The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: unconcealment on November 04, 2013, 10:15:08 AM

Title: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: unconcealment on November 04, 2013, 10:15:08 AM
Can Voyager 1 travel be a fake? I know many intellegent people who take them for granted. But if it is real, then conventional science seems to have gotten it right.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: cartwheelnurd on November 04, 2013, 09:46:29 PM
What reason is there to say that Voyager is real? All we know about it is its pictures and what NASA, a company substantiated by spreading false information, has told us about it. Unless you see it in interstellar space for yourself, which is impossible, you would simply be believing what the media says.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: EvilJeffy on November 04, 2013, 09:51:13 PM
I have friends who have done work for NASA, was all of the things that they put together to send a probe to orbit the moon faked as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1)
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: cartwheelnurd on November 04, 2013, 09:55:20 PM
I have friends who have done work for NASA, was all of the things that they put together to send a probe to orbit the moon faked as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1)

Obviously, since space travel is impossible, the moon cannot be reached, so a lunar probe must be faked as well. However those who work for NASA might not be aware. As with many other conspiracies, only the very highest of authorities probably knows about the conspiracy and your friends are unaware that they are building a probe based on incorrect physics which will never be launched to the moon.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: EvilJeffy on November 04, 2013, 10:01:26 PM
So then, where did all of the data from the probe actually come from?

Why did the probe fail if it was never even sent into space?
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: cartwheelnurd on November 04, 2013, 10:04:49 PM
So then, where did all of the data from the probe actually come from?

Why did the probe fail if it was never even sent into space?

NASA has a very extensive knowledge of the physics they are pretending to do. They know what type of measurements the public would expect or want to hear, so to protect their points someone created this false data.

The probe failed because no corporation is perfect, and to avoid suspicion even NASA must make mistakes.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: EvilJeffy on November 04, 2013, 10:07:32 PM
So, when you go to Florida and watch them launch something, where does it go?
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: cartwheelnurd on November 04, 2013, 10:11:06 PM
So, when you go to Florida and watch them launch something, where does it go?

Likely the launched object is sent high enough that it is out of sight, then directed to another, unknown location where it is recovered or it is taken from the air by a recovery vehicle and transported in secrecy to another location. Remember that since the space travel conspiracy is a conspiracy we have no way of knowing how or why they do what they do, we can only speculate.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: EvilJeffy on November 04, 2013, 10:25:27 PM
Um, well, I have a theory that these beans I bought are magical.

Common sense would dictate otherwise.

There is a thing called Occam's razor, basically it says if you have to go through tons of jumps and loops in an attempt to prove your conclusion there may be issues with your conclusion.

In my theory I can produce all kinds of tests to prove it works.

I have yet to see the same from the Flat side....
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: EvilJeffy on November 04, 2013, 10:28:58 PM
Here you go, a picture that you can look at on your computer that shows the curvature of the Earth....

It is taken from a tall building, which does not even violate you do not fly rule....

http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506 (http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506)
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: cartwheelnurd on November 04, 2013, 10:30:56 PM
Um, well, I have a theory that these beans I bought are magical.

Common sense would dictate otherwise.

There is a thing called Occam's razor, basically it says if you have to go through tons of jumps and loops in an attempt to prove your conclusion there may be issues with your conclusion.

In my theory I can produce all kinds of tests to prove it works.

I have yet to see the same from the Flat side....

Please elaborate. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. Is your conclusion right just because it validates the experiment which you said would work? "Common Sense" really doesn't mean anything considering the complexity of the human brain.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: EvilJeffy on November 04, 2013, 10:46:52 PM
Common sense.

Things that we can take as happening naturally because logically, they will happen.

For instance, when I let go of a ball, it falls.

These beans are not magical (unless you count their ability to induce flatulence), because magical beans do not exist.

Winter follows fall, which follows summer, which follows spring.

If I bet on a lame horse, chances are I will lose.

If I go outside in the winter without a coat I will likely get cold.

Now lets look at some more complex things.

When you have a low pressure area in the northern hemisphere the wind around it circles in a direction whereas the predominant wind flow on the Eastern side will be towards the North, and on the Western side it will be to the south, if it is in the southern hemisphere it will be opposite.

The motions of the tides correspond with the positions of the sun and the moon as the tides are caused by gravitational effects.

The sun and the moon take the same amount of time to transverse the same angular distance in the sky no matter where that angular distance is in the sky.  (They both move across the sky at roughly ~15 degrees per hour).
This corresponds to the objects ability to travel in a straight line angular distance of 360 degrees.  If you hold an orange out with your hand at arms length and turn it at the same rate around you consider the first half of a turn to be 12 hours of day, the most logical way for the sun to make the rest of its journey to end up back to where it will rise in the morning would be that it continues on its same arc going around.

Grab an orange and spin around slowly until you are either dizzy, or figure it out.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: cartwheelnurd on November 04, 2013, 10:52:51 PM
Here you go, a picture that you can look at on your computer that shows the curvature of the Earth....

It is taken from a tall building, which does not even violate you do not fly rule....

http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506 (http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506)

Photos are not valid evidence. First of all most photos are taken with a slight lens distortion causing much of what you see when you think you see the curvature of the earth from photos. Also, unless I see the same thing with my own eyes, how can I be sure that it is unaltered?

Common sense.

Things that we can take as happening naturally because logically, they will happen.

For instance, when I let go of a ball, it falls.

These beans are not magical (unless you count their ability to induce flatulence), because magical beans do not exist.

Winter follows fall, which follows summer, which follows spring.

If I bet on a lame horse, chances are I will lose.

If I go outside in the winter without a coat I will likely get cold.

Now lets look at some more complex things.

When you have a low pressure area in the northern hemisphere the wind around it circles in a direction whereas the predominant wind flow on the Eastern side will be towards the North, and on the Western side it will be to the south, if it is in the southern hemisphere it will be opposite.

The motions of the tides correspond with the positions of the sun and the moon as the tides are caused by gravitational effects.

The sun and the moon take the same amount of time to transverse the same angular distance in the sky no matter where that angular distance is in the sky.  (They both move across the sky at roughly ~15 degrees per hour).
This corresponds to the objects ability to travel in a straight line angular distance of 360 degrees.  If you hold an orange out with your hand at arms length and turn it at the same rate around you consider the first half of a turn to be 12 hours of day, the most logical way for the sun to make the rest of its journey to end up back to where it will rise in the morning would be that it continues on its same arc going around.

Grab an orange and spin around slowly until you are either dizzy, or figure it out.

most of what you said made sense, though I still don't understand how this affects the earlier statements in this thread. YEs most things are validated by basic logic, that doesn't mean that "Common sense" is an infallible research tool. Let's pitch a question that gets most people: A woman has two children. One is a boy. What is the probability that the other is a boy?
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: EvilJeffy on November 04, 2013, 10:59:29 PM
The probability that the other one is a boy is ~50%  There is a little variability in the case of twins, and also birthrates between males and females.

As for the picture, that is somewhere that you can go, take your own picture with your own camera.  Or even just take a straight edged ruler and sit very carefully and observe.

It is the Sear's (Willis) tower in Chicago.  Although any building near a large flat area (sea, large lake) around a 1/4 mile in height should do the same.

The other aspect is that there is a limit to how far you can see over the lake.  You can't see the other shore, and from that position you are over 1/4 mile above it, if the Earth was flat you should be able to see yonder shore easily.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 12:40:07 AM
Um, well, I have a theory that these beans I bought are magical.

Common sense would dictate otherwise.

There is a thing called Occam's razor, basically it says if you have to go through tons of jumps and loops in an attempt to prove your conclusion there may be issues with your conclusion.

In my theory I can produce all kinds of tests to prove it works.

I have yet to see the same from the Flat side....
You cannot directly prove anything and you know it. All you have is words and the so called pictures and experiments they say they do. You are as much in the dark as the next person, except, you believe you are armed with the knowledge of what is real, when basically you are about as armed with the knowledge of it all, as a child believes he/she knows santa is real.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sandokhan on November 05, 2013, 04:11:32 AM
One of the most informative works on the fake nasa missions...

http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos (http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos)


A brief excerpt.



How did they fake so many trips to Venus and Saturn, Mars, etc.?

Well, one day around 1978 I was also wondering the same thing myself. I had seen the pictures of Saturn and it's rings and moons and I was also wondering, wow, 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos were being transmitted from, what was it, Voyager?. I kept wondering, How?  Of course, they could just be models and photos were taken. But, then, one day, just after Star Wars II came out and Star Trek the movie (# 1) came out I had got hold of a movie industry magazine that was called Business Pictures. In it were ads from special effects companies who work for Hollywood. This was the dawn of computer graphics being used in motion pictures. Star Wars I was made using mostly models, but, after Star Wars I, George Lucas used some of the profits to set up a new lab called Pixar, which strove to push the technology and create stunning effects using state of the art Computer Workstations. CG, or Computer Graphics. I was looking at some of the ads and articles in the magazine and I found a peculiar one. Unfortunately I do not recall the name of the company running the ad. But, they were selling computer graphics "programming", not a finished program, but the algorythms and 'basic mathematical building blocks' used to create a program. What they claimed to be was a company that does contract work for JPL, NASA and the military. What they were selling were the software foundations and routines that did texture mapping and perspective, surface reflection, shadow mapping, etc. Then, what really caught my eye and peaked my interest was that the ad stated that the information they were selling had been developed over 10 years prior by NASA and the US military and had, up until now, been considered highly classified and secret information. With this technology and the use of super computers they claimed it was possible to create virtually any special effects scene. The reason given that the information was now being declassified and being offered for sale was that the movie industry (specifically the work done by Lucas's Pixar team - which became the foundation for Industrial Light and Magic, the premiere computer graphics company of the entire industry), had begun to catch up with the secret technology and it was decided there was no longer any reason to keep the information classified.

Wow. The same technology that helped to produce the visual effects of space, planets, and space crafts used for Star Wars II and Star Trek I had been developed and used by NASA and JPL for over 10 years earlier. That would mean that NASA and JPL had the ability to create virtual reality graphics effects as early as the late 1960's. Texture mapping, shadow mapping, light reflection, etc. Then I instantly realized how JPL was turning out 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos of Saturn and space. They had CG technology for a long time before Hollywood finally caught up and learned how to do it. The 'fly-by' probes that mapped Venus and Saturn, etc. all sent back to earth electronic data and photos. It was feasible to generate all of this on computer. JPL had at it's disposal the fastest and most powerful super-computers of the day, like the Cray. All they had to do was bounce signals off a distant satellite so that the ground crews would receive real signals that they thought were coming from deep space.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Don Quichotte on November 05, 2013, 04:39:32 AM
I have friends who have done work for NASA, was all of the things that they put together to send a probe to orbit the moon faked as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1)

Obviously, since space travel is impossible, the moon cannot be reached, so a lunar probe must be faked as well. However those who work for NASA might not be aware. As with many other conspiracies, only the very highest of authorities probably knows about the conspiracy and your friends are unaware that they are building a probe based on incorrect physics which will never be launched to the moon.

I strongly urge you to have a look at the nightsky and see for yourself that there are satellites up there, especially the ISS which is the brightest and with aid of a telescope can be seen in details.

Also saying that things are not being launched is just utter denial of the facts. Launches can be witnessed and have been witnessed by thousands of people.

Get out of your dark room and do some real explorations, before calling things fake from behind your computer. Or at least dare to admit that you cannot know, because you haven't gone out to see it. 

Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 05:08:13 AM
There's supposed to be thousands of satellites up there, yet all people ever see is one or two. Why?
Through your super telescopes, you should easily be able to see them as regular as clockwork every time you point your telescope to the sky.
Out of the thousands, we have yet to see a realistic picture of one.

If you people are simply hanging on to them being real because you have an agenda, then fair enough.
If not, I suggest you have a serious word with yourselves and question a lot of things instead of just accepting what you are told, blindly.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Antonio on November 05, 2013, 05:22:09 AM
One of the most informative works on the fake nasa missions...

http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos (http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos)


A brief excerpt.

(...)

Yes, from the guy who was told by a friend -Rob- who was told by his father -Bob that :
Quote
prior to the first 'recorded' X-15 flight into space that another flight had also entered space. However, that craft, along with the pilot on board, never returned to earth. Rather, the pilot was actually the 'first' man to orbit earth.

So the X-15 can achieve orbital velocities.... May I ask you more information about this ?
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: DuckDodgers on November 05, 2013, 06:54:23 AM
Here you go, a picture that you can look at on your computer that shows the curvature of the Earth....

It is taken from a tall building, which does not even violate you do not fly rule....

http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506 (http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506)
I would think that a supposed genius would know it is impossible to discern the supposed curvature of the earth from low altitudes.  Even commercial flights at 30, 000 feet can't see the curvature.  Clearly lens distortion.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Don Quichotte on November 05, 2013, 07:39:03 AM
There's supposed to be thousands of satellites up there, yet all people ever see is one or two. Why?
Through your super telescopes, you should easily be able to see them as regular as clockwork every time you point your telescope to the sky.
Out of the thousands, we have yet to see a realistic picture of one.

If you people are simply hanging on to them being real because you have an agenda, then fair enough.
If not, I suggest you have a serious word with yourselves and question a lot of things instead of just accepting what you are told, blindly.

A few thousand satellites may seem like a lot, but in fact it is a very small number. The earth has a surface of 510 million square kilometers. There are about 8300 satellites. This means that every satellite has 510,000,000 / 8300 = 61445 square kilometers of space. That is like there is only 1 car in the entire state of West Virginia. I am not sure if you have ever been to New York City, but that is like 80 times the size of New York city, for just 1 car...

Now you might wonder how it would be possible to see a satellite if there are so few. That is because you are able to see them from a great distance. They can be flying over the state of West Virginia, while you are in New York watching it. But all in all it will come down to you being to see just a few. If you watch the nightsky often, you will se there are more than one or two. You will be able to spot a few during one night, or maybe none. 

Why is that? Because of the relative short time window in which you are able to see them. This is either just after sunset or just before sunrise. So during the day more satellites (I don't know how many) may pass overhead, only you will not be able to see those.

I hope it made sense to you.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on November 05, 2013, 07:56:33 AM
Also saying that things are not being launched is just utter denial of the facts. Launches can be witnessed and have been witnessed by thousands of people.
Yeah, launched into the air, not hundreds of miles into space.  I think they're sending probes to Antarctica...you know, all that research they do there.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 08:05:02 AM
There's supposed to be thousands of satellites up there, yet all people ever see is one or two. Why?
Through your super telescopes, you should easily be able to see them as regular as clockwork every time you point your telescope to the sky.
Out of the thousands, we have yet to see a realistic picture of one.

If you people are simply hanging on to them being real because you have an agenda, then fair enough.
If not, I suggest you have a serious word with yourselves and question a lot of things instead of just accepting what you are told, blindly.

A few thousand satellites may seem like a lot, but in fact it is a very small number. The earth has a surface of 510 million square kilometers. There are about 8300 satellites. This means that every satellite has 510,000,000 / 8300 = 61445 square kilometers of space. That is like there is only 1 car in the entire state of West Virginia. I am not sure if you have ever been to New York City, but that is like 80 times the size of New York city, for just 1 car...

Now you might wonder how it would be possible to see a satellite if there are so few. That is because you are able to see them from a great distance. They can be flying over the state of West Virginia, while you are in New York watching it. But all in all it will come down to you being to see just a few. If you watch the nightsky often, you will se there are more than one or two. You will be able to spot a few during one night, or maybe none. 

Why is that? Because of the relative short time window in which you are able to see them. This is either just after sunset or just before sunrise. So during the day more satellites (I don't know how many) may pass overhead, only you will not be able to see those.

I hope it made sense to you.
8300 satellites and that's just as it stands, not what has supposedly been launched over decades, so lets go with 30 years for these satellites that are in space now, as this would clear room for error as in the life spans of them, which as you can see, I'm giving these satellites a long life . So, here we go.

And correct me if I'm wrong, here.

8300 satellites divided by 30 years, equals 276 per year launched.

Which means that just over 5 each week are launched. Let's say 5.
I'm being ultra generous here, as you know.

Let's split them up between the main countries.
U.S.A.
Russia.
India.
China.
Japan.

Basically, except for the U.S.A and Russia, the other countries aren't claiming many satellites up in space, so we can negate those.
So that leaves 2 nations...ok we will add China in as an excess baggage carrier.

5 and a bit satellites per WEEK.
Let's give Russia 2 and China 1, plus the U.S.A their 2 and the point 3 can be split between the others.

Ok, so we have the U.S.A launching 2 satellites per week into space.
We have Russia doing likewise and China flinging one a week up as well.

Where are they managing to build all the rockets to achieve this?
Remember, I've been ultra generous in giving the earlier satellites a 30 year life span and still up there, so how have all these rockets been built to achieve this?
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 05, 2013, 08:15:40 AM
There's supposed to be thousands of satellites up there, yet all people ever see is one or two. Why?
Through your super telescopes, you should easily be able to see them as regular as clockwork every time you point your telescope to the sky.
Out of the thousands, we have yet to see a realistic picture of one.

If you people are simply hanging on to them being real because you have an agenda, then fair enough.
If not, I suggest you have a serious word with yourselves and question a lot of things instead of just accepting what you are told, blindly.

A few thousand satellites may seem like a lot, but in fact it is a very small number. The earth has a surface of 510 million square kilometers. There are about 8300 satellites. This means that every satellite has 510,000,000 / 8300 = 61445 square kilometers of space. That is like there is only 1 car in the entire state of West Virginia. I am not sure if you have ever been to New York City, but that is like 80 times the size of New York city, for just 1 car...

Now you might wonder how it would be possible to see a satellite if there are so few. That is because you are able to see them from a great distance. They can be flying over the state of West Virginia, while you are in New York watching it. But all in all it will come down to you being to see just a few. If you watch the nightsky often, you will se there are more than one or two. You will be able to spot a few during one night, or maybe none. 

Why is that? Because of the relative short time window in which you are able to see them. This is either just after sunset or just before sunrise. So during the day more satellites (I don't know how many) may pass overhead, only you will not be able to see those.

I hope it made sense to you.
8300 satellites and that's just as it stands, not what has supposedly been launched over decades, so lets go with 30 years for these satellites that are in space now, as this would clear room for error as in the life spans of them, which as you can see, I'm giving these satellites a long life . So, here we go.

And correct me if I'm wrong, here.

8300 satellites divided by 30 years, equals 276 per year launched.

Which means that just over 5 each week are launched. Let's say 5.
I'm being ultra generous here, as you know.

Let's split them up between the main countries.
U.S.A.
Russia.
India.
China.
Japan.

Basically, except for the U.S.A and Russia, the other countries aren't claiming many satellites up in space, so we can negate those.
So that leaves 2 nations...ok we will add China in as an excess baggage carrier.

5 and a bit satellites per WEEK.
Let's give Russia 2 and China 1, plus the U.S.A their 2 and the point 3 can be split between the others.

Ok, so we have the U.S.A launching 2 satellites per week into space.
We have Russia doing likewise and China flinging one a week up as well.

Where are they managing to build all the rockets to achieve this?
Remember, I've been ultra generous in giving the earlier satellites a 30 year life span and still up there, so how have all these rockets been built to achieve this?

You are asking how rockets are built? When you send a small payload it is a lot easier to achieve then when you send people. Space Physics programs exist across several Universities. They receive funding for satellites they then build to collect data for various reasons. Given the number of space physics programs across the country, it seems rather easy to achieve the number of satellites you request.

I am familiar with some of these programs, they do exist, and launching these rockets is not so hard. It is not the more serious undertaking of launching people up there. There is no media coverage for these type of launches, it is just not interesting enough, and happens too frequently.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 08:30:14 AM
So what you are saying is, some of these rockets are launched into space from college campuses and are just rigged up rockets that can achieve so called earth escape velocity, or am I missing the point here, as you make it sound so easy.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 08:42:55 AM
Let's put it in a simpler way, just in case someone comes out with, "oh, they're not all working satellites...most of it is bits and pieces of debris."

Since 1957 to 2010, there have been (apparently) 6,910 satellites launched into space.
Out of those 6,910 satellites, 3,494 were still orbiting at the time and 3,395 decayed and burned up and whatever.

Let's concentrate on how many were launched.

1957 to 2010, means we are talking 53 years of launches.
6,910 divided by 53, equals 130 per year launched.
That's 2 and a half launches per week.

Anyone care to tell me how this can happen for 53 years. I mean, we all know what they say the price of satellites are and launches, plus rockets to take them into so called space, plus the rockets have to be supposedly powerful enough to escape earth's atmosphere.

Does anyone seriously think this is possible. I mean , really?
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: EvilJeffy on November 05, 2013, 08:56:43 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 09:04:48 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 05, 2013, 09:18:26 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Well, it only seems impossible in YOUR head. The most difficult aspect is the first few miles. That is where the force trying to return the spacecraft to the Earth (whatever it is) is the largest, and also where the drag forces are greatest. Putting a satellite 20miles up versus 60miles is not really that different of an effort: by the time you get to 20 you've done the lion share of the work.

Large numbers only seem insurmountable if one doesn't know how they apply in a given context.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 09:24:33 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Well, it only seems impossible in YOUR head. The most difficult aspect is the first few miles. That is where the force trying to return the spacecraft to the Earth (whatever it is) is the largest, and also where the drag forces are greatest. Putting a satellite 20miles up versus 60miles is not really that different of an effort: by the time you get to 20 you've done the lion share of the work.

Large numbers only seem insurmountable if one doesn't know how they apply in a given context.
Oh, I didn't know they had lowered the satellite heights. Oh well, at least you put me right.
So now they orbit at 20 miles and 60 miles.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Don Quichotte on November 05, 2013, 09:30:31 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

For an average joe it is quite a lot of money to spend, but for a organization it can be just a small percentage of their annual research budget. The size and the weight of your satellite determines the price as well as the technology you want to put into your satellite. If it is the latest of latest technology it is going to be quite expensive. But for an 'ordinary' satellite which can do some basics things, the costs aren't that high. You will only pay for the trip up and the costs of materials, since all the technology has already been invented and is ready for use.

 
Same goes with other technologies. When the Ipad touch for example came out, it was very expensive. Apple invested a lot of money in the research, etc, but nowadays you can get touch screen tablets for a lot less money. If you want to have the latest, it's still going to be very expensive, but if you want to have a different model with less features, you pay a whole lot less.





Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 05, 2013, 09:30:56 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Well, it only seems impossible in YOUR head. The most difficult aspect is the first few miles. That is where the force trying to return the spacecraft to the Earth (whatever it is) is the largest, and also where the drag forces are greatest. Putting a satellite 20miles up versus 60miles is not really that different of an effort: by the time you get to 20 you've done the lion share of the work.

Large numbers only seem insurmountable if one doesn't know how they apply in a given context.
Oh, I didn't know they had lowered the satellite heights. Oh well, at least you put me right.
So now they orbit at 20 miles and 60 miles.

Well I never said that. I was speaking about the relative difficulty of putting an object at these two heights. If they indeed orbit higher, then it even more so supports my position. D'uh.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 09:54:58 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

For an average joe it is quite a lot of money to spend, but for a organization it can be just a small percentage of their annual research budget. The size and the weight of your satellite determines the price as well as the technology you want to put into your satellite. If it is the latest of latest technology it is going to be quite expensive. But for an 'ordinary' satellite which can do some basics things, the costs aren't that high. You will only pay for the trip up and the costs of materials, since all the technology has already been invented and is ready for use.

 
Same goes with other technologies. When the Ipad touch for example came out, it was very expensive. Apple invested a lot of money in the research, etc, but nowadays you can get touch screen tablets for a lot less money. If you want to have the latest, it's still going to be very expensive, but if you want to have a different model with less features, you pay a whole lot less.
Satellites aren't I-pad touches.
It's weird how space and launching satellites has become almost like making a cup of tea.
I mean, even the Indians have just sent a rocket to Mars which looks half the size of the supposed Saturn V rocket.

I'm just waiting for Ethiopia or Gambia to launch a manned mission to the nearest star, because it's all so simple now.
Soon enough we will see men on Mars, (on video, of course) walking about after having built a big atmosphere generator. I say soon enough, I mean, maybe 2 or 3 years.  ;)

This space stuff is getting so ridiculous and yet it appears that N.A.S.A and whoever else wants to play, can come up with the most ridiculous scenarios and people will just gobble it all up and beg for more.

When are people going to wake up?
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 09:56:43 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Well, it only seems impossible in YOUR head. The most difficult aspect is the first few miles. That is where the force trying to return the spacecraft to the Earth (whatever it is) is the largest, and also where the drag forces are greatest. Putting a satellite 20miles up versus 60miles is not really that different of an effort: by the time you get to 20 you've done the lion share of the work.

Large numbers only seem insurmountable if one doesn't know how they apply in a given context.
Oh, I didn't know they had lowered the satellite heights. Oh well, at least you put me right.
So now they orbit at 20 miles and 60 miles.

Well I never said that. I was speaking about the relative difficulty of putting an object at these two heights. If they indeed orbit higher, then it even more so supports my position. D'uh.
No DUH about it, seeker. You make out that going vertical is hard for a little bit, then easy as pie after a few miles up. Why you even think this, is a mystery to me.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 05, 2013, 10:19:11 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Well, it only seems impossible in YOUR head. The most difficult aspect is the first few miles. That is where the force trying to return the spacecraft to the Earth (whatever it is) is the largest, and also where the drag forces are greatest. Putting a satellite 20miles up versus 60miles is not really that different of an effort: by the time you get to 20 you've done the lion share of the work.

Large numbers only seem insurmountable if one doesn't know how they apply in a given context.
Oh, I didn't know they had lowered the satellite heights. Oh well, at least you put me right.
So now they orbit at 20 miles and 60 miles.

Well I never said that. I was speaking about the relative difficulty of putting an object at these two heights. If they indeed orbit higher, then it even more so supports my position. D'uh.
No DUH about it, seeker. You make out that going vertical is hard for a little bit, then easy as pie after a few miles up. Why you even think this, is a mystery to me.

Yes I know it is a mystery to you. That is the problem. You could do the calculation, it is basically high school math. But I know you will not. It's okay.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Don Quichotte on November 05, 2013, 10:27:38 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

For an average joe it is quite a lot of money to spend, but for a organization it can be just a small percentage of their annual research budget. The size and the weight of your satellite determines the price as well as the technology you want to put into your satellite. If it is the latest of latest technology it is going to be quite expensive. But for an 'ordinary' satellite which can do some basics things, the costs aren't that high. You will only pay for the trip up and the costs of materials, since all the technology has already been invented and is ready for use.

 
Same goes with other technologies. When the Ipad touch for example came out, it was very expensive. Apple invested a lot of money in the research, etc, but nowadays you can get touch screen tablets for a lot less money. If you want to have the latest, it's still going to be very expensive, but if you want to have a different model with less features, you pay a whole lot less.
Satellites aren't I-pad touches.
It's weird how space and launching satellites has become almost like making a cup of tea.
I mean, even the Indians have just sent a rocket to Mars which looks half the size of the supposed Saturn V rocket.

I'm just waiting for Ethiopia or Gambia to launch a manned mission to the nearest star, because it's all so simple now.
Soon enough we will see men on Mars, (on video, of course) walking about after having built a big atmosphere generator. I say soon enough, I mean, maybe 2 or 3 years.  ;)

This space stuff is getting so ridiculous and yet it appears that N.A.S.A and whoever else wants to play, can come up with the most ridiculous scenarios and people will just gobble it all up and beg for more.

When are people going to wake up?

You forget that the Saturn V was a rocket that took 3 astronauts, their supplies, a moon lander and moon buggy up in space, bound for the moon. That required a very large rocket. To launch smaller objects, which weigh less etc you can have a much smaller rocket.

Here is a full explanation in details, with a mathematical example.

You will need to have a certain amount of fuel to get things up there. The amount depends on the weight, etc, but then you will need to have a lot of fuel to carry that fuel. So if you plan to go to the moon, you will need to have a lot of fuel. I once read that 90% or so of all the fuel on board was needed to carry the rest of the fuel and the weight of the rocket. To give you an example. Let's keep it simple and say that 1 liter of fuel can carry 900 grams up to space. 1 liter of fuel in this examples equals 800 grams.

You build a spacecraft which is 900 grams, but then your spacecraft will not be able to go anywhere. You will need to add 1 liter of fuel, but then your space craft will weigh 900 + 800 grams = 1700 grams. You will need to add another liter of fuel to take that fuel up there. Now you add another 800 grams. Your spacecraft now weighs 1700 + 800 grams = 2500 grams. With 2 liters it can carry 1800 grams. Damn! You will need to add more fuel....another liter. Again 800 grams extra. 2500 + 800 grams is 3300 grams of weight. With 3 liter you can carry 2700 gram. Still not enough to get you into space. Another liter means again 800 grams of extra weight for your spacecraft. Now weighing 4100 grams. 4 liters can carry 3600 grams. Another liter. 4900 grams. 5 liters can carry 4500 grams. Another liter. Now weighing 5700 grams. 6 liter can carry 5400 grams. 7 liters needed. Your spacecraft weights 6500 grams. 7 liters can carry 6300 grams. Almost there....

Another liter. Spacecraft now weighing 7300 grams. 8 liters can carry 7200 grams.  You need to add a little bit more. Let's just add one more liter. Your spacecraft now weighs 8100 grams. 9 liters can carry 8200 grams. There you go...to get your equipment up there you need to have a lot of fuel.

To get back to the original point. The Saturn V needed to carry much more weight and carry it over a much longer distance. That alone requires more fuel and to carry that extra fuel, you would need to have much more extra fuel. That in turn results in a larger rocket. 

Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 10:31:12 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Well, it only seems impossible in YOUR head. The most difficult aspect is the first few miles. That is where the force trying to return the spacecraft to the Earth (whatever it is) is the largest, and also where the drag forces are greatest. Putting a satellite 20miles up versus 60miles is not really that different of an effort: by the time you get to 20 you've done the lion share of the work.

Large numbers only seem insurmountable if one doesn't know how they apply in a given context.
Oh, I didn't know they had lowered the satellite heights. Oh well, at least you put me right.
So now they orbit at 20 miles and 60 miles.

Well I never said that. I was speaking about the relative difficulty of putting an object at these two heights. If they indeed orbit higher, then it even more so supports my position. D'uh.
No DUH about it, seeker. You make out that going vertical is hard for a little bit, then easy as pie after a few miles up. Why you even think this, is a mystery to me.

Yes I know it is a mystery to you. That is the problem. You could do the calculation, it is basically high school math. But I know you will not. It's okay.
Well come on then, do your high school calculations to show me how this rocket takes it easy the higher it goes.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Don Quichotte on November 05, 2013, 10:32:19 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Well, it only seems impossible in YOUR head. The most difficult aspect is the first few miles. That is where the force trying to return the spacecraft to the Earth (whatever it is) is the largest, and also where the drag forces are greatest. Putting a satellite 20miles up versus 60miles is not really that different of an effort: by the time you get to 20 you've done the lion share of the work.

Large numbers only seem insurmountable if one doesn't know how they apply in a given context.
Oh, I didn't know they had lowered the satellite heights. Oh well, at least you put me right.
So now they orbit at 20 miles and 60 miles.

Well I never said that. I was speaking about the relative difficulty of putting an object at these two heights. If they indeed orbit higher, then it even more so supports my position. D'uh.
No DUH about it, seeker. You make out that going vertical is hard for a little bit, then easy as pie after a few miles up. Why you even think this, is a mystery to me.

Did you ever try to pull a car or something? When you start pulling it is very hard to get it to move, but once you're going it is a whole lot easier.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 10:38:24 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

For an average joe it is quite a lot of money to spend, but for a organization it can be just a small percentage of their annual research budget. The size and the weight of your satellite determines the price as well as the technology you want to put into your satellite. If it is the latest of latest technology it is going to be quite expensive. But for an 'ordinary' satellite which can do some basics things, the costs aren't that high. You will only pay for the trip up and the costs of materials, since all the technology has already been invented and is ready for use.

 
Same goes with other technologies. When the Ipad touch for example came out, it was very expensive. Apple invested a lot of money in the research, etc, but nowadays you can get touch screen tablets for a lot less money. If you want to have the latest, it's still going to be very expensive, but if you want to have a different model with less features, you pay a whole lot less.
Satellites aren't I-pad touches.
It's weird how space and launching satellites has become almost like making a cup of tea.
I mean, even the Indians have just sent a rocket to Mars which looks half the size of the supposed Saturn V rocket.

I'm just waiting for Ethiopia or Gambia to launch a manned mission to the nearest star, because it's all so simple now.
Soon enough we will see men on Mars, (on video, of course) walking about after having built a big atmosphere generator. I say soon enough, I mean, maybe 2 or 3 years.  ;)

This space stuff is getting so ridiculous and yet it appears that N.A.S.A and whoever else wants to play, can come up with the most ridiculous scenarios and people will just gobble it all up and beg for more.

When are people going to wake up?

You forget that the Saturn V was a rocket that took 3 astronauts, their supplies, a moon lander and moon buggy up in space, bound for the moon. That required a very large rocket. To launch smaller objects, which weigh less etc you can have a much smaller rocket.

Here is a full explanation in details, with a mathematical example.

You will need to have a certain amount of fuel to get things up there. The amount depends on the weight, etc, but then you will need to have a lot of fuel to carry that fuel. So if you plan to go to the moon, you will need to have a lot of fuel. I once read that 90% or so of all the fuel on board was needed to carry the rest of the fuel and the weight of the rocket. To give you an example. Let's keep it simple and say that 1 liter of fuel can carry 900 grams up to space. 1 liter of fuel in this examples equals 800 grams.

You build a spacecraft which is 900 grams, but then your spacecraft will not be able to go anywhere. You will need to add 1 liter of fuel, but then your space craft will weigh 900 + 800 grams = 1700 grams. You will need to add another liter of fuel to take that fuel up there. Now you add another 800 grams. Your spacecraft now weighs 1700 + 800 grams = 2500 grams. With 2 liters it can carry 1800 grams. Damn! You will need to add more fuel....another liter. Again 800 grams extra. 2500 + 800 grams is 3300 grams of weight. With 3 liter you can carry 2700 gram. Still not enough to get you into space. Another liter means again 800 grams of extra weight for your spacecraft. Now weighing 4100 grams. 4 liters can carry 3600 grams. Another liter. 4900 grams. 5 liters can carry 4500 grams. Another liter. Now weighing 5700 grams. 6 liter can carry 5400 grams. 7 liters needed. Your spacecraft weights 6500 grams. 7 liters can carry 6300 grams. Almost there....

Another liter. Spacecraft now weighing 7300 grams. 8 liters can carry 7200 grams.  You need to add a little bit more. Let's just add one more liter. Your spacecraft now weighs 8100 grams. 9 liters can carry 8200 grams. There you go...to get your equipment up there you need to have a lot of fuel.

To get back to the original point. The Saturn V needed to carry much more weight and carry it over a much longer distance. That alone requires more fuel and to carry that extra fuel, you would need to have much more extra fuel. That in turn results in a larger rocket.
Yes I accept that. This thing is supposedly going to Mars.
I know, I know. You're going to say, yes but it's in space, it doesn't need much fuel as it will just saunter along in space. Come on man, you're not this gullible, are you?

I honestly am lost for words. I seriously can't believe how people swallow all this absolute garbage, I really can't.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Well, it only seems impossible in YOUR head. The most difficult aspect is the first few miles. That is where the force trying to return the spacecraft to the Earth (whatever it is) is the largest, and also where the drag forces are greatest. Putting a satellite 20miles up versus 60miles is not really that different of an effort: by the time you get to 20 you've done the lion share of the work.

Large numbers only seem insurmountable if one doesn't know how they apply in a given context.
Oh, I didn't know they had lowered the satellite heights. Oh well, at least you put me right.
So now they orbit at 20 miles and 60 miles.

Well I never said that. I was speaking about the relative difficulty of putting an object at these two heights. If they indeed orbit higher, then it even more so supports my position. D'uh.
No DUH about it, seeker. You make out that going vertical is hard for a little bit, then easy as pie after a few miles up. Why you even think this, is a mystery to me.

Did you ever try to pull a car or something? When you start pulling it is very hard to get it to move, but once you're going it is a whole lot easier.
Not uphill it's not, it's much harder. Think what you're saying, because this is the type of stuff that makes me laugh. Using stuff like this to explain a vertical rocket by using pulling a car. Come on for crying out loud.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 05, 2013, 11:37:42 AM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Well, it only seems impossible in YOUR head. The most difficult aspect is the first few miles. That is where the force trying to return the spacecraft to the Earth (whatever it is) is the largest, and also where the drag forces are greatest. Putting a satellite 20miles up versus 60miles is not really that different of an effort: by the time you get to 20 you've done the lion share of the work.

Large numbers only seem insurmountable if one doesn't know how they apply in a given context.
Oh, I didn't know they had lowered the satellite heights. Oh well, at least you put me right.
So now they orbit at 20 miles and 60 miles.

Well I never said that. I was speaking about the relative difficulty of putting an object at these two heights. If they indeed orbit higher, then it even more so supports my position. D'uh.
No DUH about it, seeker. You make out that going vertical is hard for a little bit, then easy as pie after a few miles up. Why you even think this, is a mystery to me.

Yes I know it is a mystery to you. That is the problem. You could do the calculation, it is basically high school math. But I know you will not. It's okay.
Well come on then, do your high school calculations to show me how this rocket takes it easy the higher it goes.

Alright! I'll do this when I have a bit of free time. I do t think it will make much of a difference though for you.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Don Quichotte on November 05, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.
It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Well, it only seems impossible in YOUR head. The most difficult aspect is the first few miles. That is where the force trying to return the spacecraft to the Earth (whatever it is) is the largest, and also where the drag forces are greatest. Putting a satellite 20miles up versus 60miles is not really that different of an effort: by the time you get to 20 you've done the lion share of the work.

Large numbers only seem insurmountable if one doesn't know how they apply in a given context.
Oh, I didn't know they had lowered the satellite heights. Oh well, at least you put me right.
So now they orbit at 20 miles and 60 miles.

Well I never said that. I was speaking about the relative difficulty of putting an object at these two heights. If they indeed orbit higher, then it even more so supports my position. D'uh.
No DUH about it, seeker. You make out that going vertical is hard for a little bit, then easy as pie after a few miles up. Why you even think this, is a mystery to me.

Did you ever try to pull a car or something? When you start pulling it is very hard to get it to move, but once you're going it is a whole lot easier.
Not uphill it's not, it's much harder. Think what you're saying, because this is the type of stuff that makes me laugh. Using stuff like this to explain a vertical rocket by using pulling a car. Come on for crying out loud.

It's much harder, but it is the same principle. Uphill you need to overcome a much greater force, so it is even harder, but once you're in motion it becomes easier than it was at the start of the hill. If you have a car and it shows fuel consumption, you will notice that whenever you start to accelerate you burn more fuel. That is because you have to overcome the opposite force, but once you have overcome that force you do not longer have to accelerate, so you need less force to keep it in motion and to prevent it from slowing down.

The same goes when starting to pull a car over a flat surface, or uphill. You will need to get like 1500 kg in motion. For a flat surface, that is the friction of the surface, but uphill you also have to overcome (what we know as) gravity.
The latter being quite difficult. If you have a bike and you find yourself on the slope of a hill and you want to start from 0 km/h, you will need to generate a lot of momentum to start going. But cycling that same hill when you already have some momentum is a lot easier.

Same goes for the rockets. Starting requires a lot of fuel and the rocket will need to accelerate to its escape velocity. That is that initial difficult part, but after the rocket has reached its escape velocity, it can keep that speed with fewer amount of fuel. Once in orbit, it even requires a whole lot less fuel to keep the speed, since there is very little to no friction.

As for the India rocket bound to Mars, it is still a large rocket, but since its payload is 'only' about 1400 kg it requires a whole lot less fuel. In comparison, the Saturn V carried about 10.000 kg towards the moon. To get that weight up there, you need to have a lot of fuel, that is why the Saturn V had to be so big and the Indian Mars rocket can be so relatively small.

Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 05, 2013, 12:07:32 PM
Whereas this is all true, it isn't even necessary to prove the point. Take a rocket, send it up to 5 miles. Calculate the energy needed to do this. Now start over, send it up to 10 miles. Calculate the energy needed to do THAT. Now compare the two energies. Whereas you went twice the distance, you need LESS than twice the energy to do so.

Use the expression for gravitational potential energy, and basic high school algebra. That's it. In reality it is more complicated, but these complications only IMPROVE the situation!

Seriously, every adult in every 1st world country should be able to do this. The fact that not all can is......so depressing.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Adolf Hipster on November 05, 2013, 03:23:00 PM
Here you go, a picture that you can look at on your computer that shows the curvature of the Earth....

It is taken from a tall building, which does not even violate you do not fly rule....

http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506 (http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506)
You can not see the curvature clearly until 60,000 ft in the air. I doubt that building is 60,000 ft.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 05, 2013, 03:50:00 PM
Here you go, a picture that you can look at on your computer that shows the curvature of the Earth....

It is taken from a tall building, which does not even violate you do not fly rule....

http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506 (http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506)
You can not see the curvature clearly until 60,000 ft in the air. I doubt that building is 60,000 ft.

I......do not see curvature in this picture. Looks to me as if the camera is slightly at an angle.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: markjo on November 05, 2013, 04:46:30 PM
Let's put it in a simpler way, just in case someone comes out with, "oh, they're not all working satellites...most of it is bits and pieces of debris."

Since 1957 to 2010, there have been (apparently) 6,910 satellites launched into space.
Out of those 6,910 satellites, 3,494 were still orbiting at the time and 3,395 decayed and burned up and whatever.

Let's concentrate on how many were launched.

1957 to 2010, means we are talking 53 years of launches.
6,910 divided by 53, equals 130 per year launched.
That's 2 and a half launches per week.

Anyone care to tell me how this can happen for 53 years. I mean, we all know what they say the price of satellites are and launches, plus rockets to take them into so called space, plus the rockets have to be supposedly powerful enough to escape earth's atmosphere.

Does anyone seriously think this is possible. I mean , really?
Why not?  Most launchers carry several satellites at once.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-04-28/india/27775078_1_cartosat-2a-pslv-c9-sun-synchronous-orbit (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-04-28/india/27775078_1_cartosat-2a-pslv-c9-sun-synchronous-orbit)
Quote
India sets world record, launches 10 satellites at one go
PTI Apr 28, 2008, 11.04am IST

SRIHARIKOTA: Setting a world record, India's Polar rocket on Monday successfully placed ten satellites, including the country's remote sensing satellite, into orbit in a single mission.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: CaptainReason on November 05, 2013, 07:55:22 PM
I have friends who have done work for NASA, was all of the things that they put together to send a probe to orbit the moon faked as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1)

Obviously, since space travel is impossible, the moon cannot be reached, so a lunar probe must be faked as well. However those who work for NASA might not be aware. As with many other conspiracies, only the very highest of authorities probably knows about the conspiracy and your friends are unaware that they are building a probe based on incorrect physics which will never be launched to the moon.

Okay, I understand that this post is old, but I had to reply. What makes you think space travel is impossible? Judging by everything we know about physics much of which you can test in your own home, it is completely possible. If you are claiming that every piece of evidence found by thousands of brilliant minds throughout history is wrong, despite all tests showing their accuracy at predicting events, then the burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sandokhan on November 08, 2013, 12:45:14 AM
It is very easy to show that the Nasa and JPL faked all of their missions.
 
K.F. Gauss' Easter formula proves that the Earth does not orbit the Sun.

Official science: "The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth."

But the new radical chronology is the most direct and perfect proof that there was no axial precession (modification of the Earth axis of supposed rotation) in the past.


A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD (the summary is from a writer who commented on the work done by G. Nosovsky, I also included commentaries from the chapter on new chronology penned by Nosovsky himself).


Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:


“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Book’s 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.

G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.


Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.

However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.


Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).


The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.


Thus there are no external attractive gravitational forces acting upon the Earth (sun, moon, or any other planet) - the same conclusion was reached by the author of the letters attributed to Newton (correspondence with Halley, Bentley and Oldenburg), as we have seen earlier (Official science: "The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth.")

Therefore terrestrial gravity is a force due to pressure (it cannot be an attractive force, or a rotational type of force): a confirmation of the correctness of the original set of Maxwell's equations.

Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Don Quichotte on November 08, 2013, 10:00:47 AM
...

Could you just cut the analogy and get straight to the point you're trying to make? I don't have time for fairy tales.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 08, 2013, 10:37:28 AM
It is very easy to show that the Nasa and JPL faked all of their missions.
 
K.F. Gauss' Easter formula proves that the Earth does not orbit the Sun.

Official science: "The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth."

But the new radical chronology is the most direct and perfect proof that there was no axial precession (modification of the Earth axis of supposed rotation) in the past.


A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD (the summary is from a writer who commented on the work done by G. Nosovsky, I also included commentaries from the chapter on new chronology penned by Nosovsky himself).


Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:


“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Book’s 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.

G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.


Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.

However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.


Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).


The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.


Thus there are no external attractive gravitational forces acting upon the Earth (sun, moon, or any other planet) - the same conclusion was reached by the author of the letters attributed to Newton (correspondence with Halley, Bentley and Oldenburg), as we have seen earlier (Official science: "The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth.")

Therefore terrestrial gravity is a force due to pressure (it cannot be an attractive force, or a rotational type of force): a confirmation of the correctness of the original set of Maxwell's equations.

Whereas I appreciate this effort Sankokhan, I do not see how your conclusions follow from your arguments. Pressure cannot account for the perceived gravity: this is obvious. The dependence of pressure on elevation is not commensurate with the dependence of weight on elevation. There must be something else at work here.

The original set of Maxwell's equations does not speak to this at all. It is a description of light, not pressure. I think you may have an entirely incorrect understanding of what these equations do.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Isidor on November 09, 2013, 11:28:07 PM
Clearly, neither the FES or the REr's understand what an orbit IS.

Allow me to clarify:

According to Round Earth Theory, what keeps a satellite in orbit is it's HORIZONTAL velocity, not its vertical velocity. It doesn't just get a rocket to fly it up, then it just hangs there magically like the Flat Earth Sun.

What an orbit is is constantly falling (accelerating towards the centre of the Earth at 9.8m•s-2), but moving so fast horizontally (normal to the direction of gravitational force) that the earth curves downwards by the same amount you've fallen.

When a rocket is launched, it flies vertically until it is out of the thickest part of the atmosphere, then turns  to face about 45º to vertical and begin accelerating sideways.

To calculate orbital velocities using RET, we use a=v2/r. (derivation: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/matthew_van_eerde/archive/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula.aspx (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/matthew_van_eerde/archive/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula.aspx))

so, for a realistic altitude of 350 000m:

radius=r=350 000m + 6 400 000m (Earth's equatorial radius) = 6 750 000m

a=acceleration due to gravity=9.8 m•s-2
solving for v we get an orbital horizontal velocity of v=√(9.8*6 750 000)≈8100m/s

This is a ∆v of 8100m/s to get it going that fast.
For a 1,000 kg satellite, that is E=0.5•m•v2 = 32.8 GJ.
By comparison, the energy required to lift 1000kg 350 000m vertically is
E=m*g*h
h=350 000
m=1000
g=9.8
Evaluating, we get E=34 GJ.

As these two numbers are about the same, it shows that the orbiter will need about as much vertical thrust as it does horizontal.

Additionally, the further from the Earth you are, the weaker its gravitational pull is. It follows the inverse square law, which means that if you double the distance between yourself and the Centre of the Earth, the gravitational pull will be a quarter as strong. Explanation: (http://)

Once one is in some kind of orbit (even a decaying one), you do something called a Hohmann transfer to raise your orbit and make it circular. Here is a video of such a transfer: (http://)
This means that the most fuel is expended in the vertical stage, it requires relatively little to raise the orbit from 100,000 m to 350, 000m.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 10, 2013, 01:00:39 AM
Clearly, neither the FES or the REr's understand what an orbit IS.

Allow me to clarify:

According to Round Earth Theory, what keeps a satellite in orbit is it's HORIZONTAL velocity, not its vertical velocity. It doesn't just get a rocket to fly it up, then it just hangs there magically like the Flat Earth Sun.

What an orbit is is constantly falling (accelerating towards the centre of the Earth at 9.8m•s-2), but moving so fast horizontally (normal to the direction of gravitational force) that the earth curves downwards by the same amount you've fallen.

When a rocket is launched, it flies vertically until it is out of the thickest part of the atmosphere, then turns  to face about 45º to vertical and begin accelerating sideways.

To calculate orbital velocities using RET, we use a=v2/r. (derivation: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/matthew_van_eerde/archive/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula.aspx (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/matthew_van_eerde/archive/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula.aspx))

so, for a realistic altitude of 350 000m:

radius=r=350 000m + 6 400 000m (Earth's equatorial radius) = 6 750 000m

a=acceleration due to gravity=9.8 m•s-2
solving for v we get an orbital horizontal velocity of v=√(9.8*6 750 000)≈8100m/s

This is a ∆v of 8100m/s to get it going that fast.
For a 1,000 kg satellite, that is E=0.5•m•v2 = 32.8 GJ.
By comparison, the energy required to lift 1000kg 350 000m vertically is
E=m*g*h
h=350 000
m=1000
g=9.8
Evaluating, we get E=34 GJ.

As these two numbers are about the same, it shows that the orbiter will need about as much vertical thrust as it does horizontal.

Additionally, the further from the Earth you are, the weaker its gravitational pull is. It follows the inverse square law, which means that if you double the distance between yourself and the Centre of the Earth, the gravitational pull will be a quarter as strong. Explanation: (http://)

Once one is in some kind of orbit (even a decaying one), you do something called a Hohmann transfer to raise your orbit and make it circular. Here is a video of such a transfer: (http://)
This means that the most fuel is expended in the vertical stage, it requires relatively little to raise the orbit from 100,000 m to 350, 000m.

I agree with everything except using 9.8 m/s/s. This number only gives you the radial acceleration on the Earths surface. If you are Significantly above the surface, the value is lower. You know how you get this number, right? Using it to discuss orbits is wrong.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on November 10, 2013, 03:28:01 AM
Let's put it in a simpler way, just in case someone comes out with, "oh, they're not all working satellites...most of it is bits and pieces of debris."

Since 1957 to 2010, there have been (apparently) 6,910 satellites launched into space.
Out of those 6,910 satellites, 3,494 were still orbiting at the time and 3,395 decayed and burned up and whatever.

Let's concentrate on how many were launched.

1957 to 2010, means we are talking 53 years of launches.
6,910 divided by 53, equals 130 per year launched.
That's 2 and a half launches per week.

Anyone care to tell me how this can happen for 53 years. I mean, we all know what they say the price of satellites are and launches, plus rockets to take them into so called space, plus the rockets have to be supposedly powerful enough to escape earth's atmosphere.

Does anyone seriously think this is possible. I mean , really?
Why not?  Most launchers carry several satellites at once.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-04-28/india/27775078_1_cartosat-2a-pslv-c9-sun-synchronous-orbit (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-04-28/india/27775078_1_cartosat-2a-pslv-c9-sun-synchronous-orbit)
Quote
India sets world record, launches 10 satellites at one go
PTI Apr 28, 2008, 11.04am IST

SRIHARIKOTA: Setting a world record, India's Polar rocket on Monday successfully placed ten satellites, including the country's remote sensing satellite, into orbit in a single mission.
Also you haven't mentioned all the countries which have launched satellites into space, other countries such as France and the Uk have launched satellites. Also there are private companies which launch satellites into space.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sandokhan on November 10, 2013, 03:30:13 AM
The conclusions (and also the arguments) are very easy to follow.

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.


As we have seen, the Council of Nicaea (officially dated in the year 325 AD) could not possibly have taken place BEFORE the year 876-877 AD.

We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs of my previous message, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.


There are no astronomical/historical proofs that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place.


Official science: "The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth."

No precession of the equinoxes = no gravitational interaction between the Earth and the Moon/Sun.

It is as simple as that.


J.C. Maxwell

"My soul is an entangled knot,
Upon a liquid vortex wrought
By Intellect in the Unseen residing.
And thine doth like a convict sit,

With marlinspike untwisting it,
Only to find its knottiness abiding;
Since all the tool for its untying
In four-dimensional space are lying."


Just like sokarul, you haven't done your homework seekeroftorsion.

"The momentous fact is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is explained simply on the addition of free energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making. The spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control." (Dr. Bruce DePalma)

Exactly.

The additional energy which causes the spinning object to go higher and fall faster cannot be explained in terms of terrestrial gravity.

Dr. Bruce DePalma explains further:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other [enlightened] researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.

Is this a harnessing of torsional ether waves by rotation? Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.

http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos (http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos)

 Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher into the air and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.


The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.


You have no idea what the original set of Maxwell's equations imply.

T. Bearden:

 Let me stress this fact most strongly.  After Maxwell's death a single man - Oliver Heaviside - directly altered Maxwell's equations, eliminating localized electrogravitation and producing the form of the theory taught throughout the West today as "Maxwell's theory."
     Maxwell's theory has never been taught in Western universities!  Only Heaviside's crippled subset of the theory has been taught!

Then, shortly before the turn of the century , a short, sharp "debate" erupted in a few journals - mostly in the journal Nature.  Only about 30 scientists took part in the "debate."

    It wasn't really much of a debate!  The vectorists simply steam- rolled right over the remaining quaternionists, sweeping all opposi tion before them.
    They simply threw out the remaining vestiges of Maxwell's quaternion theory, and completely adopted Heaviside's interpretation.
    Thus, a little over a decade later when Einstein wrote his general relativity theory , he did not know that the original work of Maxwell already indicated the unification of gravitation and electromagnetics, and indicated the ease with which local spacetime could be electrogravitationally curved locally and engineered.
    Accordingly, he placed the scientists of the West on a road which rigorously assumed that a unified field theory was yet to be discovered.  It also strongly discouraged any experimentation aimed at curving local spacetime, for it assumed that such could not be done.


As a result of this artificial restriction of Maxwell’s theory, Einstein also inadvertently restricted his theory of general relativity, forever preventing the unification of electromagnetics and relativity. He also essentially prevented the present restricted general relativity from ever becoming an experimental, engineerable science on the laboratory bench, since a hidden internalized electromagnetics causing a deterministically structured local spacetime curvature was excluded.


MAXWELL'S ORIGINAL SET OF EQUATIONS = THE UNIFICATION OF TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM


E. Whittaker:

 "On the partial differential equations of mathematical physics" (Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p.333-335)
 "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field due to Electrons by means of two Scalar Potential Functions" (Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372)

In the first paper Whittaker theoretically explored the existence of a "hidden" set of electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the scalar potential of the vacuum -- demonstrating how to use them to curve the local and/or distant "spacetime" with electromagnetic radiation, in a manner directly analogous to Einstein’s later "mass-curves-space" equations. This key Whittaker paper thus lays the direct mathematical foundation for an electrogravitic theory/technology of gravity control.
 
In the second paper, Whittaker demonstrated how two "Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum" -- gravitationally curving spacetime -- could be turned back into a detectable "ordinary" electromagnetic field by two interfering "scalar EM waves"... even at a distance.

 Whittaker accomplished this by demonstrating mathematically that,
"the field of force due to a gravitating body can be analyzed, by a spectrum analysis’ as it were, into an infinite number of constituent fields; and although the whole field of force does not vary with time, yet each of the constituent fields is an ondulatory character, consisting of a simple-disturbance propagated with uniform velocity ... [and] the waves will be longitudinal (top) ... These results assimilate the propagation of gravity to that of light ... [and] would require that gravity be propagated with a finite velocity, which however need not be the same as that of light [emphasis added], and may be enormously greater ..."
(Op. Cit., "On the partial differential equations of mathematical physics")

“All space, is permeated by a fluid Aether, containing an immense number of excessively small whirlpools. The elasticity which the Aether appears to possess, and in virtue of which it is able to transmit vibrations, is really due to the presence of these whirlpools; for, owing to centrifugal force, each whirlpool is continually striving to dilate, and so presses against the neighbouring whirlpools”.


Terrestrial gravity is a force of PRESSURE and NOT attraction.

Proofs abound: DePalma's spinning ball, the gyro drop experiment, Kozyrev's gyroscope experiments, the Biefeld-Brown Effect, the Nipher experiments.


Magnetic monopoles/subquarks - complete model of the atom:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714)


Oh my God! Sandokhan, you realize that torsion fields are only applicable to explain the Eotvos effect for a round, spinning Earth, right??!! Oh dear, this is not proof for FE this is proof against it....if you believe that torsion theory applies here...(I have my doubts)

Furthermore, torsion theory results from relaxing the assumption that the affine connection has a vanishing antisymmetric part (torsion tensor), this must happen in order for the torsion to be coupled to the intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of matter.

What I am saying is that torsion theory is a consequence of general relativity, in a specific limit! I never thought I would see you arguing GR....


Do not confuse tensor analysis with physics.

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.

Cartan-Einstein torsion vs. Ricci-Kozyrev dynamic torsion

www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_hyperphysics1.htm#Part (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_hyperphysics1.htm#Part) I

Also see the Hyperdimensional Physics chapter in Hoagland's Dark Mission for more information on Ricci dynamic torsion and Kozyrev's experiments.


A closely related subject is gps time deformation frame dragging; the real cause, is, of course, called aether frame dragging, here are best works:


http://www.cellularuniverse.org/R1RelativityofTime.pdf (http://www.cellularuniverse.org/R1RelativityofTime.pdf)

http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_1130.pdf (http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_1130.pdf)

http://www.treurniet.ca/physics/framedragging.htm (http://www.treurniet.ca/physics/framedragging.htm)

http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/agathan5.pdf (http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/agathan5.pdf)


Dayton Miller ether drift results:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930)


Conclusions of the Kozyrev gyroscope experiments:

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.



According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on November 10, 2013, 03:42:11 AM
Pressure doesn't explain the cavendish experiment. If it was pressure then objects in a vacuum changer would fall really slowly. Pressure doesn't explain why gravity is weaker at the equator the the poles.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 10, 2013, 09:36:36 AM
The conclusions (and also the arguments) are very easy to follow.


I always appreciate your efforts, but I must comment on a few points.

1. "MAXWELL'S ORIGINAL SET OF EQUATIONS = THE UNIFICATION OF TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM"

This is not true. I have gone to the source. I have studied Maxwell's equations and read their initial formulation. They unify electricity and magnetism. They do NOT unify gravity. They CAN'T! They do not address it at all.

2. "Do not confuse tensor analysis with physics."

This is the same as saying "do not confuse calculus with Maxwell's equations." I am not confusing the two, what I am saying is that the mathematical derivation, from which the physics is extracted, hinges on past physical theories which necessarily disagree with our position. You cannot have torsion theory without general relativity. It FOLLOWS FROM IT. If you wish to use torsion theory for FE purposes, you must first develop it  in a manner independent of GR. No such development exists that I have seen. You are taking a result from GR to argue against gravity. Anyone can see that this is a contradictory position.

And really, I would pit my expertise of Maxwell's and Einstein's equations against yours any day of the week. I have actually solved these equations many times, I know how they work. I do not think you do. The reason why I make this accusation (which I do not make lightly), is because your conclusions directly contradict what is in them. You incorrectly discuss them, and there is no direct mathematical link between your conclusions and the equations themselves. You conclusions follow from alternate interpretations of what these equations do, which is fine, but these alternate interpretations have not been demonstrated to follow mathematically from the initial formalism. They instead follow from arguments akin to "the original equations were modified," or "there is a conspiracy that is hidden in history that likewise hides additional terms in the equations." Again, that is fine to say. But sadly, the math doesn't lie. Additional terms or alternate descriptions must agree with future derived quantities. The problem is that derived quantities always disagree with the rest of the formalism. You would know this if you actually went through and understood the derivations themselves, instead of just quoting incorrect, pseudo-scientific constructions. YOU WOULD SEE THE FLAWS IF YOU TRIED TO RE-DERVIVE THESE CONSTRUCTIONS.   

Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sandokhan on November 11, 2013, 01:10:18 AM
I am here to upgrade your knowledge about the original set of Maxwell's equations.

There is a very important prerequisite to tensor analysis: differential geometry.

And it is here where we can observe the atrocious errors committed by Minkowsky.

There is no such thing as space-time geometry. Here is the step by step demonstration.

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'


G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.


(http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Riemann_surface_log.jpg/220px-Riemann_surface_log.jpg)


http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html (http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html)

'the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf)

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.


On Physical Lines of Force, the original set of Maxwell's equations:

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf (http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf)


The best work done on the original set of Maxwell's equations belongs to Dr. Frederick Tombe.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf (http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf)

The correct demonstration of the rotating aethereal substance within Maxwell’s vortex cells.


Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”


Dr. Tombe's paper demonstrates quite clearly the fallacy of this statement.


Dr. Tombe went even further with his paper: Gravity and Light -

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe18.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe18.pdf)

Abstract. Gravity and light are two different manifestations of aether flow.

Another classic by Dr. Tombe:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe5.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe5.pdf)

Gravitation and the Gyroscopic Force



Double helix theory of the Magnetic field:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf)


Do not kid yourself.

There is no such thing as the theory of relativity.

As we have seen, there is also no such thing as the space time continuum.

EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm)


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html) (one of the best works on the variability of light)


EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic

http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html (http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html)


“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”



ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf)

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm)

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/EinsteinsRelativityScientificTheoryOrIllusion.pdf (http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/EinsteinsRelativityScientificTheoryOrIllusion.pdf) (chapters 5-10)

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm) (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)

Einstein’s relativity theory is a central plank of 20th-century science and is commonly said to have passed every experimental test with flying colours. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity, and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists.

Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’

William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einstein’s relativity theory has remained so popular:

First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.


G. de Purucker took a more critical stance: ‘The theory of Relativity is founded on unquestionable essentials or points of truth, but the deductions drawn in many cases by many Relativist speculators appear to be mere “brain-mind” constructions or phantasies.


In 1949 Einstein wisely remarked: ‘There is not a single concept, of which I am convinced that it will survive, and I am not sure whether I am on the right way at all.

This statement applies especially to the baseless assumption that the speed of light is a constant.


In addition to Lorentz, other Nobel Prize winners who opposed Einstein included Planck, Michelson, Ernest Rutherford, and Frederick Soddy. Louis Essen wrote:

Insofar as [Einstein’s] theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.

There is no real evidence for the curvature of space. We can speak of curved lines, paths, and surfaces in space, but the idea that space itself can be curved is meaningless unless we conjure up a fourth dimension of space for it to be curved in. G. de Purucker called the concept of curved space a ‘mathematical pipe-dream’.


Pari Spolter characterizes relativity theory as ‘science fiction or pseudoscience’. She writes: ‘Mathematics, which is the most advanced science, should be used to analyze observations and experimental data. It should not be used to create a new physical science based on hypothetical equations.’ Al Kelly comments: ‘Relativity theory has assumed the status of a religion whose mysteries are to be believed without question. For how long can nonsense stave off common sense?’


Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf)

Sections:

The Wrong Turn #1: FitzGerald Length Contraction
Wrong Turn #2: Relativistic Time Dilation
Non-Evidence A: Flights of Fantasy
Non-Evidence B: GPS Satellites
Non-Evidence C: Muon Decay

The Wrong Turn #3: Mass Distortion
The Wrong Turn #4: The Universal Speed Limit
Wrong Turn #5: Space-time

The Second Postulate regarding the speed of light as both constant and unsurpassable
was unoriginal because it came right from Poincaré, as we have just seen.
Both of these postulates are set forth in the introduction of this paper, second paragraph.
Yet, inasmuch as Albert presents no persuasive experimental or observational evidence in support of them, they are simply not acceptable and we need not proceed with any of his
reasoning or arguments, mathematical or otherwise, that follow, as they are not worth the paper they are printed on. To do so would be philosophy or academic math, maybe, but not science.

In 1962, J. Fox, of the Carnegie Institute of Technology published a paper in the
American Journal of Physics in which he reviewed the experimental evidence in support of the
Second Postulate and concluded that the evidence was “either irrelevant or inconclusive.”70 This was over “half a century after the inception of special relativity”. Yet even today relativist scientists would have us turn our minds off and accept the Second Postulate as dogma and an absolute law of physics.


Here is Tesla's classic experiment: FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED

Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.

Nikola Tesla:

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].


Tesla Patent/original paper:

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf (http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf)


With the discrediting of the Second Postulate, in the words of MIT-trained geophysicist
Enders Robinson, PhD “we must kiss relativity theory goodbye.

“Einstein‟s theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy,
and represents the worst of science: how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html) (all the sections especially: Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong)


Do you homework seeker, before having the nerve to come here with your bombastic statements.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sandokhan on November 11, 2013, 01:17:25 AM
DAYTON MILLER ETHER DRIFT EXPERIMENTS: THE COMPLETE DEMOLITION OF EINSTEIN'S GR "THEORY"

Dayton Miller's ether drift results nulify Einstein's baseless assumptions.

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)


"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)


(http://www.orgonelab.org/graphics/MILLER/MillerInt.jpg)

Dayton Miller's light-beam interferometer, at 4.3 meters across, was the largest and most sensitive of this type of apparatus ever constructed, with a mirror-reflected round-trip light-beam path of 64 meters. It was used in a definitive set of ether-drift experiments on Mt. Wilson, 1925-1926. Protective insulation is removed in this photograph, and windows were present all around the shelter at the level of the interferometer light-path.


Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.



While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether-measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000' elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller's work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics.


In his 1933 paper, Miller published the most comprehensive summary of his work, and the large quantity of data which supported his conclusions. A total of over 200,000 individual readings were made, from over 12,000 individual turns of the interferometer, undertaken at different months of the year, starting in 1902 with Edward Morley at Case School in Cleveland, and ending in 1926 with his Mt. Wilson experiments. These data do not include many rigorous control experiments undertaken at Case School Physics Department from 1922 to 1924. More than half of Miller's readings were made at Mt. Wilson using the most sophisticated and controlled procedures, with the most telling set of experiments in 1925 and 1926. By contrast, we can mention here, the original Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 involved only six hours of data collection over four days (July 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 1887), with a grand total of only 36 turns of their interferometer. Even so, as shown below, Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics.


Unfortunately, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, Michelson-Morley never undertook those additional experiments at the different seasonal configurations, to "avoid all uncertainty". However, Miller did.




Dayton Miller discovered, through carefully performed experiments, the existence of the telluric currents.


Einstein's Special Relativity theory demanded that the Michelson-Morley experiments must have been null!  The aether was not acceptable.  DeMeo reports (January 2001) that he has now found evidence that Einstein was more directly involved than he had thought.  Much new material has been added to his original paper, which concentrated on Shankland's 1955 report, written in consultation with Einstein.  (Shankland had been an assistant to Miller in 1932-3.)

As Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature. (Cleveland Plain Dealer January 27, 1926.)

It was evidently a power struggle between the two, the odds tipped in favour of Einstein by the media-enhanced "victory" of his General Relativity theory after the 1919 eclipse.



And now, the most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html (http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html)


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm) (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html)



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm) (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)



DAYTON MILLER'S CLASSIC EXPERIMENTS CONFIRM THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORIGINAL SET OF MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS.

On the modified Maxwell equations:

" ... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.


Oliver Heaviside, described by Scientific American (Sept. 1950) as "self-taught and ... never connected with any university ... had [however] a remarkable and inexplicable ability (which was possessed also by Newton and Laplace ...) to arrive at mathematical results of considerable complexity without going through any conscious process of proof ..." According to other observers, Heaviside actually felt that Maxwell's use of quaternions and their description of the "potentials" of space was "... mystical, and should be murdered from the theory ..." which -- by drastically editing Maxwell's original work after the latter's untimely death, excising the scalar component of the quaternions and eliminating the hyperspatial characteristics of the directional (vector) components -- Oliver Heaviside effectively accomplished singlehanded.

This means, of course, that the four surviving "classic" Maxwell's Equations -- which appear in every electrical and physics text the world over, as the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical and electromagnetic engineering, from radio to radar, from television to computer science, if not inclusive of every "hard" science from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic radiative processes -- never appeared in any original Maxwell' paper or treatise!


Please do your homework before posting nonsense.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sandokhan on November 11, 2013, 01:27:19 AM
SUBQUARK STRINGS = TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY + ANTIGRAVITY = DEXTROROTATORY ELECTRICITY + LAEVOROTATORY ELECTRICITY

There is a 100% accurate proof of the existence of ether; this in turn means that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of the telluric currents, thus providing another FET proof.


http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf)


A century-old claim by  two early leaders of  the Theosophical
Society to have used a form of ESP to observe subatomic particles is evaluat-
ed. Their observations  are  found  to be consistent with  facts  of  nuclear
physics and with the quark model of particle physics provided that their as-
sumption that they saw atoms is rejected.  Their account of the force binding
together the fundamental constituents of  matter is shown to agree with the
string model.  Their description of these basic particles bears striking similar-
ity to basic ideas of superstring theory.  The implication  of  this remarkable
correlation between ostensible paranormal  observations of subatomic parti-
cles and facts of nuclear and particle physics is that quarks are neither funda-
mental nor hadronic states of superstrings, as many physicists  currently as-
sume, but, instead, are composed of three subquark states of a superstring.


Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real  objects and were not fabricated  ac-
cording  to their expectations?  Knowing which  groups of  the periodic  table
these  undiscovered  elements belong  to could  have  enabled them  to  deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups. But the values of  the atomic weights of  these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for  these  elements  agree with  their  chemical atomic  weights  to
within one unit.
It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have  come about by  chance in  every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery.  These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.



The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always
occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi  version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if  Besant and Leadbeater  had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation.  Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements?  This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two
Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.



This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles.  It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected  as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted.  Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of  physics.  If  this had been the case, Besant and Leadbeater might reasonably have been expected to describe atoms
according to the Rutherford-Bohr model.
The nuclear model of the atom was
formulated by Rutherford in 1911, two years after they concluded their main
investigation of MPAs. Yet none of its features can be found in their publica-
tions. Instead of being atoms, as would be expected if micro-psi faculty were
actually precognition, MPAs are more exotic objects which, as Figure 5 shows,
have  compositions and  UPA  populations indicating  that  they consist of  the
constituent quarks and subquarks or two atomic nuclei of  an element.  This
makes  them more  akin  to what  nuclear physicists  call  "compound nuclei,"
which are formed in high-energy physics laboratories by the collision and brief
fusion  of  two  very  fast-moving  nuclei. Moreover, precognition would  not
have led Besant and Leadbeater to portray some chemical molecules such as
methane and benzene in a way that conflicts with chemistry.  If they had used
merely  precognition, they  would never have observed four MPAs for which
atomic theory can provide no corresponding element; they would have record-
ed only MPAs of known elements.

The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were  published  several  years  before  physicists even suspected  that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility  of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and
mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discover-
ing  the  neutron  in  1932, twenty-four years  after  the first  edition  of  Occult
Chemistry  appeared.  No normal or alternative paranormal explanation  of the
correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old obser-
vations  of  subatomic  particles appears  to exist  other  than that  Besant  and
Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of
ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.


The following sections of the article by Dr. Stephen Phillips provide a complete and correct model of the atom, up to boson/antiboson level:


Micro-psi Atoms
Quark Model
A Statistical Test
Quantum Chromodynamics
The String Model
Micro-psi Confirmation of the String Model
Structure of the UPA (Subquark)
Superstrings
UPA as Subquark State of Superstring


Detection of subquarks/preons:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981)


Biography of Dr. Stephen Phillips:

DR STEPHEN PHILLIPS earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, where he also taught mathematics and physics. In 1979 one of his scientific papers was published, proposing a theory that unified particle interactions and predicted that quarks are not fundamental (as most physicists currently believe) but are composed of three more basic particles ('subquarks') which, may have since been detected at FermiLab, high-energy physics laboratory near Chicago in America. He has lectured on his research at the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.



In the Occult Chemistry (copied by Murray Gell-Mann, P. Dirac, and P. Higgs), A. Besant described correctly EACH AND EVERY element of the periodic table (including isotopes); moreover, the atom is shown to be made up of vortices (ether/subquarks/tachyons).

A 100% statistical proof of the correctness of the ether model (see also the graphs in the article of Dr. Phillips).



OCCULT CHEMISTRY TABLE OF CONTENTS:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/ocindex.htm (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/ocindex.htm)

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm)


(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig003.gif)

Laevorotatory and dextrorotatory subquarks (tachyons/preons/omegans) - first state of ether E1


(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig007.gif)

Second state of ether: E2 - QUARKS and other types of combinations



(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig008.gif)

Third state of ether: E3 - MESONS and other types of combinations


(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig009.gif)

Fourth state of ether: E4 - PROTONS and other types of combinations


(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig010.gif)

Seven fundamental forms of the elements (subquark vortices)


(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig001.gif)

HYDROGEN ATOM: 18 SUBQUARKS - 9 LAEVOROTATORY AND 9 DEXTROROTATORY subquarks

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.


TELLURIC CURRENTS are represented by double torsion waves of BOTH laevorotatory (antigravity) and dextrorotatory (terrestrial gravity) subquarks.



LET US APPLY NOW THIS MASS OF KNOWLEDGE TO THE BIOHOMOCHIRALITY SUBJECT.

Biohomochirality and Terrestrial Gravity


Some molecules come in left– and right-handed forms that are mirror images of each other (i.e.: they are related like our left and right hands. Hence this property is called chirality, from the Greek word for hand. The two forms are called enantiomers (from the Greek word for opposite) or optical isomers, because they rotate plane-polarised light either to the right or to the left.).  All biological proteins are composed of only left-handed amino acids.  How this could have come about in a primordial soup has long been a puzzle to origin-of-life researchers, since both L (levo, left-handed) and D (dextro, right-handed) forms react indiscriminately.

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

    It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature.  For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids.  Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

        This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.


http://we.vub.ac.be/~dglg/Web/Teaching/Les/Orlifequestions/Cronin-Reisse.pdf (http://we.vub.ac.be/~dglg/Web/Teaching/Les/Orlifequestions/Cronin-Reisse.pdf) (origins of biohomochirality, an unsolved problem)

http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem (http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem) (the best work on the problem of biohomochirality)

http://crev.info/2004/06/mystery_of_the_lefthanded_proteins_solved (http://crev.info/2004/06/mystery_of_the_lefthanded_proteins_solved) (biohomochirality still unsolved)

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2006/files/Rajan.pdf (http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2006/files/Rajan.pdf)


The latest attempt to try to solve the biohomochirality problem (salt induced peptides formation and the more recent work on potassium ions http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23536046 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23536046) ) has many unresolved major problems:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=5ZGUD49fMcAC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=origin+of+salt+in+ocean+water+peptides+primordial+soup&source=bl&ots=FcdmUK6LXN&sig=oCgbOFYcBHsJp2SQ24xQJVxOozY&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=TFWCUcOrAoXatAaGjoGADA&ved=0CGwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20salt%20in%20ocean%20water%20peptides%20primordial%20soup&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=5ZGUD49fMcAC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=origin+of+salt+in+ocean+water+peptides+primordial+soup&source=bl&ots=FcdmUK6LXN&sig=oCgbOFYcBHsJp2SQ24xQJVxOozY&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=TFWCUcOrAoXatAaGjoGADA&ved=0CGwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20salt%20in%20ocean%20water%20peptides%20primordial%20soup&f=false)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutionary-theory-just-add-water/ (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutionary-theory-just-add-water/)


The best proofs from molecular biology and genetics which prove the theory of evolution to be just a myth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55960.msg1398306.html#msg1398306 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55960.msg1398306.html#msg1398306)

http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.ro/2012/02/what-evidence-is-found-for-first-life.html (http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.ro/2012/02/what-evidence-is-found-for-first-life.html) (the best work on the proofs from molecular biology and genetics which demolish evolutionism)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science-education/oldies-but-baddies-af-repeats-ncses-eight-challenges-to-id-from-ten-years-ago/#comment-453060 (http://www.uncommondescent.com/science-education/oldies-but-baddies-af-repeats-ncses-eight-challenges-to-id-from-ten-years-ago/#comment-453060) (R. Shapiro debunks the Miller experiment and the RNA world)


The origin of biohomochirality is to be found in the physics of the subquark:



Dr.T. Henry Moray:

Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


Living tissue (with the exception of some bacteria) contains only L-amino acids (laevorotatory-left handed); dead tissue only D-amino acids (dextrorotatory-right handed).


Terrestrial gravity is represented by the dextrorotatory strings of receptive subquarks; antigravity comes into play once we can activate the laevorotatory strings of emissive subquarks (by torsion, sound, applying high electrical tension).

The physics of the subquark:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101)


HERE IS THE CORRECT THEORY OF MAGNETISM: THE EXISTENCE OF MAGNETIC MONOPOLES (SUBQUARKS STRINGS)


A brief description: the magnetic field consists of strings of subquarks (magnetic monopoles) which circulate between the two poles of the magnet (BOTH N-S and S-N, as we shall see). Through the subquarks we have a flow of bosons/antibosons.

In a conductor, which consists of the same subquark strings, these subquarks align themselves to allow the boson flow (what we actually call electricity).

The same phenomenon: one is a flow of bosons through subquarks outside a conductor, the other a flow of bosons inside a conductor.

The subquark strings are made up of two helices: a laevorotatory spin, and a dextrorotatory spin.

Terrestrial gravity is the DEXTROROTATORY SPIN SUBQUARK STRING; the laevorotatory offers the opposing force, the antigravitational energy needed to explain the DePalma, Kozyrev, and Brown experiments.


It is now time to see what an actual unit of electromagnetic radiation looks like.


http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf (http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf) (mapping of magnetic fields)


(http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/7055/87773492.jpg)

(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4750/ext1.jpg)

(http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4940/ext2.jpg)

(http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/a_hojo-wire.jpg)

(http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/9060/fourmagnet.jpg)

(http://peswiki.com/images/a/ab/Ed_Leedskalnin-magnets_circulation.gif)


Magnetic Monopoles Detected In A Real Magnet For The First Time:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm)


Therefore, the magnetic field of a permanent magnet has four vortices (actually two, but each one is composed of a receptive and an emissive part), and a center, out of which these vortices emerge. This magnetic field consists of magnetic monopoles which travel in both senses (north-south AND south-north), in contradiction to what we have been taught so far (only north-south direction).


Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sandokhan on November 11, 2013, 02:54:01 AM
I was able to find Dr. Phillips' classic on magnetic monopoles, subquarks and bosons:

http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf (http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf)

A rigorous and extraordinary demonstration that subquarks = magnetic monopoles.


http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html (http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html)

An in-depth look at the most recent discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics which DO PROVE the correctness of the subquark ether model.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 11, 2013, 08:24:47 AM
I was able to find Dr. Phillips' classic on magnetic monopoles, subquarks and bosons:

http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf (http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf)

A rigorous and extraordinary demonstration that subquarks = magnetic monopoles.


http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html (http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html)

An in-depth look at the most recent discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics which DO PROVE the correctness of the subquark ether model.

The aforementioned theory of subquark strings, while interesting, has a fundamental problem. You see, this is really a presentation of a quantum theory of gravity using string theory. The problem is that this description departs from what string theory actually says. In string theory, the strings themselves are much much smaller than your links depict.

The works you cite posit strings to be of a size on order with nucleons themselves. Effectively, they are on the same scale as gluons. This can't be the case, because ordinary deep inelastic scattering experiments would have shown this structure very easily. They do not of course.

This discrepancy contradicts the zetetic approach: if this theory WAS true, then we should be able to observe its consequences. Sadly, observations DO NOT show subquark structure, in fact, according to this theory, these subquark strings are LARGER than the quarks themselves....so how can they possibly be "subquarks?"

I think you may want to find out a little more about what a quark really is.....

It seems to me that a lot of fancy words are being employed here, without actual knowledge about what those words really mean. You cannot simply just use the word "quark" and have it mean whatever you want. Because a definition for this word already exists, and is quite different than the definition used in these works.

I am sorry, but this is probably the wrong approach.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: markjo on November 11, 2013, 09:45:21 AM
This discrepancy contradicts the zetetic approach: if this theory WAS true, then we should be able to observe its consequences. Sadly, observations DO NOT show subquark structure, in fact, according to this theory, these subquark strings are LARGER than the quarks themselves....so how can they possibly be "subquarks?"
I could be wrong, but this might be one of the reasons for all of those extra dimensions that string theory is so famous for.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 11, 2013, 10:58:16 AM
This discrepancy contradicts the zetetic approach: if this theory WAS true, then we should be able to observe its consequences. Sadly, observations DO NOT show subquark structure, in fact, according to this theory, these subquark strings are LARGER than the quarks themselves....so how can they possibly be "subquarks?"
I could be wrong, but this might be one of the reasons for all of those extra dimensions that string theory is so famous for.

Well, there are no extra dimensions in the links Sandokhan provides. In order for the extra dimensions to manifest, one must first have a very small string, way smaller than these works imply. To give you an analogy of how small it must be: if you scaled an atom up to be the size of the known universe, then one of these strings would be about as large as a tree.

You see? These rather bizarre works use some of the ideas of string theory without actually understanding what those ideas mean. The result is that they become self-inconsistent.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: sokarul on November 11, 2013, 02:28:52 PM
...

It seems to me that a lot of fancy words are being employed here, without actual knowledge about what those words really mean. You cannot simply just use the word "quark" and have it mean whatever you want. Because a definition for this word already exists, and is quite different than the definition used in these works.

I am sorry, but this is probably the wrong approach.
No, you are 100 percent correct. Sandokhan doesn't understand what he preaches. That is why he just posts the same text over and over. Go here to see how his lack of understanding made him be academically dishonest.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1557491.html#msg1557491 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1557491.html#msg1557491)
The last part about DePalma is what you want to read.

Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 11, 2013, 02:43:51 PM
...

It seems to me that a lot of fancy words are being employed here, without actual knowledge about what those words really mean. You cannot simply just use the word "quark" and have it mean whatever you want. Because a definition for this word already exists, and is quite different than the definition used in these works.

I am sorry, but this is probably the wrong approach.
No, you are 100 percent correct. Sandokhan doesn't understand what he preaches. That is why he just posts the same text over and over. Go here to see how his lack of understanding made him be academically dishonest.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1557491.html#msg1557491 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1557491.html#msg1557491)
The last part about DePalma is what you want to read.

I agree with your assessment that Sandokhan misrepresented dePalma's findings, or was unaware of dePalma's rejection of the earlier claim.

I am not satisfied with dePalma's final diagnosis, however, since he is making an assertion of free energy without demonstrating how this free energy manifests in a rigorous formalism. Is this free energy the same as the Gibbs free energy? Why form does it take mathematically and why?

Making assertions are fine, but they eventually must be supported by evidence and internal consistency.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Happy Forever on November 12, 2013, 10:11:29 AM

I find here serious people who really use their mind and don't follow the bright slogans of modern science and the fake scenes.

I thought of the matter for long. Once I realized that believing in universe is against believing in The Creator of the heavens and the earth, I speculated the sky for months, the moon, the planets, the sun then turned to the earth and the horizon.

Finally I got it. the round earth is impossible. With the round earth, there is no earth, no sky, no sun, no moon, no life at all.

You flat earth believer, think of it a little bit and you will get the evidence simply. We know that this earth is flat and this sky is a ceiling. What if the earth were round and no sky but space, how would it be?
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 12, 2013, 11:25:12 AM

I find here serious people who really use their mind and don't follow the bright slogans of modern science and the fake scenes.

I thought of the matter for long. Once I realized that believing in universe is against believing in The Creator of the heavens and the earth, I speculated the sky for months, the moon, the planets, the sun then turned to the earth and the horizon.

Finally I got it. the round earth is impossible. With the round earth, there is no earth, no sky, no sun, no moon, no life at all.

You flat earth believer, think of it a little bit and you will get the evidence simply. We know that this earth is flat and this sky is a ceiling. What if the earth were round and no sky but space, how would it be?

Yes, independent thought is important to me as well. What is also important to me is whether my beliefs are actually true. How do we determine truth? Well, you nailed it: evidence. Demonstrable evidence. What we discuss here on this forum is the validity of different kinds of evidence.

So you say the evidence is simple. But that is not enough, that is only an assertion. Next, I would ask you to provide your evidence. This is how these things work, whether you are a FEer or REer. If we don't discuss the evidence, then we are just discussing opinions, not facts.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Happy Forever on November 13, 2013, 02:20:24 PM

Yes, independent thought is important to me as well. What is also important to me is whether my beliefs are actually true. How do we determine truth? Well, you nailed it: evidence. Demonstrable evidence. What we discuss here on this forum is the validity of different kinds of evidence.

So you say the evidence is simple. But that is not enough, that is only an assertion. Next, I would ask you to provide your evidence. This is how these things work, whether you are a FEer or REer. If we don't discuss the evidence, then we are just discussing opinions, not facts.

I know it AlhamdliAllah.

It's complicated somehow but I will try to explain as much as I can.

NASA and other space agencies deceived us by fake pictures. Their pictures are the evidence of the deceit.

A simple example of how they draw the sun.
This sun which we see can be seen like this from a flat earth only and if we were on a round earth, we couldn't see it at all.

The trick of any photo of the sun with the round earth is that they make the sun soooooooooo big and if we imagined someone on the earth (which is drawn) will find the sun covering his sky and can see nothing above him but a sun.

If you want more explanation, show a photo of their photos which includes both the round earth and the sun and I will show you where the trick is.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 13, 2013, 02:27:14 PM

Yes, independent thought is important to me as well. What is also important to me is whether my beliefs are actually true. How do we determine truth? Well, you nailed it: evidence. Demonstrable evidence. What we discuss here on this forum is the validity of different kinds of evidence.

So you say the evidence is simple. But that is not enough, that is only an assertion. Next, I would ask you to provide your evidence. This is how these things work, whether you are a FEer or REer. If we don't discuss the evidence, then we are just discussing opinions, not facts.

I know it AlhamdliAllah.

It's complicated somehow but I will try to explain as much as I can.

NASA and other space agencies deceived us by fake pictures. Their pictures are the evidence of the deceit.

A simple example of how they draw the sun.
This sun which we see can be seen like this from a flat earth only and if we were on a round earth, we couldn't see it at all.

The trick of any photo of the sun with the round earth is that they make the sun soooooooooo big and if we imagined someone on the earth (which is drawn) will find the sun covering his sky and can see nothing above him but a sun.

If you want more explanation, show a photo of their photos which includes both the round earth and the sun and I will show you where the trick is.

I will tentatively believe your assertion that the photos are fake. However, it is not I who must produce these photos for your inspection. YOU are making this claim, therefore, the burden of evidence falls on you. And let us be very clear about this: the existence of these photos is NOT evidence until you are able to demonstrate that they are false, contrived, or forged. Until then, your claim has not been substantiated.

That being said, I eagerly await your photos and analysis of them.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Happy Forever on November 13, 2013, 02:34:24 PM

I prefer you or anyone else except me to provide a photo produced by NASA, any photo. I don't want someone says to me you provide a bad photo not official from NASA.

Any pic whether explanatory or made to be real.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 13, 2013, 02:45:46 PM

I prefer you or anyone else except me to provide a photo produced by NASA, any photo. I don't want someone says to me you provide a bad photo not official from NASA.

Any pic whether explanatory or made to be real.

That's okay, we have ways of checking whether the photo you provide is doctored. Plus, how do you know WE wouldn't provide a "bad photo"?

One of the themes on this fora is the idea that we will not do your homework for you. If you have a claim, the burden falls on you. And this is true for everyone on this forum, you do not get an exception.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Happy Forever on November 13, 2013, 02:52:08 PM

Ok, it's up to you but don't claim to be eagerly waiting to know and seeker of truth.

I've searched on google and no one photo is clear, you can check yourself. It's not common to see a photo of the round earth with the sun. Don't you ask yourself why?

They're afraid that people could notice the stupid trick.

Salam
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 13, 2013, 02:54:23 PM

Ok, it's up to you but don't claim to be eagerly waiting to know and seeker of truth.

I've searched on google and no one photo is clear, you can check yourself. It's not common to see a photo of the round earth with the sun. Don't you ask yourself why?

They're afraid that people could notice the stupid trick.

Salam

So you claim to have analyzed photos, but now you cannot for the life of you find a good photo to use.

If you are ever able to answer your burden of proof, we shall be waiting here for it.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Happy Forever on November 13, 2013, 02:58:02 PM

Lol

It doesn't require to check all photos cuz the pic can never be drawn with the actual size. It's impossible as it's impossible for this earth to be round.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 13, 2013, 03:02:09 PM

Lol

It doesn't require to check all photos cuz the pic can never be drawn with the actual size. It's impossible as it's impossible for this earth to be round.

It is impossible that you are correct. You see? I just made a claim, and provided EXACTLY the same amount of evidence to support my claim as you used to support yours.

Apparently we disagree. Now how do we go about finding who is correct?
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 13, 2013, 03:03:10 PM
(http://www.google.com.eg/imgres?start=85&sa=X&hl=ar&biw=1438&bih=661&sout=0&tbm=isch&tbnid=0HHviCSgnTGHaM:&imgrefurl=http://www.daniel-irimia.com/2012/11/30/apocalypse-revelation-creates-real-psychosis-nasa-warns/&docid=1n5xKdi9OGlGgM&imgurl=http://www.daniel-irimia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/NASA-Earth-Sun.jpg&w=620&h=346&ei=J_-DUpjjF7Lb4QShkIGoCA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:5,s:100,i:19&iact=rc&page=5&tbnh=168&tbnw=277&ndsp=23&tx=121.67999267578125&ty=97.3699951171875)

I'm sorry, your link did not work.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Happy Forever on November 13, 2013, 03:07:24 PM
Is it Ok?
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 13, 2013, 03:10:46 PM
Is it Ok?

No, but I copied the html and opened it in a new tab. But you should really try to fix this, since not everyone will be willing to do what I did to see it.

But I see the image. Now, first of all, how do you know that this is a true NASA image? I am not saying it isn't, but we better damn well be able to provide a good reason for why we think it is an actual NASA image, otherwise if someone does not like your analysis of it, they can just say that it isn't real. You see? The idea is to be rigorous every step of the way.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: BJ1234 on November 13, 2013, 03:24:08 PM
(http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2003-00025.jpg)

Here you go, right from NASA's site. 
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Happy Forever on November 14, 2013, 01:03:22 PM

This is the photo I tried to send. Thank you.

You can see that the sun is not completely drawn and also the earth. Here the analysis depends on the size of the seen area of the earth.
Do you agree that it represents area of a continent or of a very small area?

To avoid ambiguity, give me a clear photo with a complete sun and a clear part of the earth to know if it's a big part of the earth or a small one.

Be patient please and you will be surprised in the end InshaAllah.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 14, 2013, 01:17:49 PM

This is the photo I tried to send. Thank you.

You can see that the sun is not completely drawn and also the earth. Here the analysis depends on the size of the seen area of the earth.
Do you agree that it represents area of a continent or of a very small area?

To avoid ambiguity, give me a clear photo with a complete sun and a clear part of the earth to know if it's a big part of the earth or a small one.

Be patient please and you will be surprised in the end InshaAllah.

Yeah....I am not going to track down pictures for you. If you want to make a point, then do the work yourself. If you decide to indeed do this, I will be willing to discuss your results.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: Happy Forever on November 14, 2013, 01:23:58 PM

But you have to learn that nothing comes to your hand in a silver plate only because you want it.

To get info, you should participate and believe me you will understand easier.

If no one can find a suitable photo, I welcome a pic drawn by anyone concerned to know the trick.
Title: Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on November 14, 2013, 03:46:27 PM

But you have to learn that nothing comes to your hand in a silver plate only because you want it.

To get info, you should participate and believe me you will understand easier.

If no one can find a suitable photo, I welcome a pic drawn by anyone concerned to know the trick.

Precisely, and just because you want me to find you a photo, doesn't mean I will. Until you do, I will not respond anymore. Goodbye.