Astronomers have spotted the Tesla with their telescopes.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 12, 2018, 04:13:27 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 04:04:10 AM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 12, 2018, 03:49:20 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 03:08:27 AM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 12, 2018, 03:02:57 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 02:30:14 AM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 12, 2018, 02:23:38 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 01:31:43 AM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 12, 2018, 01:23:25 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 12:57:04 AM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 12, 2018, 12:39:07 AM

Because it seems to me the people with telescopes who cared enough to look were able to spot something in the exact place and trajectory that the Tesla was supposed to be.

The GIF shows they spotted TWO things, both on the same trajectory and velocity.

Care to explain them both?

How can I possibly explain that?

Exactly.

The evidence presented shows an inexplicable anomaly that does not accord with the stated testimony, i.e. ONE Tesla roadster in shpayze (lol!)...

Therefore it must be rejected.

The observed Tesla is exactly where it was expected to be. Anything else is irrelevant.

Your video shows two objects on the exact same trajectory and velocity, not one.

And you admit you cannot explain why.

Nor have you shown which of the two objects is the Tesla.

The video is thus inadmissable as evidence of anything at all.

How do you know their trajectory and velocity is equal?

Did you observe the area in question yourself with a telescope?

The Tesla is the object that is exactly where it should be, anything else is irrelevant. I can not tell you the names of every star in that gif neither.

Bot meltdown imminent...

The video is worthless.

Because it does not show what it is claimed to show.

And you cannot explain why.

Bot dismissed.

Are you a bot?

The final desperate act of the defeated AI algorithm: say NO U!!!

You defeated nothing human.

LMFAO!!!

That's what I just said.

Damn you are badly programmed...

So every time you lose an argument you accuse the victor of being an AI program.

Ok cool

If that's your thing.

Bot turns page on fail, then claims victory...

Same old story.

Back to this:

There are two objects in this gif, both moving at the same velocity and trajectory: a smaller one on the right and a larger one to the left.

Which is the crappy Tesla?

And what is the other one?

Your second paragraph has been disproved by the those who've tracked the vehicle already.

Horse shit.

That fucking video and the GIF prove nothing as to what the object depicted moving in the GIF or video actually is.

You can scream and shout just like your little "fantasy friend," here:



But everyone knew there was no plane there to be had either...

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 11, 2018, 08:08:43 PM

Your second paragraph has been disproved by the those who've tracked the vehicle already.

Horse shit.

That fucking video and the GIF prove nothing as to what the object depicted moving in the GIF or video actually is.

You can scream and shout just like your little "fantasy friend," here:



But everyone knew there was no plane there to be had either...

I'm more likely to believe those with a telescope who claim to have tracked it, than you without a telescope who claims they didn't.

Bot turns page on fail, then claims victory...

Same old story.

Back to this:

There are two objects in this gif, both moving at the same velocity and trajectory: a smaller one on the right and a larger one to the left.

Which is the crappy Tesla?

And what is the other one?

I have already dealt with this query.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 05:43:53 AM

Bot turns page on fail, then claims victory...

Same old story.

Back to this:

There are two objects in this gif, both moving at the same velocity and trajectory: a smaller one on the right and a larger one to the left.

Which is the crappy Tesla?

And what is the other one?

I have already dealt with this query.

No you have not.

Going to a corner and masturbating to your Tesla in Space is not dealing with "the query."

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 12, 2018, 06:25:00 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 05:43:53 AM

Bot turns page on fail, then claims victory...

Same old story.

Back to this:

There are two objects in this gif, both moving at the same velocity and trajectory: a smaller one on the right and a larger one to the left.

Which is the crappy Tesla?

And what is the other one?

I have already dealt with this query.

No you have not.

Going to a corner and masturbating to your Tesla in Space is not dealing with "the query."

I've not been masturbating.

As I said, an object was spotted exactly were the Tesla should have been.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 05:43:53 AM

Bot turns page on fail, then claims victory...

Same old story.

Back to this:

There are two objects in this gif, both moving at the same velocity and trajectory: a smaller one on the right and a larger one to the left.

Which is the crappy Tesla?

And what is the other one?

I have already dealt with this query.

What, by admitting you can't explain it, confessing to being a bot, then saying NO U and turning the page on your total Fail?

Oh yeah, you were dealt with alright!

As I said, an object was spotted exactly were the Tesla should have been.

And spotted by more than one observer.  Here’s some imagery from Australia:




Here’s an image from Arizona.



And here’s a report from Hawaii.  The University of Hawaiʻi ATLAS (Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System) telescope on Mauna Loa captured it during routine observing work and reported it as a “near earth object”

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 12, 2018, 06:25:00 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 05:43:53 AM

Bot turns page on fail, then claims victory...

Same old story.

Back to this:

There are two objects in this gif, both moving at the same velocity and trajectory: a smaller one on the right and a larger one to the left.

Which is the crappy Tesla?

And what is the other one?

I have already dealt with this query.

What, by admitting you can't explain it, confessing to being a bot, then saying NO U and turning the page on your total Fail?

Oh yeah, you were dealt with alright!

There's nothing to admit, I didn't observe it, just pointing out those who did.

I did ask if you were a bot but I don't recall you confessing. Noted.

No U.

It was indeed dealt with.

The University of Hawaiʻi ATLAS (Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System) telescope on Mauna Loa captured it during routine observing work and reported it as a “near earth object”

If they reported it as a near Earth object then why are you now claiming it's a shportz car in shpayze?

Oh right, your name - S Hill = shill.

Off you go then, Paul.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 12, 2018, 07:11:09 AM

As I said, an object was spotted exactly were the Tesla should have been.

And spotted by more than one observer.  Here’s some imagery from Australia:




Here’s an image from Arizona.



And here’s a report from Hawaii.  The University of Hawaiʻi ATLAS (Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System) telescope on Mauna Loa captured it during routine observing work and reported it as a “near earth object”

None of which prove what the object is or is not.

Quote from: Sam Hill on February 12, 2018, 07:36:59 AM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 12, 2018, 07:11:09 AM

As I said, an object was spotted exactly were the Tesla should have been.

And spotted by more than one observer.  Here’s some imagery from Australia:




Here’s an image from Arizona.



And here’s a report from Hawaii.  The University of Hawaiʻi ATLAS (Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System) telescope on Mauna Loa captured it during routine observing work and reported it as a “near earth object”

None of which prove what the object is or is not.

Just happened to be exactly were the Tesla should be on exactly the same trajectory at exactly the right speed.

Some coincidence.

The observatory in Hawaii already said it was just a near Earth object.

No mention of a shpayze shportz kar.

And your video shows two objects, not one.

We done lying yet, muskbot?

Just happened to be exactly were the Tesla should be on exactly the same trajectory at exactly the right speed.

Some coincidence.

Again, the need to believe...

Did you believe this data was hermetically sealed and placed on the doorstep of Funk & Wagnalls prior to public release or examination:

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 12, 2018, 08:09:00 AM

Just happened to be exactly were the Tesla should be on exactly the same trajectory at exactly the right speed.

Some coincidence.

Again, the need to believe...

Did you believe this data was hermetically sealed and placed on the doorstep of Funk & Wagnalls prior to public release or examination:

I don't know who Funk and Wagnall are.

The observatory in Hawaii already said it was just a near Earth object.

No mention of a shpayze shportz kar.

And your video shows two objects, not one.

We done lying yet, muskbot?

Open your mind.

Say No U

Quote from: Sam Hill on February 12, 2018, 07:36:59 AM

The University of Hawaiʻi ATLAS (Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System) telescope on Mauna Loa captured it during routine observing work and reported it as a “near earth object”

If they reported it as a near Earth object then why are you now claiming it's a shportz car in shpayze?

Oh right, your name - S Hill = shill.

Off you go then, Paul.

They aren't in the business of determining the shape and makeup of the objects they detect.  They are in the business of detecting objects.  The automated system found an object, calculated the path, and determined the object to be near the earth.  Which it was, quite near.


Who is Paul?

The observatory in Hawaii already said it was just a near Earth object.

No mention of a shpayze shportz kar.

And your video shows two objects, not one.

We done lying yet, muskbot?

Not "just a near earth object".  The fact that there is a near earth object exactly where the Tesla is expected to be, that's what is important here.  This is an automated system that wasn't looking specifically for the Tesla, and it accurately reported it as an object (type unspecified) that is near earth (which it was, it was only a few hours into its flight, it was VERY near the earth).  Exactly as you would expect it to do.

They aren't in the business of determining the shape and makeup of the objects they detect.  They are in the business of detecting objects.  The automated system found an object, calculated the path, and determined the object to be near the earth.  Which it was, quite near. Not "just a near earth object".  The fact that there is a near earth object exactly where the Tesla is expected to be, that's what is important here.  This is an automated system that wasn't looking specifically for the Tesla, and it accurately reported it as an object (type unspecified) that is near earth (which it was, it was only a few hours into its flight, it was VERY near the earth).  Exactly as you would expect it to do.

Okay... that may have made sense in your head, but now you've written it down do you still feel the same?

Quote from: Sam Hill on February 12, 2018, 11:28:22 AM

They aren't in the business of determining the shape and makeup of the objects they detect.  They are in the business of detecting objects.  The automated system found an object, calculated the path, and determined the object to be near the earth.  Which it was, quite near. Not "just a near earth object".  The fact that there is a near earth object exactly where the Tesla is expected to be, that's what is important here.  This is an automated system that wasn't looking specifically for the Tesla, and it accurately reported it as an object (type unspecified) that is near earth (which it was, it was only a few hours into its flight, it was VERY near the earth).  Exactly as you would expect it to do.

Okay... that may have made sense in your head, but now you've written it down do you still feel the same?

Yes.  It is an object, and it is near the earth.  Hence, a “near earth object”.  I really don’t know how that could be any more clear.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 12:18:46 PM

Quote from: Sam Hill on February 12, 2018, 11:28:22 AM

They aren't in the business of determining the shape and makeup of the objects they detect.  They are in the business of detecting objects.  The automated system found an object, calculated the path, and determined the object to be near the earth.  Which it was, quite near. Not "just a near earth object".  The fact that there is a near earth object exactly where the Tesla is expected to be, that's what is important here.  This is an automated system that wasn't looking specifically for the Tesla, and it accurately reported it as an object (type unspecified) that is near earth (which it was, it was only a few hours into its flight, it was VERY near the earth).  Exactly as you would expect it to do.

Okay... that may have made sense in your head, but now you've written it down do you still feel the same?

Yes.  It is an object, and it is near the earth.  Hence, a “near earth object”.  I really don’t know how that could be any more clear.

It could not be any more clear that at no point did they say it was a shportz kar stuck to a shpayze rokkit, yes.

You're just making the second bit up aintcha, S.Hill?

Tesla car going too slow to leave Earth orbit?

Earths escape velocity is 11.1km/s

According to the video of the alleged Tesla above recorded as being 470,000km away, lets be generous and say this was 24 hours after launch (although judging by the date of launch vs the video it might be a little more?)

This would mean it travelled 470,000km in 24 hours
or 19583km per hour
326.3km per minute
5.4km per second

Less than half the speed required to escape the Earths pull. Even if we say it was taken 12 hours after launch, it still falls short.

Can someone get the exact time difference between that alleged video and the launch?

Tesla car going too slow to leave Earth orbit?

Earths escape velocity is 11.1km/s

According to the video of the alleged Tesla above recorded as being 470,000km away, lets be generous and say this was 24 hours after launch (although judging by the date of launch vs the video it might be a little more?)

This would mean it travelled 470,000km in 24 hours
or 19583km per hour
326.3km per minute
5.4km per second

Less than half the speed required to escape the Earths pull. Even if we say it was taken 12 hours after launch, it still falls short.

Can someone get the exact time difference between that alleged video and the launch?

Why be generous with the times, that's dishonest.

I would assume the speed of the Tesla was not a linear steady speed but I haven't enough knowledge of space launch speeds.

I'm sure if you look hard enough the info is out there.

I've just been a conduit providing an irrefutable argument, people who wish to dig deeper are now able to do so.

Earths escape velocity is 11.1km/s

That 11.1 km/s is measured from the surface of Earth.
This is the velocity required such that the acceleration due to gravity is unable to bring it back to the planet, i.e. as it travels "up" and slows down, it will continue moving, with the velocity tending to 0 as the distance tends to infinity.
This means close to Earth, the velocity of the object will decrease significantly as it rises. As it gets further away, due to the signifantly reduced gravitational attraction, its velocity will decrease much less in a given period of time.

This also means that if you start from further away, the escape velocity is less, as it corresponds to the speed the object would be going at if launched from the surface at the 11.1 km/s, and slowed down on its way.

Escape velocity can be determined with the simple formula:
v=sqrt(2GM/r)
e.g. with G=6.67E-11 kg m/s^2, Earth with a mass of 5.97E+24 kg and r=6371000 m (6371 km), we end up with v=11186.14 m.s

However, if you move to r=100 000 km, you end up with v=2823 m/s, i.e. 2.8 km/s

For v=5.4 km/s, it would need to be 27 000 km from the centre of Earth.

So it seems fine.

Editted in Fun Fact: to escape the solar system from the distance of Earth, ignoring the gravitational potential of Earth, you need a velocity of roughly 42 km/s
To do so from the surface of the sun you need an escape velocity of over 600 km/s.

I would assume the speed of the Tesla was not a linear steady speed but I haven't enough knowledge of space launch speeds.

The exact speed is quite complex.
It starts at 0 on the launch pad. It then begins accelerating at an increasing rate as the mass of the rocket + unburnt fuel is reduced as more fuel is burnt and the force of gravity reduces due to the lesser distance.
But then that booster shuts down, the stage is detached and another stage engages.
Once all the stages have fired, it will then depend upon what kind of trajectory it has, which gets complicated with many bodies being around and what you are measuring it relative to.

It could not be any more clear that at no point did they say it was a shportz kar stuck to a shpayze rokkit, yes.

You're just making the second bit up aintcha, S.Hill?

Suppose rain is forecast, and suppose all the streets and sidewalks in your town get wet but you don’t say specifically that it got rained on.  The rest of us wouldn’t say “Ah, but you didn’t say it was RAIN, I bet there wasn’t even a cloud”

Suppose you live in Philadelphia and a parade happens, after which you discover that a local sports team won a big game.  You wouldn’t say “Ah, I didn’t see a football player, maybe it was just some wierd traffic jam”

Suppose you get in a car crash, and suppose your neck is broken.  Nobody would say “Maybe that was like that before he left home”

Suppose an object is predicted to be flying through space nearby, and suppose a system designed for the sole purpose of detecting nearby objects flying through space suddenly detects something new, flying through space, nearby.  You can pretend all you like, but it isn’t unreasonable to correlate the observed object with the prediction.  Especially when the path of the observed object matches the ephemerides of the predicted object.

Tesla car going too slow to leave Earth orbit?

Earths escape velocity is 11.1km/s

According to the video of the alleged Tesla above recorded as being 470,000km away, lets be generous and say this was 24 hours after launch (although judging by the date of launch vs the video it might be a little more?)

This would mean it travelled 470,000km in 24 hours
or 19583km per hour
326.3km per minute
5.4km per second

Less than half the speed required to escape the Earths pull. Even if we say it was taken 12 hours after launch, it still falls short.

Can someone get the exact time difference between that alleged video and the launch?

Even when faster than escape velocity the Earth's gravity will still slow you down, it just can't slow you down enough to bring you back. It has been slowed which is why the speed is lower.

Quote from: Shifter on February 12, 2018, 02:01:12 PM

Earths escape velocity is 11.1km/s

That 11.1 km/s is measured from the surface of Earth.
This is the velocity required such that the acceleration due to gravity is unable to bring it back to the planet, i.e. as it travels "up" and slows down, it will continue moving, with the velocity tending to 0 as the distance tends to infinity.
This means close to Earth, the velocity of the object will decrease significantly as it rises. As it gets further away, due to the signifantly reduced gravitational attraction, its velocity will decrease much less in a given period of time.

This also means that if you start from further away, the escape velocity is less, as it corresponds to the speed the object would be going at if launched from the surface at the 11.1 km/s, and slowed down on its way.

Escape velocity can be determined with the simple formula:
v=sqrt(2GM/r)
e.g. with G=6.67E-11 kg m/s^2, Earth with a mass of 5.97E+24 kg and r=6371000 m (6371 km), we end up with v=11186.14 m.s

However, if you move to r=100 000 km, you end up with v=2823 m/s, i.e. 2.8 km/s

For v=5.4 km/s, it would need to be 27 000 km from the centre of Earth.

So it seems fine.

Editted in Fun Fact: to escape the solar system from the distance of Earth, ignoring the gravitational potential of Earth, you need a velocity of roughly 42 km/s
To do so from the surface of the sun you need an escape velocity of over 600 km/s.

Lol the jackbot is now claiming rokkitz get to shpayze by slowing down...

Has it redefined Newton's second law as Force = Mass x Deceleration?

Anything is possible when the jackbot tries to talk physics!

http://www.whereisroadster.com
Quite a cool site with interesting Reddit conversation. I suppose a few more people for that slopped brow Legba to abuse.

What’s bizzare and surreal about this so called debate is the stance the slopedbrow flattards are taking. As previously mentioned a launch took place, the whole world witnessed it, so no debate about that. The aim of the launch was to test the heavy launch vehicle which Space X built. It went up, and it all came down again, though the central stage crashed on landing. I’m not sure how much the slopebrowed flattards can absorb of that particular truth. Then there is the Starman stunt that the slopebrows craniums just can’t take on board as it would cause all their ill  constructed flattard world to come crashing down.
It’s amusing watching  each having their individual flattard inspired tantrums. While mr. Black offers answers the Legba creature responds spitting scorn and bile. Don’t believe me, go read the recent posts!

http://www.shitmadeupbythieves.com

Fixed!