The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: E E K on June 21, 2020, 02:41:03 AM
-
Why is the speed of light constant in all frames of reference when the speed of light is much greater than the escape velocity of any celestial body except the black hole?
Any special reason.
-
Why is the speed of light constant in all frames of reference when the speed of light is much greater than the escape velocity of any celestial body except the black hole?
Any special reason.
Simply because black holes are far more massive than most celestial bodies we are familiar with in our solar system. Bigger objects have larger escape velocities, and if it's big enough that velocity becomes greater than the speed of light.
In reality, there are bodies of all sizes in our galaxy and the universe. From dust to grains of sand to rocks and asteroids, small planets like Earth, large planets like Jupiter, small Suns like ours, to massive stars 800 times bigger than ours, to small black holes, to huge black holes like in the center of our galaxy.
A black hole is simply what we call ANY object that is so heavy it's escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Once that happens it is now a black hole, as we can't see what goes on inside.
-
Why is the speed of light constant in all frames of reference when the speed of light is much greater than the escape velocity of any celestial body except the black hole?
Any special reason.
Simply because black holes are far more massive than most celestial bodies we are familiar with in our solar system. Bigger objects have larger escape velocities, and if it's big enough that velocity becomes greater than the speed of light.
In reality, there are bodies of all sizes in our galaxy and the universe. From dust to grains of sand to rocks and asteroids, small planets like Earth, large planets like Jupiter, small Suns like ours, to massive stars 800 times bigger than ours, to small black holes, to huge black holes like in the center of our galaxy.
A black hole is simply what we call ANY object that is so heavy it's escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Once that happens it is now a black hole, as we can't see what goes on inside.
Electromagnetic Radiation has no mass.
How is it effected by gravity?
-
Gravitation is bend space time thus light can be effected by it.
-
Why is the speed of light constant in all frames of reference when the speed of light is much greater than the escape velocity of any celestial body except the black hole?
Any special reason.
Simply because black holes are far more massive than most celestial bodies we are familiar with in our solar system. Bigger objects have larger escape velocities, and if it's big enough that velocity becomes greater than the speed of light.
In reality, there are bodies of all sizes in our galaxy and the universe. From dust to grains of sand to rocks and asteroids, small planets like Earth, large planets like Jupiter, small Suns like ours, to massive stars 800 times bigger than ours, to small black holes, to huge black holes like in the center of our galaxy.
A black hole is simply what we call ANY object that is so heavy it's escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Once that happens it is now a black hole, as we can't see what goes on inside.
Electromagnetic Radiation has no mass.
How is it effected by gravity?
escape velocity is independent of falling mass, here is the formula
https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics-formulas/escape-velocity-formula/#:~:text=The%20formula%20for%20escape%20velocity,second%20(m%2Fs).
-
Why is the speed of light constant in all frames of reference when the speed of light is much greater than the escape velocity of any celestial body except the black hole?
Any special reason.
Simply because black holes are far more massive than most celestial bodies we are familiar with in our solar system. Bigger objects have larger escape velocities, and if it's big enough that velocity becomes greater than the speed of light.
In reality, there are bodies of all sizes in our galaxy and the universe. From dust to grains of sand to rocks and asteroids, small planets like Earth, large planets like Jupiter, small Suns like ours, to massive stars 800 times bigger than ours, to small black holes, to huge black holes like in the center of our galaxy.
A black hole is simply what we call ANY object that is so heavy it's escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Once that happens it is now a black hole, as we can't see what goes on inside.
Electromagnetic Radiation has no mass.
How is it effected by gravity?
escape velocity is independent of falling mass, here is the formula
https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics-formulas/escape-velocity-formula/#:~:text=The%20formula%20for%20escape%20velocity,second%20(m%2Fs).
Are you claiming that the speed of light varies with gravity?
-
Are you claiming that the speed of light varies with gravity?
I don't know about E E K but Einstein does "claim that the speed of light varies with gravity" with gravitational potential to be more precise.
Apparent correction to the speed of light in a gravitational potential (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008)
Einstein was the first to predict that the velocity of light would be reduced by a gravitational potential [37]. According to general relativity [38, 39], the speed of light c0 as measured in a global reference frame is given by
(https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1367-2630/16/6/065008/Full/njp494531eqn1.gif)
where c0 is the speed of light as measured in a local freely-falling reference frame. This reduction in the speed of light can be observed if a beam of light passes near a massive object such as the Sun, as illustrated in figure 1. The transit time from a distant planet or satellite to Earth can be measured as a function of the distance, D, of closest approach to the Sun and then compared to the transit time expected at a velocity of c0. The results from such experiments are in excellent agreement with the prediction of equation (1).
(https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1367-2630/16/6/065008/Full/njp494531f1_online.jpg)
Figure 1. A measurement of the transit time at the speed of light from a distant satellite to Earth. Einstein predicted that the speed of light as measured in a global reference frame would be reduced by the gravitational potential of the Sun as described by equation (1), which is in good agreement with experiments. Here D is the distance of closest approach. The deflection of the light beam by the gravitational potential of the Sun is very small and is not illustrated here.
-
Are you claiming that the speed of light varies with gravity?
I don't know about E E K but Einstein does "claim that the speed of light varies with gravity" with gravitational potential to be more precise.
Apparent correction to the speed of light in a gravitational potential (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008)
Einstein was the first to predict that the velocity of light would be reduced by a gravitational potential [37]. According to general relativity [38, 39], the speed of light c0 as measured in a global reference frame is given by
(https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1367-2630/16/6/065008/Full/njp494531eqn1.gif)
where c0 is the speed of light as measured in a local freely-falling reference frame. This reduction in the speed of light can be observed if a beam of light passes near a massive object such as the Sun, as illustrated in figure 1. The transit time from a distant planet or satellite to Earth can be measured as a function of the distance, D, of closest approach to the Sun and then compared to the transit time expected at a velocity of c0. The results from such experiments are in excellent agreement with the prediction of equation (1).
(https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1367-2630/16/6/065008/Full/njp494531f1_online.jpg)
Figure 1. A measurement of the transit time at the speed of light from a distant satellite to Earth. Einstein predicted that the speed of light as measured in a global reference frame would be reduced by the gravitational potential of the Sun as described by equation (1), which is in good agreement with experiments. Here D is the distance of closest approach. The deflection of the light beam by the gravitational potential of the Sun is very small and is not illustrated here.
If the speed of light varies with gravity then it means the equation of escape velocity is wrong.
Light travels or follows the curvature of the black hole but so curvy that it can’t escape however it doesn’t mean that the speed of light varies with gravity. I would say it never slowed down when following the curvature.
-
Are you claiming that the speed of light varies with gravity?
I don't know about E E K but Einstein does "claim that the speed of light varies with gravity" with gravitational potential to be more precise.
Apparent correction to the speed of light in a gravitational potential (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008)
Einstein was the first to predict that the velocity of light would be reduced by a gravitational potential [37]. According to general relativity [38, 39], the speed of light c0 as measured in a global reference frame is given by
(https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1367-2630/16/6/065008/Full/njp494531eqn1.gif)
where c0 is the speed of light as measured in a local freely-falling reference frame. This reduction in the speed of light can be observed if a beam of light passes near a massive object such as the Sun, as illustrated in figure 1. The transit time from a distant planet or satellite to Earth can be measured as a function of the distance, D, of closest approach to the Sun and then compared to the transit time expected at a velocity of c0. The results from such experiments are in excellent agreement with the prediction of equation (1).
(https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1367-2630/16/6/065008/Full/njp494531f1_online.jpg)
Figure 1. A measurement of the transit time at the speed of light from a distant satellite to Earth. Einstein predicted that the speed of light as measured in a global reference frame would be reduced by the gravitational potential of the Sun as described by equation (1), which is in good agreement with experiments. Here D is the distance of closest approach. The deflection of the light beam by the gravitational potential of the Sun is very small and is not illustrated here.
If the speed of light varies with gravity then it means the equation of escape velocity is wrong.
Unless the mass of the object (asteroid, moon, planet or star) has an extremely large mass the escape velocity has nothing to the speed of light.
A measure of "extremely large mass" is the radius of the object compared to the the Schwarzschild radius for that same mass.
If all the objects mass is contained within the Schwarzschild radius it collapses into a "black hole".
Schwarzschild radius (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius)
The Schwarzschild radius is given as (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6680e9cae59537f42b415588530607e5369c8bc5) where G is the gravitational constant, M is the object mass, and c is the speed of light.
For the Earth, that radius is only 0.9 cm so any error in neglecting the speed of light is quite negligible.
Even for our Sun, that radius is only about 3 km but the radius of the Sun is 696,340 km so any error in neglecting the speed of light is still negligible.
Light travels or follows the curvature of the black hole but so curvy that it can’t escape however it doesn’t mean that the speed of light varies with gravity. I would say it never slowed down when following the curvature.
But none of the Solar system objects are anywhere close to being "black holes" so forget the speed of light in calculating the escape velocity.
-
What I am trying to say is that shouldn’t the speed of light be the same relative to all observers irrespective of their frames of reference.
-
What I am trying to say is that shouldn’t the speed of light be the same relative to all observers irrespective of their frames of reference.
Yes, the speed of light in a vacuum is always the same to any observer.
-
What I am trying to say is that shouldn’t the speed of light be the same relative to all observers irrespective of their frames of reference.
Each observer in an inertial frame of reference will measure the same speed of light but the speed will not be the same when observed from another inertial frame of reference moving at a different velocity.
But why this hang-up over the speed of light in relation to escape velocity.
The escape velocity from the surface of the Earth is only about 11.2 km/s and c is about 300,000 km/s and
the escape velocity from the surface of the Sun is only about 618 km/sec still far less than c.
To get an escape velocity comparable with c you need a neutron star with escape velovities over 100,000 km/s,
So forget c when it comes to escape velocities from planets.
-
But why this hang-up over the speed of light in relation to escape velocity.
Escape velocity requires for the jet on the surface of earth = [2GM/R]^0.5
This means this jet breaks the gravitational environment of earth or free from its grasp.
Let there are two observers A and B. A is at rest on the surface of the earth while B is in the inertial frame, moves with constant speed relative to A. B stands by the jet inside moving frame. What would be the escape velocity of the jet relative A and B? Will it still be [2GM/R]^0.5 for both?
-
But why this hang-up over the speed of light in relation to escape velocity.
Escape velocity requires for the jet on the surface of earth = [2GM/R]^0.5
This means this jet breaks the gravitational environment of earth or free from its grasp.
Let there are two observers A and B. A is at rest on the surface of the earth while B is in the inertial frame, moves with constant speed relative to A. B stands by the jet inside moving frame. What would be the escape velocity of the jet relative A and B? Will it still be [2GM/R]^0.5 for both?
VE = [2GM/R]1/2 is the escape velocity from a point R from the centre an of an object of mass, M.
The speed of light is irrelevant when R >> Schwarzschild Radius (RS= 2GM/c2).
The Schwarzschild Radii for the Earth = 8.7 mm (REarth = 6,371 km) and even for the Sun is only 3 km (RSun = 695,700 km).
Forget the velocity of light when talking about the Escape velocity!
-
But why this hang-up over the speed of light in relation to escape velocity.
Escape velocity requires for the jet on the surface of earth = [2GM/R]^0.5
This means this jet breaks the gravitational environment of earth or free from its grasp.
Let there are two observers A and B. A is at rest on the surface of the earth while B is in the inertial frame, moves with constant speed relative to A. B stands by the jet inside moving frame. What would be the escape velocity of the jet relative A and B? Will it still be [2GM/R]^0.5 for both?
I'm not really sure what you're asking here.
Escape velocity for an object isn't going to change no matter where you observe it or how fast any other observer is moving.
-
The whole business about escape velocity being higher than the speed of light is a bit of a misconception. While that does happen at the Schwarzschild radius, the reason we can't see inside a black hole is that from our perspective, there's nothing happening inside. Time has stopped, hence the term Event Horizon.
First check out one of the best videos on the internet:
And then some black hole basics:
-
But why this hang-up over the speed of light in relation to escape velocity.
Escape velocity requires for the jet on the surface of earth = [2GM/R]^0.5
This means this jet breaks the gravitational environment of earth or free from its grasp.
Let there are two observers A and B. A is at rest on the surface of the earth while B is in the inertial frame, moves with constant speed relative to A. B stands by the jet inside moving frame. What would be the escape velocity of the jet relative A and B? Will it still be [2GM/R]^0.5 for both?
I'm not really sure what you're asking here.
Escape velocity for an object isn't going to change no matter where you observe it or how fast any other observer is moving.
Then why a pulse @ 05:50 in the video doesn’t escape the same way instead of bouncing up and down in between the two mirrors despite knowing that the velocity of pulse (300,000 km/sec) is way greater than the escape velocity as explained above.
-
But why this hang-up over the speed of light in relation to escape velocity.
Escape velocity requires for the jet on the surface of earth = [2GM/R]^0.5
This means this jet breaks the gravitational environment of earth or free from its grasp.
Let there are two observers A and B. A is at rest on the surface of the earth while B is in the inertial frame, moves with constant speed relative to A. B stands by the jet inside moving frame. What would be the escape velocity of the jet relative A and B? Will it still be [2GM/R]^0.5 for both?
I'm not really sure what you're asking here.
Escape velocity for an object isn't going to change no matter where you observe it or how fast any other observer is moving.
Then why a pulse @ 05:50 in the video doesn’t escape the same way instead of bouncing up and down in between the two mirrors despite knowing that the velocity of pulse (300,000 km/sec) is way greater than the escape velocity as explained above.
I watched the video and nothing in there has anything to do with escape velocity.
I'm not sure I understand why you keep linking the speed of light and escape velocity but they have nothing to do with each other.
Where would the light bouncing up and down escape to?
-
But why this hang-up over the speed of light in relation to escape velocity.
Escape velocity requires for the jet on the surface of earth = [2GM/R]^0.5
This means this jet breaks the gravitational environment of earth or free from its grasp.
Let there are two observers A and B. A is at rest on the surface of the earth while B is in the inertial frame, moves with constant speed relative to A. B stands by the jet inside moving frame. What would be the escape velocity of the jet relative A and B? Will it still be [2GM/R]^0.5 for both?
I'm not really sure what you're asking here.
Escape velocity for an object isn't going to change no matter where you observe it or how fast any other observer is moving.
Then why a pulse @ 05:50 in the video doesn’t escape the same way instead of bouncing up and down in between the two mirrors despite knowing that the velocity of pulse (300,000 km/sec) is way greater than the escape velocity as explained above.
I watched the video and nothing in there has anything to do with escape velocity.
I'm not sure I understand why you keep linking the speed of light and escape velocity but they have nothing to do with each other.
Where would the light bouncing up and down escape to?
The velocity of a pulse (video) is greater than the escape velocity of the aforementioned jet - Right
if yes, then shouldn't a pulse also be considered as escaped - Right
-
But why this hang-up over the speed of light in relation to escape velocity.
Escape velocity requires for the jet on the surface of earth = [2GM/R]^0.5
This means this jet breaks the gravitational environment of earth or free from its grasp.
Let there are two observers A and B. A is at rest on the surface of the earth while B is in the inertial frame, moves with constant speed relative to A. B stands by the jet inside moving frame. What would be the escape velocity of the jet relative A and B? Will it still be [2GM/R]^0.5 for both?
I'm not really sure what you're asking here.
Escape velocity for an object isn't going to change no matter where you observe it or how fast any other observer is moving.
Then why a pulse @ 05:50 in the video doesn’t escape the same way instead of bouncing up and down in between the two mirrors despite knowing that the velocity of pulse (300,000 km/sec) is way greater than the escape velocity as explained above.
I watched the video and nothing in there has anything to do with escape velocity.
I'm not sure I understand why you keep linking the speed of light and escape velocity but they have nothing to do with each other.
Where would the light bouncing up and down escape to?
The velocity of a pulse (video) is greater than the escape velocity of the aforementioned jet - Right
if yes, then shouldn't a pulse also be considered as escaped - Right
Escaped from what?
Escape velocity is just a measure of how fast you have to move to get off of a large body like a planet. It's just the speed at which if you throw something up, it won't come back down. That's all escape velocity is.
In a space craft there is no escape velocity. To have a measurable 'escape velocity' you have to have a large object it's trying to escape from, like a planet or a star or a black hole.
-
Question remains if a thing like a black hole is a celestial body. There should be one such thing at the center of our Milky Way galaxy but I haven’t seen it and I look all the time when the sky is clear. Our Milky Way galaxy is pretty big, i.e. approximately 100 000 light years in diameter, but I haven’t seen any black hole there at the center.
I have of course looked around the nearest star in our Milky Way galaxy, aside from the Sun, i.e. the star Proxima Centauri, which is about only 4.24 light years away. Experts say there is a black hole lurking there. Same experts suggest however, that it is nearly impossible to detect such a black hole aside from measuring its gravitational distortions on the light from visually nearby objects. Problem is that visually nearby objects, i.e. other stars, are many light years away. To be honest … I doubt black holes exist! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm . So their escape velocities are nothing to worry about.
-
Question remains if a thing like a black hole is a celestial body. There should be one such thing at the center of our Milky Way galaxy but I haven’t seen it and I look all the time when the sky is clear. Our Milky Way galaxy is pretty big, i.e. approximately 100 000 light years in diameter, but I haven’t seen any black hole there at the center.
I have of course looked around the nearest star in our Milky Way galaxy, aside from the Sun, i.e. the star Proxima Centauri, which is about only 4.24 light years away. Experts say there is a black hole lurking there. Same experts suggest however, that it is nearly impossible to detect such a black hole aside from measuring its gravitational distortions on the light from visually nearby objects. Problem is that visually nearby objects, i.e. other stars, are many light years away. To be honest … I doubt black holes exist! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm . So their escape velocities are nothing to worry about.
Yeah, you're not going to see a black hole 50,000 light years away through everything in the way with the naked eye. ::)
But infrared telescopes can see all the way there, and we can literally watch stars orbiting something extremely massive there.
https://www.universetoday.com/133511/watch-stars-orbit-milky-ways-supermassive-black-hole/
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Black-hole-workable.gif)
How about this, a radiation jet ejected from a supermassive black hole in another galaxy. Can't see this with the naked eye either but that's why we have telescopes.
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/M87_jet-580x421.jpg)
I can't see the transistors in my phone's CPU, but they exist.
-
Escaped from what?
Escape from the gravity, which is almost zilch as compared to the jet with escape velocity in a similar frame on earth.
No resistance of gravity means – the frame doesn’t have control over the direction of speed of a pulse therefore it should move in the escape mode instead of bouncing up and down and get along with.
-
Escaped from what?
Escape from the gravity, which is almost zilch as compared to the jet with escape velocity in a similar frame on earth.
No resistance of gravity means – the frame doesn’t have control over the direction of speed of a pulse therefore it should move in the escape mode instead of bouncing up and down and get along with.
Light travels in the direction it was emitted. In a space craft in space there would be very little gravity.
Light bounces off mirrors regardless if there is gravity or not.
Escape velocity has nothing to do with light bouncing off a mirror.
-
Escaped from what?
Escape from the gravity, which is almost zilch as compared to the jet with escape velocity in a similar frame on earth.
No resistance of gravity means – the frame doesn’t have control over the direction of speed of a pulse therefore it should move in the escape mode instead of bouncing up and down and get along with.
Light travels in the direction it was emitted. In a space craft in space there would be very little gravity.
Light bounces off mirrors regardless if there is gravity or not.
Escape velocity has nothing to do with light bouncing off a mirror.
A pulse should go straight vertically up from the point from where a pulse was emitted but it doesn’t. This is what I am trying to explain.
Question: Would an apple fall if dropped from the ceiling of the said moving frame? What causes the said pulse to bounce in between the mirrors?
-
Escaped from what?
Escape from the gravity, which is almost zilch as compared to the jet with escape velocity in a similar frame on earth.
No resistance of gravity means – the frame doesn’t have control over the direction of speed of a pulse therefore it should move in the escape mode instead of bouncing up and down and get along with.
Light travels in the direction it was emitted. In a space craft in space there would be very little gravity.
Light bounces off mirrors regardless if there is gravity or not.
Escape velocity has nothing to do with light bouncing off a mirror.
A pulse should go straight vertically up from the point from where a pulse was emitted but it doesn’t. This is what I am trying to explain.
Question: Would an apple fall if dropped from the ceiling of the said moving frame? What causes the said pulse to bounce in between the mirrors?
The mirror causes the photon to bounce back off of it. An apple wouldn't fall from the ceiling of the space ship, but would certainly bounce off the ceiling back at you if you threw it.
-
Question remains if a thing like a black hole is a celestial body. There should be one such thing at the center of our Milky Way galaxy but I haven’t seen it and I look all the time when the sky is clear. Our Milky Way galaxy is pretty big, i.e. approximately 100 000 light years in diameter, but I haven’t seen any black hole there at the center.
I have of course looked around the nearest star in our Milky Way galaxy, aside from the Sun, i.e. the star Proxima Centauri, which is about only 4.24 light years away. Experts say there is a black hole lurking there. Same experts suggest however, that it is nearly impossible to detect such a black hole aside from measuring its gravitational distortions on the light from visually nearby objects. Problem is that visually nearby objects, i.e. other stars, are many light years away. To be honest … I doubt black holes exist! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm . So their escape velocities are nothing to worry about.
Yeah, you're not going to see a black hole 50,000 light years away through everything in the way with the naked eye. ::)
But infrared telescopes can see all the way there, and we can literally watch stars orbiting something extremely massive there.
https://www.universetoday.com/133511/watch-stars-orbit-milky-ways-supermassive-black-hole/
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Black-hole-workable.gif)
How about this, a radiation jet ejected from a supermassive black hole in another galaxy. Can't see this with the naked eye either but that's why we have telescopes.
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/M87_jet-580x421.jpg)
I can't see the transistors in my phone's CPU, but they exist.
Thanks. So some stars orbit (!) the black hole of the Milky Way center instead of being swallowed by it. Well, I don't believe it.
-
Escaped from what?
Escape from the gravity, which is almost zilch as compared to the jet with escape velocity in a similar frame on earth.
No resistance of gravity means – the frame doesn’t have control over the direction of speed of a pulse therefore it should move in the escape mode instead of bouncing up and down and get along with.
Light travels in the direction it was emitted. In a space craft in space there would be very little gravity.
Light bounces off mirrors regardless if there is gravity or not.
Escape velocity has nothing to do with light bouncing off a mirror.
A pulse should go straight vertically up from the point from where a pulse was emitted but it doesn’t. This is what I am trying to explain.
Question: Would an apple fall if dropped from the ceiling of the said moving frame? What causes the said pulse to bounce in between the mirrors?
The mirror causes the photon to bounce back off of it. An apple wouldn't fall from the ceiling of the space ship, but would certainly bounce off the ceiling back at you if you threw it.
once a pulse is fired/emitted it actually escapes from the momentum of the frame just like a jet with escape velocity on ground escapes from the gravity on earth.
-
Question remains if a thing like a black hole is a celestial body. There should be one such thing at the center of our Milky Way galaxy but I haven’t seen it and I look all the time when the sky is clear. Our Milky Way galaxy is pretty big, i.e. approximately 100 000 light years in diameter, but I haven’t seen any black hole there at the center.
I have of course looked around the nearest star in our Milky Way galaxy, aside from the Sun, i.e. the star Proxima Centauri, which is about only 4.24 light years away. Experts say there is a black hole lurking there. Same experts suggest however, that it is nearly impossible to detect such a black hole aside from measuring its gravitational distortions on the light from visually nearby objects. Problem is that visually nearby objects, i.e. other stars, are many light years away. To be honest … I doubt black holes exist! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm . So their escape velocities are nothing to worry about.
Yeah, you're not going to see a black hole 50,000 light years away through everything in the way with the naked eye. ::)
But infrared telescopes can see all the way there, and we can literally watch stars orbiting something extremely massive there.
https://www.universetoday.com/133511/watch-stars-orbit-milky-ways-supermassive-black-hole/
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Black-hole-workable.gif)
How about this, a radiation jet ejected from a supermassive black hole in another galaxy. Can't see this with the naked eye either but that's why we have telescopes.
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/M87_jet-580x421.jpg)
I can't see the transistors in my phone's CPU, but they exist.
Thanks. So some stars orbit (!) the black hole of the Milky Way center instead of being swallowed by it. Well, I don't believe it.
Yes, some stars get swallowed if they get too close, others orbit if they are far enough away. Basic physics.
I see stars orbiting a black hole that human ingenuity and curiosity allowed us to image and am filled with awe and wonder.
You can feel, whatever it is you feel when you see images like that. Pity.
-
Escaped from what?
Escape from the gravity, which is almost zilch as compared to the jet with escape velocity in a similar frame on earth.
No resistance of gravity means – the frame doesn’t have control over the direction of speed of a pulse therefore it should move in the escape mode instead of bouncing up and down and get along with.
Light travels in the direction it was emitted. In a space craft in space there would be very little gravity.
Light bounces off mirrors regardless if there is gravity or not.
Escape velocity has nothing to do with light bouncing off a mirror.
A pulse should go straight vertically up from the point from where a pulse was emitted but it doesn’t. This is what I am trying to explain.
Question: Would an apple fall if dropped from the ceiling of the said moving frame? What causes the said pulse to bounce in between the mirrors?
The mirror causes the photon to bounce back off of it. An apple wouldn't fall from the ceiling of the space ship, but would certainly bounce off the ceiling back at you if you threw it.
once a pulse is fired/emitted it actually escapes from the momentum of the frame just like a jet with escape velocity on ground escapes from the gravity on earth.
I am confused about a few things.
When you say the photon 'escapes from the momentum of the frame' what do you mean by frame? This is on the spaceship yes?
Jets don't ever reach escape velocity, they are far too slow. Earth's escape velocity is 25,020 mph and most jet airliners fly at 500 mph.
I think you are still confused what escape velocity actually is. It's not simply getting off the ground, it's going so fast that you don't come back even if you turn off your engines.
-
Question remains if a thing like a black hole is a celestial body. There should be one such thing at the center of our Milky Way galaxy but I haven’t seen it and I look all the time when the sky is clear. Our Milky Way galaxy is pretty big, i.e. approximately 100 000 light years in diameter, but I haven’t seen any black hole there at the center.
I have of course looked around the nearest star in our Milky Way galaxy, aside from the Sun, i.e. the star Proxima Centauri, which is about only 4.24 light years away. Experts say there is a black hole lurking there. Same experts suggest however, that it is nearly impossible to detect such a black hole aside from measuring its gravitational distortions on the light from visually nearby objects. Problem is that visually nearby objects, i.e. other stars, are many light years away. To be honest … I doubt black holes exist! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm . So their escape velocities are nothing to worry about.
Yeah, you're not going to see a black hole 50,000 light years away through everything in the way with the naked eye. ::)
But infrared telescopes can see all the way there, and we can literally watch stars orbiting something extremely massive there.
https://www.universetoday.com/133511/watch-stars-orbit-milky-ways-supermassive-black-hole/
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Black-hole-workable.gif)
How about this, a radiation jet ejected from a supermassive black hole in another galaxy. Can't see this with the naked eye either but that's why we have telescopes.
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/M87_jet-580x421.jpg)
I can't see the transistors in my phone's CPU, but they exist.
Thanks. So some stars orbit (!) the black hole of the Milky Way center instead of being swallowed by it. Well, I don't believe it.
Yes, some stars get swallowed if they get too close, others orbit if they are far enough away. Basic physics.
I see stars orbiting a black hole that human ingenuity and curiosity allowed us to image and am filled with awe and wonder.
You can feel, whatever it is you feel when you see images like that. Pity.
Hm, I haven't seen any Milky Way stars swallowed by the center black hole, nor have I seen any stars orbiting that hole and I watch the sky since almost 70 years. What basic physics are you referring to? And since when do stars orbit this black hole? How did they start orbiting in lieu of being swallowed?
-
Question remains if a thing like a black hole is a celestial body. There should be one such thing at the center of our Milky Way galaxy but I haven’t seen it and I look all the time when the sky is clear. Our Milky Way galaxy is pretty big, i.e. approximately 100 000 light years in diameter, but I haven’t seen any black hole there at the center.
I have of course looked around the nearest star in our Milky Way galaxy, aside from the Sun, i.e. the star Proxima Centauri, which is about only 4.24 light years away. Experts say there is a black hole lurking there. Same experts suggest however, that it is nearly impossible to detect such a black hole aside from measuring its gravitational distortions on the light from visually nearby objects. Problem is that visually nearby objects, i.e. other stars, are many light years away. To be honest … I doubt black holes exist! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm . So their escape velocities are nothing to worry about.
Yeah, you're not going to see a black hole 50,000 light years away through everything in the way with the naked eye. ::)
But infrared telescopes can see all the way there, and we can literally watch stars orbiting something extremely massive there.
https://www.universetoday.com/133511/watch-stars-orbit-milky-ways-supermassive-black-hole/
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Black-hole-workable.gif)
How about this, a radiation jet ejected from a supermassive black hole in another galaxy. Can't see this with the naked eye either but that's why we have telescopes.
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/M87_jet-580x421.jpg)
I can't see the transistors in my phone's CPU, but they exist.
Thanks. So some stars orbit (!) the black hole of the Milky Way center instead of being swallowed by it. Well, I don't believe it.
Yes, some stars get swallowed if they get too close, others orbit if they are far enough away. Basic physics.
I see stars orbiting a black hole that human ingenuity and curiosity allowed us to image and am filled with awe and wonder.
You can feel, whatever it is you feel when you see images like that. Pity.
Hm, I haven't seen any Milky Way stars swallowed by the center black hole, nor have I seen any stars orbiting that hole and I watch the sky since almost 70 years. What basic physics are you referring to? And since when do stars orbit this black hole? How did they start orbiting in lieu of being swallowed?
Of course you can't see them with the naked eye, it's 50,000 light years away! There's lots of things you need a telescope to see, but they exist
Black holes are no different that any other object, things can orbit them. If the sun turned into a black hole right now it wouldn't suck all the planets in, it would just go dark but we would continue to orbit. Basic physics.
And we have been watching these stars for 30 years. That's where the animation came from, that one was 16 years worth of observations. There are even newer ones now. It's all out there with a Google search.
-
Question remains if a thing like a black hole is a celestial body. There should be one such thing at the center of our Milky Way galaxy but I haven’t seen it and I look all the time when the sky is clear. Our Milky Way galaxy is pretty big, i.e. approximately 100 000 light years in diameter, but I haven’t seen any black hole there at the center.
I have of course looked around the nearest star in our Milky Way galaxy, aside from the Sun, i.e. the star Proxima Centauri, which is about only 4.24 light years away. Experts say there is a black hole lurking there. Same experts suggest however, that it is nearly impossible to detect such a black hole aside from measuring its gravitational distortions on the light from visually nearby objects. Problem is that visually nearby objects, i.e. other stars, are many light years away. To be honest … I doubt black holes exist! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm . So their escape velocities are nothing to worry about.
Yeah, you're not going to see a black hole 50,000 light years away through everything in the way with the naked eye. ::)
But infrared telescopes can see all the way there, and we can literally watch stars orbiting something extremely massive there.
https://www.universetoday.com/133511/watch-stars-orbit-milky-ways-supermassive-black-hole/
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Black-hole-workable.gif)
How about this, a radiation jet ejected from a supermassive black hole in another galaxy. Can't see this with the naked eye either but that's why we have telescopes.
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/M87_jet-580x421.jpg)
I can't see the transistors in my phone's CPU, but they exist.
Thanks. So some stars orbit (!) the black hole of the Milky Way center instead of being swallowed by it. Well, I don't believe it.
Yes, some stars get swallowed if they get too close, others orbit if they are far enough away. Basic physics.
I see stars orbiting a black hole that human ingenuity and curiosity allowed us to image and am filled with awe and wonder.
You can feel, whatever it is you feel when you see images like that. Pity.
Hm, I haven't seen any Milky Way stars swallowed by the center black hole, nor have I seen any stars orbiting that hole and I watch the sky since almost 70 years. What basic physics are you referring to? And since when do stars orbit this black hole? How did they start orbiting in lieu of being swallowed?
Of course you can't see them with the naked eye, it's 50,000 light years away! There's lots of things you need a telescope to see, but they exist
Black holes are no different that any other object, things can orbit them. If the sun turned into a black hole right now it wouldn't suck all the planets in, it would just go dark but we would continue to orbit. Basic physics.
And we have been watching these stars for 30 years. That's where the animation came from, that one was 16 years worth of observations. There are even newer ones now. It's all out there with a Google search.
What basic physics are you talking about? I know how planets orbit our Sun, but not how the planets started to orbit the Sun. Any ideas? When/how did planet Earth start to orbit the Sun?
I am not a stationary observer of the Universe. I am moving at great speed through the Universe doing my observations from Earth. Photons ejected from stars hit my eyes all the time, so I know that the stars exist.
But how do stars/suns orbit one black hole in the center of the Milky Way and what started that show? What stars orbit our Milky Way black hole? Does our Sun also orbit this black hole?
-
I am confused about a few things.
When you say the photon 'escapes from the momentum of the frame' what do you mean by frame? This is on the spaceship yes?
Yes, spaceship, because laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Spaceship, in which a vertical light clock is installed, moves with constant speed relative to a stationary observer on earth. A pulse is emitted at a velocity of about 300, 000 Km/Sec .
Don’t be confused.
Just compared the velocity of Jet (escape) on earth and a pulse in the spaceship.
When a jet attains a velocity of just 11.2 km/Sec. It doesn’t fall back on earth.
No, imagine the velocity of a pulse when emitted which is way greater than 11.2 km/sec
There is a huge difference between 11.2 Km/Sec and 300,000 Km/Sec (approx.).
Therefore to me, a pulse doesn’t go along with mirrors or spaceship but goes straight vertically up with its initial direction set by its emission.
-
Yes, spaceship, because laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Spaceship, in which a vertical light clock is installed, moves with constant speed relative to a stationary observer on earth. A pulse is emitted at a velocity of about 300, 000 Km/Sec .
Don’t be confused.
Just compared the velocity of Jet (escape) on earth and a pulse in the spaceship.
When a jet attains a velocity of just 11.2 km/Sec. It doesn’t fall back on earth.
No, imagine the velocity of a pulse when emitted which is way greater than 11.2 km/sec
There is a huge difference between 11.2 Km/Sec and 300,000 Km/Sec (approx.).
Therefore to me, a pulse doesn’t go along with mirrors or spaceship but goes straight vertically up with its initial direction set by its emission.
You doubt that light can be reflected because it’s really fast?
This morning whilst brushing my teeth, light transmitted from LED spotlights to my face was reflected to the mirror, then again from the mirror to my eyes.
Relative speed of LEDs to my face = 0m/s
Relative speed of my face to mirror = 0m/s
Speed of light = 300000000m/s
-
Question remains if a thing like a black hole is a celestial body. There should be one such thing at the center of our Milky Way galaxy but I haven’t seen it and I look all the time when the sky is clear. Our Milky Way galaxy is pretty big, i.e. approximately 100 000 light years in diameter, but I haven’t seen any black hole there at the center.
I have of course looked around the nearest star in our Milky Way galaxy, aside from the Sun, i.e. the star Proxima Centauri, which is about only 4.24 light years away. Experts say there is a black hole lurking there. Same experts suggest however, that it is nearly impossible to detect such a black hole aside from measuring its gravitational distortions on the light from visually nearby objects. Problem is that visually nearby objects, i.e. other stars, are many light years away. To be honest … I doubt black holes exist! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm . So their escape velocities are nothing to worry about.
Yeah, you're not going to see a black hole 50,000 light years away through everything in the way with the naked eye. ::)
But infrared telescopes can see all the way there, and we can literally watch stars orbiting something extremely massive there.
https://www.universetoday.com/133511/watch-stars-orbit-milky-ways-supermassive-black-hole/
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Black-hole-workable.gif)
How about this, a radiation jet ejected from a supermassive black hole in another galaxy. Can't see this with the naked eye either but that's why we have telescopes.
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/M87_jet-580x421.jpg)
I can't see the transistors in my phone's CPU, but they exist.
Thanks. So some stars orbit (!) the black hole of the Milky Way center instead of being swallowed by it. Well, I don't believe it.
Yes, some stars get swallowed if they get too close, others orbit if they are far enough away. Basic physics.
I see stars orbiting a black hole that human ingenuity and curiosity allowed us to image and am filled with awe and wonder.
You can feel, whatever it is you feel when you see images like that. Pity.
Hm, I haven't seen any Milky Way stars swallowed by the center black hole, nor have I seen any stars orbiting that hole and I watch the sky since almost 70 years. What basic physics are you referring to? And since when do stars orbit this black hole? How did they start orbiting in lieu of being swallowed?
Of course you can't see them with the naked eye, it's 50,000 light years away! There's lots of things you need a telescope to see, but they exist
Black holes are no different that any other object, things can orbit them. If the sun turned into a black hole right now it wouldn't suck all the planets in, it would just go dark but we would continue to orbit. Basic physics.
And we have been watching these stars for 30 years. That's where the animation came from, that one was 16 years worth of observations. There are even newer ones now. It's all out there with a Google search.
What basic physics are you talking about? I know how planets orbit our Sun, but not how the planets started to orbit the Sun. Any ideas? When/how did planet Earth start to orbit the Sun?
(https://i.imgur.com/54YYJqZ.png)
I am not a stationary observer of the Universe. I am moving at great speed through the Universe doing my observations from Earth. Photons ejected from stars hit my eyes all the time, so I know that the stars exist.
But how do stars/suns orbit one black hole in the center of the Milky Way and what started that show? What stars orbit our Milky Way black hole? Does our Sun also orbit this black hole?
Yes, the Sun orbits the central black hole. Stars orbit black holes the same way they orbit anything else, gravity.
-
I am confused about a few things.
When you say the photon 'escapes from the momentum of the frame' what do you mean by frame? This is on the spaceship yes?
Yes, spaceship, because laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Spaceship, in which a vertical light clock is installed, moves with constant speed relative to a stationary observer on earth. A pulse is emitted at a velocity of about 300, 000 Km/Sec .
Don’t be confused.
Just compared the velocity of Jet (escape) on earth and a pulse in the spaceship.
When a jet attains a velocity of just 11.2 km/Sec. It doesn’t fall back on earth.
No, imagine the velocity of a pulse when emitted which is way greater than 11.2 km/sec
There is a huge difference between 11.2 Km/Sec and 300,000 Km/Sec (approx.).
Therefore to me, a pulse doesn’t go along with mirrors or spaceship but goes straight vertically up with its initial direction set by its emission.
I'm confused because you seem to be mixing things up.
When you say "Jet" do you mean "Rocket"? A Jet is a plane, it never reaches 11.2 km/Sec.
The speed of light has nothing to do with escape velocity.
Escape velocity has nothing to do with mirrors. Photons bounce off of mirrors just fine. If your Jet/Rocket hits a giant wall at 11.2 Km/Sec it's going to stop and going pas escape velocity won't make it just pass through the wall with no effect.
-
Yes, spaceship, because laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Spaceship, in which a vertical light clock is installed, moves with constant speed relative to a stationary observer on earth. A pulse is emitted at a velocity of about 300, 000 Km/Sec .
Don’t be confused.
Just compared the velocity of Jet (escape) on earth and a pulse in the spaceship.
When a jet attains a velocity of just 11.2 km/Sec. It doesn’t fall back on earth.
No, imagine the velocity of a pulse when emitted which is way greater than 11.2 km/sec
There is a huge difference between 11.2 Km/Sec and 300,000 Km/Sec (approx.).
Therefore to me, a pulse doesn’t go along with mirrors or spaceship but goes straight vertically up with its initial direction set by its emission.
You doubt that light can be reflected because it’s really fast?
This morning whilst brushing my teeth, light transmitted from LED spotlights to my face was reflected to the mirror, then again from the mirror to my eyes.
Relative speed of LEDs to my face = 0m/s
Relative speed of my face to mirror = 0m/s
Speed of light = 300000000m/s
Can you answer a question in the following link that i had asked 4 years ago
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161031112457AA4ZuKC
-
I am confused about a few things.
When you say the photon 'escapes from the momentum of the frame' what do you mean by frame? This is on the spaceship yes?
Yes, spaceship, because laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Spaceship, in which a vertical light clock is installed, moves with constant speed relative to a stationary observer on earth. A pulse is emitted at a velocity of about 300, 000 Km/Sec .
Don’t be confused.
Just compared the velocity of Jet (escape) on earth and a pulse in the spaceship.
When a jet attains a velocity of just 11.2 km/Sec. It doesn’t fall back on earth.
No, imagine the velocity of a pulse when emitted which is way greater than 11.2 km/sec
There is a huge difference between 11.2 Km/Sec and 300,000 Km/Sec (approx.).
Therefore to me, a pulse doesn’t go along with mirrors or spaceship but goes straight vertically up with its initial direction set by its emission.
I'm confused because you seem to be mixing things up.
When you say "Jet" do you mean "Rocket"? A Jet is a plane, it never reaches 11.2 km/Sec.
The speed of light has nothing to do with escape velocity.
Escape velocity has nothing to do with mirrors. Photons bounce off of mirrors just fine. If your Jet/Rocket hits a giant wall at 11.2 Km/Sec it's going to stop and going pas escape velocity won't make it just pass through the wall with no effect.
Sorry my bad,
Its a rocket, not a jet.
For simplicity, let the said rocket is used for the purpose of covering a distance in between the two mirrors. Let it fired and in between the two mirrors, its speed is 11.2 km/sec or greater. Would this rocket escape from the spaceship or not? if yes then we are on the same page otherwise not.
-
I am confused about a few things.
When you say the photon 'escapes from the momentum of the frame' what do you mean by frame? This is on the spaceship yes?
Yes, spaceship, because laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Spaceship, in which a vertical light clock is installed, moves with constant speed relative to a stationary observer on earth. A pulse is emitted at a velocity of about 300, 000 Km/Sec .
Don’t be confused.
Just compared the velocity of Jet (escape) on earth and a pulse in the spaceship.
When a jet attains a velocity of just 11.2 km/Sec. It doesn’t fall back on earth.
No, imagine the velocity of a pulse when emitted which is way greater than 11.2 km/sec
There is a huge difference between 11.2 Km/Sec and 300,000 Km/Sec (approx.).
Therefore to me, a pulse doesn’t go along with mirrors or spaceship but goes straight vertically up with its initial direction set by its emission.
I'm confused because you seem to be mixing things up.
When you say "Jet" do you mean "Rocket"? A Jet is a plane, it never reaches 11.2 km/Sec.
The speed of light has nothing to do with escape velocity.
Escape velocity has nothing to do with mirrors. Photons bounce off of mirrors just fine. If your Jet/Rocket hits a giant wall at 11.2 Km/Sec it's going to stop and going pas escape velocity won't make it just pass through the wall with no effect.
Sorry my bad,
Its a rocket, not a jet.
For simplicity, let the said rocket is used for the purpose of covering a distance in between the two mirrors. Let it fired and in between the two mirrors, its speed is 11.2 km/sec or greater. Would this rocket escape from the spaceship or not? if yes then we are on the same page otherwise not.
Escape velocity for the Earth is 11.2 km/sec.
The escape velocity for a spaceship, say something the size of the Space Shuttle would only be 0.0000001420628 km/sec.
So yes, a rocket launched from a spaceship would not come back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
-
(https://i.imgur.com/54YYJqZ.png)
Why the solar system is always re[resentaed horizontally/flat when it could take the other shapes say spherical during its formation - relative to an outside/ top observer
-
(https://i.imgur.com/54YYJqZ.png)
Why the solar system is always re[resentaed horizontally when it could take the other shapes say spherical during its formation - relative to an outside/ top observer
Top is relative, we just look at it that way because it makes sense to us. Aliens might decide to draw their solar systems viewed from the side. Who knows.
Objects only spin on one axis, so a spinning cloud of gas will rotate in one plane, and as it collapses to form stars and planets they will keep that rotation.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/54YYJqZ.png)
Why the solar system is always re[resentaed horizontally when it could take the other shapes say spherical during its formation - relative to an outside/ top observer
Top is relative, we just look at it that way because it makes sense to us. Aliens might decide to draw their solar systems viewed from the side. Who knows.
Objects only spin on one axis, so a spinning cloud of gas will rotate in one plane, and as it collapses to form stars and planets they will keep that rotation.
IMPOV – For symmetry, the solar system should have a spherical shape. It should have axial as well as orbital motion just like the earth which spins about its axis and orbits around the sun.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/54YYJqZ.png)
Why the solar system is always re[resentaed horizontally when it could take the other shapes say spherical during its formation - relative to an outside/ top observer
Top is relative, we just look at it that way because it makes sense to us. Aliens might decide to draw their solar systems viewed from the side. Who knows.
Objects only spin on one axis, so a spinning cloud of gas will rotate in one plane, and as it collapses to form stars and planets they will keep that rotation.
IMPOV – For symmetry, the solar system should have a spherical shape. It should have axial as well as orbital motion just like the earth which spins about its axis and orbits around the sun.
Spinning objects only spin around one axis, so a gas cloud is going to flatten into a disk, not stay a sphere as it rotates faster. Anything that spins is going to stretch out along the axis of the spin.
It's the same mechanics that make water start to rotate when you drain it from your sink or bathtub.
And the solar system DOES have both of those. It has an axial motion, the planets orbiting, and an orbital motion, it orbits around the center of the Milky Way.
-
I am not a stationary observer of the Universe. I am moving at great speed through the Universe doing my observations from Earth. Photons ejected from stars hit my eyes all the time, so I know that the stars exist.
But how do stars/suns orbit one black hole in the center of the Milky Way and what started that show? What stars orbit our Milky Way black hole? Does our Sun also orbit this black hole?
Yes, the Sun orbits the central black hole. Stars orbit black holes the same way they orbit anything else, gravity.
Thanks! So 4.6 billion years ago our Solar System was a wispy cloud of gas and dust that then collapsed into itself and became a spinning disk, where material collected at the center and nuclear fusion began, etc, etc. It sounds fantastic. But where did the gas and dust come from originally – before 4.6 billion years? I am told that there are millions of other Solar systems in our Milky Way galaxy. Do they all start out the same way?
-
I am not a stationary observer of the Universe. I am moving at great speed through the Universe doing my observations from Earth. Photons ejected from stars hit my eyes all the time, so I know that the stars exist.
But how do stars/suns orbit one black hole in the center of the Milky Way and what started that show? What stars orbit our Milky Way black hole? Does our Sun also orbit this black hole?
Yes, the Sun orbits the central black hole. Stars orbit black holes the same way they orbit anything else, gravity.
Thanks! So 4.6 billion years ago our Milky Way galaxy was a wispy cloud of gas and dust that then collapsed into itself and became a spinning disk, where material collected at the center and nuclear fusion began, etc, etc. It sounds fantastic. But where did the gas and dust come from originally – before 4.6 billion years? I am told that there are billions of other galaxies apart from our Milky Way. Do they all start out the same way?
The Milky Way galaxy formed about 13.51 billion years ago, along with most of the other galaxies we can observe. Yes, they all formed the same way from the gas left over from the Big Bang.
Our solar system then formed 4.6 billion years ago.
-
From link:
Photon always travel at light speed "c" from the moment of its creation, therefore, it doesn’t have acceleration. A light signal bouncing between the two plates / mirrors in the light clock.
Thus how does a photon (either in particle or waveform) maintain its speed “c” again in the light clock after REFLECTION from the aforesaid mirrors repeatedly, Similarly, time still needed from its absorption to re-emission or using an auto-sensor to generate a new one?
I’m not exactly an expert on all this, but I’ll try. Firstly quantum physics is weird as all hell. Relativity is pretty weird too. Neither are very intuitive.
It seems like you are thinking of photon “particles” almost like tiny solid objects and trying to apply logic from everyday experience to what happens on a quantum level.
This appears to be quite common, and maybe largely due to illustrations always showing photons, electrons, etc. as little balls. But remember the illustrations are very vague representations. They have to draw something on the diagrams after all. But how do you properly draw some kind of wave-particle-energy-probability-WTF thing?
So, unless I misunderstood the question, you seem to think a photon should lose some velocity on reflection, much like a ball bouncing off a wall does?
It doesn’t. There is some loss in light intensity when you average out lots of photons, but each individual photon is either reflected with no loss of energy or absorbed (and possibly re emitted).
Photons are massless and travel at full speed always, regardless of reference frame.
-
I am not a stationary observer of the Universe. I am moving at great speed through the Universe doing my observations from Earth. Photons ejected from stars hit my eyes all the time, so I know that the stars exist.
But how do stars/suns orbit one black hole in the center of the Milky Way and what started that show? What stars orbit our Milky Way black hole? Does our Sun also orbit this black hole?
Yes, the Sun orbits the central black hole. Stars orbit black holes the same way they orbit anything else, gravity.
Thanks! So 4.6 billion years ago our Milky Way galaxy was a wispy cloud of gas and dust that then collapsed into itself and became a spinning disk, where material collected at the center and nuclear fusion began, etc, etc. It sounds fantastic. But where did the gas and dust come from originally – before 4.6 billion years? I am told that there are billions of other galaxies apart from our Milky Way. Do they all start out the same way?
The Milky Way galaxy formed about 13.51 billion years ago, along with most of the other galaxies we can observe. Yes, they all formed the same way from the gas left over from the Big Bang.
Our solar system then formed 4.6 billion years ago.
Hm, the Milky Way galaxy and the rest of the Universe was formed of gas and dust left over from the Big Bang energy creation out of nothing 13.51 billion years ago? It was a Monday. The Pope loves it! A creation! But IMHO it is fantasy. The Universe has always existed, so no need to invent a creation and a biig baang!
-
I am not a stationary observer of the Universe. I am moving at great speed through the Universe doing my observations from Earth. Photons ejected from stars hit my eyes all the time, so I know that the stars exist.
But how do stars/suns orbit one black hole in the center of the Milky Way and what started that show? What stars orbit our Milky Way black hole? Does our Sun also orbit this black hole?
Yes, the Sun orbits the central black hole. Stars orbit black holes the same way they orbit anything else, gravity.
Thanks! So 4.6 billion years ago our Milky Way galaxy was a wispy cloud of gas and dust that then collapsed into itself and became a spinning disk, where material collected at the center and nuclear fusion began, etc, etc. It sounds fantastic. But where did the gas and dust come from originally – before 4.6 billion years? I am told that there are billions of other galaxies apart from our Milky Way. Do they all start out the same way?
The Milky Way galaxy formed about 13.51 billion years ago, along with most of the other galaxies we can observe. Yes, they all formed the same way from the gas left over from the Big Bang.
Our solar system then formed 4.6 billion years ago.
Hm, the Milky Way galaxy and the rest of the Universe was formed of gas and dust left over from the Big Bang energy creation out of nothing 13.51 billion years ago? It was a Monday. The Pope loves it! A creation! But IMHO it is fantasy. The Universe has always existed, so no need to invent a creation and a biig baang!
Ahh, so we finally get to the heart of the matter. The Big Bang conflicts with your religious beliefs. Well, that's your problem to deal with, not mine. I can't help you there. Believe whatever makes you feel better.
In the meantime, science, the Pope and the rest of us will live in the real world.
-
I am not a stationary observer of the Universe. I am moving at great speed through the Universe doing my observations from Earth. Photons ejected from stars hit my eyes all the time, so I know that the stars exist.
But how do stars/suns orbit one black hole in the center of the Milky Way and what started that show? What stars orbit our Milky Way black hole? Does our Sun also orbit this black hole?
Yes, the Sun orbits the central black hole. Stars orbit black holes the same way they orbit anything else, gravity.
Thanks! So 4.6 billion years ago our Milky Way galaxy was a wispy cloud of gas and dust that then collapsed into itself and became a spinning disk, where material collected at the center and nuclear fusion began, etc, etc. It sounds fantastic. But where did the gas and dust come from originally – before 4.6 billion years? I am told that there are billions of other galaxies apart from our Milky Way. Do they all start out the same way?
The Milky Way galaxy formed about 13.51 billion years ago, along with most of the other galaxies we can observe. Yes, they all formed the same way from the gas left over from the Big Bang.
Our solar system then formed 4.6 billion years ago.
Hm, the Milky Way galaxy and the rest of the Universe was formed of gas and dust left over from the Big Bang energy creation out of nothing 13.51 billion years ago? It was a Monday. The Pope loves it! A creation! But IMHO it is fantasy. The Universe has always existed, so no need to invent a creation and a biig baang!
Ahh, so we finally get to the heart of the matter. The Big Bang conflicts with your religious beliefs. Well, that's your problem to deal with, not mine. I can't help you there. Believe whatever makes you feel better.
In the meantime, science, the Pope and the rest of us will live in the real world.
No, the Big Bang creation is religious Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed SF nonsense. I prefer the old Oden, Tor, Frö gods that normal people could see in nature on Earth. What is wrong with that? Nature has always existed. It just changes with the seasons in spite of Greta T.
-
I am not a stationary observer of the Universe. I am moving at great speed through the Universe doing my observations from Earth. Photons ejected from stars hit my eyes all the time, so I know that the stars exist.
But how do stars/suns orbit one black hole in the center of the Milky Way and what started that show? What stars orbit our Milky Way black hole? Does our Sun also orbit this black hole?
Yes, the Sun orbits the central black hole. Stars orbit black holes the same way they orbit anything else, gravity.
Thanks! So 4.6 billion years ago our Milky Way galaxy was a wispy cloud of gas and dust that then collapsed into itself and became a spinning disk, where material collected at the center and nuclear fusion began, etc, etc. It sounds fantastic. But where did the gas and dust come from originally – before 4.6 billion years? I am told that there are billions of other galaxies apart from our Milky Way. Do they all start out the same way?
The Milky Way galaxy formed about 13.51 billion years ago, along with most of the other galaxies we can observe. Yes, they all formed the same way from the gas left over from the Big Bang.
Our solar system then formed 4.6 billion years ago.
Hm, the Milky Way galaxy and the rest of the Universe was formed of gas and dust left over from the Big Bang energy creation out of nothing 13.51 billion years ago? It was a Monday. The Pope loves it! A creation! But IMHO it is fantasy. The Universe has always existed, so no need to invent a creation and a biig baang!
Ahh, so we finally get to the heart of the matter. The Big Bang conflicts with your religious beliefs. Well, that's your problem to deal with, not mine. I can't help you there. Believe whatever makes you feel better.
In the meantime, science, the Pope and the rest of us will live in the real world.
No, the Big Bang creation is religious Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed SF nonsense. I prefer the old Oden, Tor, Frö gods that normal people could see in nature on Earth. What is wrong with that? Nature has always existed. It just changes with the seasons in spite of Greta T.
Nothing is wrong with anything you choose to believe.
But the Big Bang is science.
Moses, Jesus, Oden, and whatever else you believe in is religion.
There is a difference.
You can choose your religious beliefs. If they conflict with science, that's your problem. The Pope doesn't have a problem, and most people don't. That you do is between you and your Gods. Unless you come to the internet and start telling everyone that they should be forced to follow your beliefs. Then you will get told no.
-
But the Big Bang is science.
No, it is religious fantasy to believe in creation of matter out of nothing and similar. Pseudoscience I call it. I have a website full of it. Nuclear weapons, human space travel, 911 Arabs, ships floating on deck houses with windows, fusion on Earth down the road from me, etc, that people believe in.
-
No, it is religious fantasy to believe in creation of matter out of nothing and similar. Pseudoscience I call it. I have a website full of it. Nuclear weapons, human space travel, 911 Arabs, ships floating on deck houses with windows, fusion on Earth down the road from me, etc, that people believe in.
The topic is "Escape velocity and Speed of light"! What relevance has any that you write to that?
-
No, it is religious fantasy to believe in creation of matter out of nothing and similar. Pseudoscience I call it. I have a website full of it. Nuclear weapons, human space travel, 911 Arabs, ships floating on deck houses with windows, fusion on Earth down the road from me, etc, that people believe in.
The topic is "Escape velocity and Speed of light"! What relevance has any that you write to that?
Yes. We discuss the escape velocity from a black hole in the Universe and I suggest such holes do not exist. There are more important questions to discuss, e.g. nuclear weapons, human space travel, 911 Arabs, ships floating on deck houses with windows, fusion on Earth down the road from me, etc, that people believe in. They are real problems around me and I do my part helping.
-
No, it is religious fantasy to believe in creation of matter out of nothing and similar. Pseudoscience I call it. I have a website full of it. Nuclear weapons, human space travel, 911 Arabs, ships floating on deck houses with windows, fusion on Earth down the road from me, etc, that people believe in.
The topic is "Escape velocity and Speed of light"! What relevance has any that you write to that?
Yes. We discuss the escape velocity from a black hole in the Universe.
Who cares about the impossible escape from black holes?
The escape velocity from Earth is of far more interest and that is quite possible.
-
But the Big Bang is science.
No, it is religious fantasy to believe in creation of matter out of nothing and similar. Pseudoscience I call it. I have a website full of it. Nuclear weapons, human space travel, 911 Arabs, ships floating on deck houses with windows, fusion on Earth down the road from me, etc, that people believe in.
You can call it whatever you want, doesn't make you right.
Science built the computer or phone you're using right now to read this. Deny that!
You clearly simply reject all of science, human history and pretty much everything else. Not surprised you don't believe in black holes, but luckily for the rest of us science WORKS and works amazingly well.
Just keep denying things, but continue to use the fruits of our labor. That's fine. Just don't expect to win any arguments.
-
But the Big Bang is science.
No, it is religious fantasy to believe in creation of matter out of nothing and similar. Pseudoscience I call it. I have a website full of it. Nuclear weapons, human space travel, 911 Arabs, ships floating on deck houses with windows, fusion on Earth down the road from me, etc, that people believe in.
You can call it whatever you want, doesn't make you right.
Science built the computer or phone you're using right now to read this. Deny that!
You clearly simply reject all of science, human history and pretty much everything else. Not surprised you don't believe in black holes, but luckily for the rest of us science WORKS and works amazingly well.
Just keep denying things, but continue to use the fruits of our labor. That's fine. Just don't expect to win any arguments.
There are plenty pseudo-scientists around just inventing things for their particular interests. My favorite is Trofim Lysenko but Oppenheimer and Einstein are not far behind. Another criminal clown is Bazant who says that any structure T/B collapses by gravity into dust, when you drop the small top part T of it on the big, intact bottom part B. I have checked it many times and the result is that T always bounces on B but when CIA and FBI heard about it I stopped traveling to the USA. According Bazant bottom B becomes dust by top T dropping on it by gravity and, when top T finally hits the dust of B on the ground, it also becomes dust.
The ground hits T from below into dust.
US president GWB paid Bazant a fortune to say so 2001.
-
But the Big Bang is science.
No, it is religious fantasy to believe in creation of matter out of nothing and similar. Pseudoscience I call it. I have a website full of it. Nuclear weapons, human space travel, 911 Arabs, ships floating on deck houses with windows, fusion on Earth down the road from me, etc, that people believe in.
You can call it whatever you want, doesn't make you right.
Science built the computer or phone you're using right now to read this. Deny that!
You clearly simply reject all of science, human history and pretty much everything else. Not surprised you don't believe in black holes, but luckily for the rest of us science WORKS and works amazingly well.
Just keep denying things, but continue to use the fruits of our labor. That's fine. Just don't expect to win any arguments.
There are plenty pseudo-scientists around just inventing things for their particular interests. My favorite is Trofim Lysenko but Oppenheimer and Einstein are not far behind. Another criminal clown is Bazant who says that any structure T/B collapses by gravity into dust, when you drop the small top part T of it on the big, intact bottom part B. I have checked it many times and the result is that T always bounces on B but when CIA and FBI heard about it I stopped traveling to the USA. According Bazant bottom B becomes dust by top T dropping on it by gravity and, when top T finally hits the dust of B on the ground, it also becomes dust.
The ground hits T from below into dust.
US president GWB paid Bazant a fortune to say so 2001.
You have veered far off topic, and have driven straight into crazy-town here. That's quote the collection of paranoid conspiracies you have going. Congratulations on cultivating such a fertile imagination I guess?
-
But the Big Bang is science.
No, it is religious fantasy to believe in creation of matter out of nothing and similar. Pseudoscience I call it. I have a website full of it. Nuclear weapons, human space travel, 911 Arabs, ships floating on deck houses with windows, fusion on Earth down the road from me, etc, that people believe in.
You can call it whatever you want, doesn't make you right.
Science built the computer or phone you're using right now to read this. Deny that!
You clearly simply reject all of science, human history and pretty much everything else. Not surprised you don't believe in black holes, but luckily for the rest of us science WORKS and works amazingly well.
Just keep denying things, but continue to use the fruits of our labor. That's fine. Just don't expect to win any arguments.
There are plenty pseudo-scientists around just inventing things for their particular interests. My favorite is Trofim Lysenko but Oppenheimer and Einstein are not far behind. Another criminal clown is Bazant who says that any structure T/B collapses by gravity into dust, when you drop the small top part T of it on the big, intact bottom part B. I have checked it many times and the result is that T always bounces on B but when CIA and FBI heard about it I stopped traveling to the USA. According Bazant bottom B becomes dust by top T dropping on it by gravity and, when top T finally hits the dust of B on the ground, it also becomes dust.
The ground hits T from below into dust.
US president GWB paid Bazant a fortune to say so 2001.
You have veered far off topic, and have driven straight into crazy-town here. That's quote the collection of paranoid conspiracies you have going. Congratulations on cultivating such a fertile imagination I guess?
Well, topic is Technology, Science & Alt Science in a Flat Earth Society forum so I think I am straight in line. Let's face it. There are plenty crazy people around.
-
Well, topic is Technology, Science & Alt Science in a Flat Earth Society forum so I think I am straight in line. Let's face it. There are plenty crazy people around.
No, the topic is "Escape velocity and Speed of light" and you veered far off that
I guess you were looking in a mirror when you wrote "There are plenty crazy people around.".
-
Well, topic is Technology, Science & Alt Science in a Flat Earth Society forum so I think I am straight in line. Let's face it. There are plenty crazy people around.
No, the topic is "Escape velocity and Speed of light" and you veered far off that
I guess you were looking in a mirror when you wrote "There are plenty crazy people around.".
No, only reason I am here is that I am accused of not paying €1M to anyone showing me how to do manned space travel to the Moon, Mars and an asteroid (see top of page). To go to Mars or an asteroid your spacecraft incl. fuel have to accelerate and exceed escape speed 11.2 km/s (and stop on arrival and then take off again and return to Earth) and it is simply not possible. Basic physics as somebody says.
-
Also, it's impossible to make pancakes in space.
-
To go to Mars or an asteroid your spacecraft incl. fuel have to accelerate and exceed escape speed 11.2 km/s (and stop on arrival and then take off again and return to Earth) and it is simply not possible. Basic physics as somebody says.
You are in the wrong thread.
-
Somebody said that a black hole is simply what some call ANY object that is so heavy that it's escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Once that happens it is now a black hole, as he can't see what goes on inside, he added.
I just pointed out that I have been watching our Solar System, one of million such systems in our Milky Way galaxy, for 70+ years and not seen the outside of black hole anywhere here or there.
Just to escape from Earth requires very high speed, and after that you cannot brake and stop anywhere. It seems we are all prisoners on Earth forever. So anybody suggesting he visited the Moon 1969 and pissed there (and then returned home) must be an alcoholic liar.
-
Somebody said that a black hole is simply what some call ANY object that is so heavy that it's escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Once that happens it is now a black hole, as he can't see what goes on inside, he added.
I just pointed out that I have been watching our Solar System, one of million such systems in our Milky Way galaxy, for 70+ years and not seen the outside of black hole anywhere here or there.
,
Since there's no black hole anywhere near the Solar System that's not surprising. ;D
There is one about 1000 light years from hear.
Just to escape from Earth requires very high speed, and after that you cannot brake and stop anywhere. It seems we are all prisoners on Earth forever. So anybody suggesting he visited the Moon 1969 and pissed there (and then returned home) must be an alcoholic liar.
Totally incorrect but irrelevant in this thread.
-
Somebody said that a black hole is simply what some call ANY object that is so heavy that it's escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Once that happens it is now a black hole, as he can't see what goes on inside, he added.
I just pointed out that I have been watching our Solar System, one of million such systems in our Milky Way galaxy, for 70+ years and not seen the outside of black hole anywhere here or there.
,
Since there's no black hole anywhere near the Solar System that's not surprising. ;D
There is one about 1000 light years from hear.
Just to escape from Earth requires very high speed, and after that you cannot brake and stop anywhere. It seems we are all prisoners on Earth forever. So anybody suggesting he visited the Moon 1969 and pissed there (and then returned home) must be an alcoholic liar.
Totally incorrect but irrelevant in this thread.
Thanks! It is my fault. The black holes were too far away from me to see them.
But NO! I looked. And saw nothing.
You sound like an idiot. Telling people seeing non-existing things. Why? How much are you paid for it?
-
Somebody said that a black hole is simply what some call ANY object that is so heavy that it's escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Once that happens it is now a black hole, as he can't see what goes on inside, he added.
I just pointed out that I have been watching our Solar System, one of million such systems in our Milky Way galaxy, for 70+ years and not seen the outside of black hole anywhere here or there.
,
Since there's no black hole anywhere near the Solar System that's not surprising. ;D
There is one about 1000 light years from hear.
Just to escape from Earth requires very high speed, and after that you cannot brake and stop anywhere. It seems we are all prisoners on Earth forever. So anybody suggesting he visited the Moon 1969 and pissed there (and then returned home) must be an alcoholic liar.
Totally incorrect but irrelevant in this thread.
Thanks! It is my fault. The black holes were too far away from me to see them.
But NO! I looked. And saw nothing.
You sound like an idiot. Telling people seeing non-existing things. Why? How much are you paid for it?
Can you see me now? Do I exist? According to your logic I'm not real.
You are the one sounding like an idiot for saying if you personally can't look up in the sky and see something, that means it must not exist!
Ever heard of telescopes? Ever seen thermal cameras? Ever used binoculars? These things are all real and exist, I suggest you try one.
-
Somebody said that a black hole is simply what some call ANY object that is so heavy that it's escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Once that happens it is now a black hole, as he can't see what goes on inside, he added.
I just pointed out that I have been watching our Solar System, one of million such systems in our Milky Way galaxy, for 70+ years and not seen the outside of black hole anywhere here or there.
,
Since there's no black hole anywhere near the Solar System that's not surprising. ;D
There is one about 1000 light years from hear.
Just to escape from Earth requires very high speed, and after that you cannot brake and stop anywhere. It seems we are all prisoners on Earth forever. So anybody suggesting he visited the Moon 1969 and pissed there (and then returned home) must be an alcoholic liar.
Totally incorrect but irrelevant in this thread.
Thanks! It is my fault. The black holes were too far away from me to see them.
But NO! I looked. And saw nothing.
You sound like an idiot. Telling people seeing non-existing things. Why? How much are you paid for it?
Can you see me now? Do I exist? According to your logic I'm not real.
You are the one sounding like an idiot for saying if you personally can't look up in the sky and see something, that means it must not exist!
Ever heard of telescopes? Ever seen thermal cameras? Ever used binoculars? These things are all real and exist, I suggest you try one.
Sorry, it is my fault. I live on the northern hemisphere with a sea view, so I can only see 70% of the Solar System from there with a telescope or binoculars. The black hole is maybe out of my sight. But let's face it. Shouldn't a black hole in the sky show up as a ... black hole ... in the sky ... sometimes? But No! It is too far away even using a telescope. It cannot be seen ... even using a telescope. Of course, remote stars/suns have been filmed orbiting this black hole in the sky - see above - but the orbits look funny. A joke, in my opinion.
-
Sorry, it is my fault. I live on the northern hemisphere with a sea view, so I can only see 70% of the Solar System from there with a telescope or binoculars. The black hole is maybe out of my sight. But let's face it. Shouldn't a black hole in the sky show up as a ... black hole ... in the sky ... sometimes? But No! It is too far away even using a telescope. It cannot be seen ... even using a telescope. Of course, remote stars/suns have been filmed orbiting this black hole in the sky - see above - but the orbits look funny. A joke, in my opinion.
What the hell are you ranting about? You seem to understand that you shouldn’t be able to see a black hole, yet you’re whinging that you can’t see it, so it’s a joke.
That’s some grade A science denial.
-
Heiwa is one of the worst kind of science deniers. He is a swedish fake frenchman.
-
Somebody said that a black hole is simply what some call ANY object that is so heavy that it's escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Once that happens it is now a black hole, as he can't see what goes on inside, he added.
I just pointed out that I have been watching our Solar System, one of million such systems in our Milky Way galaxy, for 70+ years and not seen the outside of black hole anywhere here or there.
,
Since there's no black hole anywhere near the Solar System that's not surprising. ;D
There is one about 1000 light years from hear.
Just to escape from Earth requires very high speed, and after that you cannot brake and stop anywhere. It seems we are all prisoners on Earth forever. So anybody suggesting he visited the Moon 1969 and pissed there (and then returned home) must be an alcoholic liar.
Totally incorrect but irrelevant in this thread.
Thanks! It is my fault. The black holes were too far away from me to see them.
But NO! I looked. And saw nothing.
You sound like an idiot. Telling people seeing non-existing things. Why? How much are you paid for it?
Can you see me now? Do I exist? According to your logic I'm not real.
You are the one sounding like an idiot for saying if you personally can't look up in the sky and see something, that means it must not exist!
Ever heard of telescopes? Ever seen thermal cameras? Ever used binoculars? These things are all real and exist, I suggest you try one.
Sorry, it is my fault. I live on the northern hemisphere with a sea view, so I can only see 70% of the Solar System from there with a telescope or binoculars. The black hole is maybe out of my sight. But let's face it. Shouldn't a black hole in the sky show up as a ... black hole ... in the sky ... sometimes? But No! It is too far away even using a telescope. It cannot be seen ... even using a telescope. Of course, remote stars/suns have been filmed orbiting this black hole in the sky - see above - but the orbits look funny. A joke, in my opinion.
Well, I suppose since the orbits "look funny" to you I'll have to take your word for it rather than astronomers who spend their entire lives studying such things. ::)
Maybe you should try to understand things before you just start denying them. If you think a black hole 50,000 light years away is going to show up as a hole in the sky, you really need to educate yourself. At least UNDERSTAND something before trying to deny it's existence. ALl you are doing is showing you have zero idea what you're talking about.
-
Well, I suppose since the orbits "look funny" to you I'll have to take your word for it rather than astronomers who spend their entire lives studying such things. ::)
Maybe you should try to understand things before you just start denying them. If you think a black hole 50,000 light years away is going to show up as a hole in the sky, you really need to educate yourself. At least UNDERSTAND something before trying to deny it's existence. ALl you are doing is showing you have zero idea what you're talking about.
Please, I don't deny things. You say there is a black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy (around which stars/suns orbit) and that there are other black holes in centers of billion other galaxies like the Milky Way in the Universe but you don't provide any evidence for these billion black holes. Only a stupid video! So I simply don't believe you. You suggest I should use a telescope to see this black hole, etc, etc. I have done it for 70 years! But suddenly it is too small to be seen according you. I thought a black hole would swallow all light around it to be a little bigger so it could be seen. Like stars. Orbiting the black hole. But I haven't seen any stars orbiting anything in the sky.
-
Well, I suppose since the orbits "look funny" to you I'll have to take your word for it rather than astronomers who spend their entire lives studying such things. ::)
Maybe you should try to understand things before you just start denying them. If you think a black hole 50,000 light years away is going to show up as a hole in the sky, you really need to educate yourself. At least UNDERSTAND something before trying to deny it's existence. ALl you are doing is showing you have zero idea what you're talking about.
Please, I don't deny things. You say there is a black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy (around which stars/suns orbit) and that there are other black holes in centers of billion other galaxies like the Milky Way in the Universe but you don't provide any evidence for these billion black holes. Only a stupid video! So I simply don't believe you.
You don't deny things? I could spend all day listing things you deny and don't believe in.
You never asked for evidence of the billion other black holes, and now you deny the exist because you're too lazy to look them up or even ask about them now. Even if I bothered to find evidence, you would just simply not believe me some more.
I presented evidence of stars orbiting a black hole, and you can call it stupid all you like, and deny that it's real, then deny that you deny anything. Seriously?
You suggest I should use a telescope to see this black hole, etc, etc. I have done it for 70 years! But suddenly it is too small to be seen according you.
Yes, it's too small to be seen with the naked eye, I said that more than once. It's also too dim to see in visible light, which is why they use an infrared telescope. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this? You can't just look at it from your back yard, you need a high power infrared telescope.
I thought a black hole would swallow all light around it to be a little bigger so it could be seen. Like stars. Orbiting the black hole. But I haven't seen any stars orbiting anything in the sky.
How many times do you need it explained to you, you can NOT look up at the sky in your backyard and see stars 50,000 light years away that are only visible in the infrared. Stars that it took 10 years of observations to see moving too, so yeah, you aren't going to look up and see them circling around. Seriously. How many times do you need to be told to understand?
Things you can't directly see can still exists. No astronomers call YOU up to ask if you saw something in the sky before they publish it, because if Heiwa can't look up and stare at it, it must not exist! ::)
-
Well, I suppose since the orbits "look funny" to you I'll have to take your word for it rather than astronomers who spend their entire lives studying such things. ::)
Maybe you should try to understand things before you just start denying them. If you think a black hole 50,000 light years away is going to show up as a hole in the sky, you really need to educate yourself. At least UNDERSTAND something before trying to deny it's existence. ALl you are doing is showing you have zero idea what you're talking about.
Please, I don't deny things. You say there is a black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy (around which stars/suns orbit) and that there are other black holes in centers of billion other galaxies like the Milky Way in the Universe but you don't provide any evidence for these billion black holes. Only a stupid video! So I simply don't believe you. You suggest I should use a telescope to see this black hole, etc, etc. I have done it for 70 years! But suddenly it is too small to be seen according you. I thought a black hole would swallow all light around it to be a little bigger so it could be seen. Like stars. Orbiting the black hole. But I haven't seen any stars orbiting anything in the sky.
Yes, unless your telescope is the size of planet Earth it is too small! The Event Horizon Telescope Array was used to "photograph" the black hole at the centre of the a massive galaxy, Messier 87, over 50 million light years away.
Read First-ever picture of a black hole unveiled (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/first-picture-black-hole-revealed-m87-event-horizon-telescope-astrophysics/). That "telescope" is a worldwide array of radio dishes. Read Event Horizon Telescopes (https://eventhorizontelescope.org/array).
-
Well, I suppose since the orbits "look funny" to you I'll have to take your word for it rather than astronomers who spend their entire lives studying such things. ::)
Maybe you should try to understand things before you just start denying them. If you think a black hole 50,000 light years away is going to show up as a hole in the sky, you really need to educate yourself. At least UNDERSTAND something before trying to deny it's existence. ALl you are doing is showing you have zero idea what you're talking about.
Please, I don't deny things. You say there is a black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy (around which stars/suns orbit) and that there are other black holes in centers of billion other galaxies like the Milky Way in the Universe but you don't provide any evidence for these billion black holes. Only a stupid video! So I simply don't believe you. You suggest I should use a telescope to see this black hole, etc, etc. I have done it for 70 years! But suddenly it is too small to be seen according you. I thought a black hole would swallow all light around it to be a little bigger so it could be seen. Like stars. Orbiting the black hole. But I haven't seen any stars orbiting anything in the sky.
Yes, unless your telescope is the size of planet Earth it is too small! The Event Horizon Telescope Array was used to "photograph" the black hole at the centre of the a massive galaxy, Messier 87, over 50 million light years away.
Read First-ever picture of a black hole unveiled (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/first-picture-black-hole-revealed-m87-event-horizon-telescope-astrophysics/). That "telescope" is a worldwide array of radio dishes. Read Event Horizon Telescopes (https://eventhorizontelescope.org/array).
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day. I describe the event at my website - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm#BH . You don't really believe that?
I think it was a selfie! LOL!
-
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day.
"That girl" was a 29 year-old computer scientist and she did the computer processing needed to convert the enormous amount of data into an image.
I describe the event at my website - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm#BH . You don't really believe that?
I think it was a selfie! LOL!
Nobody who understands anything bothers with that website that shows how little you understand.
And who cares what you think?
-
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day.
"That girl" was a 29 year-old computer scientist and she did the computer processing needed to convert the enormous amount of data into an image.
Yes, but you would suppose you don't need a girl to convert the data into an image. And she didn't know how the data became a picture. And the image doesn't look like a Black Hole. It looks like something else.
-
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day.
"That girl" was a 29 year-old computer scientist and she did the computer processing needed to convert the enormous amount of data into an image.
Yes, but you would suppose you don't need a girl to convert the data into an image. And she didn't know how the data became a picture. And the image doesn't look like a Black Hole. It looks like something else.
How do you know what a black hole is supposed to look like?
-
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day.
"That girl" was a 29 year-old computer scientist and she did the computer processing needed to convert the enormous amount of data into an image.
Yes, but you would suppose you don't need a girl to convert the data into an image. And she didn't know how the data became a picture. And the image doesn't look like a Black Hole. It looks like something else.
Why shouldn't a computer scientist be the one to convert all the digital data from the radio telescopes shown below into an image?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/The_Event_Horizon_Telescope_and_Global_mm-VLBI_Array_on_the_Earth.jpg)
Event Horizon Telescope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope)
-
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day.
"That girl" was a 29 year-old computer scientist and she did the computer processing needed to convert the enormous amount of data into an image.
Yes, but you would suppose you don't need a girl to convert the data into an image. And she didn't know how the data became a picture. And the image doesn't look like a Black Hole. It looks like something else.
How do you know what a black hole is supposed to look like?
The Katie Bouman picture is black with an orange/white thing in the center (light from behind?) with a black dot in the middle of it. She says it is a Black Hole.
I just suggest it cannot be a photo of a Black Hole! Lit up from behind??????
-
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day.
"That girl" was a 29 year-old computer scientist and she did the computer processing needed to convert the enormous amount of data into an image.
Yes, but you would suppose you don't need a girl to convert the data into an image. And she didn't know how the data became a picture. And the image doesn't look like a Black Hole. It looks like something else.
Why shouldn't a computer scientist be the one to convert all the digital data from the radio telescopes shown below into an image?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/The_Event_Horizon_Telescope_and_Global_mm-VLBI_Array_on_the_Earth.jpg)
Event Horizon Telescope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope)
Because she ignores data from Russia, China, India, North Korea, Japan, Australia, etc. And the North Pole. Data from the North Pole is absolutely required to spot a Black Hole.
-
Why shouldn't a computer scientist be the one to convert all the digital data from the radio telescopes shown below into an image?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/The_Event_Horizon_Telescope_and_Global_mm-VLBI_Array_on_the_Earth.jpg)
Event Horizon Telescope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope)
Because she ignores data from Russia, China, India, North Korea, Japan, Australia, etc. And the North Pole. Data from the North Pole is absolutely required to spot a Black Hole.
Why would "the North Pole is absolutely required to spot a Black Hole."? There is no land at the North Pole on which to build a telescope so how could there be a huge radio-telescope there?
Ever thought that "she ignores data from Russia, China, India, North Korea, Japan, Australia, etc" because every radio-telescope of the very-long-baseline interferometry (VLBI) needs to face the the supergiant elliptical galaxy Messier 87 at the same time?
I guess not, you never seem to bother learning anything about the things that you question.
-
Why shouldn't a computer scientist be the one to convert all the digital data from the radio telescopes shown below into an image?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/The_Event_Horizon_Telescope_and_Global_mm-VLBI_Array_on_the_Earth.jpg)
Event Horizon Telescope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope)
Because she ignores data from Russia, China, India, North Korea, Japan, Australia, etc. And the North Pole. Data from the North Pole is absolutely required to spot a Black Hole.
Why would "the North Pole is absolutely required to spot a Black Hole."? There is no land at the North Pole on which to build a telescope so how could there be a huge radio-telescope there?
Ever thought that "she ignores data from Russia, China, India, North Korea, Japan, Australia, etc" because every radio-telescope of the very-long-baseline interferometry (VLBI) needs to face the the supergiant elliptical galaxy Messier 87 at the same time?
I guess not, you never seem to bother learning anything about the things that you question.
The North Pole is very important to spot Black Holes from. Great view in all directions. But today the Sun is shining all the time there so difficult to spot Black Holes. Better go Sun bathing. >40C in the Sun. Great place.
-
I guess not, you never seem to bother learning anything about the things that you question.
The North Pole is very important to spot Black Holes from. Great view in all directions. But today the Sun is shining all the time there so difficult to spot Black Holes. Better go Sun bathing. >40C in the Sun. Great place.
I guess you didn't read what I wrote!
I repeat, there is no land at the North Pole so how could you mount a huge radio-telescope there?
And why would the Sun shining affect a radio-telescope (unless pointing too close)?
-
Well, I suppose since the orbits "look funny" to you I'll have to take your word for it rather than astronomers who spend their entire lives studying such things. ::)
Maybe you should try to understand things before you just start denying them. If you think a black hole 50,000 light years away is going to show up as a hole in the sky, you really need to educate yourself. At least UNDERSTAND something before trying to deny it's existence. ALl you are doing is showing you have zero idea what you're talking about.
Please, I don't deny things. You say there is a black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy (around which stars/suns orbit) and that there are other black holes in centers of billion other galaxies like the Milky Way in the Universe but you don't provide any evidence for these billion black holes. Only a stupid video! So I simply don't believe you. You suggest I should use a telescope to see this black hole, etc, etc. I have done it for 70 years! But suddenly it is too small to be seen according you. I thought a black hole would swallow all light around it to be a little bigger so it could be seen. Like stars. Orbiting the black hole. But I haven't seen any stars orbiting anything in the sky.
Yes, unless your telescope is the size of planet Earth it is too small! The Event Horizon Telescope Array was used to "photograph" the black hole at the centre of the a massive galaxy, Messier 87, over 50 million light years away.
Read First-ever picture of a black hole unveiled (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/first-picture-black-hole-revealed-m87-event-horizon-telescope-astrophysics/). That "telescope" is a worldwide array of radio dishes. Read Event Horizon Telescopes (https://eventhorizontelescope.org/array).
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day. I describe the event at my website - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm#BH . You don't really believe that?
I think it was a selfie! LOL!
Why do you even bother asking for proof or evidence when you just reflexively deny everything anyone tells you?
What a sad, little, empty world you live in. Nothing but lies and paranoia.
Writing a long web page doesn't make you right. Just ask Time Cube guy.
-
Why do you even bother asking for proof or evidence when you just reflexively deny everything anyone tells you?
What a sad, little, empty world you live in. Nothing but lies and paranoia.
Writing a long web page doesn't make you right. Just ask Time Cube guy.
My principal interest is safety at sea. Seafarers make up stories what happens there. They watch the sky all the time since thousands of years and no black holes have been reported. I use critical thinking to check the info. So I got interested in safety in space and human space travel. You know plenty stupid people – cosmokrauts and asstroclowns – say they have flown in the Universe. A powerful rocket catapulted them away from Earth into the Universe at high speed (topic) but only evidence was noise and smoke at take-off. The rest was all lies! Reason is that all space trips are one way only! There is no way to brake, return and land on Earth coming from space. It is basic physics.
I just feel sorry for people believing in humans in space.
-
Why do you even bother asking for proof or evidence when you just reflexively deny everything anyone tells you?
What a sad, little, empty world you live in. Nothing but lies and paranoia.
Writing a long web page doesn't make you right. Just ask Time Cube guy.
My principal interest is safety at sea. Seafarers make up stories what happens there. They watch the sky all the time since thousands of years and no black holes have been reported. I use critical thinking to check the info. So I got interested in safety in space and human space travel. You know plenty stupid people – cosmokrauts and asstroclowns – say they have flown in the Universe. A powerful rocket catapulted them away from Earth into the Universe at high speed (topic) but only evidence was noise and smoke at take-off. The rest was all lies! Reason is that all space trips are one way only! There is no way to brake, return and land on Earth coming from space. It is basic physics.
Uh, once more for the tenth time... there are no black holes visible with the naked eye. You keep being astounded nobody has seen one, but clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Wondering why people don't see giant black circles in the sky all the time just proves you really are clueless when it comes to astronomy. Read a book. Learn something.
Nobody has seen the Horsehead Nebula with their naked eye, so I guess you think that's fake too?
(https://i.imgur.com/rfqxcex.jpg)
I just feel sorry for people believing in humans in space.
I feel sorry for your empty world full of lies. Where instead of wonder at Mankinds achievements, you just, well, feel whatever it is you do. That's truly sad.
-
Nobody has seen the Horsehead Nebula with their naked eye, so I guess you think that's fake too?
(https://i.imgur.com/rfqxcex.jpg)
The above image has been manipulated to look aesthetically pleasing to humans and does not represent reality
-
I feel sorry for your empty world full of lies. Where instead of wonder at Mankinds achievements, you just, well, feel whatever it is you do. That's truly sad.
I have to repeat: My principal interest is safety at sea. Seafarers make up stories - LIES - what happens there. They also watch the sky all the time since thousands of years and no black holes have been reported. I use critical thinking to check the info. So I got interested in safety in space and human space travel. You know plenty stupid people – cosmokrauts and asstroclowns – say they have flown in the Universe. A powerful rocket catapulted the heroes away from Earth into the Universe at high speed (topic) but only evidence was noise and smoke at take-off. The rest was all lies! Reason is that all space trips are one way only! There is no way for our HEROES to brake, return and land on Earth coming from space. It is basic physics. Just ask them!
I just feel sorry for people believing in humans in space. It is not even funny. It is sad.
-
Nobody has seen the Horsehead Nebula with their naked eye, so I guess you think that's fake too?
(https://i.imgur.com/rfqxcex.jpg)
The above image has been manipulated to look aesthetically pleasing to humans and does not represent reality
Do you admit that the nebula is a real object in space, but are somehow upset that people take pictures of it using advanced imaging techniques?
Or do you think you think hands also don't exist, and don't emit heat because of 'manipulated' pictures like this one?
(https://i.imgur.com/BwaYyUy.jpg)
Both the images above are real. Or do you dispute that?
-
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/first-picture-black-hole-revealed-m87-event-horizon-telescope-astrophysics/ says:
Using a telescope the size of the planet, astronomers have captured the first image of this space oddity - a black hole. Here's why that matters.
More than 50 million light-years away, in the heart of a giant elliptical galaxy called Messier 87, a gargantuan beast is devouring anything that strays too near. Stars, planets, gas, and dust—not even light escapes the monster’s grasp once it crosses a threshold called the event horizon.
Today, scientists unveiled an image of that object, a supermassive black hole containing the same mass as 6.5 billion suns. Resembling a circular void surrounded by a lopsided ring of light, this landmark image is the world’s first glimpse of a black hole’s silhouette, a picture that creeps right up to the inescapable edge of the black hole’s maw.
The new image is the stunning achievement of the Event Horizon Telescope project, a global collaboration of more than 200 scientists using an array of observatories scattered around the world, from Hawaii to the South Pole. Combined, this array acts like a telescope the size of Earth, and it was able to collect more than a petabyte of data while staring at M87’s black hole in April 2017. It then took two years for scientists to assemble the mugshot.
Well, this gargantuan beast didn’t devour the petabyte of data making a picture of a black hole. I feel sorry for people making up this garbage.
-
Nobody has seen the Horsehead Nebula with their naked eye, so I guess you think that's fake too?
(https://i.imgur.com/rfqxcex.jpg)
The above image has been manipulated to look aesthetically pleasing to humans and does not represent reality
Do you admit that the nebula is a real object in space, but are somehow upset that people take pictures of it using advanced imaging techniques?
Or do you think you think hands also don't exist, and don't emit heat because of 'manipulated' pictures like this one?
(https://i.imgur.com/BwaYyUy.jpg)
Both the images above are real. Or do you dispute that?
The hand is an IR image. Real
The nebula was tweaked to assign different colour values to certain elements to help our primitive eyes differentiate between them such as Sulfur and Hydrogen which would otherwise both appear reddish. Nebula is real but depiction is not
For example, which one of these cats eye nebula photos is real
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/264202main_catseye_full.jpg) (https://sep.yimg.com/ay/skyimage/cat-s-eye-nebula-9.jpg) (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/64884main_image_feature_211_jwfull.jpg) (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQCS2E6d5ONiikt2NtofTh6kDnte3M7NcQAwA&usqp=CAU)
-
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/first-picture-black-hole-revealed-m87-event-horizon-telescope-astrophysics/ says:
Using a telescope the size of the planet, astronomers have captured the first image of this space oddity - a black hole. Here's why that matters.
More than 50 million light-years away, in the heart of a giant elliptical galaxy called Messier 87, a gargantuan beast is devouring anything that strays too near. Stars, planets, gas, and dust—not even light escapes the monster’s grasp once it crosses a threshold called the event horizon.
Today, scientists unveiled an image of that object, a supermassive black hole containing the same mass as 6.5 billion suns. Resembling a circular void surrounded by a lopsided ring of light, this landmark image is the world’s first glimpse of a black hole’s silhouette, a picture that creeps right up to the inescapable edge of the black hole’s maw.
The new image is the stunning achievement of the Event Horizon Telescope project, a global collaboration of more than 200 scientists using an array of observatories scattered around the world, from Hawaii to the South Pole. Combined, this array acts like a telescope the size of Earth, and it was able to collect more than a petabyte of data while staring at M87’s black hole in April 2017. It then took two years for scientists to assemble the mugshot.
Well, this gargantuan beast didn’t devour the petabyte of data making a picture of a black hole. I feel sorry for people making up this garbage.
Yet again, another post where you do nothing but insult the people doing the work. At least this time you didn't complain it was a "girl" doing the work, which somehow invalidates it? :-\
Did you really think the black hole was going to suck the data right off the hard drive, or are you just trolling the thread?
"I feel sorry for people making up this garbage." - My feelings exactly.
-
Nobody has seen the Horsehead Nebula with their naked eye, so I guess you think that's fake too?
(https://i.imgur.com/rfqxcex.jpg)
The above image has been manipulated to look aesthetically pleasing to humans and does not represent reality
Do you admit that the nebula is a real object in space, but are somehow upset that people take pictures of it using advanced imaging techniques?
Or do you think you think hands also don't exist, and don't emit heat because of 'manipulated' pictures like this one?
(https://i.imgur.com/BwaYyUy.jpg)
Both the images above are real. Or do you dispute that?
The hand is an IR image. Real
The nebula was tweaked to assign different colour values to certain elements to help our primitive eyes differentiate between them such as Sulfur and Hydrogen which would otherwise both appear reddish. Nebula is real but depiction is not
At least you can admit that the Horsehead Nebula is real. I'm still waiting for Heiwa's response to it.
For example, which one of these cats eye nebula photos is real
And what's the point of that challenge, to prove that we can make fake images of things? That's nothing new. So what?
-
For example, which one of these cats eye nebula photos is real
And what's the point of that challenge, to prove that we can make fake images of things? That's nothing new. So what?
Actually, one of them is real, as it would be presented to the naked eye
-
For example, which one of these cats eye nebula photos is real
And what's the point of that challenge, to prove that we can make fake images of things? That's nothing new. So what?
Actually, one of them is real, as it would be presented to the naked eye
Reverse google image search is pretty helpful there, I already looked them up.
Still not sure what the point of the quiz is. That humans can make pretty things? That humans can fake pictures? Nothing new here.
-
For example, which one of these cats eye nebula photos is real
And what's the point of that challenge, to prove that we can make fake images of things? That's nothing new. So what?
Actually, one of them is real, as it would be presented to the naked eye
Reverse google image search is pretty helpful there, I already looked them up.
Still not sure what the point of the quiz is. That humans can make pretty things? That humans can fake pictures? Nothing new here.
The point is not to trust what you see on the internet. And not to display pretty pictures as some kind of evidence of existence. Yes it may exist but not like you show
If I am blonde with blue eyes but you find brown eyes and black hair better looking, does it make sense to give you a photo of me but alter my attributes that are more to your liking? No.
-
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/first-picture-black-hole-revealed-m87-event-horizon-telescope-astrophysics/ says:
Using a telescope the size of the planet, astronomers have captured the first image of this space oddity - a black hole. Here's why that matters.
More than 50 million light-years away, in the heart of a giant elliptical galaxy called Messier 87, a gargantuan beast is devouring anything that strays too near. Stars, planets, gas, and dust—not even light escapes the monster’s grasp once it crosses a threshold called the event horizon.
Today, scientists unveiled an image of that object, a supermassive black hole containing the same mass as 6.5 billion suns. Resembling a circular void surrounded by a lopsided ring of light, this landmark image is the world’s first glimpse of a black hole’s silhouette, a picture that creeps right up to the inescapable edge of the black hole’s maw.
The new image is the stunning achievement of the Event Horizon Telescope project, a global collaboration of more than 200 scientists using an array of observatories scattered around the world, from Hawaii to the South Pole. Combined, this array acts like a telescope the size of Earth, and it was able to collect more than a petabyte of data while staring at M87’s black hole in April 2017. It then took two years for scientists to assemble the mugshot.
Well, this gargantuan beast didn’t devour the petabyte of data making a picture of a black hole. I feel sorry for people making up this garbage.
Yet again, another post where you do nothing but insult the people doing the work. At least this time you didn't complain it was a "girl" doing the work, which somehow invalidates it? :-\
Did you really think the black hole was going to suck the data right off the hard drive, or are you just trolling the thread?
"I feel sorry for people making up this garbage." - My feelings exactly.
Please, I only insult Russian cosmocrauts and US asstroclowns playing space HEROES. They were never in space. But pseudo-scientists supported them, bla, bla, bla.
Same with this Black Hole petabyte 2019 photo in the link provided.
Just cheap photoshop. Plus 100's of astronomers and 10's of high. tech. observatories on many continents. Just fantasies. None of them exist.
What a stupid show. Why????????
-
Well, I suppose since the orbits "look funny" to you I'll have to take your word for it rather than astronomers who spend their entire lives studying such things. ::)
Maybe you should try to understand things before you just start denying them. If you think a black hole 50,000 light years away is going to show up as a hole in the sky, you really need to educate yourself. At least UNDERSTAND something before trying to deny it's existence. ALl you are doing is showing you have zero idea what you're talking about.
Please, I don't deny things. You say there is a black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy (around which stars/suns orbit) and that there are other black holes in centers of billion other galaxies like the Milky Way in the Universe but you don't provide any evidence for these billion black holes. Only a stupid video! So I simply don't believe you.
You don't deny things? I could spend all day listing things you deny and don't believe in.
You never asked for evidence of the billion other black holes, and now you deny the exist because you're too lazy to look them up or even ask about them now. Even if I bothered to find evidence, you would just simply not believe me some more.
I presented evidence of stars orbiting a black hole, and you can call it stupid all you like, and deny that it's real, then deny that you deny anything. Seriously?
You suggest I should use a telescope to see this black hole, etc, etc. I have done it for 70 years! But suddenly it is too small to be seen according you.
Yes, it's too small to be seen with the naked eye, I said that more than once. It's also too dim to see in visible light, which is why they use an infrared telescope. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this? You can't just look at it from your back yard, you need a high power infrared telescope.
I thought a black hole would swallow all light around it to be a little bigger so it could be seen. Like stars. Orbiting the black hole. But I haven't seen any stars orbiting anything in the sky.
How many times do you need it explained to you, you can NOT look up at the sky in your backyard and see stars 50,000 light years away that are only visible in the infrared. Stars that it took 10 years of observations to see moving too, so yeah, you aren't going to look up and see them circling around. Seriously. How many times do you need to be told to understand?
Things you can't directly see can still exists. No astronomers call YOU up to ask if you saw something in the sky before they publish it, because if Heiwa can't look up and stare at it, it must not exist! ::)
If you go to Australia you can look up and have a good view at the star system HR 6819. It is visible and its orbiting a stellar mass black hole. Only 1100ish light years away from us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_6819
Also you can stop by my place and I can shout you a delicious Nespresso coffee. ;D It's much better than Heiwas Nespresso machine 8)
-
For example, which one of these cats eye nebula photos is real
And what's the point of that challenge, to prove that we can make fake images of things? That's nothing new. So what?
Actually, one of them is real, as it would be presented to the naked eye
Reverse google image search is pretty helpful there, I already looked them up.
Still not sure what the point of the quiz is. That humans can make pretty things? That humans can fake pictures? Nothing new here.
The point is not to trust what you see on the internet. And not to display pretty pictures as some kind of evidence of existence. Yes it may exist but not like you show
If I am blonde with blue eyes but you find brown eyes and black hair better looking, does it make sense to give you a photo of me but alter my attributes that are more to your liking? No.
Congratulations, you discovered that we have to make judgment calls when presented with information. Again, nothing new here.
To me, that means you should collect more information when you are not sure.
For you I guess it means you can simply decide not to believe anything.
If my Dad says we are out of Coke and I should get more, I just do it. Sure, he could be lying to me? But why should I search the entire house for hidden Coke just to make sure, and even then, maybe he buried some in a hole in the backyard?
If I see a picture of a black hole that researchers spent a year collecting data for and processing and published in a peer reviewed journal, I don't think it's OBVIOUSLY a scam and I can't believe it.
There is being skeptical, and then there is being in denial.
So yes, that's a picture of a black hole. I trust those researchers to know what they are doing more than I trust Heiwa's knowledge of black holes and cutting edge astrophysics and imaging equipment!
-
My principal interest is safety at sea.
Then maybe you should stick with that and leave the science to the scientists.
-
My principal interest is safety at sea.
Then maybe you should stick with that and leave the science to the scientists.
I wouldn't trust him even with that. A person stuck in a state of denial and irrational thinking isn't going to magically be rational in the one aspect that they supposedly know. He proves his irrational state of mind carries throughout with his view of the M/S Estonia.
-
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day.
"That girl" was a 29 year-old computer scientist and she did the computer processing needed to convert the enormous amount of data into an image.
Yes, but you would suppose you don't need a girl to convert the data into an image. And she didn't know how the data became a picture. And the image doesn't look like a Black Hole. It looks like something else.
How do you know what a black hole is supposed to look like?
The Katie Bouman picture is black with an orange/white thing in the center (light from behind?) with a black dot in the middle of it. She says it is a Black Hole.
I just suggest it cannot be a photo of a Black Hole! Lit up from behind??????
Precisely, you have no idea what a black hole would look like. So why even "suggest" that it is not based upon your zero knowledge of what a black hole should look like?
That seems to be your MO: Just because you don't possess an expertise in something, you conjure up something based upon your limited knowledge and then allege you are correct. Otherwise known as delusional dunning-kruger syndrome.
-
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day.
"That girl" was a 29 year-old computer scientist and she did the computer processing needed to convert the enormous amount of data into an image.
Yes, but you would suppose you don't need a girl to convert the data into an image. And she didn't know how the data became a picture. And the image doesn't look like a Black Hole. It looks like something else.
How do you know what a black hole is supposed to look like?
The Katie Bouman picture is black with an orange/white thing in the center (light from behind?) with a black dot in the middle of it. She says it is a Black Hole.
I just suggest it cannot be a photo of a Black Hole! Lit up from behind??????
Precisely, you have no idea what a black hole would look like. So why even "suggest" that it is not based upon your zero knowledge of what a black hole should look like?
That seems to be your MO: Just because you don't possess an expertise in something, you conjure up something based upon your limited knowledge and then allege you are correct. Otherwise known as delusional dunning-kruger syndrome.
Well, Ms Katie Bouman says that the petabyte data in her computer is a picture of a far away black hole that just popped up on her screen ... and I simply don't believe her. She sounds like a drunken/drugged sailor to me. I have met a few.
-
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day.
"That girl" was a 29 year-old computer scientist and she did the computer processing needed to convert the enormous amount of data into an image.
Yes, but you would suppose you don't need a girl to convert the data into an image. And she didn't know how the data became a picture. And the image doesn't look like a Black Hole. It looks like something else.
How do you know what a black hole is supposed to look like?
The Katie Bouman picture is black with an orange/white thing in the center (light from behind?) with a black dot in the middle of it. She says it is a Black Hole.
I just suggest it cannot be a photo of a Black Hole! Lit up from behind??????
Precisely, you have no idea what a black hole would look like. So why even "suggest" that it is not based upon your zero knowledge of what a black hole should look like?
That seems to be your MO: Just because you don't possess an expertise in something, you conjure up something based upon your limited knowledge and then allege you are correct. Otherwise known as delusional dunning-kruger syndrome.
Well, Ms Katie Bouman says that the petabyte data in her computer is a picture of a far away black hole that just popped up on her screen ... and I simply don't believe her. She sounds like a drunken/drugged sailor to me. I have met a few.
How do you know she sounds like a drunken/drugged sailor? And you simply not believing the science is not evidence of the science being faked. Especially when you predicate your belief system on such poetry you write on your site, in this case, referring to Ms. Bouman:
"Maybe it was a selfie of her sexual organ? She is the latest star of the space fakers/fuckers show. This is business as usual. She wants a Nobel prize for the hole job! She doesn't understand that she was fooled to look at plenty gigaoctets of signal data and make something of it. Magic ... it became a picture."
You have zero credibility.
-
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day.
"That girl" was a 29 year-old computer scientist and she did the computer processing needed to convert the enormous amount of data into an image.
Yes, but you would suppose you don't need a girl to convert the data into an image. And she didn't know how the data became a picture. And the image doesn't look like a Black Hole. It looks like something else.
How do you know what a black hole is supposed to look like?
The Katie Bouman picture is black with an orange/white thing in the center (light from behind?) with a black dot in the middle of it. She says it is a Black Hole.
I just suggest it cannot be a photo of a Black Hole! Lit up from behind??????
Precisely, you have no idea what a black hole would look like. So why even "suggest" that it is not based upon your zero knowledge of what a black hole should look like?
That seems to be your MO: Just because you don't possess an expertise in something, you conjure up something based upon your limited knowledge and then allege you are correct. Otherwise known as delusional dunning-kruger syndrome.
Well, Ms Katie Bouman says that the petabyte data in her computer is a picture of a far away black hole that just popped up on her screen ... and I simply don't believe her. She sounds like a drunken/drugged sailor to me. I have met a few.
How do you know she sounds like a drunken/drugged sailor? And you simply not believing the science is not evidence of the science being faked. Especially when you predicate your belief system on such poetry you write on your site, in this case, referring to Ms. Bouman:
"Maybe it was a selfie of her sexual organ? She is the latest star of the space fakers/fuckers show. This is business as usual. She wants a Nobel prize for the hole job! She doesn't understand that she was fooled to look at plenty gigaoctets of signal data and make something of it. Magic ... it became a picture."
You have zero credibility.
Hm, don't you agree that this American HERO Buzz Aldrin, second (LOL) on the Moon 1969, sounded like a drunken sailor, when he explained about pissing there. (There was no loo in his spacecraft!) So I consider all other people suggesting they have been in space to be Buzz clones. And now they are joined by astronomers suggesting they are taking pictures of celestial bodies (black holes) 50 million light years away. I simply suggest Katie made the photo herself pissing on Earth to become famous. I think she is not credible.
-
You have zero credibility.
Hm, don't you agree that this American HERO Buzz Aldrin, second (LOL) on the Moon 1969, sounded like a drunken sailor, when he explained about pissing there.
Is pissing all you ever think about? Go see a urologist!
And now they are joined by astronomers suggesting they are taking pictures of celestial bodies (black holes) 50 million light years away. I simply suggest Katie made the photo herself. I think she is not credible.
Why not? Astronomers have been taking pictures of celestial objects (galaxies) millions of light years away for near a century.
So I simply suggest that you are an ignoramus.
50 million light years away i's right next door in astronomical term's.
The Andromeda Galaxy can be seen with the unaided eyes but is 2.537 million light years away.
But you seem to know nothing about anything so we'd expect you to be ignorant about astronomy as well.
-
Do you 'see' the physical object in andromeda casting the light or only the light itself...
-
Do you 'see' the physical object in andromeda casting the light or only the light itself...
Do you 'see' any light source far away casting the light or only the light itself?
But telescopes from the Hale 100" telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory have been able to resolve individual stars in Andromeda.
-
Well, Ms Katie Bouman says that the petabyte data in her computer is a picture of a far away black hole that just popped up on her screen ...
No, I'm pretty sure that she never said that. There was a lot of processing of raw data that went into producing the black hole image.
...and I simply don't believe her.
That's alright, I doubt that she believes you either.
She sounds like a drunken/drugged sailor to me. I have met a few.
Actually, it sounds more like you're the drunken/retarted sailor.
-
Do you 'see' the physical object in andromeda casting the light or only the light itself...
Do you 'see' any light source far away casting the light or only the light itself?
But telescopes from the Hale 100" telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory have been able to resolve individual stars in Andromeda.
Hmmm good old rabinoz
Sees the user name 'Shifter'
Chooses to believe post must be antagonistic...
-
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day.
"That girl" was a 29 year-old computer scientist and she did the computer processing needed to convert the enormous amount of data into an image.
Yes, but you would suppose you don't need a girl to convert the data into an image. And she didn't know how the data became a picture. And the image doesn't look like a Black Hole. It looks like something else.
How do you know what a black hole is supposed to look like?
The Katie Bouman picture is black with an orange/white thing in the center (light from behind?) with a black dot in the middle of it. She says it is a Black Hole.
I just suggest it cannot be a photo of a Black Hole! Lit up from behind??????
Precisely, you have no idea what a black hole would look like. So why even "suggest" that it is not based upon your zero knowledge of what a black hole should look like?
That seems to be your MO: Just because you don't possess an expertise in something, you conjure up something based upon your limited knowledge and then allege you are correct. Otherwise known as delusional dunning-kruger syndrome.
Well, Ms Katie Bouman says that the petabyte data in her computer is a picture of a far away black hole that just popped up on her screen ... and I simply don't believe her. She sounds like a drunken/drugged sailor to me. I have met a few.
How do you know she sounds like a drunken/drugged sailor? And you simply not believing the science is not evidence of the science being faked. Especially when you predicate your belief system on such poetry you write on your site, in this case, referring to Ms. Bouman:
"Maybe it was a selfie of her sexual organ? She is the latest star of the space fakers/fuckers show. This is business as usual. She wants a Nobel prize for the hole job! She doesn't understand that she was fooled to look at plenty gigaoctets of signal data and make something of it. Magic ... it became a picture."
You have zero credibility.
Hm, don't you agree that this American HERO Buzz Aldrin, second (LOL) on the Moon 1969, sounded like a drunken sailor, when he explained about pissing there. (There was no loo in his spacecraft!) So I consider all other people suggesting they have been in space to be Buzz clones. And now they are joined by astronomers suggesting they are taking pictures of celestial bodies (black holes) 50 million light years away. I simply suggest Katie made the photo herself pissing on Earth to become famous. I think she is not credible.
You do realize Ms. Bouman was part of a large effort, specifically experts from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the MIT Haystack Observatory? It was not just her musing in a dark basement playing with photoshop. There was a large team and actual science involved.
So your suggestion is unfounded and moot. It's not like you possess even the slightest bit of knowledge or expertise the folks involved have. You certainly don't have any credentials or credibility to even assess the effort, let alone claim it is fake. The best you have is fake based upon how you were unhappy with Buzz's demeanor when he talked about urination. You have a warped sense of reality and are completely bereft of logic.
-
At least you can admit that the Horsehead Nebula is real. I'm still waiting for Heiwa's response to it.
Where does the horse shit?
-
Hm, don't you agree that this American HERO Buzz Aldrin, second (LOL) on the Moon 1969, sounded like a drunken sailor, when he explained about pissing there. (There was no loo in his spacecraft!) So I consider all other people suggesting they have been in space to be Buzz clones. And now they are joined by astronomers suggesting they are taking pictures of celestial bodies (black holes) 50 million light years away. I simply suggest Katie made the photo herself pissing on Earth to become famous. I think she is not credible.
You do realize Ms. Bouman was part of a large effort, specifically experts from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the MIT Haystack Observatory? It was not just her musing in a dark basement playing with photoshop. There was a large team and actual science involved.
So your suggestion is unfounded and moot. It's not like you possess even the slightest bit of knowledge or expertise the folks involved have. You certainly don't have any credentials or credibility to even assess the effort, let alone claim it is fake. The best you have is fake based upon how you were unhappy with Buzz's demeanor when he talked about urination. You have a warped sense of reality and are completely bereft of logic.
No, I only know young Ms. Bouman. Her 100+ astronomer colleagues collecting data for her magic picture of a black hole in space are unknown to me. Media would not name them. It was only Ms. B that suddenly found the image in her computer. But there were other scientific comments.
"The data is like an incomplete puzzle set," said team member Monika Moscibrodzka, an astronomer at Radboud University. "We only see pieces of the real true image, and then we have to fill in the gaps of the missing pieces."
"What we see in the image is the shadow of the black hole's rim—known as the event horizon, or the point of no return—set against the luminous accretion disk," Gueth told AFP.
The unprecedented image—so often imagined in science and science fiction —- has been analysed in six studies co-authored by 200 experts from 60-odd institutions and published Wednesday in Astrophysical Journal Letters.
"I never thought that I would see a real one in my lifetime," said CNRS astrophysicist Jean-Pierre Luminet, author in 1979 of the first digital simulation of a black hole.
"We were desperately waiting for the data from the South Pole Telescope, which—due to extreme weather conditions during the southern hemisphere winter—didn't arrive until six months later," recalled Helger Rottmann from the Max Planck Institute. It would take another year, however, to piece together the data into an image.
"To be absolutely sure, we did the work four times with four different teams," said Gueth.
"We are looking at a region we have never looked at before, that we cannot really imagine being there," said Heino Falcke, chair of the EHT Science Council.
Etc, etc.
Re Buzz and his fondness of alcohol, I just quote media.
-
Hm, don't you agree that this American HERO Buzz Aldrin, second (LOL) on the Moon 1969, sounded like a drunken sailor, when he explained about pissing there. (There was no loo in his spacecraft!) So I consider all other people suggesting they have been in space to be Buzz clones. And now they are joined by astronomers suggesting they are taking pictures of celestial bodies (black holes) 50 million light years away. I simply suggest Katie made the photo herself pissing on Earth to become famous. I think she is not credible.
You do realize Ms. Bouman was part of a large effort, specifically experts from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the MIT Haystack Observatory? It was not just her musing in a dark basement playing with photoshop. There was a large team and actual science involved.
So your suggestion is unfounded and moot. It's not like you possess even the slightest bit of knowledge or expertise the folks involved have. You certainly don't have any credentials or credibility to even assess the effort, let alone claim it is fake. The best you have is fake based upon how you were unhappy with Buzz's demeanor when he talked about urination. You have a warped sense of reality and are completely bereft of logic.
No, I only know young Ms. Bouman. Her 100+ astronomer colleagues collecting data for her magic picture of a black hole in space are unknown to me. Media would not name them. It was only Ms. B that suddenly found the image in her computer. But there were other scientific comments.
I'm not following. You're saying Ms.Bouman is the only one who worked on the effort and then you go on to list people talking about working on the effort?
Re Buzz and his fondness of alcohol, I just quote media.
I think you're the one with the particular fondness for the drink considering you're making no sense in your ramblings about the black hole image.
-
Members - Please disregard this post unless unaware of the following.
Evaluate the following before discussing the black hole and its subtopics further.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74121.msg2017676#msg2017676
-
Hm, don't you agree that this American HERO Buzz Aldrin, second (LOL) on the Moon 1969, sounded like a drunken sailor, when he explained about pissing there. (There was no loo in his spacecraft!) So I consider all other people suggesting they have been in space to be Buzz clones. And now they are joined by astronomers suggesting they are taking pictures of celestial bodies (black holes) 50 million light years away. I simply suggest Katie made the photo herself pissing on Earth to become famous. I think she is not credible.
You do realize Ms. Bouman was part of a large effort, specifically experts from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the MIT Haystack Observatory? It was not just her musing in a dark basement playing with photoshop. There was a large team and actual science involved.
So your suggestion is unfounded and moot. It's not like you possess even the slightest bit of knowledge or expertise the folks involved have. You certainly don't have any credentials or credibility to even assess the effort, let alone claim it is fake. The best you have is fake based upon how you were unhappy with Buzz's demeanor when he talked about urination. You have a warped sense of reality and are completely bereft of logic.
No, I only know young Ms. Bouman. Her 100+ astronomer colleagues collecting data for her magic picture of a black hole in space are unknown to me. Media would not name them. It was only Ms. B that suddenly found the image in her computer. But there were other scientific comments.
I'm not following. You're saying Ms.Bouman is the only one who worked on the effort and then you go on to list people talking about working on the effort?
Re Buzz and his fondness of alcohol, I just quote media.
I think you're the one with the particular fondness for the drink considering you're making no sense in your ramblings about the black hole image.
You have to concentrate and not drink too much alcohol and study my findings.
This black hole image involved 100's of astronomers incl. some at the South Pole with their telescopes of all kind taking pictures of the Universe and the center of a galaxy 55 million light years away. Then plenty people tried to put these pictures together and ... MAGIC ... Ms. Bouman got the bits right. It was checked four times but it was Ms. Bouman that got it right. All alone.
She just added some missing pieces and ... a black hole appeared.
-
Do you 'see' the physical object in andromeda casting the light or only the light itself...
Everything you see is because photons of light hit your eyes, technically you see nothing but light, never the actual object, ever.
So yes, you see Andromeda the same way you see your own hands, or any other physical object.
-
Hm, don't you agree that this American HERO Buzz Aldrin, second (LOL) on the Moon 1969, sounded like a drunken sailor, when he explained about pissing there. (There was no loo in his spacecraft!) So I consider all other people suggesting they have been in space to be Buzz clones. And now they are joined by astronomers suggesting they are taking pictures of celestial bodies (black holes) 50 million light years away. I simply suggest Katie made the photo herself pissing on Earth to become famous. I think she is not credible.
You do realize Ms. Bouman was part of a large effort, specifically experts from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the MIT Haystack Observatory? It was not just her musing in a dark basement playing with photoshop. There was a large team and actual science involved.
So your suggestion is unfounded and moot. It's not like you possess even the slightest bit of knowledge or expertise the folks involved have. You certainly don't have any credentials or credibility to even assess the effort, let alone claim it is fake. The best you have is fake based upon how you were unhappy with Buzz's demeanor when he talked about urination. You have a warped sense of reality and are completely bereft of logic.
No, I only know young Ms. Bouman. Her 100+ astronomer colleagues collecting data for her magic picture of a black hole in space are unknown to me. Media would not name them. It was only Ms. B that suddenly found the image in her computer. But there were other scientific comments.
I'm not following. You're saying Ms.Bouman is the only one who worked on the effort and then you go on to list people talking about working on the effort?
Re Buzz and his fondness of alcohol, I just quote media.
I think you're the one with the particular fondness for the drink considering you're making no sense in your ramblings about the black hole image.
You have to concentrate and not drink too much alcohol and study my findings.
This black hole image involved 100's of astronomers incl. some at the South Pole with their telescopes of all kind taking pictures of the Universe and the center of a galaxy 55 million light years away. Then plenty people tried to put these pictures together and ... MAGIC ... Ms. Bouman got the bits right. It was checked four times but it was Ms. Bouman that got it right. All alone.
She just added some missing pieces and ... a black hole appeared.
Checked four times? Got a source for that? All alone, just her? Got a source for that? A source other than wherever you pull your made up stories from?
It wasn't just her, there were 40 other women on the project too, and another 160 men.
"As Bouman herself was quick to point out, she was by no means solely responsible for the discovery, which was a result of a worldwide collaboration among scientists who worked together to create the image from a network of radio antennas.
The project, led by Shep Doeleman, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, was the work of more than 200 researchers. About 40 of them were women, according to Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative. "
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/how-katie-bouman-accidentally-became-the-face-of-the-black-hole-project-1.3858319
-
Hm, don't you agree that this American HERO Buzz Aldrin, second (LOL) on the Moon 1969, sounded like a drunken sailor, when he explained about pissing there. (There was no loo in his spacecraft!) So I consider all other people suggesting they have been in space to be Buzz clones. And now they are joined by astronomers suggesting they are taking pictures of celestial bodies (black holes) 50 million light years away. I simply suggest Katie made the photo herself pissing on Earth to become famous. I think she is not credible.
You do realize Ms. Bouman was part of a large effort, specifically experts from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the MIT Haystack Observatory? It was not just her musing in a dark basement playing with photoshop. There was a large team and actual science involved.
So your suggestion is unfounded and moot. It's not like you possess even the slightest bit of knowledge or expertise the folks involved have. You certainly don't have any credentials or credibility to even assess the effort, let alone claim it is fake. The best you have is fake based upon how you were unhappy with Buzz's demeanor when he talked about urination. You have a warped sense of reality and are completely bereft of logic.
No, I only know young Ms. Bouman. Her 100+ astronomer colleagues collecting data for her magic picture of a black hole in space are unknown to me. Media would not name them. It was only Ms. B that suddenly found the image in her computer. But there were other scientific comments.
I'm not following. You're saying Ms.Bouman is the only one who worked on the effort and then you go on to list people talking about working on the effort?
Re Buzz and his fondness of alcohol, I just quote media.
I think you're the one with the particular fondness for the drink considering you're making no sense in your ramblings about the black hole image.
You have to concentrate and not drink too much alcohol and study my findings.
This black hole image involved 100's of astronomers incl. some at the South Pole with their telescopes of all kind taking pictures of the Universe and the center of a galaxy 55 million light years away. Then plenty people tried to put these pictures together and ... MAGIC ... Ms. Bouman got the bits right. It was checked four times but it was Ms. Bouman that got it right. All alone.
She just added some missing pieces and ... a black hole appeared.
Checked four times? Got a source for that? All alone, just her? Got a source for that? A source other than wherever you pull your made up stories from?
It wasn't just her, there were 40 other women on the project too, and another 160 men.
"As Bouman herself was quick to point out, she was by no means solely responsible for the discovery, which was a result of a worldwide collaboration among scientists who worked together to create the image from a network of radio antennas.
The project, led by Shep Doeleman, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, was the work of more than 200 researchers. About 40 of them were women, according to Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative. "
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/how-katie-bouman-accidentally-became-the-face-of-the-black-hole-project-1.3858319
Yes, yes. Irish news. But it was Ms. Bouman that found or made the missing pieces so that a shadow of a black hole lit up from behind and ... bla, bla, bla, ... an image was created.
With such evidence in any court, you would not get very far.
Please, stop drinking.
-
Hm, don't you agree that this American HERO Buzz Aldrin, second (LOL) on the Moon 1969, sounded like a drunken sailor, when he explained about pissing there. (There was no loo in his spacecraft!) So I consider all other people suggesting they have been in space to be Buzz clones. And now they are joined by astronomers suggesting they are taking pictures of celestial bodies (black holes) 50 million light years away. I simply suggest Katie made the photo herself pissing on Earth to become famous. I think she is not credible.
You do realize Ms. Bouman was part of a large effort, specifically experts from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the MIT Haystack Observatory? It was not just her musing in a dark basement playing with photoshop. There was a large team and actual science involved.
So your suggestion is unfounded and moot. It's not like you possess even the slightest bit of knowledge or expertise the folks involved have. You certainly don't have any credentials or credibility to even assess the effort, let alone claim it is fake. The best you have is fake based upon how you were unhappy with Buzz's demeanor when he talked about urination. You have a warped sense of reality and are completely bereft of logic.
No, I only know young Ms. Bouman. Her 100+ astronomer colleagues collecting data for her magic picture of a black hole in space are unknown to me. Media would not name them. It was only Ms. B that suddenly found the image in her computer. But there were other scientific comments.
I'm not following. You're saying Ms.Bouman is the only one who worked on the effort and then you go on to list people talking about working on the effort?
Re Buzz and his fondness of alcohol, I just quote media.
I think you're the one with the particular fondness for the drink considering you're making no sense in your ramblings about the black hole image.
You have to concentrate and not drink too much alcohol and study my findings.
This black hole image involved 100's of astronomers incl. some at the South Pole with their telescopes of all kind taking pictures of the Universe and the center of a galaxy 55 million light years away. Then plenty people tried to put these pictures together and ... MAGIC ... Ms. Bouman got the bits right. It was checked four times but it was Ms. Bouman that got it right. All alone.
She just added some missing pieces and ... a black hole appeared.
Checked four times? Got a source for that? All alone, just her? Got a source for that? A source other than wherever you pull your made up stories from?
It wasn't just her, there were 40 other women on the project too, and another 160 men.
"As Bouman herself was quick to point out, she was by no means solely responsible for the discovery, which was a result of a worldwide collaboration among scientists who worked together to create the image from a network of radio antennas.
The project, led by Shep Doeleman, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, was the work of more than 200 researchers. About 40 of them were women, according to Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative. "
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/how-katie-bouman-accidentally-became-the-face-of-the-black-hole-project-1.3858319
Yes, yes. Irish news. But it was Ms. Bouman that found or made the missing pieces so that a shadow of a black hole lit up from behind and ... bla, bla, bla, ... an image was created.
With such evidence in any court, you would not get very far.
Please, stop drinking.
You can find another dozen news articles about her involvement and how she became internet famous about it.
Here is one how internet trolls are attacking her. Sound familiar?
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/13/18308652/katie-bouman-black-hole-science-internet
All you have, are insulting and ridiculing sources and the people involved. That's it, your entire argument is you just making fun of people and making up lies about women. Just you and your made up stories.
You have zero evidence, just your inability to understand or accept anything. I'd love to see you in an actual court, you would be hauled off for contempt in about 30 seconds and wind up in a psychiatric hospital.
-
Yes, yes. Irish news. But it was Ms. Bouman that found or made the missing pieces so that a shadow of a black hole lit up from behind and ... bla, bla, bla, ... an image was created.
With such evidence in any court, you would not get very far.
Then it's a very good thing that you aren't a lawyer.
-
Hm, don't you agree that this American HERO Buzz Aldrin, second (LOL) on the Moon 1969, sounded like a drunken sailor, when he explained about pissing there. (There was no loo in his spacecraft!) So I consider all other people suggesting they have been in space to be Buzz clones. And now they are joined by astronomers suggesting they are taking pictures of celestial bodies (black holes) 50 million light years away. I simply suggest Katie made the photo herself pissing on Earth to become famous. I think she is not credible.
You do realize Ms. Bouman was part of a large effort, specifically experts from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the MIT Haystack Observatory? It was not just her musing in a dark basement playing with photoshop. There was a large team and actual science involved.
So your suggestion is unfounded and moot. It's not like you possess even the slightest bit of knowledge or expertise the folks involved have. You certainly don't have any credentials or credibility to even assess the effort, let alone claim it is fake. The best you have is fake based upon how you were unhappy with Buzz's demeanor when he talked about urination. You have a warped sense of reality and are completely bereft of logic.
No, I only know young Ms. Bouman. Her 100+ astronomer colleagues collecting data for her magic picture of a black hole in space are unknown to me. Media would not name them. It was only Ms. B that suddenly found the image in her computer. But there were other scientific comments.
I'm not following. You're saying Ms.Bouman is the only one who worked on the effort and then you go on to list people talking about working on the effort?
Re Buzz and his fondness of alcohol, I just quote media.
I think you're the one with the particular fondness for the drink considering you're making no sense in your ramblings about the black hole image.
You have to concentrate and not drink too much alcohol and study my findings.
This black hole image involved 100's of astronomers incl. some at the South Pole with their telescopes of all kind taking pictures of the Universe and the center of a galaxy 55 million light years away. Then plenty people tried to put these pictures together and ... MAGIC ... Ms. Bouman got the bits right. It was checked four times but it was Ms. Bouman that got it right. All alone.
She just added some missing pieces and ... a black hole appeared.
If you don't understand something do you always assume it's fake? Seems to be a pattern for you. The epitome of Dunning-Kruger at full strength. And once again, you have your facts wrong and suggestions unfounded. Not to mention you're being ridiculous.
Case in point, your idiotic statement: "It was checked four times but it was Ms. Bouman that got it right. All alone. She just added some missing pieces and ... a black hole appeared."
You have literally no idea what you're even commenting on:
"Bouman led the development of a computer program called CHIRP, or Continuous High-resolution Image Reconstruction using Patch priors. CHIRP helps account for differences between when data arrived at telescopes in difference places on Earth, fill in gaps between the telescopes' coverage, and single out the black hole data from everything else in that patch of sky. The program made it possible to create the images which another program (designed by Mareki Honma and his team) stitched together into the final picture that awed everyone on April 10. Her CHIRP team was actually one of three teams working to turn the data into images -- a total of about 40 people, led by Bouman, Andrew Chael, Kazunori Akiyama, Michael D. Johnson, Jose L. Gomez, and Sara Issaoun.
Those 40 people spent several years working on just one aspect of a project which involved around 200 people from 60 research institutions in 18 countries. It turns out that combining 8 radio observatories around the world to make the next best thing to a 10,000 km-wide antenna, then processing all of that data into an image of the event horizon of a black hole 54 million light years away, is a big, complex, collaborative project."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2019/04/14/we-should-listen-to-katie-bouman-science-takes-teamwork/#4f7b6dee2034
-
Topic is an image of a celestial object with a diameter of say 10 km which is 5.2 x 1020 km away (55 million light years) at the center of a galaxy in our Universe. 200 astronomers of multiple telescopes on Earth have taken plenty photos of this far away object but none have been published. It is suggested that the telescopes at different locations on Earth can jointly take photos of this object so that a composite image can be created using bits and pieces of available footage. Missing bits have also been added during several years. The final image is black (the background color of the Universe) with a hole with a black dot in the middle of the hole. The hole is illuminated. The rim of the hole is a shadow of some sort and the light is coming from somewhere. What the dot in the middle is, is not clear. It is suggested that celestial object in the image is a Black Hole. If you try to find out more of the history of this image, you are told that it just popped up on a computer screen of a poor girl part of the team. I just suggest the image is simple fakery and that the girl is a fraud. Reason I do it, is that I don’t believe Black Holes exist in the Universe. I explain more at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm
-
Topic is an image of a celestial object with a diameter of say 10 km which is 5.2 x 1020 km away (55 million light years) at the center of a galaxy in our Universe. 200 astronomers of multiple telescopes on Earth have taken plenty photos of this far away object but none have been published. It is suggested that the telescopes at different locations on Earth can jointly take photos of this object so that a composite image can be created using bits and pieces of available footage. Missing bits have also been added during several years. The final image is black (the background color of the Universe) with a hole with a black dot in the middle of the hole. The hole is illuminated. The rim of the hole is a shadow of some sort and the light is coming from somewhere. What the dot in the middle is, is not clear. It is suggested that celestial object in the image is a Black Hole. If you try to find out more of the history of this image, you are told that it just popped up on a computer screen of a poor girl part of the team. I just suggest the image is simple fakery and that the girl is a fraud. Reason I do it, is that I don’t believe Black Holes exist in the Universe. I explain more at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm
Again, you suggest the image is simple fakery and that the girl is a fraud, yet you have no knowledge of even the basics. You just make it up.
Case in point, you write, "Topic is an image of a celestial object with a diameter of say 10 km..." Right out of the gate you don't have any sense of the facts - Just fabricate whatever feels right to you and mosey on your way. The definition of ignorance.
"It measures 40 billion km across - three million times the size of the Earth"
That seems like a smidge larger than 10 km in diameter.
If you're going to make some claims, at a minimum, get right what you're making a claim against. You can't even get past the first sentence without lying.
-
Topic is an image of a celestial object with a diameter of say 10 km which is 5.2 x 1020 km away (55 million light years) at the center of a galaxy in our Universe. 200 astronomers of multiple telescopes on Earth have taken plenty photos of this far away object but none have been published. It is suggested that the telescopes at different locations on Earth can jointly take photos of this object so that a composite image can be created using bits and pieces of available footage. Missing bits have also been added during several years. The final image is black (the background color of the Universe) with a hole with a black dot in the middle of the hole. The hole is illuminated. The rim of the hole is a shadow of some sort and the light is coming from somewhere. What the dot in the middle is, is not clear. It is suggested that celestial object in the image is a Black Hole. If you try to find out more of the history of this image, you are told that it just popped up on a computer screen of a poor girl part of the team. I just suggest the image is simple fakery and that the girl is a fraud. Reason I do it, is that I don’t believe Black Holes exist in the Universe. I explain more at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm
Again, you suggest the image is simple fakery and that the girl is a fraud, yet you have no knowledge of even the basics. You just make it up.
Case in point, you write, "Topic is an image of a celestial object with a diameter of say 10 km..." Right out of the gate you don't have any sense of the facts - Just fabricate whatever feels right to you and mosey on your way. The definition of ignorance.
"It measures 40 billion km across - three million times the size of the Earth"
That seems like a smidge larger than 10 km in diameter.
If you're going to make some claims, at a minimum, get right what you're making a claim against. You can't even get past the first sentence without lying.
Well, there are plenty original footage of this big, strange object, we are told, so let's see part of it. I simply suggest it doesn't exist. Anyway, Black Holes are not 40 billion km across. Maybe it is a quasar? A quasar is a compact (sic) region in vacuum space surrounding a super massive Black Hole and emitting enormous amounts of electromagnetic energy/light, as mass from the core of a surrounding galaxy. Under the influence of the Black Hole's gravity it falls onto its accretion disc. Sounds magic. Let's see some photos of it!
-
Well, there are plenty original footage of this big, strange object, we are told...
Who told you that? As I understand it, the data was collected from a number of radio telescopes, not optical telescopes.
-
Anyway, Black Holes are not 40 billion km across.
How would YOU know the size of the super-massive M87 Black Hole? The size of a black hole is taken as the size of its event horizon.
Here’s How Big the M87 Black Hole is Compared to the Earth (https://futurism.com/the-byte/big-m87-black-hole-compared-the-earth)
Pale Black Dot
On Wednesday, a team of scientists from around the world released the first-ever directly-observed image of the event horizon of a black hole.
The black hole, M87*, is found within the constellation Virgo — and as the webcomic XKCD (https://xkcd.com/2135/) illustrated, it’s as big as our entire solar system.
(https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2019/04/m87_black_hole_size_comparison.png)
Stellar Giant
The gigantic black hole, not counting the giant rings of trapped light orbiting it, is about 23.6 billion miles (38 billion kilometers) across, according to Science News.
Meanwhile, the Earth is just 7,917 miles in diameter — meaning our planet wouldn’t even be a drop in the bucket of the giant, black void. Based Futurism’s calculations, it would take just over 2.98 million Earths lined up in a row to span the length of M87*.
-
Anyway, Black Holes are not 40 billion km across.
How would YOU know the size of the super-massive M87 Black Hole? The size of a black hole is taken as the size of its event horizon.
Here’s How Big the M87 Black Hole is Compared to the Earth (https://futurism.com/the-byte/big-m87-black-hole-compared-the-earth)
Pale Black Dot
On Wednesday, a team of scientists from around the world released the first-ever directly-observed image of the event horizon of a black hole.
The black hole, M87*, is found within the constellation Virgo — and as the webcomic XKCD (https://xkcd.com/2135/) illustrated, it’s as big as our entire solar system.
(https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2019/04/m87_black_hole_size_comparison.png)
Stellar Giant
The gigantic black hole, not counting the giant rings of trapped light orbiting it, is about 23.6 billion miles (38 billion kilometers) across, according to Science News.
Meanwhile, the Earth is just 7,917 miles in diameter — meaning our planet wouldn’t even be a drop in the bucket of the giant, black void. Based Futurism’s calculations, it would take just over 2.98 million Earths lined up in a row to span the length of M87*.
OK, so the celestial object observed by plenty astronomers on Earth at the center of a galaxy 55 million light years away from Earth is bigger than our Solar System (Sun + planets) and ... it is a Black Hole. Far away. No evidence of anything except a composite image. But there is another Black Hole much closer! At the center of our galaxy the Milky Way. Only 25000 light years away? 2200 times closer! But no photos of it are available. I wonder why. Any ideas?
Shouldn't we start exploring our own galaxy first?
-
Anyway, Black Holes are not 40 billion km across.
How would YOU know the size of the super-massive M87 Black Hole? The size of a black hole is taken as the size of its event horizon.
Here’s How Big the M87 Black Hole is Compared to the Earth (https://futurism.com/the-byte/big-m87-black-hole-compared-the-earth)
Pale Black Dot
On Wednesday, a team of scientists from around the world released the first-ever directly-observed image of the event horizon of a black hole.
The black hole, M87*, is found within the constellation Virgo — and as the webcomic XKCD (https://xkcd.com/2135/) illustrated, it’s as big as our entire solar system.
(https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2019/04/m87_black_hole_size_comparison.png)
Stellar Giant
The gigantic black hole, not counting the giant rings of trapped light orbiting it, is about 23.6 billion miles (38 billion kilometers) across, according to Science News.
Meanwhile, the Earth is just 7,917 miles in diameter — meaning our planet wouldn’t even be a drop in the bucket of the giant, black void. Based Futurism’s calculations, it would take just over 2.98 million Earths lined up in a row to span the length of M87*.
OK, so the celestial object observed by plenty astronomers on Earth at the center of a galaxy 55 million light years away from Earth is bigger than our Solar System (Sun + planets) and ... it is a Black Hole. Far away. No evidence of anything except a composite image. But there is another Black Hole much closer! At the center of our galaxy the Milky Way. Only 25000 light years away? 2200 times closer! But no photos of it are available. I wonder why. Any ideas?
Shouldn't we start exploring our own galaxy first?
We are but Sag A* is far smaller with a mass of a bit over 4.1 × 106 M☉ (solar masses).
Not only that but Sag A*, being in our own Galaxy is hidden by stars and dust clouds around the Galactic centre.
Here's Why Scientists Did Not Take Image Of Sagittarius A*, Black Hole At The Heart Of Milky Way (https://www.techtimes.com/articles/241299/20190413/heres-why-scientists-did-not-take-image-of-sagittarius-a-black-hole-at-the-heart-of-milky-way.htm)
-
Ok, we discuss the super massive Messier 87 Black Hole. That Black Hole itself has a diameter of only 10 km but its gravity force is so strong that it cleans away everything within 37 billion km, the size of our Solar System. Of course you cannot see it or take a photo of it BUT due to MAGIC the vacuum void around it lights up and becomes visible. And photos can be taken! And according to Ms. K. Bouman:
"We developed ways to generate synthetic data and used different algorithms and tested blindly to see if we can recover an image," she says. "We didn't want to just develop one algorithm. We wanted to develop many different algorithms that all have different assumptions built into them. If all of them recover the same general structure, then that builds your confidence."
This is 101% standard pseudoscience.
The NSF photo is 200 billion km from right to left, up down. Nothing else to be seen than a point in the center hole illuminated from … ? It is a composite of millions of photos taken from Earth.
Re the the Sagittarius A*, the Black Hole located in our Milky Way galaxy 25,000 light-years away from Earth, it is 2200 times closer, but it doesn't mean it's a better subject to photograph, we are told. There are too many cosmic objects in between the two with billions of stars, planets, and dust floating in the same flat disk of the Milky Way.
This is 102% pseudoscience.
But people on Earth believe it. Some are well paid to promote the propaganda and … I just laugh about them. They are like Mr. Buzz Aldrin, PhD MIT 1963 that invented the human space travel hoax. He arrived at the Moon summer 1969, pissed on it … and never had a real job since.
Ms. Bouman! Welcome to the pseudo science club of fame. It is a big hole of nobodies. Many become alcoholics. What else to do there?
-
Ok, we discuss the super massive Messier 87 Black Hole. That Black Hole itself has a diameter of only 10 km but its gravity force is so strong that it cleans away everything within 37 billion km, the size of our Solar System.
The diameter of a black hole is taken as the diameter of its event horizon. There is no way that you can determine anything inside the event horizon.
Anyway, Black Holes are not 40 billion km across.
How would YOU know the size of the super-massive M87 Black Hole? The size of a black hole is taken as the size of its event horizon.
Here’s How Big the M87 Black Hole is Compared to the Earth (https://futurism.com/the-byte/big-m87-black-hole-compared-the-earth)
Stellar Giant
The gigantic black hole, not counting the giant rings of trapped light orbiting it, is about 23.6 billion miles (38 billion kilometers) across, according to Science News.
Meanwhile, the Earth is just 7,917 miles in diameter — meaning our planet wouldn’t even be a drop in the bucket of the giant, black void. Based Futurism’s calculations, it would take just over 2.98 million Earths lined up in a row to span the length of M87*.
Go and learn something about astronomy!
-
Ok, we discuss the super massive Messier 87 Black Hole. That Black Hole itself has a diameter of only 10 km but its gravity force is so strong that it cleans away everything within 37 billion km, the size of our Solar System.
The diameter of a black hole is taken as the diameter of its event horizon. There is no way that you can determine anything inside the event horizon.
I understand that an event horizon is a boundary beyond which events cannot affect an observer. So I understand that nobody can measure the diameter of an event horizon from the inside!
Question remains if you can do the measurement from the outside. You don't know what is inside.
Do you understand the problem?
My answer is simple. I explain it at my website.
-
Ok, we discuss the super massive Messier 87 Black Hole. That Black Hole itself has a diameter of only 10 km but its gravity force is so strong that it cleans away everything within 37 billion km, the size of our Solar System.
The diameter of a black hole is taken as the diameter of its event horizon. There is no way that you can determine anything inside the event horizon.
I understand that an event horizon is a boundary beyond which events cannot affect an observer. So I understand that nobody can measure the diameter of an event horizon from the inside!
Question remains if you can do the measurement from the outside. You don't know what is inside.
Do you understand the problem?
My answer is simple. I explain it at my website.
No, we can actually measure such things. You don't understand, that's the problem.
I've looked at your web page and it's explains things about as well as the Time Cube website, although with slightly less annoying fonts and colors. A big list of conspiracy theories is not very compelling in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. And reality.
-
Ok, we discuss the super massive Messier 87 Black Hole. That Black Hole itself has a diameter of only 10 km but its gravity force is so strong that it cleans away everything within 37 billion km, the size of our Solar System.
The diameter of a black hole is taken as the diameter of its event horizon. There is no way that you can determine anything inside the event horizon.
I understand that an event horizon is a boundary beyond which events cannot affect an observer. So I understand that nobody can measure the diameter of an event horizon from the inside!
Question remains if you can do the measurement from the outside. You don't know what is inside.
The radius of the event horizon is The Schwarzschild Radius (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/blkhol.html) radius for that mass
I said, "There is no way that you can determine anything inside the event horizon" but the diameter of a black hole is taken as the diameter of its event horizon.
You don't get to determine how astronomical measurements are defined.
Do you understand the problem?
I fail to see any problem!
Astronomers define the diameter of a black hole as the diameter of its event horizon - end of story.
If you think it should be different take it to the International Astronomical Union (https://www.iau.org/).
My answer is simple. I explain it at my website.
Judging by what I've seen so far I wouldn't waste my time. Post it here or send it to the IAU if you think it's so wonderful.
-
Astronomers define the diameter of a black hole as the diameter of its event horizon - end of story.
An event horizon according astronomers is a boundary beyond which events in the Universe cannot affect an observer.
Say that the event is a Black Hole in the Universe and that the Black Hole has an event horizon. So beyond it, the Black Hole cannot affect an observer, i.e. any observer hasn't a clue what is inside this event horizon.
Now some astronomers suggest that there is Black Hole in a far away galaxy and that its diameter is greater than our Solar System, i.e. it is pretty big. Same astronomers have taken 2D photos of it from Earth and the result is a composite of photos that has become the 2D image we have seen. A girl made the image using some fancy software.
The image itself shows something that is 10 times bigger than our Solar System. It is mostly Black with a Hole in the middle with a Black Dot in the Hole. The Hole is illuminated around the Dot. Outside of the Hole is black. No stars, etc, are seen. The diameter of the black Dot is bigger than our Solar System, I am told. I can see it on the image. The astronomers say the Dot is a Black Hole.
But where is the event horizon?
The volume of the Dot must be enormous BUT it is solid! And its gravity is big so the escape velocity from the Dot is greater than the speed of light. That is why the Dot is black. No light escapes.
It is MAGIC. But relax! God Allah Jahve made the Dot once upon a time.
-
An event horizon is a boundary beyond which events cannot affect an observer. observer
Say that the event is a Black Hole and that the Black Hole has an event horizon. So beyond it, the Black Hole cannot affect an observer, i.e. any observer hasn't a clue what is inside this event horizon.
Your definition of an event horizon is wrong. An event horizon is the point where the gravitational pull of a black hole prevents light from escaping.
A Black Hole certainly CAN affect an observer, it will still pull you inside. That's quite an effect. You just can't see inside.
-
An event horizon is a boundary beyond which events cannot affect an observer. observer
Say that the event is a Black Hole and that the Black Hole has an event horizon. So beyond it, the Black Hole cannot affect an observer, i.e. any observer hasn't a clue what is inside this event horizon.
Your definition of an event horizon is wrong. An event horizon is the point where the gravitational pull of a black hole prevents light from escaping.
A Black Hole certainly CAN affect an observer, it will still pull you inside. That's quite an effect. You just can't see inside.
Thanks. Question remains - where is the event horizon on the image? Around the black Dot in the Hole?
-
An event horizon is a boundary beyond which events cannot affect an observer. observer
Say that the event is a Black Hole and that the Black Hole has an event horizon. So beyond it, the Black Hole cannot affect an observer, i.e. any observer hasn't a clue what is inside this event horizon.
Your definition of an event horizon is wrong. An event horizon is the point where the gravitational pull of a black hole prevents light from escaping.
A Black Hole certainly CAN affect an observer, it will still pull you inside. That's quite an effect. You just can't see inside.
Thanks. Question remains - where is the event horizon on the image? Around the black Dot in the Hole?
No, the event horizon is the black dot in the middle of the accretion disc.
-
Astronomers define the diameter of a black hole as the diameter of its event horizon - end of story.
An event horizon according astronomers is a boundary beyond which events in the Universe cannot affect an observer.
Say that the event is a Black Hole in the Universe and that the Black Hole has an event horizon.
What on earth are you talking about?
So beyond it, the Black Hole cannot affect an observer, i.e. any observer hasn't a clue what is inside this event horizon.
So what?
Now some astronomers suggest that there is Black Hole in a far away galaxy and that its diameter is greater than our Solar System, i.e. it is pretty big. Same astronomers have taken 2D photos of it from Earth and the result is a composite of photos that has become the 2D image we have seen.
Nobody said any such thing! The data was collected on Radio Telescopes.
A girl made the image using some fancy software.
No, a whole group of people.
The image itself shows something that is 10 times bigger than our Solar System. It is mostly Black with a Hole in the middle with a Black Dot in the Hole. The Hole is illuminated around the Dot. Outside of the Hole is black. No stars, etc, are seen. The diameter of the black Dot is bigger than our Solar System, I am told. I can see it on the image. The astronomers say the Dot is a Black Hole.
Where did "The astronomers say the Dot is a Black Hole"?
But where is the event horizon?
Here’s How Big the M87 Black Hole is Compared to the Earth (https://futurism.com/the-byte/big-m87-black-hole-compared-the-earth)
Pale Black Dot
On Wednesday, a team of scientists from around the world released the first-ever directly-observed image of the event horizon of a black hole.
The black hole, M87*, is found within the constellation Virgo — and as the webcomic XKCD (https://xkcd.com/2135/) illustrated, it’s as big as our entire solar system.
(https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2019/04/m87_black_hole_size_comparison.png)
Stellar Giant
The gigantic black hole, not counting the giant rings of trapped light orbiting it, is about 23.6 billion miles (38 billion kilometers) across, according to Science News.
Meanwhile, the Earth is just 7,917 miles in diameter — meaning our planet wouldn’t even be a drop in the bucket of the giant, black void. Based Futurism’s calculations, it would take just over 2.98 million Earths lined up in a row to span the length of M87*.
Note, "a team of scientists from around the world released the first-ever directly-observed image of the event horizon".
The size of the event horizon is about where Voyager I is drawn in the image. You cannot see inside the event horizon.
-
Astronomers define the diameter of a black hole as the diameter of its event horizon - end of story.
An event horizon according astronomers is a boundary beyond which events in the Universe cannot affect an observer.
Say that the event is a Black Hole in the Universe and that the Black Hole has an event horizon.
What on earth are you talking about?
So beyond it, the Black Hole cannot affect an observer, i.e. any observer hasn't a clue what is inside this event horizon.
So what?
Now some astronomers suggest that there is Black Hole in a far away galaxy and that its diameter is greater than our Solar System, i.e. it is pretty big. Same astronomers have taken 2D photos of it from Earth and the result is a composite of photos that has become the 2D image we have seen.
Nobody said any such thing! The data was collected on Radio Telescopes.
A girl made the image using some fancy software.
No, a whole group of people.
The image itself shows something that is 10 times bigger than our Solar System. It is mostly Black with a Hole in the middle with a Black Dot in the Hole. The Hole is illuminated around the Dot. Outside of the Hole is black. No stars, etc, are seen. The diameter of the black Dot is bigger than our Solar System, I am told. I can see it on the image. The astronomers say the Dot is a Black Hole.
Where did "The astronomers say the Dot is a Black Hole"?
But where is the event horizon?
Here’s How Big the M87 Black Hole is Compared to the Earth (https://futurism.com/the-byte/big-m87-black-hole-compared-the-earth)
Pale Black Dot
On Wednesday, a team of scientists from around the world released the first-ever directly-observed image of the event horizon of a black hole.
The black hole, M87*, is found within the constellation Virgo — and as the webcomic XKCD (https://xkcd.com/2135/) illustrated, it’s as big as our entire solar system.
(https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2019/04/m87_black_hole_size_comparison.png)
Stellar Giant
The gigantic black hole, not counting the giant rings of trapped light orbiting it, is about 23.6 billion miles (38 billion kilometers) across, according to Science News.
Meanwhile, the Earth is just 7,917 miles in diameter — meaning our planet wouldn’t even be a drop in the bucket of the giant, black void. Based Futurism’s calculations, it would take just over 2.98 million Earths lined up in a row to span the length of M87*.
Note, "a team of scientists from around the world released the first-ever directly-observed image of the event horizon".
The size of the event horizon is about where Voyager I is drawn in the image. You cannot see inside the event horizon.
Thanks. I cannot see the event horizon. There should also be a quasar close to the hole and outside the event horizon. I cannot see it either. I think the image is simple photoshop.
Re the black hole itself, it is pretty big and solid. What is the volume (m3) and mass (kg)? I know nobody can look into it but anyhow. You are such a genius knowing everything ....
-
Thanks. I cannot see the event horizon. There should also be a quasar close to the hole and outside the event horizon. I cannot see it either. I think the image is simple photoshop.
Re the black hole itself, it is pretty big and solid. What is the volume (m3) and mass (kg)? I know nobody can look into it but anyhow. You are such a genius knowing everything ....
No, you can't see the event horizon. ::)
Do you even know what a quasar is? Why do you think you should see one? Do you just make things up as you type them?
You want the volume and mass, look it up. Clearly us giving you the answers isn't helping, maybe if you read about some of these subjects you might learn something.
Photoshop. Right. :-\
-
Do you even know what a quasar is? Why do you think you should see one? Do you just make things up as you type them?
Thanks for asking. I describe quasars at my website based on info provided by astronomers. They should be seen adjacent to Black Holes. See also - http://milesmathis.com/black4.pdf
"the most dishonest scientists love to hide out in data holes, where they can say whatever they wish and get famous for nothing".
-
Do you even know what a quasar is? Why do you think you should see one? Do you just make things up as you type them?
Thanks for asking. I describe quasars at my website based on info provided by astronomers. They should be seen adjacent to Black Holes.
Who says that quasars "should be seen adjacent to Black Holes"?
There is a black hole at the centre of every quasar but not every black hole has to have a quasar surrounding it.
But the topic is "Escape velocity and Speed of light".
-
ireygursagj
U R we todd did
U R sofa king we todd did
-
The black hole, M87*, is found within the constellation Virgo — and as the webcomic XKCD (https://xkcd.com/2135/) illustrated, it’s as big as our entire solar system.
(https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2019/04/m87_black_hole_size_comparison.png)
Below is my post:
A radio telescope is pointed at the sky. It collects lights of long-wavelength or radio waves, which lie in the very specific part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Again, pls disregard this post unless unaware of the following.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81861.msg2178004#msg2178004
We know light travels in a straight direction unless reflected. Let sun spread its light evenly in all directions. Earth receives a very small fraction of that sunlight as most of the sunlight is in the spacelike region (unable for us to see) and their direction of traveling keeps them away further in the spacelike region of lightcone - True.
How do we see the full image of the sun when a very small portion of the sunlight (For simplicity, say circle of earth’s diameter) reaches the earth?
The same is applied to the formation of the above image of the black hole. Lots of questions arise about the reception of light, their timing, covering an area in the space, etc via radio telescopes.
-
We know light travels in a straight direction unless reflected. Let sun spread its light evenly in all directions. Earth receives a very small fraction of that sunlight as most of the sunlight is in the spacelike region (unable for us to see) and their direction of traveling keeps them away further in the spacelike region of lightcone - True.
How do we see the full image of the sun when a very small portion of the sunlight (For simplicity, say circle of earth’s diameter) reaches the earth?
The same is applied to the formation of the above image of the black hole. Lots of questions arise about the reception of light, their timing, covering an area in the space, etc via radio telescopes.
How do you see a light bulb, when only a tiny fraction of it's light reaches your eyes?
If you are standing 6 meters away from a light bulb, your 2mm iris is only receiving 1/100,000,000th of the light from that light bulb. How do you see it?
Same way you see the Sun, both objects are bright, and our eyes can literally detect single photons. They are very sensitive!
Also keep in mind how bright the Sun is. It's emitting 10^45 photons a second. A small portion of that number is still very large! Large enough that if you were to look directly at the sun, each eye would be receiving 18.61 quadrillion photons a second. More than enough to see it, and burn your retinas if you stare too long.
Radio and visual light telescopes work the same way, except they have an even better advantage that you can leave them running for hours or even days to collect enough light to make a picture. I've done long exposure pictures of nebula myself, so I know this works.
So there are no questions about being able to see objects. A light bulb, the Sun, or a distant black hole. It's just a matter of using sensitive enough equipment.
-
Not to mention the fact that you can link multiple radio telescopes all over the world to make one virtual telescope with a much larger "iris" to gather even more light.
-
Not to mention the fact that you can link multiple radio telescopes all over the world to make one virtual telescope with a much larger "iris" to gather even more light.
How to link optical telescopes to work as a single device is nothing new. See https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16869022 .
But I have my doubts about that technology to make an image of a celestial object at the center of a galaxy 55 million light years away. The object in question – an alleged black hole - has a diameter of our Solar system. The diameter of the Solar System is 180 AU or about 0.003 light years.
So an object with diameter 0.003 light years is 55 000 000 light years away. I doubt any telescopes on Earth can make an image of it.
-
Not to mention the fact that you can link multiple radio telescopes all over the world to make one virtual telescope with a much larger "iris" to gather even more light.
How to link optical telescopes to work as a single device is nothing new. See https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16869022 .
But I have my doubts about that technology to make an image of a celestial object at the center of a galaxy 55 million light years away. The object in question – an alleged black hole - has a diameter of our Solar system. The diameter of the Solar System is 180 AU or about 0.003 light years.
So an object with diameter 0.003 light years is 55 000 000 light years away. I doubt any telescopes on Earth can make an image of it.
Radio telescopes, Heiwa. He said radio telescopes. Not optical.
Again, that picture is from linked radio telescopes, not optical.
-
Not to mention the fact that you can link multiple radio telescopes all over the world to make one virtual telescope with a much larger "iris" to gather even more light.
How to link optical telescopes to work as a single device is nothing new. See https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16869022 .
But I have my doubts about that technology to make an image of a celestial object at the center of a galaxy 55 million light years away. The object in question – an alleged black hole - has a diameter of our Solar system. The diameter of the Solar System is 180 AU or about 0.003 light years.
So an object with diameter 0.003 light years is 55 000 000 light years away. I doubt any telescopes on Earth can make an image of it.
Radio telescopes, Heiwa. He said radio telescopes. Not optical.
Again, that picture is from linked radio telescopes, not optical.
I know. But radio telescopes do not make color images of celestial objects far away that can hardly be located. So they faked it using Katie Bouman as front. I have seen it before.
-
The image we see is made up of either direct or reflected light from the object we look at. On earth, we see things around us due to reflection. There are direct sources of light in space such as stars and indirect sources such as reflection from the moon etc.
Light travels in a straight direction with a speed of about 300, 000 km/sec, not just in all directions randomly. The diameter of the earth is negligible as compared to the size of whole universe, therefore, a radio telescope catches a very small fraction of the light of space, including direct or indirect interference even if the diameter of its dish (parabolic reflector) is equal to the diameter of the earth.
We see a vast image of the space by our tiny eyes therefore the question remains how scientifically? The human eye is not the source of emitting light towards the object. It is the light that comes to our eyes straight from the object we see either directly or indirectly. The following diagram may help what I said if I'm not wrong.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vxD5MnrC/IMG-E3020.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/vxD5MnrC)
-
The image we see is made up of either direct or reflected light from the object we look at. On earth, we see things around us due to reflection. There are direct sources of light in space such as stars and indirect sources such as reflection from the moon etc.
Light travels in a straight direction with a speed of about 300, 000 km/sec, not just in all directions randomly. The diameter of the earth is negligible as compared to the size of whole universe, therefore, a radio telescope catches a very small fraction of the light of space, including direct or indirect interference even if the diameter of its dish (parabolic reflector) is equal to the diameter of the earth.
We see a vast image of the space by our tiny eyes therefore the question remains how scientifically? The human eye is not the source of emitting light towards the object. It is the light that comes to our eyes straight from the object we see either directly or indirectly. The following diagram may help what I said if I'm not wrong.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vxD5MnrC/IMG-E3020.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/vxD5MnrC)
Please, you cannot take a photo of a Black Hole in the Universe. The light does not escape from it. So the image presented is … something else … i.e. fake. And you don’t take images with radio telescopes. Anyway, Black Holes are just fantasy. They do not exist at all … except between women legs.
-
The image we see is made up of either direct or reflected light from the object we look at. On earth, we see things around us due to reflection. There are direct sources of light in space such as stars and indirect sources such as reflection from the moon etc.
Light travels in a straight direction with a speed of about 300, 000 km/sec, not just in all directions randomly. The diameter of the earth is negligible as compared to the size of whole universe, therefore, a radio telescope catches a very small fraction of the light of space, including direct or indirect interference even if the diameter of its dish (parabolic reflector) is equal to the diameter of the earth.
We see a vast image of the space by our tiny eyes therefore the question remains how scientifically? The human eye is not the source of emitting light towards the object. It is the light that comes to our eyes straight from the object we see either directly or indirectly. The following diagram may help what I said if I'm not wrong.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vxD5MnrC/IMG-E3020.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/vxD5MnrC)
Please, you cannot take a photo of a Black Hole in the Universe. The light does not escape from it. So the image presented is … something else … i.e. fake. And you don’t take images with radio telescopes. Anyway, Black Holes are just fantasy. They do not exist at all … except between women legs.
Logically, I don't believe in Black Holes either. Have you gone through one of my posts which shows a light clock can be designed in an infinite number of ways? This includes anti-time dilation light clock, time contraction light clocks, and time dilation clocks. No time dilation means no event horizon. No event horizon means no black hole - simple. I was just arguing that it is impossible to gather lights for portraying BH.
-
Thanks for the picture of a Black Hole that a girl, Ms Katie Bouman, found in her computer one day. I describe the event at my website - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelb.htm#BH . You don't really believe that?
I think it was a selfie! LOL!
I just suggest the image is simple fakery and that the girl is a fraud.
Please, you cannot take a photo of a Black Hole in the Universe. The light does not escape from it. So the image presented is … something else … i.e. fake. And you don’t take images with radio telescopes. Anyway, Black Holes are just fantasy. They do not exist at all … except between women legs.
What is your problem with women scientists, or do you just have a problem with women in general?
Would you have believed the image was real if only men worked on it?
-
Please, you cannot take a photo of a Black Hole in the Universe. The light does not escape from it. So the image presented is … something else …
Let me try to put it in nautical terms that you might understand. Modern submarines are so quiet and stealthy that sonar operators say that they look for the hole in the ocean. That is, the ocean tends to be fairly noisy, so if you can find a quiet spot that's moving around, it must be a submarine. In the same way, they aren't directly imaging the black hole. Rather, they're imaging the cloud that happens to have a hole in it.
Anyway, Black Holes are just fantasy. They do not exist at all … except between women legs.
And between your ears.
-
Logically, I don't believe in Black Holes either. Have you gone through one of my posts which shows a light clock can be designed in an infinite number of ways? This includes anti-time dilation light clock, time contraction light clocks, and time dilation clocks. No time dilation means no event horizon. No event horizon means no black hole - simple. I was just arguing that it is impossible to gather lights for portraying BH.
Time dilation has been shown experimentally for 50 years now, in many experiments and in hundreds of satellites and on the ISS.
It's very real.
I have no idea what your anti-time dilation light clock idea is, but unless you build it and show it defies current the laws of physics, it's just a hypothesis.
-
Do you even know what a quasar is? Why do you think you should see one? Do you just make things up as you type them?
Thanks for asking. I describe quasars at my website based on info provided by astronomers. They should be seen adjacent to Black Holes. See also - http://milesmathis.com/black4.pdf
"the most dishonest scientists love to hide out in data holes, where they can say whatever they wish and get famous for nothing".
A perfect example of where you get your dunning-kruger syndrome from: Miles Mathis. Miles has quite a number of thoughts on various topics. Here's just a few to give you a sense of his (and your) credibility, or lack thereof:
PAPER UPDATE, added 6/6/20, The George Floyd Killing was Faked. I have added brief comments from another reader at the bottom.
PAPER UPDATE, added 5/20/20, Obama's Genealogy. See p. 3, where I show you a few new things.
NEW PAPER, added 3/14/20, The Coronavirus Hoax. A guest writer gets us started on this one.
NEW PAPER, added 2/19/20, The 22 July Massacre in Norway was Fake, part 5. A guest writer from Norway continues my 4-parter on Anders Breivik, discovering some tasty additions.
NEW PAPER, added 12/13/19, Yes, Diana Faked Her Death. You always knew it. This is probably the closest thing to proof you are going to get.
NEW PAPER, added 11/15/19, The Assassination of Malcolm X was Staged. Also analysis of Willie McGee, William Faulkner, Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, Bella Abzug, and others.
PAPER UPDATE, added 5/29/19, Abe Lincoln. See p. 25, where we find more evidence Lincoln's death was faked.
It goes on like this for page after page after page.
It's good to know where you get your astronomy and physics knowledge from.
-
Do you even know what a quasar is? Why do you think you should see one? Do you just make things up as you type them?
Thanks for asking. I describe quasars at my website based on info provided by astronomers. They should be seen adjacent to Black Holes. See also - http://milesmathis.com/black4.pdf
"the most dishonest scientists love to hide out in data holes, where they can say whatever they wish and get famous for nothing".
A perfect example of where you get your dunning-kruger syndrome from: Miles Mathis. Miles has quite a number of thoughts on various topics. Here's just a few to give you a sense of his (and your) credibility, or lack thereof:
PAPER UPDATE, added 6/6/20, The George Floyd Killing was Faked. I have added brief comments from another reader at the bottom.
PAPER UPDATE, added 5/20/20, Obama's Genealogy. See p. 3, where I show you a few new things.
NEW PAPER, added 3/14/20, The Coronavirus Hoax. A guest writer gets us started on this one.
NEW PAPER, added 2/19/20, The 22 July Massacre in Norway was Fake, part 5. A guest writer from Norway continues my 4-parter on Anders Breivik, discovering some tasty additions.
NEW PAPER, added 12/13/19, Yes, Diana Faked Her Death. You always knew it. This is probably the closest thing to proof you are going to get.
NEW PAPER, added 11/15/19, The Assassination of Malcolm X was Staged. Also analysis of Willie McGee, William Faulkner, Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, Bella Abzug, and others.
PAPER UPDATE, added 5/29/19, Abe Lincoln. See p. 25, where we find more evidence Lincoln's death was faked.
It goes on like this for page after page after page.
It's good to know where you get your astronomy and physics knowledge from.
Thanks for studying the funny milesmathis link I provided. Miles is professional painter and can spot a fake piece of art on Earth easily. I am a professional safety at sea (and space) expert and can easily spot drunken sailors and astronomers lying through their noses about it on Earth.
-
Thanks for studying the funny milesmathis link I provided. Miles is professional painter and can spot a fake piece of art on Earth easily. I am a professional safety at sea (and space) expert and can easily spot drunken sailors and astronomers lying through their noses about it on Earth.
Let me correct that.
Miles is a professional con artist who understands nothing of physics and you seem to understand nothing about space missions and astronomy.
-
Logically, I don't believe in Black Holes either. Have you gone through one of my posts which shows a light clock can be designed in an infinite number of ways? This includes anti-time dilation light clock, time contraction light clocks, and time dilation clocks. No time dilation means no event horizon. No event horizon means no black hole - simple. I was just arguing that it is impossible to gather lights for portraying BH.
Time dilation has been shown experimentally for 50 years now, in many experiments and in hundreds of satellites and on the ISS.
It's very real.
I have no idea what your anti-time dilation light clock idea is, but unless you build it and show it defies current the laws of physics, it's just a hypothesis.
I haven’t gone through their experiment in detail but either they exaggerated or might missing something very important.
Time dilation may or may not be real but the way it was modeled mathematically is wrong. Einstein derived his time dilation equation with the help light clock, which consists of two mirrors in between which a pulse was bounces.
First of all, there is no such "standard light clock" either invented by Einstein or someone else as shown. You can design your own. Just play with the number of mirrors and angles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Time_dilation/Archive_2018#Is_the_Einstein%E2%80%99s_light_clock_shown_in_article_standard?
The rhombus shape anti-time dilation clock consists of four mirrors. Time is dilated in the first half cycle while contracted in the last half cycle. However, after the completion of one cycle, it ticks at the same rate with the clock used for observation, either moving wrt the stationary observer or at rest as both dilation and contraction cancel each other.
Time dilation Triangle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Time_dilation/Archive_2017#Time_dilation_Triangle
-
Do you even know what a quasar is? Why do you think you should see one? Do you just make things up as you type them?
Thanks for asking. I describe quasars at my website based on info provided by astronomers. They should be seen adjacent to Black Holes. See also - http://milesmathis.com/black4.pdf
"the most dishonest scientists love to hide out in data holes, where they can say whatever they wish and get famous for nothing".
A perfect example of where you get your dunning-kruger syndrome from: Miles Mathis. Miles has quite a number of thoughts on various topics. Here's just a few to give you a sense of his (and your) credibility, or lack thereof:
PAPER UPDATE, added 6/6/20, The George Floyd Killing was Faked. I have added brief comments from another reader at the bottom.
PAPER UPDATE, added 5/20/20, Obama's Genealogy. See p. 3, where I show you a few new things.
NEW PAPER, added 3/14/20, The Coronavirus Hoax. A guest writer gets us started on this one.
NEW PAPER, added 2/19/20, The 22 July Massacre in Norway was Fake, part 5. A guest writer from Norway continues my 4-parter on Anders Breivik, discovering some tasty additions.
NEW PAPER, added 12/13/19, Yes, Diana Faked Her Death. You always knew it. This is probably the closest thing to proof you are going to get.
NEW PAPER, added 11/15/19, The Assassination of Malcolm X was Staged. Also analysis of Willie McGee, William Faulkner, Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, Bella Abzug, and others.
PAPER UPDATE, added 5/29/19, Abe Lincoln. See p. 25, where we find more evidence Lincoln's death was faked.
It goes on like this for page after page after page.
It's good to know where you get your astronomy and physics knowledge from.
Thanks for studying the funny milesmathis link I provided. Miles is professional painter and can spot a fake piece of art on Earth easily. I am a professional safety at sea (and space) expert and can easily spot drunken sailors and astronomers lying through their noses about it on Earth.
Your affection for Miles speaks volumes about your personal credibility. Based upon that partial list I provided of his "work" I can't imagine he can spot much of anything. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. He's got a hundred more papers of his "findings" that are just as asinine and insane as "Abe Lincoln faked his death..."
Here's a full list of his insanity:
http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html
Oh, and my new personal favorite:
NEW PAPER, added 4/17/15, Stephen Hawking died and has been replaced. I show lots of photographic evidence that Hawking died in 1985 and has been played by an impostor since then.
You are the company you keep.
-
Thanks for studying the funny milesmathis link I provided. Miles is professional painter and can spot a fake piece of art on Earth easily. I am a professional safety at sea (and space) expert and can easily spot drunken sailors and astronomers lying through their noses about it on Earth.
Let me correct that.
Miles is a professional con artist who understands nothing of physics and you seem to understand nothing about space missions and astronomy.
Whatever, I just linked to Miles about space. My expertise is safety, i.e. probability of no accident. Humans have no chance and nothing to do in space, so the NASA human space program is fraud since the beginning in the 1950's. But thanks to Fake News media NASA has got away with its Hollywood show. It is similar to this fake image of a Black Hole >50 million light years away.
-
Thanks for studying the funny milesmathis link I provided. Miles is professional painter and can spot a fake piece of art on Earth easily. I am a professional safety at sea (and space) expert and can easily spot drunken sailors and astronomers lying through their noses about it on Earth.
Let me correct that.
Miles is a professional con artist who understands nothing of physics and you seem to understand nothing about space missions and astronomy.
Whatever, I just linked to Miles about space. My expertise is safety, i.e. probability of no accident. Humans have no chance and nothing to do in space, so the NASA human space program is fraud since the beginning in the 1950's. But thanks to Fake News media NASA has got away with its Hollywood show. It is similar to this fake image of a Black Hole >50 million light years away.
If you link to Miles as your source for space information I question your expertise in safety. Because you obviously have no rational filter when it comes to sources for your 'knowledge'.
-
Thanks for studying the funny milesmathis link I provided. Miles is professional painter and can spot a fake piece of art on Earth easily. I am a professional safety at sea (and space) expert and can easily spot drunken sailors and astronomers lying through their noses about it on Earth.
Let me correct that.
Miles is a professional con artist who understands nothing of physics and you seem to understand nothing about space missions and astronomy.
Whatever, I just linked to Miles about space. My expertise is safety, i.e. probability of no accident. Humans have no chance and nothing to do in space, so the NASA human space program is fraud since the beginning in the 1950's. But thanks to Fake News media NASA has got away with its Hollywood show. It is similar to this fake image of a Black Hole >50 million light years away.
So you say but your own website proves that you understand nothing.
-
Thanks for studying the funny milesmathis link I provided. Miles is professional painter and can spot a fake piece of art on Earth easily. I am a professional safety at sea (and space) expert and can easily spot drunken sailors and astronomers lying through their noses about it on Earth.
Let me correct that.
Miles is a professional con artist who understands nothing of physics and you seem to understand nothing about space missions and astronomy.
Whatever, I just linked to Miles about space. My expertise is safety, i.e. probability of no accident. Humans have no chance and nothing to do in space, so the NASA human space program is fraud since the beginning in the 1950's. But thanks to Fake News media NASA has got away with its Hollywood show. It is similar to this fake image of a Black Hole >50 million light years away.
So you say but your own website proves that you understand nothing.
How is one supposed to 'understand nothing?' What is nothing?
-
Thanks for studying the funny milesmathis link I provided. Miles is professional painter and can spot a fake piece of art on Earth easily. I am a professional safety at sea (and space) expert and can easily spot drunken sailors and astronomers lying through their noses about it on Earth.
Let me correct that.
Miles is a professional con artist who understands nothing of physics and you seem to understand nothing about space missions and astronomy.
Whatever, I just linked to Miles about space. My expertise is safety, i.e. probability of no accident. Humans have no chance and nothing to do in space, so the NASA human space program is fraud since the beginning in the 1950's. But thanks to Fake News media NASA has got away with its Hollywood show. It is similar to this fake image of a Black Hole >50 million light years away.
If you link to Miles as your source for space information I question your expertise in safety. Because you obviously have no rational filter when it comes to sources for your 'knowledge'.
Well, I linked to Miles space page because he/it is funny. Personally I work to drink, dance and have fun and meet people, while producing things of value, so I note down my findings at my website. Because I am always a serious professional, I never have problems finding serious work. And during all that long time I meet a lot of clowns. It is my life.
-
Thanks for studying the funny milesmathis link I provided. Miles is professional painter and can spot a fake piece of art on Earth easily. I am a professional safety at sea (and space) expert and can easily spot drunken sailors and astronomers lying through their noses about it on Earth.
Let me correct that.
Miles is a professional con artist who understands nothing of physics and you seem to understand nothing about space missions and astronomy.
Whatever, I just linked to Miles about space. My expertise is safety, i.e. probability of no accident. Humans have no chance and nothing to do in space, so the NASA human space program is fraud since the beginning in the 1950's. But thanks to Fake News media NASA has got away with its Hollywood show. It is similar to this fake image of a Black Hole >50 million light years away.
If you link to Miles as your source for space information I question your expertise in safety. Because you obviously have no rational filter when it comes to sources for your 'knowledge'.
Well, I linked to Miles space page because he/it is funny. Personally I work to drink, dance and have fun and meet people, while producing things of value, so I note down my findings at my website. Because I am always a serious professional, I never have problems finding serious work. And during all that long time I meet a lot of clowns. It is my life.
You actually have clients and they've seen your site? That's more unbelievable than all the ignorance and misinformation on your site.
-
Thanks for studying the funny milesmathis link I provided. Miles is professional painter and can spot a fake piece of art on Earth easily. I am a professional safety at sea (and space) expert and can easily spot drunken sailors and astronomers lying through their noses about it on Earth.
Let me correct that.
Miles is a professional con artist who understands nothing of physics and you seem to understand nothing about space missions and astronomy.
Whatever, I just linked to Miles about space. My expertise is safety, i.e. probability of no accident. Humans have no chance and nothing to do in space, so the NASA human space program is fraud since the beginning in the 1950's. But thanks to Fake News media NASA has got away with its Hollywood show. It is similar to this fake image of a Black Hole >50 million light years away.
If you link to Miles as your source for space information I question your expertise in safety. Because you obviously have no rational filter when it comes to sources for your 'knowledge'.
Well, I linked to Miles space page because he/it is funny. Personally I work to drink, dance and have fun and meet people, while producing things of value, so I note down my findings at my website. Because I am always a serious professional, I never have problems finding serious work. And during all that long time I meet a lot of clowns. It is my life.
You actually have clients and they've seen your site? That's more unbelievable than all the ignorance and misinformation on your site.
Yes. I also have a family and they all agree with my findings. Some time ago our town was visited by some fake asstronuts and we went and talked to them. Of course they could not explain anything about returning back from space. They were simple liars/actors.
Re A-bombs I don't know anybody that disagree with me. A-bombs are just propaganda since 1945. But in Japan and USA it is illegal to say so. I happened to know people in East Germany helping Stalin building fake A-bombs! I also know people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have worked in and visited Japan many times.
I am famous for having shown how M/S Estonia sank 1994. That's when my fame started. I wrote about it in the biggest Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter. I operated similar ships and it was easy to show full scale that visors do not fall off ships. I have attended many public meetings about it in Scotland, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, France, etc, and all agree with me except the governments 'experts' suggesting that the visor fell off with nobody hearing it. The Swedish Navy blew off the visor from the wreck after sinking at the bottom of the sea. I happen to have done my military service in that shit Navy 1965/70. Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter will not mention my name since. That newspaper just publish Fake News today. I feel sorry for the editor & Co.
Re 911 - same thing. I have made public speeches about it in the USA - skyscrapers do not collapse into dust from top down by gravity after Arabs have attacked - and invited FBI to learn something but then I was stopped. Just study my website. I report it all there.
Re fusion on Earth the ITER scandal is still going on down the road from me. Some clowns are spending € billions there saying that 2037 the plant will start producing clean energy out of deuterium and tritium, bla, bla, bla.
I am quite proud of my website. All info there is correct. I have checked all myself on the spot.
-
How is one supposed to 'understand nothing?' What is nothing?
What happens beyond the event horizon of some peoples’ minds? To the external observer it appears that nothing is happening within.
-
Thanks for studying the funny milesmathis link I provided. Miles is professional painter and can spot a fake piece of art on Earth easily. I am a professional safety at sea (and space) expert and can easily spot drunken sailors and astronomers lying through their noses about it on Earth.
Let me correct that.
Miles is a professional con artist who understands nothing of physics and you seem to understand nothing about space missions and astronomy.
Whatever, I just linked to Miles about space. My expertise is safety, i.e. probability of no accident. Humans have no chance and nothing to do in space, so the NASA human space program is fraud since the beginning in the 1950's. But thanks to Fake News media NASA has got away with its Hollywood show. It is similar to this fake image of a Black Hole >50 million light years away.
If you link to Miles as your source for space information I question your expertise in safety. Because you obviously have no rational filter when it comes to sources for your 'knowledge'.
Well, I linked to Miles space page because he/it is funny. Personally I work to drink, dance and have fun and meet people, while producing things of value, so I note down my findings at my website. Because I am always a serious professional, I never have problems finding serious work. And during all that long time I meet a lot of clowns. It is my life.
You actually have clients and they've seen your site? That's more unbelievable than all the ignorance and misinformation on your site.
Yes. I also have a family and they all agree with my findings.
All you're really saying here is that your family is just as ignorant and misinformed as you are.
Some time ago our town was visited by some fake asstronuts and we went and talked to them. Of course they could not explain anything about returning back from space. They were simple liars/actors.
Who were these astronauts that you just so happened to bump into and strike up a conversation with?
Re A-bombs I don't know anybody that disagree with me.
So? We humans tend to run inside our own bubbles of beliefs. It means nothing that you run with like minded people of ignorance. Evidence of nothing.
A-bombs are just propaganda since 1945. But in Japan and USA it is illegal to say so.
I don't know about Japan, but it's not illegal to disbelieve in A-Bombs and say so. Right there you have fabricated a lie.
I happened to know people in East Germany helping Stalin building fake A-bombs!
Stalin faking military might is no proof that A-Bombs don't exist. Probably more proof to the contrary. Why would Stalin try to bother to match western might/bluster if he thought the might didn't exist?
I also know people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have worked in and visited Japan many times.
So? And again, meeting some random people who say something about whatever is not evidence of anything.
You really have no idea what evidence is, do you?
I am famous for having shown how M/S Estonia sank 1994. That's when my fame started. I wrote about it in the biggest Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter. I operated similar ships and it was easy to show full scale that visors do not fall off ships. I have attended many public meetings about it in Scotland, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, France, etc, and all agree with me except the governments 'experts' suggesting that the visor fell off with nobody hearing it. The Swedish Navy blew off the visor from the wreck after sinking at the bottom of the sea. I happen to have done my military service in that shit Navy 1965/70. Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter will not mention my name since. That newspaper just publish Fake News today. I feel sorry for the editor & Co.
A cursory search around the subject that brought you "fame" reveals that you're just another conspiracy theorist nobody.
"One of Bjorkman’s comrades in arms is the Swedish-German author and lawyer Henning Witte who, in 1999, released a book titled “MS Estonia Was Sunk: New Facts and Theories on Estoniagate.” Witte repeated Bjorkman’s argument and asserted that the ferry might have been hit by a Russian torpedo fired from a submarine in order to thwart the export of sensitive military technology. Today, Witte runs White TV, one of the most prolific channels for the dissemination of conspiracy theories in Sweden, ranging from 9/11 to 5G and the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, mind control of Swedish politics."
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/ms-estonia-disaster-conspiracy-sweden-radical-right-news-14531/
Your "fame" is more like infamy in that all you have done is run your mouth full of conspiracy theories and nothing more. No one in the Estonia case even remotely takes you seriously.
Re 911 - same thing. I have made public speeches about it in the USA - skyscrapers do not collapse into dust from top down by gravity after Arabs have attacked - and invited FBI to learn something but then I was stopped. Just study my website. I report it all there.
Here again. Didn't you get kicked to the curb by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (https://www.ae911truth.org/) for being even too much of a crackpot for them?
I am quite proud of my website.
Why? It looks like some 6th grader was tasked after their introductory class in 1996 to create the most disorganized awful on the eyes psuedo-science heap of garbage of a site they could possibly muster. You call yourself an engineer and you can't even put together a single cogent, straight-forward argument for just about anything. Your best argument: Apollo = Where do they urinate = I can't figure it out = Must be fake. That's about the depth of any of your arguments/observations. Your ignorance is overwhelming across the board.
All info there is correct. I have checked all myself on the spot.
Self checking your ignorance is hardly an argument for anything credible. It's a closed loop of stupidity.
How about a new Heiwa Challenge? I'll give you $1 million dollars if you can show that anyone has hired you based upon your website and all that your conspiratorial lunacy entails.
-
All info there is correct. I have checked all myself on the spot.
Self checking your ignorance is hardly an argument for anything credible. It's a closed loop of stupidity.
How about a new Heiwa Challenge? I'll give you $1 million dollars if you can show that anyone has hired you based upon your website and all that your conspiratorial lunacy entails.
No, the present five Heiwa Challenges - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm - are OK. No winners.
And I don't need your $1 million. I have enough already.
-
I am famous for having shown how M/S Estonia sank 1994. That's when my fame started. I wrote about it in the biggest Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter. I operated similar ships and it was easy to show full scale that visors do not fall off ships. I have attended many public meetings about it in Scotland, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, France, etc, and all agree with me except the governments 'experts' suggesting that the visor fell off with nobody hearing it. The Swedish Navy blew off the visor from the wreck after sinking at the bottom of the sea. I happen to have done my military service in that shit Navy 1965/70. Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter will not mention my name since. That newspaper just publish Fake News today. I feel sorry for the editor & Co.
A cursory search around the subject that brought you "fame" reveals that you're just another conspiracy theorist nobody.
"One of Bjorkman’s comrades in arms is the Swedish-German author and lawyer Henning Witte who, in 1999, released a book titled “MS Estonia Was Sunk: New Facts and Theories on Estoniagate.” Witte repeated Bjorkman’s argument and asserted that the ferry might have been hit by a Russian torpedo fired from a submarine in order to thwart the export of sensitive military technology. Today, Witte runs White TV, one of the most prolific channels for the dissemination of conspiracy theories in Sweden, ranging from 9/11 to 5G and the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, mind control of Swedish politics."
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/ms-estonia-disaster-conspiracy-sweden-radical-right-news-14531/
Your "fame" is more like infamy in that all you have done is run your mouth full of conspiracy theories and nothing more. No one in the Estonia case even remotely takes you seriously.
I know Henning Witte of course. I wrote the foreword of his book.
My speciality is safety at sea and not conspiracy theories. Of course plenty people make up all sorts of stories to fool people. They are paid for it. I know them. I just show that their stories are not true. They get upset.
So I got famous for it, when I showed 1996 that official explanation of the M/V Estonia accident by the Swedish government 1994 was false. The Swedish government's official, public response via media was that I was an idiot. It was the only answer they could produce. The matter has since been discussed in the Swedish parliament several times and nobody dares to suggest that I am an idiot. And the case is not closed. It goes on.
-
All info there is correct. I have checked all myself on the spot.
Self checking your ignorance is hardly an argument for anything credible. It's a closed loop of stupidity.
How about a new Heiwa Challenge? I'll give you $1 million dollars if you can show that anyone has hired you based upon your website and all that your conspiratorial lunacy entails.
No, the present five Heiwa Challenges - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm - are OK. No winners.
And I don't need your $1 million. I have enough already.
So you don't accept the challenge? If so, I think it's safe to say zero people have employed your services since you went over the edge with half-baked conspiracies. I mean who in their right mind would hire you to ensure the safety of a bathtub let alone a merchant ship seeing that you can't even wrap your head around what is mass and what is weight?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4280640#post4280640
-
I am famous for having shown how M/S Estonia sank 1994. That's when my fame started. I wrote about it in the biggest Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter. I operated similar ships and it was easy to show full scale that visors do not fall off ships. I have attended many public meetings about it in Scotland, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, France, etc, and all agree with me except the governments 'experts' suggesting that the visor fell off with nobody hearing it. The Swedish Navy blew off the visor from the wreck after sinking at the bottom of the sea. I happen to have done my military service in that shit Navy 1965/70. Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter will not mention my name since. That newspaper just publish Fake News today. I feel sorry for the editor & Co.
A cursory search around the subject that brought you "fame" reveals that you're just another conspiracy theorist nobody.
"One of Bjorkman’s comrades in arms is the Swedish-German author and lawyer Henning Witte who, in 1999, released a book titled “MS Estonia Was Sunk: New Facts and Theories on Estoniagate.” Witte repeated Bjorkman’s argument and asserted that the ferry might have been hit by a Russian torpedo fired from a submarine in order to thwart the export of sensitive military technology. Today, Witte runs White TV, one of the most prolific channels for the dissemination of conspiracy theories in Sweden, ranging from 9/11 to 5G and the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, mind control of Swedish politics."
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/ms-estonia-disaster-conspiracy-sweden-radical-right-news-14531/
Your "fame" is more like infamy in that all you have done is run your mouth full of conspiracy theories and nothing more. No one in the Estonia case even remotely takes you seriously.
I know Henning Witte of course. I wrote the foreword of his book.
Of course you do and of course you did.
Wittes theory of MUST
According to Henning Wittes theory, TT and Sweden Radio are controlled by the Board of Psychological Defense, which in turn is part of the military security service MUST . [ 10 ] [ 11 ]
Other areas of (Henning Witte's) interest
Other areas he is interested in from a critical and conspiratorial perspective are thought control and brainwashing
My speciality is safety at sea and not conspiracy theories.
Obviously, because your conspiracy theories lack any intelligence or evidence whatsoever. You need to keep your day job.
Of course plenty people make up all sorts of stories to fool people. They are paid for it. I know them. I just show that their stories are not true. They get upset.
Actually, you don't show anything, Therein lies the problem. All you do is show, over and over again that if you don't understand something then it must be fake. It doesn't get any more Dunning-Kruger than that.
So I got famous for it, when I showed 1996 that official explanation of the M/V Estonia accident by the Swedish government 1994 was false. The Swedish government's official, public response via media was that I was an idiot.
They were not wrong.
It was the only answer they could produce.
The only reasonable conclusion based upon your credibility or lack thereof.
The matter has since been discussed in the Swedish parliament several times and nobody dares to suggest that I am an idiot. And the case is not closed. It goes on.
The case was closed out years ago and you haven't had a job since.
-
All info there is correct. I have checked all myself on the spot.
Self checking your ignorance is hardly an argument for anything credible. It's a closed loop of stupidity.
How about a new Heiwa Challenge? I'll give you $1 million dollars if you can show that anyone has hired you based upon your website and all that your conspiratorial lunacy entails.
No, the present five Heiwa Challenges - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm - are OK. No winners.
And I don't need your $1 million. I have enough already.
So you don't accept the challenge? If so, I think it's safe to say zero people have employed your services since you went over the edge with half-baked conspiracies. I mean who in their right mind would hire you to ensure the safety of a bathtub let alone a merchant ship seeing that you can't even wrap your head around what is mass and what is weight?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4280640#post4280640
Correct. I don't need your money. I explain why in next post.
-
I am famous for having shown how M/S Estonia sank 1994. That's when my fame started. I wrote about it in the biggest Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter. I operated similar ships and it was easy to show full scale that visors do not fall off ships. I have attended many public meetings about it in Scotland, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, France, etc, and all agree with me except the governments 'experts' suggesting that the visor fell off with nobody hearing it. The Swedish Navy blew off the visor from the wreck after sinking at the bottom of the sea. I happen to have done my military service in that shit Navy 1965/70. Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter will not mention my name since. That newspaper just publish Fake News today. I feel sorry for the editor & Co.
A cursory search around the subject that brought you "fame" reveals that you're just another conspiracy theorist nobody.
"One of Bjorkman’s comrades in arms is the Swedish-German author and lawyer Henning Witte who, in 1999, released a book titled “MS Estonia Was Sunk: New Facts and Theories on Estoniagate.” Witte repeated Bjorkman’s argument and asserted that the ferry might have been hit by a Russian torpedo fired from a submarine in order to thwart the export of sensitive military technology. Today, Witte runs White TV, one of the most prolific channels for the dissemination of conspiracy theories in Sweden, ranging from 9/11 to 5G and the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, mind control of Swedish politics."
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/ms-estonia-disaster-conspiracy-sweden-radical-right-news-14531/
Your "fame" is more like infamy in that all you have done is run your mouth full of conspiracy theories and nothing more. No one in the Estonia case even remotely takes you seriously.
I know Henning Witte of course. I wrote the foreword of his book.
Of course you do and of course you did.
Wittes theory of MUST
According to Henning Wittes theory, TT and Sweden Radio are controlled by the Board of Psychological Defense, which in turn is part of the military security service MUST . [ 10 ] [ 11 ]
Other areas of (Henning Witte's) interest
Other areas he is interested in from a critical and conspiratorial perspective are thought control and brainwashing
My speciality is safety at sea and not conspiracy theories.
Obviously, because your conspiracy theories lack any intelligence or evidence whatsoever. You need to keep your day job.
Of course plenty people make up all sorts of stories to fool people. They are paid for it. I know them. I just show that their stories are not true. They get upset.
Actually, you don't show anything, Therein lies the problem. All you do is show, over and over again that if you don't understand something then it must be fake. It doesn't get any more Dunning-Kruger than that.
So I got famous for it, when I showed 1996 that official explanation of the M/V Estonia accident by the Swedish government 1994 was false. The Swedish government's official, public response via media was that I was an idiot.
They were not wrong.
It was the only answer they could produce.
The only reasonable conclusion based upon your credibility or lack thereof.
The matter has since been discussed in the Swedish parliament several times and nobody dares to suggest that I am an idiot. And the case is not closed. It goes on.
bsite
The case was closed out years ago and you haven't had a job since.
Well, I am still, July 2020, quite popular and in good health with plenty work at hand. I explain all at my website.
But I repeat.
So 1989 US oil tanker Exxon Valdez went aground in Alaska waters and oil polluted the water. US fishermen got upset, etc.
I worked at the time for one of the biggest, private ship/tanker owners in the world based at Monte Carlo, Monaco.
United Nations decided to investigate how to prevent oil pollution from tankers at sea. I was asked to assist as an expert in a committee. We the experts met regularly at London 1991/8.
Then 1994 M/S Estonia sank in the Baltic.
The chairman of the UN/IMO oil pollution prevention committee, BS, had also been appointed to explain how M/S Estonia sank. BS was an expert of everything.
I met BS the next month at London. We knew each other since 1991. BS & Co had then told media that M/S Estonia sank because the bow visor had fallen off a month earlier.
In the meantime my principals, operating identical ships with bow visors had asked me to check, if it could happen to us. We concluded it was not possible. Which I told BS at London end October 1994. BS became very unhappy. He told me I didn't know anything about safety at sea. Poor BS. We met regularly until end 1996 when BS disappeared. He had suddenly died February 1997.
I think he was murdered.
Imagine what can happens when you are an expert of safety at sea.
The UN/IMO committee about oil pollution prevention lost its chairman 1996. BS was replaced by a Russian.
The Estonian, Finnish, Swedish investigators regretted that BS had passed away 1997 and issued a report end 1997 that the visor had fallen off, bla, bla, bla.
But the case goes on.
-
Re A-bombs I don't know anybody that disagree with me. A-bombs are just propaganda since 1945. But in Japan and USA it is illegal to say so. I happened to know people in East Germany helping Stalin building fake A-bombs! I also know people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have worked in and visited Japan many times.
You are so full of it.
I live in the USA and it's not illegal to say nuclear weapons are fake. It's just stupid and will get you laughed at. Quit making up stuff and lying. Or if you really believe everything you say, get some professional mental help.
You make me terrified to get on a boat knowing you are involved in water safety in any way.
-
Re A-bombs I don't know anybody that disagree with me. A-bombs are just propaganda since 1945. But in Japan and USA it is illegal to say so. I happened to know people in East Germany helping Stalin building fake A-bombs! I also know people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have worked in and visited Japan many times.
You are so full of it.
I live in the USA and it's not illegal to say nuclear weapons are fake. It's just stupid and will get you laughed at. Quit making up stuff and lying. Or if you really believe everything you say, get some professional mental help.
You make me terrified to get on a boat knowing you are involved in water safety in any way.
Everything about US nuclear weapons are 'restricted data' as per US law and punishable by death since 1946! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm#USA .
-
FFS!! There are already too many threads about Anders' web site and fake "challenges". This doesn't need to be another one of them. >:(
-
You make me terrified to get on a boat knowing you are involved in water safety in any way.
Everything about US nuclear weapons are 'restricted data' as per US law and punishable by death since 1946! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you lie about that all the time?
Have you read the "Atomic Energy Act of 1946 PUBLIC LAW 585 -- 79TH CONGRESS CHAPTER 724 -- 2D SESSION S. 1717".
The "death penalty" only applies to the those who, "with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to any foreign nation":(A) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the foregoing, with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to any foreign nation.
And it is certainly not true that "Everything about US nuclear weapons are 'restricted data'".
Have you bothered to read the tremendous amount of material available?
And what on earth have nuclear weapons got to do with the topic, "Escape velocity and Speed of light"?
-
Re A-bombs I don't know anybody that disagree with me. A-bombs are just propaganda since 1945. But in Japan and USA it is illegal to say so. I happened to know people in East Germany helping Stalin building fake A-bombs! I also know people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have worked in and visited Japan many times.
You are so full of it.
I live in the USA and it's not illegal to say nuclear weapons are fake. It's just stupid and will get you laughed at. Quit making up stuff and lying. Or if you really believe everything you say, get some professional mental help.
You make me terrified to get on a boat knowing you are involved in water safety in any way.
Everything about US nuclear weapons are 'restricted data' as per US law and punishable by death since 1946! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm#USA .
You didn't say publishing classified information on how to make a nuclar bomb was illegal.
You said saying nuclear weapons are not real was illegal.
If this is another example of your logical thinking, I am going to avoid all sea travel until you retire.
Your web page is about as fact filled as Time Cube. You can't use your own web page as a reference and expect to be taken seriously.
-
You make me terrified to get on a boat knowing you are involved in water safety in any way.
Everything about US nuclear weapons are 'restricted data' as per US law and punishable by death since 1946! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you lie about that all the time?
Have you read the "Atomic Energy Act of 1946 PUBLIC LAW 585 -- 79TH CONGRESS CHAPTER 724 -- 2D SESSION S. 1717".
The "death penalty" only applies to the those who, "with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to any foreign nation":(A) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the foregoing, with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to any foreign nation.
And it is certainly not true that "Everything about US nuclear weapons are 'restricted data'".
Have you bothered to read the tremendous amount of material available?
And what on earth have nuclear weapons got to do with the topic, "Escape velocity and Speed of light"?
Topic is the escape velocity from a newly found, far away object in space >50 million light years away. This enormous object is solid and has a diameter same as our Solar System >50 AU, i.e. its mass is very, very big. It is suggested that an image has been done of this object using radio telescopes on Earth and that the object is a solid Black Hole, from which light cannot escape. I just suggest that this object/image is complete fantasy by astronomer clowns - it doesn't exist. They just make it up to fool people. Like the atomic bomb fantasy 1945 invented by nuclear scientist clowns at the request of a US President and a Secretary of War. It was also a fantasy that people still believe in.
I consider myself quite good at spotting lies and fantasies like these. I use the scientific method and critical thinking.
-
I consider myself quite good at spotting lies and fantasies like these.
I knew a kid in 5th grade who claimed to be allergic to water.
-
Still spouting your ignorance..
-
Good news. Now I go swimming in the Mediterranean Sea to keep healthy. It is nearby. Maybe all the Corona-19 virus in me are washed away that way?
-
Muh-muh-muh-muh my corona . . .
-
Your 19th Corona Virus Breakdown . . .
-
I consider myself quite good at spotting lies and fantasies like these. I use the scientific method and critical thinking.
The extent of your scientific method and critical thinking amount to you claiming to have had a conversation with some astronauts in a bar and that you once talked to someone from Japan. You have no method and not even one discernible critical thought. And on top of that you fabricate things like Americans will be put to death if they talk disparagingly about nuclear weapons. Why lie?
-
Why lie?
An excellent question we should be asking our governments
-
Why lie?
An excellent question we should be asking our governments
Would you believe the answers?
-
Better to consult scientists.
-
I consider myself quite good at spotting lies and fantasies like these. I use the scientific method and critical thinking.
The extent of your scientific method and critical thinking amount to you claiming to have had a conversation with some astronauts in a bar and that you once talked to someone from Japan. You have no method and not even one discernible critical thought. And on top of that you fabricate things like Americans will be put to death if they talk disparagingly about nuclear weapons. Why lie?
No, the scientific method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consists in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
Just producing an image of something doesn't prove that nuclear weapons and black holes exist, that asstronuts have visited the Moon, that Arabs attacked USA or that ships sink when the bow visor falls off, etc.
And US laws are what they are and US have executed people for telling the truth about its nuclear weapons. Or you die in prison or police custody. Life is not easy.
-
Why lie?
An excellent question we should be asking our governments
Would you believe the answers?
Depends on if it's what I want to hear! ;D
-
I consider myself quite good at spotting lies and fantasies like these. I use the scientific method and critical thinking.
The extent of your scientific method and critical thinking amount to you claiming to have had a conversation with some astronauts in a bar and that you once talked to someone from Japan. You have no method and not even one discernible critical thought. And on top of that you fabricate things like Americans will be put to death if they talk disparagingly about nuclear weapons. Why lie?
No, the scientific method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consists in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The most of which you don't even remotely follow. By even pretending to associate yourself with the method is sullying the method itself. You form a hypothesis then fail to systematically observe, measure, experiment, formulate, test anything. That's like 9/10ths of the scientific method you don't follow.
All you do is formulate a hairbrained hypothesis and then try to anecdotally surmise why something can't work. That's not science. "You know, I talked to some astronauts in a bar once and they agreed that the urination facilities on Apollo were woeful..." Totally made up and unscientific as it gets.
Just producing an image of something doesn't prove that nuclear weapons and black holes exist, that asstronuts have visited the Moon, that Arabs attacked USA or that ships sink when the bow visor falls off, etc.
Of course it doesn't. But just because you don't understand any of the science involved doesn't mean that these didn't or couldn't happen. That's your fatal flaw: Delusions of Grandeur. You think that your logical mind precludes all of these things actually happening when you don't even remotely possess the knowledge to make that determination.
And US laws are what they are and US have executed people for telling the truth about its nuclear weapons. Or you die in prison or police custody. Life is not easy.
And no, because you don't have the expertise or even a method, you resort to making things up. Fabricating. Lying. You said:
Re A-bombs I don't know anybody that disagree with me. A-bombs are just propaganda since 1945. But in Japan and USA it is illegal to say so. I happened to know people in East Germany helping Stalin building fake A-bombs! I also know people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have worked in and visited Japan many times.
That is just an out-and-out made up lie. It is not illegal to say A-bombs are just propaganda in the USA. Why do you lie? Why?
-
Building a fake A bomb is certainly plausible though. With the mutually assured destruction threat, you only really need a threat of an A bomb and not the real deal. No one is going to expect to use it
As long as governments 'think' the other side has a working A bomb, it's all that matters. So Stalin could have had some fakes built to sure up his strength. As long as people believed they were real and he never had to use them, then what's the difference? Not like he'd invite his enemies over to inspect and scrutinise his arsenal
-
Building a fake A bomb is certainly plausible though. With the mutually assured destruction threat, you only really need a threat of an A bomb and not the real deal. No one is going to expect to use it
As long as governments 'think' the other side has a working A bomb, it's all that matters. So Stalin could have had some fakes built to sure up his strength. As long as people believed they were real and he never had to use them, then what's the difference? Not like he'd invite his enemies over to inspect and scrutinise his arsenal
Mutually assured destruction relies upon the threat being plausible. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a threat. It's as simple as that.
-
Building a fake A bomb is certainly plausible though. With the mutually assured destruction threat, you only really need a threat of an A bomb and not the real deal. No one is going to expect to use it
As long as governments 'think' the other side has a working A bomb, it's all that matters. So Stalin could have had some fakes built to sure up his strength. As long as people believed they were real and he never had to use them, then what's the difference? Not like he'd invite his enemies over to inspect and scrutinise his arsenal
Mutually assured destruction relies upon the threat being plausible. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a threat. It's as simple as that.
People make empty threats all the time. If Australia said we were getting into the business of nuclear weapons and we had a stockpile, who is going to check/validate that?
So when China inevidebly decides that the South China Sea extends far beyond Australia and that we belong to them, they may think twice before attacking. 8)
I can guarantee the ANZUS treaty under Trump is null and void. He doesn't give a shit. It's about time Australia understood America is full of crap and won't come to our aid. America First and all that nonsense
-
I consider myself quite good at spotting lies and fantasies like these. I use the scientific method and critical thinking.
The extent of your scientific method and critical thinking amount to you claiming to have had a conversation with some astronauts in a bar and that you once talked to someone from Japan. You have no method and not even one discernible critical thought. And on top of that you fabricate things like Americans will be put to death if they talk disparagingly about nuclear weapons. Why lie?
No, the scientific method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consists in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The most of which you don't even remotely follow. By even pretending to associate yourself with the method is sullying the method itself. You form a hypothesis then fail to systematically observe, measure, experiment, formulate, test anything. That's like 9/10ths of the scientific method you don't follow.
All you do is formulate a hairbrained hypothesis and then try to anecdotally surmise why something can't work. That's not science. "You know, I talked to some astronauts in a bar once and they agreed that the urination facilities on Apollo were woeful..." Totally made up and unscientific as it gets.
Just producing an image of something doesn't prove that nuclear weapons and black holes exist, that asstronuts have visited the Moon, that Arabs attacked USA or that ships sink when the bow visor falls off, etc.
Of course it doesn't. But just because you don't understand any of the science involved doesn't mean that these didn't or couldn't happen. That's your fatal flaw: Delusions of Grandeur. You think that your logical mind precludes all of these things actually happening when you don't even remotely possess the knowledge to make that determination.
And US laws are what they are and US have executed people for telling the truth about its nuclear weapons. Or you die in prison or police custody. Life is not easy.
And no, because you don't have the expertise or even a method, you resort to making things up. Fabricating. Lying. You said:
Re A-bombs I don't know anybody that disagree with me. A-bombs are just propaganda since 1945. But in Japan and USA it is illegal to say so. I happened to know people in East Germany helping Stalin building fake A-bombs! I also know people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have worked in and visited Japan many times.
That is just an out-and-out made up lie. It is not illegal to say A-bombs are just propaganda in the USA. Why do you lie? Why?
Easier to start with bow visors! Three governments and their experts suggested 1994 that a bow visor of the MV Estonia ferry fell off a dark, stormy night; nobody noticed it and the ship sank killing ~1000 persons. We had similar ships carrying 1000000 passengers, so we tested the hypothesis. One night when the storm was B9 with huge waves and strong winds, I just asked the Captain to speed up. And suddenly the bow pitched up and then down into a solid, steep wave! The result was a big shock, bang, >140 dB and splash followed by vibrations of the complete ship waking up all aboard. Many passengers complained that they could not sleep due to noise and vibrations. But the bow/visor was intact. Air had been trapped between it and the wave and was compressed; the air pressure elastically/plastically compressing the ship’s structure until the air bubble exploded, etc, etc. I have myself described it in a peer reviewed scientific paper. The three governments announced that I was an idiot. They just covered up by a lie that the ship was sunk by sabotage of terrorists. Shit happens.
Re nuclear weapons; Nobel Prize winner physics M Siegbahn had 1945 been asked by the Swedish government to build a Swedish A-bomb! Siegbahn agreed subject he would describe it in a peer reviewed paper. But No! All had to be secret 1945. 1964 I discussed the matter with Siegbahn who suggested I did shipbuilding instead. So 1972/6 I built oil tankers in Japan and met Japanese from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and which had served in the Japanese Imperial Navy. They indicated to me that no A-bombs had exploded in Japan 1945. It was all propaganda to allow quick, negotiated surrender, which had to be kept secret. I forgot the matter until 1999 when a ship of mine broke down at Mombasa, Kenya. I went to fix it and at a hotel I met a beautiful woman. We chatted. She had spent her childhood at Freiberg i.Sa, East Germany where her father secretly worked 1948/58 for Stalin mining 0.02% Uranium ore for the fake Stalin A-Bomb. Her father and mother disappeared one day 1958 and she was told they were dead. Mining fake Uranium in a communist country invited to do business at the side!! Anyway, it ended happily and I could confirm 1999 on the spot that no Uranium had been mined in Sachsen ever and that Stalin never built an A-bomb. It was just copy/paste propaganda of the fake US one!. Life is full of surprises. I just report it at my website. I find it fascinating. Why would I lie about it?
-
Building a fake A bomb is certainly plausible though. With the mutually assured destruction threat, you only really need a threat of an A bomb and not the real deal. No one is going to expect to use it
As long as governments 'think' the other side has a working A bomb, it's all that matters. So Stalin could have had some fakes built to sure up his strength. As long as people believed they were real and he never had to use them, then what's the difference? Not like he'd invite his enemies over to inspect and scrutinise his arsenal
Mutually assured destruction relies upon the threat being plausible. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a threat. It's as simple as that.
People make empty threats all the time. If Australia said we were getting into the business of nuclear weapons and we had a stockpile, who is going to check/validate that?
So when China inevidebly decides that the South China Sea extends far beyond Australia and that we belong to them, they may think twice before attacking. 8)
I can guarantee the ANZUS treaty under Trump is null and void. He doesn't give a shit. It's about time Australia understood America is full of crap and won't come to our aid. America First and all that nonsense
We're talking close to 70 years of "empty" threats and globally. Not likely empty. At a minimum, logic dictates otherwise. And yes, stockpiles are checked, among allies.
And I agree, don't trust the US right now. Run away, run away.
-
I consider myself quite good at spotting lies and fantasies like these. I use the scientific method and critical thinking.
The extent of your scientific method and critical thinking amount to you claiming to have had a conversation with some astronauts in a bar and that you once talked to someone from Japan. You have no method and not even one discernible critical thought. And on top of that you fabricate things like Americans will be put to death if they talk disparagingly about nuclear weapons. Why lie?
No, the scientific method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consists in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The most of which you don't even remotely follow. By even pretending to associate yourself with the method is sullying the method itself. You form a hypothesis then fail to systematically observe, measure, experiment, formulate, test anything. That's like 9/10ths of the scientific method you don't follow.
All you do is formulate a hairbrained hypothesis and then try to anecdotally surmise why something can't work. That's not science. "You know, I talked to some astronauts in a bar once and they agreed that the urination facilities on Apollo were woeful..." Totally made up and unscientific as it gets.
Just producing an image of something doesn't prove that nuclear weapons and black holes exist, that asstronuts have visited the Moon, that Arabs attacked USA or that ships sink when the bow visor falls off, etc.
Of course it doesn't. But just because you don't understand any of the science involved doesn't mean that these didn't or couldn't happen. That's your fatal flaw: Delusions of Grandeur. You think that your logical mind precludes all of these things actually happening when you don't even remotely possess the knowledge to make that determination.
And US laws are what they are and US have executed people for telling the truth about its nuclear weapons. Or you die in prison or police custody. Life is not easy.
And no, because you don't have the expertise or even a method, you resort to making things up. Fabricating. Lying. You said:
Re A-bombs I don't know anybody that disagree with me. A-bombs are just propaganda since 1945. But in Japan and USA it is illegal to say so. I happened to know people in East Germany helping Stalin building fake A-bombs! I also know people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have worked in and visited Japan many times.
That is just an out-and-out made up lie. It is not illegal to say A-bombs are just propaganda in the USA. Why do you lie? Why?
Easier to start with bow visors! Three governments and their experts suggested 1994 that a bow visor of the MV Estonia ferry fell off a dark, stormy night; nobody noticed it and the ship sank killing ~1000 persons. We had similar ships carrying 1000000 passengers, so we tested the hypothesis. One night when the storm was B9 with huge waves and strong winds, I just asked the Captain to speed up. And suddenly the bow pitched up and then down into a solid, steep wave! The result was a big shock, bang, >140 dB and splash followed by vibrations of the complete ship waking up all aboard. Many passengers complained that they could not sleep due to noise and vibrations. But the bow/visor was intact. Air had been trapped between it and the wave and was compressed; the air pressure elastically/plastically compressing the ship’s structure until the air bubble exploded, etc, etc. I have myself described it in a peer reviewed scientific paper. The three governments announced that I was an idiot. They just covered up by a lie that the ship was sunk by sabotage of terrorists. Shit happens.
So you decided to run a live test to see if the same phenomena that brought down the Estonia and killed 1000 people could be replicated, in real life? And you asked the captain to replicate the Estonia scenario with passengers on board and such? And the Captain was like, "Oh yeah, sure Anders, I'll replicate exactly what took down the Estonia, here, with all these people on board my ship, just to see if your theory is correct, we may all die, but I'll give it a go..."
You expect anyone would believe that a captain would risk his entire ship and all souls on board just so you could test out a theory? You're beyond delusional. And lying some more. Your credibility is zero.
Re nuclear weapons; Nobel Prize winner physics M Siegbahn had 1945 been asked by the Swedish government to build a Swedish A-bomb! Siegbahn agreed subject he would describe it in a peer reviewed paper. But No! All had to be secret 1945.
Ummm, it was 1945, still pretty secret stuff back then. WWII and just post WWII and all. Yeah, all had to be secret. That's a mystery to you?
1964 I discussed the matter with Siegbahn who suggested I did shipbuilding instead. So 1972/6 I built oil tankers in Japan and met Japanese from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and which had served in the Japanese Imperial Navy. They indicated to me that no A-bombs had exploded in Japan 1945.
So? Hardly empirical. Simply here-say from some sailors. Perhaps better known for their yarns than not. Their "indication" is not evidence of anything one way or the other. I don't even believe, based upon your lack of credibility and fabrications, that you ever even met these blokes.
It was all propaganda to allow quick, negotiated surrender, which had to be kept secret. I forgot the matter until 1999 when a ship of mine broke down at Mombasa, Kenya. I went to fix it and at a hotel I met a beautiful woman. We chatted. She had spent her childhood at Freiberg i.Sa, East Germany where her father secretly worked 1948/58 for Stalin mining 0.02% Uranium ore for the fake Stalin A-Bomb. Her father and mother disappeared one day 1958 and she was told they were dead. Mining fake Uranium in a communist country invited to do business at the side!! Anyway, it ended happily and I could confirm 1999 on the spot that no Uranium had been mined in Sachsen ever and that Stalin never built an A-bomb. It was just copy/paste propaganda of the fake US one!. Life is full of surprises. I just report it at my website. I find it fascinating. Why would I lie about it?
Cool story. You met a girl and she told you her parents mined ore and were "disappeared". Like I said, cool story that literally means nothing in terms of evidence of anything.
And what you do with your 'cool' stories is that you make them into lies. Like your lie about Americans not being able to talk ill about nuclear weapons under penalty of death. Lie.
You're just not a credible narrator of your own life and times.
-
I consider myself quite good at spotting lies and fantasies like these. I use the scientific method and critical thinking.
The extent of your scientific method and critical thinking amount to you claiming to have had a conversation with some astronauts in a bar and that you once talked to someone from Japan. You have no method and not even one discernible critical thought. And on top of that you fabricate things like Americans will be put to death if they talk disparagingly about nuclear weapons. Why lie?
No, the scientific method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consists in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The most of which you don't even remotely follow. By even pretending to associate yourself with the method is sullying the method itself. You form a hypothesis then fail to systematically observe, measure, experiment, formulate, test anything. That's like 9/10ths of the scientific method you don't follow.
All you do is formulate a hairbrained hypothesis and then try to anecdotally surmise why something can't work. That's not science. "You know, I talked to some astronauts in a bar once and they agreed that the urination facilities on Apollo were woeful..." Totally made up and unscientific as it gets.
Just producing an image of something doesn't prove that nuclear weapons and black holes exist, that asstronuts have visited the Moon, that Arabs attacked USA or that ships sink when the bow visor falls off, etc.
Of course it doesn't. But just because you don't understand any of the science involved doesn't mean that these didn't or couldn't happen. That's your fatal flaw: Delusions of Grandeur. You think that your logical mind precludes all of these things actually happening when you don't even remotely possess the knowledge to make that determination.
And US laws are what they are and US have executed people for telling the truth about its nuclear weapons. Or you die in prison or police custody. Life is not easy.
And no, because you don't have the expertise or even a method, you resort to making things up. Fabricating. Lying. You said:
Re A-bombs I don't know anybody that disagree with me. A-bombs are just propaganda since 1945. But in Japan and USA it is illegal to say so. I happened to know people in East Germany helping Stalin building fake A-bombs! I also know people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have worked in and visited Japan many times.
That is just an out-and-out made up lie. It is not illegal to say A-bombs are just propaganda in the USA. Why do you lie? Why?
Easier to start with bow visors! Three governments and their experts suggested 1994 that a bow visor of the MV Estonia ferry fell off a dark, stormy night; nobody noticed it and the ship sank killing ~1000 persons. We had similar ships carrying 1000000 passengers, so we tested the hypothesis. One night when the storm was B9 with huge waves and strong winds, I just asked the Captain to speed up. And suddenly the bow pitched up and then down into a solid, steep wave! The result was a big shock, bang, >140 dB and splash followed by vibrations of the complete ship waking up all aboard. Many passengers complained that they could not sleep due to noise and vibrations. But the bow/visor was intact. Air had been trapped between it and the wave and was compressed; the air pressure elastically/plastically compressing the ship’s structure until the air bubble exploded, etc, etc. I have myself described it in a peer reviewed scientific paper. The three governments announced that I was an idiot. They just covered up by a lie that the ship was sunk by sabotage of terrorists. Shit happens.
So you decided to run a live test to see if the same phenomena that brought down the Estonia and killed 1000 people could be replicated, in real life? And you asked the captain to replicate the Estonia scenario with passengers on board and such? And the Captain was like, "Oh yeah, sure Anders, I'll replicate exactly what took down the Estonia, here, with all these people on board my ship, just to see if your theory is correct, we may all die, but I'll give it a go..."
You expect anyone would believe that a captain would risk his entire ship and all souls on board just so you could test out a theory? You're beyond delusional. And lying some more. Your credibility is zero.
Yes, I do it all the times. No risk! Cost little. Just speed up! Notice the impact, noise and vibrations. You have to test your ships. Best in full scale.
Why do you behave in this obnoxious manner?
-
I consider myself quite good at spotting lies and fantasies like these. I use the scientific method and critical thinking.
The extent of your scientific method and critical thinking amount to you claiming to have had a conversation with some astronauts in a bar and that you once talked to someone from Japan. You have no method and not even one discernible critical thought. And on top of that you fabricate things like Americans will be put to death if they talk disparagingly about nuclear weapons. Why lie?
No, the scientific method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consists in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The most of which you don't even remotely follow. By even pretending to associate yourself with the method is sullying the method itself. You form a hypothesis then fail to systematically observe, measure, experiment, formulate, test anything. That's like 9/10ths of the scientific method you don't follow.
All you do is formulate a hairbrained hypothesis and then try to anecdotally surmise why something can't work. That's not science. "You know, I talked to some astronauts in a bar once and they agreed that the urination facilities on Apollo were woeful..." Totally made up and unscientific as it gets.
Just producing an image of something doesn't prove that nuclear weapons and black holes exist, that asstronuts have visited the Moon, that Arabs attacked USA or that ships sink when the bow visor falls off, etc.
Of course it doesn't. But just because you don't understand any of the science involved doesn't mean that these didn't or couldn't happen. That's your fatal flaw: Delusions of Grandeur. You think that your logical mind precludes all of these things actually happening when you don't even remotely possess the knowledge to make that determination.
And US laws are what they are and US have executed people for telling the truth about its nuclear weapons. Or you die in prison or police custody. Life is not easy.
And no, because you don't have the expertise or even a method, you resort to making things up. Fabricating. Lying. You said:
Re A-bombs I don't know anybody that disagree with me. A-bombs are just propaganda since 1945. But in Japan and USA it is illegal to say so. I happened to know people in East Germany helping Stalin building fake A-bombs! I also know people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have worked in and visited Japan many times.
That is just an out-and-out made up lie. It is not illegal to say A-bombs are just propaganda in the USA. Why do you lie? Why?
Easier to start with bow visors! Three governments and their experts suggested 1994 that a bow visor of the MV Estonia ferry fell off a dark, stormy night; nobody noticed it and the ship sank killing ~1000 persons. We had similar ships carrying 1000000 passengers, so we tested the hypothesis. One night when the storm was B9 with huge waves and strong winds, I just asked the Captain to speed up. And suddenly the bow pitched up and then down into a solid, steep wave! The result was a big shock, bang, >140 dB and splash followed by vibrations of the complete ship waking up all aboard. Many passengers complained that they could not sleep due to noise and vibrations. But the bow/visor was intact. Air had been trapped between it and the wave and was compressed; the air pressure elastically/plastically compressing the ship’s structure until the air bubble exploded, etc, etc. I have myself described it in a peer reviewed scientific paper. The three governments announced that I was an idiot. They just covered up by a lie that the ship was sunk by sabotage of terrorists. Shit happens.
So you decided to run a live test to see if the same phenomena that brought down the Estonia and killed 1000 people could be replicated, in real life? And you asked the captain to replicate the Estonia scenario with passengers on board and such? And the Captain was like, "Oh yeah, sure Anders, I'll replicate exactly what took down the Estonia, here, with all these people on board my ship, just to see if your theory is correct, we may all die, but I'll give it a go..."
You expect anyone would believe that a captain would risk his entire ship and all souls on board just so you could test out a theory? You're beyond delusional. And lying some more. Your credibility is zero.
Yes, I do it all the times. No risk! Cost little. Just speed up! Notice the impact, noise and vibrations.
Why do you behave in this obnoxious manner?
But you realize that "Just speed up! Notice the impact, noise and vibrations," could result in the same accident you would be trying simulate? Or am I missing something?
Where are the results of your "test"?
-
Easier to start with bow visors! Three governments and their experts suggested 1994 that a bow visor of the MV Estonia ferry fell off a dark, stormy night; nobody noticed it and the ship sank killing ~1000 persons. We had similar ships carrying 1000000 passengers, so we tested the hypothesis. One night when the storm was B9 with huge waves and strong winds, I just asked the Captain to speed up. And suddenly the bow pitched up and then down into a solid, steep wave! The result was a big shock, bang, >140 dB and splash followed by vibrations of the complete ship waking up all aboard. Many passengers complained that they could not sleep due to noise and vibrations. But the bow/visor was intact. Air had been trapped between it and the wave and was compressed; the air pressure elastically/plastically compressing the ship’s structure until the air bubble exploded, etc, etc. I have myself described it in a peer reviewed scientific paper. The three governments announced that I was an idiot. They just covered up by a lie that the ship was sunk by sabotage of terrorists. Shit happens.
I'm going to call you on this too.
You asked a captain of a ship with 1000 passengers to speed up in a storm to test if the ship would survive, and he happily said sure, lets ram those waves and see if we sink like the other ship did!
The only believable part of your story is three governments being upset that you risked the lives of 1000 people to test a theory.
You have a link to your paper in an actual journal, or just on your web page? What Journal punished it, who reviewed it? Give me an actual link.
And where did the governments announce you were an idiot? There had to be news coverage of that announcement. Where is it? Link please.
-
Easier to start with bow visors! Three governments and their experts suggested 1994 that a bow visor of the MV Estonia ferry fell off a dark, stormy night; nobody noticed it and the ship sank killing ~1000 persons. We had similar ships carrying 1000000 passengers, so we tested the hypothesis. One night when the storm was B9 with huge waves and strong winds, I just asked the Captain to speed up. And suddenly the bow pitched up and then down into a solid, steep wave! The result was a big shock, bang, >140 dB and splash followed by vibrations of the complete ship waking up all aboard. Many passengers complained that they could not sleep due to noise and vibrations. But the bow/visor was intact. Air had been trapped between it and the wave and was compressed; the air pressure elastically/plastically compressing the ship’s structure until the air bubble exploded, etc, etc. I have myself described it in a peer reviewed scientific paper. The three governments announced that I was an idiot. They just covered up by a lie that the ship was sunk by sabotage of terrorists. Shit happens.
I'm going to call you on this too.
You asked a captain of a ship with 1000 passengers to speed up in a storm to test if the ship would survive, and he happily said sure, lets ram those waves and see if we sink like the other ship did!
The only believable part of your story is three governments being upset that you risked the lives of 1000 people to test a theory.
You have a link to your paper in an actual journal, or just on your web page? What Journal punished it, who reviewed it? Give me an actual link.
And where did the governments announce you were an idiot? There had to be news coverage of that announcement. Where is it? Link please.
Thanks for your call.
Yes, I have demonstrated full scale that in a storm impacts at the bow of a ship occurs when you increase the speed. The ship belonged to me and my associates.
The bow and the ship was of course built to withstand such wave impacts high above waterline, which, when they occur, are noisy and will wake up all aboard. I had already 1978 written a report about it about big oil tankers with small crew living 250 meters aft of the bow ... not hearing it.
An article of mine about same thing for ferries with bow visors was 15 August 1996 published by the biggest Swedish Daily Dagens Nyheter. I simple suggested the visor could not have been struck off by a wave or two due to storm and too high speed. You would notice it and slow down.
The response of the Swedish government via public news agency TT came same day. I was an idiot. I describe the matter at my popular website since >20 years. Pls study it! When I tried to reply to this accusation, Swedish media would not publish it. Imagine that. In France you have a right to respond.
After that article was published I got plenty new information how the visor was removed from the ship, i.e. by the Royal Swedish Navy divers at the bottom of the sea using explosives. I was not surprised. I did my military service in that Navy 1965/70 and know plenty madmen there.
-
I consider myself quite good at spotting lies and fantasies like these. I use the scientific method and critical thinking.
The extent of your scientific method and critical thinking amount to you claiming to have had a conversation with some astronauts in a bar and that you once talked to someone from Japan. You have no method and not even one discernible critical thought. And on top of that you fabricate things like Americans will be put to death if they talk disparagingly about nuclear weapons. Why lie?
No, the scientific method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consists in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The most of which you don't even remotely follow. By even pretending to associate yourself with the method is sullying the method itself. You form a hypothesis then fail to systematically observe, measure, experiment, formulate, test anything. That's like 9/10ths of the scientific method you don't follow.
All you do is formulate a hairbrained hypothesis and then try to anecdotally surmise why something can't work. That's not science. "You know, I talked to some astronauts in a bar once and they agreed that the urination facilities on Apollo were woeful..." Totally made up and unscientific as it gets.
Just producing an image of something doesn't prove that nuclear weapons and black holes exist, that asstronuts have visited the Moon, that Arabs attacked USA or that ships sink when the bow visor falls off, etc.
Of course it doesn't. But just because you don't understand any of the science involved doesn't mean that these didn't or couldn't happen. That's your fatal flaw: Delusions of Grandeur. You think that your logical mind precludes all of these things actually happening when you don't even remotely possess the knowledge to make that determination.
And US laws are what they are and US have executed people for telling the truth about its nuclear weapons. Or you die in prison or police custody. Life is not easy.
And no, because you don't have the expertise or even a method, you resort to making things up. Fabricating. Lying. You said:
Re A-bombs I don't know anybody that disagree with me. A-bombs are just propaganda since 1945. But in Japan and USA it is illegal to say so. I happened to know people in East Germany helping Stalin building fake A-bombs! I also know people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have worked in and visited Japan many times.
That is just an out-and-out made up lie. It is not illegal to say A-bombs are just propaganda in the USA. Why do you lie? Why?
Easier to start with bow visors! Three governments and their experts suggested 1994 that a bow visor of the MV Estonia ferry fell off a dark, stormy night; nobody noticed it and the ship sank killing ~1000 persons. We had similar ships carrying 1000000 passengers, so we tested the hypothesis. One night when the storm was B9 with huge waves and strong winds, I just asked the Captain to speed up. And suddenly the bow pitched up and then down into a solid, steep wave! The result was a big shock, bang, >140 dB and splash followed by vibrations of the complete ship waking up all aboard. Many passengers complained that they could not sleep due to noise and vibrations. But the bow/visor was intact. Air had been trapped between it and the wave and was compressed; the air pressure elastically/plastically compressing the ship’s structure until the air bubble exploded, etc, etc. I have myself described it in a peer reviewed scientific paper. The three governments announced that I was an idiot. They just covered up by a lie that the ship was sunk by sabotage of terrorists. Shit happens.
So you decided to run a live test to see if the same phenomena that brought down the Estonia and killed 1000 people could be replicated, in real life? And you asked the captain to replicate the Estonia scenario with passengers on board and such? And the Captain was like, "Oh yeah, sure Anders, I'll replicate exactly what took down the Estonia, here, with all these people on board my ship, just to see if your theory is correct, we may all die, but I'll give it a go..."
You expect anyone would believe that a captain would risk his entire ship and all souls on board just so you could test out a theory? You're beyond delusional. And lying some more. Your credibility is zero.
Yes, I do it all the times. No risk! Cost little. Just speed up! Notice the impact, noise and vibrations.
Why do you behave in this obnoxious manner?
But you realize that "Just speed up! Notice the impact, noise and vibrations," could result in the same accident you would be trying simulate? Or am I missing something?
Where are the results of your "test"?
Pls, tests are done to verify things and will not result in accidents. I publish my findings at my website. Pls study them.
-
I consider myself quite good at spotting lies and fantasies like these. I use the scientific method and critical thinking.
The extent of your scientific method and critical thinking amount to you claiming to have had a conversation with some astronauts in a bar and that you once talked to someone from Japan. You have no method and not even one discernible critical thought. And on top of that you fabricate things like Americans will be put to death if they talk disparagingly about nuclear weapons. Why lie?
No, the scientific method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consists in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The most of which you don't even remotely follow. By even pretending to associate yourself with the method is sullying the method itself. You form a hypothesis then fail to systematically observe, measure, experiment, formulate, test anything. That's like 9/10ths of the scientific method you don't follow.
All you do is formulate a hairbrained hypothesis and then try to anecdotally surmise why something can't work. That's not science. "You know, I talked to some astronauts in a bar once and they agreed that the urination facilities on Apollo were woeful..." Totally made up and unscientific as it gets.
Just producing an image of something doesn't prove that nuclear weapons and black holes exist, that asstronuts have visited the Moon, that Arabs attacked USA or that ships sink when the bow visor falls off, etc.
Of course it doesn't. But just because you don't understand any of the science involved doesn't mean that these didn't or couldn't happen. That's your fatal flaw: Delusions of Grandeur. You think that your logical mind precludes all of these things actually happening when you don't even remotely possess the knowledge to make that determination.
And US laws are what they are and US have executed people for telling the truth about its nuclear weapons. Or you die in prison or police custody. Life is not easy.
And no, because you don't have the expertise or even a method, you resort to making things up. Fabricating. Lying. You said:
Re A-bombs I don't know anybody that disagree with me. A-bombs are just propaganda since 1945. But in Japan and USA it is illegal to say so. I happened to know people in East Germany helping Stalin building fake A-bombs! I also know people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have worked in and visited Japan many times.
That is just an out-and-out made up lie. It is not illegal to say A-bombs are just propaganda in the USA. Why do you lie? Why?
Easier to start with bow visors! Three governments and their experts suggested 1994 that a bow visor of the MV Estonia ferry fell off a dark, stormy night; nobody noticed it and the ship sank killing ~1000 persons. We had similar ships carrying 1000000 passengers, so we tested the hypothesis. One night when the storm was B9 with huge waves and strong winds, I just asked the Captain to speed up. And suddenly the bow pitched up and then down into a solid, steep wave! The result was a big shock, bang, >140 dB and splash followed by vibrations of the complete ship waking up all aboard. Many passengers complained that they could not sleep due to noise and vibrations. But the bow/visor was intact. Air had been trapped between it and the wave and was compressed; the air pressure elastically/plastically compressing the ship’s structure until the air bubble exploded, etc, etc. I have myself described it in a peer reviewed scientific paper. The three governments announced that I was an idiot. They just covered up by a lie that the ship was sunk by sabotage of terrorists. Shit happens.
So you decided to run a live test to see if the same phenomena that brought down the Estonia and killed 1000 people could be replicated, in real life? And you asked the captain to replicate the Estonia scenario with passengers on board and such? And the Captain was like, "Oh yeah, sure Anders, I'll replicate exactly what took down the Estonia, here, with all these people on board my ship, just to see if your theory is correct, we may all die, but I'll give it a go..."
You expect anyone would believe that a captain would risk his entire ship and all souls on board just so you could test out a theory? You're beyond delusional. And lying some more. Your credibility is zero.
Yes, I do it all the times. No risk! Cost little. Just speed up! Notice the impact, noise and vibrations.
Why do you behave in this obnoxious manner?
But you realize that "Just speed up! Notice the impact, noise and vibrations," could result in the same accident you would be trying simulate? Or am I missing something?
Where are the results of your "test"?
Pls, tests are done to verify things and will not result in accidents. I publish my findings at my website. Pls study them.
Seems like a rather risky way to conduct a 'safety' test.
There are no findings on your site. I looked. So are you lying about all of this as well?
-
There are no findings on your site. I looked. So are you lying about all of this as well?
No, You have to look again. Maybe you need glasses.
-
Easier to start with bow visors! Three governments and their experts suggested 1994 that a bow visor of the MV Estonia ferry fell off a dark, stormy night; nobody noticed it and the ship sank killing ~1000 persons. We had similar ships carrying 1000000 passengers, so we tested the hypothesis. One night when the storm was B9 with huge waves and strong winds, I just asked the Captain to speed up. And suddenly the bow pitched up and then down into a solid, steep wave! The result was a big shock, bang, >140 dB and splash followed by vibrations of the complete ship waking up all aboard. Many passengers complained that they could not sleep due to noise and vibrations. But the bow/visor was intact. Air had been trapped between it and the wave and was compressed; the air pressure elastically/plastically compressing the ship’s structure until the air bubble exploded, etc, etc. I have myself described it in a peer reviewed scientific paper. The three governments announced that I was an idiot. They just covered up by a lie that the ship was sunk by sabotage of terrorists. Shit happens.
I'm going to call you on this too.
You asked a captain of a ship with 1000 passengers to speed up in a storm to test if the ship would survive, and he happily said sure, lets ram those waves and see if we sink like the other ship did!
The only believable part of your story is three governments being upset that you risked the lives of 1000 people to test a theory.
You have a link to your paper in an actual journal, or just on your web page? What Journal punished it, who reviewed it? Give me an actual link.
And where did the governments announce you were an idiot? There had to be news coverage of that announcement. Where is it? Link please.
Thanks for your call.
Yes, I have demonstrated full scale that in a storm impacts at the bow of a ship occurs when you increase the speed. The ship belonged to me and my associates.
The bow and the ship was of course built to withstand such wave impacts high above waterline, which, when they occur, are noisy and will wake up all aboard. I had already 1978 written a report about it about big oil tankers with small crew living 250 meters aft of the bow ... not hearing it.
An article of mine about same thing for ferries with bow visors was 15 August 1996 published by the biggest Swedish Daily Dagens Nyheter. I simple suggested the visor could not have been struck off by a wave or two due to storm and too high speed. You would notice it and slow down.
The response of the Swedish government via public news agency TT came same day. I was an idiot. I describe the matter at my popular website since >20 years. Pls study it! When I tried to reply to this accusation, Swedish media would not publish it. Imagine that. In France you have a right to respond.
After that article was published I got plenty new information how the visor was removed from the ship, i.e. by the Royal Swedish Navy divers at the bottom of the sea using explosives. I was not surprised. I did my military service in that Navy 1965/70 and know plenty madmen there.
Right. So you tested a ship with 1000 passengers and wrote a peer reviewed article about it, but can't find it, but wrote a letter to a newspaper instead, but can't find that either, then the government complained and the newspapers wouldn't print your complaints.
Sounds legit. ::)
If you really had a peer reviewed published paper about your experiment, I'd think you could name the Journal and issue.
Your web page is NOT a reference. If that's the only source you can cite then you don't have anything to back up your claims.
-
There are no findings on your site. I looked. So are you lying about all of this as well?
No, You have to look again. Maybe you need glasses.
I did. There are no findings on your site. Why are you lying about something that anyone can just look and see that it doesn't exist?
-
There are no findings on your site. I looked. So are you lying about all of this as well?
No, You have to look again. Maybe you need glasses.
I did. There are no findings on your site. Why are you lying about something that anyone can just look and see that it doesn't exist?
Anders just has a different definition of "findings" (and a number of other similar words) than the rest of the English speaking world.
-
There are no findings on your site. I looked. So are you lying about all of this as well?
No, You have to look again. Maybe you need glasses.
I did. There are no findings on your site. Why are you lying about something that anyone can just look and see that it doesn't exist?
Anders just has a different definition of "findings" (and a number of other similar words) than the rest of the English speaking world.
My findings are what I have learnt as result of investigations and experiences all over the world.
-
There are no findings on your site. I looked. So are you lying about all of this as well?
No, You have to look again. Maybe you need glasses.
I did. There are no findings on your site. Why are you lying about something that anyone can just look and see that it doesn't exist?
Anders just has a different definition of "findings" (and a number of other similar words) than the rest of the English speaking world.
My findings are what I have learnt as result of investigations and experiences all over the world.
Where are the findings of your test you did on a real boat with real passengers where you asked the captain to replicate the events leading up to the Estonia accident?
-
There are no findings on your site. I looked. So are you lying about all of this as well?
No, You have to look again. Maybe you need glasses.
I did. There are no findings on your site. Why are you lying about something that anyone can just look and see that it doesn't exist?
Anders just has a different definition of "findings" (and a number of other similar words) than the rest of the English speaking world.
My findings are what I have learnt as result of investigations and experiences all over the world.
Where are the findings of your test you did on a real boat with real passengers where you asked the captain to replicate the events leading up to the Estonia accident?
You find them at my website. I happened to be aboard our ship in a great storm between Genoa and Tanger and in spite of slowing down in the Golfe de Lion I (everyone) was awoken by this enormous wave impact at the bow that took place in the middle of the night. I went up to the bridge and discussed the matter with the Captain. There were more impacts and I decided to go down and have a look at the visor. No problems whatsoever. But the ship became 12 hours delayed. It is very easy to repeat the test. But it can only take place in a big storm. The waves were really big. The storm wind came from the Atlantic/Bisqay Bay and passed France north of the Pyrennees. Imagine that.
-
There are no findings on your site. I looked. So are you lying about all of this as well?
No, You have to look again. Maybe you need glasses.
I did. There are no findings on your site. Why are you lying about something that anyone can just look and see that it doesn't exist?
Anders just has a different definition of "findings" (and a number of other similar words) than the rest of the English speaking world.
My findings are what I have learnt as result of investigations and experiences all over the world.
Where are the findings of your test you did on a real boat with real passengers where you asked the captain to replicate the events leading up to the Estonia accident?
You find them at my website. I happened to be aboard our ship in a great storm between Genoa and Tanger and in spite of slowing down in the Golfe de Lion I (everyone) was awoken by this enormous wave impact at the bow that took place in the middle of the night. I went up to the bridge and discussed the matter with the Captain. There were more impacts and I decided to go down and have a look at the visor. No problems whatsoever. But the ship became 12 hours delayed. It is very easy to repeat the test. But it can only take place in a big storm. The waves were really big. The storm wind came from the Atlantic/Bisqay Bay and passed France north of the Pyrennees. Imagine that.
Not that it has anything to do with the topic, but did you personally inspect the bow visor and latching mechanism on the Estonia before or after the sinking?
-
There are no findings on your site. I looked. So are you lying about all of this as well?
No, You have to look again. Maybe you need glasses.
I did. There are no findings on your site. Why are you lying about something that anyone can just look and see that it doesn't exist?
Anders just has a different definition of "findings" (and a number of other similar words) than the rest of the English speaking world.
My findings are what I have learnt as result of investigations and experiences all over the world.
Where are the findings of your test you did on a real boat with real passengers where you asked the captain to replicate the events leading up to the Estonia accident?
You find them at my website. I happened to be aboard our ship in a great storm between Genoa and Tanger and in spite of slowing down in the Golfe de Lion I (everyone) was awoken by this enormous wave impact at the bow that took place in the middle of the night. I went up to the bridge and discussed the matter with the Captain. There were more impacts and I decided to go down and have a look at the visor. No problems whatsoever. But the ship became 12 hours delayed. It is very easy to repeat the test. But it can only take place in a big storm. The waves were really big. The storm wind came from the Atlantic/Bisqay Bay and passed France north of the Pyrennees. Imagine that.
So you did this with an identical ship as the Estonia? Built of the same design, built roughly the same time, using identical materials. What was the name of this ship. Surely you remember.
-
So you did this with an identical ship as the Estonia? Built of the same design, built roughly the same time, using identical materials. What was the name of this ship. Surely you remember.
Yes. Pls see my website for further details. Re M/V Estonia I once took a trip of that ship in the 1980's as a passenger when it was new. I knew the owner a little before he died and the company went bankrupt by the sons. I have worked with safety at sea >40 years. I have also my doubts about safety in our Solar System and escape and light velocities (topic) and mysterious black holes. There are plenty pirates around making it unsafe.
-
So you did this with an identical ship as the Estonia? Built of the same design, built roughly the same time, using identical materials. What was the name of this ship. Surely you remember.
Yes. Pls see my website for further details. Re M/V Estonia I once took a trip of that ship in the 1980's as a passenger when it was new. I knew the owner a little before he died and the company went bankrupt by the sons. I have worked with safety at sea >40 years. I have also my doubts about safety in our Solar System and escape and light velocities (topic) and mysterious black holes. There are plenty pirates around making it unsafe.
That's a yes to all of the questions?
What was the name of the vessel you did your test on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this? There's nothing on your site.
-
If Australia said we were getting into the business of nuclear weapons and we had a stockpile, who is going to check/validate that?
Australia? Hahahahaha
-
So you did this with an identical ship as the Estonia? Built of the same design, built roughly the same time, using identical materials. What was the name of this ship. Surely you remember.
Yes. Pls see my website for further details. Re M/V Estonia I once took a trip of that ship in the 1980's as a passenger when it was new. I knew the owner a little before he died and the company went bankrupt by the sons. I have worked with safety at sea >40 years. I have also my doubts about safety in our Solar System and escape and light velocities (topic) and mysterious black holes. There are plenty pirates around making it unsafe.
That's a yes to all of the questions?
What was the name of the vessel you did your test on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this? There's nothing on your site.
You have to look again. Anyway, we bought the very good ship for scrap in Greece 20 years ago and then operated it a couple of years in the Red Sea until Comanav chartered it to carry passengers/guest workers Genoa/Tanger. It worked fine until fuel costs increased so the ship was sold for scrap, i.e. more than we had paid five years earlier. It became cheaper to fly or to go by car (and take a ferry across the straight of Gibraltar). Those were the times. Why are you curious? Have you problems with speeds of ships and light?
-
So you did this with an identical ship as the Estonia? Built of the same design, built roughly the same time, using identical materials. What was the name of this ship. Surely you remember.
Yes. Pls see my website for further details. Re M/V Estonia I once took a trip of that ship in the 1980's as a passenger when it was new. I knew the owner a little before he died and the company went bankrupt by the sons. I have worked with safety at sea >40 years. I have also my doubts about safety in our Solar System and escape and light velocities (topic) and mysterious black holes. There are plenty pirates around making it unsafe.
That's a yes to all of the questions?
What was the name of the vessel you did your test on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this? There's nothing on your site.
You have to look again. Anyway, we bought the very good ship for scrap in Greece 20 years ago and then operated it a couple of years in the Red Sea until Comanav chartered it to carry passengers/guest workers Genoa/Tanger. It worked fine until fuel costs increased so the ship was sold for scrap, i.e. more than we had paid five years earlier. It became cheaper to fly or to go by car (and take a ferry across the straight of Gibraltar). Those were the times. Why are you curious? Have you problems with speeds of ships and light?
That's a yes to all of the questions?
What was the name of the vessel you did your test on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this? There's nothing on your site.
-
So you did this with an identical ship as the Estonia? Built of the same design, built roughly the same time, using identical materials. What was the name of this ship. Surely you remember.
Yes. Pls see my website for further details. Re M/V Estonia I once took a trip of that ship in the 1980's as a passenger when it was new. I knew the owner a little before he died and the company went bankrupt by the sons. I have worked with safety at sea >40 years. I have also my doubts about safety in our Solar System and escape and light velocities (topic) and mysterious black holes. There are plenty pirates around making it unsafe.
That's a yes to all of the questions?
What was the name of the vessel you did your test on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this? There's nothing on your site.
You have to look again. Anyway, we bought the very good ship for scrap in Greece 20 years ago and then operated it a couple of years in the Red Sea until Comanav chartered it to carry passengers/guest workers Genoa/Tanger. It worked fine until fuel costs increased so the ship was sold for scrap, i.e. more than we had paid five years earlier. It became cheaper to fly or to go by car (and take a ferry across the straight of Gibraltar). Those were the times. Why are you curious? Have you problems with speeds of ships and light?
That's a yes to all of the questions?
What was the name of the vessel you did your test on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this? There's nothing on your site.
Hm, all ships pitch in heavy weather and, if you go too fast, a wave impact will occur at the bow waking you up. So you have to slow down. It is the escape of wave impacts velocity valid for any ship. It is much slower than the speed of light.
-
So you did this with an identical ship as the Estonia? Built of the same design, built roughly the same time, using identical materials. What was the name of this ship. Surely you remember.
Yes. Pls see my website for further details. Re M/V Estonia I once took a trip of that ship in the 1980's as a passenger when it was new. I knew the owner a little before he died and the company went bankrupt by the sons. I have worked with safety at sea >40 years. I have also my doubts about safety in our Solar System and escape and light velocities (topic) and mysterious black holes. There are plenty pirates around making it unsafe.
That's a yes to all of the questions?
What was the name of the vessel you did your test on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this? There's nothing on your site.
You have to look again. Anyway, we bought the very good ship for scrap in Greece 20 years ago and then operated it a couple of years in the Red Sea until Comanav chartered it to carry passengers/guest workers Genoa/Tanger. It worked fine until fuel costs increased so the ship was sold for scrap, i.e. more than we had paid five years earlier. It became cheaper to fly or to go by car (and take a ferry across the straight of Gibraltar). Those were the times. Why are you curious? Have you problems with speeds of ships and light?
That's a yes to all of the questions?
What was the name of the vessel you did your test on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this? There's nothing on your site.
Hm, all ships pitch in heavy weather and, if you go too fast, a wave impact will occur at the bow waking you up. So you have to slow down. It is the escape of wave impacts velocity valid for any ship. It is much slower than the speed of light.
Simple questions you are refusing to answer? Why?
What was the name of the vessel you did your test on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this?
-
Simple questions you are refusing to answer? Why?
What was the name of the vessel you did your teeest on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this?
I have inspected >100 ships and bought >25 in my career and they all have one thing in common. At too high speed in severe weather noisy wave impacts occur at the bow that also make the ship shake. So you slow down. Only complete idiots suggest that a ship Master increases speed in a storm and loses a bow visor without anybody noticing anything. But there are plenty idiots in Estonia, Finland and Sweden and their public media trumpets what you shall believe. If you don't believe you may have an accident.
-
Simple questions you are refusing to answer? Why?
What was the name of the vessel you did your teeest on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this?
I have inspected >100 ships and bought >25 in my career and they all have one thing in common. At too high speed in severe weather noisy wave impacts occur at the bow that also make the ship shake. So you slow down. Only complete idiots suggest that a ship Master increases speed in a storm and loses a bow visor without anybody noticing anything. But there are plenty idiots in Estonia, Finland and Sweden and their public media trumpets what you shall believe. If you don't believe you may have an accident.
So you won't name the ship and exactly where to find your findings?
How about the names of the astronauts you had drinks with when they supposedly dished on NASA?
-
Simple questions you are refusing to answer? Why?
What was the name of the vessel you did your teeest on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this?
I have inspected >100 ships and bought >25 in my career and they all have one thing in common. At too high speed in severe weather noisy wave impacts occur at the bow that also make the ship shake. So you slow down. Only complete idiots suggest that a ship Master increases speed in a storm and loses a bow visor without anybody noticing anything. But there are plenty idiots in Estonia, Finland and Sweden and their public media trumpets what you shall believe. If you don't believe you may have an accident.
So you won't name the ship and exactly where to find your findings?
How about the names of the astronauts you had drinks with when they supposedly dished on NASA?
Correct. You have to study my website for full info and all ships I have inspected, etc. I am happy to note that you agree I have been in shipping biz since 1966. Were you born then?
Re the asstronuts I met, I think it is better not to disclose more about them. I leave it to media journalists to contact me about interviewing the heroes and promote their lies.
-
Do Heiwas sea faring ships reach the speed of light or something? Why is this talked about in a thread about escape velocities and the speed of light? Weird.
-
And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by.
-
Simple questions you are refusing to answer? Why?
What was the name of the vessel you did your teeest on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this?
I have inspected >100 ships and bought >25 in my career...
Did you ever inspect the Estonia? What was the condition of the latching mechanism and supporting structures immediately prior to the sinking?
-
Simple questions you are refusing to answer? Why?
What was the name of the vessel you did your teeest on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this?
I have inspected >100 ships and bought >25 in my career...
Did you ever inspect the Estonia? What was the condition of the latching mechanism and supporting structures immediately prior to the sinking?
It is illegal for people like me to inspect the wreck of the Estonia at the bottom of the sea. Swedish law doesn't allow an inspection on site.
But yes, I have inspected the certificates, drawings, records of M/V Estonia and talked to crew members, etc, after the incident and it is clear to me that the ship was not seaworthy at departure. And I am not alone to have reached that result. Just study the books I have written about it.
-
Simple questions you are refusing to answer? Why?
What was the name of the vessel you did your teeest on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this?
I have inspected >100 ships and bought >25 in my career and they all have one thing in common. At too high speed in severe weather noisy wave impacts occur at the bow that also make the ship shake. So you slow down. Only complete idiots suggest that a ship Master increases speed in a storm and loses a bow visor without anybody noticing anything. But there are plenty idiots in Estonia, Finland and Sweden and their public media trumpets what you shall believe. If you don't believe you may have an accident.
So you won't name the ship and exactly where to find your findings?
How about the names of the astronauts you had drinks with when they supposedly dished on NASA?
Correct. You have to study my website for full info and all ships I have inspected, etc. I am happy to note that you agree I have been in shipping biz since 1966. Were you born then?
Re the asstronuts I met, I think it is better not to disclose more about them. I leave it to media journalists to contact me about interviewing the heroes and promote their lies.
You have no problem calling Buzz Aldrin a drunk and a liar, yet you are protecting the identity of a couple of astronauts who you said you met in a bar and they told you the "truth" about NASA? Yeah, that totally doesn't reek of a complete fabrication on your part. ???
-
Re the asstronuts I met, I think it is better not to disclose more about them. I leave it to media journalists to contact me about interviewing the heroes and promote their lies.
Dear Heiwa,
I am a media journalist and I would like to interview astronaut heroes and promote their lies.
Thank you,
Media Journalist
You can send me a PM.
-
But yes, I have inspected the certificates, drawings, records of M/V Estonia and talked to crew members, etc, after the incident and it is clear to me that the ship was not seaworthy at departure. And I am not alone to have reached that result. Just study the books I have written about it.
What conclusions did you draw about the condition of the Estonia's bow visor latching mechanisms and supporting structures just before the sinking?
-
Simple questions you are refusing to answer? Why?
What was the name of the vessel you did your teeest on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this?
I have inspected >100 ships and bought >25 in my career and they all have one thing in common. At too high speed in severe weather noisy wave impacts occur at the bow that also make the ship shake. So you slow down. Only complete idiots suggest that a ship Master increases speed in a storm and loses a bow visor without anybody noticing anything. But there are plenty idiots in Estonia, Finland and Sweden and their public media trumpets what you shall believe. If you don't believe you may have an accident.
So you won't name the ship and exactly where to find your findings?
How about the names of the astronauts you had drinks with when they supposedly dished on NASA?
Correct. You have to study my website for full info and all ships I have inspected, etc. I am happy to note that you agree I have been in shipping biz since 1966. Were you born then?
Re the asstronuts I met, I think it is better not to disclose more about them. I leave it to media journalists to contact me about interviewing the heroes and promote their lies.
You have no problem calling Buzz Aldrin a drunk and a liar, yet you are protecting the identity of a couple of astronauts who you said you met in a bar and they told you the "truth" about NASA? Yeah, that totally doesn't reek of a complete fabrication on your part. ???
Correct! All clowns stating that they have been in space are liars. Any travel in the Solar System is one way only! There is no way to return. Haven't you understood that?
-
Correct! All clowns stating that they have been in space are liars. Any travel in the Solar System is one way only! There is no way to return. Haven't you understood that?
I think you're getting movies and reality mixed up again.
(https://i.imgur.com/h47sre6.jpeg)
-
Correct! All clowns stating that they have been in space are liars. Any travel in the Solar System is one way only! There is no way to return. Haven't you understood that?
I think you're getting movies and reality mixed up again.
(https://i.imgur.com/h47sre6.jpeg)
No, you have only misunderstood how to return from space.
-
Any travel in the Solar System is one way only! There is no way to return. Haven't you understood that?
No, and it's a good thing that no one involved in any of the manned space programs understands that either.
-
Correct! All clowns stating that they have been in space are liars. Any travel in the Solar System is one way only! There is no way to return. Haven't you understood that?
LMFTFY:
All clowns stating that no-one has been to space and returned are liars.
No travel within the Solar System would be planned is one way only!
Reentry using either rocket or atmospheric braking are the two ways of landing on a body in space, including the Earth and Moon.
Haven't you understood that yet?
I cannot understand why conspiracy theorists would claim otherwise - to pretend to be smarter than normal people I guess.
But, in the end, it makes you you, Heiwa, look like an ignorant pig-headed nincompoop.
-
Any travel in the Solar System is one way only!
which way?
-
Simple questions you are refusing to answer? Why?
What was the name of the vessel you did your teeest on? And where specifically are your findings regarding this?
I have inspected >100 ships and bought >25 in my career and they all have one thing in common. At too high speed in severe weather noisy wave impacts occur at the bow that also make the ship shake. So you slow down. Only complete idiots suggest that a ship Master increases speed in a storm and loses a bow visor without anybody noticing anything. But there are plenty idiots in Estonia, Finland and Sweden and their public media trumpets what you shall believe. If you don't believe you may have an accident.
So you won't name the ship and exactly where to find your findings?
How about the names of the astronauts you had drinks with when they supposedly dished on NASA?
Correct. You have to study my website for full info and all ships I have inspected, etc. I am happy to note that you agree I have been in shipping biz since 1966. Were you born then?
Re the asstronuts I met, I think it is better not to disclose more about them. I leave it to media journalists to contact me about interviewing the heroes and promote their lies.
You have no problem calling Buzz Aldrin a drunk and a liar, yet you are protecting the identity of a couple of astronauts who you said you met in a bar and they told you the "truth" about NASA? Yeah, that totally doesn't reek of a complete fabrication on your part. ???
Correct! All clowns stating that they have been in space are liars. Any travel in the Solar System is one way only! There is no way to return. Haven't you understood that?
Right. So you willingly call Buzz Aldrin a drunk and a liar.
Yet:
Re the asstronuts I met, I think it is better not to disclose more about them. I leave it to media journalists to contact me about interviewing the heroes and promote their lies.
I'm asking as a citizen media journalist. What do you have about their heroic lies?
Do you get that you have zero credibility in ship safety let alone any knowledge in spaceship safety? You literally fabricate arguments, patently lie. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously? It's a grand delusional thing you have going on here predicated on zero facts. You claim you're in the shipping business. I believe that only because of the tall tales you tell.
Who were the astronauts you 'drank' with and what did they tell you? If you can't answer that, then your credibility rating has dropped so far below zero, I'm not even sure how to chart it. I mean you have no problem slandering Buzz. Why stop there?
So far, you can't produce any evidence you've even worked on ships, let alone safety of them. You can't produce anything other than slander in regard to those who went to space. You don't produce any science because you're fixated on technology you don't understand. I mean your Dunning-Kruger level is somewhere above the chartable regions of the phenomenon. It's remarkable how delusional an individual can be. You've broken some barriers in that regard.
Zero people have hired you after being exposed to your mania. That much is known.
-
You claim you're in the shipping business.
Mail Room
-
You claim you're in the shipping business.
Mail Room
Or maybe entertainment director announcer? "Shuffleboard, Lido Deck, 8300 hours. All ages!"
-
or rouge entrepreneur, "BJ's, $5"
-
or rouge entrepreneur, "BJ's, $5"
Everyone has to start somewhere.
-
Do Heiwas sea faring ships reach the speed of light or something? Why is this talked about in a thread about escape velocities and the speed of light? Weird.
We all agree that you need velocity to escape from Earth and that it is not the speed of light. The problem arises when you return from space and try to land in front of passport control and health security. How to reduce the arrival velocity to zero?
Then there is the problem of illegal immigrants from space and their flying saucers. It seems to have solved itself! No saucers seen landing recently.
-
How to reduce the arrival velocity to zero?
Aim straight down.
-
Do Heiwas sea faring ships reach the speed of light or something? Why is this talked about in a thread about escape velocities and the speed of light? Weird.
We all agree that you need velocity to escape from Earth and that it is not the speed of light. The problem arises when you return from space and try to land in front of passport control and health security. How to reduce the arrival velocity to zero?
Actually, it's quite simple. You don't understand the science or engineering around doing so.
Because of this non-understanding on your part you fabricate stories of cavorting with astronauts and meeting someone from Japan and, more dauntingly, actually being a safety engineer for seafaring ships. No one in their right mind would hire you for an engineering task given your lack of knowledge regarding physics so loudly exhibited on your web site. You have zero credibility in things you claim to know about and less than zero credibility in things you know nothing about.
Just quit with the charade. Since you've gone full conspiracy theorist, no one has hired you for engineering of anything. And it's kind of insane that you are delusional enough to think that someone did. Like I said, you have zero credibility.
-
Do Heiwas sea faring ships reach the speed of light or something? Why is this talked about in a thread about escape velocities and the speed of light? Weird.
We all agree that you need velocity to escape from Earth and that it is not the speed of light. The problem arises when you return from space and try to land in front of passport control and health security. How to reduce the arrival velocity to zero?
Already explained to you many times and at length but you don't have the brains to understand it.
Then there is the problem of illegal immigrants from space and their flying saucers. It seems to have solved itself! No saucers seen landing recently.
Rubbish! But what should we do if there were?
-
Do Heiwas sea faring ships reach the speed of light or something? Why is this talked about in a thread about escape velocities and the speed of light? Weird.
We all agree that you need velocity to escape from Earth and that it is not the speed of light. The problem arises when you return from space and try to land in front of passport control and health security. How to reduce the arrival velocity to zero?
Actually, it's quite simple.
So you arrive from space with velocity 7000 m/s at 120 000 m altitude at point A in the upper atmosphere and shall land in the ocean 15 minutes later at point B, where somebody in a boat shall pick you up. So how to go from A to B and land safely in front of the boat?
SpaceX Clown Executive Officer Lone Musk sells four months return trips to Mars with a 200 persons space craft. A ticket is $ 100k. When it returns from Mars it lands adjacent to a cruise ship serving lobster and champagne at arrival.
-
So you arrive from space with velocity 7000 m/s at 120 000 m altitude at point A in the upper atmosphere and shall land in the ocean 15 minutes later at point B, where somebody in a boat shall pick you up. So how to go from A to B and land safely in front of the boat?
math
-
So you arrive from space with velocity 7000 m/s at 120 000 m altitude at point A in the upper atmosphere and shall land in the ocean 15 minutes later at point B, where somebody in a boat shall pick you up. So how to go from A to B and land safely in front of the boat?
math
Yes, very simple, easy!
-
So you arrive from space with velocity 7000 m/s at 120 000 m altitude at point A in the upper atmosphere and shall land in the ocean 15 minutes later at point B, where somebody in a boat shall pick you up. So how to go from A to B and land safely in front of the boat?
math
Yes, very simple, easy!
It's actually very simple to understand, if you can grasp basic concepts and simple ideas.
If the idea of space blows your mind and makes you freak out, then yeah, it's hard to understand. Sorry about that.
-
So you arrive from space with velocity 7000 m/s at 120 000 m altitude at point A in the upper atmosphere and shall land in the ocean 15 minutes later at point B, where somebody in a boat shall pick you up. So how to go from A to B and land safely in front of the boat?
math
Yes, very simple, easy!
It's actually very simple to understand, if you can grasp basic concepts and simple ideas.
If the idea of space blows your mind and makes you freak out, then yeah, it's hard to understand. Sorry about that.
Going from A (in the sky) to B (in the water) is simple. Just tell me how you slow down, etc.
-
So you arrive from space with velocity 7000 m/s at 120 000 m altitude at point A in the upper atmosphere and shall land in the ocean 15 minutes later at point B, where somebody in a boat shall pick you up. So how to go from A to B and land safely in front of the boat?
math
Yes, very simple, easy!
It's actually very simple to understand, if you can grasp basic concepts and simple ideas.
If the idea of space blows your mind and makes you freak out, then yeah, it's hard to understand. Sorry about that.
Going from A (in the sky) to B (in the water) is simple. Just tell me how you slow down, etc.
It's extremely simple. It's called aerobraking. Atmospheric drag slows the capsule down to the point where they can use this astounding device called a parachute.
It's not really that difficult to understand the basic concept. Thins slow down in the atmosphere. Just stick your hand outside a moving car window to test. ::)
-
So you arrive from space with velocity 7000 m/s at 120 000 m altitude at point A in the upper atmosphere and shall land in the ocean 15 minutes later at point B, where somebody in a boat shall pick you up. So how to go from A to B and land safely in front of the boat?
math
Yes, very simple, easy!
It's actually very simple to understand, if you can grasp basic concepts and simple ideas.
If the idea of space blows your mind and makes you freak out, then yeah, it's hard to understand. Sorry about that.
Going from A (in the sky) to B (in the water) is simple. Just tell me how you slow down, etc.
It's extremely simple. It's called aerobraking. Atmospheric drag slows the capsule down to the point where they can use this astounding device called a parachute.
It's not really that difficult to understand the basic concept. Thins slow down in the atmosphere. Just stick your hand outside a moving car window to test. ::)
But there is no air above 20 000 m altitude! Airplanes or space crafts cannot fly there. So aerobraking or atmospheric drag is not possible. Do you really know what you are talking about? You sound like Buzz Aldrin, PhD.
-
Spacex uses its rockets.
Other space craft use parachutes or just land like a plane.
All use aerobraking .
-
So you arrive from space with velocity 7000 m/s at 120 000 m altitude at point A in the upper atmosphere and shall land in the ocean 15 minutes later at point B, where somebody in a boat shall pick you up. So how to go from A to B and land safely in front of the boat?
math
Yes, very simple, easy!
It's actually very simple to understand, if you can grasp basic concepts and simple ideas.
If the idea of space blows your mind and makes you freak out, then yeah, it's hard to understand. Sorry about that.
Going from A (in the sky) to B (in the water) is simple. Just tell me how you slow down, etc.
It's extremely simple. It's called aerobraking. Atmospheric drag slows the capsule down to the point where they can use this astounding device called a parachute.
It's not really that difficult to understand the basic concept. Thins slow down in the atmosphere. Just stick your hand outside a moving car window to test. ::)
But there is no air above 20 000 m altitude! Airplanes or space crafts cannot fly there. So aerobraking or atmospheric drag is not possible. Do you really know what you are talking about?
Ever hear of rockets? When astronauts return from the ISS the capsule fires rockets to push it down to where there is atmosphere, which does the majority of the slowing down.
You sound like Buzz Aldrin, PhD.
You sound like someone who is deeply ignorant about the basic concepts of what they are denying.
-
Ever hear of rockets? When astronauts return from the ISS the capsule fires rockets to push it down to where there is atmosphere, which does the majority of the slowing down.
You sound like Buzz Aldrin, PhD.
You sound like someone who is deeply ignorant about the basic concepts of what they are denying.
No, in the old times there was a Shuttle that returned from the ISS. The Shuttle had same speed as the ISS - 7000 m/s - at 400 000 m altitude and it used rocket engines to slow it down so it started to drop down on Earth. Dropping down the speed increased ... etc, etc.
And the Shuttle didn't have any fuel aboard for braking.
So the 135 returns by Shuttle from the ISS never took place. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel2.htm
All just stupid Hollywood shows with a fake Shuttle being dropped off from a plane.
-
It's not really that difficult to understand the basic concept. Thins slow down in the atmosphere. Just stick your hand outside a moving car window to test. ::)
But there is no air above 20 000 m altitude! Airplanes or space crafts cannot fly there. So aerobraking or atmospheric drag is not possible.
I find it unbelievable that you should say such a thing! Surely nobody is so ignorant as to think that in this day!
Flight altitude record (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record)
During 2002 an ultra-thin-film balloon named BU60-1 made of polyethylene film 3.4 µm thick with a volume of 60,000 m³ was launched from Sanriku Balloon Center at Ofunato City, Iwate in Japan at 6:35 on May 23, 2002. The balloon ascended at a speed of 260 m per minute and successfully reached the altitude of 53.0 km (173,900 ft), breaking the previous world record set during 1972
53.0 km is rather higher than your 20 km and the atmosphere doesn't suddenly stop there but the density simply keeps gradually falling so that there's still enough at 150 km to bring a spacecraft down.
Do you really know what you are talking about? You sound like Buzz Aldrin, PhD.
I know what I'm talking about and Buzz Aldrin knows what he''s talking about but you obviously don't!
-
No, in the old times there was a Shuttle that returned from the ISS. The Shuttle had same speed as the ISS - 7000 m/s - at 400 000 m altitude and it used rocket engines to slow it down so it started to drop down on Earth. Dropping down the speed increased ... etc, etc.
And the Shuttle didn't have any fuel aboard for braking.
So the 135 returns by Shuttle from the ISS never took place. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel2.htm
All just stupid Hollywood shows with a fake Shuttle being dropped off from a plane.
Rubbish!
You've no idea what you're talking about.
-
But there is no air above 20 000 m altitude!
Wrong.
Airplanes or space crafts cannot fly there.
Tell that to SR-71 and U-2 pilots who used to routinely fly well above 20,000 m.
So aerobraking or atmospheric drag is not possible. Do you really know what you are talking about?
Anders, you'd be far better off sticking to safety at sea because you obviously have no clue about air or space.
-
Ever hear of rockets? When astronauts return from the ISS the capsule fires rockets to push it down to where there is atmosphere, which does the majority of the slowing down.
You sound like Buzz Aldrin, PhD.
You sound like someone who is deeply ignorant about the basic concepts of what they are denying.
No, in the old times there was a Shuttle that returned from the ISS. The Shuttle had same speed as the ISS - 7000 m/s - at 400 000 m altitude and it used rocket engines to slow it down so it started to drop down on Earth. Dropping down the speed increased ... etc, etc.
And the Shuttle didn't have any fuel aboard for braking.
So the 135 returns by Shuttle from the ISS never took place. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel2.htm
All just stupid Hollywood shows with a fake Shuttle being dropped off from a plane.
You continue to show your ignorance, and inability to even read what I said.
The shuttle and capsules used the same technique, adjusting their orbit with rockets to hit the atmosphere, which then slowed it down. It didn't use rockets in the air for braking. The shuttle didn't carry fuel? What drugs are you on, or what ones SHOULD you be on?
You have NO idea what you are talking about, and every reply is just more ignorance on display.
-
Ever hear of rockets? When astronauts return from the ISS the capsule fires rockets to push it down to where there is atmosphere, which does the majority of the slowing down.
You sound like Buzz Aldrin, PhD.
You sound like someone who is deeply ignorant about the basic concepts of what they are denying.
No, in the old times there was a Shuttle that returned from the ISS. The Shuttle had same speed as the ISS - 7000 m/s - at 400 000 m altitude and it used rocket engines to slow it down so it started to drop down on Earth. Dropping down the speed increased ... etc, etc.
And the Shuttle didn't have any fuel aboard for braking.
So the 135 returns by Shuttle from the ISS never took place. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel2.htm
All just stupid Hollywood shows with a fake Shuttle being dropped off from a plane.
You continue to show your ignorance, and inability to even read what I said.
The shuttle and capsules used the same technique, adjusting their orbit with rockets to hit the atmosphere, which then slowed it down. It didn't use rockets in the air for braking. The shuttle didn't carry fuel? What drugs are you on, or what ones SHOULD you be on?
You have NO idea what you are talking about, and every reply is just more ignorance on display.
Well, I publish my findings under my own name since many years and nobody has found anything wrong with them.
No US Space Shuttles have ever been in space. The only 'Shuttles' seen landing anywhere were simply theater type mock-ups dropped off a plane. What a stupid show!
I pay you a prize proving me wrong. My famous Challenge. Very popular reading at this forum.
-
Ever hear of rockets? When astronauts return from the ISS the capsule fires rockets to push it down to where there is atmosphere, which does the majority of the slowing down.
You sound like Buzz Aldrin, PhD.
You sound like someone who is deeply ignorant about the basic concepts of what they are denying.
No, in the old times there was a Shuttle that returned from the ISS. The Shuttle had same speed as the ISS - 7000 m/s - at 400 000 m altitude and it used rocket engines to slow it down so it started to drop down on Earth. Dropping down the speed increased ... etc, etc.
And the Shuttle didn't have any fuel aboard for braking.
So the 135 returns by Shuttle from the ISS never took place. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel2.htm
All just stupid Hollywood shows with a fake Shuttle being dropped off from a plane.
You continue to show your ignorance, and inability to even read what I said.
The shuttle and capsules used the same technique, adjusting their orbit with rockets to hit the atmosphere, which then slowed it down. It didn't use rockets in the air for braking. The shuttle didn't carry fuel? What drugs are you on, or what ones SHOULD you be on?
You have NO idea what you are talking about, and every reply is just more ignorance on display.
Well, I publish my findings under my own name since many years and nobody has found anything wrong with them.
No US Space Shuttles have ever been in space. The only 'Shuttles' seen landing anywhere were simply theater type mock-ups dropped off a plane. What a stupid show!
I pay you a prize proving me wrong. My famous Challenge. Very popular reading at this forum.
You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. ::)
You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.
-
Well, I publish my findings under my own name since many years and nobody has found anything wrong with them.
You ignoring or dismissing people who find things wrong with your findings is not the same as nobody finding anything wrong with them.
-
You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. ::)
You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.
Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere. I know re-entry is taught universities, etc, but without any evidence at all! NASA, ESA, etc say it is easy but ... no evidence. Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.
In the past "heat shields" were used to absorb the heat produced at re-entry but there is no evidence that they work.
Since many years I describe the re-entry fiasco/hoax at my website and I pay anyone a prize that can explain a re-entry.
So I conclude human space travel is criminal fraud since its beginning. Just look at the clowns saying they have been in space and returned.
-
You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. ::)
You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.
Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere. I know re-entry is taught universities, etc, but without any evidence at all! NASA, ESA, etc say it is easy but ... no evidence. Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.
What?
No evidence? Five hundred people that went to space and back from several countries don't count? Dozens of space agencies launching satelites and rockets, including several private companies aren't evidence? Maybe not to you, because you just blanket deny anything involving space. Easy to say there is no evidence when you just see no space, hear no space.
You again, provide nothing but YOUR assertion it's impossible. Reality would disagree.
Nobody can explain it to YOU because you are simply incapable of understanding it. That's not NASA's fault. The rest of us can understand it just fine.
Your inability to understand doesn't make it a lie, it just make you, well, figure it out.
-
Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere.
Why do you lie about things that are so easy to verify?
-
Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.
Nobody? Where do you get 'nobody' from? Or is this simply your standard dismissal of all things you don't understand? Would you like some papers/articles on the matter that you could add into your "findings"?
-
You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. ::)
You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.
A conspiracy theorist, like Heiwa, needs no evidence - he "just knows :D!"
His "wonderful site :o" contains no information, just his ramblings and ignorance.
-
You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. ::)
You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.
Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere. I know re-entry is taught universities, etc, but without any evidence at all! NASA, ESA, etc say it is easy but ... no evidence. Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.
What?
No evidence? Five hundred people that went to space and back from several countries don't count? Dozens of space agencies launching satelites and rockets, including several private companies aren't evidence? Maybe not to you, because you just blanket deny anything involving space. Easy to say there is no evidence when you just see no space, hear no space.
You again, provide nothing but YOUR assertion it's impossible. Reality would disagree.
Nobody can explain it to YOU because you are simply incapable of understanding it. That's not NASA's fault. The rest of us can understand it just fine.
Your inability to understand doesn't make it a lie, it just make you, well, figure it out.
Yes, >500 persons say that they have done a re-entry and then landed either in an ocean or in a Khazak desert or in a Shuttle at a USAF base but ... no re-entries ever took place. I have explained why at my website since many years. It is not a conspiracy theory but a simple fact. Just ask any of the 500 how they did it. They haven't got a clue. They just await that you shall kiss their feet and admire them.
I still await a scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking.
-
You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. ::)
You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.
Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere. I know re-entry is taught universities, etc, but without any evidence at all! NASA, ESA, etc say it is easy but ... no evidence. Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.
What?
No evidence? Five hundred people that went to space and back from several countries don't count? Dozens of space agencies launching satelites and rockets, including several private companies aren't evidence? Maybe not to you, because you just blanket deny anything involving space. Easy to say there is no evidence when you just see no space, hear no space.
You again, provide nothing but YOUR assertion it's impossible. Reality would disagree.
Nobody can explain it to YOU because you are simply incapable of understanding it. That's not NASA's fault. The rest of us can understand it just fine.
Your inability to understand doesn't make it a lie, it just make you, well, figure it out.
Yes, >500 persons say that they have done a re-entry and then landed either in an ocean or in a Khazak desert or in a Shuttle at a USAF base but ... no re-entries ever took place. I have explained why at my website since many years. It is not a conspiracy theory but a simple fact. Just ask any of the 500 how they did it. They haven't got a clue. They just await that you shall kiss their feet and admire them.
I still await a scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking.
After a 10 second search here's one to get you started:
Spacecraft Re-Entry Impact Point Targeting using Aerodynamic Drag
Sanny R. Omar1 and Riccardo Bevilacqua2
University of Florida, ADAMUS Laboratory, Gainesville, FL 32611
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170000348.pdf
And here's a list of a whole bunch of published, peer reviewed papers/articles regarding re-entry, heat shielding, and braking:
https://www.science.gov/topicpages/r/re-entry+aerodynamic+heating
How many of these scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking papers do you need? There appears to be a lot of them. It seems really difficult to publish findings for things where you obviously did no research. Did you not ever search on the topic?
-
You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. ::)
You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.
Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere. I know re-entry is taught universities, etc, but without any evidence at all! NASA, ESA, etc say it is easy but ... no evidence. Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.
What?
No evidence? Five hundred people that went to space and back from several countries don't count? Dozens of space agencies launching satelites and rockets, including several private companies aren't evidence? Maybe not to you, because you just blanket deny anything involving space. Easy to say there is no evidence when you just see no space, hear no space.
You again, provide nothing but YOUR assertion it's impossible. Reality would disagree.
Nobody can explain it to YOU because you are simply incapable of understanding it. That's not NASA's fault. The rest of us can understand it just fine.
Your inability to understand doesn't make it a lie, it just make you, well, figure it out.
Yes, >500 persons say that they have done a re-entry and then landed either in an ocean or in a Khazak desert or in a Shuttle at a USAF base but ... no re-entries ever took place. I have explained why at my website since many years. It is not a conspiracy theory but a simple fact. Just ask any of the 500 how they did it. They haven't got a clue. They just await that you shall kiss their feet and admire them.
I still await a scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking.
After a 10 second search here's one to get you started:
Spacecraft Re-Entry Impact Point Targeting using Aerodynamic Drag
Sanny R. Omar1 and Riccardo Bevilacqua2
University of Florida, ADAMUS Laboratory, Gainesville, FL 32611
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170000348.pdf
And here's a list of a whole bunch of published, peer reviewed papers/articles regarding re-entry, heat shielding, and braking:
https://www.science.gov/topicpages/r/re-entry+aerodynamic+heating
How many of these scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking papers do you need? There appears to be a lot of them. It seems really difficult to publish findings for things where you obviously did no research. Did you not ever search on the topic?
Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community. NASA & Co encourage all the time students to write papers about space, bla, bla.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B (the impact location!) at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops there at 0 speed. A soft impact, LOL!
If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory A to B you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, where you are, etc? Nobody knows! Imagine that >500 asstronuts have landed not knowing how the braking went to avoid hitting something during the re-entry.
I remind you that the #1 re-entry was done by the Hero of the Sovietunion, Yuri G back in 1961. When he was dropping down from A above, he opened a door of his spacecraft, jumped and landed by parachute. His spacecraft landed intact not far away. And there were people there to witness it. I describe it at my website. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18
-
Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.
Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.
So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content :o.
-
Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.
Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.
So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content :o.
Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then. Click on the link above. You should meet Yuri G but it seems you arrive at a photo of Buzz Aldrin, PhD, planting straw berries on the Moon. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18 . You have to scroll down to meet Yuri!
-
Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.
Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.
So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content :o.
Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then.
Says who? You?
Every new re-entry vehicle needs considerable research, experimental work design and testing.
And atmospheric braking (though from sub-orbital speed) has been done since the 1950s.
-
Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.
Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.
So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content :o.
Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then.
Says who? You?
Every new re-entry vehicle needs considerable research, experimental work design and testing.
And atmospheric braking (though from sub-orbital speed) has been done since the 1950s.
Yes, I am an expert of re-entries since many years since Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn faked them.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18
Of course John Glenn was assisted by a woman that checked all the calculations. She was Afro-American, i.e. her family was former slaves! Imagine that.
-
You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. ::)
You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.
Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere. I know re-entry is taught universities, etc, but without any evidence at all! NASA, ESA, etc say it is easy but ... no evidence. Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.
What?
No evidence? Five hundred people that went to space and back from several countries don't count? Dozens of space agencies launching satelites and rockets, including several private companies aren't evidence? Maybe not to you, because you just blanket deny anything involving space. Easy to say there is no evidence when you just see no space, hear no space.
You again, provide nothing but YOUR assertion it's impossible. Reality would disagree.
Nobody can explain it to YOU because you are simply incapable of understanding it. That's not NASA's fault. The rest of us can understand it just fine.
Your inability to understand doesn't make it a lie, it just make you, well, figure it out.
Yes, >500 persons say that they have done a re-entry and then landed either in an ocean or in a Khazak desert or in a Shuttle at a USAF base but ... no re-entries ever took place. I have explained why at my website since many years. It is not a conspiracy theory but a simple fact. Just ask any of the 500 how they did it. They haven't got a clue. They just await that you shall kiss their feet and admire them.
I still await a scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking.
Sorry.
Your website is no more a reference than Time Cube is.
If your only evidence is "I wrote it on my web page" then you have nothing.
You can ignore all the actual evidence out there, and pretend it doesn't exist but it's just crazy ranting.
-
Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.
Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.
So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content :o.
Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then.
Says who? You?
Every new re-entry vehicle needs considerable research, experimental work design and testing.
And atmospheric braking (though from sub-orbital speed) has been done since the 1950s.
Yes, I am an expert of re-entries since many years since Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn faked them.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18
Of course John Glenn was assisted by a woman that checked all the calculations. She was Afro-American, i.e. her family was former slaves! Imagine that.
What is it with you and smart, capable women? You constantly bring them up like it's proof of some crime that a woman was involved.
-
Yes, I am an expert of re-entries...
No, you aren't. Stop lying.
-
Yes, I am an expert of re-entries...
No, you aren't. Stop lying.
No, I am an expert. I have, e.g. analyzed the Gagarin and John Glenn re-entries 1961/2 and found that they are both pure fantasies. See link provided above.
-
Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.
Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.
So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content :o.
Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then.
Says who? You?
Every new re-entry vehicle needs considerable research, experimental work design and testing.
And atmospheric braking (though from sub-orbital speed) has been done since the 1950s.
Yes, I am an expert of re-entries since many years since Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn faked them.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18
Of course John Glenn was assisted by a woman that checked all the calculations. She was Afro-American, i.e. her family was former slaves! Imagine that.
What is it with you and smart, capable women? You constantly bring them up like it's proof of some crime that a woman was involved.
You mean Katherine Johnson? She died some years ago >100 years old. Senator and asstronut John Glenn relied on her 1962. She was called in to put some color to the show!
-
Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.
Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.
So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content :o.
Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then.
Says who? You?
Every new re-entry vehicle needs considerable research, experimental work design and testing.
And atmospheric braking (though from sub-orbital speed) has been done since the 1950s.
Yes, I am an expert of re-entries since many years since Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn faked them.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18
Of course John Glenn was assisted by a woman that checked all the calculations. She was Afro-American, i.e. her family was former slaves! Imagine that.
What is it with you and smart, capable women? You constantly bring them up like it's proof of some crime that a woman was involved.
You mean Katherine Johnson? She died some years ago >100 years old. Senator and asstronut John Glenn relied on her 1962. She was called in to put some color to the show!
Your misogyny and racism is getting more tiresome than your inability to understand basic physics and constantly pushing your crazy web page.
-
Your misogyny and racism is getting more tiresome than your inability to understand basic physics and constantly pushing your crazy web page.
Please, I love women of all backgrounds and I understand basic physics which I present at my website. Anything wrong? When will you accuse me of being a Holocaust denier?
-
Yes, I am an expert of re-entries...
No, you aren't. Stop lying.
No, I am an expert.
What qualifies you as an expert in atmospheric reentry?
I have, e.g. analyzed the Gagarin and John Glenn re-entries 1961/2 and found that they are both pure fantasies.
Evidently your analysis was flawed.
-
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content :o.
Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then.
Says who? You?
Every new re-entry vehicle needs considerable research, experimental work design and testing.
And atmospheric braking (though from sub-orbital speed) has been done since the 1950s.
Yes, I am an expert of re-entries since many years since Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn faked them.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18
Of course John Glenn was assisted by a woman that checked all the calculations. She was Afro-American, i.e. her family was former slaves! Imagine that.
Run away! You are no more an expert on re-entries than Elvis Presley!
And your Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn are over a decade late, proving that you are nothing but a con-man and a fraud but everyone knows that.
With nuclear weapons, atmosphere re-entry, interplanetary space missions and so much else you have the gall to think that if you can't understand something it's impossible.
It might be different if you had any one valid reason for these things being impossible but you never do.
So how dare you claim that everyone else except little Mr Anders is lying about all these things?
Ever looked in a mirror?
I've never heard of a person with such an over-the-top ego.
Now run away!
-
Your misogyny and racism is getting more tiresome than your inability to understand basic physics and constantly pushing your crazy web page.
Please, I love women of all backgrounds and I understand basic physics which I present at my website. Anything wrong? When will you accuse me of being a Holocaust denier?
I'll accuse you of being a Holocaust denier if you deny the holocaust.
If you constantly make snarky comments about 'girls' and Katherine Johnson then I'm going to call you as I see it. You were the one who brought up Katherine Johnson out of nowhere to mention that a black woman was involved when trying to deny the entire space program, like that somehow is evidence of anything. Don't blame me for pointing it out.
As for anything wrong, yes. Your entire crazy web site.
-
Your misogyny and racism is getting more tiresome than your inability to understand basic physics and constantly pushing your crazy web page.
Please, I love women of all backgrounds and I understand basic physics which I present at my website. Anything wrong? When will you accuse me of being a Holocaust denier?
I'll accuse you of being a Holocaust denier if you deny the holocaust.
If you constantly make snarky comments about 'girls' and Katherine Johnson then I'm going to call you as I see it. You were the one who brought up Katherine Johnson out of nowhere to mention that a black woman was involved when trying to deny the entire space program, like that somehow is evidence of anything. Don't blame me for pointing it out.
As for anything wrong, yes. Your entire crazy web site.
Just for the record: I consider all NASA projects with humans in space as 100% fraud. No Americans have ever been in space and all persons of all colors/races involved in this stupid, old hoax are criminals in my view. It is quite easy to prove it.
Same with this project to film a very big, solid celestial object - with diameter same as our Solar System - >50 million light years away in the center of a galaxy and call it a Black Hole! It is 100% fraud and the girl and her colleagues putting the stupid image together are criminals. Again it is quite easy to prove it.
I know exactly why they do it! It is stealing money with no risk involved.
-
Just for the record: I consider all NASA projects with humans in space as 100% fraud. No Americans have ever been in space and all persons of all colors/races involved in this stupid, old hoax are criminals in my view. It is quite easy to prove it.
Then prove it to the appropriate law enforcement agency and send the criminals to jail.
-
Just for the record: I consider all NASA projects with humans in space as 100% fraud. No Americans have ever been in space and all persons of all colors/races involved in this stupid, old hoax are criminals in my view. It is quite easy to prove it.
Then prove it to the appropriate law enforcement agency and send the criminals to jail.
He won't, because he thinks if he enters the USA, they will blackbag him and toss him in a dark cell to rot for telling "secrets" about the atomic bomb.
-
Just for the record: I consider all NASA projects with humans in space as 100% fraud. No Americans have ever been in space and all persons of all colors/races involved in this stupid, old hoax are criminals in my view. It is quite easy to prove it.
Well, Mr Know-it-all, prove it!
Same with this project to film a very big, solid celestial object - with diameter same as our Solar System - >50 million light years away in the center of a galaxy and call it a Black Hole! It is 100% fraud and the girl and her colleagues putting the stupid image together are criminals. Again it is quite easy to prove it.
I know exactly why they do it! It is stealing money with no risk involved.
So obviously you know nothing of astronomy or cosmology either. Figured as much!
Maybe you know something thing about safety at sea but there seems little else.
Everything else is your conspiracy theories and severe Dunning-Kruger Syndrome - You think you're smarter than everybody else.
It's a wonder you're not a flat Earther too.
-
You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. ::)
You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.
Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere. I know re-entry is taught universities, etc, but without any evidence at all! NASA, ESA, etc say it is easy but ... no evidence. Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.
What?
No evidence? Five hundred people that went to space and back from several countries don't count? Dozens of space agencies launching satelites and rockets, including several private companies aren't evidence? Maybe not to you, because you just blanket deny anything involving space. Easy to say there is no evidence when you just see no space, hear no space.
You again, provide nothing but YOUR assertion it's impossible. Reality would disagree.
Nobody can explain it to YOU because you are simply incapable of understanding it. That's not NASA's fault. The rest of us can understand it just fine.
Your inability to understand doesn't make it a lie, it just make you, well, figure it out.
Yes, >500 persons say that they have done a re-entry and then landed either in an ocean or in a Khazak desert or in a Shuttle at a USAF base but ... no re-entries ever took place. I have explained why at my website since many years. It is not a conspiracy theory but a simple fact. Just ask any of the 500 how they did it. They haven't got a clue. They just await that you shall kiss their feet and admire them.
I still await a scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking.
After a 10 second search here's one to get you started:
Spacecraft Re-Entry Impact Point Targeting using Aerodynamic Drag
Sanny R. Omar1 and Riccardo Bevilacqua2
University of Florida, ADAMUS Laboratory, Gainesville, FL 32611
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170000348.pdf
And here's a list of a whole bunch of published, peer reviewed papers/articles regarding re-entry, heat shielding, and braking:
https://www.science.gov/topicpages/r/re-entry+aerodynamic+heating
How many of these scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking papers do you need? There appears to be a lot of them. It seems really difficult to publish findings for things where you obviously did no research. Did you not ever search on the topic?
Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community. NASA & Co encourage all the time students to write papers about space, bla, bla.
This is precisely why you're considered a liar and a fraud. You claim "none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community." Right out of the gate, that's a lie.
The first on the long list of published papers I provided, Spacecraft Re-Entry Impact Point Targeting using Aerodynamic Drag, was authored by two Phd's at U of Florida had their paper published in the Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics & presented their paper at the AIAA Science and Technology Forum (SciTech 2017). And has been reviewed/cited 17 times.
So why would you lie and say, "none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community."?
-
If Heiwa fell 100 feet head first onto concrete,
why wouldn't his brain splatter everywhere?
-
If Heiwa fell 100 feet head first onto concrete,
why wouldn't his brain splatter everywhere?
1) He doesn't have one.
2) His skull is so thick and dense nothing gets through it and does more damage to the concrete than the concrete does to it.
-
Anders is so dense that he absorbs neutrinos.
-
This is precisely why you're considered a liar and a fraud. You claim "none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community." Right out of the gate, that's a lie.
The first on the long list of published papers I provided, Spacecraft Re-Entry Impact Point Targeting using Aerodynamic Drag, was authored by two Phd's at U of Florida had their paper published in the Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics & presented their paper at the AIAA Science and Technology Forum (SciTech 2017). And has been reviewed/cited 17 times.
So why would you lie and say, "none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community."?
I just note that NASA asked these people to produce their pseudo scientific garbage or my funny theories for other NASA people (the scientific community? LOL) to adore to see what nonsense you can get away with. US universities are full of such PhDs. It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry. So Gagariin and Glenn faked it 1961/2 with their orbits around Earth and re-entries. Just study my findings about them.
If it makes you happy to call me a liar and a fraud, pls go ahead. You are not alone. I feel sorry for you.
-
It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry.
Would you please stop saying such stupid things? The atmospheric pressure at 120,000 is very low, but it is not zero. At 17,000+ mph, it doesn't take very much atmospheric pressure for a blunt body to cause aerodynamic drag, especially considering that the atmosphere gets more dense as you get lower.
-
It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry.
Would you please stop saying such stupid things? The atmospheric pressure at 120,000 is very low, but it is not zero. At 17,000+ mph, it doesn't take very much atmospheric pressure for a blunt body to cause aerodynamic drag, especially considering that the atmosphere gets more dense as you get lower.
So what is the atmospheric pressure (Pa) at 120 000 m? Why not copy it in a wind tunnel and do a test? How much is the drag (N)? Can it slow down a spacecraft returning doing a re-entry? According Gagarin and Glenn their spacecrafts slowed down in <10 minutes to enable landnings 1961/2. My finding is that both events never took place.
-
It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry.
Would you please stop saying such stupid things? The atmospheric pressure at 120,000 is very low, but it is not zero. At 17,000+ mph, it doesn't take very much atmospheric pressure for a blunt body to cause aerodynamic drag, especially considering that the atmosphere gets more dense as you get lower.
So what is the atmospheric pressure (Pa) at 120 000 m? Why not copy it in a wind tunnel and do a test? How much is the drag (N)? Can it slow down a spacecraft returning doing a re-entry? According Gagarin and Glenn their spacecrafts slowed down in <10 minutes to enable landnings 1961/2.
Your 'findings' are nothing more than you simply stating it's impossible because you can't understand it.
I find it baffling that someone who claims to be a smart engineer thinks we should just build a wind tunnel capable of pushing air at 17,000 mph at 0.0000000049 atmospheres of pressure. Really. Just build that you say? I'd love to see your design. A really big fan I bet.
You also don't seem to understand that the drag at 120,000m slows it down a little, which drops it deeper into the atmosphere, which slows it more, which drops it further, ect until it's fully inside the atmosphere and slowed enough to use a parachute.
Why do you keep posting on subjects you do no research on? Look up some answers before just throwing your hands up in surrender and deciding it's impossible because you don't know anything.
My finding is that both events never took place.
My finding is you have no idea what you are talking about.
-
It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry.
Would you please stop saying such stupid things? The atmospheric pressure at 120,000 is very low, but it is not zero. At 17,000+ mph, it doesn't take very much atmospheric pressure for a blunt body to cause aerodynamic drag, especially considering that the atmosphere gets more dense as you get lower.
So what is the atmospheric pressure (Pa) at 120 000 m? Why not copy it in a wind tunnel and do a test? How much is the drag (N)? Can it slow down a spacecraft returning doing a re-entry? According Gagarin and Glenn their spacecrafts slowed down in <10 minutes to enable landnings 1961/2.
Your 'findings' are nothing more than you simply stating it's impossible because you can't understand it.
I find it baffling that someone who claims to be a smart engineer thinks we should just build a wind tunnel capable of pushing air at 17,000 mph at 0.0000000049 atmospheres of pressure. Really. Just build that you say? I'd love to see your design. A really big fan I bet.
You also don't seem to understand that the drag at 120,000m slows it down a little, which drops it deeper into the atmosphere, which slows it more, which drops it further, ect until it's fully inside the atmosphere and slowed enough to use a parachute.
Why do you keep posting on subjects you do no research on? Look up some answers before just throwing your hands up in surrender and deciding it's impossible because you don't know anything.
My finding is that both events never took place.
My finding is you have no idea what you are talking about.
I have worked at two ship model testing tanks and knows the physics of model testing in interface water/air where wave and friction resistances follow different scale laws and done many model tests to obtain full scale results.
So it should be very easy to test a wingless spacecraft with a shield at the front to measure its resistance/drag at various speeds. But it has not been done!Reason? No wingless spacecraft has ever flown anywhere.
-
It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry.
Would you please stop saying such stupid things? The atmospheric pressure at 120,000 is very low, but it is not zero. At 17,000+ mph, it doesn't take very much atmospheric pressure for a blunt body to cause aerodynamic drag, especially considering that the atmosphere gets more dense as you get lower.
So what is the atmospheric pressure (Pa) at 120 000 m? Why not copy it in a wind tunnel and do a test? How much is the drag (N)? Can it slow down a spacecraft returning doing a re-entry? According Gagarin and Glenn their spacecrafts slowed down in <10 minutes to enable landnings 1961/2.
Your 'findings' are nothing more than you simply stating it's impossible because you can't understand it.
I find it baffling that someone who claims to be a smart engineer thinks we should just build a wind tunnel capable of pushing air at 17,000 mph at 0.0000000049 atmospheres of pressure. Really. Just build that you say? I'd love to see your design. A really big fan I bet.
You also don't seem to understand that the drag at 120,000m slows it down a little, which drops it deeper into the atmosphere, which slows it more, which drops it further, ect until it's fully inside the atmosphere and slowed enough to use a parachute.
Why do you keep posting on subjects you do no research on? Look up some answers before just throwing your hands up in surrender and deciding it's impossible because you don't know anything.
My finding is that both events never took place.
My finding is you have no idea what you are talking about.
I have worked at two ship model testing tanks and knows the physics of model testing in interface water/air where wave and friction resistances follow different scale laws and done many model tests to obtain full scale results.
So it should be very easy to test a wingless spacecraft with a shield at the front to measure its resistance/drag at various speeds. But it has not been done!Reason? No wingless spacecraft has ever flown anywhere.
So air tunnel tests haven't occurred on space craft re-entry vehicles in your test lab so they have never been tested?
-
It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry.
Would you please stop saying such stupid things? The atmospheric pressure at 120,000 is very low, but it is not zero. At 17,000+ mph, it doesn't take very much atmospheric pressure for a blunt body to cause aerodynamic drag, especially considering that the atmosphere gets more dense as you get lower.
So what is the atmospheric pressure (Pa) at 120 000 m? Why not copy it in a wind tunnel and do a test? How much is the drag (N)? Can it slow down a spacecraft returning doing a re-entry? According Gagarin and Glenn their spacecrafts slowed down in <10 minutes to enable landnings 1961/2.
Your 'findings' are nothing more than you simply stating it's impossible because you can't understand it.
I find it baffling that someone who claims to be a smart engineer thinks we should just build a wind tunnel capable of pushing air at 17,000 mph at 0.0000000049 atmospheres of pressure. Really. Just build that you say? I'd love to see your design. A really big fan I bet.
You also don't seem to understand that the drag at 120,000m slows it down a little, which drops it deeper into the atmosphere, which slows it more, which drops it further, ect until it's fully inside the atmosphere and slowed enough to use a parachute.
Why do you keep posting on subjects you do no research on? Look up some answers before just throwing your hands up in surrender and deciding it's impossible because you don't know anything.
My finding is that both events never took place.
My finding is you have no idea what you are talking about.
I have worked at two ship model testing tanks and knows the physics of model testing in interface water/air where wave and friction resistances follow different scale laws and done many model tests to obtain full scale results.
So it should be very easy to test a wingless spacecraft with a shield at the front to measure its resistance/drag at various speeds. But it has not been done!Reason? No wingless spacecraft has ever flown anywhere.
So air tunnel tests haven't occurred on space craft re-entry vehicles in your test lab so they have never been tested?
I never tested spacecrafts in ship model tanks, but we measured impacts on the bow in severe weather. Already 1968! Imagine that!
I assume that a spacecraft dropping from vacuum space into the Earth solid atmosphere will either bounce or be destroyed. It will not be slowed down intact, so it will land. I wonder why NASA has never tested it.
-
I assume that a spacecraft dropping from vacuum space into the Earth solid atmosphere will either bounce or be destroyed. It will not be slowed down intact, so it will land. I wonder why NASA has never tested it.
Probably because you are the only one stupid to suggest "a spacecraft dropping from vacuum space into the Earth solid atmosphere".- Empty rocket stages are commonly just allowed to reenter and do burn up.
- The Earth's atmosphere is not solid but starts very gradually!
Atmospheric braking has been explained often enough! You're just trying to be perverse.
-
I never tested spacecrafts in ship model tanks,
You realize air is a fluid, right?
-
I wonder why NASA has never tested it.
If you ever actually took the time to research things or look up your 'wonderings' you might actually find answers.
But that would require you to actually think and process information which seems to be beyond your abilities.
Much easier to just decide that it's not you that's confused, it's the entire world which must be a vast series of lies and conspiracies.
You couldn't possibly be the one lacking the ability to understand. Never.
-
It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry.
Would you please stop saying such stupid things? The atmospheric pressure at 120,000 is very low, but it is not zero. At 17,000+ mph, it doesn't take very much atmospheric pressure for a blunt body to cause aerodynamic drag, especially considering that the atmosphere gets more dense as you get lower.
So what is the atmospheric pressure (Pa) at 120 000 m? Why not copy it in a wind tunnel and do a test? How much is the drag (N)? Can it slow down a spacecraft returning doing a re-entry? According Gagarin and Glenn their spacecrafts slowed down in <10 minutes to enable landnings 1961/2. My finding is that both events never took place.
Did Gagarin or Glenn claim that they were at 120,000 m the whole time that they were slowing down or did they claim that they started slowing down around 120,000 m and continued slowing down more and more as they descended into thicker air?
-
It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry.
Would you please stop saying such stupid things? The atmospheric pressure at 120,000 is very low, but it is not zero. At 17,000+ mph, it doesn't take very much atmospheric pressure for a blunt body to cause aerodynamic drag, especially considering that the atmosphere gets more dense as you get lower.
So what is the atmospheric pressure (Pa) at 120 000 m? Why not copy it in a wind tunnel and do a test? How much is the drag (N)? Can it slow down a spacecraft returning doing a re-entry? According Gagarin and Glenn their spacecrafts slowed down in <10 minutes to enable landnings 1961/2. My finding is that both events never took place.
Did Gagarin or Glenn claim that they were at 120,000 m the whole time that they were slowing down or did they claim that they started slowing down around 120,000 m and continued slowing down more and more as they descended into thicker air?
Glenn flow 3 times around the Earth 1962 at say 400 000 m altitude starting from Florida going east. He quickly disappeared in the sky! His spacecraft can be seen in a museum! Top speed > 7000 m/s! To land Glenn started to slow down by firing 'retro-rockets' on his space craft over the Pacific! Where the fuel came from nobody knows. Most of the flight was automatic followed from ground by IBM computers. Glenn then continued to slow down flying over the whole of USA from California to Florida and apparently started the re-entry over Florida (where he had started >4 hrs earlier) at 120 000 m altitude to drop into the Atlantic Ocean water from the sky 437 seconds later north of Santo Domingo, to be picked up by a USN ship. Hole in One!! I describe it at my website - see http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . During the final re-entry through the atmosphere radio contact was lost for a couple of minutes due to his heat shield getting hot - friction drag!!. It seems Glenn flow straight fwd all the time only changing altitude and speed. Glenn later became a US senator to fly with the Shuttle around the Earth to do a second fake re-entry and landing. He was in my opinion just a lying actor all the time. He was never in space.
-
He was in my opinion just a lying actor all the time. He was never in space.
Sez YOU but we know you of old and so do so many other internet sites that have turned you out.
You are the liar, Mr Anders now run off because you don't fool anybody but yourself!
-
He was in my opinion just a lying actor all the time. He was never in space.
Sez YOU but we know you of old and so do so many other internet sites that have turned you out.
You are the liar, Mr Anders now run off because you don't fool anybody but yourself!
It is a pity that I am called a liar, when my findings clearly shows that US asstronut/senator John Glenn lied about his trip and escape velocity in space 1962 until he died some time ago. Of course John was military and just lied all his life on orders from above.
-
My finding is you have no idea what you are talking about.
I have worked at two ship model testing tanks and knows the physics of model testing in interface water/air where wave and friction resistances follow different scale laws and done many model tests to obtain full scale results.
So what?
So it should be very easy to test a wingless spacecraft with a shield at the front to measure its resistance/drag at various speeds. But it has not been done!Reason? No wingless spacecraft has ever flown anywhere.
And how do you know it hasn't been done?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Langley_hypersonic_wind_tunnels.jpg)
NASA Langley's Hypersonic Facilities Complex, 1969
And there have been plenty more constructed in other places!
Now we've had more than enough of your stupidity and ignorance!
-
He was in my opinion just a lying actor all the time. He was never in space.
Sez YOU but we know you of old and so do so many other internet sites that have turned you out.
You are the liar, Mr Anders now run off because you don't fool anybody but yourself!
It is a pity that I am called a liar, when my findings clearly shows that US asstronut/senator John Glenn lied about his trip and escape velocity in space 1962 until he died some time ago. Of course John was military and just lied all his life on orders from above.
Too bad! You are called a liar because you are a blatant liar! Get used to it.
-
He was in my opinion just a lying actor all the time. He was never in space.
Sez YOU but we know you of old and so do so many other internet sites that have turned you out.
You are the liar, Mr Anders now run off because you don't fool anybody but yourself!
It is a pity that I am called a liar, when my findings clearly shows that US asstronut/senator John Glenn lied about his trip and escape velocity in space 1962 until he died some time ago. Of course John was military and just lied all his life on orders from above.
Too bad! You are called a liar because you are a blatant liar! Get used to it.
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
So this American folk/space hero was just a phony liar after his orbits around Earth. But John was not the first nor the last.
-
He was in my opinion just a lying actor all the time. He was never in space.
Sez YOU but we know you of old and so do so many other internet sites that have turned you out.
You are the liar, Mr Anders now run off because you don't fool anybody but yourself!
It is a pity that I am called a liar, when my findings clearly shows that US asstronut/senator John Glenn lied about his trip and escape velocity in space 1962 until he died some time ago. Of course John was military and just lied all his life on orders from above.
Too bad! You are called a liar because you are a blatant liar! Get used to it.
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
So this American folk/space hero was just a phony liar after his orbits around Earth. But John was not the first nor the last.
And you have never proven that:
John Glenn did not orbit the Earth in 1962
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did not land on the moon in 1969
the ISS is not orbiting the Earth now, crewed by NASA astronauts Douglas Hurley and Robert Behnken, Roscosmos flight engineer Anatoly Ivanishin, NASA Commander Chris Cassidy and Roscosmos flight engineer Ivan Vagner.
Nuclear weapons are not real and still a danger.
And I've no idea what you ever hope to gain with this stupid denial!
-
He was in my opinion just a lying actor all the time. He was never in space.
Sez YOU but we know you of old and so do so many other internet sites that have turned you out.
You are the liar, Mr Anders now run off because you don't fool anybody but yourself!
It is a pity that I am called a liar, when my findings clearly shows that US asstronut/senator John Glenn lied about his trip and escape velocity in space 1962 until he died some time ago. Of course John was military and just lied all his life on orders from above.
Too bad! You are called a liar because you are a blatant liar! Get used to it.
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
So this American folk/space hero was just a phony liar after his orbits around Earth. But John was not the first nor the last.
You have been proven wrong plenty of times, and if you constantly make claims that turn out to not be true... liar is a good word.
The only proof you ever give is you saying you can't understand physics or math or much at all, which brings us to you being called an idiot.
-
He was in my opinion just a lying actor all the time. He was never in space.
Sez YOU but we know you of old and so do so many other internet sites that have turned you out.
You are the liar, Mr Anders now run off because you don't fool anybody but yourself!
It is a pity that I am called a liar, when my findings clearly shows that US asstronut/senator John Glenn lied about his trip and escape velocity in space 1962 until he died some time ago. Of course John was military and just lied all his life on orders from above.
Too bad! You are called a liar because you are a blatant liar! Get used to it.
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
So this American folk/space hero was just a phony liar after his orbits around Earth. But John was not the first nor the last.
And you have never proven that:
John Glenn did not orbit the Earth in 1962
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did not land on the moon in 1969
the ISS is not orbiting the Earth now, crewed by NASA astronauts Douglas Hurley and Robert Behnken, Roscosmos flight engineer Anatoly Ivanishin, NASA Commander Chris Cassidy and Roscosmos flight engineer Ivan Vagner.
Nuclear weapons are not real and still a danger.
And I've no idea what you ever hope to gain with this stupid denial!
Well, Glenn, Armstrong and Buzz were just lying asstronut nobodies promoted heroes by media and NASA and the others are same kind but kosmos krauts shit. Cheap! Cost nothing!
Re nuclear weapons they are the same! Just stupid propaganda.
I am just the messenger. Please don't shot me!
-
He was in my opinion just a lying actor all the time. He was never in space.
Sez YOU but we know you of old and so do so many other internet sites that have turned you out.
You are the liar, Mr Anders now run off because you don't fool anybody but yourself!
It is a pity that I am called a liar, when my findings clearly shows that US asstronut/senator John Glenn lied about his trip and escape velocity in space 1962 until he died some time ago. Of course John was military and just lied all his life on orders from above.
Too bad! You are called a liar because you are a blatant liar! Get used to it.
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
So this American folk/space hero was just a phony liar after his orbits around Earth. But John was not the first nor the last.
And you have never proven that:
John Glenn did not orbit the Earth in 1962
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did not land on the moon in 1969
the ISS is not orbiting the Earth now, crewed by NASA astronauts Douglas Hurley and Robert Behnken, Roscosmos flight engineer Anatoly Ivanishin, NASA Commander Chris Cassidy and Roscosmos flight engineer Ivan Vagner.
Nuclear weapons are not real and still a danger.
And I've no idea what you ever hope to gain with this stupid denial!
Well, Glenn, Armstrong and Buzz were just lying asstronut nobodies promoted heroes by media and NASA and the others are same kind but kosmos krauts shit. Cheap! Cost nothing!
Re nuclear weapons they are the same! Just stupid propaganda.
I am just the messenger. Please don't shot me!
You don't need shot, you need some serious professional help.
-
He was in my opinion just a lying actor all the time. He was never in space.
Sez YOU but we know you of old and so do so many other internet sites that have turned you out.
You are the liar, Mr Anders now run off because you don't fool anybody but yourself!
It is a pity that I am called a liar, when my findings clearly shows that US asstronut/senator John Glenn lied about his trip and escape velocity in space 1962 until he died some time ago. Of course John was military and just lied all his life on orders from above.
Too bad! You are called a liar because you are a blatant liar! Get used to it.
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
So this American folk/space hero was just a phony liar after his orbits around Earth. But John was not the first nor the last.
And you have never proven that:
John Glenn did not orbit the Earth in 1962
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did not land on the moon in 1969
the ISS is not orbiting the Earth now, crewed by NASA astronauts Douglas Hurley and Robert Behnken, Roscosmos flight engineer Anatoly Ivanishin, NASA Commander Chris Cassidy and Roscosmos flight engineer Ivan Vagner.
Nuclear weapons are not real and still a danger.
And I've no idea what you ever hope to gain with this stupid denial!
Well, Glenn, Armstrong and Buzz were just lying asstronut nobodies promoted heroes by media and NASA and the others are same kind but kosmos krauts shit. Cheap! Cost nothing!
Re nuclear weapons they are the same! Just stupid propaganda.
I am just the messenger. Please don't shot me!
You don't need shot, you need some serious professional help.
Thanks, but who are you?
-
Well, Glenn, Armstrong and Buzz were just lying asstronut nobodies promoted heroes by media and NASA and the others are same kind but kosmos krauts shit. Cheap! Cost nothing!
Re nuclear weapons they are the same! Just stupid propaganda.
I am just the messenger. Please don't shot me!
You don't need shot, you need some serious professional help.
[/quote]
Thanks, but who are you?
[/quote]
Someone concerned for your mental health, and at the same time annoyed by your attacks on people and the truth.
But really, you need meds. Or stronger ones if you're already on some.
-
He was in my opinion just a lying actor all the time. He was never in space.
Sez YOU but we know you of old and so do so many other internet sites that have turned you out.
You are the liar, Mr Anders now run off because you don't fool anybody but yourself!
It is a pity that I am called a liar, when my findings clearly shows that US asstronut/senator John Glenn lied about his trip and escape velocity in space 1962 until he died some time ago. Of course John was military and just lied all his life on orders from above.
Too bad! You are called a liar because you are a blatant liar! Get used to it.
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
So this American folk/space hero was just a phony liar after his orbits around Earth. But John was not the first nor the last.
And you have never proven that:
John Glenn did not orbit the Earth in 1962
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did not land on the moon in 1969
the ISS is not orbiting the Earth now, crewed by NASA astronauts Douglas Hurley and Robert Behnken, Roscosmos flight engineer Anatoly Ivanishin, NASA Commander Chris Cassidy and Roscosmos flight engineer Ivan Vagner.
Nuclear weapons are not real and still a danger.
And I've no idea what you ever hope to gain with this stupid denial!
Well, Glenn, Armstrong and Buzz were just lying asstronut nobodies promoted heroes by media and NASA and the others are same kind but kosmos krauts shit. Cheap! Cost nothing!
Re nuclear weapons they are the same! Just stupid propaganda.
I am just the messenger. Please don't shot me!
Your empty words mean nothing.
If you think they're frauds, prove it otherwise shut up!
-
We discuss escape velocity and use Gagarin and Glenn as examples. Their spacecrafts were just catapulted to orbit Earth at 7000 m/s high speed and 400 000 m altitude by strong rockets 1961/2. You need much more speed to escape but here it was just an orbit test at low altitude and speed. Gagarin made one orbit, Glenn made three! To stop orbiting both heroes reduced velocity to landing velocity using brake rockets to lower altitude by gravity, so they entered the atmosphere at 120000 m altitude, where very weak air friction drag reduced velocity from say 8100 m/s to 100 m/s during 10 minutes, so parachutes could be used for vertical landing. OK, Gagarin jumped out of his craft and landed himself with his personal parachute.
Question is can any spacecraft slow down from 8000 m/s to 0 just by air friction during 10 minutes. My finding is that it is not possible. Either you burn up or crash but you cannot rely on air friction. Of course there are plenty people suggesting the opposite and their only evidence is that they consider me a liar. They apparently believe Gagarin and Glenn and air friction. To solve the question I offer anyone €1M proving me wrong since many years.
-
Question is can any spacecraft slow down from 8000 m/s to 0 just by air friction during 10 minutes. My finding is that it is not possible. Either you burn up or crash but you cannot rely on air friction. Of course there are plenty people suggesting the opposite and their only evidence is that they consider me a liar. They apparently believe Gagarin and Glenn and air friction. To solve the question I offer anyone €1M proving me wrong since many years.
Your findings are just you saying it's not possible.
Sorry, just because you can't understand is not proof of anything but your ignorance of how re-entry works.
Once again... you SAYING it's not possible isn't proof.
And 'plenty of people' would be pretty much the entire scientific community, NASA, and a dozen other space agencies, plus all the countless engineers who work on aircraft that demonstrate drag and friction and compression heating of airplanes and rockets. Basicly the whole world.
And then there is you saying... no.
-
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
You are proven wrong every time a successful manned space flight happens. That you don't believe those missions are real is irrelevant.
-
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
You are proven wrong every time a successful manned space flight happens. That you don't believe those missions are real is irrelevant.
But no manned space flights ever happens. There is no evidence! A rocket goes up in the sky with heroes. A little later a box full of heroes drops down from the sky after a mysterious re-entry. What kind of evidence is it? And what did they do in space? Scientific research. LOL! Could have been done by a robot at 1/100 price. I always ask the heroes about going to the toilet. They never went there!
-
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
You are proven wrong every time a successful manned space flight happens. That you don't believe those missions are real is irrelevant.
idence
But no manned space flights ever happens. There is no evidence! A rocket goes up in the sky with heroes. A little later a box full of heroes drops down from the sky after a mysterious re-entry. What kind of evidence is it? And what did they do in space? Scientific research. LOL! Could have been done by a robot at 1/100 price. I always ask the heroes about going to the toilet. They never went there!
Once again, just because it blows your mind and you can't understand or believe it is not evidence.
If you have proof, show it.
Simply repeating "Golly gee that can't be real!" is not anything but evidence that you lack the ability to comprehend reality.
-
If you have proof, show it.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com
-
If you have proof, show it.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com
Spamming your website isn't helpful. That's just you saying NO on a web page instead of a forum.
What specific proof do you have? Show us here.
-
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
You are proven wrong every time a successful manned space flight happens. That you don't believe those missions are real is irrelevant.
But no manned space flights ever happens. There is no evidence!
I've asked you over and over again, what evidence would you accept? Why is it that you never answer the question?
-
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
You are proven wrong every time a successful manned space flight happens. That you don't believe those missions are real is irrelevant.
But no manned space flights ever happens. There is no evidence!
I've asked you over and over again, what evidence would you accept? Why is it that you never answer the question?
Heiwa needs no evidence and accepts no evidence.
If his tiny brain can't understand something he knows it's impossible - He's the classic Dunning-Kruger case.
-
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
You are proven wrong every time a successful manned space flight happens. That you don't believe those missions are real is irrelevant.
But no manned space flights ever happens. There is no evidence!
I've asked you over and over again, what evidence would you accept? Why is it that you never answer the question?
Heiwa needs no evidence and accepts no evidence.
If his tiny brain can't understand something he knows it's impossible - He's the classic Dunning-Kruger case.
And he's no longer a fan of Nespresso so the offer to come to his office for a chat may as well be dead and buried. I'm not travelling half way across the planet to watch some old guy get pissed on cheap wine
-
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
You are proven wrong every time a successful manned space flight happens. That you don't believe those missions are real is irrelevant.
But no manned space flights ever happens. There is no evidence!
I've asked you over and over again, what evidence would you accept? Why is it that you never answer the question?
I accept anything that gives me reason to believe you as evidence. An image is no evidence, when we don’t know the full history of the image, e.g. of a solid Black Hole with a diameter of our Solar System or of an asstronut planting strawberries on the Moon, etc. Many people believe that images of such things is evidence but not me. I need more solid, scientific evidence.
-
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
You are proven wrong every time a successful manned space flight happens. That you don't believe those missions are real is irrelevant.
But no manned space flights ever happens. There is no evidence!
I've asked you over and over again, what evidence would you accept? Why is it that you never answer the question?
I accept anything that gives me reason to believe you as evidence. An image is no evidence, when we don’t know the full history of the image, e.g. of a solid Black Hole with a diameter of our Solar System or of an asstronut planting strawberries on the Moon, etc. Many people believe that images of such things is evidence but not me. I need more solid, scientific evidence.
Yet you provide no evidence for, well, just about anything. Here's why people like you are dangerous. Not that anyone takes any of your ramblings seriously, but all it take is one.
"However United Nations World Health Organization, WHO, confirmed that it was a pandemic! All the countries in the world must protect themselves! But the information was false!
Imagine that!
Pseudo science.
Some unknown clowns had 2019 invented the Corona virus."
No evidence, just you proclaiming something for reasons that I can't even figure out as to why. No evidence, just hyperbole. Are you just trying to be 'provocative' and drive people to your site for, I don't know, ad revenue. Recognition? Fame? Do you honestly think you're providing some sort of POV that is helpful, amid a pandemic? What is it that you are trying to illicit? What is your aim? Why? What do you hope to achieve?
Has it ever crossed your mind that if even one person takes your unfounded conjecture seriously, that could endanger many? Do you have a sense of humanity or only a sense of sensationalism?
Again, I think the world over has shown that all of your "ideas" are ludicrous, I just worry about the 1 or 2 outliers that think your "findings" are even remotely serious. And you could give less than a shit and I'm still trying to figure out why.
You're a narcissistic menace to even just the 1 or 2 people that may imbibe your lunacy. And you put everyone at risk in doing so.
-
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
You are proven wrong every time a successful manned space flight happens. That you don't believe those missions are real is irrelevant.
But no manned space flights ever happens. There is no evidence!
I've asked you over and over again, what evidence would you accept? Why is it that you never answer the question?
I accept anything that gives me reason to believe you as evidence.
Such as...?
... or of an asstronut planting strawberries on the Moon, etc.
Where did you ever get this nonsense about planting strawberries on the moon? ???
Many people believe that images of such things is evidence but not me. I need more solid, scientific evidence.
Maybe because many people understand the science involved better than you do. Geologists have studied rock and soil samples returned from the moon. Astronomers are still bouncing lasers off of the lunar retroreflecctors. The ISS can be clearly seen with a good telescope. Tourists have paid millions of dollars to go to Mir and the ISS. What evidence do you want?
-
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
You are proven wrong every time a successful manned space flight happens. That you don't believe those missions are real is irrelevant.
But no manned space flights ever happens. There is no evidence!
I've asked you over and over again, what evidence would you accept? Why is it that you never answer the question?
I accept anything that gives me reason to believe you as evidence.
Such as...?
... or of an asstronut planting strawberries on the Moon, etc.
Where did you ever get this nonsense about planting strawberries on the moon? ???
Many people believe that images of such things is evidence but not me. I need more solid, scientific evidence.
Maybe because many people understand the science involved better than you do. Geologists have studied rock and soil samples returned from the moon. Astronomers are still bouncing lasers off of the lunar retroreflecctors. The ISS can be clearly seen with a good telescope. Tourists have paid millions of dollars to go to Mir and the ISS. What evidence do you want?
I just need good evidence that make me believe in things. A NASA photo of Buzz Aldrin planting strawberries and retroreflectors on the Moon taken by his friend Neal Armstrong doesn't suffice. It just makes me laugh. Like Buzz & Co's soil samples from the Moon taken from any volcano on Earth. Buzz is just a NASA clown.
-
I just need good evidence that make me believe in things. A NASA photo of Buzz Aldrin planting strawberries...
I've never heard of that photo. Do you have a link to it?
...and retroreflectors on the Moon taken by his friend Neal Armstrong doesn't suffice.
I didn't say anything about pictures of the retroreflectors. I said that astronomers have been bouncing lasers off of them more than 50 years.
It just makes me laugh. Like Buzz & Co's soil samples from the Moon taken from any volcano on Earth. Buzz is just a NASA clown.
Are you saying that geologists can't tell the difference between volcanic samples and lunar samples?
-
I just need good evidence that make me believe in things. A NASA photo of Buzz Aldrin planting strawberries...
I've never heard of that photo. Do you have a link to it?
...and retroreflectors on the Moon taken by his friend Neal Armstrong doesn't suffice.
I didn't say anything about pictures of the retroreflectors. I said that astronomers have been bouncing lasers off of them more than 50 years.
It just makes me laugh. Like Buzz & Co's soil samples from the Moon taken from any volcano on Earth. Buzz is just a NASA clown.
Are you saying that geologists can't tell the difference between volcanic samples and lunar samples?
eologists
The photo of Buzz on the Moon is at my website. And the geologists say that the Moon soil is same as volcanic ash on Earth. And when I tried to bounce lasers on retroreflectors on the Moon, I failed. I couldn't find them. Please, stop making stupid comments when all info is already at my website since many years.
-
I just need good evidence that make me believe in things. A NASA photo of Buzz Aldrin planting strawberries...
I've never heard of that photo. Do you have a link to it?
...and retroreflectors on the Moon taken by his friend Neal Armstrong doesn't suffice.
I didn't say anything about pictures of the retroreflectors. I said that astronomers have been bouncing lasers off of them more than 50 years.
It just makes me laugh. Like Buzz & Co's soil samples from the Moon taken from any volcano on Earth. Buzz is just a NASA clown.
Are you saying that geologists can't tell the difference between volcanic samples and lunar samples?
eologists
The photo of Buzz on the Moon is at my website. And the geologists say that the Moon soil is same as volcanic ash on Earth.
Incorrect!
Any competent geologist can tell you that surface Lunar rocks can readily be distinguished from Earth rocks.
And when I tried to bounce lasers on retroreflectors on the Moon, I failed. I couldn't find them.
Meaningless!
You do not have a Laser with the power needed to be detected bouncing off the Moon!
Neither do you have a telescope to receive the return echo.
Also you wouldn't know where to point the Laser and telescope!
Please, stop making stupid comments when all info is already at my website since many years.
So you stop making idiotic claims to prop up your shady reputation!
-
I just need good evidence that make me believe in things. A NASA photo of Buzz Aldrin planting strawberries...
I've never heard of that photo. Do you have a link to it?
...and retroreflectors on the Moon taken by his friend Neal Armstrong doesn't suffice.
I didn't say anything about pictures of the retroreflectors. I said that astronomers have been bouncing lasers off of them more than 50 years.
It just makes me laugh. Like Buzz & Co's soil samples from the Moon taken from any volcano on Earth. Buzz is just a NASA clown.
Are you saying that geologists can't tell the difference between volcanic samples and lunar samples?
eologists
The photo of Buzz on the Moon is at my website. And the geologists say that the Moon soil is same as volcanic ash on Earth.
Incorrect!
Any competent geologist can tell you that surface Lunar rocks can readily be distinguished from Earth rocks.
And when I tried to bounce lasers on retroreflectors on the Moon, I failed. I couldn't find them.
Meaningless!
You do not have a Laser with the power needed to be detected bouncing off the Moon!
Neither do you have a telescope to receive the return echo.
Also you wouldn't know where to point the Laser and telescope!
Please, stop making stupid comments when all info is already at my website since many years.
So you stop making idiotic claims to prop up your shady reputation!
As far as I am concerned any lunar rocks presented by Buzz & Co to geologists on Earth are similar to volcanic rocks from Etna or Fuji or Iceland. It has been established since many years.
You are right about my attempts to bounce laser beams on the Moon. I failed. But I have not found anyone that has succeeded.
My website is still there and quite popular. Why do you get so upset?
-
Well, I am called a liar and idiot by several governments, so I am used to it. But nobody has proven that I am wrong.
You are proven wrong every time a successful manned space flight happens. That you don't believe those missions are real is irrelevant.
But no manned space flights ever happens. There is no evidence!
I've asked you over and over again, what evidence would you accept? Why is it that you never answer the question?
I accept anything that gives me reason to believe you as evidence. An image is no evidence, when we don’t know the full history of the image, e.g. of a solid Black Hole with a diameter of our Solar System or of an asstronut planting strawberries on the Moon, etc. Many people believe that images of such things is evidence but not me. I need more solid, scientific evidence.
Yet you provide no evidence for, well, just about anything. Here's why people like you are dangerous. Not that anyone takes any of your ramblings seriously, but all it take is one.
"However United Nations World Health Organization, WHO, confirmed that it was a pandemic! All the countries in the world must protect themselves! But the information was false!
Imagine that!
Pseudo science.
Some unknown clowns had 2019 invented the Corona virus."
No evidence, just you proclaiming something for reasons that I can't even figure out as to why. No evidence, just hyperbole. Are you just trying to be 'provocative' and drive people to your site for, I don't know, ad revenue. Recognition? Fame? Do you honestly think you're providing some sort of POV that is helpful, amid a pandemic? What is it that you are trying to illicit? What is your aim? Why? What do you hope to achieve?
Has it ever crossed your mind that if even one person takes your unfounded conjecture seriously, that could endanger many? Do you have a sense of humanity or only a sense of sensationalism?
Again, I think the world over has shown that all of your "ideas" are ludicrous, I just worry about the 1 or 2 outliers that think your "findings" are even remotely serious. And you could give less than a shit and I'm still trying to figure out why.
You're a narcissistic menace to even just the 1 or 2 people that may imbibe your lunacy. And you put everyone at risk in doing so.
How dare you inject reality into reality? ::)
-
So you stop making idiotic claims to prop up your shady reputation!
As far as I am concerned any lunar rocks presented by Buzz & Co to geologists on Earth are similar to volcanic rocks from Etna or Fuji or Iceland. It has been established since many years.
I'll guarantee that you have never seen any Lunar rocks so how can you pass judgment like that!
Some Lunar rocks might be similar to many Earth rocks but go back and read what I wrote!
Any competent geologist can tell you that surface Lunar rocks can readily be distinguished from Earth rocks.
You are right about my attempts to bounce laser beams on the Moon. I failed. But I have not found anyone that has succeeded.
Have you look for anyone that succeeded? How about this:
Science Experiments - Laser Ranging Retroreflector[ (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/)
The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment was deployed on Apollo 11, 14, and 15. It consists of a series of corner-cube reflectors, which are a special type of mirror with the property of always reflecting an incoming light beam back in the direction it came from. A similar device was also included on the Soviet Union's Lunakhod 2 spacecraft. These reflectors can be illuminated by laser beams aimed through large telescopes on Earth. The reflected laser beam is also observed with the telescope, providing a measurement of the round-trip distance between Earth and the Moon. This is the only Apollo experiment that is still returning data from the Moon. Many of these measurements have been made by McDonald Observatory in Texas. From 1969 to 1985, they were made on a part-time basis using the McDonald Observatory 107-inch telescope. Since 1985, these observations have been made using a dedicated 30-inch telescope. Additional measurements have been made by observatories in Hawaii, California, France, Australia, and Germany.
Laser beams are used because they remain tightly focused for large distances. Nevertheless, there is enough dispersion of the beam that it is about 7 kilometers in diameter when it reaches the Moon and 20 kilometers in diameter when it returns to Earth. Because of this very weak signal, observations are made for several hours at a time. By averaging the signal for this period, the distance to the Moon can be measured to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters (the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 385,000 kilometers).
Were you using a 107-inch telescope and a high power pulsed laser?
.
My website is still there and quite popular. Why do you get so upset?
Maybe it is "popular" but the world would be better without all that misinformation and ignorance from your useless website!
-
So you stop making idiotic claims to prop up your shady reputation!
As far as I am concerned any lunar rocks presented by Buzz & Co to geologists on Earth are similar to volcanic rocks from Etna or Fuji or Iceland. It has been established since many years.
I'll guarantee that you have never seen any Lunar rocks so how can you pass judgment like that!
Some Lunar rocks might be similar to many Earth rocks but go back and read what I wrote!
Any competent geologist can tell you that surface Lunar rocks can readily be distinguished from Earth rocks.
You are right about my attempts to bounce laser beams on the Moon. I failed. But I have not found anyone that has succeeded.
Have you look for anyone that succeeded? How about this:
Science Experiments - Laser Ranging Retroreflector[ (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/)
The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment was deployed on Apollo 11, 14, and 15. It consists of a series of corner-cube reflectors, which are a special type of mirror with the property of always reflecting an incoming light beam back in the direction it came from. A similar device was also included on the Soviet Union's Lunakhod 2 spacecraft. These reflectors can be illuminated by laser beams aimed through large telescopes on Earth. The reflected laser beam is also observed with the telescope, providing a measurement of the round-trip distance between Earth and the Moon. This is the only Apollo experiment that is still returning data from the Moon. Many of these measurements have been made by McDonald Observatory in Texas. From 1969 to 1985, they were made on a part-time basis using the McDonald Observatory 107-inch telescope. Since 1985, these observations have been made using a dedicated 30-inch telescope. Additional measurements have been made by observatories in Hawaii, California, France, Australia, and Germany.
Laser beams are used because they remain tightly focused for large distances. Nevertheless, there is enough dispersion of the beam that it is about 7 kilometers in diameter when it reaches the Moon and 20 kilometers in diameter when it returns to Earth. Because of this very weak signal, observations are made for several hours at a time. By averaging the signal for this period, the distance to the Moon can be measured to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters (the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 385,000 kilometers).
Were you using a 107-inch telescope and a high power pulsed laser?
.
My website is still there and quite popular. Why do you get so upset?
Maybe it is "popular" but the world would be better without all that misinformation and ignorance from your useless website!
Why do you get so upset?
-
My website is still there and quite popular. Why do you get so upset?
Maybe it is "popular" but the world would be better without all that misinformation and ignorance from your useless website!
Why do you get so upset?
Nobody is upset. Frustrated is a better word. Because you make claims with no evidence and simply deny reality.
And also because you refuse to answer this question...
What evidence of two way space travel would you accept?
Why do you avoid answering this? You have been asked a dozen times and never give an answer. Can you not think of ANYTHING?
-
Why would you get frustrated some random guy on the internet denies your reality?
-
Why would you get frustrated some random guy on the internet denies your reality?
Because that useless idiot keeps posting his misinformation here!
-
As far as I am concerned any lunar rocks presented by Buzz & Co to geologists on Earth are similar to volcanic rocks from Etna or Fuji or Iceland. It has been established since many years.
Who established it? Have you examined any of the lunar samples? Would you even know what to look for to tell the difference between earth samples and lunar samples?
You are right about my attempts to bounce laser beams on the Moon. I failed. But I have not found anyone that has succeeded.
Have you asked the good folks at the Côte d'Azur Observatory?
My website is still there and quite popular. Why do you get so upset?
Why do you keeps saying outrageously stupid things?
-
What evidence of two way space travel would you accept?
Why do you avoid answering this? You have been asked a dozen times and never give an answer. Can you not think of ANYTHING?
I haven't avoided that question. If you study my website you find that I support one way, high speed space trips putting satellites in orbits in space at various altitudes. I am a small shareholder of one such company since many years. We send anything into orbits. But not humans.
The problem is the return trip of a spacecraft, reduction of altitude and the associated reduction of speed for landing on Earth, a.k.a. braking.
Our friends Gagarin and Glenn suggested 1961/2 that they used retro-rockets to reduce altitude even if their spacecrafts lacked fuel for it.
And then the altitude was reduced and they started entering, at a certain angle, the atmosphere , which is very thin at the top and denser at ground level.
It is suggested that a force developed when you penetrated the atmosphere - friction drag - which is a function the local speed of the spacecraft and the local density of the air.
There doesn't exist any scientific method to calculate that variable force and resulting trajectory of the spacecraft attempting to land on Earth after a trip in space. You can ask any university teaching astronautics and none can provide the answer.
Simple calculations of the energy (J) required to slow down any spacecraft for landing shows that that energy would heat up the spacecraft 40000 C, i.e. it would vaporize in smoke at once. 99.99% of all meteorites dropping down from the Universe end up like it.
But Buzz, PhD, invented a fantastic 'heat shield' that absorbed that energy, bla, bla, bla. The details are top secret. National security, you know!
I always feel sorry for people having spent plenty time and money to become astronautic scientists that then must lie that re-entries from space is easy, bla, bla. to be employed by NASA, ESA, SpaceX and similar criminal organizations.
Mainstream media are not interested. They support the criminals. It is just a question of money.
-
What evidence of two way space travel would you accept?
Why do you avoid answering this? You have been asked a dozen times and never give an answer. Can you not think of ANYTHING?
I haven't avoided that question. If you study my website you find that I support one way, high speed space trips putting satellites in orbits in space at various altitudes. I am a small shareholder of one such company since many years. We send anything into orbits. But not humans.
No, you did not answer it on your website and you avoided answering again. Do you not understand the question?
What evidence would convince you that two way space travel is possible and is happening? What would it take to convince you?
Every time you are asked you just re-state that it's not possible. Yes, we know you think that. Now tell us what it would take to convince you otherwise? How can we state this any clearer?
-
Why do you keeps saying outrageously stupid things?
I publish them at my website for anyone to study them. I makes me happy.
-
What evidence of two way space travel would you accept?
Why do you avoid answering this? You have been asked a dozen times and never give an answer. Can you not think of ANYTHING?
I haven't avoided that question. If you study my website you find that I support one way, high speed space trips putting satellites in orbits in space at various altitudes. I am a small shareholder of one such company since many years. We send anything into orbits. But not humans.
No, you did not answer it on your website and you avoided answering again. Do you not understand the question?
What evidence would convince you that two way space travel is possible and is happening? What would it take to convince you?
Every time you are asked you just re-state that it's not possible. Yes, we know you think that. Now tell us what it would take to convince you otherwise? How can we state this any clearer?
Well, I only accept truth as an answer. An image of a spacecraft dropping down below parachutes in an ocean or a remote place in Russia or Kazaksthan is not sufficient.
-
What evidence of two way space travel would you accept?
Why do you avoid answering this? You have been asked a dozen times and never give an answer. Can you not think of ANYTHING?
I haven't avoided that question. If you study my website you find that I support one way, high speed space trips putting satellites in orbits in space at various altitudes. I am a small shareholder of one such company since many years. We send anything into orbits. But not humans.
No, you did not answer it on your website and you avoided answering again. Do you not understand the question?
What evidence would convince you that two way space travel is possible and is happening? What would it take to convince you?
Every time you are asked you just re-state that it's not possible. Yes, we know you think that. Now tell us what it would take to convince you otherwise? How can we state this any clearer?
Well, I only accept truth as an answer. An image of a spacecraft dropping down below parachutes in an ocean or a remote place in Russia or Kazaksthan is not sufficient.
You did it again. You didn't say WHAT truth you would accept, you just once more said what you wouldn't accept. We know this. You keep repating it.
There has to be SOMETHING you would accept as proof? Will you answer the question?
-
What evidence of two way space travel would you accept?
Why do you avoid answering this? You have been asked a dozen times and never give an answer. Can you not think of ANYTHING?
I haven't avoided that question. If you study my website you find that I support one way, high speed space trips putting satellites in orbits in space at various altitudes. I am a small shareholder of one such company since many years. We send anything into orbits. But not humans.
No, you did not answer it on your website and you avoided answering again. Do you not understand the question?
What evidence would convince you that two way space travel is possible and is happening? What would it take to convince you?
Every time you are asked you just re-state that it's not possible. Yes, we know you think that. Now tell us what it would take to convince you otherwise? How can we state this any clearer?
Well, I only accept truth as an answer. An image of a spacecraft dropping down below parachutes in an ocean or a remote place in Russia or Kazaksthan is not sufficient.
You did it again. You didn't say WHAT truth you would accept, you just once more said what you wouldn't accept. We know this. You keep repating it.
There has to be SOMETHING you would accept as proof? Will you answer the question?
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
And please, no photos of spacecrafts dropping down below a parachute as proof of visiting the Moon. Study my funny website about these hoaxes.
-
What evidence of two way space travel would you accept?
Why do you avoid answering this? You have been asked a dozen times and never give an answer. Can you not think of ANYTHING?
I haven't avoided that question. If you study my website you find that I support one way, high speed space trips putting satellites in orbits in space at various altitudes. I am a small shareholder of one such company since many years. We send anything into orbits. But not humans.
No, you did not answer it on your website and you avoided answering again. Do you not understand the question?
What evidence would convince you that two way space travel is possible and is happening? What would it take to convince you?
Every time you are asked you just re-state that it's not possible. Yes, we know you think that. Now tell us what it would take to convince you otherwise? How can we state this any clearer?
Well, I only accept truth as an answer. An image of a spacecraft dropping down below parachutes in an ocean or a remote place in Russia or Kazaksthan is not sufficient.
You did it again. You didn't say WHAT truth you would accept, you just once more said what you wouldn't accept. We know this. You keep repating it.
There has to be SOMETHING you would accept as proof? Will you answer the question?
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
And please, no photos of spacecrafts dropping down below a parachute as proof of visiting the Moon. Study my funny website about these hoaxes.
Do you not understand how words work? You are being asked what evidence you WOULD accept, not what evidence you don't.
Explain the truth... how? It's been explained a hundred times, you rejected all of them.
Just tell us what WOULD YOU ACCEPT as truth? What would you need to see or hear to convince you?
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
-
What evidence of two way space travel would you accept?
Why do you avoid answering this? You have been asked a dozen times and never give an answer. Can you not think of ANYTHING?
I haven't avoided that question. If you study my website you find that I support one way, high speed space trips putting satellites in orbits in space at various altitudes. I am a small shareholder of one such company since many years. We send anything into orbits. But not humans.
No, you did not answer it on your website and you avoided answering again. Do you not understand the question?
What evidence would convince you that two way space travel is possible and is happening? What would it take to convince you?
Every time you are asked you just re-state that it's not possible. Yes, we know you think that. Now tell us what it would take to convince you otherwise? How can we state this any clearer?
Well, I only accept truth as an answer. An image of a spacecraft dropping down below parachutes in an ocean or a remote place in Russia or Kazaksthan is not sufficient.
You did it again. You didn't say WHAT truth you would accept, you just once more said what you wouldn't accept. We know this. You keep repating it.
There has to be SOMETHING you would accept as proof? Will you answer the question?
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
And please, no photos of spacecrafts dropping down below a parachute as proof of visiting the Moon. Study my funny website about these hoaxes.
Do you not understand how words work? You are being asked what evidence you WOULD accept, not what evidence you don't.
Explain the truth... how? It's been explained a hundred times, you rejected all of them.
Just tell us what WOULD YOU ACCEPT as truth? What would you need to see or hear to convince you?
If he believes a return trip to space or the Moon is fundamentally impossible then the question is pointless
He'd have to delve into 'what if' about technology that doesn't or may never exist
For example, if antimatter was a fuel, then the problem of the weight of fuel to carry is eliminated which is one such problem about going to outer space and back again. The energy we would have at our disposal for applications within the solar system would be enormous
But we dont have antimatter fuel yet and wont in Heiwas life time. If we did, we could get to Mars in 6 weeks with only a few mg of fuel weight.
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
Try to use your intelligence to learn something from people how know more than you do.
-
If he believes a return trip to space or the Moon is fundamentally impossible then the question is pointless
He'd have to delve into 'what if' about technology that doesn't or may never exist
Or, he could delve into technologies that already exist and have been proven in practical applications many times already.
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
And here you go yet again, avoiding this simple question.
Are you incapable of understanding it, or do you not have an answer? It's got to be one or the other.
Why can't you tell us what proof or evidence you need?
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
And here you go yet again, avoiding this simple question.
Are you incapable of understanding it, or do you not have an answer? It's got to be one or the other.
Why can't you tell us what proof or evidence you need?
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
And here you go yet again, avoiding this simple question.
Are you incapable of understanding it, or do you not have an answer? It's got to be one or the other.
Why can't you tell us what proof or evidence you need?
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
Why? You don't use your intelligence to show you are right?
All you do is say that you can't understand it when the topic is far too complex for one person anyway.
That is not using your intelligence!
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
And here you go yet again, avoiding this simple question.
Are you incapable of understanding it, or do you not have an answer? It's got to be one or the other.
Why can't you tell us what proof or evidence you need?
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
Once more, you didn't answer the question.
This is actually pretty funny, but sad too. You literally don't understand the question, do you? You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You're not avoiding it really, you just don't understand what's being asked.
This more than anything shows you just are not capable of a rational discussion. If you can't think of any evidence that would convince you otherwise, it means you're not thinking logically, and not really thinking at all. You have your beliefs based on faith and you can't even comprehend being wrong. It's beyond your ability, and your closed-minded tiny world you made for yourself.
All you can do is repeat that non-answer and spam links to your web page.
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
And here you go yet again, avoiding this simple question.
Are you incapable of understanding it, or do you not have an answer? It's got to be one or the other.
Why can't you tell us what proof or evidence you need?
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
Once more, you didn't answer the question.
This is actually pretty funny, but sad too. You literally don't understand the question, do you? You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You're not avoiding it really, you just don't understand what's being asked.
This more than anything shows you just are not capable of a rational discussion. If you can't think of any evidence that would convince you otherwise, it means you're not thinking logically, and not really thinking at all. You have your beliefs based on faith and you can't even comprehend being wrong. It's beyond your ability, and your closed-minded tiny world you made for yourself.
All you can do is repeat that non-answer and spam links to your web page.
No, you didn't understand the answer. Happens all the time.
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
And here you go yet again, avoiding this simple question.
Are you incapable of understanding it, or do you not have an answer? It's got to be one or the other.
Why can't you tell us what proof or evidence you need?
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
Once more, you didn't answer the question.
This is actually pretty funny, but sad too. You literally don't understand the question, do you? You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You're not avoiding it really, you just don't understand what's being asked.
This more than anything shows you just are not capable of a rational discussion. If you can't think of any evidence that would convince you otherwise, it means you're not thinking logically, and not really thinking at all. You have your beliefs based on faith and you can't even comprehend being wrong. It's beyond your ability, and your closed-minded tiny world you made for yourself.
All you can do is repeat that non-answer and spam links to your web page.
No, you didn't understand the answer. Happens all the time.
If you mean you say things and people don't understand you, I can believe that.
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
-
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I find it rather amusing that I get pretty much the same type of stonewalling whenever I ask FE'ers what evidence they would accept that the earth is round.
-
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I find it rather amusing that I get pretty much the same type of stonewalling whenever I ask FE'ers what evidence they would accept that the earth is round.
Oh that's easy
First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see.
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe. Who is to say that a photons perspective is not the default view and we are just an anomaly? Until you get that data we cant be sure. So dont bank on any particular shape
-
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I find it rather amusing that I get pretty much the same type of stonewalling whenever I ask FE'ers what evidence they would accept that the earth is round.
That question is one everyone should ask themselves whenever they want to be sure they are thinking with logic, and not blind faith.
I use that question on myself all the time, it's a good way to tell what subjects you are reacting to emotionally.
If someone can't even understand the idea behind that question, they are in serious trouble.
-
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I find it rather amusing that I get pretty much the same type of stonewalling whenever I ask FE'ers what evidence they would accept that the earth is round.
Oh that's easy
First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety.
You seem have a rather interesting notion of what's easy.
-
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I find it rather amusing that I get pretty much the same type of stonewalling whenever I ask FE'ers what evidence they would accept that the earth is round.
Oh that's easy
First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see.
You do not need the "complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety" to simply know the shape of a large solid object!
And what is done in science is make a hypothesis based on the available evidence available at the time and then test that hypothesis against further evidence as it comes in.
In the case of the Earth you could say that around 500 BC the chose the sphere over the then accepted flat Earth.
The spherical shape was confirmed by both observation and measurement until Isaac Newton claimed it should be very slightly ellipsoidal.
And I guess you know the rest.
Now has the flat Earth stood up to such scrutiny?
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe.
We do? When did that little photon tell you that?
Who is to say that a photons perspective is not the default view and we are just an anomaly? Until you get that data we cant be sure. So dont bank on any particular shape
And we also know from photographs taken from space that while on a local scale the Earth does seem flat on the large scale the Earth is almost exactly spherical.
-
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe.
We do? When did that little photon tell you that?
Photons move at the speed of light. At the speed of light, time is no longer in play. If you had a starting point A on one side of the universe an B on the other side of the universe, if there were no obstacles, the start and finish line would be on top of each other. The time taken from the photons reference would be 0s. There is no 'z' dimension.
We perceive the universe the way we do because of a dimension unrelated to shapes and that is time. On a microcosmic scale where time is irrelevant, what shape is the Earth? Or how about a scale that could view the entire universe in a single frame? If our universe is a black hole singularity in a 'mother' universe, from that universes perspective, what is our shape?
You dont have the answer so it seems an exercise in futility to assert any narrative you have
-
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe.
We do? When did that little photon tell you that?
Photons move at the speed of light. At the speed of light, time is no longer in play. If you had a starting point A on one side of the universe an B on the other side of the universe, if there were no obstacles, the start and finish line would be on top of each other. The time taken from the photons reference would be 0s. There is no 'z' dimension.
We perceive the universe the way we do because of a dimension unrelated to shapes and that is time. On a microcosmic scale where time is irrelevant, what shape is the Earth? Or how about a scale that could view the entire universe in a single frame? If our universe is a black hole singularity in a 'mother' universe, from that universes perspective, what is our shape?
You dont have the answer so it seems an exercise in futility to assert any narrative you have
A baby dragon perceives you as a quantum line extending through the 67th trans-dimensional plane. Therefore you are a potato.
Do you have an answer to that?
You can make up nonsense and demand answers, but it doesn't make the question any less nonsense.
We aren't flat because we aren't in the frame of reference of a massless particle traveling at the speed of light. Doesn't matter what some other object, entity, god or space alien see us as. Our reality is right here.
-
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe.
We do? When did that little photon tell you that?
Photons move at the speed of light. At the speed of light, time is no longer in play. If you had a starting point A on one side of the universe an B on the other side of the universe, if there were no obstacles, the start and finish line would be on top of each other. The time taken from the photons reference would be 0s. There is no 'z' dimension.
We perceive the universe the way we do because of a dimension unrelated to shapes and that is time. On a microcosmic scale where time is irrelevant, what shape is the Earth? Or how about a scale that could view the entire universe in a single frame? If our universe is a black hole singularity in a 'mother' universe, from that universes perspective, what is our shape?
You dont have the answer so it seems an exercise in futility to assert any narrative you have
A baby dragon perceives you as a quantum line extending through the 67th trans-dimensional plane. Therefore you are a potato.
Do you have an answer to that?
You can make up nonsense and demand answers, but it doesn't make the question any less nonsense.
We aren't flat because we aren't in the frame of reference of a massless particle traveling at the speed of light. Doesn't matter what some other object, entity, god or space alien see us as. Our reality is right here.
Can I be a sweet potato?
I did not make up nonsense. Unless you consider many scientists that you probably respect, to postulate nonsense when questioning the nature of our universe. None of what I said is original there.
Your reality may not be the reality
-
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe.
We do? When did that little photon tell you that?
Photons move at the speed of light. At the speed of light, time is no longer in play. If you had a starting point A on one side of the universe an B on the other side of the universe, if there were no obstacles, the start and finish line would be on top of each other. The time taken from the photons reference would be 0s. There is no 'z' dimension.
We perceive the universe the way we do because of a dimension unrelated to shapes and that is time. On a microcosmic scale where time is irrelevant, what shape is the Earth? Or how about a scale that could view the entire universe in a single frame? If our universe is a black hole singularity in a 'mother' universe, from that universes perspective, what is our shape?
You dont have the answer so it seems an exercise in futility to assert any narrative you have
A baby dragon perceives you as a quantum line extending through the 67th trans-dimensional plane. Therefore you are a potato.
Do you have an answer to that?
You can make up nonsense and demand answers, but it doesn't make the question any less nonsense.
We aren't flat because we aren't in the frame of reference of a massless particle traveling at the speed of light. Doesn't matter what some other object, entity, god or space alien see us as. Our reality is right here.
Can I be a sweet potato?
I did not make up nonsense. Unless you consider many scientists that you probably respect, to postulate nonsense when questioning the nature of our universe. None of what I said is original there.
Your reality may not be the reality
No, it was nonsense.
You are claiming because someone in another frame of reference sees us as flat, that we are flat in OUR frame of reference.
That's not how it works.
If I play peek-a-boo with you, it doesn't actually make me disappear, even though it might look that way.
Putting on rose colored glasses doesn't make you rose colored.
A photon 'seeing' us as a flat disk doesn't make us a flat disk, and a photon can't see anything anyway.
-
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe.
We do? When did that little photon tell you that?
Photons move at the speed of light. At the speed of light, time is no longer in play. If you had a starting point A on one side of the universe an B on the other side of the universe, if there were no obstacles, the start and finish line would be on top of each other. The time taken from the photons reference would be 0s. There is no 'z' dimension.
We perceive the universe the way we do because of a dimension unrelated to shapes and that is time. On a microcosmic scale where time is irrelevant, what shape is the Earth? Or how about a scale that could view the entire universe in a single frame? If our universe is a black hole singularity in a 'mother' universe, from that universes perspective, what is our shape?
You dont have the answer so it seems an exercise in futility to assert any narrative you have
A baby dragon perceives you as a quantum line extending through the 67th trans-dimensional plane. Therefore you are a potato.
Do you have an answer to that?
You can make up nonsense and demand answers, but it doesn't make the question any less nonsense.
We aren't flat because we aren't in the frame of reference of a massless particle traveling at the speed of light. Doesn't matter what some other object, entity, god or space alien see us as. Our reality is right here.
Can I be a sweet potato?
I did not make up nonsense. Unless you consider many scientists that you probably respect, to postulate nonsense when questioning the nature of our universe. None of what I said is original there.
Your reality may not be the reality
No, it was nonsense.
You are claiming because someone in another frame of reference sees us as flat, that we are flat in OUR frame of reference.
That's not how it works.
If I play peek-a-boo with you, it doesn't actually make me disappear, even though it might look that way.
Putting on rose colored glasses doesn't make you rose colored.
A photon 'seeing' us as a flat disk doesn't make us a flat disk, and a photon can't see anything anyway.
if the universe didn't have any observers, would the dimension of time still exist?
-
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe.
We do? When did that little photon tell you that?
Photons move at the speed of light. At the speed of light, time is no longer in play. If you had a starting point A on one side of the universe an B on the other side of the universe, if there were no obstacles, the start and finish line would be on top of each other. The time taken from the photons reference would be 0s. There is no 'z' dimension.
We perceive the universe the way we do because of a dimension unrelated to shapes and that is time. On a microcosmic scale where time is irrelevant, what shape is the Earth? Or how about a scale that could view the entire universe in a single frame? If our universe is a black hole singularity in a 'mother' universe, from that universes perspective, what is our shape?
You dont have the answer so it seems an exercise in futility to assert any narrative you have
A baby dragon perceives you as a quantum line extending through the 67th trans-dimensional plane. Therefore you are a potato.
Do you have an answer to that?
You can make up nonsense and demand answers, but it doesn't make the question any less nonsense.
We aren't flat because we aren't in the frame of reference of a massless particle traveling at the speed of light. Doesn't matter what some other object, entity, god or space alien see us as. Our reality is right here.
Can I be a sweet potato?
I did not make up nonsense. Unless you consider many scientists that you probably respect, to postulate nonsense when questioning the nature of our universe. None of what I said is original there.
Your reality may not be the reality
No, it was nonsense.
You are claiming because someone in another frame of reference sees us as flat, that we are flat in OUR frame of reference.
That's not how it works.
If I play peek-a-boo with you, it doesn't actually make me disappear, even though it might look that way.
Putting on rose colored glasses doesn't make you rose colored.
A photon 'seeing' us as a flat disk doesn't make us a flat disk, and a photon can't see anything anyway.
if the universe didn't have any observers, would the dimension of time still exist?
If I look away from the Coke on my desk, it's still there. I don't see why the mechanics of the universe would be any difference. Time seemed to work just fine before Earth formed, or life happened. I don't see what a bunch of atoms all piled into the shape of a human would have to do with time working or not.
-
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe.
We do? When did that little photon tell you that?
Photons move at the speed of light. At the speed of light, time is no longer in play. If you had a starting point A on one side of the universe an B on the other side of the universe, if there were no obstacles, the start and finish line would be on top of each other. The time taken from the photons reference would be 0s. There is no 'z' dimension.
We perceive the universe the way we do because of a dimension unrelated to shapes and that is time. On a microcosmic scale where time is irrelevant, what shape is the Earth? Or how about a scale that could view the entire universe in a single frame? If our universe is a black hole singularity in a 'mother' universe, from that universes perspective, what is our shape?
You dont have the answer so it seems an exercise in futility to assert any narrative you have
A baby dragon perceives you as a quantum line extending through the 67th trans-dimensional plane. Therefore you are a potato.
Do you have an answer to that?
You can make up nonsense and demand answers, but it doesn't make the question any less nonsense.
We aren't flat because we aren't in the frame of reference of a massless particle traveling at the speed of light. Doesn't matter what some other object, entity, god or space alien see us as. Our reality is right here.
Can I be a sweet potato?
I did not make up nonsense. Unless you consider many scientists that you probably respect, to postulate nonsense when questioning the nature of our universe. None of what I said is original there.
Your reality may not be the reality
No, it was nonsense.
You are claiming because someone in another frame of reference sees us as flat, that we are flat in OUR frame of reference.
That's not how it works.
If I play peek-a-boo with you, it doesn't actually make me disappear, even though it might look that way.
Putting on rose colored glasses doesn't make you rose colored.
A photon 'seeing' us as a flat disk doesn't make us a flat disk, and a photon can't see anything anyway.
if the universe didn't have any observers, would the dimension of time still exist?
If I look away from the Coke on my desk, it's still there. I don't see why the mechanics of the universe would be any difference. Time seemed to work just fine before Earth formed, or life happened. I don't see what a bunch of atoms all piled into the shape of a human would have to do with time working or not.
Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound if there are no observers?
-
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe.
We do? When did that little photon tell you that?
Photons move at the speed of light. At the speed of light, time is no longer in play. If you had a starting point A on one side of the universe an B on the other side of the universe, if there were no obstacles, the start and finish line would be on top of each other. The time taken from the photons reference would be 0s. There is no 'z' dimension.
We perceive the universe the way we do because of a dimension unrelated to shapes and that is time. On a microcosmic scale where time is irrelevant, what shape is the Earth? Or how about a scale that could view the entire universe in a single frame? If our universe is a black hole singularity in a 'mother' universe, from that universes perspective, what is our shape?
You dont have the answer so it seems an exercise in futility to assert any narrative you have
A baby dragon perceives you as a quantum line extending through the 67th trans-dimensional plane. Therefore you are a potato.
Do you have an answer to that?
You can make up nonsense and demand answers, but it doesn't make the question any less nonsense.
We aren't flat because we aren't in the frame of reference of a massless particle traveling at the speed of light. Doesn't matter what some other object, entity, god or space alien see us as. Our reality is right here.
Can I be a sweet potato?
I did not make up nonsense. Unless you consider many scientists that you probably respect, to postulate nonsense when questioning the nature of our universe. None of what I said is original there.
Your reality may not be the reality
No, it was nonsense.
You are claiming because someone in another frame of reference sees us as flat, that we are flat in OUR frame of reference.
That's not how it works.
If I play peek-a-boo with you, it doesn't actually make me disappear, even though it might look that way.
Putting on rose colored glasses doesn't make you rose colored.
A photon 'seeing' us as a flat disk doesn't make us a flat disk, and a photon can't see anything anyway.
if the universe didn't have any observers, would the dimension of time still exist?
If I look away from the Coke on my desk, it's still there. I don't see why the mechanics of the universe would be any difference. Time seemed to work just fine before Earth formed, or life happened. I don't see what a bunch of atoms all piled into the shape of a human would have to do with time working or not.
Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound if there are no observers?
Yes.
Does a troll under the bridge get bored if nobody crosses it?
-
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe.
We do? When did that little photon tell you that?
Photons move at the speed of light. At the speed of light, time is no longer in play. If you had a starting point A on one side of the universe an B on the other side of the universe, if there were no obstacles, the start and finish line would be on top of each other. The time taken from the photons reference would be 0s. There is no 'z' dimension.
We perceive the universe the way we do because of a dimension unrelated to shapes and that is time. On a microcosmic scale where time is irrelevant, what shape is the Earth? Or how about a scale that could view the entire universe in a single frame? If our universe is a black hole singularity in a 'mother' universe, from that universes perspective, what is our shape?
You dont have the answer so it seems an exercise in futility to assert any narrative you have
A baby dragon perceives you as a quantum line extending through the 67th trans-dimensional plane. Therefore you are a potato.
Do you have an answer to that?
You can make up nonsense and demand answers, but it doesn't make the question any less nonsense.
We aren't flat because we aren't in the frame of reference of a massless particle traveling at the speed of light. Doesn't matter what some other object, entity, god or space alien see us as. Our reality is right here.
Can I be a sweet potato?
I did not make up nonsense. Unless you consider many scientists that you probably respect, to postulate nonsense when questioning the nature of our universe. None of what I said is original there.
Your reality may not be the reality
No, it was nonsense.
You are claiming because someone in another frame of reference sees us as flat, that we are flat in OUR frame of reference.
That's not how it works.
If I play peek-a-boo with you, it doesn't actually make me disappear, even though it might look that way.
Putting on rose colored glasses doesn't make you rose colored.
A photon 'seeing' us as a flat disk doesn't make us a flat disk, and a photon can't see anything anyway.
if the universe didn't have any observers, would the dimension of time still exist?
If I look away from the Coke on my desk, it's still there. I don't see why the mechanics of the universe would be any difference. Time seemed to work just fine before Earth formed, or life happened. I don't see what a bunch of atoms all piled into the shape of a human would have to do with time working or not.
Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound if there are no observers?
Yes.
Does a troll under the bridge get bored if nobody crosses it?
Ask the troll.
-
Does a troll under the bridge get bored if nobody crosses it?
Ask the troll.
He did!
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
And here you go yet again, avoiding this simple question.
Are you incapable of understanding it, or do you not have an answer? It's got to be one or the other.
Why can't you tell us what proof or evidence you need?
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
Once more, you didn't answer the question.
This is actually pretty funny, but sad too. You literally don't understand the question, do you? You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You're not avoiding it really, you just don't understand what's being asked.
This more than anything shows you just are not capable of a rational discussion. If you can't think of any evidence that would convince you otherwise, it means you're not thinking logically, and not really thinking at all. You have your beliefs based on faith and you can't even comprehend being wrong. It's beyond your ability, and your closed-minded tiny world you made for yourself.
All you can do is repeat that non-answer and spam links to your web page.
No, you didn't understand the answer. Happens all the time.
If you mean you say things and people don't understand you, I can believe that.
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I hear what you say, i.e. you don't understand my answer about acceptable evidence to a simple question. It always is what any court of law in a democracy requires. You may get away with all sorts of lies, though, but not with me.
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
And here you go yet again, avoiding this simple question.
Are you incapable of understanding it, or do you not have an answer? It's got to be one or the other.
Why can't you tell us what proof or evidence you need?
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
Once more, you didn't answer the question.
This is actually pretty funny, but sad too. You literally don't understand the question, do you? You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You're not avoiding it really, you just don't understand what's being asked.
This more than anything shows you just are not capable of a rational discussion. If you can't think of any evidence that would convince you otherwise, it means you're not thinking logically, and not really thinking at all. You have your beliefs based on faith and you can't even comprehend being wrong. It's beyond your ability, and your closed-minded tiny world you made for yourself.
All you can do is repeat that non-answer and spam links to your web page.
No, you didn't understand the answer. Happens all the time.
If you mean you say things and people don't understand you, I can believe that.
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I hear what you say, i.e. you don't understand my answer about acceptable evidence to a simple question. It always is what any court of law in a democracy requires. You may get away with all sorts of lies, though, but not with me.
No, it's you still not understanding.
That question requires something SPECIFIC as an answer.
Not "Truth" or "Proof" or "Legal" or anything abstract.
Give me an experiment that could be conducted, that could produce a result you would accept that shows it's possible to go to space, and return safely.
Answer with an actual, specific example.
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
And here you go yet again, avoiding this simple question.
Are you incapable of understanding it, or do you not have an answer? It's got to be one or the other.
Why can't you tell us what proof or evidence you need?
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
Once more, you didn't answer the question.
This is actually pretty funny, but sad too. You literally don't understand the question, do you? You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You're not avoiding it really, you just don't understand what's being asked.
This more than anything shows you just are not capable of a rational discussion. If you can't think of any evidence that would convince you otherwise, it means you're not thinking logically, and not really thinking at all. You have your beliefs based on faith and you can't even comprehend being wrong. It's beyond your ability, and your closed-minded tiny world you made for yourself.
All you can do is repeat that non-answer and spam links to your web page.
No, you didn't understand the answer. Happens all the time.
If you mean you say things and people don't understand you, I can believe that.
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I hear what you say, i.e. you don't understand my answer about acceptable evidence to a simple question. It always is what any court of law in a democracy requires. You may get away with all sorts of lies, though, but not with me.
No, it's you still not understanding.
That question requires something SPECIFIC as an answer.
Not "Truth" or "Proof" or "Legal" or anything abstract.
Give me an experiment that could be conducted, that could produce a result you would accept that shows it's possible to go to space, and return safely.
Answer with an actual, specific example.
Yes, I have stopped beating my girlfriends.
Re space travel I recommend it! You relax in your spacecraft at the top of a powerful rocket and - off you go! After a while your speed is 7000 m/s and you can do a LEO around Earth. If your speed becomes >12000 m/s you can go to Mars and arrive close to it at 0 speed ... and drop down on it at increased speed
But try to return and land on Earth again? Sorry. No way. Space travel is always one-way in any orbit. That's why I recommend it to Russians and Americans. And Norwegians.
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
And here you go yet again, avoiding this simple question.
Are you incapable of understanding it, or do you not have an answer? It's got to be one or the other.
Why can't you tell us what proof or evidence you need?
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
Once more, you didn't answer the question.
This is actually pretty funny, but sad too. You literally don't understand the question, do you? You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You're not avoiding it really, you just don't understand what's being asked.
This more than anything shows you just are not capable of a rational discussion. If you can't think of any evidence that would convince you otherwise, it means you're not thinking logically, and not really thinking at all. You have your beliefs based on faith and you can't even comprehend being wrong. It's beyond your ability, and your closed-minded tiny world you made for yourself.
All you can do is repeat that non-answer and spam links to your web page.
No, you didn't understand the answer. Happens all the time.
If you mean you say things and people don't understand you, I can believe that.
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I hear what you say, i.e. you don't understand my answer about acceptable evidence to a simple question. It always is what any court of law in a democracy requires. You may get away with all sorts of lies, though, but not with me.
No, it's you still not understanding.
That question requires something SPECIFIC as an answer.
Not "Truth" or "Proof" or "Legal" or anything abstract.
Give me an experiment that could be conducted, that could produce a result you would accept that shows it's possible to go to space, and return safely.
Answer with an actual, specific example.
Yes, I have stopped beating my girlfriends.
Re space travel I recommend it! You relax in your spacecraft at the top of a powerful rocket and - off you go! After a while your speed is 7000 m/s and you can do a LEO around Earth. If your speed becomes >12000 m/s you can go to Mars and arrive close to it at 0 speed ... and drop down on it at increased speed
But try to return and land on Earth again? Sorry. No way. Space travel is always one-way in any orbit. That's why I recommend it to Russians and Americans. And Norwegians.
Once more you fail to answer the question.
You just deflect, rant about hoaxes and denials.
But answer the question? Nope. You refuse, again ad again.
That just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you are not THINKING about this subject. You have just decided it's not real, and you won't accept any evidence presented. You pretend you will, you demand evidence, but you won't accept anything at all.
That is not thinking rationally. That is operating purely on faith and ignorance. You literally can't comprehend the possibility of being wrong. And the sad thing is, you can't even understand your own failure here.
-
No, it's you still not understanding.
That question requires something SPECIFIC as an answer.
Not "Truth" or "Proof" or "Legal" or anything abstract.
Give me an experiment that could be conducted, that could produce a result you would accept that shows it's possible to go to space, and return safely.
Answer with an actual, specific example.
Yes, I have stopped beating my girlfriends.
Re space travel I recommend it! You relax in your spacecraft at the top of a powerful rocket and - off you go! After a while your speed is 7000 m/s and you can do a LEO around Earth. If your speed becomes >12000 m/s you can go to Mars and arrive close to it at 0 speed ... and drop down on it at increased speed
But try to return and land on Earth again? Sorry. No way. Space travel is always one-way in any orbit. That's why I recommend it to Russians and Americans. And Norwegians.
So YOU say! But you refuse to explain why "Space travel is always one-way in any orbit"!
Just because you cannot understand atmospheric braking means nothing! There are numerous things you cannot understand.
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
And here you go yet again, avoiding this simple question.
Are you incapable of understanding it, or do you not have an answer? It's got to be one or the other.
Why can't you tell us what proof or evidence you need?
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
Once more, you didn't answer the question.
This is actually pretty funny, but sad too. You literally don't understand the question, do you? You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You're not avoiding it really, you just don't understand what's being asked.
This more than anything shows you just are not capable of a rational discussion. If you can't think of any evidence that would convince you otherwise, it means you're not thinking logically, and not really thinking at all. You have your beliefs based on faith and you can't even comprehend being wrong. It's beyond your ability, and your closed-minded tiny world you made for yourself.
All you can do is repeat that non-answer and spam links to your web page.
No, you didn't understand the answer. Happens all the time.
If you mean you say things and people don't understand you, I can believe that.
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I hear what you say, i.e. you don't understand my answer about acceptable evidence to a simple question. It always is what any court of law in a democracy requires. You may get away with all sorts of lies, though, but not with me.
No, it's you still not understanding.
That question requires something SPECIFIC as an answer.
Not "Truth" or "Proof" or "Legal" or anything abstract.
Give me an experiment that could be conducted, that could produce a result you would accept that shows it's possible to go to space, and return safely.
Answer with an actual, specific example.
Yes, I have stopped beating my girlfriends.
Re space travel I recommend it! You relax in your spacecraft at the top of a powerful rocket and - off you go! After a while your speed is 7000 m/s and you can do a LEO around Earth. If your speed becomes >12000 m/s you can go to Mars and arrive close to it at 0 speed ... and drop down on it at increased speed
But try to return and land on Earth again? Sorry. No way. Space travel is always one-way in any orbit. That's why I recommend it to Russians and Americans. And Norwegians.
Once more you fail to answer the question.
You just deflect, rant about hoaxes and denials.
But answer the question? Nope. You refuse, again ad again.
That just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you are not THINKING about this subject. You have just decided it's not real, and you won't accept any evidence presented. You pretend you will, you demand evidence, but you won't accept anything at all.
That is not thinking rationally. That is operating purely on faith and ignorance. You literally can't comprehend the possibility of being wrong. And the sad thing is, you can't even understand your own failure here.
Perhaps it is YOU that keeps missing the point. At this stage there is no evidence he could accept because he believes it impossible and never happened. That's why there is a CHALLENGE.
Otherwise, why have a challenge if he's already worked out an answer?
Your challenge is to give him the evidence that he can accept. So OK...................Go!
-
Just explain the truth about landing on Earth after a space trip.
Why don't you just read a text book about it? There are several on the topic:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.861741
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540736462
https://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Atmospheric-Reentry-Maneuver-Vehicle/dp/1288326645
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
That's what we are trying to do, but you are simply denying everythign you are told.
Which is why you are being asked... what do YOU need to see or learn to believe it's possible?
Why won't you answer that question? It's very simple.
Try to use your intelligence again to show I am wrong.
And here you go yet again, avoiding this simple question.
Are you incapable of understanding it, or do you not have an answer? It's got to be one or the other.
Why can't you tell us what proof or evidence you need?
Try to use your intelligence to show I am wrong instead.
Once more, you didn't answer the question.
This is actually pretty funny, but sad too. You literally don't understand the question, do you? You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You're not avoiding it really, you just don't understand what's being asked.
This more than anything shows you just are not capable of a rational discussion. If you can't think of any evidence that would convince you otherwise, it means you're not thinking logically, and not really thinking at all. You have your beliefs based on faith and you can't even comprehend being wrong. It's beyond your ability, and your closed-minded tiny world you made for yourself.
All you can do is repeat that non-answer and spam links to your web page.
No, you didn't understand the answer. Happens all the time.
If you mean you say things and people don't understand you, I can believe that.
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I hear what you say, i.e. you don't understand my answer about acceptable evidence to a simple question. It always is what any court of law in a democracy requires. You may get away with all sorts of lies, though, but not with me.
No, it's you still not understanding.
That question requires something SPECIFIC as an answer.
Not "Truth" or "Proof" or "Legal" or anything abstract.
Give me an experiment that could be conducted, that could produce a result you would accept that shows it's possible to go to space, and return safely.
Answer with an actual, specific example.
Yes, I have stopped beating my girlfriends.
Re space travel I recommend it! You relax in your spacecraft at the top of a powerful rocket and - off you go! After a while your speed is 7000 m/s and you can do a LEO around Earth. If your speed becomes >12000 m/s you can go to Mars and arrive close to it at 0 speed ... and drop down on it at increased speed
But try to return and land on Earth again? Sorry. No way. Space travel is always one-way in any orbit. That's why I recommend it to Russians and Americans. And Norwegians.
Once more you fail to answer the question.
You just deflect, rant about hoaxes and denials.
But answer the question? Nope. You refuse, again ad again.
That just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you are not THINKING about this subject. You have just decided it's not real, and you won't accept any evidence presented. You pretend you will, you demand evidence, but you won't accept anything at all.
That is not thinking rationally. That is operating purely on faith and ignorance. You literally can't comprehend the possibility of being wrong. And the sad thing is, you can't even understand your own failure here.
Perhaps it is YOU that keeps missing the point. At this stage there is no evidence he could accept because he believes it impossible and never happened. That's why there is a CHALLENGE.
Otherwise, why have a challenge if he's already worked out an answer?
Your challenge is to give him the evidence that he can accept. So OK...................Go!
Now you are joining the club of people who can't understand the point of the question. You just don't get it.
It's not my job to hand-feed him, or you information while you spit it all out.
If you can not think of any evidence you would accept, then you are thinking with a cult-like mentality and there is nothing that can change your mind.
I can think of experiments and results that could convince me of a flat earth, but if Heiwa and you can't even imagine any evidence that you would accept, you are closed-minded and unable to think critically about the subject.
Which has been shown again and again. You throw insults out a lot about us. Mainstream, brainwashed, conditioned, sheep. But it's you who actually is unable to escape from the box you built.
-
Perhaps it is YOU that keeps missing the point. At this stage there is no evidence he could accept because he believes it impossible and never happened. That's why there is a CHALLENGE.
If you issue a challenge, then that implies that you're at least open to the possibility that it can be done and are willing to be proven wrong. Anders is neither.
-
Perhaps it is YOU that keeps missing the point. At this stage there is no evidence he could accept because he believes it impossible and never happened. That's why there is a CHALLENGE.
Otherwise, why have a challenge if he's already worked out an answer?
Your challenge is to give him the evidence that he can accept. So OK...................Go!
There is no stupid challenge! Just concentrate on return from space.
Atmospheric braking has been used right back from the earliest ICBMS though not then from orbital speeds.
Heiwa won't believe it but live animals then humans have been returning from orbit since about 1960.
As for research, Russia was the first and they have been returning crew from space for the longest times.
NASA did a tremendous amount in the 1960s for the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions Heiwa denies it but that work is still available.
And every new vehicle that is built to reenter needs more design and research and there have been many - including the Space Shuttle, X-37, SpaceX Crew dragon and Orion.
So why would anyone waste time explaining it to Heiwa - he wouldn't believe it anyway.
-
Perhaps it is YOU that keeps missing the point. At this stage there is no evidence he could accept because he believes it impossible and never happened. That's why there is a CHALLENGE.
If you issue a challenge, then that implies that you're at least open to the possibility that it can be done and are willing to be proven wrong. Anders is neither.
Well that seems part of the challenge. If by some fluke you do manage to convince him then you really have earned the 1 million euros
-
Perhaps it is YOU that keeps missing the point. At this stage there is no evidence he could accept because he believes it impossible and never happened. That's why there is a CHALLENGE.
If you issue a challenge, then that implies that you're at least open to the possibility that it can be done and are willing to be proven wrong. Anders is neither.
Well that seems part of the challenge. If by some fluke you do manage to convince him then you really have earned the 1 million euros
Rubbish!
-
Perhaps it is YOU that keeps missing the point. At this stage there is no evidence he could accept because he believes it impossible and never happened. That's why there is a CHALLENGE.
If you issue a challenge, then that implies that you're at least open to the possibility that it can be done and are willing to be proven wrong. Anders is neither.
Well that seems part of the challenge. If by some fluke you do manage to convince him then you really have earned the 1 million euros
Rubbish!
You dont think you'd deserve 1 million euros for turning a guy like Heiwa? How much then?
-
Perhaps it is YOU that keeps missing the point. At this stage there is no evidence he could accept because he believes it impossible and never happened. That's why there is a CHALLENGE.
If you issue a challenge, then that implies that you're at least open to the possibility that it can be done and are willing to be proven wrong. Anders is neither.
Well that seems part of the challenge. If by some fluke you do manage to convince him then you really have earned the 1 million euros
If Anders isn't open to the possibility that he might be wrong, then it's impossible to convince him that he's wrong. That isn't a challenge, it's an exercise in futility.
-
Perhaps it is YOU that keeps missing the point. At this stage there is no evidence he could accept because he believes it impossible and never happened. That's why there is a CHALLENGE.
If you issue a challenge, then that implies that you're at least open to the possibility that it can be done and are willing to be proven wrong. Anders is neither.
Well that seems part of the challenge. If by some fluke you do manage to convince him then you really have earned the 1 million euros
Rubbish!
You dont think you'd deserve 1 million euros for turning a guy like Heiwa? How much then?
It's rubbish because the fakes here are Heiwa and his faux-challengers.
Look, it's not just this site where Heiwa spouts his rubbish! He and his infamous website are well known outside here.
Another finding of mine is that structures do not collapse from top down by gravity 911-style and becomes dust. I have been invited to US institutions of high learning to explain it but FBI or CIA stopped it.
What a joke! Why would the FBI or CIA be interested in the rubbish you claim?
But I do wonder why you were turfed out of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Were your conspiracy ideas to rich for even them.
International Skeptics Forum » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Heiwa drummed out of AE911T? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253936)
Wow, how bad do you have to go from "Petitioner of the Month" to "hit the road, Jack" by AE911T?
It appears that Anders has been shown the door at Gage's group.
Disclosure: I say "appears" because I have no idea where or when this happened.
However I see no reason to believe that this was initiated by Bjorkman. I suspect that Anders own nonsense at his Tripod site (i.e., all photos & videos showing planes impacting towers are fake, a-bombs don't work & shuttle flights, Mars landers & Apollo missions are all NASA hoaxes) was too much even for Gage.
-
Perhaps it is YOU that keeps missing the point. At this stage there is no evidence he could accept because he believes it impossible and never happened. That's why there is a CHALLENGE.
If you issue a challenge, then that implies that you're at least open to the possibility that it can be done and are willing to be proven wrong. Anders is neither.
Well that seems part of the challenge. If by some fluke you do manage to convince him then you really have earned the 1 million euros
Rubbish!
You dont think you'd deserve 1 million euros for turning a guy like Heiwa? How much then?
It's rubbish because the fakes here are Heiwa and his faux-challengers.
Look, it's not just this site where Heiwa spouts his rubbish! He and his infamous website are well known outside here.
Another finding of mine is that structures do not collapse from top down by gravity 911-style and becomes dust. I have been invited to US institutions of high learning to explain it but FBI or CIA stopped it.
What a joke! Why would the FBI or CIA be interested in the rubbish you claim?
But I do wonder why you were turfed out of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Were your conspiracy ideas to rich for even them.
International Skeptics Forum » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Heiwa drummed out of AE911T? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253936)
Wow, how bad do you have to go from "Petitioner of the Month" to "hit the road, Jack" by AE911T?
It appears that Anders has been shown the door at Gage's group.
Disclosure: I say "appears" because I have no idea where or when this happened.
However I see no reason to believe that this was initiated by Bjorkman. I suspect that Anders own nonsense at his Tripod site (i.e., all photos & videos showing planes impacting towers are fake, a-bombs don't work & shuttle flights, Mars landers & Apollo missions are all NASA hoaxes) was too much even for Gage.
Many years ago I assisted Richard Gage to start AE911Truth so I know him and have met him. AE911T has an airplane in its logo and when I pointed out to Gage that no planes hit any WTC towers at NY on 911 back in 2001, he wasn't happy.
It is not easy to live with lies that airplanes were hijacked on 911 with FBI and GWB looking on.
-
Many years ago I assisted Richard Gage to start AE911Truth so I know him and have met him. AE911T has an airplane in its logo and when I pointed out to Gage that no planes hit any WTC towers at NY on 911 back in 2001, he wasn't happy.
It is not easy to live with lies that airplanes were hijacked on 911 with FBI and GWB looking on.
Well, don't lie about it! Just admit that you are wrong and that the aeroplanes so many saw really did crash into the WTC and the Pentagon!
How did the plane parts end up buried deep inthe Pentagon if no plane crashed into it?
Now scram everybody's sick of you!
-
Many years ago I assisted Richard Gage to start AE911Truth so I know him and have met him. AE911T has an airplane in its logo and when I pointed out to Gage that no planes hit any WTC towers at NY on 911 back in 2001, he wasn't happy.
It is not easy to live with lies that airplanes were hijacked on 911 with FBI and GWB looking on.
Well, don't lie about it! Just admit that you are wrong and that the aeroplanes so many saw really did crash into the WTC and the Pentagon!
How did the plane parts end up buried deep inthe Pentagon if no plane crashed into it?
Now scram everybody's sick of you!
Please, no planes crashed into WTC/NY or Pentagon 2001. NY was a great show 'live on TV' seen by plenty people. Imagine three skyscrapers completely destroyed by ... controlled demolitions. And the plane parts at Pentagon were just scrap planted there from other planes. Just check the numbers of the parts.
All these done by 19 Arabs!
rabinoz - you are not very smart.
-
I makes me happy.
arrr, I'm sure ya do ;D
-
Please, no planes crashed into WTC/NY or Pentagon 2001. NY was a great show 'live on TV' seen by plenty people. Imagine three skyscrapers completely destroyed by ... controlled demolitions. And the plane parts at Pentagon were just scrap planted there from other planes. Just check the numbers of the parts.
All these done by 19 Arabs!
rabinoz - you are not very smart.
So you say but who cares what a conspiratard like you says?
-
Please, no planes crashed into WTC/NY or Pentagon 2001. NY was a great show 'live on TV' seen by plenty people. Imagine three skyscrapers completely destroyed by ... controlled demolitions. And the plane parts at Pentagon were just scrap planted there from other planes. Just check the numbers of the parts.
All these done by 19 Arabs!
rabinoz - you are not very smart.
So you say but who cares what a conspiratard like you says?
I have no idea. I just feel sorry for people believing Arabs attacked USA 11 September 2001.
-
I have no idea. I just feel sorry for people believing Arabs attacked USA 11 September 2001.
You do that!