I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

Quote from: Antonio on April 15, 2016, 12:25:56 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 15, 2016, 12:04:00 AM

Quote from: Antonio on April 14, 2016, 11:50:28 PM

Fine.Please give the name, adress and phone number of your council. I'll phone him directly.

I don't think she wants to talk to you. Any questions, etc, must be posed to me. My full style is at my web page.

You are not a lawyer and your opinion is irrelevant here.
Please identify your council as you have involved her yourself. She will be phoned by myself this morning. Are you afraid of a single and innocent phone call asking for legal clarifications?

My opinion is very relevant here. I don't want my council being phoned by sick, crazy, stupid crackbrained persons, etc. It is better I handle those twirps in my normal, curtly manner.

You don't need to publish it here. Send me a PM.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 14, 2016, 10:32:50 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 14, 2016, 10:00:41 PM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 14, 2016, 08:04:46 PM

We've already outlined repeatedly the reasons that reentry is not impossible, that manned space travel is not a hoax, and that you are not qualified to judge this challenge.

You haven't. You are just obsessed. Reason is you have not won my Challenge.

I've told you before, you need to make a legally binding document that explicitly states the requirements of the challenge and the manner in which the award will be paid.  Do so, and then I might try your challenge.  It won't be too difficult for me.

According my legal council the webpage http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm is legally binding so you are kindly invited to prepare your application. The award will be paid by bank transfer. Any legal disputes will be handled by Tribunal de Grande Instance, Nice, France, evidently in the language of Voltaire & Co. Do you know Voltaire?
How do you intend to do your trip? Filling up in EPO before you blast off to the Moon? And how to land on the Moon? Staying in orbit using a little landing module? And how to get back? Do you have enough fuel? How do you arrive at the upper atmosphere at the right location, direction and time? What is your arrival speed up there? 12345 m/s? Isn't it very, very fast? Anyway, good luck!
Personally I see no reason whatsoever for humans in space. What's wrong with a solid robot? BTW - have your spaceship a WC? How does it work?

Your legal council is wrong.  What you have is not binding and would be legally defined as a wager. If it was legally binding you would have already be legally obligated to pay since you stated in the conditions:

" First to calculate using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (or energy) required to complete a manned Moon and/or planet Mars return trip from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars by external combustion chambers."

These basic principles are what are taught and used in real world applications successfully. How do you think they know how much fuel is needed to place satellites into orbits they need to be in?

I would suggest you get another lawyer since yours seems to have little understanding of the law. 

For your challenge to be legally binding you would need to enter a contract with the applicant.  In that contract you would be hiring the person to plan a lunar landing and return.  It should state if the person fails they will not receive payment.

My guess you will not do this since the person will have legal recourse when you judge they have failed.  The same reason I am guessing you are the sole judge.  If you allowed one or more third party unbiased arbitrators with engineering/physics backgrounds they would likely rule the person succeeded.  Since as I pointed about above basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel say it is possible.

As far as I've been able to tell, the only part of space travel Heiwa objects to is re-entry, because he's conceded that he believes unmanned space travel is possible: that is, we can get something up there and navigate once it is. The problem's getting a human back down.
Everything else he asks for seems to be a meaningless smokescreen, especially given is sheer lack of understanding of anything.

Your legal council is wrong.  What you have is not binding and would be legally defined as a wager. If it was legally binding you would have already be legally obligated to pay since you stated in the conditions:

" First to calculate using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (or energy) required to complete a manned Moon and/or planet Mars return trip from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars by external combustion chambers."

These basic principles are what are taught and used in real world applications successfully. How do you think they know how much fuel is needed to place satellites into orbits they need to be in?

I would suggest you get another lawyer since yours seems to have little understanding of the law. 

For your challenge to be legally binding you would need to enter a contract with the applicant.  In that contract you would be hiring the person to plan a lunar landing and return.  It should state if the person fails they will not receive payment.

My guess you will not do this since the person will have legal recourse when you judge they have failed.  The same reason I am guessing you are the sole judge.  If you allowed one or more third party unbiased arbitrators with engineering/physics backgrounds they would likely rule the person succeeded.  Since as I pointed about above basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel say it is possible.

My Challenge 2 (topic -  started 9/12 is not won by anybody 4/16) is not a wager. So you are wrong. The Challenge is free of charge, has nothing to do with chance or betting and is open to anyone regardless of sex, race, nationality, criminal records, military careers, etc, etc. It is in fact very democratic. You must only show that you are clever ... and apply. Most people like you aren't but suffer from cognitive dissonance, etc, etc.

Placing satellites in space is easy. My Arianespace company does it all the time as described on my website paying me nice dividends for it. But humans?

No way.

Humans have nothing to do in space and cannot return from space, if sent there. Only cosmo-clowns have been in space. I describe plenty of them at my web site. Enjoy it. It is fun! They have prostituted themselves to live in luxury doing nothing but ... prostituting themselves.

Sad! 

Quote from: Woody on April 15, 2016, 03:49:14 AM

Your legal council is wrong.  What you have is not binding and would be legally defined as a wager. If it was legally binding you would have already be legally obligated to pay since you stated in the conditions:

" First to calculate using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (or energy) required to complete a manned Moon and/or planet Mars return trip from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars by external combustion chambers."

These basic principles are what are taught and used in real world applications successfully. How do you think they know how much fuel is needed to place satellites into orbits they need to be in?

I would suggest you get another lawyer since yours seems to have little understanding of the law. 

For your challenge to be legally binding you would need to enter a contract with the applicant.  In that contract you would be hiring the person to plan a lunar landing and return.  It should state if the person fails they will not receive payment.

My guess you will not do this since the person will have legal recourse when you judge they have failed.  The same reason I am guessing you are the sole judge.  If you allowed one or more third party unbiased arbitrators with engineering/physics backgrounds they would likely rule the person succeeded.  Since as I pointed about above basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel say it is possible.

My Challenge 2 (topic -  started 9/12 is not won by anybody 4/16) is not a wager. So you are wrong. The Challenge is free of charge, has nothing to do with chance or betting and is open to anyone regardless of sex, race, nationality, criminal records, military careers, etc, etc. It is in fact very democratic. You must only show that you are clever ... and apply. Most people like you aren't but suffer from cognitive dissonance, etc, etc.

Placing satellites in space is easy. My Arianespace company does it all the time as described on my website paying me nice dividends for it. But humans?

No way.

Humans have nothing to do in space and cannot return from space, if sent there. Only cosmo-clowns have been in space. I describe plenty of them at my web site. Enjoy it. It is fun! They have prostituted themselves to live in luxury doing nothing but ... prostituting themselves.

Sad!

It is not possible to win as you will not accept any evidence provided.  Please propose a second judge.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 14, 2016, 10:32:50 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 14, 2016, 10:00:41 PM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 14, 2016, 08:04:46 PM

We've already outlined repeatedly the reasons that reentry is not impossible, that manned space travel is not a hoax, and that you are not qualified to judge this challenge.

You haven't. You are just obsessed. Reason is you have not won my Challenge.

I've told you before, you need to make a legally binding document that explicitly states the requirements of the challenge and the manner in which the award will be paid.  Do so, and then I might try your challenge.  It won't be too difficult for me.

According my legal council the webpage http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm is legally binding so you are kindly invited to prepare your application. The award will be paid by bank transfer. Any legal disputes will be handled by Tribunal de Grande Instance, Nice, France, evidently in the

I don't believe that you have talked to any legal council regarding this.  And I don't believe you even have the money.  Regarding the first, you have said multiple times here that the challenge is not winnable (mainly because you are the sole judge and you don't understand the concepts) which would indicate it is not a real challenge.  But you do NOT state it is not a real challenge on your site.  Any real legal council aware of your hypocrisy would know that it constitutes fraud on your part and would at the very least recommend you reconcile the contradiction.  Regarding the second, you have REPEATEDLY avoided proving you even have the money and any reasonable person would have to conclude it is because you do NOT have it.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 14, 2016, 11:32:11 PM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 14, 2016, 10:32:50 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 14, 2016, 10:00:41 PM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 14, 2016, 08:04:46 PM

We've already outlined repeatedly the reasons that reentry is not impossible, that manned space travel is not a hoax, and that you are not qualified to judge this challenge.

You haven't. You are just obsessed. Reason is you have not won my Challenge.

I've told you before, you need to make a legally binding document that explicitly states the requirements of the challenge and the manner in which the award will be paid.  Do so, and then I might try your challenge.  It won't be too difficult for me.

According my legal council the webpage http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm is legally binding so you are kindly invited to prepare your application. The award will be paid by bank transfer. Any legal disputes will be handled by Tribunal de Grande Instance, Nice, France, evidently in the

I don't believe that you have talked to any legal council regarding this.  And I don't believe you even have the money.  Regarding the first, you have said multiple times here that the challenge is not winnable (mainly because you are the sole judge and you don't understand the concepts) which would indicate it is not a real challenge.  But you do NOT state it is not a real challenge on your site.  Any real legal council aware of your hypocrisy would know that it constitutes fraud on your part and would at the very least recommend you reconcile the contradiction.  Regarding the second, you have REPEATEDLY avoided proving you even have the money and any reasonable person would have to conclude it is because you do NOT have it.

You can believe what you want ... tooth fairy, father Christmas, JC, A, M, etc. Fact remains that my popular Challenges exist since many years and nobody has won any of them so that the prize money remains with me. So I can collect the dividends and have a good time.
The first Challenge was  to show that the famous Bjφrkman axiom is wrong. CIA, FBI, NSA, ABC, NYT, CBS, NAXA, EXA, CNN, etc didn't dare to mention it and all US universities failed it miserably.
The second Challenge (topic) was to calculate the fuel/energy required to send humans into space and back. NASA failed it.
It isn't my fault that all these experts of all kind cannot win my Challenges. Nobody is perfect.

and AGAIN you avoid proving you have the money.  He's just a pathological liar everyone.  He is only doing this for the attention.  He's never going to prove he has the money because he doesn't have it.

Quote from: Woody on April 15, 2016, 03:49:14 AM

Your legal council is wrong.  What you have is not binding and would be legally defined as a wager. If it was legally binding you would have already be legally obligated to pay since you stated in the conditions:

" First to calculate using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (or energy) required to complete a manned Moon and/or planet Mars return trip from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars by external combustion chambers."

These basic principles are what are taught and used in real world applications successfully. How do you think they know how much fuel is needed to place satellites into orbits they need to be in?

I would suggest you get another lawyer since yours seems to have little understanding of the law. 

For your challenge to be legally binding you would need to enter a contract with the applicant.  In that contract you would be hiring the person to plan a lunar landing and return.  It should state if the person fails they will not receive payment.

My guess you will not do this since the person will have legal recourse when you judge they have failed.  The same reason I am guessing you are the sole judge.  If you allowed one or more third party unbiased arbitrators with engineering/physics backgrounds they would likely rule the person succeeded.  Since as I pointed about above basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel say it is possible.

My Challenge 2 (topic -  started 9/12 is not won by anybody 4/16) is not a wager. So you are wrong. The Challenge is free of charge, has nothing to do with chance or betting and is open to anyone regardless of sex, race, nationality, criminal records, military careers, etc, etc. It is in fact very democratic. You must only show that you are clever ... and apply. Most people like you aren't but suffer from cognitive dissonance, etc, etc.

Placing satellites in space is easy. My Arianespace company does it all the time as described on my website paying me nice dividends for it. But humans?

No way.

Humans have nothing to do in space and cannot return from space, if sent there. Only cosmo-clowns have been in space. I describe plenty of them at my web site. Enjoy it. It is fun! They have prostituted themselves to live in luxury doing nothing but ... prostituting themselves.

Sad!

First do you not recognize the contradictions?  Unless you changed what is stated on your website you say it is impossible to navigate in space, the current accepted formulas used to make calculations for delta-v or wrong.  If that is true then manned or unmanned space travel can not be accomplished since people involved can not calculate propellant requirements properly and can not get something like a satellite into the proper orbit and then maintain that orbit.

If satellites can be put into orbit around the Earth something can be put into an orbit that will encounter the moon. 

Legally your challenge is a wager and not a binding contract.  If you want an example just take a look at the court ruling for Hampden v. Wallace.  A challenge and prize money was offered.  The court ruled it was a wager.  You can find other examples.

So I would suggest you get another lawyer since yours seems to at least not understand the law when it comes to what legally considered a binding contract.

For it to be legally binding you need to do something like hire the person as a contractor offering the money as compensation for successfully meeting the conditions of the contract.

Right now if a person feels they successfully met your conditions they have no legal recourse.  As I said it is likely the same reason you are the only judge.  If you  allow a unbiased arbitrator with a background in engineering or physics to judge you would no longer be able to say no one can win your challenge.  If you make your challenge legally binding you would be allowing the possibility of having a third parties to be judges.

Are you going to ignore my previous post like you have the others when I asked similar questions?  You seem to like to avoid answering stuff like that.  If you are making the claim it is impossible you should be able to demonstrate why what is being taught in schools and applied by people in real world applications is wrong.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 15, 2016, 04:41:35 AM

Quote from: Woody on April 15, 2016, 03:49:14 AM

Your legal council is wrong.  What you have is not binding and would be legally defined as a wager. If it was legally binding you would have already be legally obligated to pay since you stated in the conditions:

" First to calculate using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (or energy) required to complete a manned Moon and/or planet Mars return trip from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars by external combustion chambers."

These basic principles are what are taught and used in real world applications successfully. How do you think they know how much fuel is needed to place satellites into orbits they need to be in?

I would suggest you get another lawyer since yours seems to have little understanding of the law. 

For your challenge to be legally binding you would need to enter a contract with the applicant.  In that contract you would be hiring the person to plan a lunar landing and return.  It should state if the person fails they will not receive payment.

My guess you will not do this since the person will have legal recourse when you judge they have failed.  The same reason I am guessing you are the sole judge.  If you allowed one or more third party unbiased arbitrators with engineering/physics backgrounds they would likely rule the person succeeded.  Since as I pointed about above basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel say it is possible.

My Challenge 2 (topic -  started 9/12 is not won by anybody 4/16) is not a wager. So you are wrong. The Challenge is free of charge, has nothing to do with chance or betting and is open to anyone regardless of sex, race, nationality, criminal records, military careers, etc, etc. It is in fact very democratic. You must only show that you are clever ... and apply. Most people like you aren't but suffer from cognitive dissonance, etc, etc.

Placing satellites in space is easy. My Arianespace company does it all the time as described on my website paying me nice dividends for it. But humans?

No way.

Humans have nothing to do in space and cannot return from space, if sent there. Only cosmo-clowns have been in space. I describe plenty of them at my web site. Enjoy it. It is fun! They have prostituted themselves to live in luxury doing nothing but ... prostituting themselves.

Sad!

First do you not recognize the contradictions?  Unless you changed what is stated on your website you say it is impossible to navigate in space, the current accepted formulas used to make calculations for delta-v or wrong.  If that is true then manned or unmanned space travel can not be accomplished since people involved can not calculate propellant requirements properly and can not get something like a satellite into the proper orbit and then maintain that orbit.

If satellites can be put into orbit around the Earth something can be put into an orbit that will encounter the moon. 

Legally your challenge is a wager and not a binding contract.  If you want an example just take a look at the court ruling for Hampden v. Wallace.  A challenge and prize money was offered.  The court ruled it was a wager.  You can find other examples.

So I would suggest you get another lawyer since yours seems to at least not understand the law when it comes to what legally considered a binding contract.

For it to be legally binding you need to do something like hire the person as a contractor offering the money as compensation for successfully meeting the conditions of the contract.

Right now if a person feels they successfully met your conditions they have no legal recourse.  As I said it is likely the same reason you are the only judge.  If you  allow a unbiased arbitrator with a background in engineering or physics to judge you would no longer be able to say no one can win your challenge.  If you make your challenge legally binding you would be allowing the possibility of having a third parties to be judges.

Are you going to ignore my previous post like you have the others when I asked similar questions?  You seem to like to avoid answering stuff like that.  If you are making the claim it is impossible you should be able to demonstrate why what is being taught in schools and applied by people in real world applications is wrong.

There are no contradictions. It is difficult to navigate in space as you cannot calulate and predict your trajectories due to not solving the n-body problem. Delta-v works fine but you must apply the force in exactly the right direction in 3D space for change in speed and you still cannot predict the trajectory. You cannot reach your target. And the gravity kicks/swing byes using moving planets to assist space travel are a hoax.

Arianespace puts satellites in orbits around Earth but does not send satellites to the Moon for obvious reasons.

My popular Challenge is no wager. If somebody wins my Challenge, I pay the award. US legal cases are not applicable in France. BTW I am (in absentia) sentenced by death in the USA. It is not funny having a death sentence, I can assure you. It is not a joke. I describe it at my web site.

All technical questions about human space travel are in fact answered at my web site. It is very popular. If there are any errors, the visitors are encouraged to point them out and I will correct. No big deal.

Why do you want to travel in space? It is nothing there for humans to explore.

BTW I am (in absentia) sentenced by death in the USA. It is not funny having a death sentence, I can assure you. It is not a joke. I describe it at my web site.

Is this in reference AGAIN to your misunderstanding of the laws regarding nuclear weapons?  AGAIN, you do NOT have any classified info, you have NOT revealed any classified info and you are NOT sentenced to death.  Just talking about them being fake is NOT against the law.  Quit lying.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 15, 2016, 07:21:22 AM

BTW I am (in absentia) sentenced by death in the USA. It is not funny having a death sentence, I can assure you. It is not a joke. I describe it at my web site.

Is this in reference AGAIN to your misunderstanding of the laws regarding nuclear weapons?  AGAIN, you do NOT have any classified info, you have NOT revealed any classified info and you are NOT sentenced to death.  Just talking about them being fake is NOT against the law.  Quit lying.

The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946 is crystal clear - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA . All nuclear weapons-related information is considered classified and cannot be revealed. If you do it, like me, showing it is all a fraud, you are punished by death.
I can understand that my friend Nobel Prize winner M. Siegbahn didnt' want to get involved 1945 when asked to build a Swedish a-bomb and I feel sorry for my friend WM that assisted Stalin to build a fake communist a-bomb and got arrested and tortured for it in the 1950's. As WM told me: It was tough times.

Anyway - only twirps work with nuclear weapons and related info and media and politicians don't dare to criticize. It is a big biz. The nuke biz.

BTW - you are miles off topic!
 

There are no contradictions. It is difficult to navigate in space as you cannot calculate and predict your trajectories due to not solving the n-body problem. Delta-v works fine but you must apply the force in exactly the right direction in 3D space for change in speed and you still cannot predict the trajectory. You cannot reach your target. And the gravity kicks/swing byes using moving planets to assist space travel are a hoax.

Arianespace puts satellites in orbits around Earth but does not send satellites to the Moon for obvious reasons.

My popular Challenge is no wager. If somebody wins my Challenge, I pay the award. US legal cases are not applicable in France. BTW I am (in absentia) sentenced by death in the USA. It is not funny having a death sentence, I can assure you. It is not a joke. I describe it at my web site.

All technical questions about human space travel are in fact answered at my web site. It is very popular. If there are any errors, the visitors are encouraged to point them out and I will correct. No big deal.

Why do you want to travel in space? It is nothing there for humans to explore.

I'm pretty sure I can calculate the trajectories, and I have been this morning, using STK and GMAT.  It's pretty simple with dedicated propagators. 

I'm not sure why you think gravitational slingshots are a hoax.  The math is solid. 

I'm also not sure where you're getting that Arianespace does not send satellites to the moon.  Back in 2003 they launched the SMART-1 lunar probe on an Ariane V rocket, which remained in lunar orbit until 2006. 

I don't necessarily want to go to space myself, but I have nothing but admiration and respect for those that do go to space.  They are put through years of intense training and risk their lives to go to space, and they certainly deserve better than to be called cosmo-clowns and the like. 

Quote from: frenat on April 15, 2016, 07:26:22 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 15, 2016, 07:21:22 AM

BTW I am (in absentia) sentenced by death in the USA. It is not funny having a death sentence, I can assure you. It is not a joke. I describe it at my web site.

Is this in reference AGAIN to your misunderstanding of the laws regarding nuclear weapons?  AGAIN, you do NOT have any classified info, you have NOT revealed any classified info and you are NOT sentenced to death.  Just talking about them being fake is NOT against the law.  Quit lying.

The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946 is crystal clear - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA . All nuclear weapons-related information is considered classified and cannot be revealed. If you do it, like me, showing it is all a fraud, you are punished by death.
I can understand that my friend Nobel Prize winner M. Siegbahn didnt' want to get involved 1945 when asked to build a Swedish a-bomb and I feel sorry for my friend WM that assisted Stalin to build a fake communist a-bomb and got arrested and tortured for it in the 1950's. As WM told me: It was tough times.

Anyway - only twirps work with nuclear weapons and related info and media and politicians don't dare to criticize. It is a big biz. The nuke biz.

BTW - you are miles off topic!

and AGAIN as the times before it applies ONLY if you are revealing classified info.  YOU do not have access to classified info and YOU are not sentenced to death. They would have to prove you had access to classified info and were revealing it.  YOU are misinterpreting it likely to get attention.  Quit lying.

As for being off topic, YOU brought it up (again just to get attention) and YOU are not a moderator.

As far as I've been able to tell, the only part of space travel Heiwa objects to is re-entry, because he's conceded that he believes unmanned space travel is possible: that is, we can get something up there and navigate once it is. The problem's getting a human back down.
Everything else he asks for seems to be a meaningless smokescreen, especially given is sheer lack of understanding of anything.

He has admitted that navigation is possible, that you can put something in orbit around the Earth that will intersect the moon, that Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and Newton's laws are correct.

Seems the above is only possible for unmanned vehicles.  If you include a person in the payload physics change an it becomes impossible to do.

I'm not sure why you think gravitational slingshots are a hoax.  The math is solid.
 

The math is not solid. It is a joke. Imagine a spacecraft that approches at 10 000 m/s speed head-on planet Earth in orbit around the Sun (at 30 000 m/s speed in the opposite direction) and is turned 180° around Earth and continues in the other (same as Earth) direction at 70 000 m/s speed.

I describe the nonsense at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . We have discussed it before in this thread. You really have to study the thread before publishing your nonsense.

I'm also not sure where you're getting that Arianespace does not send satellites to the moon.  Back in 2003 they launched the SMART-1 lunar probe on an Ariane V rocket, which remained in lunar orbit until 2006. 

SMART-1 was a European Space Agency, ESA, hoax and they just paid Arianespace to send away the Swedish satellite or whatever that was sent away somewhere in orbit. From there SMART-1 sailed on its own using own power until it arrived at the Moon 13 months later ... and started to orbit the Moon!!! ... until it crashed. All fantasy, of course.

I describe some other ESA hoaxes at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . You really have to study what I publish about all these space hoxes. It is hilarious. Great fun. Nothing to get upset about. Just relax and laugh at the clowns. 

Quote from: Jane on April 15, 2016, 04:03:51 AM

As far as I've been able to tell, the only part of space travel Heiwa objects to is re-entry, because he's conceded that he believes unmanned space travel is possible: that is, we can get something up there and navigate once it is. The problem's getting a human back down.
Everything else he asks for seems to be a meaningless smokescreen, especially given is sheer lack of understanding of anything.

He has admitted that navigation is possible, that you can put something in orbit around the Earth that will intersect the moon, that Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and Newton's laws are correct.

Seems the above is only possible for unmanned vehicles.  If you include a person in the payload physics change an it becomes impossible to do.

Thanks - the Challenge is only about human space travel and/or spacecrafts with humans aboard, e.g. the Apollo and ISS clowns.

These clowns are just paid artists that do it for fame and money. People are queing to become astronots. It started with Yuri Gagarin and Ludmilla Tereskova. Ludmilla was/is really good looking and we all loved her ... but she never went into space. It was just communist propaganda!

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 15, 2016, 07:51:31 AM

I'm not sure why you think gravitational slingshots are a hoax.  The math is solid.
 

The math is not solid. It is a joke. Imagine a spacecraft that approches at 10 000 m/s speed head-on planet Earth in orbit around the Sun (at 30 000 m/s speed in the opposite direction) and is turned 180° around Earth and continues in the other (same as Earth) direction at 70 000 m/s speed.

I describe the nonsense at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . We have discussed it before in this thread. You really have to study the thread before publishing your nonsense.

I remember you now.  I've stumbled across your site before, and I remember being infuriated by it.  Do you realize how stupid it is to replace letters in names with X's?  That's just about the least clever ploy I can think of, and that certainly wasn't the only offense.  You really are an insufferable person. 

Quote from: Woody on April 15, 2016, 08:07:52 AM

Quote from: Jane on April 15, 2016, 04:03:51 AM

As far as I've been able to tell, the only part of space travel Heiwa objects to is re-entry, because he's conceded that he believes unmanned space travel is possible: that is, we can get something up there and navigate once it is. The problem's getting a human back down.
Everything else he asks for seems to be a meaningless smokescreen, especially given is sheer lack of understanding of anything.

He has admitted that navigation is possible, that you can put something in orbit around the Earth that will intersect the moon, that Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and Newton's laws are correct.

Seems the above is only possible for unmanned vehicles.  If you include a person in the payload physics change an it becomes impossible to do.

Thanks - the Challenge is only about human space travel and/or spacecrafts with humans aboard, e.g. the Apollo and ISS clowns.

These clowns are just paid artists that do it for fame and money. People are queing to become astronots. It started with Yuri Gagarin and Ludmilla Tereskova. Ludmilla was/is really good looking and we all loved her ... but she never went into space. It was just communist propaganda!

What is different besides a person being on board and life support being needed?

How can a satellite be put into orbit, but when a person is on board the vehicle can not be put into an orbit?  What changes about estimating burn times, propellant needs and navigation?

If you know you are correct then you must have proof Newton, Kepler, Tsiolkovsky and others are wrong.  Why not reveal the truth to us and show us where we are wrong.

Your website lacks anything beyond you just saying it is impossible and the very limited calculations do not go beyond addition or the only calculations I have seen from you were over simplified.  Leaving out important factors like reduction of mass as propellant is used.  Unlike ships the majority of the mass of a rocket is the propellant and when it is used needs to be taken into account.

Sentenced to death for revealing nuclear secretes?  Really?  When did you have access to classified information that you released?  When did you work for an US contractor that was involved with nuclear power or weapons?

I would get a new lawyer since yours seems to have let you get sentenced to death for not breaking any laws.  Add to the fact they seem not to understand what is considered a legal and enforceable contract you made a poor choice in legal representation.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 15, 2016, 08:13:10 AM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 15, 2016, 07:51:31 AM

I'm not sure why you think gravitational slingshots are a hoax.  The math is solid.
 

The math is not solid. It is a joke. Imagine a spacecraft that approches at 10 000 m/s speed head-on planet Earth in orbit around the Sun (at 30 000 m/s speed in the opposite direction) and is turned 180° around Earth and continues in the other (same as Earth) direction at 70 000 m/s speed.

I describe the nonsense at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . We have discussed it before in this thread. You really have to study the thread before publishing your nonsense.

I remember you now.  I've stumbled across your site before, and I remember being infuriated by it.  Do you realize how stupid it is to replace letters in names with X's?  That's just about the least clever ploy I can think of, and that certainly wasn't the only offense.  You really are an insufferable person.

You remember me now? You have stumbled upon my site http://heiwaco.com . You are 100% right. I am insufferable. I am overproud about it. Being insufferable. That's my style. Replacing letters with X's. I think it is fun. Infuriates twirps all over the world. At least you. Why don't you try to win my Challenge? It is the topic.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 15, 2016, 08:38:30 AM

Quote from: Woody on April 15, 2016, 08:07:52 AM

Quote from: Jane on April 15, 2016, 04:03:51 AM

As far as I've been able to tell, the only part of space travel Heiwa objects to is re-entry, because he's conceded that he believes unmanned space travel is possible: that is, we can get something up there and navigate once it is. The problem's getting a human back down.
Everything else he asks for seems to be a meaningless smokescreen, especially given is sheer lack of understanding of anything.

He has admitted that navigation is possible, that you can put something in orbit around the Earth that will intersect the moon, that Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and Newton's laws are correct.

Seems the above is only possible for unmanned vehicles.  If you include a person in the payload physics change an it becomes impossible to do.

Thanks - the Challenge is only about human space travel and/or spacecrafts with humans aboard, e.g. the Apollo and ISS clowns.

These clowns are just paid artists that do it for fame and money. People are queing to become astronots. It started with Yuri Gagarin and Ludmilla Tereskova. Ludmilla was/is really good looking and we all loved her ... but she never went into space. It was just communist propaganda!

What is different besides a person being on board and life support being needed?

How can a satellite be put into orbit, but when a person is on board the vehicle can not be put into an orbit?  What changes about estimating burn times, propellant needs and navigation?

If you know you are correct then you must have proof Newton, Kepler, Tsiolkovsky and others are wrong.  Why not reveal the truth to us and show us where we are wrong.

Your website lacks anything beyond you just saying it is impossible and the very limited calculations do not go beyond addition or the only calculations I have seen from you were over simplified.  Leaving out important factors like reduction of mass as propellant is used.  Unlike ships the majority of the mass of a rocket is the propellant and when it is used needs to be taken into account.

Sentenced to death for revealing nuclear secretes?  Really?  When did you have access to classified information that you released?  When did you work for an US contractor that was involved with nuclear power or weapons?

I would get a new lawyer since yours seems to have let you get sentenced to death for not breaking any laws.  Add to the fact they seem not to understand what is considered a legal and enforceable contract you made a poor choice in legal representation.

Hm, but Newton, Kepler, Tsiolkovsky and others are right. Humans cannot travel in space. We humans can only travel around down on Earth in the interface ground/water/air. Not up in vacuum space. There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties. There is nothing to explore up there that you cannot explore from down here.

sex is also a problem

I give up.

EDIT: This is now my sig.

Quote from: Woody on April 15, 2016, 10:13:00 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 15, 2016, 08:38:30 AM

Quote from: Woody on April 15, 2016, 08:07:52 AM

Quote from: Jane on April 15, 2016, 04:03:51 AM

As far as I've been able to tell, the only part of space travel Heiwa objects to is re-entry, because he's conceded that he believes unmanned space travel is possible: that is, we can get something up there and navigate once it is. The problem's getting a human back down.
Everything else he asks for seems to be a meaningless smokescreen, especially given is sheer lack of understanding of anything.

He has admitted that navigation is possible, that you can put something in orbit around the Earth that will intersect the moon, that Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and Newton's laws are correct.

Seems the above is only possible for unmanned vehicles.  If you include a person in the payload physics change an it becomes impossible to do.

Thanks - the Challenge is only about human space travel and/or spacecrafts with humans aboard, e.g. the Apollo and ISS clowns.

These clowns are just paid artists that do it for fame and money. People are queing to become astronots. It started with Yuri Gagarin and Ludmilla Tereskova. Ludmilla was/is really good looking and we all loved her ... but she never went into space. It was just communist propaganda!

What is different besides a person being on board and life support being needed?

How can a satellite be put into orbit, but when a person is on board the vehicle can not be put into an orbit?  What changes about estimating burn times, propellant needs and navigation?

If you know you are correct then you must have proof Newton, Kepler, Tsiolkovsky and others are wrong.  Why not reveal the truth to us and show us where we are wrong.

Your website lacks anything beyond you just saying it is impossible and the very limited calculations do not go beyond addition or the only calculations I have seen from you were over simplified.  Leaving out important factors like reduction of mass as propellant is used.  Unlike ships the majority of the mass of a rocket is the propellant and when it is used needs to be taken into account.

Sentenced to death for revealing nuclear secretes?  Really?  When did you have access to classified information that you released?  When did you work for an US contractor that was involved with nuclear power or weapons?

I would get a new lawyer since yours seems to have let you get sentenced to death for not breaking any laws.  Add to the fact they seem not to understand what is considered a legal and enforceable contract you made a poor choice in legal representation.

Hm, but Newton, Kepler, Tsiolkovsky and others are right. Humans cannot travel in space. We humans can only travel around down on Earth in the interface ground/water/air. Not up in vacuum space. There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties. There is nothing to explore up there that you cannot explore from down here.

So satellites can be placed into orbits and put to where they need to be. Put a person in a capsule and the physics change?  It becomes impossible to navigate and make calculations.

Not going to add any calculations?  My guess the reason you fail to offer any is when you do I will be able to show you where you are wrong.

So you still will not show where the calculations I linked are wrong?  Since according to the link Apollo 11 was able to get to the moon and back.  Do you not understand what is on the site?  What is there is based on Newton, Kepler, Tsiolkovsky and the current accepted principles of "basic astrophysics".

As for the nuclear secretes you have why not release them to multiple news agencies, wikileaks, post pictures of the documents everywhere you can.

Since you are already sentenced to death why not?  You really have nothing to lose.  If you go public the US government will be less likely to have you assassinated are carry out your sentence. It would be an admission about you being right.

famous Bjφrkman axiom is wrong. CIA, FBI, NSA, ABC, NYT, CBS, NAXA, EXA, CNN, etc didn't dare to mention it and all US universities failed it miserably.

Famous, really? I doubt those groups have even heard of you.

Anyway, Heiwa's probably his own legal council. He has the feel of one of those sufficiently paranoid people who'd represent themselves in court: and he'd probably argue that he's an expert in the law because he's passable when it comes to safety at sea, which requires knowledge of the laws of physics. About as meaningful a claim as his belief that knowing about safety at sea immediately translates to safety in space.

Free advice, if you're arguing with Heiwa and looking to convince him or beat him in an argument, don't bother. He'll ignore all you say, pop off a few insults, and advertise himself. If you're enjoying poking holes in his claims, have fun, but if you expect any more you're going to be disappointed.

So satellites can be placed into orbits and put to where they need to be. Put a person in a capsule and the physics change?  It becomes impossible to navigate and make calculations.

Yes satellites are no problems in space orbits. But persons, humans, are problems. They need WCs, showers, food, sex, religion, etc. It makes it impossible to navigate and make calculations. Better the humans stay on the ground.

http://www.pbs.org/spacestation/station/living_sanitation.htm

You realize that people can go without sex for, like, their whole lives? Are you telling me nuns and priests don't exist?

http://www.pbs.org/spacestation/station/living_sanitation.htm

You realize that people can go without sex for, like, their whole lives? Are you telling me nuns and priests don't exist?

No, nuns and priests (and the Pope) need, apart from religion, WCs, showers, food, exercise, fresh air, etc. and are not apt for space travel. Only angels travel in space.
Please, try to focus on the topic - my Challenge! Win €1M by being clever!

Quote from: palmerito0 on April 15, 2016, 11:48:32 AM

http://www.pbs.org/spacestation/station/living_sanitation.htm

You realize that people can go without sex for, like, their whole lives? Are you telling me nuns and priests don't exist?

No, nuns and priests (and the Pope) need, apart from religion, WCs, showers, food, exercise, fresh air, etc. and are not apt for space travel. Only angels travel in space.
Please, try to focus on the topic - my Challenge! Win €1M by being clever!

If I am understanding you correctly navigation, getting into an orbit to encounter the moon and calculating the propellant needed is possible.  What is impossible, according to you, is life support and reentry?

If I am understanding you correctly navigation, getting into an orbit to encounter the moon and calculating the propellant needed is possible.  What is impossible, according to you, is life support and reentry?

Damn, I was thinking a few weeks while reading this thread that his next goalpost was to show how humans can survive in space. I was thinking he would pull out some bullshit logic like:
 "the human lungs can hold more than 5 litres of oxygen per breath, and people take about 15 breaths per minute. That's 65 litres of oxygen per 'astronot' per minute. Where is all this oxygen stored?"

Shoulda put some money on it.