb Space Telescope had finished its alignment phase after demonstrating it can capture "crisp, well-focused images" will all four of its scientific instruments.
Hardly seems like zero and I'm sure more than you've accompished in the same amount of time.
Thanks, I am just retarted studying the universe by looking out of my window. It seems I have seen more than the $10.8 billion JWST so far, which gets 0 for JWST.
You spelled retarted wrong. I fixed it for you.
Thanks! Why don't you also contact NASA about the lack of news about JWST? https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/news.html
Here's some news for you. You apparently don't know how to use the internet. Not shocking. From yesterday:
James Webb Space Telescope practices tracking an asteroid for the 1st time (https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-tracks-moving-target)
NASA's next-generation space observatory successfully watched a moving asteroid as the telescope inches towards the end of its six-month commissioning period.
The successful tracking of a nearby object shows that the James Webb Space Telescope can keep a watch on solar system objects as well as the distant galaxies, stars and other faraway objects it is expected to observe in its perhaps 20-year lifespan.
"As we move forward through commissioning, we will test other objects moving at various speeds to verify we can study objects with Webb that move throughout the solar system," NASA wrote(opens in new tab) in a blog post May 19, adding that the observatory is "nearly set" to start science observations.
Webb's ability to see nearby targets will allow it to observe everything from icy objects in the Kuiper Belt, to potentially habitable moons circling the gas giant planets of our solar system, the agency noted.
Can't wait to see more of this:
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DGcAmvqanGuUaXFhmaijEa-970-80.png)
-
How'd you arrive at 0?
This is just from launch, but the achievements go back 10 ,years:
- NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) launched on Dec 25, 2021, from ESA's launch site at Kourou in French Guiana, at 7:20 a.m. EST (1220 GMT; 9:20 a.m. local time in Kourou), aboard an Arianespace Ariane 5 rocket.
- The James Webb Space Telescope deployed and tested a key antenna on Dec. 26, 2021
- On Dec. 31, 2021, Webb successfully unfurled its massive sunshield.
- Then on Jan, 8. 2022, NASA announced that the James Webb Space Telescope had successfully unfolded the giant primary mirror and is now fully deployed.
- The James Webb Space Telescope reached its final destination: L2, the second sun-Earth Lagrange point, which it will orbit, on Jan, 24. 2022 after traveling nearly a million miles
- On Feb, 11. NASA announced that The James Webb Space Telescope had captured its first images of starlight.
- On Feb, 18. NASA released a new and improved image of HD84406, bringing 18 unfocused copies of a star into a deliberate hexagonal formation.
- On April 28, NASA announced in a statement that the James Webb Space Telescope had finished its alignment phase after demonstrating it can capture "crisp, well-focused images" will all four of its scientific instruments.
Hardly seems like zero and I'm sure more than you've accompished in the same amount of time.
Thanks, I am just retarted studying the universe by looking out of my window. It seems I have seen more than the $10.8 billion JWST so far, which gets 0 for JWST.
You spelled retarted wrong. I fixed it for you.
Thanks! Why don't you also contact NASA about the lack of news about JWST? https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/news.html
Here's some news for you. You apparently don't know how to use the internet. Not shocking. From yesterday:
James Webb Space Telescope practices tracking an asteroid for the 1st time (https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-tracks-moving-target)
NASA's next-generation space observatory successfully watched a moving asteroid as the telescope inches towards the end of its six-month commissioning period.
The successful tracking of a nearby object shows that the James Webb Space Telescope can keep a watch on solar system objects as well as the distant galaxies, stars and other faraway objects it is expected to observe in its perhaps 20-year lifespan.
"As we move forward through commissioning, we will test other objects moving at various speeds to verify we can study objects with Webb that move throughout the solar system," NASA wrote(opens in new tab) in a blog post May 19, adding that the observatory is "nearly set" to start science observations.
Webb's ability to see nearby targets will allow it to observe everything from icy objects in the Kuiper Belt, to potentially habitable moons circling the gas giant planets of our solar system, the agency noted.
Can't wait to see more of this:
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DGcAmvqanGuUaXFhmaijEa-970-80.png)
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about. The Solar system and its asteroids are just a very small part of the Universe and better studied from Earth and my window there. It seems JWST is becoming a flop.
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about.
No, NASA never said any such thing. Please stop saying such stupid things.
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about. The Solar system and its asteroids are just a very small part of the Universe and better studied from Earth and my window there.
What can you tell us about Universe that we don't know from your window? What have you published in peer reviewed journals about your findings from your window? Do you know something astronomers and astrophysicists don't because they don't have your window?
Do they let you outside considering it seems you can only see the sky from your window.
It seems JWST is becoming a flop.
How exactly is it a flop when it hasn't even reached full operation yet? Have you ever been subjected to a psych evaluation?
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about.
No, NASA never said any such thing. Please stop saying such stupid things.
I just quote NASA :
“The Webb telescope will be the premier observatory of the next decade, serving thousands of astronomers worldwide. It will study every phase in the history of our Universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own Solar System.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/about/index.html
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about. The Solar system and its asteroids are just a very small part of the Universe and better studied from Earth and my window there.
What can you tell us about Universe that we don't know from your window? What have you published in peer reviewed journals about your findings from your window? Do you know something astronomers and astrophysicists don't because they don't have your window?
Do they let you outside considering it seems you can only see the sky from your window.
It seems JWST is becoming a flop.
How exactly is it a flop when it hasn't even reached full operation yet? Have you ever been subjected to a psych evaluation?
Just read what I write, i.e, "It seems JWST is becoming a flop". So far JWST has only produced some low quality photos of unknown objects. They cannot possibly explain the birth and evolution of the Universe. Thus a FLOP!
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about. The Solar system and its asteroids are just a very small part of the Universe and better studied from Earth and my window there.
What can you tell us about Universe that we don't know from your window? What have you published in peer reviewed journals about your findings from your window? Do you know something astronomers and astrophysicists don't because they don't have your window?
Do they let you outside considering it seems you can only see the sky from your window.
It seems JWST is becoming a flop.
How exactly is it a flop when it hasn't even reached full operation yet? Have you ever been subjected to a psych evaluation?
Just read what I write, i.e, "It seems JWST is becoming a flop". So far JWST has only produced some low quality photos of unknown objects. They cannot possibly explain the birth and evolution of the Universe.
- What can you tell us about Universe that we don't know from your window?
- What have you published in peer reviewed journals about your findings from your window?
- Do you know something astronomers and astrophysicists don't because they don't have your window?
- Does your window have a better view of the cosmos than Hubble? Than JWST?
- Should astronomers and astrophysicists be coming by your place to use your window instead of all the other instruments at their disposal?
- Do they let you outside considering it seems you can only see the sky from your window.
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about. The Solar system and its asteroids are just a very small part of the Universe and better studied from Earth and my window there.
What can you tell us about Universe that we don't know from your window? What have you published in peer reviewed journals about your findings from your window? Do you know something astronomers and astrophysicists don't because they don't have your window?
Do they let you outside considering it seems you can only see the sky from your window.
It seems JWST is becoming a flop.
How exactly is it a flop when it hasn't even reached full operation yet? Have you ever been subjected to a psych evaluation?
Just read what I write, i.e, "It seems JWST is becoming a flop". So far JWST has only produced some low quality photos of unknown objects. They cannot possibly explain the birth and evolution of the Universe.
- What can you tell us about Universe that we don't know from your window?
- What have you published in peer reviewed journals about your findings from your window?
- Do you know something astronomers and astrophysicists don't because they don't have your window?
- Does your window have a better view of the cosmos than Hubble? Than JWST?
- Should astronomers and astrophysicists be coming by your place to use your window instead of all the other instruments at their disposal?
- Do they let you outside considering it seems you can only see the sky from your window.
Thanks for asking. I just look out of my window and write/publish what I see. Anyone is welcome at my place. I think my place has a better view of the cosmos than Hubble and JWST. Why? I use my own eyes and not some telescope garbage in space.
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about. The Solar system and its asteroids are just a very small part of the Universe and better studied from Earth and my window there.
What can you tell us about Universe that we don't know from your window? What have you published in peer reviewed journals about your findings from your window? Do you know something astronomers and astrophysicists don't because they don't have your window?
Do they let you outside considering it seems you can only see the sky from your window.
It seems JWST is becoming a flop.
How exactly is it a flop when it hasn't even reached full operation yet? Have you ever been subjected to a psych evaluation?
Just read what I write, i.e, "It seems JWST is becoming a flop". So far JWST has only produced some low quality photos of unknown objects. They cannot possibly explain the birth and evolution of the Universe.
- What can you tell us about Universe that we don't know from your window?
- What have you published in peer reviewed journals about your findings from your window?
- Do you know something astronomers and astrophysicists don't because they don't have your window?
- Does your window have a better view of the cosmos than Hubble? Than JWST?
- Should astronomers and astrophysicists be coming by your place to use your window instead of all the other instruments at their disposal?
- Do they let you outside considering it seems you can only see the sky from your window.
Thanks for asking. I just look out of my window and write/publish what I see. Anyone is welcome at my place. I think my place has a better view of the cosmos than Hubble and JWST. Why? I use my own eyes and not some telescope garbage in space.
- Should astronomers and astrophysicists be coming by your place to use your window instead of all the other instruments at their disposal?
- Do they let you outside considering it seems you can only see the sky from your window.
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about. The Solar system and its asteroids are just a very small part of the Universe and better studied from Earth and my window there.
What can you tell us about Universe that we don't know from your window? What have you published in peer reviewed journals about your findings from your window? Do you know something astronomers and astrophysicists don't because they don't have your window?
Do they let you outside considering it seems you can only see the sky from your window.
It seems JWST is becoming a flop.
How exactly is it a flop when it hasn't even reached full operation yet? Have you ever been subjected to a psych evaluation?
Just read what I write, i.e, "It seems JWST is becoming a flop". So far JWST has only produced some low quality photos of unknown objects. They cannot possibly explain the birth and evolution of the Universe.
- What can you tell us about Universe that we don't know from your window?
- What have you published in peer reviewed journals about your findings from your window?
- Do you know something astronomers and astrophysicists don't because they don't have your window?
- Does your window have a better view of the cosmos than Hubble? Than JWST?
- Should astronomers and astrophysicists be coming by your place to use your window instead of all the other instruments at their disposal?
- Do they let you outside considering it seems you can only see the sky from your window.
Thanks for asking. I just look out of my window and write/publish what I see. Anyone is welcome at my place. I think my place has a better view of the cosmos than Hubble and JWST. Why? I use my own eyes and not some telescope garbage in space.
- Should astronomers and astrophysicists be coming by your place to use your window instead of all the other instruments at their disposal?
- Do they let you outside considering it seems you can only see the sky from your window.
Topic is JWST. I just happen to have a window/view from my penthouse with what JWST can take photos of.
-
Topic is JWST. I just happen to have a window/view from my penthouse with what JWST can take photos of.
No you don't, and only a fool would think that you do.
Are you a fool, Heiwa, or just a failed liar?
I'm guessing failed liar.
-
Topic is JWST. I just happen to have a window/view from my penthouse with what JWST can take photos of.
No you don't, and only a fool would think that you do.
Are you a fool, Heiwa, or just a failed liar?
I'm guessing failed liar.
Topic is still the JWST! A complete $10.8 b failure. NASA cannot explain anything.
-
Topic is JWST. I just happen to have a window/view from my penthouse with what JWST can take photos of.
No you don't, and only a fool would think that you do.
Are you a fool, Heiwa, or just a failed liar?
I'm guessing failed liar.
Topic is still the JWST! A complete $10.8 b failure. NASA cannot explain anything.
Calling your psychiatric quarters and padded room a penthouse is a stretch. Do all the other psychiatric patients have the same view?
-
Topic is JWST. I just happen to have a window/view from my penthouse with what JWST can take photos of.
No you don't, and only a fool would think that you do.
Are you a fool, Heiwa, or just a failed liar?
I'm guessing failed liar.
Topic is still the JWST! A complete $10.8 b failure. NASA cannot explain anything.
Calling your psychiatric quarters and padded room a penthouse is a stretch. Do all the other psychiatric patients have the same view?
Don't worry about me. Topic is still the JWST! A complete $10.8 b failure. NASA cannot explain anything.
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about.
No, NASA never said any such thing. Please stop saying such stupid things.
I just quote NASA :
“The Webb telescope will be the premier observatory of the next decade, serving thousands of astronomers worldwide. It will study every phase in the history of our Universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own Solar System.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/about/index.html
Hmmm... Nothing about the end of the universe. Nice to know. Now shut up about it already.
-
Just read what I write, i.e, "It seems JWST is becoming a flop". So far JWST has only produced some low quality photos of unknown objects.
Actually, the few test images released so far have been of a far higher quality than anything before. Hardly a flop considering that it isn't scheduled to do any science observations for another month or so yet.
They cannot possibly explain the birth and evolution of the Universe. Thus a FLOP!
Studying and explaining are two different things.
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about.
No, NASA never said any such thing. Please stop saying such stupid things.
I just quote NASA :
“The Webb telescope will be the premier observatory of the next decade, serving thousands of astronomers worldwide. It will study every phase in the history of our Universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own Solar System.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/about/index.html
Hmmm... Nothing about the end of the universe. Nice to know. Now shut up about it already.
Topic is still the JWST! Heiwa just copy-pastes quotes with no understanding. His website tells you everything you need to know about him.
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about.
No, NASA never said any such thing. Please stop saying such stupid things.
I just quote NASA :
“The Webb telescope will be the premier observatory of the next decade, serving thousands of astronomers worldwide. It will study every phase in the history of our Universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own Solar System.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/about/index.html
Hmmm... Nothing about the end of the universe. Nice to know. Now shut up about it already.
I just quote NASA & Co:
“With unprecedented infrared sensitivity, JWST will peer back in time over 13.5 billion years to see the
first galaxies born after the Big Bang.”
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/keyFactsInternational/postcards/postcard_english.pdf
So far May 27 2022, JWST hasn’t seen these galaxies, i.e. JWST is a flop!
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about.
No, NASA never said any such thing. Please stop saying such stupid things.
I just quote NASA :
“The Webb telescope will be the premier observatory of the next decade, serving thousands of astronomers worldwide. It will study every phase in the history of our Universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own Solar System.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/about/index.html
Hmmm... Nothing about the end of the universe. Nice to know. Now shut up about it already.
I just quote NASA & Co:
“With unprecedented infrared sensitivity, JWST will peer back in time over 13.5 billion years to see the
first galaxies born after the Big Bang.”
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/keyFactsInternational/postcards/postcard_english.pdf
So far May 27 2022, JWST hasn’t seen these galaxies, i.e. JWST is a flop!
How is something a flop when it's still a month+ away from being operational?
If all goes well throughout June, JWST becomes operational and starts sending images of the deep cosmos back to us, will it still be a flop? That seems to be your benchmark for flops - No images. What will you say when we start getting images? Will you move the goalposts somewhere else for what you consider a flop?
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about.
No, NASA never said any such thing. Please stop saying such stupid things.
I just quote NASA :
“The Webb telescope will be the premier observatory of the next decade, serving thousands of astronomers worldwide. It will study every phase in the history of our Universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own Solar System.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/about/index.html
Hmmm... Nothing about the end of the universe. Nice to know. Now shut up about it already.
I just quote NASA & Co:
“With unprecedented infrared sensitivity, JWST will peer back in time over 13.5 billion years to see the
first galaxies born after the Big Bang.”
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/keyFactsInternational/postcards/postcard_english.pdf
So far May 27 2022, JWST hasn’t seen these galaxies, i.e. JWST is a flop!
How is something a flop when it's still a month+ away from being operational?
If all goes well throughout June, JWST becomes operational and starts sending images of the deep cosmos back to us, will it still be a flop? That seems to be your benchmark for flops - No images. What will you say when we start getting images? Will you move the goalposts somewhere else for what you consider a flop?
Please, NASA & Co has since many years promised that the JWST will peer back 13.5 billion years to see the first galaxies being born after the Big Bang and so far with JWST in position, it hasn't seen anything = flop. Personally I believe the JWST isn't even in space at L2. It is a hoax to steal money from tax payers from the start. Like most NASA projects.
-
Personally I believe the JWST isn't even in space at L2. It is a hoax to steal money from tax payers from the start.
Topic is still the JWST! Luckily most people actually enjoy seeing the wonders of the universe that telescopes provide. It's so sad you miss out on all of this because of your crazy conspiracy theories.
-
Personally I believe the JWST isn't even in space at L2. It is a hoax to steal money from tax payers from the start.
Topic is still the JWST! Luckily most people actually enjoy seeing the wonders of the universe that telescopes provide. It's so sad you miss out on all of this because of your crazy conspiracy theories.
But JWST/NASA promises to show pictures of the Universe from 13.5 billion years back and so far 0 is shown! I can see the universe from my window without a telescope and am happy with it, i.e, just plenty stars and galaxies everywhere. No big deal. Wherever I look same things. Stars and galaxies. You sound like Elon Musk to me. He promised to fly me to planet Mars and when I asked about details, what to do during the 200+ days trip, he just suggested enjoy it.
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about.
No, NASA never said any such thing. Please stop saying such stupid things.
I just quote NASA :
“The Webb telescope will be the premier observatory of the next decade, serving thousands of astronomers worldwide. It will study every phase in the history of our Universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own Solar System.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/about/index.html
Hmmm... Nothing about the end of the universe. Nice to know. Now shut up about it already.
I just quote NASA & Co:
“With unprecedented infrared sensitivity, JWST will peer back in time over 13.5 billion years to see the
first galaxies born after the Big Bang.”
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/keyFactsInternational/postcards/postcard_english.pdf
So far May 27 2022, JWST hasn’t seen these galaxies, i.e. JWST is a flop!
How is something a flop when it's still a month+ away from being operational?
If all goes well throughout June, JWST becomes operational and starts sending images of the deep cosmos back to us, will it still be a flop? That seems to be your benchmark for flops - No images. What will you say when we start getting images? Will you move the goalposts somewhere else for what you consider a flop?
JWST in position, it hasn't seen anything = flop.
What makes you say it hasn't seen anything?
(https://i.imgur.com/j5MeYB7.gif)
Personally I believe the JWST isn't even in space at L2. It is a hoax to steal money from tax payers from the start. Like most NASA projects.
What will you say when we start getting more images? Will you move the goalposts somewhere else for what you consider a flop?
No one cares what you believe. After all, you're just a crazed conspiracy theorist who believes they have a magic window.
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about.
No, NASA never said any such thing. Please stop saying such stupid things.
I just quote NASA :
“The Webb telescope will be the premier observatory of the next decade, serving thousands of astronomers worldwide. It will study every phase in the history of our Universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own Solar System.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/about/index.html
Hmmm... Nothing about the end of the universe. Nice to know. Now shut up about it already.
I just quote NASA & Co:
“With unprecedented infrared sensitivity, JWST will peer back in time over 13.5 billion years to see the
first galaxies born after the Big Bang.”
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/keyFactsInternational/postcards/postcard_english.pdf
So far May 27 2022, JWST hasn’t seen these galaxies, i.e. JWST is a flop!
How is something a flop when it's still a month+ away from being operational?
If all goes well throughout June, JWST becomes operational and starts sending images of the deep cosmos back to us, will it still be a flop? That seems to be your benchmark for flops - No images. What will you say when we start getting images? Will you move the goalposts somewhere else for what you consider a flop?
JWST in position, it hasn't seen anything = flop.
What makes you say it hasn't seen anything?
(https://i.imgur.com/j5MeYB7.gif)
Personally I believe the JWST isn't even in space at L2. It is a hoax to steal money from tax payers from the start. Like most NASA projects.
What will you say when we start getting more images? Will you move the goalposts somewhere else for what you consider a flop?
No one cares what you believe. After all, you're just a crazed conspiracy theorist who believes they have a magic window.
Fantastic. JWST has seen a star! I can do the same from my window.
-
According NASA JWST (topic) is supposed to study the end of the Universe and explain how it came about.
No, NASA never said any such thing. Please stop saying such stupid things.
I just quote NASA :
“The Webb telescope will be the premier observatory of the next decade, serving thousands of astronomers worldwide. It will study every phase in the history of our Universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own Solar System.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/about/index.html
Hmmm... Nothing about the end of the universe. Nice to know. Now shut up about it already.
I just quote NASA & Co:
“With unprecedented infrared sensitivity, JWST will peer back in time over 13.5 billion years to see the
first galaxies born after the Big Bang.”
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/keyFactsInternational/postcards/postcard_english.pdf
So far May 27 2022, JWST hasn’t seen these galaxies, i.e. JWST is a flop!
How is something a flop when it's still a month+ away from being operational?
If all goes well throughout June, JWST becomes operational and starts sending images of the deep cosmos back to us, will it still be a flop? That seems to be your benchmark for flops - No images. What will you say when we start getting images? Will you move the goalposts somewhere else for what you consider a flop?
JWST in position, it hasn't seen anything = flop.
What makes you say it hasn't seen anything?
(https://i.imgur.com/j5MeYB7.gif)
Personally I believe the JWST isn't even in space at L2. It is a hoax to steal money from tax payers from the start. Like most NASA projects.
What will you say when we start getting more images? Will you move the goalposts somewhere else for what you consider a flop?
No one cares what you believe. After all, you're just a crazed conspiracy theorist who believes they have a magic window.
Fantastic. JWST has seen a star! I can do the same from my window.
A star and galaxies which you can't see from your magic window. Nothing like a crazed lone conspiracy theorist to get it all wrong again and believe in a magic window.
What will you say when we start getting more images of things you cannot see from your magic window? Will you move the goalposts somewhere else for what you consider a flop?
-
No one cares what you believe. After all, you're just a crazed conspiracy theorist who believes they have a magic window.
Fantastic. JWST has seen a star! I can do the same from my window.
A star and galaxies which you can't see from your magic window. Nothing like a crazed lone conspiracy theorist to get it all wrong again and believe in a magic window.
What will you say when we start getting more images of things you cannot see from your magic window? Will you move the goalposts somewhere else for what you consider a flop?
[/quote]
I await the pictures by JWST of the first galaxies formed 13.8 billion years ago just after some Big Bang. I really wonder what they look like today. BTW why do you think I am a crazed lone conspiracy theorist? I just consider that NASA produces garbage about space since its formation.
-
Personally I believe the JWST isn't even in space at L2. It is a hoax to steal money from tax payers from the start.
Topic is still the JWST! Luckily most people actually enjoy seeing the wonders of the universe that telescopes provide. It's so sad you miss out on all of this because of your crazy conspiracy theories.
But JWST/NASA promises to show pictures of the Universe from 13.5 billion years back and so far 0 is shown! I can see the universe from my window without a telescope and am happy with it, i.e, just plenty stars and galaxies everywhere. No big deal. Wherever I look same things. Stars and galaxies. You sound like Elon Musk to me. He promised to fly me to planet Mars and when I asked about details, what to do during the 200+ days trip, he just suggested enjoy it.
I don't know what delusional fantasy world you live in where Elon Musk promised to fly you to Mars, but it sounds pretty depressing and tiny.
I love all the amazing pictures and discoveries humanity has created and it's very sad that some people think the rest of the world is as limited as they are and see lies and conspiracies instead of the wonders all around us. How bleak. I suppose it's a blessing you can't understand what you're missing.
-
I await the pictures by JWST of the first galaxies formed 13.8 billion years ago just after some Big Bang.
You aren't very patient, are you? Sorry, but NASA doesn't work on your schedule. Deal with it.
BTW why do you think I am a crazed lone conspiracy theorist? I just consider that NASA produces garbage about space since its formation.
Because that's the kind of thing that crazed conspiracy theorists think and say.
-
Personally I believe the JWST isn't even in space at L2. It is a hoax to steal money from tax payers from the start.
Topic is still the JWST! Luckily most people actually enjoy seeing the wonders of the universe that telescopes provide. It's so sad you miss out on all of this because of your crazy conspiracy theories.
But JWST/NASA promises to show pictures of the Universe from 13.5 billion years back and so far 0 is shown! I can see the universe from my window without a telescope and am happy with it, i.e, just plenty stars and galaxies everywhere. No big deal. Wherever I look same things. Stars and galaxies. You sound like Elon Musk to me. He promised to fly me to planet Mars and when I asked about details, what to do during the 200+ days trip, he just suggested enjoy it.
I don't know what delusional fantasy world you live in where Elon Musk promised to fly you to Mars, but it sounds pretty depressing and tiny.
https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/ explains how Elon plans to fly to planet Mars. Pure fantasies and NASA believes him.
-
Personally I believe the JWST isn't even in space at L2. It is a hoax to steal money from tax payers from the start.
Topic is still the JWST! Luckily most people actually enjoy seeing the wonders of the universe that telescopes provide. It's so sad you miss out on all of this because of your crazy conspiracy theories.
But JWST/NASA promises to show pictures of the Universe from 13.5 billion years back and so far 0 is shown! I can see the universe from my window without a telescope and am happy with it, i.e, just plenty stars and galaxies everywhere. No big deal. Wherever I look same things. Stars and galaxies. You sound like Elon Musk to me. He promised to fly me to planet Mars and when I asked about details, what to do during the 200+ days trip, he just suggested enjoy it.
I don't know what delusional fantasy world you live in where Elon Musk promised to fly you to Mars, but it sounds pretty depressing and tiny.
https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/ explains how Elon plans to fly to planet Mars. Pure fantasies and NASA believes him.
Topic is still the JWST! If you read that and thought Elon Musk was personally promising to fly you to Mars, that's your problem right there.
-
Personally I believe the JWST isn't even in space at L2. It is a hoax to steal money from tax payers from the start.
Topic is still the JWST! Luckily most people actually enjoy seeing the wonders of the universe that telescopes provide. It's so sad you miss out on all of this because of your crazy conspiracy theories.
But JWST/NASA promises to show pictures of the Universe from 13.5 billion years back and so far 0 is shown! I can see the universe from my window without a telescope and am happy with it, i.e, just plenty stars and galaxies everywhere. No big deal. Wherever I look same things. Stars and galaxies. You sound like Elon Musk to me. He promised to fly me to planet Mars and when I asked about details, what to do during the 200+ days trip, he just suggested enjoy it.
I don't know what delusional fantasy world you live in where Elon Musk promised to fly you to Mars, but it sounds pretty depressing and tiny.
https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/ explains how Elon plans to fly to planet Mars. Pure fantasies and NASA believes him.
Topic is still the JWST! If you read that and thought Elon Musk was personally promising to fly you to Mars, that's your problem right there.
Yes, humans in space would explain all about space, so no space telescopes were necessary, but it seems humans in space required food and fecal facilities so space telescopes became a musk must. But the result is what it is. Just shaky photos of far away galaxies.
-
Yes, humans in space would explain all about space, so no space telescopes were necessary, but it seems humans in space required food and fecal facilities so space telescopes became a musk must. But the result is what it is. Just shaky photos of far away galaxies.
Just curious, do you believe rockets push off air?
-
Yes, humans in space would explain all about space, so no space telescopes were necessary, but it seems humans in space required food and fecal facilities so space telescopes became a musk must. But the result is what it is. Just shaky photos of far away galaxies.
Just curious, do you believe rockets push off air?
Topic is JWST and not rockets but anyway. Rockets eject exhaust gases at one end and move/accelerate in the opposite direction. I explain it at my website.
-
...so space telescopes became a musk must.
What does Musk have to do with JWST?
But the result is what it is. Just shaky photos of far away galaxies.
What will you say when JWST produces images that aren't shaky and look even better than this:
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/irPDJAign8AgYL59uNyssj-1024-80.jpg.webp)
Can't see anything like that from you magic asylum window.
-
...so space telescopes became a musk must.
What does Musk have to do with JWST?
But the result is what it is. Just shaky photos of far away galaxies.
What will you say when JWST produces images that aren't shaky and look even better than this:
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/irPDJAign8AgYL59uNyssj-1024-80.jpg.webp)
Can't see anything like that from you magic asylum window.
Hm, I see the universe much better from my window. But I look fwd to the JWST pictures of the Universe 13.8 billion years ago as promised by NASA. Such images I cannot see from my window.
-
Yes, humans in space would explain all about space, so no space telescopes were necessary, but it seems humans in space required food and fecal facilities so space telescopes became a musk must. But the result is what it is. Just shaky photos of far away galaxies.
Topic is JWST not your obsession with pooping and space diaper fetish.
-
...so space telescopes became a musk must.
What does Musk have to do with JWST?
But the result is what it is. Just shaky photos of far away galaxies.
What will you say when JWST produces images that aren't shaky and look even better than this:
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/irPDJAign8AgYL59uNyssj-1024-80.jpg.webp)
Can't see anything like that from you magic asylum window.
Hm, I see the universe much better from my window.
No you don't. That is a lie.
-
...so space telescopes became a musk must.
What does Musk have to do with JWST?
But the result is what it is. Just shaky photos of far away galaxies.
What will you say when JWST produces images that aren't shaky and look even better than this:
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/irPDJAign8AgYL59uNyssj-1024-80.jpg.webp)
Can't see anything like that from you magic asylum window.
Hm, I see the universe much better from my window.
No you don't. That is a lie.
I can believe he can sit and stare off into space and see things like that.
-
Awesome!
(https://i.imgur.com/eM2xlV7.gif)
-
first real JWST pictures not due until 12 July!! https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-first-images-july-12 . Nobody knows what they will look like ! We are talking about pictures of the first galaxies, early in the history of the universe >13 billion light years away!
-
first real JWST pictures not due until 12 July!! https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-first-images-july-12 . Nobody knows what they will look like ! We are talking about pictures of the first galaxies, early in the history of the universe >13 billion light years away!
We've already received some images, obviously. And yeah, when JWST is done with all it's configuring, testing, we should start to see a lot more images. Just like the same process Hubble went through. So we wait until the pie is done baking. And that seems like mid-July. Looking forward to it.
-
first real JWST pictures not due until 12 July!! https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-first-images-july-12 . Nobody knows what they will look like ! We are talking about pictures of the first galaxies, early in the history of the universe >13 billion light years away!
We've already received some images, obviously. And yeah, when JWST is done with all it's configuring, testing, we should start to see a lot more images. Just like the same process Hubble went through. So we wait until the pie is done baking. And that seems like mid-July. Looking forward to it.
Yes, that's what NASA says. 12 July 2022 the pictures of the first galaxies being born billion years agoa will be published.
-
first real JWST pictures not due until 12 July!! https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-first-images-july-12 . Nobody knows what they will look like ! We are talking about pictures of the first galaxies, early in the history of the universe >13 billion light years away!
We've already received some images, obviously. And yeah, when JWST is done with all it's configuring, testing, we should start to see a lot more images. Just like the same process Hubble went through. So we wait until the pie is done baking. And that seems like mid-July. Looking forward to it.
Yes, that's what NASA says. 12 July 2022 the pictures of the first galaxies being born billion years agoa will be published.
NASA said that on July 12th, 2022 images of early galaxies from billions of years ago will be published.
-
first real JWST pictures not due until 12 July!! https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-first-images-july-12 . Nobody knows what they will look like ! We are talking about pictures of the first galaxies, early in the history of the universe >13 billion light years away!
We've already received some images, obviously. And yeah, when JWST is done with all it's configuring, testing, we should start to see a lot more images. Just like the same process Hubble went through. So we wait until the pie is done baking. And that seems like mid-July. Looking forward to it.
Yes, that's what NASA says. 12 July 2022 the pictures of the first galaxies being born billion years agoa will be published.
Cool. I look forward to 7/12. Thanks for the update.
-
There are billions of galaxies in the Universe and each galaxy consists of billions of stars and it seems many galaxies have high velocities in an expanding Universe trying to escape detection. I really wonder how the JWST staff keeps track of all these galaxies and which ones are old and new. I can see the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy from my window and I assume the other billion galaxies are beyond the horizon.
-
There are billions of galaxies in the Universe and each galaxy consists of billions of stars and it seems many galaxies have high velocities in an expanding Universe trying to escape detection. I really wonder how the JWST staff keeps track of all these galaxies and which ones are old and new. I can see the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy from my window and I assume the other billion galaxies are beyond the horizon.
Yes, just beyond the horizon, right there along with all the Coulombi Egg tankers you built.
Oops, sorry everyone. The topic is JWST, not Heiwa's failures.
-
There are billions of galaxies in the Universe and each galaxy consists of billions of stars and it seems many galaxies have high velocities in an expanding Universe trying to escape detection. I really wonder how the JWST staff keeps track of all these galaxies and which ones are old and new. I can see the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy from my window and I assume the other billion galaxies are beyond the horizon.
Yes, just beyond the horizon, right there along with all the Coulombi Egg tankers you built.
Oops, sorry everyone. The topic is JWST, not Heiwa's failures.
Yes, topic is JWST, that right now is orbiting L2 in space watching all the billion galaxies in the Universe according to NASA and MSM. In nine days time JWST will take a photo of one of those galaxies and suggest it came about >13 billion years ago one way or other, so that the following week NASA can explain how the Universe was created out of nothing. Potus Biden will then explain that the Russian president Putin is sick, etc, etc, and to avoid WW3 Russia must be destroyed to establish a Flat Earth (another topic).
-
There are billions of galaxies in the Universe and each galaxy consists of billions of stars and it seems many galaxies have high velocities in an expanding Universe trying to escape detection. I really wonder how the JWST staff keeps track of all these galaxies and which ones are old and new. I can see the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy from my window and I assume the other billion galaxies are beyond the horizon.
Yes, just beyond the horizon, right there along with all the Coulombi Egg tankers you built.
Oops, sorry everyone. The topic is JWST, not Heiwa's failures.
Yes. We have a thread where we can pile on Heiwa and his failures, here
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90170.0
Don't mind about Heiwas impatience to the JWST preparing to get to work. With one foot in the grave he's just a little anxious. He's probably the most enthusiastic person in this thread in regards to the telescope and what it will bring. He's just worried that time is not on his side being an old fogie and all
-
Yes, topic is JWST
The topic is still the JWST.
-
There are billions of galaxies in the Universe and each galaxy consists of billions of stars and it seems many galaxies have high velocities in an expanding Universe trying to escape detection. I really wonder how the JWST staff keeps track of all these galaxies and which ones are old and new. I can see the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy from my window and I assume the other billion galaxies are beyond the horizon.
Yes, just beyond the horizon, right there along with all the Coulombi Egg tankers you built.
Oops, sorry everyone. The topic is JWST, not Heiwa's failures.
Yes. We have a thread where we can pile on Heiwa and his failures, here
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90170.0
Don't mind about Heiwas impatience to the JWST preparing to get to work. With one foot in the grave he's just a little anxious. He's probably the most enthusiastic person in this thread in regards to the telescope and what it will bring. He's just worried that time is not on his side being an old fogie and all
No, I am just curious about what photo of a star in a galaxy NASA/JWST will produce 12 July 2022. There are billions of galaxies and stars in the Universe and I cannot understand why NASA/JWST makes so much noise about it. JWST is simply complete nonsense.
-
There are billions of galaxies in the Universe and each galaxy consists of billions of stars and it seems many galaxies have high velocities in an expanding Universe trying to escape detection. I really wonder how the JWST staff keeps track of all these galaxies and which ones are old and new. I can see the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy from my window and I assume the other billion galaxies are beyond the horizon.
Yes, just beyond the horizon, right there along with all the Coulombi Egg tankers you built.
Oops, sorry everyone. The topic is JWST, not Heiwa's failures.
Yes. We have a thread where we can pile on Heiwa and his failures, here
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90170.0
Don't mind about Heiwas impatience to the JWST preparing to get to work. With one foot in the grave he's just a little anxious. He's probably the most enthusiastic person in this thread in regards to the telescope and what it will bring. He's just worried that time is not on his side being an old fogie and all
No, I am just curious about what photo of a star in a galaxy NASA/JWST will produce 12 June 2022. There are billions of galaxies and stars in the Universe and I cannot understand why NASA/JWST makes so much noise about it. JWST is simply complete nonsense.
You're welcome to stop spamming about how you don't understand why JWST is interesting and why the people that work there are excited. You've said it, repeatedly, and you're not moving the conversation. You can spam in AR and CN all you want.
-
No, I am just curious about what photo of a star in a galaxy NASA/JWST will produce 12 June 2022.
Hilarious, you don’t even know what month it is right now. That’s one of the first questions Drs ask dementia patients to assess their cognition and awareness...
first real JWST pictures not due until 12 July!! https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-first-images-july-12
In nine days time JWST will take a photo of one of those galaxies...
-
No, I am just curious about what photo of a star in a galaxy NASA/JWST will produce 12 June 2022.
Hilarious, you don’t even know what month it is right now. That’s one of the first questions Drs ask dementia patients to assess their cognition and awareness...
first real JWST pictures not due until 12 July!! https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-first-images-july-12
In nine days time JWST will take a photo of one of those galaxies...
Soon JWST/NASA will produce a photo of a galaxy that popped up in the Universe >13 billion years ago. It is, we are told, fantastic! There are billions of galaxies in the Universe, each consisting of billions of stars, and NASA will show us a photo of one such star in one galaxy ... to prove something. But what? Galaxies exist? Stars are shining?
I see the Sun every morning rise outside my window warming me, but nobody knows how the energy/heat/light/photons of the Sun are produced to wake me up. And JWST cannot have a look to clarify matters.
-
No, I am just curious about what photo of a star in a galaxy NASA/JWST will produce 12 June 2022.
Hilarious, you don’t even know what month it is right now. That’s one of the first questions Drs ask dementia patients to assess their cognition and awareness...
first real JWST pictures not due until 12 July!! https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-first-images-july-12
In nine days time JWST will take a photo of one of those galaxies...
Soon JWST/NASA will produce a photo of a galaxy that popped up in the Universe >13 billion years ago. It is, we are told, fantastic!
I agree, fantastic! Thanks for sharing your enthusiasm for JWST.
Btw, you may want to see a Dr considering you don't know what month it is right now.
-
JWST is currently at its observing spot, Lagrange point 2 (L2), nearly 1 million miles (1.6 million km). It is the largest and most powerful space telescope ever launched.
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, the agency's successor to the famous Hubble telescope, launched on Dec. 25, 2021 is on a mission to study the earliest stars and peer back farther into the Universe's past than ever before.
The $10 billion James Webb Space Telescope — NASA's largest and most powerful space science telescope — will probe the cosmos to uncover the history of the universe from the Big Bang to alien planet formation and beyond.
According NASA the James Webb Space Telescope will focus on four main areas: first light in the universe, assembly of galaxies in the early universe, birth of stars and protoplanetary systems, and planets (including the origins of life.)
The nominal duration for the James Webb Space Telescope is five years.
As there are billions of galaxies and stars in the Universe, question remains if the JWST will see all of them or anything. So far I have only seen a Black Universe JWST photo and some stars incl. HD 84406, i.e. no light from JWST. And the photo didn’t show HD84406! It was HD 84413!
Source - https://www.space.com/news/live/james-webb-space-telescope-updates
-
As there are billions of galaxies and stars in the Universe, question remains if the JWST will see all of them or anything.
It has already taken images of stars. You have seen these pictures.
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/FRjH4MvXMAIBzwP.jpg)
So far I have only seen a Black Universe JWST photo and some stars incl. HD 84406, i.e. no light from JWST. And the photo didn’t show HD84406! It was HD 84413!
Source - https://www.space.com/news/live/james-webb-space-telescope-updates
You not being able to understand the pictures you have been shown doesn't mean the JWST doesn't work. It means your brain doesn't work.
It appears you are very confused about what stars are shown in the pictures. Perhaps you should try reading the article slower, and ask an adult to help you?
-
JWST is currently at its observing spot, Lagrange point 2 (L2), nearly 1 million miles (1.6 million km). It is the largest and most powerful space telescope ever launched.
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, the agency's successor to the famous Hubble telescope, launched on Dec. 25, 2021 is on a mission to study the earliest stars and peer back farther into the Universe's past than ever before.
The $10 billion James Webb Space Telescope — NASA's largest and most powerful space science telescope — will probe the cosmos to uncover the history of the universe from the Big Bang to alien planet formation and beyond.
According NASA the James Webb Space Telescope will focus on four main areas: first light in the universe, assembly of galaxies in the early universe, birth of stars and protoplanetary systems, and planets (including the origins of life.)
The nominal duration for the James Webb Space Telescope is five years.
As there are billions of galaxies and stars in the Universe, question remains if the JWST will see all of them or anything. So far I have only seen a Black Universe JWST photo and some stars incl. HD 84406, i.e. no light from JWST. And the photo didn’t show HD84406! It was HD 84413!
Source - https://www.space.com/news/live/james-webb-space-telescope-updates
Thanks for recapping the mission. Not sure why you feel the need to do so. We all have internet access, obviously. Or maybe since you don't know what month it is right now, you think you're the only one with an ability to look at the interwebs.
But again, thanks for your enthusiasm for the mission. We're all looking forward to some new images in a month+.
-
JWST is currently at its observing spot, Lagrange point 2 (L2), nearly 1 million miles (1.6 million km). It is the largest and most powerful space telescope ever launched.
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, the agency's successor to the famous Hubble telescope, launched on Dec. 25, 2021 is on a mission to study the earliest stars and peer back farther into the Universe's past than ever before.
The $10 billion James Webb Space Telescope — NASA's largest and most powerful space science telescope — will probe the cosmos to uncover the history of the universe from the Big Bang to alien planet formation and beyond.
According NASA the James Webb Space Telescope will focus on four main areas: first light in the universe, assembly of galaxies in the early universe, birth of stars and protoplanetary systems, and planets (including the origins of life.)
The nominal duration for the James Webb Space Telescope is five years.
As there are billions of galaxies and stars in the Universe, question remains if the JWST will see all of them or anything. So far I have only seen a Black Universe JWST photo and some stars incl. HD 84406, i.e. no light from JWST. And the photo didn’t show HD84406! It was HD 84413!
Source - https://www.space.com/news/live/james-webb-space-telescope-updates
Thanks for recapping the mission. Not sure why you feel the need to do so. We all have internet access, obviously. Or maybe since you don't know what month it is right now, you think you're the only one with an ability to look at the interwebs.
But again, thanks for your enthusiasm for the mission. We're all looking forward to some new images in a month+.
I'm surprised the Anders hasn't posted about how the interwebs is a conspiracy by the US government. Anyone in the US is using fake news internet that provides false information and only Heiwa has access to the real interwebs made by Al Gore with the real information.
-
I suspect you are correct. Seemingly, astronomical observations can only be made by him and through his window. So obviously, he is the only one on the planet who has access to the real info on Al's internet. As well, he alone has access to the real time on the planet as he has stated that it's July right now, not June. So he is ahead of everyone else in the world by a month.
-
According NASA the James Webb Space Telescope will next month take photos of (1) the first light in the Universe 13 billion years ago, (2) an assembly of galaxies in the early Universe, (3) birth of stars and protoplanetary systems in the Universe, and (4) the origins of life in the Universe. Yes, I really look forward to all that photo shopping.
-
According NASA the James Webb Space Telescope will next month take photos of (1) the first light in the Universe 13 billion years ago, (2) an assembly of galaxies in the early Universe, (3) birth of stars and protoplanetary systems in the Universe, and (4) the origins of life in the Universe. Yes, I really look forward to all that photo shopping.
How come you don't know what month it is. You might want to get that checked out...
No, I am just curious about what photo of a star in a galaxy NASA/JWST will produce 12 June 2022.
Hilarious, you don’t even know what month it is right now. That’s one of the first questions Drs ask dementia patients to assess their cognition and awareness...
first real JWST pictures not due until 12 July!! https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-first-images-july-12
In nine days time JWST will take a photo of one of those galaxies...
I agree, fantastic! Thanks for sharing your enthusiasm for JWST.
Btw, you may want to see a Dr considering you don't know what month it is right now.
-
According NASA the James Webb Space Telescope will next month take photos of (1) the first light in the Universe 13 billion years ago, (2) an assembly of galaxies in the early Universe, (3) birth of stars and protoplanetary systems in the Universe, and (4) the origins of life in the Universe. Yes, I really look forward to all that photo shopping.
How come you don't know what month it is. You might want to get that checked out...
Thanks for asking a question!
Answer is maybe because JWST is in another time zone in our 4-D space Solar system ready to take photos of the Universe? JWST is according NASA orbiting L2 far away at unknown speeds and directions that change all the time, and I doubt even NASA knows where JWST is. But who cares? JWST is a joke!
-
According NASA the James Webb Space Telescope will next month take photos of (1) the first light in the Universe 13 billion years ago, (2) an assembly of galaxies in the early Universe, (3) birth of stars and protoplanetary systems in the Universe, and (4) the origins of life in the Universe. Yes, I really look forward to all that photo shopping.
How come you don't know what month it is. You might want to get that checked out...
JWST is according NASA orbiting L2 far away at unknown speeds and directions that change all the time, and I doubt even NASA knows where JWST is.
Funny, they know right where it is, direction it's headed, and how fast it's traveling. You can know that too.
WHERE IS WEBB? (https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html)
(https://i.imgur.com/bcQ3Unu.png)
And here too...
The Sky - LIVE (https://theskylive.com/jwst-info)
(https://i.imgur.com/HTlAOxl.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/HTLdwgH.jpg)
I'm afraid the joke's on you.
-
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/first-images-from-nasa-s-webb-space-telescope-coming-soon
“What Will We See?
While careful planning for Webb’s first full-color images has been underway for a long time, the new telescope is so powerful that it is difficult to predict exactly how the first images will look. “Of course, there are things we are expecting and hoping to see, but with a new telescope and this new high-resolution infrared data, we just won’t know until we see it,” said STScI’s lead science visuals developer Joseph DePasquale.”
So NASA doesn’t know what it will see!
-
So NASA doesn’t know what it will see!
That's usually the point of exploration ::)
-
Answer is maybe because JWST is in another time zone in our 4-D space Solar system ready to take photos of the Universe? JWST is according NASA orbiting L2 far away at unknown speeds and directions that change all the time, and I doubt even NASA knows where JWST is. But who cares? JWST is a joke!
Nothing about it's movement is unknown and NASA knows exactly where it is and there are already images of it taken by other amateur telescopes as it's parked at L2.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjzuraw/51845428333/in/photostream/
You could see it too if you wanted to get a telescope and look. Assuming you could figure out how to actually use one.
-
Answer is maybe because JWST is in another time zone in our 4-D space Solar system ready to take photos of the Universe? JWST is according NASA orbiting L2 far away at unknown speeds and directions that change all the time, and I doubt even NASA knows where JWST is. But who cares? JWST is a joke!
Nothing about it's movement is unknown and NASA knows exactly where it is and there are already images of it taken by other amateur telescopes as it's parked at L2.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjzuraw/51845428333/in/photostream/
You could see it too if you wanted to get a telescope and look. Assuming you could figure out how to actually use one.
Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.
-
Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.
As you have been told numerous times, the JWST orbits the Sun at L2.
Repeating the same lies ad nauseam convinces no-one.
-
Answer is maybe because JWST is in another time zone in our 4-D space Solar system ready to take photos of the Universe? JWST is according NASA orbiting L2 far away at unknown speeds and directions that change all the time, and I doubt even NASA knows where JWST is. But who cares? JWST is a joke!
Nothing about it's movement is unknown and NASA knows exactly where it is and there are already images of it taken by other amateur telescopes as it's parked at L2.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjzuraw/51845428333/in/photostream/
You could see it too if you wanted to get a telescope and look. Assuming you could figure out how to actually use one.
Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.
Topic is JWST. If you can't understand why you need a telescope to see things far away, you're crazier than I thought. Which is impressive.
-
Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.
As you have been told numerous times, the JWST orbits the Sun at L2.
Repeating the same lies ad nauseam convinces no-one.
No, it is planet Earth and you and me that orbits the Sun. JWST orbits L2 according to NASA one way or other nobody understands. L2 is just a point that you cannot orbit around. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm
-
Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.
As you have been told numerous times, the JWST orbits the Sun at L2.
Repeating the same lies ad nauseam convinces no-one.
No, it is planet Earth and you and me that orbits the Sun. JWST orbits L2 according to NASA one way or other nobody understands. L2 is just a point that you cannot orbit around. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.
Stop lying and making up shit, Heiwa.
-
Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.
As you have been told numerous times, the JWST orbits the Sun at L2.
Repeating the same lies ad nauseam convinces no-one.
No, it is planet Earth and you and me that orbits the Sun. JWST orbits L2 according to NASA one way or other nobody understands. L2 is just a point that you cannot orbit around. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.
Stop lying and making up shit, Heiwa.
I think you have misunderstood what an orbit is. Any spacecraft starting from and leaving Earth by definition orbits only Earth and cannot start orbiting anything else.
-
Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.
As you have been told numerous times, the JWST orbits the Sun at L2.
Repeating the same lies ad nauseam convinces no-one.
No, it is planet Earth and you and me that orbits the Sun. JWST orbits L2 according to NASA one way or other nobody understands. L2 is just a point that you cannot orbit around. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.
Stop lying and making up shit, Heiwa.
I think you have misunderstood what an orbit is. Any spacecraft starting from and leaving Earth by definition orbits only Earth and cannot start orbiting anything else.
No, Heiwa. I fully understand an orbit; it is you who does not.
That is not a definition of an orbit, rather your own asserted rubbish.
-
Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.
As you have been told numerous times, the JWST orbits the Sun at L2.
Repeating the same lies ad nauseam convinces no-one.
No, it is planet Earth and you and me that orbits the Sun. JWST orbits L2 according to NASA one way or other nobody understands.
Wrong again, as usual, "The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2."
L2 is just a point that you cannot orbit around. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm
Reported for spamming your craptastic site again. Remember this: "Heiwa... again. 3 days. Spamming about his website."
-
Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.
As you have been told numerous times, the JWST orbits the Sun at L2.
Repeating the same lies ad nauseam convinces no-one.
No, it is planet Earth and you and me that orbits the Sun. JWST orbits L2 according to NASA one way or other nobody understands. L2 is just a point that you cannot orbit around. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.
Stop lying and making up shit, Heiwa.
I think you have misunderstood what an orbit is. Any spacecraft starting from and leaving Earth by definition orbits only Earth and cannot start orbiting anything else.
No, Heiwa. I fully understand an orbit; it is you who does not.
That is not a definition of an orbit, rather your own asserted rubbish.
Sorry. JWST took off from Earth >5 months ago heading for L2 and, arriving at L2, we are told JWST started to orbit L2 after some mysterious actions!?!? . it was complete nonsense then as today. You really have to understand what an orbit is. No object in space can change "orbits" by itself from eg around Earth to around the Sun.
-
Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.
As you have been told numerous times, the JWST orbits the Sun at L2.
Repeating the same lies ad nauseam convinces no-one.
No, it is planet Earth and you and me that orbits the Sun. JWST orbits L2 according to NASA one way or other nobody understands. L2 is just a point that you cannot orbit around. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.
Stop lying and making up shit, Heiwa.
I think you have misunderstood what an orbit is. Any spacecraft starting from and leaving Earth by definition orbits only Earth and cannot start orbiting anything else.
No, Heiwa. I fully understand an orbit; it is you who does not.
That is not a definition of an orbit, rather your own asserted rubbish.
Sorry. JWST took off from Earth >5 months ago heading for L2 and, arriving at L2, we are told JWST started to orbit L2 after some mysterious actions!?!? . it was complete nonsense then as today. You really have to understand what an orbit is. No object in space can change "orbits" by itself from eg around Earth to around the Sun.
No, we weren't. We are told that the JWST orbits the Sun.
No natural object in space changes its own orbit. Satellites and space telescopes, however, are not natural, and as such can be set on any trajectory we wish - even a complex one, that you are unable to understand, which can eventually settle in an orbit that is not around Earth. There are many extant examples of this, including objects that have entirely left the solar system.
They also have control mechanisms to adjust their trajectories.
That your education failed to provide with the tools to understand this, is sad, but of no consequence to fact.
-
According to Heiwa, the Voyager and Pioneer spacecrafts are still orbiting the Earth
-
According to Heiwa, the Voyager and Pioneer spacecrafts are still orbiting the Earth
Yes, but I doubt they ever existed. I assume they were NASA fantasies ... like the JWST!
-
According to Heiwa, the Voyager and Pioneer spacecrafts are still orbiting the Earth
Yes, but I doubt they ever existed. I assume they were NASA fantasies ... like the JWST!
I thought you were all about humans in space, reentry and stuff. Why would Voyager and Pioneer spacecrafts be a part of your lunacy? As for orbits, all planets but two (Mercury and Venus) have moons. They don't orbit earth. What's the big deal with JWST orbiting the Sun?
-
According to Heiwa, the Voyager and Pioneer spacecrafts are still orbiting the Earth
Yes, but I doubt they ever existed. I assume they were NASA fantasies ... like the JWST!
I thought you were all about humans in space, reentry and stuff. Why would Voyager and Pioneer spacecrafts be a part of your lunacy? As for orbits, all planets but two (Mercury and Venus) have moons. They don't orbit earth. What's the big deal with JWST orbiting the Sun?
Thanks for asking. JWST cannot orbit the Sun! It is not equipped for it. JWST orbits L2 according NASA, but it is also impossible, i.e. fake news. You cannot orbit a point in space without a mass. Re Voyager/Pioneer they were fake news of the last century and produced at Hollywood and never left Earth or the Solar System. You really have to study history that USA loves to fake.
-
JWST orbits L2 according NASA, but it is also impossible, i.e. fake news.
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.
You are lying, yet again. NASA says no such thing.
You keep saying this, so show me one quote from an official NASA source that says JWST will orbit the Earth or L2.
-
JWST orbits L2 according NASA, but it is also impossible, i.e. fake news.
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.
You are lying, yet again. NASA says no such thing.
You keep saying this, so show me one quote from an official NASA source that says JWST will orbit the Earth or L2.
Why do you get so upset? I just copy/publish what NASA publish since 1958, i.e. fake scientific (LOL) news about space. NASA just publish lies since 1958! Let's face it.
-
JWST orbits L2 according NASA, but it is also impossible, i.e. fake news.
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.
You are lying, yet again. NASA says no such thing.
You keep saying this, so show me one quote from an official NASA source that says JWST will orbit the Earth or L2.
Why do you get so upset? I just copy/publish what NASA publish since 1958, i.e. fake scientific (LOL) news about space. NASA just publish lies since 1958! Let's face it.
Bless your cotton socks for thinking your feeble attempts at trolling could upset, well, anyone. At even that you fail.
So, no quote in support of your assertion that NASA says the JWST orbits the Earth?
Nothing?
-
JWST orbits L2 according to NASA one way or other nobody understands. L2 is just a point that you cannot orbit around. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm
The topic is JWST not you being unable to understand orbits and spamming your website.
-
I just quote NASA :
“(NASA) Ground teams plan to fire Webb’s thrusters at 2 p.m. Monday, Jan. 24 to insert the space telescope into orbit around the Sun at the second Lagrange point, or L2, its intended destination, nearly 1 million miles from Earth. This mid-course correction burn has long been planned for approximately 29 days after launch.”
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-discuss-webb-s-arrival-at-final-destination-next-steps
Only problem is that JWST has no thrusters/fuel to change its orbit around Earth to an orbit around the Sun.
-
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/observatory/bus.html
Propulsion System
The Propulsion System contains the fuel tanks and the rockets that, when directed by the Attitude Control System, are fired to maintain the orbit.
Rocket Thrusters and Propellant
Webb has two types of rocket thrusters. One kind is called "Secondary Combustion Augmented Thrusters" (SCAT), and they are used for orbit correction (like applied changes in velocity for each maneuver the spacecraft makes and also for orbit station-keeping). Webb has two pairs of them (paired for redundancy). They use hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide, as fuel and oxidizer respectively, which makes SCAT what engineers call a "bi-propellant" thruster. The other kind of thruster on Webb is called a MRE-1, or mono-propellant rocket engine, since it only uses hydrazine. There are eight MRE-1s on Webb, and they are used for attitude control and momentum unloading of the reaction wheels.
Any other rubbish you want to spout?
-
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/observatory/bus.html
Propulsion System
The Propulsion System contains the fuel tanks and the rockets that, when directed by the Attitude Control System, are fired to maintain the orbit.
Rocket Thrusters and Propellant
Webb has two types of rocket thrusters. One kind is called "Secondary Combustion Augmented Thrusters" (SCAT), and they are used for orbit correction (like applied changes in velocity for each maneuver the spacecraft makes and also for orbit station-keeping). Webb has two pairs of them (paired for redundancy). They use hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide, as fuel and oxidizer respectively, which makes SCAT what engineers call a "bi-propellant" thruster. The other kind of thruster on Webb is called a MRE-1, or mono-propellant rocket engine, since it only uses hydrazine. There are eight MRE-1s on Webb, and they are used for attitude control and momentum unloading of the reaction wheels.
Any other rubbish you want to spout?
Not really! So JWST took of from Earth direction L2 late 2021 and away from the Sun in an orbit around Earth but after arriving L2 24 January 2022 in spac, NASA/JWST fired thrusters and started to orbit the Sun instead. Space travel doesn't work like that. And where is JWST today?
-
That is exactly how space flight works. A craft travelling on one trajectory fires its thrusters and begins travelling on a different trajectory. Basic physics.
-
I just quote NASA
Yes, you quote NASA, then make some weird comment about how you don't understand how spacecraft work, then you link your website.
Yawn.
The subject is JWST.
-
That is exactly how space flight works. A craft travelling on one trajectory fires its thrusters and begins travelling on a different trajectory. Basic physics.
No, when you start from Earth, it is always the gravity force between Earth and your space craft that governs your trajectory a per Newton and Gallileo. Pushing a button cannot enable the gravity of the Sun to take over. But who cares? Space is a mystery that nobody can explain in spite of Einstein, NASA and other clowns.
-
But who cares? Space is a mystery that nobody can explain in spite of Einstein, NASA and other clowns.
You mean nobody can explain it you YOU because you can't understand any of it. The rest of us understand space just fine. Some of us even understand the math.
Have anything new to add?
The topic is JWST it's all explained on my website.
-
That is exactly how space flight works. A craft travelling on one trajectory fires its thrusters and begins travelling on a different trajectory. Basic physics.
No, when you start from Earth, it is always the gravity force between Earth and your space craft that governs your trajectory a per Newton and Gallileo. Pushing a button cannot enable the gravity of the Sun to take over. But who cares? Space is a mystery that nobody can explain in spite of Einstein, NASA and other clowns.
I recommend reading up on Hill Spheres. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Edit - grammar fix
-
That is exactly how space flight works. A craft travelling on one trajectory fires its thrusters and begins travelling on a different trajectory. Basic physics.
No, when you start from Earth, it is always the gravity force between Earth and your space craft that governs your trajectory a per Newton and Gallileo. Pushing a button cannot enable the gravity of the Sun to take over. But who cares? Space is a mystery that nobody can explain in spite of Einstein, NASA and other clowns.
Inverse
Square
Law.
-
"A tiny rock fragment has hit the new James Webb Space Telescope's main mirror.
The damage inflicted by the dust-sized micrometeoroid is producing a noticeable effect in the observatory's data but is not expected to limit the mission's overall performance."
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61744257
That's some bad luck so early on in the deployment. At least it was designed to deal with such things.
-
"A tiny rock fragment has hit the new James Webb Space Telescope's main mirror.
The damage inflicted by the dust-sized micrometeoroid is producing a noticeable effect in the observatory's data but is not expected to limit the mission's overall performance."
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61744257
That's some bad luck so early on in the deployment. At least it was designed to deal with such things.
Seems like they are trying to put a positive spin on something almost catastrophic to billions of dollars and decades of years spent.
The Hubble is in a perilous orbit with 'space junk' and has survived so far but that is repairable at least
-
I guess, from that article, Hubble has some sort of shield protecting the mirror from such things. JWST does not.
I've watched some bits by Dr. Becky before. If she's not concerned, I'm not concered...
-
More info on the space stone strike...In short, totally planned and tested for. All should be good as the telescope is actually performing better than expected, engineered to be over-built...
James Webb Telescope Mirror Got Hit by a Meteoroid, Here's What We Know
-
https://www.space.com/webb-halfway-instrument-checks
Getting closer and closer. The low infrared instrument has cooled down to near absolute zero and is ready now. About half the detectors are operational and passed all their checks.
-
Yep, getting close:
NASA scientists announced this week that they've successfully calibrated the eye of a JWST-mounted device called NIRSpec. This is a pretty big milestone because of the streamlined way NASA organized the road to regular Webb use. The agency basically has to get through 17 instrument "modes," which you can think of as testing checkpoints, through analysis and observation before fully booting up JWST.
Thus, now counting NIRSpec achievements, the agency has officially passed the halfway point on the mode ledger -- bringing the grand total to 10 out of 17 complete.
I think the operational status of the NIRSpec is a really big deal.
-
https://www.techspot.com/news/95092-james-webb-space-telescope-heads-final-stretch-instrument.html
Up to 12 of 17 fully calibrated instruments now.
Just a few more days until the first production quality images are released.
I have to say I am still shocked it's functioning at all. I was 99% certain something would go wrong during the unfolding process or the launch rocket would blow up or every image would just show a huge outline of one of those missing bolts. I'm still suffering a bit of PTSD over the Hubble's first images.
-
Something did go wrong although it wasn't their fault. A tiny meteor hit one of the plates but it doesn't seem to be an issue.
-
It has already taken images of stars. You have seen these pictures.
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/FRjH4MvXMAIBzwP.jpg)
Just looking back here, just want to say that WISE W2 one looks pretty crappy compared to the JWST.
But who knows..... Maybe some day someone will look back at the JWST pictures and think it looks like a bucket of shit compared to what they have in the future 8)
-
But who knows..... Maybe some day someone will look back at the JWST pictures and think it looks like a bucket of shit compared to what they have in the future 8)
Yeah, they already have a few ideas.
(https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/images/508-future-space-telescopes-timeline.gif)
-
But who knows..... Maybe some day someone will look back at the JWST pictures and think it looks like a bucket of shit compared to what they have in the future 8)
Yeah, they already have a few ideas.
(https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/images/508-future-space-telescopes-timeline.gif)
I think they may skip the 100m robotically assembled verision and go right to 1000m.
In space there are a variety of ways to make telescopes using membranes instead of rigid glass mirrors for very little mass.
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2021/03/04/a-method-for-creating-enormous-space-telescopes/
-
But who knows..... Maybe some day someone will look back at the JWST pictures and think it looks like a bucket of shit compared to what they have in the future 8)
Yeah, they already have a few ideas.
(https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/images/508-future-space-telescopes-timeline.gif)
I think they may skip the 100m robotically assembled verision and go right to 1000m.
In space there are a variety of ways to make telescopes using membranes instead of rigid glass mirrors for very little mass.
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2021/03/04/a-method-for-creating-enormous-space-telescopes/
The thing I like about the 100m is that it seems much more foolproof. If we have robots out there working on it, it will be much easier to deal with any unforeseen problems as we will have the ability to fix it. Unlike the JWST which is pretty much on it's own.
-
First color images to be released soon.
-
Im expecting them to have the first clear images of the flying spaghetti monster laughing at us from the far end of the universe.
-
5pm Eastern time!
With Joe Biden announcing it! Wouldn't have been my first choice but whatever.
SCIENCE!!!
-
5pm Eastern time!
With Joe Biden announcing it! Wouldn't have been my first choice but whatever.
SCIENCE!!!
Really, the guy who can't read a teleprompter is going to announce it.
-
You just have to watch it on Youtube at 2x speed. He seems like a pretty sharp guy when you do that.
-
Just mute the broadcast until some scientists start talking.
Overall, I'm super excited. First observations:
- Carina Nebula
- Southern Ring Nebula
- Galaxy group Stephan's Quintet
- SMACS 0723 galaxy cluster
- Planet WASP-96b
-
Really, the guy who can't read a teleprompter is going to announce it.
Out of the last 4 US presidents, only one can actually do this. So this does not really narrow it down a lot.
-
(https://images.axios.com/psoxIhmpwn8dOgZvwaQoceoyl0s=/2022/07/11/1657578273079.jpg)
Some interesting things in this image. It almost looks like a super long exposure shot where some of the galaxies have had time to move. I wonder what the story there is.
-
(https://images.axios.com/psoxIhmpwn8dOgZvwaQoceoyl0s=/2022/07/11/1657578273079.jpg)
Some interesting things in this image. It almost looks like a super long exposure shot where some of the galaxies have had time to move. I wonder what the story there is.
I haven't seen the press release but am going to guess those are examples of gravitational lensing. It's certainly a very long exposure but the JWST will be fixed on one spot and not moving at all.
Here is a full resolution version.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/main_image_deep_field_smacs0723-5mb.jpg
-
(https://images.axios.com/psoxIhmpwn8dOgZvwaQoceoyl0s=/2022/07/11/1657578273079.jpg)
Some interesting things in this image. It almost looks like a super long exposure shot where some of the galaxies have had time to move. I wonder what the story there is.
Neat thing is that it's an engineering image, not a scientific image. It was from the Fine Guidance Sensor test.
This Fine Guidance Sensor test image was acquired in parallel with NIRCam imaging of the star HD147980 over a period of eight days at the beginning of May. This engineering image represents a total of 32 hours of exposure time at several overlapping pointings of the Guider 2 channel. The observations were not optimized for detection of faint objects, but nevertheless the image captures extremely faint objects and is, for now, the deepest image of the infrared sky.
-
I read that somewhere too, lensing.
I also think I read somewhere that long exposures are involved. Like one of bubbles first images was exposed for 100 hours. I must have that wrong, seems impossible.
But jeepers, look at all of those galaxies. Unreal.
-
I read that somewhere too, lensing.
I also think I read somewhere that long exposures are involved. Like one of bubbles first images was exposed for 100 hours. I must have that wrong, seems impossible.
But jeepers, look at all of those galaxies. Unreal.
The JWST exposures shown above is about 12 hours long. Hubble needed about 100 hours to give us much worse quality images.
-
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/07/James-Webb-vs-Hubble-The-Difference-in-Detail-is-Astounding-2-800x420.jpg)
Eat shit Hubble!
-
Yeah looking at that we can conclude the Hubble is a POS. Time to use it as target practice for an ICBM test
-
Yeah looking at that we can conclude the Hubble is a POS. Time to use it as target practice for an ICBM test
Hubble's 2 older brothers are pointing down at earth. I dont think they would like it if you shot is small brother down
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52211883534_ced11ba5f0_b.jpg)
Like the aspect ratio. Will probably make it my new desktop background.
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52211883534_ced11ba5f0_b.jpg)
Like the aspect ratio. Will probably make it my new desktop background.
Works really well on a 2 screen set up. Move over Saturn, I have a new desk top image
-
Hubble VS JWST
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/615623277951451301/996449908829728828/unknown-38.png)
Hubble's image on the left took multiple days to create, JWST took a few hours.
And for those that dont know. JWST takes images mostly in the infra red spectrum, which means 2 big things. 1, they alter the colour after the images are taken to better match our colour perception. And 2, it sees things that Hubble could not see.
-
Given that image only takes a few hours, I hope they get the JWST to give as (as best as possible) a full 360 degree panoramic deep field view of the universe!
-
Given that image only takes a few hours, I hope they get the JWST to give as (as best as possible) a full 360 degree panoramic deep field view of the universe!
That better not include the Sun! :-\
-
Stephan's Quintet
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/main_image_galaxies_stephans_quintet_sq_nircam_miri_final-5mb.jpg)
-
Given that image only takes a few hours, I hope they get the JWST to give as (as best as possible) a full 360 degree panoramic deep field view of the universe!
That will take a really really long time.
JWST has a resolution of 0.01 arc seconds, so if each image took 1 hour, it will take 14 800 years just to image a full circle. Not the whole sphere yet, got to do that 129 million times to get a full sphere.
-
Given that image only takes a few hours, I hope they get the JWST to give as (as best as possible) a full 360 degree panoramic deep field view of the universe!
That will take a really really long time.
JWST has a resolution of 0.01 arc seconds, so if each image took 1 hour, it will take 14 800 years just to image a full circle. Not the whole sphere yet, got to do that 129 million times to get a full sphere.
All good things come to those who wait. They better get a move on!
-
Given that image only takes a few hours, I hope they get the JWST to give as (as best as possible) a full 360 degree panoramic deep field view of the universe!
That will take a really really long time.
JWST has a resolution of 0.01 arc seconds, so if each image took 1 hour, it will take 14 800 years just to image a full circle. Not the whole sphere yet, got to do that 129 million times to get a full sphere.
All good things come to those who wait. They better get a move on!
We may need more telescopes
-
Given that image only takes a few hours, I hope they get the JWST to give as (as best as possible) a full 360 degree panoramic deep field view of the universe!
That will take a really really long time.
JWST has a resolution of 0.01 arc seconds, so if each image took 1 hour, it will take 14 800 years just to image a full circle. Not the whole sphere yet, got to do that 129 million times to get a full sphere.
All good things come to those who wait. They better get a move on!
We may need more telescopes
Let's see, assuming a worst case of each of those images being the full 4 megapixels, that's a 500 billion megapixel image. Minimum size of 1548 TB. Not too bad actually.
Amazon has a 12TB drive on sale for $250 so you could store that image for only $32 thousand.
I'm going to need a bigger RAID array...
-
Let's see, assuming a worst case of each of those images being the full 4 megapixels, that's a 500 billion megapixel image. Minimum size of 1548 TB. Not too bad actually.
Amazon has a 12TB drive on sale for $250 so you could store that image for only $32 thousand.
I'm going to need a bigger RAID array...
Dont worry about it too much, It will take so long, by the time there is 1Tb worth of images they will have 2000TB worth of storage built into your socks.
-
Let's see, assuming a worst case of each of those images being the full 4 megapixels, that's a 500 billion megapixel image. Minimum size of 1548 TB. Not too bad actually.
Amazon has a 12TB drive on sale for $250 so you could store that image for only $32 thousand.
I'm going to need a bigger RAID array...
Dont worry about it too much, It will take so long, by the time there is 1Tb worth of images they will have 2000TB worth of storage built into your socks.
Socks? Where we're going we won't need socks!
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52211883534_ced11ba5f0_b.jpg)
Like the aspect ratio. Will probably make it my new desktop background.
I'm trying to come to terms with the scale of what we are seeing.
The average adult human body has about 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms
The observable universe? 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms
And that picture? Awesome as it is, it only represents a fraction of a poofteenth of the observable universe. Somewhere closer to 727atoms then it is to 1080 atoms. So, not a big of a leap as I imagined
A number I did think could blow my mind was just how many Planck length units could fit inside the universe. But that number is only ~10186.
Or how about getting pi accurate to within a Planck length measuring the size of the observable universe. It only takes around 63 decimal places.
Depending on how you look at it, the universe can indeed seem like a pretty small place.
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52211883534_ced11ba5f0_b.jpg)
Like the aspect ratio. Will probably make it my new desktop background.
I'm trying to come to terms with the scale of what we are seeing.
The average adult human body has about 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms
The observable universe? 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms
And that picture? Awesome as it is, it only represents a fraction of a poofteenth of the observable universe. Somewhere closer to 727atoms then it is to 1080 atoms. So, not a big of a leap as I imagined
A number I did think could blow my mind was just how many Planck length units could fit inside the universe. But that number is only ~10186.
Or how about getting pi accurate to within a Planck length measuring the size of the observable universe. It only takes around 63 decimal places.
Depending on how you look at it, the universe can indeed seem like a pretty small place.
The issue is, your looking at numbers and saying, hey look, these squiggles still fit on the screen, cant be that big. Humans are not actually that good at visualising numbers in physical space.
Googleplex - one word representing 10^10^100. The expression easily fits on a page. But you could probably fill every gap in the observable universe (all the space between stars ext) with sand, and still not have a googleplex worth of sand grains.
I look at that picture and feel pretty small. Most dots we see in the black back ground are entire galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars and trillions of planets. The scale is huge, even if you can write it out.
-
Like I said, depends how you look at it.
You and I are closer in relative size to the entire observable universe than we are to a single Planck length.
-
Like I said, depends how you look at it.
You and I are closer in relative size to the entire observable universe than we are to a single Planck length.
This is a scary thought. Feel bad for Ant man now.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/NFSF3Ld.jpeg)
8)
-
Perspective is AMAZING! (Only 2 minutes, but mind blowing)
Another crazy thing about this image - I was reading somewhere that everything in the image that doesn't have the spikey star-like defraction is actually a galaxy. (This may be obvious to everyone else). In that image alone there are thousands and thousands of galaxies!
-
That puts it in perspective. It's like the jwst's vision is laser thin.
-
Imagine if the first image released was this....
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRLuwuJS1bN5cSFncCrs7gidWU5nA_Coo9ag&usqp=CAU)
Whoops!
I wonder if they'll try to spy the black hole at our galaxies centre? I'd want to see that
-
Perspective is AMAZING! (Only 2 minutes, but mind blowing)
Another crazy thing about this image - I was reading somewhere that everything in the image that doesn't have the spikey star-like defraction is actually a galaxy. (This may be obvious to everyone else). In that image alone there are thousands and thousands of galaxies!
The scale of the universe is amazing.
Did you know there are more galaxies than stars in the galaxies? Not really but at that scale we can't really comprehend it so any awe is equal to any other awe. Like comparing infinities. ;D
-
The scale of the universe is amazing.
Did you know there are more galaxies than stars in the galaxies? Not really but at that scale we can't really comprehend it so any awe is equal to any other awe. Like comparing infinities. ;D
Well if the observable universe has around 200 billion galaxies (latest estimate), that's about the number of stars to be estimated to be in our own galaxy (estimated range 100-400 billion stars)
-
Well if the observable universe has around 200 billion galaxies (latest estimate), that's about the number of stars to be estimated to be in our own galaxy (estimated range 100-400 billion stars)
Thats the observable Universe. The Universe is quite possible infinite in all directions.
This means that the amount of possibilities that atoms can possibly arrange themselves in (by following the laws of physics obviously) will allow another planet, that looks just like ours. And that planet could have another dude or gal (or attack helicopter) that looks just like you, farts just like you, and spontaneously responds when a sound resembling your name is produced, looking at their PC right now, reading a comment just like this one.
Infinity is really big.
-
Well if the observable universe has around 200 billion galaxies (latest estimate), that's about the number of stars to be estimated to be in our own galaxy (estimated range 100-400 billion stars)
Thats the observable Universe. The Universe is quite possible infinite in all directions.
This means that the amount of possibilities that atoms can possibly arrange themselves in (by following the laws of physics obviously) will allow another planet, that looks just like ours. And that planet could have another dude or gal (or attack helicopter) that looks just like you, farts just like you, and spontaneously responds when a sound resembling your name is produced, looking at their PC right now, reading a comment just like this one.
Infinity is really big.
So you're telling me there is a version of me that goes to work naked.... 8)
Here is a good site that talks about how big the universe could be (long read but worth it)
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/18/how-big-is-the-entire-universe
That doesn't mean that it is flat, of course. If you walked outside and tried to measure the curvature of the Earth right now, but only within 5 km (or 3 miles) of your current location, you would find that the Earth is consistent with being flat, but it could also be positively or negatively curved on a larger scale than you're currently measuring.
So it goes with the Universe as well. We were able to measure that the Universe, if it is curved, has a much larger radius of curvature than that of our observable Universe, which is about 46 billion light years. But if we could make that measurement more precise, we could conceivably measure a much smaller curvature than even that. Thanks to the WMAP satellite, we now have the temperature fluctuations over the entire sky measured at a very narrow, less-than-half-a-degree resolution.
And what they teach us is that not only is the Universe consistent with being flat, it's really, really, REALLY flat! If the Universe does curve back and close on itself, its radius of curvature is at least 150 times as large as the part that's observable to us! Meaning that -- even without speculative physics like cosmic inflation -- we know that the entire Universe extends for at least 14 trillion light years in diameter, including the part that's unobservable to us today.
-
So you're telling me there is a version of me that goes to work naked.... 8)
Yes. But thankfully it's going to happen outside our observable universe.
-
I wonder what the first pictures are going to be. NASA is keeping the targets secret, which is a good PR move. Has everyone eagerly awaiting what cool stuff we will be seeing. Something showy and well known I bet. Moons of Jupiter and Saturn would be cool, aside from all the deep space objects.
Behold, Jupiter's moons! I must of course assume NASA only took these after reading my suggestions. It's the only possible explanation.
https://www.sciencealert.com/webb-actually-dropped-a-sneaky-picture-of-jupiter-and-we-can-t-stop-staring
(https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2022-07/Screen_Shot_2022-07-13_at_11.58.42_am.png)
-
Too much goodness to post.
(https://www.cnet.com/a/img/resize/702b862197d201a446385abbd4cada4da9d46c58/hub/2022/07/12/32e563ae-8c70-4787-bae1-a3ccab29ea43/stephens-quintet.jpg?auto=webp&width=1200)
-
Stunning!!!
This is pretty mind-blowing too:
Zoom Into the Southern Ring Nebula Captured by NASA James Webb Space Telescope
-
Listen to this NASA nonsense!
Located only 7,600 light-years away from Earth, NGC 3324, is a young, star-forming region of the Milky Way Galaxy full with glittering stars. According NASA stars are formed just around the corner from Earth and JWST just filmed it! The image is amazing:
"Webb reveals emerging stellar nurseries and individual stars that are completely hidden in visible-light pictures. Because of Webb’s sensitivity to infrared light, it can peer through cosmic dust to see these objects. Protostellar jets, which emerge clearly in this image, shoot out from some of these young stars. The youngest sources appear as red dots in the dark, dusty region of the cloud. Objects in the earliest, rapid phases of star formation are difficult to capture, but Webb’s extreme sensitivity, spatial resolution, and imaging capability can chronicle these elusive events".
So stars are formed just 7 600 light years away from Earth!
Source https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-reveals-cosmic-cliffs-glittering-landscape-of-star-birth
And this happens in the vicinity of Earth right now !!! Go out and look! OK, NASA says it cannot be seen, but try anyway!
-
Listen to this NASA nonsense!
Located only 7,600 light-years away from Earth, NGC 3324, is a young, star-forming region of the Milky Way Galaxy full with glittering stars. According NASA stars are formed just around the corner from Earth and JWST just filmed it! The image is amazing:
"Webb reveals emerging stellar nurseries and individual stars that are completely hidden in visible-light pictures. Because of Webb’s sensitivity to infrared light, it can peer through cosmic dust to see these objects. Protostellar jets, which emerge clearly in this image, shoot out from some of these young stars. The youngest sources appear as red dots in the dark, dusty region of the cloud. Objects in the earliest, rapid phases of star formation are difficult to capture, but Webb’s extreme sensitivity, spatial resolution, and imaging capability can chronicle these elusive events".
So stars are formed just 7 600 light years away from Earth!
Source https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-reveals-cosmic-cliffs-glittering-landscape-of-star-birth
And this happens in the vicinity of Earth right now !!! Go out and look!
Why is any of it nonsense? And sadly my eyes aren't as sensitive or tuned and are surrounded by too much background light and heat to be of any use :(
-
So stars are formed just 7 600 light years away from Earth! [/i]
One light-year is about 6 trillion miles (9 trillion km).
-
So stars are formed just 7 600 light years away from Earth! [/i]
One light-year is about 6 trillion miles (9 trillion km).
Our eyes will also not be able to see any of those stars. Way too far away and not enough resolution
-
So stars are formed just 7 600 light years away from Earth! [/i]
One light-year is about 6 trillion miles (9 trillion km).
Yes, and the stars are in the sky above you further away.
-
So stars are formed just 7 600 light years away from Earth! [/i]
One light-year is about 6 trillion miles (9 trillion km).
Our eyes will also not be able to see any of those stars. Way too far away and not enough resolution
You would need a magic window in a down-market suburb outside of Monaco in order to resolve with your eyes something 7600 LYs away.
-
Listen to this NASA nonsense!
Located only 7,600 light-years away from Earth, NGC 3324, is a young, star-forming region of the Milky Way Galaxy full with glittering stars. According NASA stars are formed just around the corner from Earth and JWST just filmed it! The image is amazing:
"Webb reveals emerging stellar nurseries and individual stars that are completely hidden in visible-light pictures. Because of Webb’s sensitivity to infrared light, it can peer through cosmic dust to see these objects. Protostellar jets, which emerge clearly in this image, shoot out from some of these young stars. The youngest sources appear as red dots in the dark, dusty region of the cloud. Objects in the earliest, rapid phases of star formation are difficult to capture, but Webb’s extreme sensitivity, spatial resolution, and imaging capability can chronicle these elusive events".
So stars are formed just 7 600 light years away from Earth!
Source https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-reveals-cosmic-cliffs-glittering-landscape-of-star-birth
And this happens in the vicinity of Earth right now !!! Go out and look! OK, NASA says it cannot be seen, but try anyway!
I feel like he just wanted to complain about something.
JWST is awesome
-
So stars are formed just 7 600 light years away from Earth! [/i]
One light-year is about 6 trillion miles (9 trillion km).
Our eyes will also not be able to see any of those stars. Way too far away and not enough resolution
You would need a magic window in a down-market suburb outside of Monaco in order to resolve with your eyes something 7600 LYs away.
My penthouse and roof garden is high above Monaco, so I can see most of Monaco full of towers below me from it. And above is the sky with the Milky Way galaxy across it, that is 100 000 light years long, even if I just see a bit of it. And in between is the Mediterranean Sea. Sometimes I also see the Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million light years away with my naked eyes. It is outside the Milky Way galaxy, but as it is far away it looks pretty small.
-
If you can see most of Monaco at night, then it's very unlikely that you would be able to see Andromeda because of the light pollution.
-
When I was in Seoul, I could count the number of stars and planets on one hand the light pollution was so bad.
-
If you can see most of Monaco at night, then it's very unlikely that you would be able to see Andromeda because of the light pollution.
Right now it is 3.27 am and fairly good weather. The dark sky above my roof garden is full of stars. Out at sea a ship is passing from Genoa to Marseille and to the left Bordighera Italy is clearly seen 20 kms away. Corsica to the right (south) is below the horizon but sometimes the top its mountains can be seen. It is a quiet night here. Temperature is 29.4°C. It is a great view. Perfect for sipping champagne. The Millefiori tower at Monaco is dark. Nobody is awake there.
-
It's also well past your bed time. Good night.
-
When I was in Seoul, I could count the number of stars and planets on one hand the light pollution was so bad.
Yeah, he's not gonna see jack in Monaco. Way too much light pollution. Here's a light pollution map, Seoul, NYC & Monaco are all on the same level of massive light pollution:
(https://i.imgur.com/H3UHL1J.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/EWjjwOy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/69Sun1v.png)
-
It's also well past your bed time. Good night.
I was just having breakfast. And now 11.18 am I have had lunch!
-
When I was in Seoul, I could count the number of stars and planets on one hand the light pollution was so bad.
Yeah, he's not gonna see jack in Monaco. Way too much light pollution. Here's a light pollution map, Seoul, NYC & Monaco are all on the same level of massive light pollution:
(https://i.imgur.com/H3UHL1J.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/EWjjwOy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/69Sun1v.png)
?? When I have early breakfast I can clearly see the dark sky above place My place is apparently above any light pollution.
-
When I was in Seoul, I could count the number of stars and planets on one hand the light pollution was so bad.
Yeah, he's not gonna see jack in Monaco. Way too much light pollution. Here's a light pollution map, Seoul, NYC & Monaco are all on the same level of massive light pollution:
(https://i.imgur.com/H3UHL1J.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/EWjjwOy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/69Sun1v.png)
?? When I have early breakfast I can clearly see the dark sky above place My place is apparently above any light pollution.
That's not how light pollution works. Your only hope for a clear night sky is to have a country wide blackout.
-
When I was in Seoul, I could count the number of stars and planets on one hand the light pollution was so bad.
Yeah, he's not gonna see jack in Monaco. Way too much light pollution. Here's a light pollution map, Seoul, NYC & Monaco are all on the same level of massive light pollution:
(https://i.imgur.com/H3UHL1J.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/EWjjwOy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/69Sun1v.png)
?? When I have early breakfast I can clearly see the dark sky above place My place is apparently above any light pollution.
That's not how light pollution works. Your only hope for a clear night sky is to have a country wide blackout.
Please, do not change topic, which is what the JWST sees in space that we humans cannot see. There is no light pollution at my place and I see the sky clearly, incl. the Milky Way galaxy that is very big.
-
When I was in Seoul, I could count the number of stars and planets on one hand the light pollution was so bad.
Yeah, he's not gonna see jack in Monaco. Way too much light pollution. Here's a light pollution map, Seoul, NYC & Monaco are all on the same level of massive light pollution:
(https://i.imgur.com/H3UHL1J.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/EWjjwOy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/69Sun1v.png)
?? When I have early breakfast I can clearly see the dark sky above place My place is apparently above any light pollution.
That's not how light pollution works. Your only hope for a clear night sky is to have a country wide blackout.
Please, do not change topic, which is what the JWST sees in space that we humans cannot see. There is no light pollution at my place and I see the sky clearly, incl. the Milky Way galaxy that is very big.
Light pollution is why we build telescopes that gaze at the stars away from urban areas. Your night sky in Monaco has too much light pollution. The JWST not only has zero light pollution but near zero temperatures which allows for total non interference - which is important if you want to study things in the order of billions of light years. Your human eyes even if you had the best vision on the planet, in total darkness could only see a few thousand stars.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/lttRT.jpg)
You also have to contend with the weather and atmosphere and the fact that half of what is out there is blocked by the planet you are standing on.
Also, can your eyes see in infrared?
-
When I was in Seoul, I could count the number of stars and planets on one hand the light pollution was so bad.
?? When I have early breakfast I can clearly see the dark sky above place My place is apparently above any light pollution.
That's not how light pollution works. Your only hope for a clear night sky is to have a country wide blackout.
Please, do not change topic, which is what the JWST sees in space that we humans cannot see. There is no light pollution at my place and I see the sky clearly, incl. the Milky Way galaxy that is very big.
Light pollution is why we build telescopes that gaze at the stars away from urban areas. Your night sky in Monaco has too much light pollution. The JWST not only has zero light pollution but near zero temperatures which allows for total non interference - which is important if you want to study things in the order of billions of light years. Your human eyes even if you had the best vision on the planet, in total darkness could only see a few thousand stars.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/lttRT.jpg)
You also have to contend with the weather and atmosphere and the fact that half of what is out there is blocked by the planet you are standing on.
Also, can your eyes see in infrared?
I just see plenty visible stars incl. the Milky Way galaxy from my place when the sky is clear. It is good enough for me. I can also see Venus and Mars and some other planets.
I understand that JWST has just filmed some new stars just created 7500 light years away and I have missed them. I am told that Webb reveals emerging stellar nurseries and individual stars that are completely hidden in visible-light pictures. Because of Webb’s sensitivity to infrared light, it can peer through cosmic dust to see these objects. Protostellar jets, which emerge clearly in this image, shoot out from some of these young stars. The youngest sources appear as red dots in the dark, dusty region of the cloud. Objects in the earliest, rapid phases of star formation are difficult to capture, but Webb’s extreme sensitivity, spatial resolution, and imaging capability can chronicle these elusive events.
It is a pity I haven't seen an red dots in the dark sky.
-
You don't understand that, Heiwa. You just straight copied it off https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-reveals-cosmic-cliffs-glittering-landscape-of-star-birth
Seems to be your way when trying to prove knowledge of anything - quickly google, then paste it here.
-
Let Sciencephile teach you about the JWST Heiwa
-
You don't understand that, Heiwa. You just straight copied it off https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-reveals-cosmic-cliffs-glittering-landscape-of-star-birth
Seems to be your way when trying to prove knowledge of anything - quickly google, then paste it here.
Correct! I just copy what NASA writes. If I link to it or my own web site I get banned for trolling.
-
You don't understand that, Heiwa. You just straight copied it off https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-reveals-cosmic-cliffs-glittering-landscape-of-star-birth
Seems to be your way when trying to prove knowledge of anything - quickly google, then paste it here.
Correct! I just copy what NASA writes. If I link to it or my own web site I get banned for trolling.
Who said you cant link to NASA where they talk about the JWST (the topic). Your website has nothing to do with the JWST and thus linking to it is just spamming off topic BS
About the only times you are correct on anything is when you copy verbatim NASA and pass it off as if it was from your own intelligence lol
-
About the only times you are correct on anything is when you copy verbatim NASA and pass it off as if it was from your own intelligence lol
Actually, when he quotes NASA (or any other reputable source), he usually just dismisses it as nonsense.
-
You don't understand that, Heiwa. You just straight copied it off https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-reveals-cosmic-cliffs-glittering-landscape-of-star-birth
Seems to be your way when trying to prove knowledge of anything - quickly google, then paste it here.
Correct! I just copy what NASA writes. If I link to it or my own web site I get banned for trolling.
Who said you cant link to NASA where they talk about the JWST (the topic). Your website has nothing to do with the JWST and thus linking to it is just spamming off topic BS
About the only times you are correct on anything is when you copy verbatim NASA and pass it off as if it was from your own intelligence lol
My JWST website is quite popular. I am quite proud of it and all nonsense NASA produces.
-
My JWST website is quite popular.
Just because you claim that your site is "popular" doesn't mean that it's right about anything.
-
You don't understand that, Heiwa. You just straight copied it off https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-reveals-cosmic-cliffs-glittering-landscape-of-star-birth
Seems to be your way when trying to prove knowledge of anything - quickly google, then paste it here.
Correct! I just copy what NASA writes. If I link to it or my own web site I get banned for trolling.
Who said you cant link to NASA where they talk about the JWST (the topic). Your website has nothing to do with the JWST and thus linking to it is just spamming off topic BS
About the only times you are correct on anything is when you copy verbatim NASA and pass it off as if it was from your own intelligence lol
My JWST website is quite popular. I am quite proud of it and all nonsense NASA produces.
I suggest you start your own thread specific to your website where you can spam how great it is all day.
-
Topic here is JWST and the fantastic pictures it and NASA take since a month with cameras of things in space that humans cannot see, i.e. invisible things hidden in space dust, etc. One picture shows how stars are born just 7500 light years from Earth, but you cannot see the birth due to stellar material blocking the view according NASA. What a pity! I have always wanted to see a star being born.
-
Yes, it's such a pity that there are things that you can only see with a very powerful telescope. ::)
-
Yes, it's such a pity that there are things that you can only see with a very powerful telescope. ::)
The beauty of the JWST is that it can see and make photos of things in space that are not visible to human eyes, i.e. invisible things. Then NASA publish the photos of, e.g. the birth of new stars not far from Earth, and when I ask NASA about these stars, I am told they cannot be seen.
-
Yes, it's such a pity that there are things that you can only see with a very powerful telescope. ::)
The beauty of the JWST is that it can see and make photos of things in space that are not visible to human eyes, i.e. invisible things. Then NASA publish the photos of, e.g. the birth of new stars not far from Earth, and when I ask NASA about these stars, I am told they cannot be seen.
Quite correct. They are too far away and obscured by lots of interstellar dust at the same time. There are also some things that are invisible to the human eye but not to something that can see in the infrared spectrum. And also our human eye lacks the resolution to resolve images so far away. Like the picture of thousands of galaxies that only cover a portion of the sky the size of a grain of sand at arms length away.
We also see light in real time whereas a telescope can stay on an image for hours or weeks and collect a lot of light and publish it into one photo
-
Yes, it's such a pity that there are things that you can only see with a very powerful telescope. ::)
The beauty of the JWST is that it can see and make photos of things in space that are not visible to human eyes, i.e. invisible things. Then NASA publish the photos of, e.g. the birth of new stars not far from Earth, and when I ask NASA about these stars, I am told they cannot be seen.
Quite correct. They are too far away and obscured by lots of interstellar dust at the same time. There are also some things that are invisible to the human eye but not to something that can see in the infrared spectrum. And also our human eye lacks the resolution to resolve images so far away. Like the picture of thousands of galaxies that only cover a portion of the sky the size of a grain of sand at arms length away.
We also see light in real time whereas a telescope can stay on an image for hours or weeks and collect a lot of light and publish it into one photo
No, the stars in question are just 7500 light years away in the Milky Way galaxy and should be easily seen from my window. I can also see the Andromeda galaxy outside the Milky Way. Of course it just looks like a little star, but it is bigger than the whole Milky Way.
-
Yes, it's such a pity that there are things that you can only see with a very powerful telescope. ::)
The beauty of the JWST is that it can see and make photos of things in space that are not visible to human eyes, i.e. invisible things. Then NASA publish the photos of, e.g. the birth of new stars not far from Earth, and when I ask NASA about these stars, I am told they cannot be seen.
Quite correct. They are too far away and obscured by lots of interstellar dust at the same time. There are also some things that are invisible to the human eye but not to something that can see in the infrared spectrum. And also our human eye lacks the resolution to resolve images so far away. Like the picture of thousands of galaxies that only cover a portion of the sky the size of a grain of sand at arms length away.
We also see light in real time whereas a telescope can stay on an image for hours or weeks and collect a lot of light and publish it into one photo
No, the stars in question are just 7500 light years away in the Milky Way galaxy and should be easily seen from my window. I can also see the Andromeda galaxy outside the Milky Way. Of course it just looks like a little star, but it is bigger than the whole Milky Way.
Almost all the furthest stars you can see, even in the perfect of conditions (zero light pollution) are only a few thousand light years distant. 7500 light years would be pushing the limits. Certainly over the limit of an old fogies eyes out of a dirty kitchen window. The only reason why you can see the Andromeda galaxy unaided (also with no light pollution) is because it is a collection of hundreds of billions of stars.
But as we all know, the city of Monaco is full of light pollution making star gazing pretty shit. These are simply the facts of reality. Argue against them if you wish to look like a fool. For now, be thankful we have advanced telescopes that can see wonders you never could on your own
-
Yes, it's such a pity that there are things that you can only see with a very powerful telescope. ::)
The beauty of the JWST is that it can see and make photos of things in space that are not visible to human eyes, i.e. invisible things. Then NASA publish the photos of, e.g. the birth of new stars not far from Earth, and when I ask NASA about these stars, I am told they cannot be seen.
Quite correct. They are too far away and obscured by lots of interstellar dust at the same time. There are also some things that are invisible to the human eye but not to something that can see in the infrared spectrum. And also our human eye lacks the resolution to resolve images so far away. Like the picture of thousands of galaxies that only cover a portion of the sky the size of a grain of sand at arms length away.
We also see light in real time whereas a telescope can stay on an image for hours or weeks and collect a lot of light and publish it into one photo
No, the stars in question are just 7500 light years away in the Milky Way galaxy and should be easily seen from my window. I can also see the Andromeda galaxy outside the Milky Way. Of course it just looks like a little star, but it is bigger than the whole Milky Way.
Almost all the furthest stars you can see, even in the perfect of conditions (zero light pollution) are only a few thousand light years distant. 7500 light years would be pushing the limits. Certainly over the limit of an old fogies eyes out of a dirty kitchen window. The only reason why you can see the Andromeda galaxy unaided (also with no light pollution) is because it is a collection of hundreds of billions of stars.
But as we all know, the city of Monaco is full of light pollution making star gazing pretty shit. These are simply the facts of reality. Argue against them if you wish to look like a fool. For now, be thankful we have advanced telescopes that can see wonders you never could on your own
I just say what I see from my window, incl. the Andromeda galaxy. These are simply the facts of reality.
-
Yes, it's such a pity that there are things that you can only see with a very powerful telescope. ::)
The beauty of the JWST is that it can see and make photos of things in space that are not visible to human eyes, i.e. invisible things. Then NASA publish the photos of, e.g. the birth of new stars not far from Earth, and when I ask NASA about these stars, I am told they cannot be seen.
Quite correct. They are too far away and obscured by lots of interstellar dust at the same time. There are also some things that are invisible to the human eye but not to something that can see in the infrared spectrum. And also our human eye lacks the resolution to resolve images so far away. Like the picture of thousands of galaxies that only cover a portion of the sky the size of a grain of sand at arms length away.
We also see light in real time whereas a telescope can stay on an image for hours or weeks and collect a lot of light and publish it into one photo
No, the stars in question are just 7500 light years away in the Milky Way galaxy and should be easily seen from my window. I can also see the Andromeda galaxy outside the Milky Way. Of course it just looks like a little star, but it is bigger than the whole Milky Way.
Almost all the furthest stars you can see, even in the perfect of conditions (zero light pollution) are only a few thousand light years distant. 7500 light years would be pushing the limits. Certainly over the limit of an old fogies eyes out of a dirty kitchen window. The only reason why you can see the Andromeda galaxy unaided (also with no light pollution) is because it is a collection of hundreds of billions of stars.
But as we all know, the city of Monaco is full of light pollution making star gazing pretty shit. These are simply the facts of reality. Argue against them if you wish to look like a fool. For now, be thankful we have advanced telescopes that can see wonders you never could on your own
I just say what I see from my window, incl. the Andromeda galaxy. These are simply the facts of reality.
I put to you that what you think is the Andromeda galaxy from your window, is NOT actually the Andromeda galaxy
-
Yes, it's such a pity that there are things that you can only see with a very powerful telescope. ::)
The beauty of the JWST is that it can see and make photos of things in space that are not visible to human eyes, i.e. invisible things. Then NASA publish the photos of, e.g. the birth of new stars not far from Earth, and when I ask NASA about these stars, I am told they cannot be seen.
Quite correct. They are too far away and obscured by lots of interstellar dust at the same time. There are also some things that are invisible to the human eye but not to something that can see in the infrared spectrum. And also our human eye lacks the resolution to resolve images so far away. Like the picture of thousands of galaxies that only cover a portion of the sky the size of a grain of sand at arms length away.
We also see light in real time whereas a telescope can stay on an image for hours or weeks and collect a lot of light and publish it into one photo
No, the stars in question are just 7500 light years away in the Milky Way galaxy and should be easily seen from my window. I can also see the Andromeda galaxy outside the Milky Way. Of course it just looks like a little star, but it is bigger than the whole Milky Way.
Here's what the Corina Nebula looks like from an earth bound view:
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-04-10_5e8fc1a69db65_carinasettingsingleframe-CopiaSeT.jpg)
Here's what JWST sees:
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/main_image_star-forming_region_carina_nircam_final-5mb.jpg)
Here's a comparison of Hubble versus JWST:
(https://i.imgur.com/xbVT1OW.gif)
-
Thanks. I see the same from my window at night. Right now I see the Mediterranean Sea with a cloudy sky above.
-
Thanks. I see the same from my window at night. Right now I see the Mediterranean Sea with a cloudy sky above.
You can see exactly this from your window?
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/main_image_star-forming_region_carina_nircam_final-5mb.jpg)
Take a picture and post it. Otherwise, you're full of shit.
-
I see something similar from my window.
-
I see something similar from my window.
Take a picture and post it. Otherwise, you're full of shit.
-
Right now the Sun is up and no stars are visible in the sky.
-
Right now the Sun is up and no stars are visible in the sky.
Take a picture at night and post it. Otherwise, you're full of shit.
-
I see something similar from my window.
Probably the effects of LSD.
-
I see something similar from my window.
Probably the effects of LSD.
No, either coffee or champagne.
-
No, either coffee or champagne.
If you are seeing stars after so much coffee or champagne, it may be time to slow down a bit
-
No, either coffee or champagne.
If you are seeing stars after so much coffee or champagne, it may be time to slow down a bit
I always drink coffee and sip champagne with moderation while watching stars in the sky, which I do right now.
-
No, either coffee or champagne.
If you are seeing stars after so much coffee or champagne, it may be time to slow down a bit
I always drink coffee and sip champagne with moderation while watching stars in the sky, which I do right now.
Where are your pictures?
-
No, either coffee or champagne.
If you are seeing stars after so much coffee or champagne, it may be time to slow down a bit
I always drink coffee and sip champagne with moderation while watching stars in the sky, which I do right now.
Where are your pictures?
Please, anyone can take pictures of the sky. I just watch it.
-
No, either coffee or champagne.
If you are seeing stars after so much coffee or champagne, it may be time to slow down a bit
I always drink coffee and sip champagne with moderation while watching stars in the sky, which I do right now.
Where are your pictures?
Please, anyone can take pictures of the sky. I just watch it.
Does what you see look better and more detailed than the pictures from the JWST?
-
No, either coffee or champagne.
If you are seeing stars after so much coffee or champagne, it may be time to slow down a bit
I always drink coffee and sip champagne with moderation while watching stars in the sky, which I do right now.
Where are your pictures?
Please, anyone can take pictures of the sky. I just watch it.
Earth
Does what you see look better and more detailed than the pictures from the JWST?
About the same. The JWST images are not taken from Earth so the perspectives are different. I am Earth based and happy watching the sky from there.
-
About the same. The JWST images are not taken from Earth so the perspectives are different. I am Earth based and happy watching the sky from there.
JWSP has loads of images of spiral galaxies.Why dont you show us a picture of a sprial galaxy that you have taken.Any spiral galaxy will do.
Or even something closer, like Jupiter that JWST recently took.
-
About the same. The JWST images are not taken from Earth so the perspectives are different. I am Earth based and happy watching the sky from there.
JWSP has loads of images of spiral galaxies.Why dont you show us a picture of a sprial galaxy that you have taken.Any spiral galaxy will do.
Or even something closer, like Jupiter that JWST recently took.
Galaxies are located outside the Milky Way and just look like spots of light from Earth, e.g. the Andromeda. Jupiter is very easy to spot with a naked eye from Earth. Gallilei did it a long time ago. I always recommend people to read https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/08/308/8308463.pdf
-
No, either coffee or champagne.
If you are seeing stars after so much coffee or champagne, it may be time to slow down a bit
I always drink coffee and sip champagne with moderation while watching stars in the sky, which I do right now.
Where are your pictures?
Please, anyone can take pictures of the sky. I just watch it.
Earth
Does what you see look better and more detailed than the pictures from the JWST?
About the same. The JWST images are not taken from Earth so the perspectives are different. I am Earth based and happy watching the sky from there.
Well different perspectives matter. Please share.
-
No, either coffee or champagne.
If you are seeing stars after so much coffee or champagne, it may be time to slow down a bit
I always drink coffee and sip champagne with moderation while watching stars in the sky, which I do right now.
Where are your pictures?
Please, anyone can take pictures of the sky. I just watch it.
Earth
Does what you see look better and more detailed than the pictures from the JWST?
About the same. The JWST images are not taken from Earth so the perspectives are different. I am Earth based and happy watching the sky from there.
Well different perspectives matter. Please share.
JWST orbits Lagrange point 2 all the time so its perspective of the Universe changes all the time. It is better to watch it from my window.
-
No, either coffee or champagne.
If you are seeing stars after so much coffee or champagne, it may be time to slow down a bit
I always drink coffee and sip champagne with moderation while watching stars in the sky, which I do right now.
Where are your pictures?
Please, anyone can take pictures of the sky. I just watch it.
Earth
Does what you see look better and more detailed than the pictures from the JWST?
About the same. The JWST images are not taken from Earth so the perspectives are different. I am Earth based and happy watching the sky from there.
Well different perspectives matter. Please share.
JWST orbits Lagrange point 2 all the time so its perspective of the Universe changes all the time. It is better to watch it from my window.
But we don't have pictures from your window, we want to see your perspective.
-
Pictures of the night sky of the Universe are all same. Just stars. The fun is sipping champagne below them on a ship at sea.
-
Pictures of the night sky of the Universe are all same. Just stars. The fun is sipping champagne below them on a ship at sea.
No they aren't. Please share yours.
-
Pictures of the night sky of the Universe are all same. Just stars. The fun is sipping champagne below them on a ship at sea.
No they aren't. Please share yours.
Well, it is 3 am here and the sky above me is pitch dark/black with plenty stars/light dots in it visible by my eyes. When I was in Japan it was the same. Or in Melbourne. Or at sea anywhere. The sky is full of stars. The JWST has taken pictures of it.
-
No. You are lying again. The sky above you is a dark blue and many stars that could otherwise be seen in the absence of light pollution are now obscured from view. This is why orbital telescopes are good.
-
Pictures of the night sky of the Universe are all same. Just stars. The fun is sipping champagne below them on a ship at sea.
No they aren't. Please share yours.
Well, it is 3 am here and the sky above me is pitch dark/black with plenty stars/light dots in it visible by my eyes. When I was in Japan it was the same. Or in Melbourne. Or at sea anywhere. The sky is full of stars. The JWST has taken pictures of it.
Prove it with a photograph or admit you are a liar.
-
No. You are lying again. The sky above you is a dark blue and many stars that could otherwise be seen in the absence of light pollution are now obscured from view. This is why orbital telescopes are good.
No, at night the sky I watch is black and full of twinkling stars and some planets lit up by the Sun. Telescopes help to watch stars and planets. I like Gallilei doing it more than 400's of years ago. If you think the sky is dark blue, OK.
-
Prove it with a photograph or admit you are a liar.
-
Latest:
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/stsci-01g8jzq6gwxhex15pyy60wdrsk.png)
NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope has peered into the chaos of the Cartwheel Galaxy, revealing new details about star formation and the galaxy’s central black hole. Webb’s powerful infrared gaze produced this detailed image of the Cartwheel and two smaller companion galaxies against a backdrop of many other galaxies. This image provides a new view of how the Cartwheel Galaxy has changed over billions of years.
The Cartwheel Galaxy, located about 500 million light-years away in the Sculptor constellation, is a rare sight. Its appearance, much like that of the wheel of a wagon, is the result of an intense event – a high-speed collision between a large spiral galaxy and a smaller galaxy not visible in this image. Collisions of galactic proportions cause a cascade of different, smaller events between the galaxies involved; the Cartwheel is no exception.
-
Excuse me, but how "This image provides a new view of how the Cartwheel Galaxy has changed over billions of years", is unclear.
What has changed?
-
Excuse me, but how "This image provides a new view of how the Cartwheel Galaxy has changed over billions of years", is unclear.
What has changed?
Look it up.
-
Excuse me, but how "This image provides a new view of how the Cartwheel Galaxy has changed over billions of years", is unclear.
What has changed?
Look it up.
Where?
-
Excuse me, but how "This image provides a new view of how the Cartwheel Galaxy has changed over billions of years", is unclear.
What has changed?
Look it up.
Where?
On the interwebs.
-
Excuse me, but how "This image provides a new view of how the Cartwheel Galaxy has changed over billions of years", is unclear.
What has changed?
Look it up.
Where?
On the interwebs.
But where?
-
Excuse me, but how "This image provides a new view of how the Cartwheel Galaxy has changed over billions of years", is unclear.
What has changed?
Look it up.
Where?
On the interwebs.
But where?
google.com
-
Excuse me, but how "This image provides a new view of how the Cartwheel Galaxy has changed over billions of years", is unclear.
What has changed?
Look it up.
Where?
On the interwebs.
But where?
google.com
If I google about the Cartwheel galaxy I arrive at
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/webb-captures-stellar-gymnastics-in-the-cartwheel-galaxy
… telling me that the Cartwheel Galaxy, located about 500 million light-years away in the Sculptor constellation, is a rare sight. Its appearance, much like that of the wheel of a wagon, is the result of an intense event – a high-speed collision between a large spiral galaxy and a smaller galaxy not visible in this image. Collisions of galactic proportions cause a cascade of different, smaller events between the galaxies involved; the Cartwheel is no exception. ...
So Google sends me to NASA that made an image of the Cartwheel galaxy last week of something happening 500 million years ago … somewhere. What a joke!
-
I was trying to remember why I haven't bothered visiting here for a while. Oh yeah, this clears things up. :D
https://www.universetoday.com/156987/the-record-for-the-farthest-galaxy-just-got-broken-again-now-just-250-million-years-after-the-big-bang/
Records breaking every day. Exciting stuff.
-
I was trying to remember why I haven't bothered visiting here for a while. Oh yeah, this clears things up. :D
https://www.universetoday.com/156987/the-record-for-the-farthest-galaxy-just-got-broken-again-now-just-250-million-years-after-the-big-bang/
Records breaking every day. Exciting stuff.
So a galaxy was formed 13.55 billion years ago (250 million years after the big bang) and JWST just took a photo of it. Fantastic.
-
I was trying to remember why I haven't bothered visiting here for a while. Oh yeah, this clears things up. :D
https://www.universetoday.com/156987/the-record-for-the-farthest-galaxy-just-got-broken-again-now-just-250-million-years-after-the-big-bang/
Records breaking every day. Exciting stuff.
At this rate, we'll find galaxies that existed before the big bang! YEAH!!!
-
In an enormous new image, NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope reveals never-before-seen details of galaxy group “Stephan’s Quintet” - https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-sheds-light-on-galaxy-evolution-black-holes
-
In an enormous new image, NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope reveals never-before-seen details of galaxy group “Stephan’s Quintet” - https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-sheds-light-on-galaxy-evolution-black-holes
Yeah, super cool. Thanks for the link. Here's the image - Amazing!:
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/main_image_galaxies_stephans_quintet_sq_nircam_miri_final-5mb.jpg)
-
For added fun, keep tabs from time to time on this website that is making interactive side-by-side comparisons of Hubble images vs JWST images
https://www.webbcompare.com/
-
This is stunning. Just looking at the Southern Ring Nebula side-by-side, there are so many more objects in the background we've never even seen before.
-
This is stunning. Just looking at the Southern Ring Nebula side-by-side, there are so many more objects in the background we've never even seen before.
I just see stars and galaxies and no end of the Universe, i.e. the same things I saw 1956.
-
This is stunning. Just looking at the Southern Ring Nebula side-by-side, there are so many more objects in the background we've never even seen before.
I just see stars and galaxies and no end of the Universe, i.e. the same things I saw 1956.
Lame....
-
This is just incredible, love it - Stars, galaxies, etc., we've never seen before, even with Hubble:
(https://i.imgur.com/ELc80q6.gif)
-
I'm starting to realise, just how much the Hubble sucked
-
I'm starting to realise, just how much the Hubble sucked
I guess you have to first compare Hubble to Earth based telescopes.
Here's the Subaru 8m telescope:
Location - Hilo Base Facility, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 U.S.A
Altitude - 4,139m (altitude of altitude axis of telescope: 4,163m)
(https://subarutelescope.org/img/tour/suabru_afternoon.jpg)
(https://subarutelescope.org/img/about/top/img006.jpg)
Here's the humble Hubble 2.4m telescope:
Location - Somewhere way up there
Altitude - 547,177m (340 miles)
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/hubble_faq_image.jpg)
(https://cdn.sci.esa.int/documents/34247/35306/1567220271470-17753-screen1.jpg)
Subaru versus Hubble:
(https://i.imgur.com/Zi3lJk4.png)
-
The Hubble was a mind blowing improvement when it started really doing science. And the JWST is as much of an improvement over Hubble as Hubble was over Subaru. It's pretty incredible.
-
Science is awesome.
-
This is stunning. Just looking at the Southern Ring Nebula side-by-side, there are so many more objects in the background we've never even seen before.
I just see stars and galaxies and no end of the Universe, i.e. the same things I saw 1956.
So far JWST hasn't filmed anything new about the Universe and how it came about. Maybe some images are better than before but the IR photo of Jupiter is worse than what Gallilei saw 1610.
Lame....
-
I was trying to remember why I haven't bothered visiting here for a while. Oh yeah, this clears things up. :D
https://www.universetoday.com/156987/the-record-for-the-farthest-galaxy-just-got-broken-again-now-just-250-million-years-after-the-big-bang/
Records breaking every day. Exciting stuff.
At this rate, we'll find galaxies that existed before the big bang! YEAH!!!
That would actually be amazing. It would certainly get astronomers and scientists excited over all the new discoveries it would open up.
-
I was trying to remember why I haven't bothered visiting here for a while. Oh yeah, this clears things up. :D
https://www.universetoday.com/156987/the-record-for-the-farthest-galaxy-just-got-broken-again-now-just-250-million-years-after-the-big-bang/
Records breaking every day. Exciting stuff.
At this rate, we'll find galaxies that existed before the big bang! YEAH!!!
That would actually be amazing. It would certainly get astronomers and scientists excited over all the new discoveries it would open up.
According JWST some new stars popped up in the Milky Way galaxy close to Earth just last week!
-
Cool, thanks for the tip. I'll have to check it out. Sounds amazing.
If you mean stars in the Cartwheel Galaxy, that, I believe, is outside of the Milky Way, approx 500 million LYs away. The radius of the Milky Way is a mere 53,000 LYs.
-
Cool, thanks for the tip. I'll have to check it out. Sounds amazing.
If you mean stars in the Cartwheel Galaxy, that, I believe, is outside of the Milky Way, approx 500 million LYs away. The radius of the Milky Way is a mere 53,000 LYs.
No, I mean the GC 3324 which is a young, star-forming region of the Milky Way Galaxy. Just study my web page about it to avoid asking stupid questions.
-
Cool, thanks for the tip. I'll have to check it out. Sounds amazing.
If you mean stars in the Cartwheel Galaxy, that, I believe, is outside of the Milky Way, approx 500 million LYs away. The radius of the Milky Way is a mere 53,000 LYs.
No, I mean the GC 3324 which is a young, star-forming region of the Milky Way Galaxy. Just study my web page about it to avoid asking stupid questions.
Neat. Thanks for pointing out which star you were originally referring to.
Located roughly 7,600 light-years away, NGC 3324 was first catalogued by James Dunlop in 1826. Visible from the Southern Hemisphere, it is located at the northwest corner of the Carina Nebula (NGC 3372), which resides in the constellation Carina. The Carina Nebula is home to the Keyhole Nebula and the active, unstable supergiant star called Eta Carinae.
NGC 3324 is an open cluster in the southern constellation Carina, located northwest of the Carina Nebula (NGC 3372)[3][4] at a distance of 9,100 ly (2,800 pc) from Earth.[2] It is closely associated with the emission nebula IC 2599, also known as Gum 31.[5] The two are often confused as a single object, and together have been nicknamed the "Gabriela Mistral Nebula" due to its resemblance to the Chilean poet.[6][7][8] NGC 3324 was first catalogued by James Dunlop in 1826.[3]
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Carina_Nebula_by_Harel_Boren_%28151851961%29.jpg)
The Carina Nebula with NGC 3324 at top right
-
Thanks. So JWST just took pictures of old stars 7600 light years away in the Milky Way galaxy last week that were seen already 1826 by naked eyes of people using primitive telescopes. Cameras were note very good then. I look fwd to the JWST pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. Tell me when you have them.
-
Thanks. So JWST just took pictures of old stars 7600 light years away in the Milky Way galaxy last week that were seen already 1826 by naked eyes of people using primitive telescopes. Cameras were note very good then. I look fwd to the JWST pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. Tell me when you have them.
You saw them already in one of the first images. The one with lots and lots of galaxies. Some of those galaxies were many billions of light years away. Thanks to expansion they are a lot further away now then the light that came to us.
(https://www.popsci.com/uploads/2022/07/21/james-webb-space-telescope-glass-z13-galaxy-image.jpg?auto=webp)
Have you been paying any attention?
Also what's the 'end of the universe' nonsense? That's not what it is and not what it's looking for. I dont know what world you think you're in but the world inhabited by the rest of us isn't some delirium med induced stupor
-
Thanks. So JWST just took pictures of old stars 7600 light years away in the Milky Way galaxy last week that were seen already 1826 by naked eyes of people using primitive telescopes. Cameras were note very good then. I look fwd to the JWST pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. Tell me when you have them.
You saw them already in one of the first images. The one with lots and lots of galaxies. Some of those galaxies were many billions of light years away. Thanks to expansion they are a lot further away now then the light that came to us.
(https://www.popsci.com/uploads/2022/07/21/james-webb-space-telescope-glass-z13-galaxy-image.jpg?auto=webp)
Have you been paying any attention?
Also what's the 'end of the universe' nonsense? That's not what it is and not what it's looking for. I dont know what world you think you're in but the world inhabited by the rest of us isn't some delirium med induced stupor
Thanks! So some dots in the front are 7500 light years away and the ones in the back are billions of light years away. They look the same to me! It is NASA that is talking about the end of the universe and images of it at the JWST website. I just watch the sky from my roof garden at night with plenty stars.
-
Thanks. So JWST just took pictures of old stars 7600 light years away in the Milky Way galaxy last week that were seen already 1826 by naked eyes of people using primitive telescopes. Cameras were note very good then. I look fwd to the JWST pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. Tell me when you have them.
You saw them already in one of the first images. The one with lots and lots of galaxies. Some of those galaxies were many billions of light years away. Thanks to expansion they are a lot further away now then the light that came to us.
(https://www.popsci.com/uploads/2022/07/21/james-webb-space-telescope-glass-z13-galaxy-image.jpg?auto=webp)
Have you been paying any attention?
Also what's the 'end of the universe' nonsense? That's not what it is and not what it's looking for. I dont know what world you think you're in but the world inhabited by the rest of us isn't some delirium med induced stupor
Thanks! So some dots in the front are 7500 light years away and the ones in the back are billions of light years away. They look the same to me! It is NASA that is talking about the end of the universe and images of it at the JWST website. I just watch the sky from my roof garden at night with plenty stars.
Sounds like JWST is not for you. That's ok. The rest of us will enjoy it.
-
Thanks. So JWST just took pictures of old stars 7600 light years away in the Milky Way galaxy last week that were seen already 1826 by naked eyes of people using primitive telescopes. Cameras were note very good then. I look fwd to the JWST pictures of the end of the Universe billions of light years away. Tell me when you have them.
You saw them already in one of the first images. The one with lots and lots of galaxies. Some of those galaxies were many billions of light years away. Thanks to expansion they are a lot further away now then the light that came to us.
(https://www.popsci.com/uploads/2022/07/21/james-webb-space-telescope-glass-z13-galaxy-image.jpg?auto=webp)
Have you been paying any attention?
Also what's the 'end of the universe' nonsense? That's not what it is and not what it's looking for. I dont know what world you think you're in but the world inhabited by the rest of us isn't some delirium med induced stupor
Thanks! So some dots in the front are 7500 light years away and the ones in the back are billions of light years away. They look the same to me! It is NASA that is talking about the end of the universe and images of it at the JWST website. I just watch the sky from my roof garden at night with plenty stars.
Sounds like JWST is not for you. That's ok. The rest of us will enjoy it.
You are right. JWST just copies/pastes old galaxies and stars I have seen before.
-
Only Heiwa says anything about seeing the end of the universe. Remember that, kids.
(https://c.tenor.com/q67Ve6REXR4AAAAM/the-more-you-know-star.gif)
-
According NASA (I quote):
“The James Webb Space Telescope, JWST, is an infrared observatory orbiting the Sun about 1 million miles from Earth to find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe and to see stars forming planetary systems.”
“Webb will study every phase in the history of our universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the big bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own solar system.”
“On Jan. 24, 2022, the mission team fired Webb’s thrusters and inserted the space telescope into orbit around the Sun at the second Lagrange point, or L2, its final destination, nearly 1 million miles from Earth.”
Etc.
I have some simple questions.
How can the JWST orbit the Sun after starting from Earth?
How can the JWST find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe?
How can the JWST see stars forming planetary systems?
What and where are the first luminous glows after the big bang?
What is a solar system supporting life on planets like Earth?
Where are the JWST thrusters that inserted the JWST into an orbit around the Sun?
Etc.
I have asked but there are no replies!
-
According NASA (I quote):
“The James Webb Space Telescope, JWST, is an infrared observatory orbiting the Sun about 1 million miles from Earth to find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe and to see stars forming planetary systems.”
“Webb will study every phase in the history of our universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the big bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own solar system.”
“On Jan. 24, 2022, the mission team fired Webb’s thrusters and inserted the space telescope into orbit around the Sun at the second Lagrange point, or L2, its final destination, nearly 1 million miles from Earth.”
Etc.
I have some simple questions.
How can the JWST orbit the Sun after starting from Earth?
How can the JWST find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe?
How can the JWST see stars forming planetary systems?
What and where are the first luminous glows after the big bang?
What is a solar system supporting life on planets like Earth?
Where are the JWST thrusters that inserted the JWST into an orbit around the Sun?
Etc.
I have asked but there are no replies!
You have had literally hundreds of replies here on all your questions. It's no ones fault except your own that you are still so ignorant as to how things work.
NASA wouldn't reply to you because they have better things to do with their time then entertain an idiot or a troll (or both).
Can you please start your own thread about your confusion about the JWST, orbital mechanics or how light and the universe works? Stop taking a dump on this one.
-
Nothing there about seeing the end of the universe.
Also, those answers aren't hard to find. Have you considered using your favorite search engine? NASA probably has more important questions to address right now. I'll help get you started. The speed of light is finite, so when we look at things that are very far away we are seeing what they looked like at a time in the past. How far in the past? That depends on how far away the object being observed is situated.
The farthest-away things, it turns out, are moving away at a pretty quick pace. So fast that the light they emit gets stretched out to longer wavelengths than the light that originally left the object being observed. Being able to see those longer wavelengths would make it easier to resolve more detail about those objects, so the JWST has sensors for infrared and near-infrared light.
Good luck on your journey now. You got this!
-
NASA talks about finding the first galaxies that formed in the early universe >10 billion years ago and I look forward to see pictures of them. I wonder what they look like! I know about the speed of light. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/JWST.htm
-
According NASA (I quote):
“The James Webb Space Telescope, JWST, is an infrared observatory orbiting the Sun about 1 million miles from Earth to find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe and to see stars forming planetary systems.”
“Webb will study every phase in the history of our universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the big bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own solar system.”
“On Jan. 24, 2022, the mission team fired Webb’s thrusters and inserted the space telescope into orbit around the Sun at the second Lagrange point, or L2, its final destination, nearly 1 million miles from Earth.”
Etc.
I have some simple questions.
How can the JWST orbit the Sun after starting from Earth?
How can the JWST find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe?
How can the JWST see stars forming planetary systems?
What and where are the first luminous glows after the big bang?
What is a solar system supporting life on planets like Earth?
Where are the JWST thrusters that inserted the JWST into an orbit around the Sun?
Etc.
I have asked but there are no replies!
You have had literally hundreds of replies here on all your questions. It's no ones fault except your own that you are still so ignorant as to how things work.
NASA wouldn't reply to you because they have better things to do with their time then entertain an idiot or a troll (or both).
Can you please start your own thread about your confusion about the JWST, orbital mechanics or how light and the universe works? Stop taking a dump on this one.
So how do start a space trip from Earth and continue orbiting the Sun?
-
NASA talks about finding the first galaxies that formed in the early universe >10 billion years ago and I look forward to see pictures of them. I wonder what they look like! I know about the speed of light. I explain it at <<shitty website link removed>>
That picture was already posted a few posts above. And even the Hubble has seen them. Do you not pay any attention?
According NASA (I quote):
“The James Webb Space Telescope, JWST, is an infrared observatory orbiting the Sun about 1 million miles from Earth to find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe and to see stars forming planetary systems.”
“Webb will study every phase in the history of our universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the big bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own solar system.”
“On Jan. 24, 2022, the mission team fired Webb’s thrusters and inserted the space telescope into orbit around the Sun at the second Lagrange point, or L2, its final destination, nearly 1 million miles from Earth.”
Etc.
I have some simple questions.
How can the JWST orbit the Sun after starting from Earth?
How can the JWST find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe?
How can the JWST see stars forming planetary systems?
What and where are the first luminous glows after the big bang?
What is a solar system supporting life on planets like Earth?
Where are the JWST thrusters that inserted the JWST into an orbit around the Sun?
Etc.
I have asked but there are no replies!
You have had literally hundreds of replies here on all your questions. It's no ones fault except your own that you are still so ignorant as to how things work.
NASA wouldn't reply to you because they have better things to do with their time then entertain an idiot or a troll (or both).
Can you please start your own thread about your confusion about the JWST, orbital mechanics or how light and the universe works? Stop taking a dump on this one.
So how do start a space trip from Earth and continue orbiting the Sun?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_insertion
-
I have some simple questions.
How can the JWST orbit the Sun after starting from Earth?
How can the JWST find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe?
How can the JWST see stars forming planetary systems?
What and where are the first luminous glows after the big bang?
What is a solar system supporting life on planets like Earth?
Where are the JWST thrusters that inserted the JWST into an orbit around the Sun?
Etc.
Why do you keep asking questions when everyone (including you) knows that you won't accept the answers?
-
NASA talks about finding the first galaxies that formed in the early universe >10 billion years ago and I look forward to see pictures of them. I wonder what they look like! I know about the speed of light. I explain it at <<shitty website link removed>>
That picture was already posted a few posts above. And even the Hubble has seen them. Do you not pay any attention?
According NASA (I quote):
“The James Webb Space Telescope, JWST, is an infrared observatory orbiting the Sun about 1 million miles from Earth to find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe and to see stars forming planetary systems.”
“Webb will study every phase in the history of our universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the big bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own solar system.”
“On Jan. 24, 2022, the mission team fired Webb’s thrusters and inserted the space telescope into orbit around the Sun at the second Lagrange point, or L2, its final destination, nearly 1 million miles from Earth.”
Etc.
I have some simple questions.
How can the JWST orbit the Sun after starting from Earth?
How can the JWST find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe?
How can the JWST see stars forming planetary systems?
What and where are the first luminous glows after the big bang?
What is a solar system supporting life on planets like Earth?
Where are the JWST thrusters that inserted the JWST into an orbit around the Sun?
Etc.
I have asked but there are no replies!
You have had literally hundreds of replies here on all your questions. It's no ones fault except your own that you are still so ignorant as to how things work.
NASA wouldn't reply to you because they have better things to do with their time then entertain an idiot or a troll (or both).
Can you please start your own thread about your confusion about the JWST, orbital mechanics or how light and the universe works? Stop taking a dump on this one.
So how do start a space trip from Earth and continue orbiting the Sun?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_insertion
It doesn't work! You don't have the fuel/energy to brake or accelerate and you don't know where and when and in what direction you in your trajectory to apply the force for the orbit change. Space travel from Earth is always one way into one orbit around Earth and nothing else. Every time I meet asstrocosmosnuts I ask them about it and some say it is done by an onboard supercomputer, bla, bla.
-
I have some simple questions.
How can the JWST orbit the Sun after starting from Earth?
How can the JWST find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe?
How can the JWST see stars forming planetary systems?
What and where are the first luminous glows after the big bang?
What is a solar system supporting life on planets like Earth?
Where are the JWST thrusters that inserted the JWST into an orbit around the Sun?
Etc.
Why do you keep asking questions when everyone (including you) knows that you won't accept the answers?
I accept correct answers. JWST has no thrusters to change orbit from around Earth to around the Sun. Old Hubble telescope orbits only the Earth at an altitude of about 340 miles (547 kilometers), inclined 28.5 degrees to the equator. This vantage point is above the negative effects of Earth’s atmosphere. Traveling at a speed of about 27,300 kilometers per hour, Hubble takes about 95 minutes to complete one orbit around Earth. Hubble cannot change it and start orbiting the Sun. Same applies to JWST!
-
So Voyager 1&2 and Pioneer 10&11..... Still in orbit around the Earth? New Horizons... Still in orbit around the Earth? Juno? All orbiting the Earth?
How about the Venus and Mars orbiters? Orbiting the Earth?
Earth is moving around 30km/s. If you apply a thrust of 30km/s in the opposite direction, what do you think happens?
Seriously is there a brain at all in that head?
-
JWST has no thrusters to change orbit from around Earth to around the Sun.
Actually, it was the cryogenic upper stage of the Ariane 5 that took JWST out of earth orbit and heading towards L2.
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/about/launch.html
JWST then used its own thrusters to insert itself into, and then maintain, its halo orbit around L2.
(https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/ContentImages/Proceedings/9904/990405/FigureImages/00059_psisdg9904_990405_page_7_1.jpg)
-
I accept correct answers.
No you don't.
JWST has no thrusters to change orbit from around Earth to around the Sun.
Wrong again...
The spacecraft bus provides the necessary support functions for the operation of the Webb Observatory.
The bus is the home for six major subsystems:
• Electrical Power Subsystem
• Attitude Control Subsystem
• Communication Subsystem
• Command and Data Handling Subsystem
• Propulsion Subsystem
• Thermal Control Subsystem
Attitude Control Subsystem
The Attitude Control Subsystem senses the orientation of the Observatory, maintains the Observatory in a stable orbit, and provides the coarse pointing of the Observatory to the area on the sky that the Science Instruments want to observe.
Propulsion System
The Propulsion System contains the fuel tanks and the rockets that, when directed by the Attitude Control System, are fired to maintain the orbit.
Rocket Thrusters And Propellant
Webb has two types of rocket thrusters. One kind is called "Secondary Combustion Augmented Thrusters" (SCAT), and they are used for orbit correction (like applied changes in velocity for each maneuver the spacecraft makes and also for orbit station-keeping). Webb has two pairs of them (paired for redundancy). They use hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide, as fuel and oxidizer respectively, which makes SCAT what engineers call a "bi-propellant" thruster. The other kind of thruster on Webb is called a MRE-1, or mono-propellant rocket engine, since it only uses hydrazine. There are eight MRE-1s on Webb, and they are used for attitude control and momentum unloading of the reaction wheels.
JWST's propulsion system provides maneuvering capability for orbital insertion, station keeping, and spacecraft momentum management.
Orbit correction maneuvers, also referred to as Delta-V maneuvers, are used to augment the launch vehicle injection velocity and to maintain a transfer trajectory into orbit about L2, and then to maintain the JWST orbit around L2 (station-keeping maneuvers) for the life of the mission. There are two types of thrusters for these functions. They are mounted on the spacecraft bus to avoid introducing contamination or heat sources near the OTE/ISIM side of the observatory. The Secondary Combustion Augmented Thrusters (SCAT) are used for orbit correction (Delta-V and station-keeping), and mono-propellant rocket engines (MRE-1) are used for attitude control and momentum unloading of the reaction wheels.
The SCATs are bi-propellant thrusters, using hydrazine (N2H4) and dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) as fuel and oxidizer, respectively. They operate in "blowdown mode" with one tank for each type of propellant and using gaseous helium as a pressurizing agent. There are 2 pairs of SCAT thrusters (paired for redundancy). One pair is located near the center of the bottom of the spacecraft bus where JWST attaches to the launch vehicle. These are used for the first Delta-V maneuvers to reach L2 with the correct velocity for the operational orbit. These maneuvers are executed before the sun shield is deployed.
The other pair of SCAT thrusters is mounted on a boom on the side of the spacecraft opposite the solar array, oriented such that their thrust direction passes through the deployed observatory's center of mass. These are used for the orbit insertion Delta-V maneuver and station-keeping maneuvers. This pair of SCAT thrusters are used after the observatory is fully is deployed.
The MRE-1 thrusters use hydrazine as a propellant. There are 8 MRE-1s located on the spacecraft and are oriented so that torque can be applied in roll, pitch, or yaw control axes. For momentum unloads, these thrusters are fired so that the applied torque provides the desired change in the angular momentum of the reaction wheels.
(https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/ContentImages/Proceedings/9904/990405/FigureImages/00059_psisdg9904_990405_page_7_1.jpg)
-
So Voyager 1&2 and Pioneer 10&11..... Still in orbit around the Earth? New Horizons... Still in orbit around the Earth? Juno? All orbiting the Earth?
How about the Venus and Mars orbiters? Orbiting the Earth?
Earth is moving around 30km/s. If you apply a thrust of 30km/s in the opposite direction, what do you think happens?
Seriously is there a brain at all in that head?
Let me clarify!
Any space craft/rocket taking off from Earth only orbits Earth.
Planets like Venus and Mars orbit the Sun, when I see them from my window. Just look at them in the sky. How they started doing it, I don't know. I just report what I see.
Earth is immobile except rotating 360°/24h in the center of our Solar system, i.e. it is the Sun that orbits Earth. I see it all the time.
-
Earth is immobile except rotating 360°/24h in the center of our Solar system, i.e. it is the Sun that orbits Earth. I see it all the time.
I see this is the troll shtick you are going along with an it does you no favours to stick with it.
-
Earth is immobile except rotating 360°/24h in the center of our Solar system, i.e. it is the Sun that orbits Earth. I see it all the time.
Right, because everything is always exactly as it seems. ::)
-
I just report what I see.
Same here. I report that I’ve never seen a CE tanker. Must be a hoax perpetrated by some sham organization that falsely claims it’s better than the tankers I can see from my window.
-
I just report what I see.
Same here. I report that I’ve never seen a CE tanker. Must be a hoax perpetrated by some sham organization that falsely claims it’s better than the tankers I can see from my window.
CE tankers are not allowed in US ports. If you want to visit one, just ask the owner of it. I recommend you look at the six, dry, exposed to natural light, top side ballast tanks of any CE tanker that are easy to ventilate and inspect. The ballast tanks of double hull tankers consist of 100's of dark, slippery cells full with explosive gas maybe, which I personally refuse to inspect.
-
CE tankers are not allowed in US ports. If you want to visit one, just ask the owner of it.
Where can we find the owner of a CE tanker (off topic).
-
CE tankers are not allowed in US ports. If you want to visit one, just ask the owner of it.
Where can we find the owner of a CE tanker (off topic).
Not in any US ports! They load at Kharg Island, Iran, and off-load at PR China.
-
CE tankers are not allowed in US ports. If you want to visit one, just ask the owner of it.
Where can we find the owner of a CE tanker (off topic).
Not in any US ports! They load at Kharg Island, Iran, and off-load at PR China.
False. None exist. There is no evidence that any exist. As well, I've never seen one from my window which is absolute evidence none exist.
-
CE tankers are not allowed in US ports. If you want to visit one, just ask the owner of it.
Where can we find the owner of a CE tanker (off topic).
Not in any US ports! They load at Kharg Island, Iran, and off-load at PR China.
False. None exist. There is no evidence that any exist. As well, I've never seen one from my window which is absolute evidence none exist.
Do you have a view of Kharg Island and Chinese oil ports?
-
CE tankers are not allowed in US ports. If you want to visit one, just ask the owner of it.
Where can we find the owner of a CE tanker (off topic).
Not in any US ports! They load at Kharg Island, Iran, and off-load at PR China.
False. None exist. There is no evidence that any exist. As well, I've never seen one from my window which is absolute evidence none exist.
Do you have a view of Kharg Island and Chinese oil ports?
Do you have a view of US ports?
-
Earth is immobile except rotating 360°/24h in the center of our Solar system, i.e. it is the Sun that orbits Earth. I see it all the time.
I see this is the troll shtick you are going along with an it does you no favours to stick with it.
Next time you think I might be dead, just recall the feeling of endlessly posting to threads like this. Trolls are best poked with a stick in small doses. One day you too will get bored with them. :)
-
Earth is immobile except rotating 360°/24h in the center of our Solar system, i.e. it is the Sun that orbits Earth. I see it all the time.
I see this is the troll shtick you are going along with an it does you no favours to stick with it.
Next time you think I might be dead, just recall the feeling of endlessly posting to threads like this. Trolls are best poked with a stick in small doses. One day you too will get bored with them. :)
Yes, this fantastic JWST was going to film, explain and make images of stars being born at the beginning/end of the Universe and so far it has not seen anything new at all in the Cosmos. What a fiasco!
-
Yes, this fantastic JWST was going to film, explain and make images of stars being born at the beginning/end of the Universe and so far it has not seen anything new at all in the Cosmos. What a fiasco!
Im pretty sure you have never read anything outside of your own website in your life.
Its clear that you still dont know how to use google, so no one is suprised that you know so little.
https://time.com/6199745/james-webb-telescope-first-scientific-discovery/
Next time you post something, go to www.google.com and search to see if what your saying is supported by any fact.
-
Next time you post something, go to www.google.com and search to see if what your saying is supported by any fact.
Why? Anything that comes up will just be NASA/ESA propaganda.
-
Next time you post something, go to www.google.com and search to see if what your saying is supported by any fact.
Why? Anything that comes up will just be NASA/ESA propaganda.
Well, this time it is Time magazine that says : “We’re potentially looking at the most distant starlight ever seen. The next step is to submit their findings for peer review that should hopefully validate their discovery.
The galaxy is not much as these things go. It measures 3,000 to 4,500 light years across and contains about a billion stars. In comparison, our Milky Way measures about 100,000 light years and contains an estimated 200 billion stars. But seeing something 13.5 billion light years away means we’re seeing it as it looked 13.5 billion years ago. Over time, the small, old galaxy would have merged with others nearby, forming a single, giant galactic mass." Bla, bla.
Imagine that the JWST has taken a picture of a billion stars 13.5 billion light years away almost et the end of the Universe. I have looked at the image and it seems to be taken last week.
-
I have looked at the image and it seems to be taken last week.
Actually, it was taken about 2 weeks ago.
-
I have looked at the image and it seems to be taken last week.
Actually, it was taken about 2 weeks ago.
OK, but I only saw it last week. And after further looking at the JWST image of the famous galaxy that was formed 13.5 billion years ago I see plenty more galaxies in the background that are 17 and 20 billion years old. How could the experts have missed those??
-
I have looked at the image and it seems to be taken last week.
Actually, it was taken about 2 weeks ago.
OK, but I only saw it last week. And after further looking at the JWST image of the famous galaxy that was formed 13.5 billion years ago I see plenty more galaxies in the background that are 17 and 20 billion years old. How could the experts have missed those??
And how do you know those galaxies are 17-20 billion years old?
-
I have looked at the image and it seems to be taken last week.
Actually, it was taken about 2 weeks ago.
OK, but I only saw it last week. And after further looking at the JWST image of the famous galaxy that was formed 13.5 billion years ago I see plenty more galaxies in the background that are 17 and 20 billion years old. How could the experts have missed those??
And how do you know those galaxies are 17-20 billion years old?
They look older than the newly discovered/filmed 13.5 billion years old galaxy in front of them. But why don't you ask the JWST-staff having found the new billions of stars?
-
But why don't you ask the JWST-staff having found the new billions of stars?
That's who we listen too. No good listening to a crackpot moron who things everything - including a star that has more than 333,000 times the mass of Earth, orbits the Earth.
-
I have looked at the image and it seems to be taken last week.
Actually, it was taken about 2 weeks ago.
OK, but I only saw it last week. And after further looking at the JWST image of the famous galaxy that was formed 13.5 billion years ago I see plenty more galaxies in the background that are 17 and 20 billion years old. How could the experts have missed those??
And how do you know those galaxies are 17-20 billion years old?
They look older than the newly discovered/filmed 13.5 billion years old galaxy in front of them. But why don't you ask the JWST-staff having found the new billions of stars?
How do they "look older"?
-
But why don't you ask the JWST-staff having found the new billions of stars?
That's who we listen too. No good listening to a crackpot moron who things everything - including a star that has more than 333,000 times the mass of Earth, orbits the Earth.
You really have to visit my website, where I explain how the Sun and planet Mars orbit each other with Earth, immobile in between at the center of the Solar system. Earth is rotating 360°/24 hrs, so we on Earth can watch the free show in the sky all the time. JWST also orbits Earth of course. Just watch the Sun in the morning above your horizon and watch Mars at night, when it is illuminated by the Sun, you'll soon understand.
-
But why don't you ask the JWST-staff having found the new billions of stars?
That's who we listen too. No good listening to a crackpot moron who things everything - including a star that has more than 333,000 times the mass of Earth, orbits the Earth.
You really have to visit my website, where I explain how the Sun and planet Mars orbit each other with Earth, immobile in between at the center of the Solar system. Earth is rotating 360°/24 hrs, so we on Earth can watch the free show in the sky all the time. JWST also orbits Earth of course. Just watch the Sun in the morning above your horizon and watch Mars at night, when it is illuminated by the Sun, you'll soon understand.
No one needs to visit your crackpot conspiracy site. If you can't explain it here, you can't explain it at all.
-
But why don't you ask the JWST-staff having found the new billions of stars?
That's who we listen too. No good listening to a crackpot moron who things everything - including a star that has more than 333,000 times the mass of Earth, orbits the Earth.
You really have to visit my website, where I explain how the Sun and planet Mars orbit each other with Earth, immobile in between at the center of the Solar system. Earth is rotating 360°/24 hrs, so we on Earth can watch the free show in the sky all the time. JWST also orbits Earth of course. Just watch the Sun in the morning above your horizon and watch Mars at night, when it is illuminated by the Sun, you'll soon understand.
ow
No one needs to visit your crackpot conspiracy site. If you can't explain it here, you can't explain it at all.
My website about safety at sea was originally promoting the famous Coulombi Egg tanker approved by the United Nations IMO September 1997. The Committee handling the approval was chaired by a Swede, Börje Stenström, since 1990. Then September 1994 a Swedish owned, but Estonian flag, passenger ferry was sunk in the Baltic killing >1000 people. Börje Stenström, i,a, was appointed by the Swedish government to investigate the mysterious sinking. So Börje suddenly had two jobs. Börje told everyone that the ferry had lost its bow visor in a storm. The visor was badly designed, he said. In reality the ferry was sunk due to sabotage. Börje suddenly died February 1997 - and was probably murdered - but then my Coulombi Egg tanker was already formally approved by the Committee. The IMO general assembly approved it in September 1997. And in December 1997 the Swedish government announced that the cause of the ferry killing >1000 innocent persons was a hidden design fault that couldn't be found with due diligence. I explained something else at my website. I was then happily working in Egypt and just watched the show from there. The ferry? It was used to transport weapons and drugs paid for by some American XXX agency and the owners didn't want to share the profits. There was apparently a shoot-out on the bridge where the captain and some other people were brutally murdered just before the sinking took place. So the Swedish government immediately decided that no dead victims could be rescued as some of them were full of bullet holes. Etc, etc. I just happened to become visitor to the show.
-
But why don't you ask the JWST-staff having found the new billions of stars?
That's who we listen too. No good listening to a crackpot moron who things everything - including a star that has more than 333,000 times the mass of Earth, orbits the Earth.
You really have to visit my website, where I explain how the Sun and planet Mars orbit each other with Earth, immobile in between at the center of the Solar system. Earth is rotating 360°/24 hrs, so we on Earth can watch the free show in the sky all the time. JWST also orbits Earth of course. Just watch the Sun in the morning above your horizon and watch Mars at night, when it is illuminated by the Sun, you'll soon understand.
ow
No one needs to visit your crackpot conspiracy site. If you can't explain it here, you can't explain it at all.
My website about safety at sea was originally promoting the famous Coulombi Egg tanker approved by the United Nations IMO September 1997. The Committee handling the approval was chaired by a Swede, Börje Stenström, since 1990. Then September 1994 a Swedish owned, but Estonian flag, passenger ferry was sunk in the Baltic killing >1000 people. Börje Stenström, i,a, was appointed by the Swedish government to investigate the mysterious sinking. So Börje suddenly had two jobs. Börje told everyone that the ferry had lost its bow visor in a storm. The visor was badly designed, he said. In reality the ferry was sunk due to sabotage. Börje suddenly died February 1997 - and was probably murdered - but then my Coulombi Egg tanker was already formally approved by the Committee. The IMO general assembly approved it in September 1997. And in December 1997 the Swedish government announced that the cause of the ferry killing >1000 innocent persons was a hidden design fault that couldn't be found with due diligence. I explained something else at my website. I was then happily working in Egypt and just watched the show from there. The ferry? It was used to transport weapons and drugs paid for by some American XXX agency and the owners didn't want to share the profits. There was apparently a shoot-out on the bridge where the captain and some other people were brutally murdered just before the sinking took place. So the Swedish government immediately decided that no dead victims could be rescued as some of them were full of bullet holes. Etc, etc. I just happened to become visitor to the show.
Nothing you said above explains "how the Sun and planet Mars orbit each other with Earth, immobile in between at the center of the Solar system." You simply point back at your website, again, and ramble about nothing that has anything do with what was asked. So once again.....
No one needs to visit your crackpot conspiracy site. If you can't explain it here, you can't explain it at all.
-
But why don't you ask the JWST-staff having found the new billions of stars?
That's who we listen too. No good listening to a crackpot moron who things everything - including a star that has more than 333,000 times the mass of Earth, orbits the Earth.
You really have to visit my website, where I explain how the Sun and planet Mars orbit each other with Earth, immobile in between at the center of the Solar system. Earth is rotating 360°/24 hrs, so we on Earth can watch the free show in the sky all the time. JWST also orbits Earth of course. Just watch the Sun in the morning above your horizon and watch Mars at night, when it is illuminated by the Sun, you'll soon understand.
ow
No one needs to visit your crackpot conspiracy site. If you can't explain it here, you can't explain it at all.
My website about safety at sea was originally promoting the famous Coulombi Egg tanker approved by the United Nations IMO September 1997. The Committee handling the approval was chaired by a Swede, Börje Stenström, since 1990. Then September 1994 a Swedish owned, but Estonian flag, passenger ferry was sunk in the Baltic killing >1000 people. Börje Stenström, i,a, was appointed by the Swedish government to investigate the mysterious sinking. So Börje suddenly had two jobs. Börje told everyone that the ferry had lost its bow visor in a storm. The visor was badly designed, he said. In reality the ferry was sunk due to sabotage. Börje suddenly died February 1997 - and was probably murdered - but then my Coulombi Egg tanker was already formally approved by the Committee. The IMO general assembly approved it in September 1997. And in December 1997 the Swedish government announced that the cause of the ferry killing >1000 innocent persons was a hidden design fault that couldn't be found with due diligence. I explained something else at my website. I was then happily working in Egypt and just watched the show from there. The ferry? It was used to transport weapons and drugs paid for by some American XXX agency and the owners didn't want to share the profits. There was apparently a shoot-out on the bridge where the captain and some other people were brutally murdered just before the sinking took place. So the Swedish government immediately decided that no dead victims could be rescued as some of them were full of bullet holes. Etc, etc. I just happened to become visitor to the show.
Nothing you said above explains "how the Sun and planet Mars orbit each other with Earth, immobile in between at the center of the Solar system." You simply point back at your website, again, and ramble about nothing that has anything do with what was asked. So once again.....
No one needs to visit your crackpot conspiracy site. If you can't explain it here, you can't explain it at all.
OK, just look out of your window and watch in the sky how the Sun and planet Mars orbit each other in space above and around. They are kept in balance by equal forces when orbiting each other. The forces are electromagnetic and centrifugal and produced by the high temperature/density metal cores of the Sun and Mars, etc. And Earth happens to be immobile but rotating 360°/24hrs in between the Sun and Mars at the center of the Solar system and the Universe. In the background are billions of galaxies and stars that are filmed by the JWST but they are just produced at Hollywood to add color to the show. It is a variation of Neal and Buzz (not) on the Moon 1969.
-
OK, just look out of your window and watch in the sky how the Sun and planet Mars orbit each other in space above and around. They are kept in balance by equal forces when orbiting each other. The forces are electromagnetic and centrifugal and produced by the high temperature/density metal cores of the Sun and Mars, etc. And Earth happens to be immobile but rotating 360°/24hrs in between the Sun and Mars at the center of the Solar system and the Universe. In the background are billions of galaxies and stars that are filmed by the JWST but they are just produced at Hollywood to add color to the show. It is a variation of Neal and Buzz (not) on the Moon 1969.
That is what you 'see', but it in no way reflects measurable reality.
If the the Earth is stationary at the centre of the Universe what causes stellar parallax over the course of a year? And what causes the retrograde orbits of the outer planets?
-
If the the Earth is stationary at the centre of the Universe what causes stellar parallax over the course of a year? And what causes the retrograde orbits of the outer planets?
You are asking Heiwa rational questions and expecting rational answers. This is irrational.
-
OK, just look out of your window and watch in the sky how the Sun and planet Mars orbit each other in space above and around. They are kept in balance by equal forces when orbiting each other. The forces are electromagnetic and centrifugal and produced by the high temperature/density metal cores of the Sun and Mars, etc. And Earth happens to be immobile but rotating 360°/24hrs in between the Sun and Mars at the center of the Solar system and the Universe. In the background are billions of galaxies and stars that are filmed by the JWST but they are just produced at Hollywood to add color to the show. It is a variation of Neal and Buzz (not) on the Moon 1969.
That is what you 'see', but it in no way reflects measurable reality.
If the the Earth is stationary at the centre of the Universe what causes stellar parallax over the course of a year? And what causes the retrograde orbits of the outer planets?
Thanks for asking.
Re “stellar parallax over the course of a year” you have to ask Hollywood about it, as it organizes the decorations of the JWST filming.
Re “the retrograde orbits of the outer planets“ they have nothing to do with Earth being immobile. The outer planets orbit around the Sun.
-
OK, just look out of your window and watch in the sky how the Sun and planet Mars orbit each other in space above and around. They are kept in balance by equal forces when orbiting each other. The forces are electromagnetic and centrifugal and produced by the high temperature/density metal cores of the Sun and Mars, etc. And Earth happens to be immobile but rotating 360°/24hrs in between the Sun and Mars at the center of the Solar system and the Universe. In the background are billions of galaxies and stars that are filmed by the JWST but they are just produced at Hollywood to add color to the show. It is a variation of Neal and Buzz (not) on the Moon 1969.
That is what you 'see', but it in no way reflects measurable reality.
If the the Earth is stationary at the centre of the Universe what causes stellar parallax over the course of a year? And what causes the retrograde orbits of the outer planets?
Thanks for asking.
Re “stellar parallax over the course of a year” you have to ask Hollywood about it, as it organizes the decorations of the JWST filming.
Stellar parallax is observable and measurable by anyone with a reasonably decent telescope. It has nothing to do with Hollywood, NASA or the JWST.
Re “the retrograde orbits of the outer planets“ they have nothing to do with Earth being immobile. The outer planets orbit around the Sun.
Why do the Sun and Moon orbit the Earth, yet everything else in the solar system orbit the Sun?
-
OK, just look out of your window and watch in the sky how the Sun and planet Mars orbit each other in space above and around. They are kept in balance by equal forces when orbiting each other. The forces are electromagnetic and centrifugal and produced by the high temperature/density metal cores of the Sun and Mars, etc. And Earth happens to be immobile but rotating 360°/24hrs in between the Sun and Mars at the center of the Solar system and the Universe. In the background are billions of galaxies and stars that are filmed by the JWST but they are just produced at Hollywood to add color to the show. It is a variation of Neal and Buzz (not) on the Moon 1969.
That is what you 'see', but it in no way reflects measurable reality.
If the the Earth is stationary at the centre of the Universe what causes stellar parallax over the course of a year? And what causes the retrograde orbits of the outer planets?
Thanks for asking.
Re “stellar parallax over the course of a year” you have to ask Hollywood about it, as it organizes the decorations of the JWST filming.
Stellar parallax is observable and measurable by anyone with a reasonably decent telescope. It has nothing to do with Hollywood, NASA or the JWST.
Re “the retrograde orbits of the outer planets“ they have nothing to do with Earth being immobile. The outer planets orbit around the Sun.
Why do the Sun and Moon orbit the Earth, yet everything else in the solar system orbit the Sun?
Please, note what I say. It is the Sun and planet Mars that orbit each other with the Earth immobile but rotating 360°/24hrs in between. That's why you can see the Sun rising outside your window in the morning and Mars moving in the night sky. Electromagnetic forces in action.
The Moon just orbits Earth. And the other planets orbit the Sun. The stars are seen rotating around the Pole star because Earth rotates.
But topic is the JWST and it's fake images of objects 13.5 billion light years away. Sorry, they are fabricated at Hollywood.
-
Please, note what I say. It is the Sun and planet Mars that orbit each other with the Earth immobile but rotating 360°/24hrs in between. That's why you can see the Sun rising outside your window in the morning and Mars moving in the night sky. Electromagnetic forces in action.
The Moon just orbits Earth. And the other planets orbit the Sun. The stars are seen rotating around the Pole star because Earth rotates.
But topic is the JWST and it's fake images of objects 13.5 billion light years away. Sorry, they are fabricated at Hollywood.
Oh, I note what you say Heiwa. I also note that it's bullshit.
Electromagnetic forces? Please explain.
For example;
Why does the Earth remain immovable when the 'electromagnetic forces' are strong enough to cause the Sun and Mars orbit each other?
Why does the Moon, with no appreciable magnetic field, orbit the Earth?
Why does the Moon not orbit the Sun, when the Sun has by far the largest magnetic field in the solar system.
Do you deny the existence of gravity? If so, why, when the electromagnetic forces of the Earth are strong enough to hold a pebble on it's surface, is a magnet with an electromagnetic field a million times stronger than the Earth's unable to move said pebble?
Why does the Earth even rotate? What caused it's initial rotation?
The only true statement in your drivel, is that the motion of the celestial sphere is caused by the rotation of the Earth. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. That's one more time than yourself.
-
Please, note what I say. It is the Sun and planet Mars that orbit each other with the Earth immobile but rotating 360°/24hrs in between. That's why you can see the Sun rising outside your window in the morning and Mars moving in the night sky. Electromagnetic forces in action.
The Moon just orbits Earth. And the other planets orbit the Sun. The stars are seen rotating around the Pole star because Earth rotates.
But topic is the JWST and it's fake images of objects 13.5 billion light years away. Sorry, they are fabricated at Hollywood.
I have asked before, but you failed to produce anything as expected.
But please cite any source from a reputable scientist, astronomer or authority thats worth listening to that backs up this silly idea of yours.
-
@Calen
Thanks for asking many question, even if you consider my findings bullshit.
Electromagnetic forces. Maybe the star Sun and planet Mars with their unknown metallic cores and masses generate such and centrifugal forces, when they orbit each other in an electric Universe. I discuss it at my website.
The Swedish Nobel Prizes committee and royal academy of sciences have given a lot of price money to various clowns about absolute nonsensical bullshit since more than 100 years. Trying to confirm the findings incl. Einstein’s from 1905 – 1950, I have found little evidence of most of it = bullshit.
The Earth remains immobile between the Sun and Mars because it is stuck there. I can see and feel it.
Same with the Moon! It orbits Earth and nobody knows how it came about. No Nobel Prize for any Moon expert so far!
The Moon doesn’t orbit the Sun, as the Moon orbits Earth. Celestial objects can only orbit one other object.
I do not deny gravity. I have seen plenty stuff dropping on Earth due to Newton’s gravity. The electromagnetic force of Earth is not clear, as we don’t know what the Earth core is and it’s mass and what the Van Allen belt really is about. Nobody has won a Nobel Prize for it! I just watch the developments and lies and fake news about it. It has made me rich!
I know that the Earth rotates 360°/24 hrs by observation and feeling it. I haven’t got a clue what initiated the rotation. If you have, you can collect a Nobel Prize for it.
@MaNaeSWolf
Just visit my website, where I provide links to my sources.
-
@MaNaeSWolf
Just visit my website, where I provide links to my sources.
I had an oncologist look at your website, and he confirmed that your website is worse than cancer.
Provide an academic paper or any writings of a reputable source.
Your website is not a source.
-
@MaNaeSWolf
Just visit my website, where I provide links to my sources.
I had an oncologist look at your website, and he confirmed that your website is worse than cancer.
Provide an academic paper or any writings of a reputable source.
Your website is not a source.
My scientific academic papers and published articles are listed at my website.
Re cancer I wasn't feeling well on the tennis court 6 weeks ago, and as my daughter is an MD, I went to see her. Someone thought my ill feeling was due to a blood clot in the brain, which was scanned. No blood clot. It was then thought that a nerve could be blocked above my stomach, which was scanned. No blocked nerve. Then a professor thought my heart was at fault, so it was scanned. My heart is 76 years old, i.e. not new. But it is working. Nobody thought about cancer. But I was tested for Covid for the 6th time. No Covid either! I am not even vaccinated against it. A couple of friends of mine got vaccinated and died soon after.
People ask why I am in good shape and I recommend good food, good wine, plenty physical exercise, vitamins and minerals of all sorts. Normally I use acupuncture against all health problems before asking my daughter, but my acupuncturist was on vacation. But I acupuncture needled myself to be on the safe side and I felt much better after that. Maybe the problem is the heat wave with >30°C day and night since 5 weeks. I have AC but get sick of its noise and chilly air, so no AC for me. I prefer a good red wine. But you probably cannot afford the wine I drink right now to be in shape and reply to people believing in the JWST bullshit.
-
My scientific academic papers and published articles are listed at my website.
So no source then.
Also, keep yourself fit and busy.
I live in the city of the comrads marathon, where your only a runner if your doing 90km at least once a year. I know quite a few 70+ year olds doing it. So as long as your not stuffing your gut with junk, I see no reason why you should stop playing tennis, or what ever it is you do.
But you are ancient, so take it chill.
-
Topic is the James Webb Space Telescope (sometimes called JWST or Webb), which is an orbiting infrared observatory using mirrors that will complement and extend the discoveries of the Hubble Space Telescope, with longer wavelength coverage and greatly improved sensitivity.
The longer wavelengths enable Webb to look much closer to the beginning (!) of time and to hunt for the unobserved (!!) formation of the first galaxies, as well as to look inside dust clouds (!!!) where stars and planetary systems are forming (!!!!) today. Imaging all that vital info.
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/faqs/facts.html
Mission goals are thus :
1. Search for the first galaxies or luminous objects formed after the Big Bang
2. Determine how galaxies evolved from their formation until now
3. Observe the formation of stars from the first stages to the formation of planetary systems
4. Measure the physical and chemical properties of planetary systems, including our own Solar System, and investigate the potential for life in those systems
So far a 13.5 billion years old galaxy has been found but how it was formed is still unclear. Also some new stars in the Milky Way galaxy 4500 light years away have been filmed. Before there were a billuon stars in the Milky Way galaxy, Now are a couple of new ones. Re our Solar system Webb has managed to film planet Jupiter with a white dot but didn't find any life. When I watch Jupiter the dot is red!
-
When I watch Jupiter the dot is red!
That's because you can't see in infrared. If you placed a NIRCam instrument 2.12 micron filter in front of your eyes, the red spot would be white, like in the image.
(https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/wp-content/uploads/sites/326/2022/07/jupiter_hi_res_atmo-1.png)
Jupiter, center, and its moon Europa, left, are seen through the
James Webb Space Telescope’s NIRCam instrument 2.12 micron filter.
Credits: NASA, ESA, CSA, and B. Holler and J. Stansberry (STScI)
The Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) for NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is one of the four science instruments installed into the Integrated Science Instrument Module (ISIM) on JWST.
(https://i.imgur.com/yhtMJUQ.png)
-
Thanks. Of course I watch Jupiter from my window using a telescope without filters and then the dot is red. And the Jupiter moons are lit up like stars by the Sun. JWST sees a white dot and the Moons are black. I cannot understand JWST wasting time filming Jupiter with filters. I am more interested in the inside of Jupiter and its core. That Jupiter has an atmosphere is clear but what is below it? It seems the JWST with its long-wave and short-wave filters cannot see through the Jupiter atmosphere at all. So we still doesn't know what the Jupiter ground looks like.
-
Thanks. Of course I watch Jupiter from my window using a telescope without filters and then the dot is red. And the Jupiter moons are lit up like stars by the Sun. JWST sees a white dot and the Moons are black. I cannot understand JWST wasting time filming Jupiter with filters. I am more interested in the inside of Jupiter and its core. That Jupiter has an atmosphere is clear but what is below it? It seems the JWST with its long-wave and short-wave filters cannot see through the Jupiter atmosphere at all. So we still doesn't know what the Jupiter ground looks like.
Team JWST cares not about what a lone conspiracy theorist is interested in.
-
Thanks. Of course I watch Jupiter from my window using a telescope without filters and then the dot is red. And the Jupiter moons are lit up like stars by the Sun. JWST sees a white dot and the Moons are black. I cannot understand JWST wasting time filming Jupiter with filters. I am more interested in the inside of Jupiter and its core. That Jupiter has an atmosphere is clear but what is below it? It seems the JWST with its long-wave and short-wave filters cannot see through the Jupiter atmosphere at all. So we still doesn't know what the Jupiter ground looks like.
Team JWST cares not about what a lone conspiracy theorist is interested in.
?? I asked NASA about their images and a lady there told me "The images are not copyrighted. Please cite the appropriate credit listed for any image that you use."
Of course the images allegedly come from JWST, Hubble or similar unmanned space crafts that just sends them back to Earth, where people can look at them or make mosaics of 1000's of them. There is no guarantee that they are real or info how the mosaics are put together. One NASA image of a 13.5 billion light years old galaxy with billions of stars in sounds fantasy to me. How can NASA take one picture of one star in that far away galaxy of so many stars?
-
Thanks. Of course I watch Jupiter from my window using a telescope without filters and then the dot is red. And the Jupiter moons are lit up like stars by the Sun. JWST sees a white dot and the Moons are black. I cannot understand JWST wasting time filming Jupiter with filters. I am more interested in the inside of Jupiter and its core. That Jupiter has an atmosphere is clear but what is below it? It seems the JWST with its long-wave and short-wave filters cannot see through the Jupiter atmosphere at all. So we still doesn't know what the Jupiter ground looks like.
Team JWST cares not about what a lone conspiracy theorist is interested in.
?? I asked NASA about their images and a lady there told me "The images are not copyrighted. Please cite the appropriate credit listed for any image that you use."
Seems reasonable.
Of course the images allegedly come from JWST, Hubble or similar unmanned space crafts that just sends them back to Earth, where people can look at them or make mosaics of 1000's of them. There is no guarantee that they are real...
What sort of "guarantee" are you looking for? A seal of approval, a certificate of authenticity?
or info how the mosaics are put together.
Are you a perpetual liar or just ignorant/inept? Instead of just complaining all of the time, why don't you google about to find your answers. There's plenty of info out there about mosaics and how they are processed.
NIRCam Mosaics (https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-camera/nircam-operations/nircam-dithers-and-mosaics/nircam-mosaics)
(https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/files/97978248/97978249/1/1596073163026/NIRCam+mosaic.png)
This figure shows a nominal 306.902" × 133.269" tile spacing of a NIRCam mosaic composed of 2 rows and 2 columns, with 0% overlap and zero shifts between rows or columns. The mosaic may be adjusted to have smaller or larger spacing, as well as shifts between columns or rows. Short and long wavelength detectors are shown as blue filled squares and red outlines, respectively. Each X marks the reference target spot for one pointing when observing with both modules. Note that when observing with both modules, the target reference position falls in the gap between modules.
One NASA image of a 13.5 billion light years old galaxy with billions of stars in sounds fantasy to me. How can NASA take one picture of one star in that far away galaxy of so many stars?
Use the Google.
-
Thanks, I know how a mosaic picture is made. I simply doubt that NASA/JWST can make a mosaic picture of a galaxy 13.5 billion light years away and that I then can study individual images of billions of stars in that far away galaxy.
-
Thanks, I know how a mosaic picture is made. I simply doubt that NASA/JWST can make a mosaic picture of a galaxy 13.5 billion light years away and that I then can study individual images of billions of stars in that far away galaxy.
Doubt all you want. No one involved with JWST cares about a lone conspiracy theorist's "doubts". Especially considering a lone conspiracy theorist who's whole premise for doubt is based solely on ignorance and ineptitude.
-
Thanks, I know how a mosaic picture is made. I simply doubt that NASA/JWST can make a mosaic picture of a galaxy 13.5 billion light years away and that I then can study individual images of billions of stars in that far away galaxy.
Doubt all you want. No one involved with JWST cares about a lone conspiracy theorist's "doubts". Especially considering a lone conspiracy theorist who's whole premise for doubt is based solely on ignorance and ineptitude.
Any way NASA replied to my questions and I am happy with it. Why are you so upset about it? This is just a social media discussion about the JWST.
-
I'm glad you're satisfied.
-
Thanks, I know how a mosaic picture is made. I simply doubt that NASA/JWST can make a mosaic picture of a galaxy 13.5 billion light years away and that I then can study individual images of billions of stars in that far away galaxy.
You can always download the raw data and analyze it yourself to see if it fits with your geocentric point of view.
https://archive.stsci.edu/missions-and-data/jwst
-
Thanks, I know how a mosaic picture is made. I simply doubt that NASA/JWST can make a mosaic picture of a galaxy 13.5 billion light years away and that I then can study individual images of billions of stars in that far away galaxy.
You can always download the raw data and analyze it yourself to see if it fits with your geocentric point of view.
https://archive.stsci.edu/missions-and-data/jwst
I quote NASA all the time. And I conclude that the "images" are photo shopped on Earth and mosaic nonsense.
-
I think we get it. You think the JWST images are fake. Lots of other folks don't. If you had something to offer rather than just your opinion, that may be interesting. But just your opinion is not interesting. So basically enough said, right?
-
I think we get it. You think the JWST images are fake. Lots of other folks don't. If you had something to offer rather than just your opinion, that may be interesting. But just your opinion is not interesting. So basically enough said, right?
No, I just laugh at people believing the JWST nonsense that I can watch free of charge in the sky every day or night.
-
I think we get it. You think the JWST images are fake. Lots of other folks don't. If you had something to offer rather than just your opinion, that may be interesting. But just your opinion is not interesting. So basically enough said, right?
No, I just laugh at people believing the JWST nonsense that I can watch free of charge in the sky every day or night.
Yep we got it. No one cares about your laughter. But it's nice to hear that you can still amuse yourself.
-
I think we get it. You think the JWST images are fake. Lots of other folks don't. If you had something to offer rather than just your opinion, that may be interesting. But just your opinion is not interesting. So basically enough said, right?
No, I just laugh at people believing the JWST nonsense that I can watch free of charge in the sky every day or night.
Yep we got it. No one cares about your laughter. But it's nice to hear that you can still amuse yourself.
You seem to care ... that everything NASA does in space is made in Hollywood. Do you really believe that a USD 10 billion JWST takes pictures of space in space?
-
I think we get it. You think the JWST images are fake. Lots of other folks don't. If you had something to offer rather than just your opinion, that may be interesting. But just your opinion is not interesting. So basically enough said, right?
No, I just laugh at people believing the JWST nonsense that I can watch free of charge in the sky every day or night.
Yep we got it. No one cares about your laughter. But it's nice to hear that you can still amuse yourself.
You seem to care ... that everything NASA does in space is made in Hollywood. Do you really believe that a USD 10 billion JWST takes pictures of space in space?
Yes, and why not? I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.
-
I think we get it. You think the JWST images are fake. Lots of other folks don't. If you had something to offer rather than just your opinion, that may be interesting. But just your opinion is not interesting. So basically enough said, right?
No, I just laugh at people believing the JWST nonsense that I can watch free of charge in the sky every day or night.
Yep we got it. No one cares about your laughter. But it's nice to hear that you can still amuse yourself.
You seem to care ... that everything NASA does in space is made in Hollywood. Do you really believe that a USD 10 billion JWST takes pictures of space in space?
Yes, and why not? I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.
That explains all.
-
I think we get it. You think the JWST images are fake. Lots of other folks don't. If you had something to offer rather than just your opinion, that may be interesting. But just your opinion is not interesting. So basically enough said, right?
No, I just laugh at people believing the JWST nonsense that I can watch free of charge in the sky every day or night.
Yep we got it. No one cares about your laughter. But it's nice to hear that you can still amuse yourself.
You seem to care ... that everything NASA does in space is made in Hollywood. Do you really believe that a USD 10 billion JWST takes pictures of space in space?
Yes, and why not? I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.
That explains all.
Yes, it does. No evidence, no issue.
-
So this JWST thing is up and running and so far it has only taken some images of objects in space - https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/science-execution/approved-programs/webb-first-image-observations - that I have seen before many times.
I wonder when we will see a star being born and the end of the Universe, i.e. some new stuff.
-
So this JWST thing is up and running and so far it has only taken some images of objects in space - https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/science-execution/approved-programs/webb-first-image-observations - that I have seen before many times.
I wonder when we will see a star being born and the end of the Universe, i.e. some new stuff.
Most telescope images are ordered from universities, agencies or astronomers. These are for the actual scientists that want to use the telescope. So you wont see those images unless they release them. The ones you see are usually from NASA that release it for public use.
We have seen plenty of images of stars born though, usually in nebulas. And JWST has released that already. Its just a "slow" process in human terms, so not all that interesting unless your prepared to wait a million or so years.
-
So this JWST thing is up and running and so far it has only taken some images of objects in space - https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/science-execution/approved-programs/webb-first-image-observations - that I have seen before many times.
I wonder when we will see a star being born and the end of the Universe, i.e. some new stuff.
Most telescope images are ordered from universities, agencies or astronomers. These are for the actual scientists that want to use the telescope. So you wont see those images unless they release them. The ones you see are usually from NASA that release it for public use.
We have seen plenty of images of stars born though, usually in nebulas. And JWST has released that already. Its just a "slow" process in human terms, so not all that interesting unless your prepared to wait a million or so years.
I have nothing against pictures of space taken by observatories on Earth since >100 years. They just show stars of all kind. But no star being born. Pls send a picture of a star being born.
-
Earth based telescope:
Star birth can be a violent and explosive event, as dramatically illustrated in new ALMA images.
A pair of adolescent protostars had a perilously close encounter that blasted their stellar nursery apart.
Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have examined the widely scattered debris from this explosive event, gaining new insights into the sometimes-fierce relationship among sibling stars.
-
Earth based telescope:
Star birth can be a violent and explosive event, as dramatically illustrated in new ALMA images.
A pair of adolescent protostars had a perilously close encounter that blasted their stellar nursery apart.
Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have examined the widely scattered debris from this explosive event, gaining new insights into the sometimes-fierce relationship among sibling stars.
How is a star born? Where does it come from. Why is it explosive? What does NASA say about it?
-
Earth based telescope:
Star birth can be a violent and explosive event, as dramatically illustrated in new ALMA images.
A pair of adolescent protostars had a perilously close encounter that blasted their stellar nursery apart.
Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have examined the widely scattered debris from this explosive event, gaining new insights into the sometimes-fierce relationship among sibling stars.
How is a star born? Where does it come from. Why is it explosive? What does NASA say about it?
Google.com
-
How is a star born? Where does it come from. Why is it explosive? What does NASA say about it?
Stars are born when enough matter, (usually hydrogen as its the most common element in the universe) gets pulled together by gravity. When enough matter is collected and the gravity is strong enough, fusion starts, making a star. Its a long slow process taking millions of years.
You cant see a star being born unless you want to record the process over a few million years.
We can see any part of the process though, but its not very exciting, its just dust gathering.
A supernova is the end of a star. Its when really big stars die. Small stars, like our sun are too small to ever go supernova.
-
Here are some amazing zooms into Catwheel & Southern Nebula:
(https://i.imgur.com/zxbF6Or.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/qzceTrN.gif)
-
Here are some amazing zooms into Catwheel & Southern Nebula:
(https://i.imgur.com/zxbF6Or.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/qzceTrN.gif)
Its just simply insane how much stuff is out there.
Most dots we see are entire galaxies.
Im looking forward to the first direct imaging of a planet!
-
Here are some amazing zooms into Catwheel & Southern Nebula:
(https://i.imgur.com/zxbF6Or.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/qzceTrN.gif)
Its just simply insane how much stuff is out there.
Most dots we see are entire galaxies.
Im looking forward to the first direct imaging of a planet!
What's insane is that I get my first news and images from the JWST from a flat earth forum 8)
-
Its just simply insane how much stuff is out there.
Most dots we see are entire galaxies.
Im looking forward to the first direct imaging of a planet!
I know, it blows my mind as it zooms in, more and more dots of light start to appear when it almost looks like there is no space between them. Compounded by the fact that most of those points of light are friggin' galaxies!!!
-
This was a mistake. Heiwa was right. We've delved too deeply, too greedily.
If we can hear it then it can hear us!
-
This was a mistake. Heiwa was right. We've delved too deeply, too greedily.
If we can hear it then it can hear us!
You can kind of take any bit of noise and get a sound out of it. Although it does sound a lot better than a lot of the music I hear from artists with a name starting with "Lil".
-
Looks like NASA finally listened to Anders and took some pictures of Jupiter.
(https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/wp-content/uploads/sites/326/2022/08/JWST_2022-07-27_Jupiter.png)
(https://static.langimg.com/thumb/msid-93724192,width-680,resizemode-3/navbharat-times.jpg)
-
These are amazing images. Id love to see a Mars image.
-
I saw these the other day. Unbelievably stunning.
-
Hopefully these haven't already been shared.
An almost-perfect Einstein Ring:
(https://bgr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/zoomed-in-einstein-ring-james-webb.webp)
A binary star formation that is kicking off dust when they approach each other, and the dust lights up in infrared, so you get to see these regular rings that are spaced based on the pair's orbital period:
(https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2022/08/webb-image-of-wr-140-full-318x415.jpg)
-
Here's what happens when you combine Hubble data with JWST data:
(https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2022/08/NASAESA.png?strip=1)
-
Here's what happens when you combine Hubble data with JWST data:
(https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2022/08/NASAESA.png?strip=1)
Science is so cool.
-
Just to make sure, because I haven't found it around here.
Do you think that the James Webb telescope is fake?
That it never started?
-
Lurk moar.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=89534.0
-
JWST got it first direct image of a planet.
(https://news.ucsc.edu/2022/09/images/exoplanet-images-large.jpg)
https://news.ucsc.edu/2022/09/exoplanet-images.html#:~:text=For%20the%20first%20time%2C%20astronomers,and%20could%20not%20be%20habitable. (http://linkie)
This is insane!
-
Just to make sure, because I haven't found it around here.
Do you think that the James Webb telescope is fake?
That it never started?
There are less real flat earthers here than you may think
-
JWST got it first direct image of a planet.
(https://news.ucsc.edu/2022/09/images/exoplanet-images-large.jpg)
https://news.ucsc.edu/2022/09/exoplanet-images.html#:~:text=For%20the%20first%20time%2C%20astronomers,and%20could%20not%20be%20habitable. (http://linkie)
This is insane!
That is crazy insane. I think the only way we've been able to detect exoplanets before was from some sort of gravitational wobble. This is amazing.
-
I think the only way we've been able to detect exoplanets before was from some sort of gravitational wobble. This is amazing.
That's one way. The other is by detecting the slight dimming of the star as the planets transit.
-
Ah yes, that too.
Here's the latest:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/23b3a0842ea730306ee3223cccaf3264.jpg)
The latest wonder from the Webb Space Telescope is a new look at the Tarantula Nebula, a swirling mass of infantile and yet-to-be conceived stars. What looks like spider silk surrounds a hollowed-out center, where material has been blasted away by radiation, according to a NASA release.
-
Ah yes, that too.
Here's the latest:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/23b3a0842ea730306ee3223cccaf3264.jpg)
The latest wonder from the Webb Space Telescope is a new look at the Tarantula Nebula, a swirling mass of infantile and yet-to-be conceived stars. What looks like spider silk surrounds a hollowed-out center, where material has been blasted away by radiation, according to a NASA release.
The Tarantula Nebula is located just outside our Milky Way galaxy with planet Earth at the center and can be seen by any telescope on Earth. I have asked NASA about the radiation blasting away material in the nebula but nobody there knows about any radiation blasting away material. I assume NASA is just making things up as usual.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/NCgxZif.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/NCgxZif.jpg)
There is no doubt that the JWST can take photos of stars and galaxies in space ... but what does it prove? The Big Bang 13.8 billion year ago? Einstein's theory of relativity? JWST cannot even see the end of the Universe or explain how the Sun is working.
-
Once again Heiwa injects his ignorance. Stick to the thread about your nonsense. Babble there. Stop your BS trolling in here
-
If you study my JWST web page, you should know that the JW space telescope has fixed mirrors to look at the Universe. There is no JWST zoom, or similar. Only way to magnify what is seen is to change the eye piece up in space, click, click, and you can close up a part of what you see. Anyway, the JWST is 13.8 billion light years away from the end of the Universe and can only see what happened there a long time ago. In my opinion the JWST is just pure bullshit that cannot see anything new in space.
-
Your opinion doesn't mean anything.
-
There is no doubt that the JWST can take photos of stars and galaxies in space ... but what does it prove?
It proves that you don't understand how the science of astrophysics works. Granted, ground and space based telescopes have been taking increasingly amazing pictures of the universe, but JWST is such an improvement the quality of data being collected that scientists don't currently have the sophisticated enough tools to properly analyze that data.
https://www.cnet.com/science/space/nasas-webb-space-telescope-is-so-good-we-might-need-improved-planetary-models/
-
There is no doubt that the JWST can take photos of stars and galaxies in space ... but what does it prove?
It proves that you don't understand how the science of astrophysics works. Granted, ground and space based telescopes have been taking increasingly amazing pictures of the universe, but JWST is such an improvement the quality of data being collected that scientists don't currently have the sophisticated enough tools to properly analyze that data.
https://www.cnet.com/science/space/nasas-webb-space-telescope-is-so-good-we-might-need-improved-planetary-models/
Please, I know how the science of astrophysics works ... or not. It think astrophysics is pure pseudoscience. No telescope of any type can see the end of the Universe. It is too far away. And there is nothing to see there apart from more amazing galaxies. How do I know? I use my own eyes watching the Universe from my window. I don't need any more sophisticated tools than that. I explain all at my website. Just look at the clowns having explained it so far starting by Albert Einstein.
-
I use my own eyes watching the Universe from my window. I don't need any more sophisticated tools than that.
I lone conspiracy theorist says he doesn't need anything other than his eyes and a window to examine the cosmos. Hilarious.
-
Please, I know how the science of astrophysics works ...
I have yet to see any evidence to support that claim.
It think astrophysics is pure pseudoscience. No telescope of any type can see the end of the Universe. It is too far away.
No astrophysicist ever said that they could. I don't know why you keep repeating that nonsense as if someone has.
And there is nothing to see there apart from more amazing galaxies. How do I know? I use my own eyes watching the Universe from my window.
Can you use your eyes to analyze the atmospheres of exoplanets from your window?
I don't need any more sophisticated tools than that.
Then shut up and leave it for the scientists that do need it. I keep telling you that NASA and ESA did not build JWST for your limited needs.
-
Can you use your eyes to analyze the atmospheres of exoplanets from your window?
I don't need any more sophisticated tools than that.
Then shut up and leave it for the scientists that do need it. I keep telling you that NASA and ESA did not build JWST for your limited needs.
No, my eyes cannot analyze gases. I use my nose for it. And I just watch some planets in our Solar System with my eyes. I also watch the Sun every morning when the weather is good to enjoy the photons arriving. The JWST cannot do it and their pseudo-experts do not even know what the Sun is and the origin of photons. The JWST looks at galaxies outside our Milky Way galaxy and there are billions of them, so JWST has a lot to look at. But it is a waste of time. Pseudo-astronomers have been studying galaxies for more than a hundred years and found nothing that explains what the Universe is. So the JWST will not change anything.
-
So the JWST will not change anything.
It already has, and it will leave one hell of a legacy.
-
So the JWST will not change anything.
It already has, and it will leave one hell of a legacy.
erywhere
It has seen more galaxies of all sorts, which I had seen since 1970. Yes, there are galaxies everywhere in the Universe. And that's all.
-
Yes, there are double-hulled tankers everywhere in the Universe. And that's all.
-
Anders, weren't you asking for JWST pictures of Mars? If so, here you go:
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LX2KCRpxHUmEYNi2cwTLXd.png)
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/09/19/mars-is-mighty-in-first-webb-observations-of-red-planet/
-
Anders, weren't you asking for JWST pictures of Mars? If so, here you go:
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LX2KCRpxHUmEYNi2cwTLXd.png)
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/09/19/mars-is-mighty-in-first-webb-observations-of-red-planet/
Thanks. I myself can also see Mars from my window using my eyes.
-
Wow! You can detect the atmospheric content of Mars by just looking out your window? Amazing. You should get yourself a sideshow gig at a carnival with that kind of special super human talent.
(https://images.livemint.com/img/2022/09/20/original/Mars_3_1663634159556.jpg)
-
Thanks. I myself can also see Mars from my window using my eyes.
Perhaps, but JWST can see it (and much of the universe) better.
-
Thanks. I myself can also see Mars from my window using my eyes.
Perhaps, but JWST can see it (and much of the universe) better.
No, JWST can only see visible matter. There are asstronomers och pseudo-scientists seeing super novas, star births, dark matter and black holes in the Universe, but I cannot do that. I have never seen a super-nova or the birth of stars in galaxies, etc. I maintain that you can only see what is visible in the Universe and that space travel in the Universe is always one-way, i.e. you cannot return after a lift-off from Earth, i.e. putting Americans on the Moon is not possible. It is pure nonsense.
-
Thanks. I myself can also see Mars from my window using my eyes.
Perhaps, but JWST can see it (and much of the universe) better.
No, JWST can only see visible matter. There are asstronomers och pseudo-scientists seeing super novas, star births, dark matter and black holes in the Universe, but I cannot do that. I have never seen a super-nova or the birth of stars in galaxies, etc. I maintain that you can only see what is visible in the Universe and that space travel in the Universe is always one-way, i.e. you cannot return after a lift-off from Earth, i.e. putting Americans on the Moon is not possible. It is pure nonsense.
I'm pretty sure there are no Americans stuffed inside of JWST nor is it ever returning to Earth.
And maintaining a position without evidence is just an opinion. And your opinion is meaningless without evidence. And no, there is no evidence on your site so don't bother bringing up that 1990's grade school dumpster fire again.
-
Thanks. I myself can also see Mars from my window using my eyes.
Perhaps, but JWST can see it (and much of the universe) better.
No, JWST can only see visible matter. There are asstronomers och pseudo-scientists seeing super novas, star births, dark matter and black holes in the Universe, but I cannot do that. I have never seen a super-nova or the birth of stars in galaxies, etc. I maintain that you can only see what is visible in the Universe and that space travel in the Universe is always one-way, i.e. you cannot return after a lift-off from Earth, i.e. putting Americans on the Moon is not possible. It is pure nonsense.
I'm pretty sure there are no Americans stuffed inside of JWST nor is it ever returning to Earth.
And maintaining a position without evidence is just an opinion. And your opinion is meaningless without evidence. And no, there is no evidence on your site so don't bother bringing up that 1990's grade school dumpster fire again.
The JWST is of course unmanned but I have my doubts about its ability to fly around in space and look at things in the Universe taking photos. I prefer doing it from my roof terrace sipping champagne.
-
No, JWST can only see visible matter.
Incorrect. JWST can see photons in the visible and invisible (infrared) wavelengths. The interesting part is trying to figure out the source of those photons and what matter those photons may have interacted with along the way.
-
No, JWST can only see visible matter.
Incorrect. JWST can see photons in the visible and invisible (infrared) wavelengths. The interesting part is trying to figure out the source of those photons and what matter those photons may have interacted with along the way.
The origins of photons/light are a mystery, i.e. how do they form inside stars popping up from nothing.
-
No, JWST can only see visible matter.
Incorrect. JWST can see photons in the visible and invisible (infrared) wavelengths. The interesting part is trying to figure out the source of those photons and what matter those photons may have interacted with along the way.
The origins of photons/light are a mystery, i.e. how do they form inside stars popping up from nothing.
Do some research and find out.
-
No, JWST can only see visible matter.
Incorrect. JWST can see photons in the visible and invisible (infrared) wavelengths. The interesting part is trying to figure out the source of those photons and what matter those photons may have interacted with along the way.
The origins of photons/light are a mystery, i.e. how do they form inside stars popping up from nothing.
Do some research and find out.
I have for >50 years and nobody knows. Not even NASA. Re topic (JWST) there are billions of galaxies for JWST to look at. I only look at one, i.e. the Milky Way galaxy full of billions of stars of which the Sun is a lonely 1! It just appeared over the horizon outside my window sending photons to me. Last night I looked at the heart of the Milky Way that consists of millions of stars and one group of them is NGC650 (maybe 100 000 stars) sending out plenty photons except a big, foggy black hole/area with no stars - Barnard 86 - that nobody can explain after years of research. Don't blame me. I just watch the show.
-
Re topic (JWST) there are billions of galaxies for JWST to look at. I only look at one...
Correct, the topic is what JWST looks at. The topic is not what Anders looks at. Try and stay on topic.
-
Re topic (JWST) there are billions of galaxies for JWST to look at. I only look at one...
Correct, the topic is what JWST looks at. The topic is not what Anders looks at. Try and stay on topic.
I agree. But JWST was supposed to look for the end of the Universe but is just looking at billions of galaxies that are in the way. When will JWST find something new in the Universe? I just look at the sky from my roof terrace.
-
Re topic (JWST) there are billions of galaxies for JWST to look at. I only look at one...
Correct, the topic is what JWST looks at. The topic is not what Anders looks at. Try and stay on topic.
But JWST was supposed to look for the end of the Universe
No, it isn't. Only you claim that.
The JWST is certainly looking for the earliest galaxies, and hence the earliest formation of structures within the Universe. Galaxy formation started a considerable amount of time after the Universe began. So it is in no way looking for the 'end of the Universe'. Furthermore, it is already more than possible to see before the formation of galaxies, by examination of the CMB.
Try to spend more time studying that which you are attempting to refute, and less time aimlessly staring out your window.
-
WTF does he even mean by 'end'? The JWST wants to see how the early universe looked. Closer to its beginning. The speed of light doesn't operate in a real time that when we see something from 13 billion years ago, we are seeing it as it appears right now.
You cant point a telescope anywhere and see the 'end' of the universe as if it's some physical wall. Only Heiwa seems to assert this nonsense. Over and over despite being told how not only wrong that is, but how wrong he is to assume this is the mission of the JWST
If he is going to pretend to be serious, he could at least pretend to learn things. Obviously he's just a troll. A troll that should stick to his nonsense thread to avoid getting yet another ban
-
Re topic (JWST) there are billions of galaxies for JWST to look at. I only look at one...
Correct, the topic is what JWST looks at. The topic is not what Anders looks at. Try and stay on topic.
But JWST was supposed to look for the end of the Universe
No, it isn't. Only you claim that.
The JWST is certainly looking for the earliest galaxies, and hence the earliest formation of structures within the Universe. Galaxy formation started a considerable amount of time after the Universe began. So it is in no way looking for the 'end of the Universe'. Furthermore, it is already more than possible to see before the formation of galaxies, by examination of the CMB.
Try to spend more time studying that which you are attempting to refute, and less time aimlessly staring out your window.
?? But I just quote NASA !
« Webb will be a powerful time machine with infrared vision that will peer back over 13.5 billion years to see the first stars and galaxies forming out of the darkness of the early universe. “
Source - https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/science/
Of course NASA speaks Big Bang nonsense as usual. You cannot peer back in time ever. I explain more at my website since many years.
-
Re topic (JWST) there are billions of galaxies for JWST to look at. I only look at one...
Correct, the topic is what JWST looks at. The topic is not what Anders looks at. Try and stay on topic.
But JWST was supposed to look for the end of the Universe
No, it isn't. Only you claim that.
The JWST is certainly looking for the earliest galaxies, and hence the earliest formation of structures within the Universe. Galaxy formation started a considerable amount of time after the Universe began. So it is in no way looking for the 'end of the Universe'. Furthermore, it is already more than possible to see before the formation of galaxies, by examination of the CMB.
Try to spend more time studying that which you are attempting to refute, and less time aimlessly staring out your window.
?? But I just quote NASA !
« Webb will be a powerful time machine with infrared vision that will peer back over 13.5 billion years to see the first stars and galaxies forming out of the darkness of the early universe. “
Source - https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/science/
And where does that say 'the end of the universe'? ::)
-
WTF does he even mean by 'end'? The JWST wants to see how the early universe looked. Closer to its beginning. The speed of light doesn't operate in a real time that when we see something from 13 billion years ago, we are seeing it as it appears right now.
You cant point a telescope anywhere and see the 'end' of the universe as if it's some physical wall. Only Heiwa seems to assert this nonsense. Over and over despite being told how not only wrong that is, but how wrong he is to assume this is the mission of the JWST
If he is going to pretend to be serious, he could at least pretend to learn things. Obviously he's just a troll. A troll that should stick to his nonsense thread to avoid getting yet another ban
?? But I just quote NASA !
« Webb will be a powerful time machine with infrared vision that will peer back over 13.5 billion years to see the first stars and galaxies forming out of the darkness of the early universe. “
Source - https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/science/
JWST is a time machine!! ROTFL!
-
You cannot peer back in time ever.
Heiwa, if you see an explosion far away, why dont you hear the sound as it happens?
Do we hear in the past?
Also, stop spamming your website here will get you banned again.
-
new image from JWST of Neptune.
This is super impressive considering how far Neptune is.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/for_stsci_site_imageb-neptunelabeled.png)
And no Heiwa, you never saw Nepture by looking out your window, stop playing on the internet and tell your nurse you need your bath.
-
You cannot peer back in time ever.
Heiwa, if you see an explosion far away, why dont you hear the sound as it happens?
Do we hear in the past?
Also, stop spamming your website here will get you banned again.
Me spamming my website? I don't need it. The Flat Earth Society forum does it at the top of the page. Imagine >1.5 million viewers of my Challenge thread. Some stupid American thought he had won it, bla, bla, bla.
-
new image from JWST of Neptune.
This is super impressive considering how far Neptune is.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/for_stsci_site_imageb-neptunelabeled.png)
And no Heiwa, you never saw Nepture by looking out your window, stop playing on the internet and tell your nurse you need your bath.
Correct. I have never seen Neptune from my roof terrace. But Jupiter, Mars, and Venus orbit by regularily and area easy to spot. Like the Sun and the Moon. Do you have a roof terrace to watch the sky?
-
You cannot peer back in time ever.
Heiwa, if you see an explosion far away, why dont you hear the sound as it happens?
Do we hear in the past?
Also, stop spamming your website here will get you banned again.
Me spamming my website? I don't need it. The Flat Earth Society forum does it at the top of the page. Imagine >1.5 million viewers of my Challenge thread. Some stupid American thought he had won it, bla, bla, bla.
Typical you. Talking about yourself instead of answering the question. Your tiny ego really needs all the attention it can get.
Why do you hear the explosion a while after it happens?
Why are we hearing in the past?
-
You cannot peer back in time ever.
Heiwa, if you see an explosion far away, why dont you hear the sound as it happens?
Do we hear in the past?
Also, stop spamming your website here will get you banned again.
Me spamming my website? I don't need it. The Flat Earth Society forum does it at the top of the page. Imagine >1.5 million viewers of my Challenge thread. Some stupid American thought he had won it, bla, bla, bla.
Typical you. Talking about yourself instead of answering the question. Your tiny ego really needs all the attention it can get.
Why do you hear the explosion a while after it happens?
Why are we hearing in the past?
Do you have a roof terrace to watch the sky? I have. And it is a little noisy with passing traffic/
-
Do you have a roof terrace to watch the sky? I have. And it is a little noisy with passing traffic/
I get to watch the Indian ocean from my Balcony. Traffic is behind me. But sometimes get to hear private jets from the airport near me.
-
Do you have a roof terrace to watch the sky? I have. And it is a little noisy with passing traffic/
I get to watch the Indian ocean from my Balcony. Traffic is behind me. But sometimes get to hear private jets from the airport near me.
I knew it. MaNaeSWolf is a Somali Pirate.
-
I knew it. MaNaeSWolf is a Somali Pirate.
Im a little lower than Somali. Co-incidentally I did spend some time at a super max prison today, but for reasons other than what pirates tend to.
-
Check out Neptune...
(https://cdn.digg.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/22150350/Neptune2022JWT.png)
-
Pillars of Creation revisited:
(https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01FSYXE7KXA0Z7DQFJ6QQV9E4H.png)
-
So good. Amazing what we can achieve when we aren't bombing each other to the stone age
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/p9krHxVwLDkbbJU9bb7XgK.jpg)
-
So good. Amazing what we can achieve when we aren't bombing each other to the stone age
Are you suggesting that the two are mutually exclusive? ???
-
Proof that NASA is photoshooping JWST images:
(https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2022/10/nasas-james-webb-googly-eyes.jpg)
-
Proof that NASA is photoshooping JWST images:
(https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2022/10/nasas-james-webb-googly-eyes.jpg)
JWST is said to be flying around in space close to Earth since some months ago to take pictures of the Universe and its billions of galaxies but it is just a joke - http://heiwaco.com/JWST.htm
-
Proof that NASA is photoshooping JWST images:
(https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2022/10/nasas-james-webb-googly-eyes.jpg)
JWST is said to be flying around in space close to Earth since some months ago to take pictures of the Universe and its billions of galaxies but it is just a joke - http://heiwaco.com/JWST.htm
Reported for shilling your site…again. Do you want to get banned?
-
Proof that NASA is photoshooping JWST images:
(https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2022/10/nasas-james-webb-googly-eyes.jpg)
JWST is said to be flying around in space close to Earth since some months ago to take pictures of the Universe and its billions of galaxies but it is just a joke - http://heiwaco.com/JWST.htm
Reported for shilling your site…again. Do you want to get banned?
Shit happens but I work on. Do you believe what JWST is doing? Or is it standard NASA garbage?
-
Proof that NASA is photoshooping JWST images:
(https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2022/10/nasas-james-webb-googly-eyes.jpg)
JWST is said to be flying around in space close to Earth since some months ago to take pictures of the Universe and its billions of galaxies but it is just a joke - http://heiwaco.com/JWST.htm
Reported for shilling your site…again. Do you want to get banned?
Shit happens but I work on. Do you believe what JWST is doing? Or is it standard NASA garbage?
I’ll answer when you get back from yet another ban.
-
Proof that NASA is photoshooping JWST images:
(https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2022/10/nasas-james-webb-googly-eyes.jpg)
JWST is said to be flying around in space close to Earth since some months ago to take pictures of the Universe and its billions of galaxies but it is just a joke - http://heiwaco.com/JWST.htm
Reported for shilling your site…again. Do you want to get banned?
Shit happens but I work on. Do you believe what JWST is doing? Or is it standard NASA garbage?
I’ll answer when you get back from yet another ban.
What ban are you talking about? Biden's, CIA's, FBI's?? Why not communicate with me ... in writing. Who ever you are.
-
I have a feeling the report post feature is broken. Often enough I've said I reported something and they say they didn't see anything
-
When the world gets too much to bear, when the changes happen too fast, I find the need for a security blanket.
Then I come here. Some things never change. It's relaxing, I never have to worry about being surprised.
Almost like a soothing meditative mantra.
Repeat with me.
It's all on my website...
-
(https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/49693969ac4aaf3579251c3747f4100b?src)
Looks like a hand moving through the void
Maybe it's God and Earth is just a pimple on its arse?
-
(https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/49693969ac4aaf3579251c3747f4100b?src)
Looks like a hand moving through the void
Maybe it's God and Earth is just a pimple on its arse?
No, it is just "dust" in space - http://heiwaco.com/JWST.htm#A6 !
-
No, it is just "dust" in space - <<shitty website removed>>
I prefer my speculation
-
Btw Heiwa, reported for shilling your craptastic website again. Why do you keep doing that when you've been banned for doing that?
-
No, it is just "dust" in space - <<shitty website removed>>
I prefer my speculation
There are no "hands" in the Universe. And JWST is just taking pictures of it from Earth to keep you undertained. There is no biz like the space biz.
-
(https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/49693969ac4aaf3579251c3747f4100b?src)
Looks like a hand moving through the void
Maybe it's God and Earth is just a pimple on its arse?
It still both amazes and saddens me that some people can look at these mind-blowing and beautiful images of the universe and instead of being inspired and filled with wonder, they instead call it all fake so they can live in their tiny, boring little world.
Does the smug feeling of thinking they are smarter than everyone else on the planet compensate for missing out on all of humanities achievements? What an empty existence.
-
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-17/james-webb-telescope-protostar-photo/101663878
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FhsgrtGXEAEpymE?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Its latest photo used infrared light to reveal once-hidden features of a "protostar", something NASA said gave insight into the beginnings of a new star.
The protostar is inside dark cloud, L1527, hidden from view within the "neck" of the hourglass shape.
"An edge-on proto-planetary disk is seen as a dark line across the middle of the neck," NASA said in a release.
"Light from the protostar leaks above and below this disk, illuminating cavities within the surrounding gas and dust."
The blue and orange clouds forming each side of the hourglass are caused by material shooting away from the protostar and colliding with matter
In the middle, the disk is around the size of our solar system.
The colours are created by layers of dust between the telescope and the clouds — the thicker the dust, the less blue light, creating those pockets of orange.
NASA added the protostar was "relatively young", at only 100,000 years old.
"Given its age and its brightness in far-infrared light, as observed by missions like the Infrared Astronomical Satellite, L1527 is considered a Class 0 protostar, the earliest stage of star formation," the space agency said.
-
The telescope detects clouds in an exoplanets atmosphere. Not sure how it compares to the view out the window of a light polluted Monaco night sky but....
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/james-webb-space-telescope-reveals-faraway-planets-band-clouds
New measurements paint detailed portrait of an exoplanet’s atmosphere
Known for beaming stunning images back to Earth, NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope just scored another first: an incredibly detailed chemical portrait of a distant world’s skies—including what its clouds look like.
The telescope’s array of highly sensitive instruments was trained on the atmosphere of a planet orbiting a star some 700 light-years away – known as WASP-39 b.
While we already had isolated ingredients of this broiling-hot planet’s atmosphere, the new readings provide a full menu of atoms, molecules, and even signs of active chemistry and clouds. The latest data also give a hint of how these clouds might look up close: broken up rather than a single, uniform blanket over the planet.
The suite of discoveries is detailed in a set of five new scientific papers submitted for publication.
“Data like these are a game changer,” said Natalie Batalha, an astronomer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who contributed to and helped coordinate the new research.
A band of patchy clouds
WASP-39b is about as massive as Saturn. Like Saturn, it is a gas giant, but it sits much closer to its star—making it much hotter. It is also likely a “tidally locked” planet, meaning that one side of the planet is perpetually in nighttime and the other side perpetually in the daytime.
At the band where the day and night side meet, one of the new studies reveals, there are scattered clouds—so that perhaps 60 to 70% of the sky is covered. The patchiness is interesting to scientists as they try to put together an understanding of how clouds on other planets might behave.
-
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/starry-wreath-in-pegasus
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/52577236876_109214e963_o.jpg)
The James Webb Space Telescope spies the spiral galaxy NGC 7469, located 220 million light-years from Earth in the constellation Pegasus, in this image released on Dec. 21, 2022. This galaxy is very dusty, but Webb’s infrared vision can peer through to observe features like the intense ring of star formation close around its bright center.
You ever wonder if an alien is looking at their own pictures of our galaxy wondering WTF is out there?
-
(https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/49693969ac4aaf3579251c3747f4100b?src)
Looks like a hand moving through the void
Maybe it's God and Earth is just a pimple on its arse?
It still both amazes and saddens me that some people can look at these mind-blowing and beautiful images of the universe and instead of being inspired and filled with wonder, they instead call it all fake so they can live in their tiny, boring little world.
Does the smug feeling of thinking they are smarter than everyone else on the planet compensate for missing out on all of humanities achievements? What an empty existence.
Does it maybe make you think there's a plan behind it? Maybe more people than you think call things fake so they can live in their tiny, boring little world.
Humanities achievements are quite small when you compare them to star clusters like this.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/52577236876_109214e963_o.jpg)
Can you, make a star cluster like that, JJA?
-
How galaxies form over billions of years...
(https://i.imgur.com/HX6dphx.gif)
-
How galaxies form over billions of years...
(https://i.imgur.com/HX6dphx.gif)
Yeah there's no magical or divine hand designing this. The science and physics is already pretty well understood. When you have immense clouds of gas like hydrogen and helium and many billions of years of sitting back watching them collapse and rotate etc you will find all sorts of pretty looking galaxies and if you're lucky even creatures inside them capable of observing it 8)
We are lucky to be alive at a stage the universe is so beautiful. For most of the universe's 'life' it will be cold, dark and empty
-
How galaxies form over billions of years...
(https://i.imgur.com/HX6dphx.gif)
Yeah there's no magical or divine hand designing this. The science and physics is already pretty well understood. When you have immense clouds of gas like hydrogen and helium and many billions of years of sitting back watching them collapse and rotate etc you will find all sorts of pretty looking galaxies and if you're lucky even creatures inside them capable of observing it 8)
We are lucky to be alive at a stage the universe is so beautiful. For most of the universe's 'life' it will be cold, dark and empty
If there was a divine hand, why wait so long to get something done? Why not just snap ones fingers and make it happen. No need to languish for billions of years.
-
How galaxies form over billions of years...
(https://i.imgur.com/HX6dphx.gif)
Yeah there's no magical or divine hand designing this. The science and physics is already pretty well understood. When you have immense clouds of gas like hydrogen and helium and many billions of years of sitting back watching them collapse and rotate etc you will find all sorts of pretty looking galaxies and if you're lucky even creatures inside them capable of observing it 8)
We are lucky to be alive at a stage the universe is so beautiful. For most of the universe's 'life' it will be cold, dark and empty
If there was a divine hand, why wait so long to get something done? Why not just snap ones fingers and make it happen. No need to languish for billions of years.
What's a few billion years when time really has no meaning for you?
-
Yeah there's no magical or divine hand designing this. The science and physics is already pretty well understood.
Your "divine" hand is science.
How can you be so blind.
We don't understand how the universe came to be, don't be ridiculous.
Markjo is right God exists outside of and above all things, including time.
-
We don't understand how the universe came to be, don't be ridiculous.
You're right, we don't fully understand. It could be by a god's hand or might not be. We don't know. No one knows.
-
I do, know.
But you're right.
It can't be proven, unless He proves it to you so that you may have perfect faith and perfect servitude.
I have chosen you out of the world.