It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

Quote from: chtwrone on September 16, 2015, 10:38:35 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2015, 09:44:18 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on September 16, 2015, 09:53:35 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2015, 09:24:46 AM

I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure. 

Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.

I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.

At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.

I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.

 

Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?

I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?

Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS?  Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?

So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast.  But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it?  But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.

It is quite easy to predict and publish the trajectory of any satellite, so when the mysterious object appeared at the given time just after sunset above my terrasse (the sky was clear) it was easy to spot with my own eyes. It looked like a white shining dot. I evidently used binoculars and it was still a white shining dot. Using a telescope with its limited view was more difficult - the object passed from NW to SE in 6 minutes - so it soon got out of view.

Anyway, I have taken several photos of the object and enlarged them and ... always just a white, shining blot. I really do not trust the few photographers that say they have taken photos of the ISS from Earth.

They are as reliable as the photographers that say they took footage of the WTC12 911 top down collapses at NY. According my famous, reliable, scientific analysis and peer reviewed paper (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm ) such collapses are impossible and the photographers are simply cheating (and should be put in jail for supporting terrorism).

What do you think?

What do I think?

I think that your predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories blinkers your thinking, about anything that in your opinion seems to be out of the ordinary.

Obviously, to capture a detailed picture of the ISS is going to require the use of precision equipment (high powered telescope with camera attachment), the likes of which was obviously not at your disposal when you took your pictures (it seems the only equipment you used was a simple digital camera, which is entirely inadequate). If all you could capture was a 'white shining blot' then no amount of enlarging is going to make it look any different - it will still look like a 'white shining blot', but larger.

You then laughably attempt to draw a ridiculous comparison between perceived 'dodgy' pictures taken on 9/11, and photographers taking pictures of the ISS?  Your whole premise is flawed I'm afraid, so it is accordingly treated with the contempt that it deserves.

Quote from: chtwrone on September 16, 2015, 10:38:35 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2015, 09:44:18 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on September 16, 2015, 09:53:35 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2015, 09:24:46 AM

I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure. 

Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.

I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.

At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.

I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.

 

Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?

I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?

Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS?  Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?

So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast.  But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it?  But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.

It is quite easy to predict and publish the trajectory of any satellite, so when the mysterious object appeared at the given time just after sunset above my terrasse (the sky was clear) it was easy to spot with my own eyes. It looked like a white shining dot. I evidently used binoculars and it was still a white shining dot. Using a telescope with its limited view was more difficult - the object passed from NW to SE in 6 minutes - so it soon got out of view.

Try using an autotracking telescope, and using a bright object to get a silluette if your telescope simply has a resolution too low for it. Aparently, it has an angular size of around 40 arcseconds. Use this website http://calgary.rasc.ca/iss_transits.htm and the well known https://www.heavens-above.com/PassSummary.aspx?satid=25544 to get the best time for a transit. IIRC, it can help with calculating moon transits.

Anyway, I have taken several photos of the object and enlarged them and ... always just a white, shining blot.

If you just took a picture of a small dot, you will get no better resolution by making an interpolation (zoom). Get a better telescope, and even you can do it.

I really do not trust the few photographers that say they have taken photos of the ISS from Earth.

Actually, photographing the ISS is a well known amateur astronomer project. The hard thing is not to get a clear picture, but to get a non blurred picture, like the one in the transits website. It just goes so fast.

They are as reliable as the photographers that say they took footage of the WTC12 911 top down collapses at NY.

Keep the 9/11 spam out of the upper fora.

According my famous

Sure

, reliable

Sure

, scientific analysis

Eh...

and peer reviewed paper (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm )

Somehow, the conference you submitted your abstract to disagrees.

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

If your peers say you didnt underwent peer review by them, how can you claim so? Its like saying I received the Nobel Prize for my biology discoveries last week of "how much codeine I need in my body before I actually stop feeling so ill", and when the Nobel Prize comitee claims that's not true, I make a blog, and whine.

such collapses are impossible and the photographers are simply cheating (and should be put in jail for supporting terrorism).

What do you think?

I think you should stop spamming 9/11 crap on a forum about the Flat Earth Hypothesis.

Yup, that seems right. I'd change sine for tan though, as I explained earlier.

I did change that for the final value I gave.

O = 190433 miles/t

While I assume H=100, that's a good border figure. it's far past the RE Karman line, so if that low an altitude is impossible then the ISS being faked definitely is. This is a test to disprove that.
I don't like assuming the shape of the path it takes, which is my problem with how you appear to assume an elliptical path. If your claim is correct and the ISS must be in space, then this formula could be capable of disproving it.
if not, I'll wait until my FE map is complete, and sketch out the path the ISS takes over it: that should give us a rough gauge of O, and we can use t to determine H.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 17, 2015, 12:09:16 AM

Yup, that seems right. I'd change sine for tan though, as I explained earlier.

I did change that for the final value I gave.

O = 190433 miles/t

While I assume H=100, that's a good border figure. it's far past the RE Karman line, so if that low an altitude is impossible then the ISS being faked definitely is. This is a test to disprove that.
I don't like assuming the shape of the path it takes, which is my problem with how you appear to assume an elliptical path. If your claim is correct and the ISS must be in space, then this formula could be capable of disproving it.
if not, I'll wait until my FE map is complete, and sketch out the path the ISS takes over it: that should give us a rough gauge of O, and we can use t to determine H.

While I assume H=100, that's a good border figure. it's far past the RE Karman line, so if that low an altitude is impossible then the ISS being faked definitely is. This is a test to disprove that.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused over what you're trying to say here.

I don't like assuming the shape of the path it takes, which is my problem with how you appear to assume an elliptical path.

Well, as I said earlier we should assume that official orbital mechanics are used and that nor unknown elements are introduced. And according to official orbital mechanics, a stable orbit not changing parent body should be elliptical, and if it doesn't change altitude (or distance to the center of the orbit) too much it will be more or less spherical. In the case of the ISS this means it should be more or less spherical on both round and flat earth.

This picture shows the path of the ISS over land (It changes because of earth's rotation). The ISS spends half of it's orbit north of the equator and the other half south of it. If we assume the azimuthal projection of the earth as the flat earth (as it is the most common one) then the orbit of the ISS would be more or less a circle over it, like the sun's assumed orbit over flat earth. Sure, there could be some weird undiscovered law we don't know of, but that's about as scientific as saying that cucumbers come to life during night when the hosts are asleep and starts partys that we don't know about. We will only care about observed phenomenon and facts, any hypothesis should have basis in some sort of observation before being suggested.

If your claim is correct and the ISS must be in space, then this formula could be capable of disproving it.

Only if we know 2 of the 3 variables. One can be measured, the other 2 can be calculated using my equations. Equations based on assumptions such as an assumed value of a variable when the variable well could be twice or thrice or half the assumed value are not very good at all for scientific testing. And my equations can also disprove my statement that the ISS is on space. Input t and get H. If H is below the Karman line the ISS is not in space.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused over what you're trying to say here.

100 miles is far above the Karman Line: if the ISS is faked by in-atmosphere means, it would more than likely be below that point. If, however, it turns out 100 miles is too low an altitude for a reasonable length orbit, then it follows that a lower altitude is just as impossible.

And according to official orbital mechanics, a stable orbit not changing parent body should be elliptical,

We're not really dealing with an orbit, though. if it's faked then it would just be travelling out a path above a flat surface. 'Orbit' is convenient shorthand, but not strictly accurate.

If we assume the azimuthal projection of the earth as the flat earth (as it is the most common one) then the orbit of the ISS would be more or less a circle over it, like the sun's assumed orbit over flat earth.

In my experience, the azimuthal projection is intended as a filler in lieu of an accurate map. Those that accept it tend to be conspiracy theorists with no reasoning beyond the fact it's the UN logo. I think we can agree that, even if the world is flat, that map is very unlikely: for example, the equator being a concentric circle at exactly halfway seems very unlikely.

Sure, there could be some weird undiscovered law we don't know of, but that's about as scientific as saying that cucumbers come to life during night when the hosts are asleep and starts partys that we don't know about. We will only care about observed phenomenon and facts, any hypothesis should have basis in some sort of observation before being suggested.

I'd add a caveat to this; as we're testing the FE model, we should acknowledge that other laws would necessarily be at play (without which the model will fail). However, I am happy to disregard, for example, light bending enough to give a significantly altered result, simply because there is no reason to assume the effect would be anything but negligible on the scale we're concerned with.

Only if we know 2 of the 3 variables. One can be measured, the other 2 can be calculated using my equations. Equations based on assumptions such as an assumed value of a variable when the variable well could be twice or thrice or half the assumed value are not very good at all for scientific testing. And my equations can also disprove my statement that the ISS is on space. Input t and get H. If H is below the Karman line the ISS is not in space.

This would be accurate if what we were doing was intended to be an accurate description of the ISS: first however we need to determine if it is possible. To do this, assuming a value for H above the Karman line will give us a predicted length for the ISS' orbit once we measure t. This will, at the very least, let us see if the order of magnitude (for example) is even close to what we expect. To prove or disprove, it is not always necessary to have every number: sometimes all you'll need is an approximate field of possibilities for one of the three.
If it turns out this is possible, then the step is to wait for the map to be finished. After all, from this we can draw the path of the ISS: confirm or deny that it's circular, and gain a decent prediction for O.

Quote

Sorry, I'm a bit confused over what you're trying to say here.

100 miles is far above the Karman Line: if the ISS is faked by in-atmosphere means, it would more than likely be below that point. If, however, it turns out 100 miles is too low an altitude for a reasonable length orbit, then it follows that a lower altitude is just as impossible.

Quote

And according to official orbital mechanics, a stable orbit not changing parent body should be elliptical,

We're not really dealing with an orbit, though. if it's faked then it would just be travelling out a path above a flat surface. 'Orbit' is convenient shorthand, but not strictly accurate.

Quote

If we assume the azimuthal projection of the earth as the flat earth (as it is the most common one) then the orbit of the ISS would be more or less a circle over it, like the sun's assumed orbit over flat earth.

In my experience, the azimuthal projection is intended as a filler in lieu of an accurate map. Those that accept it tend to be conspiracy theorists with no reasoning beyond the fact it's the UN logo. I think we can agree that, even if the world is flat, that map is very unlikely: for example, the equator being a concentric circle at exactly halfway seems very unlikely.

Quote

Sure, there could be some weird undiscovered law we don't know of, but that's about as scientific as saying that cucumbers come to life during night when the hosts are asleep and starts partys that we don't know about. We will only care about observed phenomenon and facts, any hypothesis should have basis in some sort of observation before being suggested.

I'd add a caveat to this; as we're testing the FE model, we should acknowledge that other laws would necessarily be at play (without which the model will fail). However, I am happy to disregard, for example, light bending enough to give a significantly altered result, simply because there is no reason to assume the effect would be anything but negligible on the scale we're concerned with.

Quote

Only if we know 2 of the 3 variables. One can be measured, the other 2 can be calculated using my equations. Equations based on assumptions such as an assumed value of a variable when the variable well could be twice or thrice or half the assumed value are not very good at all for scientific testing. And my equations can also disprove my statement that the ISS is on space. Input t and get H. If H is below the Karman line the ISS is not in space.

This would be accurate if what we were doing was intended to be an accurate description of the ISS: first however we need to determine if it is possible. To do this, assuming a value for H above the Karman line will give us a predicted length for the ISS' orbit once we measure t. This will, at the very least, let us see if the order of magnitude (for example) is even close to what we expect. To prove or disprove, it is not always necessary to have every number: sometimes all you'll need is an approximate field of possibilities for one of the three.
If it turns out this is possible, then the step is to wait for the map to be finished. After all, from this we can draw the path of the ISS: confirm or deny that it's circular, and gain a decent prediction for O.

Sure. But I'd still say that the orbit (or path) is more or less circular. I'd use my equations primarily though - my equations don't actually rely on a circular orbit, but any shaped path as long as it doesn't change. Then we can input the H into your equation for confirming.

Well, thanks for all the pseudo-scientific nonsense, cultists.

But you already lost the 'rockets in vacuum' debate, & have still provided no proof whatsoever that the light in the sky we see pootling overhead is a manned space station full of happy-clappy weirdos playing flutes & guitars & doing no science ever.

We'll get back to that light in the sky later, though; for now I have a different, more fundamental question.

As you may recall, with embarrassment, I began this thread by asking if any of you had actually been to 'space', thus giving you unambiguous, empirical, first-hand evidence of what it is like.

&, of course, none of you had.

Now, I would like to inquire as to what this 'space' we are all talking about actually is.

So; where is the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, first mentioned in the English language?

I will tell you; it is in John Milton's epic poem 'Paradise Lost'.

& which character in Paradise Lost first utters this word?

I will tell you; it is Satan.

I quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption...'

Thus; not only is 'space' an undeniably Satanic invention, so is the concept of 'space exploration'.

LOL!!!

John Milton is, himself, an extremely interesting subject, & Paradise Lost is also proto-typical sci-fi propaganda; I will expand on this further at some point, for it is lulzy...

In the meantime, enjoy fantasising about your Satanic 'space-stations' in your Satanic 'space', full of Satanic 'stars', 'planets' & similar Satanic inventions...

Never for a moment think you've all been HAD, though...

Because you don't do 'thinking', do you?

Just Satanically-Inspired Dreaming...

Lol

Pipe dream

Lol

Because you don't do 'thinking', do you?

Running out of irony meters, yet another one has exploded.....

Well, thanks for all the pseudo-scientific nonsense, cultists.

But you already lost the 'rockets in vacuum' debate

We did?

, & have still provided no proof whatsoever that the light in the sky we see pootling overhead is a manned space station full of happy-clappy weirdos playing flutes & guitars & doing no science ever.

We did, but you told us not to give any evidence for the ISS being the ISS. So we ignored you.

We'll get back to that light in the sky later, though; for now I have a different, more fundamental question.

As you may recall, with embarrassment, I began this thread by asking if any of you had actually been to 'space', thus giving you unambiguous, empirical, first-hand evidence of what it is like.

&, of course, none of you had.

Now, I would like to inquire as to what this 'space' we are all talking about actually is.

So; where is the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, first mentioned in the English language?

I will tell you; it is in John Milton's epic poem 'Paradise Lost'.

& which character in Paradise Lost first utters this word?

I will tell you; it is Satan.

I quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption...'

Thus; not only is 'space' an undeniably Satanic invention, so is the concept of 'space exploration'.

LOL!!!

Joke is, in Paradise Lost, Satan is portrayed (somewhat) as the good guy. He is a being that rebels against the tyranny of God, fails, but is nevertheless able to get a democratic society (Pandemonium) working. He's even able to make fun of God by corrupting its creation.

Anyway, it is you who thinks Satan is a real being. Who's the cultist now?

In the meantime, enjoy fantasising about your Satanic 'space-stations' in your Satanic 'space', full of Satanic 'stars', 'planets' & similar Satanic inventions...
Never for a moment think you've all been HAD, though...

Because you don't do 'thinking', do you?

Just Satanically-Inspired Dreaming...

I would hate to be what you pretend to be, Papa. Impervious to proof. It would be fun, yeah, but also kinda sad.

Well, thanks for all the pseudo-scientific nonsense, cultists.

But you already lost the 'rockets in vacuum' debate, & have still provided no proof whatsoever that the light in the sky we see pootling overhead is a manned space station full of happy-clappy weirdos playing flutes & guitars & doing no science ever.

We'll get back to that light in the sky later, though; for now I have a different, more fundamental question.

As you may recall, with embarrassment, I began this thread by asking if any of you had actually been to 'space', thus giving you unambiguous, empirical, first-hand evidence of what it is like.

&, of course, none of you had.

Now, I would like to inquire as to what this 'space' we are all talking about actually is.

So; where is the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, first mentioned in the English language?

I will tell you; it is in John Milton's epic poem 'Paradise Lost'.

& which character in Paradise Lost first utters this word?

I will tell you; it is Satan.

I quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption...'

Thus; not only is 'space' an undeniably Satanic invention, so is the concept of 'space exploration'.

LOL!!!

John Milton is, himself, an extremely interesting subject, & Paradise Lost is also proto-typical sci-fi propaganda; I will expand on this further at some point, for it is lulzy...

In the meantime, enjoy fantasising about your Satanic 'space-stations' in your Satanic 'space', full of Satanic 'stars', 'planets' & similar Satanic inventions...

Never for a moment think you've all been HAD, though...

Because you don't do 'thinking', do you?

Just Satanically-Inspired Dreaming...

You didn't start this thread.

Anyway, it is you who thinks Satan is a real being. Who's the cultist now?

No I don't; & it's still you lot who are the cultists.

Rather,I'd say that it's Satanists (or Luciferians, if you prefer) who think that Satan is a real being...

You know; like the ones at NASA, plus all the others infesting the history of astronomy.

Still, as you are incapable of distinguishing artillery ballistics from rocket functioning, believe that a light in the sky is a can full of people in perpetual motion, & that looking through a telescope is the answer to everything, it is unsurprising that you are also incapable of comprehending either this, or anything else that I write.

Speaking of telescopes, did you know that Galileo & his telescope are mentioned five times in Paradise Lost? Strangely, he is the only contemporary of Milton to receive such an accolade.

Galileo is also mentioned three times in Milton's Areopagitica; an anti-censorship propaganda essay that was written a mere year before Milton took a job as State Censor for Cromwell's 'Republic'.

Hypocrisy, much?

Indeed, Milton actually met Galileo, during one of his visits to Italy; as a Protestant Heretic who promoted regicide, you'd expect Milton to be unwelcome there, but no; he was even allowed to visit the Vatican library.

So; Milton may have looked through Galileo's famous 'optic glass'...

But was this telescope any good?

No; seems it was not: check out www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/ for the lowdown on this 'revolutionary' instrument -  fact is that it was useless.

So; are we to believe that Milton, a Propagandist hypocrite, just decided out of nowhere to promote Galileo & his fraudulently conceived  heliocentric ideas as much as possible?

Yeah; right... Pull the other one!

Oh; & did you know that Paradise Lost is based on an egregrious mistranslation in the King James Bible?

There was no entity named Satan in the original Bible; the passage in question refers to the fall of a very earthly king.

So why did Milton, a Bible scholar, choose to base his greatest work on a crude mistranslation, that he could not be unaware of?

Starting to smell something fishy yet, cultists?

Satan; Lucifer; Heliocentricity... Sun-Worship perhaps?

But of course you won't see that - you never see anything outside your tiny cell of scientism.

Maybe if you got a bigger telescope it'd help?

Galileo's got a used one for sale; one careful science-fraud owner!

As ever: LOL!!!

Wow. What a rambling noodle soup of a post.

On the rocket subject, you haven't even come vaguely close to beating us given you can't even apply newtons 3rd properly, yet alone understanding thermodynamics, fluid dynamics and reaction kinetics.

LOL!!!

You cannot refute a word of what I wrote, mainframes.

Good thing I wasn't writing it for you, then.

I was writing it for all those who - unlike yourself - have not yet been completely suckered & brainwashed into the cult of Scientism.

As for Newton's 3rd, even my dog understands it better than you Satanic space-cultists; for it knows full well that unless I kick a ball it will not move.

You lot seem to believe that a ball can somehow kick itself...

Into Space, even!

'Space'; LOL!!!

Satan's Neologism...

It couldn't be more in your face how fraudulent it all is.

But keep Polishing your Telescopes & Enjoying the pretty Lights; one day NASA will announce they've discovered the Origins of Life out there & won't you all be Happy about that!

But you won't for a single moment consider WHY you're Happy about it, will you?

The brainwashing runs too deep for that...

They couldn't handle you last time and had you banned, Papa. They can't grasp what you're saying because they are (as you rightly said) far too brainwashed to dare to grasp it.
They argue with you in numbers because they believe that this will wear you down enough to stop posting. Keep up the good work.

There's reason's why the big telescopes are up mountains and in inaccessible places which appear to be all owned by N.A.S.A or what is perceived to be them. (Government).

Space does not exist.
Rockets are high jumping fireworks, basically.
Space rockets are a figment of the imagination or gimmicks.
It's all eye trickery and brainwashing mind trickery.

Your stuff is spot on, Papa and these people know it. If they thought you were of no significance, they wouldn't be swarming all over your posts.
They pretended to ignore you for a while hoping you would disappear. Now that you are posting up again, their machine roars into motion. 

LOL!!!

You cannot refute a word of what I wrote, mainframes.

Good thing I wasn't writing it for you, then.

I was writing it for all those who - unlike yourself - have not yet been completely suckered & brainwashed into the cult of Scientism.

As for Newton's 3rd, even my dog understands it better than you Satanic space-cultists; for it knows full well that unless I kick a ball it will not move.

You lot seem to believe that a ball can somehow kick itself...

Into Space, even!

'Space'; LOL!!!

Satan's Neologism...

It couldn't be more in your face how fraudulent it all is.

But keep Polishing your Telescopes & Enjoying the pretty Lights; one day NASA will announce they've discovered the Origins of Life out there & won't you all be Happy about that!

But you won't for a single moment consider WHY you're Happy about it, will you?

The brainwashing runs too deep for that...

The quote below is a statement you made much earlier in this thread -

'In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere.'

In reference to your recent boast - 'As for Newton's 3rd, even my dog understands it better than you Satanic space-cultists',  it's obviously YOU who has no idea what parts of a 'system' are what.

In your example of the man throwing a ball, you've got it completely wrong by labelling the man's arm as the exhaust.

In actual fact, the man's arm is the thrust or explosion that is imparting momentum to the ball.

Incredibly, you then label the ball as an external mass, such as the atmosphere?
Actually, the ball in the exhaust.

So to conclude, if you can't even correctly label the elements of the 'man throwing a ball' system, then obviously your understanding of Newton's 3rd law is non-existent.

This is how a rocket works, by igniting fuel in a controlled explosion and throwing it out of its engines at a huge speed. What you don't seem to realise, is that the exhaust out of a rocket contains a huge amount of mass. The expelled burnt fuel isn't just weightless smoke and flame. The 1st stage of the Saturn V rocket for example, threw out 15 tons of burnt fuel every second at hypersonic speeds. This is why, according to the laws of conservation of momentum, the rocket was propelled in the opposite direction to the huge mass of burnt fuel going the other way.

To use another example, let's look at a cannon and a cannonball. We all know that when a cannonball is shot out of the cannon's barrel, the cannon is recoiled in the opposite direction. This is exactly the same reason why a rocket is propelled, because it is shooting large amounts of mass (burnt fuel) out of its engine nozzles at hypersonic speeds.




But remarkably, there are some idiots who still think that a rocket is propelled by pushing off the atmosphere, lol.

Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.

So, chtwroney-baloney; according to you both the man's arm AND the ball are the Exhaust?

You want to divide ONE explosion into TWO things?!?

LOL!!!

But enough of your gibberish; the whole analogy is representative of the recoil of a gun, NOT the thrust of a rocket, & is therefore a worthless irrelevance.

I already explained this, in post #1569, page 79 of this thread; but somehow you missed that part, didn't you?

Whatever; this debate is over & you lost.

Goodbye!

So, chtwroney-baloney; according to you both the man's arm AND the ball are the Exhaust?

You want to divide ONE explosion into TWO things?!?

LOL!!!

But enough of your gibberish; the whole analogy is representative of the recoil of a gun, NOT the thrust of a rocket, & is therefore a worthless irrelevance.

I already explained this, in post #1569, page 79 of this thread; but somehow you missed that part, didn't you?

Whatever; this debate is over & you lost.

Goodbye!

So, chtwroney-baloney; according to you both the man's arm AND the ball are the Exhaust?


You obviously didn't read my post very well.

The man's arm is the thrust, or explosive force that gives momentum to the ball.
In your statement, you've said that the man's arm is the exhaust - clearly that is wrong.

The ball is obviously the exhaust, but in your statement, you've labelled the ball as the 'outside mass such as the atmosphere'?  It's obvious from this alone, that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.

Ok Sceptimatic, just to see what your level of understanding actually is, please consider the following question -

When a cannonball is shot out of a cannon, why does the cannon move (recoil) in the opposite direction?  Also, if a heavier cannonball is shot out of the cannon at the same speed, will the cannon be recoiled at a greater speed?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2015, 01:38:56 AM

Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.

Ok Sceptimatic, just to see what your level of understanding actually is, please consider the following question -

When a cannonball is shot out of a cannon, why does the cannon move (recoil) in the opposite direction?  Also, if a heavier cannonball is shot out of the cannon at the same speed, will the cannon be recoiled at a greater speed?

Let me try and help you along.
A "SPACE" rocket is not a CANNON.
A space rocket is not built with the metal that a cannon is built with. Guess the metal of the cannon and guess the metal of the "space" rocket.

Do you notice any problems here?
Do you understand what would happen should a huge rocket explode off the ground with the recoil that you people pretend is being exerted onto it to kick it's arse into the air?

Do you understand or are you just going to go into simpleton mode whilst banging your head off the desk?

Chtwrone: start a thread on rockets in the vacuum if you are so insistent; we've already done it to death here.

I'm more interested in your responses to this now...

Anyway, it is you who thinks Satan is a real being. Who's the cultist now?

No I don't; & it's still you lot who are the cultists.

Rather, I'd say that it's Satanists (or Luciferians, if you prefer) who think that Satan is a real being...

You know; like the ones at NASA, plus all the others infesting the history of astronomy.

Did you know that Galileo & his telescope are mentioned five times in Paradise Lost? Strangely, he is the only contemporary of Milton to receive such an accolade.

Galileo is also mentioned three times in Milton's Areopagitica; an anti-censorship propaganda essay that was written a mere year before Milton took a job as State Censor for Cromwell's 'Republic'.

Hypocrisy, much?

Indeed, Milton actually met Galileo, during one of his visits to Italy; as a Protestant Heretic who promoted regicide, you'd expect Milton to be unwelcome there, but no; he was even allowed to visit the Vatican library.

So; Milton may have looked through Galileo's famous 'optic glass'...

But was this telescope any good?

No; seems it was not: check out www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/ for the lowdown on this 'revolutionary' instrument -  fact is that it was useless.

So; are we to believe that Milton, a Propagandist hypocrite, just decided out of nowhere to promote Galileo & his fraudulently conceived  heliocentric ideas as much as possible?

Yeah; right... Pull the other one!

Oh; & did you know that Paradise Lost is based on an egregrious mistranslation in the King James Bible?

There was no entity named Satan in the original Bible; the passage in question refers to the fall of a very earthly king.

So why did Milton, a Bible scholar, choose to base his greatest work on a crude mistranslation, that he could not be unaware of?

Starting to smell something fishy yet, cultists?

Satan; Lucifer; Heliocentricity... Sun-Worship perhaps?

But of course you won't see that - you never see anything outside your tiny cell of scientism.

Maybe if you got a bigger telescope it'd help?

Galileo's got a used one for sale; one careful science-fraud owner!

As ever: LOL!!!

Quote from: chtwrone on September 24, 2015, 02:27:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2015, 01:38:56 AM

Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.

Ok Sceptimatic, just to see what your level of understanding actually is, please consider the following question -

When a cannonball is shot out of a cannon, why does the cannon move (recoil) in the opposite direction?  Also, if a heavier cannonball is shot out of the cannon at the same speed, will the cannon be recoiled at a greater speed?

Let me try and help you along.
A "SPACE" rocket is not a CANNON.
A space rocket is not built with the metal that a cannon is built with. Guess the metal of the cannon and guess the metal of the "space" rocket.

Do you notice any problems here?
Do you understand what would happen should a huge rocket explode off the ground with the recoil that you people pretend is being exerted onto it to kick it's arse into the air?

Do you understand or are you just going to go into simpleton mode whilst banging your head off the desk?

The cannonball example is a perfect example on demonstrating how rockets work.

The type of metals that the cannon and rocket are built from will simply affect the acceleration due to mass difference.

The only problem here is that you and Papa still don't understand Newton's 3rd.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2015, 02:34:01 AM

Quote from: chtwrone on September 24, 2015, 02:27:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2015, 01:38:56 AM

Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.

Ok Sceptimatic, just to see what your level of understanding actually is, please consider the following question -

When a cannonball is shot out of a cannon, why does the cannon move (recoil) in the opposite direction?  Also, if a heavier cannonball is shot out of the cannon at the same speed, will the cannon be recoiled at a greater speed?

Let me try and help you along.
A "SPACE" rocket is not a CANNON.
A space rocket is not built with the metal that a cannon is built with. Guess the metal of the cannon and guess the metal of the "space" rocket.

Do you notice any problems here?
Do you understand what would happen should a huge rocket explode off the ground with the recoil that you people pretend is being exerted onto it to kick it's arse into the air?

Do you understand or are you just going to go into simpleton mode whilst banging your head off the desk?

The cannonball example is a perfect example on demonstrating how rockets work.

The type of metals that the cannon and rocket are built from will simply affect the acceleration due to mass difference.

The only problem here is that you and Papa still don't understand Newton's 3rd.

We understand perfectly well what's going on. It's you and your cronies that are oblivious to the reality and prefer to wallow in fantasy.
Anyway leave it at that because this topic is moving in another direction.

Nah. Lets keep it right here because this is the fundamental problem that FE's have with space travel and therefore with satellites and the ISS.

You think that if you can shoot down space travel you can then ignore all the evidence taken from orbit and further out that show Earth is a sphere.

The problem of course is that you think rockets don't work in a vacuum because you don't understand Newton's 3rd. Ironic really, given that Newton's 3rd was actually the inspiration behind trying to get rockets to reach space in the first place.

Mainframes: we've done this already, starting from page 32 of this thread.

It's over & you lost the debate.

You lost the debate because needing something extrinsic to push on is the totality of Newton's 3rd, yet you took the indefensible position of arguing for a force being created with nothing extrinsic to push against.

If you wish to restart this lost debate, then create a new thread on the subject.

Now; refute this: as you may recall, with embarrassment, I began my contributions to this thread by asking if any of you had actually been to 'space', thus giving you unambiguous, empirical, first-hand evidence of what it is like.

&, of course, none of you had.

Now, I would like to inquire as to what this 'space' we are all talking about actually is.

So; where is the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, first mentioned in the English language?

I will tell you; it is in John Milton's epic poem 'Paradise Lost'.

& which character in Paradise Lost first utters this word?

I will tell you; it is Satan.

I quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption...'

Thus; not only is 'space' an undeniably Satanic invention, so is the concept of 'space exploration'.

LOL!!!

You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.

You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.

Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.

You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.

LOL!!!

& what is a 'force'?

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.

Do you not see how you just contradicted yourself?

You made a total fool of yourself earlier in the thread & now you are doing so again.

Please, stop this madness & go create a thread on the subject where you can howl at the moon to your heart's content.

Quote from: Mainframes on September 24, 2015, 06:18:39 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2015, 02:34:01 AM

Quote from: chtwrone on September 24, 2015, 02:27:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2015, 01:38:56 AM

Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.

Ok Sceptimatic, just to see what your level of understanding actually is, please consider the following question -

When a cannonball is shot out of a cannon, why does the cannon move (recoil) in the opposite direction?  Also, if a heavier cannonball is shot out of the cannon at the same speed, will the cannon be recoiled at a greater speed?

Let me try and help you along.
A "SPACE" rocket is not a CANNON.
A space rocket is not built with the metal that a cannon is built with. Guess the metal of the cannon and guess the metal of the "space" rocket.

Do you notice any problems here?
Do you understand what would happen should a huge rocket explode off the ground with the recoil that you people pretend is being exerted onto it to kick it's arse into the air?

Do you understand or are you just going to go into simpleton mode whilst banging your head off the desk?

The cannonball example is a perfect example on demonstrating how rockets work.

The type of metals that the cannon and rocket are built from will simply affect the acceleration due to mass difference.

The only problem here is that you and Papa still don't understand Newton's 3rd.

We understand perfectly well what's going on. It's you and your cronies that are oblivious to the reality and prefer to wallow in fantasy.
Anyway leave it at that because this topic is moving in another direction.

lol

Sure you do


lol

How is thrust in a vacuum still not understood? Are we still in the 1600's

Here " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> <--- thrust in a vacuum
Repeat the test and get no thrust to prove the world wrong.