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

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.

Put this in the other topic what Papa kindly started for you and I'll answer this.

I believe the thread is Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship So as far as I can see from what the others are saying, I am on topic.

I have Papa blocked, so I dont see his direct comments, only quoted text from others.
Has he started to communicate like a human yet?
Or is it all still

insult insult

lol

 

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

Science Fraud was a well-established practice even back in the 1600s...

For example: www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/

Are we to believe that such a flawed device enabled Galileo to clearly discern the 'moons' of Jupiter?

Any of you telescope-fetishist Satanic space-cultists care to comment on this very interesting article?

Or on why the arch-propagandist Milton chose to promote Galileo so heavily?

Or what induced him to put the first utterance of the word 'space' in the English language into the mouth of his suspiciously non-Biblically inspired Satan?

These are very interesting questions indeed; but as the answers cannot be found on NASA fact-sheets or wikipedia it is no surprise that you Cultists avoid them.

Others will not, though; in fact many neutral readers will be researching them as I write...

So quick - change the subject! Back to rockets in a vacuum, perhaps..?

LOL!!!

I have told you, repeatedly, that I am here to Open Doorways.

Enter; Do Not Enter...

The Choice is yours.

In the End, though, Believe What You Want.

I have seen the Moon's of Jupiter with my own eyes using my telescope.  Flawed instruments and flawed science doesn't produce correct conclusions, so why are the conclusions correct?

Flawed instruments and flawed science doesn't produce correct conclusions, so why are the conclusions correct?

Good question!

We know Galileo's instruments & science were both flawed, so how did he obtain valid data in the first place, let alone arrive at any kind of 'conclusion', correct or incorrect?

I know how; but let's watch you all flounder for a bit eh?

Now; an Even Better Question!

Why are you responding to me at all when you made such a huge fuss about my posts, even playing the suicide card, begged to get me banned & vowed you'd ignore me forever?

Been taking lessons in Hypocrisy from Milton, have you?

You know what's coming next, don't you?

That's right: LOL!!!

P.s: just for interest, what magnification is your telescope?

Good question!

We know Galileo's instruments & science were both flawed, so how did he obtain valid data in the first place, let alone arrive at any kind of 'conclusion', correct or incorrect?

I know how; but let's watch you all flounder for a bit eh?

Now; an Even Better Question!

Why are you responding to me at all when you made such a huge fuss about my posts, even playing the suicide card, begged to get me banned & vowed you'd ignore me forever?

Been taking lessons in Hypocrisy from Milton, have you?

You know what's coming next, don't you?

That's right: LOL!!!

P.s: just for interest, what magnification is your telescope?

I am replying to you because I noticed that there were no obvious insults in your post.  I am prepared to give you a second chance, but if you blow it like the last time then I will make it my goal to get you banned.

I believe that Galeleo made correct conclusions because he was right.  It's quite obvious really.

My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.

Quote from: Papa Legba on September 24, 2015, 11:36:07 AM

Good question!

We know Galileo's instruments & science were both flawed, so how did he obtain valid data in the first place, let alone arrive at any kind of 'conclusion', correct or incorrect?

I know how; but let's watch you all flounder for a bit eh?

Now; an Even Better Question!

Why are you responding to me at all when you made such a huge fuss about my posts, even playing the suicide card, begged to get me banned & vowed you'd ignore me forever?

Been taking lessons in Hypocrisy from Milton, have you?

You know what's coming next, don't you?

That's right: LOL!!!

P.s: just for interest, what magnification is your telescope?

I am replying to you because I noticed that there were no obvious insults in your post.  I am prepared to give you a second chance, but if you blow it like the last time then I will make it my goal to get you banned.

I believe that Galeleo made correct conclusions because he was right.  It's quite obvious really.

My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.

I'm getting a bit sick of you and this ban crap, Mikey boy. One minute you're 18. The next you're a mormon and the next you go on like a middle aged person that appears to have all the answers.

You are in no position to give anyone a chance unless you are part of this forum in terms of admin or something.
Anyway let's have some more proof of who you are mikey boy, just so I can get my head around the way you act.

How about you show us a video of you, live whilst viewing this forum. From there, I will ask you a few questions and ask you to type into this forum. Basically just follow my instructions. Are you game?

My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.

Interesting; because Galileo's telescope had only 8x magnification at best & the lenses were both badly-made & badly-matched.

Have you actually read the link I provided yet?

Do you honestly still think that science-fraud legend Galileo could see the moons of Jupiter through such a rickety contraption?

LOL!!!

He couldn't even see his next-door neighbour's goddamn cat through that p.o.s...

Now; carry on ignoring me/not ignoring me/making shit up as you go along...

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?

'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.'


Regards the above statement that you made earlier in the thread, would you please explain how the man's arm can represent the exhaust?  Surely the man's arm represents the explosive force that gives momentum to the ball?

And one last question that you've previously avoided answering, in the cannon/cannonball 'system', what causes the cannon to recoil when the cannonball is shot out of the barrel?

These are easy questions to answer, or maybe they are too hard for you?

LOL!!!

Answer me!

My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.

Interesting; because Galileo's telescope had only 8-20x magnification at best & the lenses were both badly-made & badly-matched.

Have you actually read the link I provided yet?

Do you honestly still think that science-fraud legend Galileo could see the moons of Jupiter through such a rickety contraption?

LOL!!!

He couldn't even see his next-door neighbour's goddamn cat through that p.o.s...

Now; carry on ignoring me/not ignoring me/making shit up as you go along...

Oh, & btw 'chtwrone' has been PM-ing me to abuse/taunt me on the subject of rockets in a vacuum.

Of course, I ignored it, but I thought I'd best warn any other free-thinkers here what to expect.

Answer me!

Quote from: mikeman7918 on September 24, 2015, 11:51:02 AM

My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.

Interesting; because Galileo's telescope had only 8-20x magnification at best & the lenses were both badly-made & badly-matched.

Have you actually read the link I provided yet?

Do you honestly still think that science-fraud legend Galileo could see the moons of Jupiter through such a rickety contraption?

LOL!!!

He couldn't even see his next-door neighbour's goddamn cat through that p.o.s...

Now; carry on ignoring me/not ignoring me/making shit up as you go along...

'The reason a cannon is recoiled in one direction, is because the cannonball is pushing off the atmosphere in the other direction.'

Do you agree with the above statement? 

If not, please give your reason as to why the cannon moves in the opposite direction to the cannonball?

Why are you sending me abusive PMs?

Why are you not posting in the correct thread?

Why are you sending me abusive PMs?

Why are you not posting in the correct thread?

Please quote my PM that I sent to you, and label the 'abusive' bits. 

Thanks.

LOL!!!

You know what you did.

Anyhow; I have created a thread for you to expound on your rocketry theories; please use it & leave us alone.

Everyone else, answer this:

My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.

Interesting; because Galileo's telescope had only 8-20x magnification at best & the lenses were both badly-made & badly-matched.

Have you actually read the link I provided yet?

Do you honestly still think that science-fraud legend Galileo could see the moons of Jupiter through such a rickety contraption?

LOL!!!

He couldn't even see his next-door neighbour's goddamn cat through that p.o.s...

Now; carry on ignoring me/not ignoring me/making shit up as you go along...

Oh, & this:

Science Fraud was a well-established practice even back in the 1600s...

For example: www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/

Are we to believe that such a flawed device enabled Galileo to clearly discern the 'moons' of Jupiter?

Any of you telescope-fetishist Satanic space-cultists care to comment on this very interesting article?

Or on why the arch-propagandist Milton chose to promote Galileo so heavily?

Or what induced him to put the first utterance of the word 'space' in the English language into the mouth of his suspiciously non-Biblically inspired Satan?

These are very interesting questions indeed; but as the answers cannot be found on NASA fact-sheets or wikipedia it is no surprise that you Cultists avoid them.

Others will not, though; in fact many neutral readers will be researching them as I write...

So quick - change the subject! Back to rockets in a vacuum, perhaps..?

LOL!!!

I have told you, repeatedly, that I am here to Open Doorways.

Enter; Do Not Enter...

The Choice is yours.

In the End, though, Believe What You Want.

I'm getting a bit sick of you and this ban crap, Mikey boy. One minute you're 18. The next you're a mormon and the next you go on like a middle aged person that appears to have all the answers.

You are in no position to give anyone a chance unless you are part of this forum in terms of admin or something.
Anyway let's have some more proof of who you are mikey boy, just so I can get my head around the way you act.

How about you show us a video of you, live whilst viewing this forum. From there, I will ask you a few questions and ask you to type into this forum. Basically just follow my instructions. Are you game?

Why can't I be an 18 year old Mormon stereotype breaker?  If you think that stereotypes apply to everybody then you don't have very much experience with people, and you are hearing this from someone who doesn't have much of a social life so that's really saying something.

I am indeed willing to do what you request, and I will try to leave no doubt that I am who I say I am.

LOL!!!

You know what you did.

Anyhow; I have created a thread for you to expound on your rocketry theories; please use it & leave us alone.

Everyone else, answer this:

Quote from: mikeman7918 on September 24, 2015, 11:51:02 AM

My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.

Interesting; because Galileo's telescope had only 8-20x magnification at best & the lenses were both badly-made & badly-matched.

Have you actually read the link I provided yet?

Do you honestly still think that science-fraud legend Galileo could see the moons of Jupiter through such a rickety contraption?

LOL!!!

He couldn't even see his next-door neighbour's goddamn cat through that p.o.s...

Now; carry on ignoring me/not ignoring me/making shit up as you go along...

You and Sceptimatic seem to think that a rocket is propelled because its exhaust is pushing off the atmosphere?

Ok, if we look at a similar example, you must also think that the man on the skateboard is propelled in one direction because the ball he is throwing is also pushing off the atmosphere?  Really? 

Stick to the correct thread, psycho-stalker weird PM sending thing chtwrone...

Everyone else; THIS is what the space-cultists DON'T want you to read; do so & research it.

Science Fraud was a well-established practice even back in the 1600s...

For example: www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/

Are we to believe that such a flawed device enabled Galileo to clearly discern the 'moons' of Jupiter?

Any of you telescope-fetishist Satanic space-cultists care to comment on this very interesting article?

Or on why the arch-propagandist Milton chose to promote Galileo so heavily?

Or what induced him to put the first utterance of the word 'space' in the English language into the mouth of his suspiciously non-Biblically inspired Satan?

These are very interesting questions indeed; but as the answers cannot be found on NASA fact-sheets or wikipedia it is no surprise that you Cultists avoid them.

Others will not, though; in fact many neutral readers will be researching them as I write...

So quick - change the subject! Back to rockets in a vacuum, perhaps..?

LOL!!!

I have told you, repeatedly, that I am here to Open Doorways.

Enter; Do Not Enter...

The Choice is yours.

In the End, though, Believe What You Want.

Stick to the correct thread, psycho-stalker weird PM sending thing chtwrone...

Everyone else; THIS is what the space-cultists DON'T want you to read; do so & research it.

Science Fraud was a well-established practice even back in the 1600s...

For example: www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/

Are we to believe that such a flawed device enabled Galileo to clearly discern the 'moons' of Jupiter?

Any of you telescope-fetishist Satanic space-cultists care to comment on this very interesting article?

Or on why the arch-propagandist Milton chose to promote Galileo so heavily?

Or what induced him to put the first utterance of the word 'space' in the English language into the mouth of his suspiciously non-Biblically inspired Satan?

These are very interesting questions indeed; but as the answers cannot be found on NASA fact-sheets or wikipedia it is no surprise that you Cultists avoid them.

Others will not, though; in fact many neutral readers will be researching them as I write...

So quick - change the subject! Back to rockets in a vacuum, perhaps..?

LOL!!!

I have told you, repeatedly, that I am here to Open Doorways.

Enter; Do Not Enter...

The Choice is yours.

In the End, though, Believe What You Want.

Just a personal question.

Do you actually have a job?  If you do, I can't imagine that it's anything too challenging - department store shelf stacker perhaps - that would be your limit I think?

Please post your opinion on what I do for a living in the correct thread, weirdo PM-sending stalker chtwrone.

Everyone else:

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 Cultists REALLY hate this subject, don't you?

Papa - you can see the moons of Jupiter in a pair of binoculars at 9x magnification so what is wrong with Galileo using 20x mag?

Please post your opinion on what I do for a living in the correct thread, weirdo PM-sending stalker chtwrone.

Everyone else:

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 Cultists REALLY hate this subject, don't you?

What's with your stanisim obsession? Almost every single one of your posts contains "Satan" for no good reason.

Anyway stop detailing, this is a thread about spacecraft.

Have you worked out how to apply newtons 3rd yet or do you still think rockets have to push off the atmosphere?

Papa - you can see the moons of Jupiter in a pair of binoculars at 9x magnification so what is wrong with Galileo using 20x mag?

Really?

So why do astronomy sites suggest 32x magnification is needed?

& mikeman already stated that his telescope was 60x magnification...

Plus, Galileo's first telescope was only 8x mag & had far more roughly-ground lenses than any modern device, which were not even matched correctly...

Again; please actually read the link I provided.

Here it is: www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/

Do try not to lie too much in your next reply; or at least try to reply in the correct thread...

It's getting boring for all of us.

Plus, Galileo's first telescope was only 8x mag & had far more roughly-ground lenses than any modern device, which were not even matched correctly...

Are you suggesting that Galileo only ever made one telescope or that any subsequent telescopes would not have been any better than his first?

No; I am not suggesting that.

You really do have reading comprehension issues, don't you?

I'm suggesting that you read this: www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/ then explain how Galileo could make the observations he claimed through such poorly-performing devices.

Just to bring you up to speed, I am also wondering why Milton, the greatest propagandist of the English revolution, chose to propagandise Galileo so vigorously, & why he also chose to put the first use of the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, into the mouth of a Satan that was not inspired by any true Biblical reference but was more akin to Prometheus or even Hermes of legend...

It's interesting stuff - I look forward to your non-contributions to the debate!

Papa - quote from the website you suggested we read:

The images really turn out to be very disappointing to most first time  viewers'. It takes practice to get to become  a good observer with a  Galilean telescope but when one acquires the skill the images are more than satisfactory for making the discoveries that Galileo made. [\quote]

Oh dear. Just undermined your own arguement there.

Anyway. This is a thread about spacecraft.

If you want to talk about Galileo and his telescopes start a new thread.

I am aware of that quote.

& I do not believe it.

For the writers had no choice but to include it, did they?

How are 'practice & skill' necessary for looking through a telescope?

One either sees things through it or one does not.

The text & diagrams make it clear that the telescope barely magnifies anything at all & somehow relies on the observer's retinas enlarging in order to function.

Go back to the article &, instead of quote-hunting, actually try to comprehend what is written.

Also; stop trying to control what I choose to post here.

How is the nature of 'space' itself, & its conceptual origins in the English language, not relevant to a debate on 'space' travel?

Maths is not the Language of the Universe, Cultists; Maths is the Maths of the Universe.

Language is the Language of the Universe & thus how Words are created & employed is of Primal Significance.

& if I wish to explore that Significance, then I shall.

Unlike yourselves, with your dismal NASA fact-sheets & fascistic wiki-spam, I do not know where my research will take me; nor is it pre-ordained what conclusions I, or any neutral readers, must draw from it.

All are free to believe what they want.

I open doorways & offer choices; You, miserably, are mere Lurkers at the Threshold...

& that is a choice you made yourselves; will you ever ask yourselves: Why?

I am aware of that quote.

& I do not believe it.

For the writers had no choice but to include it, did they?

So you point us to an article and then complain when we actually read it and find the article contradicts your own argument.

How are 'practice & skill' necessary for looking through a telescope?

One either sees things through it or one does not.

The text & diagrams make it clear that the telescope barely magnifies anything at all & somehow relies on the observer's retinas enlarging in order to function.

It is actually well known that looking through a telescope requires practise to pick out detail. I own a telescope myself and it takes many nights of observation to improve the images that your brain can interpret. It is not simply a case of just seeing it.

Also, if you actually read the website it states that the pupil dilates not the retina enlarging. This is a standard response to a dark environment and allows the eye to collect more light. Just like enlarging the aperture setting on a camera.

The website goes on at length discussing that the telescope wasn't designed for astronomy but rather for terrestrial use but with practise it was more than capable of allowing Galileo of picking up the detail he required to make his observations.