Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet

Who did you say had peer reviewed your beliefs?

http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm

Why do you keep redirecting readers to your malicious website?

Quote from: inquisitive on January 05, 2015, 01:17:38 AM

Who did you say had peer reviewed your beliefs?

http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm

So your paper on structural progressive collapse was reviewed and rejected.  Hardly a ringing endorsement for your space conspiracy theories. 

Here is a possible Challenge solution to go Mars (or its Moon) and back using gravity assist kicks !

You send your Mars spacecraft to the Earth Moon for the first kick and direction change back to Earth - speed increases! The second kick is with Earth with a direction change back to the Moon. After a few kicks between Moon/Earth your space ship has reached a very great speed using no fuel and you kick your self away to Mars (or its Moons), where you arrive after two days.
At Mars you use the Mars Moons to kick your speed down to almost 0 again, so you can land on a Mars Moon. You must have enough fuel to land and to get off a Mars Moon, but then you can kick yourself back to Earth using  gravity assist kicks ! Gravity assist kicks provide free energy, you know!

But maybe the high g-forces applied at every kick will kill you?

The highest the g-force could ever be will be the acceleration due to gravity at surface of the body you are getting the assist from. This is because you are using that gravitational pull from that body in question, there is no other acceleration present.

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 03:49:14 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 05, 2015, 01:17:38 AM

Who did you say had peer reviewed your beliefs?

http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm

So your paper on structural progressive collapse was reviewed and rejected.  Hardly a ringing endorsement for your space conspiracy theories. 

No, my paper was peer reviewed and approved and I was invited to present it at EMI2013. Then DHS, FBI, CIA and NSA got involved and the poor Americans having peer reviewed and approved my paper were all arrested, tortured, jailed, executed and given a hard time. I evidently stayed away from the GWB inspired bloodshed, etc. I can't stand this type of friendly discussions. Media evidently didn't report it. 

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 12:03:32 AM

Here is a possible Challenge solution to go Mars (or its Moon) and back using gravity assist kicks !

You send your Mars spacecraft to the Earth Moon for the first kick and direction change back to Earth - speed increases! The second kick is with Earth with a direction change back to the Moon. After a few kicks between Moon/Earth your space ship has reached a very great speed using no fuel and you kick your self away to Mars (or its Moons), where you arrive after two days.
At Mars you use the Mars Moons to kick your speed down to almost 0 again, so you can land on a Mars Moon. You must have enough fuel to land and to get off a Mars Moon, but then you can kick yourself back to Earth using  gravity assist kicks ! Gravity assist kicks provide free energy, you know!

But maybe the high g-forces applied at every kick will kill you?

The highest the g-force could ever be will be the acceleration due to gravity at surface of the body you are getting the assist from. This is because you are using that gravitational pull from that body in question, there is no other acceleration present.

You do not understand astrophysics. At a 180° gravity assist kick swing by around a very solid, great, high density mass body of say 1 m diameter in space, the spacecraft is subject to 10 000 g forces, that will rip it apart into atoms. Pls do the calculations yourself.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 05, 2015, 05:53:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 12:03:32 AM

Here is a possible Challenge solution to go Mars (or its Moon) and back using gravity assist kicks !

You send your Mars spacecraft to the Earth Moon for the first kick and direction change back to Earth - speed increases! The second kick is with Earth with a direction change back to the Moon. After a few kicks between Moon/Earth your space ship has reached a very great speed using no fuel and you kick your self away to Mars (or its Moons), where you arrive after two days.
At Mars you use the Mars Moons to kick your speed down to almost 0 again, so you can land on a Mars Moon. You must have enough fuel to land and to get off a Mars Moon, but then you can kick yourself back to Earth using  gravity assist kicks ! Gravity assist kicks provide free energy, you know!

But maybe the high g-forces applied at every kick will kill you?

The highest the g-force could ever be will be the acceleration due to gravity at surface of the body you are getting the assist from. This is because you are using that gravitational pull from that body in question, there is no other acceleration present.

You do not understand astrophysics. At a 180° gravity assist kick swing by around a very solid, great, high density mass body of say 1 m diameter in space, the spacecraft is subject to 10 000 g forces, that will rip it apart into atoms. Pls do the calculations yourself.

There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen.  It's impossible, I know that.  NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.

Quote from: markjo on January 05, 2015, 05:28:10 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 03:49:14 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 05, 2015, 01:17:38 AM

Who did you say had peer reviewed your beliefs?

http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm

So your paper on structural progressive collapse was reviewed and rejected.  Hardly a ringing endorsement for your space conspiracy theories. 

No, my paper was peer reviewed and approved and I was invited to present it at EMI2013. Then DHS, FBI, CIA and NSA got involved and the poor Americans having peer reviewed and approved my paper were all arrested, tortured, jailed, executed and given a hard time. I evidently stayed away from the GWB inspired bloodshed, etc. I can't stand this type of friendly discussions. Media evidently didn't report it.

From your own (popular?) web site:

Mr. Bjorkman:
We regret to inform you that, after further technical evaluation, the EMI 2013 conference organization found your abstract not meeting the standards of the conference. Hence, we withdraw acceptance of your abstract which will not be featured in the conference program and book of abstracts. We apologize for this very late notice due to an oversight on our side and we will process full reimbursement of your registration.

In addition, we would like to clarify that the EMI 2013 conference organization does not support and does not endorse any of the opinions you express in your website http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm . Hence, please, refrain yourself from using the EMI 2013 logo which is copyrighted material from our EMI 2013 conference website.

Finally, it is important to point out that, contrarily to what is stated in your website, the EMI 2013 conference organization

(1) did not peer review any full paper containing the material discussed in the aforementioned website (the EMI 2013 conference does not feature full-paper proceedings) ;

(2) your abstract was not submitted upon our invitation but rather it was one of the several hundreds of unsolicited submissions we received.

Gianluca Cusatis

EMI 2013 Conference Chair

BTW, I notice that you are still using EMI's copyrighted material after they expressly told you not to use it.  How does it feel to be a criminal?

There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen.  It's impossible, I know that.  NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.

ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done.  What else do you want me to do?

BTW, I notice that you are still using EMI's copyrighted material after they expressly told you not to use it.  How does it feel to be a criminal?

Thanks for visiting my EMI2013 website. I evidently use the EMI's copyrighted material there, as I was invited by EMI to present my paper after it had been peer reviewed by EMI. The poor EMI people have on the other hand been badly treated by DHS & Co afterward and you should really worry about them. Imagine being tortured for having invited me to EMI 2013.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 07:30:32 AM

There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen.  It's impossible, I know that.  NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.

ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done.  What else do you want me to do?

maybe go stick your head in the sand a bit further, maybe stop making up stuff.  maybe check out your own popular web site and cop the crap that cum's with it. MERRY XMAS .

Quote from: markjo on January 05, 2015, 07:32:37 AM

BTW, I notice that you are still using EMI's copyrighted material after they expressly told you not to use it.  How does it feel to be a criminal?

Thanks for visiting my EMI2013 website. I evidently use the EMI's copyrighted material there, as I was invited by EMI to present my paper after it had been peer reviewed by EMI. The poor EMI people have on the other hand been badly treated by DHS & Co afterward and you should really worry about them. Imagine being tortured for having invited me to EMI 2013.

Rather than derailing this thread any further, why don't we move this discussion to this thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62539.0#.VKq4RdLF9hA

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 07:49:42 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 07:30:32 AM

There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen.  It's impossible, I know that.  NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.

ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done.  What else do you want me to do?

maybe go stick your head in the sand a bit further, maybe stop making up stuff.  maybe check out your own popular web site and cop the crap that cum's with it. MERRY XMAS .

XMAS is in 12 months time! Thanks for your intelligent contribution to this thread. Pls try to spell correctly.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 07:30:32 AM

There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen.  It's impossible, I know that.  NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.

ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done.  What else do you want me to do?

I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 07:49:42 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 07:30:32 AM

There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen.  It's impossible, I know that.  NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.

ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done.  What else do you want me to do?

I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.

I link to that rubbish on my website since long. Imagine a Rosetta Mars gravity assist kick at 230 km altitude over the north part of Mars at a relative speed 10 000 m/s - Mars being that much faster - reducing the speed of Rosetta and kicking Rosetta outwards from the Sun but still towards Earth. Hilarious nonsense. Typical Wikipedia propaganda, lies and copy/paste shit.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 08:33:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 07:49:42 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 07:30:32 AM

There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen.  It's impossible, I know that.  NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.

ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done.  What else do you want me to do?

I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.

I link to that rubbish on my website since long. Imagine a Rosetta Mars gravity assist kick at 230 km altitude over the north part of Mars at a relative speed 10 000 m/s - Mars being that much faster - reducing the speed of Rosetta and kicking Rosetta outwards from the Sun but still towards Earth. Hilarious nonsense. Typical Wikipedia propaganda, lies and copy/paste shit.

Are you saying there is no possible parabolic course in 3 dimensions that could send an object over the northern part of Mars and towards the sun while still tracking to intercept the Earth's gravitational influence?

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 10:27:38 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 08:33:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 07:49:42 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 07:30:32 AM

There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen.  It's impossible, I know that.  NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.

ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done.  What else do you want me to do?

I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.

I link to that rubbish on my website since long. Imagine a Rosetta Mars gravity assist kick at 230 km altitude over the north part of Mars at a relative speed 10 000 m/s - Mars being that much faster - reducing the speed of Rosetta and kicking Rosetta outwards from the Sun but still towards Earth. Hilarious nonsense. Typical Wikipedia propaganda, lies and copy/paste shit.

Are you saying there is no possible parabolic course in 3 dimensions that could send an object over the northern part of Mars and towards the sun while still tracking to intercept the Earth's gravitational influence?

Yes, something like it. If Rosetta was approaching Mars like suggested, it would have crashed. But Rosetta is 100% fantasy - like all spacecrafts having landed on or orbiting Mars. You cannot land on Mars - you can only crash on Mars if you manage to aim right.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 05, 2015, 10:40:36 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 10:27:38 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 08:33:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 07:49:42 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 07:30:32 AM

There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen.  It's impossible, I know that.  NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.

ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done.  What else do you want me to do?

I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.

I link to that rubbish on my website since long. Imagine a Rosetta Mars gravity assist kick at 230 km altitude over the north part of Mars at a relative speed 10 000 m/s - Mars being that much faster - reducing the speed of Rosetta and kicking Rosetta outwards from the Sun but still towards Earth. Hilarious nonsense. Typical Wikipedia propaganda, lies and copy/paste shit.

Are you saying there is no possible parabolic course in 3 dimensions that could send an object over the northern part of Mars and towards the sun while still tracking to intercept the Earth's gravitational influence?

Yes, something like it. If Rosetta was approaching Mars like suggested, it would have crashed. But Rosetta is 100% fantasy - like all spacecrafts having landed on or orbiting Mars. You cannot land on Mars - you can only crash on Mars if you manage to aim right.

What are planets in FET anyway?  Are they just small boulders that orbit the sun for no reason?  Why don't they fall out of the sky?

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 10:47:43 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 05, 2015, 10:40:36 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 10:27:38 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 08:33:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 07:49:42 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 07:30:32 AM

There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen.  It's impossible, I know that.  NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.

ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done.  What else do you want me to do?

I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.

I link to that rubbish on my website since long. Imagine a Rosetta Mars gravity assist kick at 230 km altitude over the north part of Mars at a relative speed 10 000 m/s - Mars being that much faster - reducing the speed of Rosetta and kicking Rosetta outwards from the Sun but still towards Earth. Hilarious nonsense. Typical Wikipedia propaganda, lies and copy/paste shit.

Are you saying there is no possible parabolic course in 3 dimensions that could send an object over the northern part of Mars and towards the sun while still tracking to intercept the Earth's gravitational influence?

Yes, something like it. If Rosetta was approaching Mars like suggested, it would have crashed. But Rosetta is 100% fantasy - like all spacecrafts having landed on or orbiting Mars. You cannot land on Mars - you can only crash on Mars if you manage to aim right.

What are planets in FET anyway?  Are they just small boulders that orbit the sun for no reason?  Why don't they fall out of the sky?

They're trapped in the aetheric winds. Sometimes I don't know why round earthers bother asking questions. I am a round earther just saying that because the shit answers. Like what do you expect a logical answer?

Edit: sorry mikeman I often get in a bad mood in this site 

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 10:47:43 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 05, 2015, 10:40:36 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 10:27:38 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 08:33:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 05, 2015, 07:49:42 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 07:30:32 AM

There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen.  It's impossible, I know that.  NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.

ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done.  What else do you want me to do?

I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.

I link to that rubbish on my website since long. Imagine a Rosetta Mars gravity assist kick at 230 km altitude over the north part of Mars at a relative speed 10 000 m/s - Mars being that much faster - reducing the speed of Rosetta and kicking Rosetta outwards from the Sun but still towards Earth. Hilarious nonsense. Typical Wikipedia propaganda, lies and copy/paste shit.

Are you saying there is no possible parabolic course in 3 dimensions that could send an object over the northern part of Mars and towards the sun while still tracking to intercept the Earth's gravitational influence?

Yes, something like it. If Rosetta was approaching Mars like suggested, it would have crashed. But Rosetta is 100% fantasy - like all spacecrafts having landed on or orbiting Mars. You cannot land on Mars - you can only crash on Mars if you manage to aim right.

What are planets in FET anyway?  Are they just small boulders that orbit the sun for no reason?  Why don't they fall out of the sky?

Here is what will blow your mind, he's not a flat earther. He's just an idiot. For reasons he won't explain even though the planet is round and gravity real to him and everything works just like science says it works. He doesn't think that we can go to space.

Was this an April fools joke?: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/01/esa_reveals_new_rosetta_snaps_of_mars_and_earth/



Why wait x number of years before releasing these photos?

Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?

Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?

Maybe. Or maybe it is all a joke.

Quote from: sokarul on April 01, 2015, 02:15:32 PM

Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?

Maybe. Or maybe it is all a joke.

Didn't look fake. I would of expected pictures of aliens or fairies. Just because it's April 1st, that doesn't mean everything is fake.

Quote from: legion on April 01, 2015, 02:16:58 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 01, 2015, 02:15:32 PM

Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?

Maybe. Or maybe it is all a joke.

Didn't look fake. I would of expected pictures of aliens or fairies. Just because it's April 1st, that doesn't mean everything is fake.

So, the timing was coincidental?

Quote from: sokarul on April 01, 2015, 02:23:48 PM

Quote from: legion on April 01, 2015, 02:16:58 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 01, 2015, 02:15:32 PM

Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?

Maybe. Or maybe it is all a joke.

Didn't look fake. I would of expected pictures of aliens or fairies. Just because it's April 1st, that doesn't mean everything is fake.

So, the timing was coincidental?

Yes

Quote from: legion on April 01, 2015, 02:42:21 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 01, 2015, 02:23:48 PM

Quote from: legion on April 01, 2015, 02:16:58 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 01, 2015, 02:15:32 PM

Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?

Maybe. Or maybe it is all a joke.

Didn't look fake. I would of expected pictures of aliens or fairies. Just because it's April 1st, that doesn't mean everything is fake.

So, the timing was coincidental?

Yes

How do you know that?

Because.

Quote from: sokarul on April 01, 2015, 02:23:48 PM

Quote from: legion on April 01, 2015, 02:16:58 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 01, 2015, 02:15:32 PM

Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?

Maybe. Or maybe it is all a joke.

Didn't look fake. I would of expected pictures of aliens or fairies. Just because it's April 1st, that doesn't mean everything is fake.

So, the timing was coincidental?

Coincidental with what? Why is ESA releasing data on 27 March 2015 significant? That seems to be the release date of many, if not all, of the images in the archive.

http://imagearchives.esac.esa.int/picture.php?/4743/category/51

The Register posted an article about the ESA image data dump on 1 Apr. They do write in a humorous style and often focus on funny or silly situations; it's likely they do have an April Fool's joke article today, but I don't see this one being it. The images they are writing about appear to have been released late last week.