I have written in the past about what I call “Operation Fantasy Land.” I surmised that to the extent that Intelligence has been promoting and publicizing analysis of media fakery (and even creating an entire clueless forum devoted to the topic), they are using it to misdirect. One method of misdirection is to take it too far and lead us off into fantasy land, where we throw the baby of truth out with the bathwater of lies. Once a person comes to the realization that they have been surrounded their entire lives with an endless menagerie of lies, it is easier to convince them that the Earth is flat or that rockets can’t work in a vacuum and therefore we’ve never launched anything into space.
While I personally don’t believe either of those things are true, I could not really pinpoint where the lies end and the truth begins. I’m damned certain that Space-X didn’t launch a car into space on its way to Mars, and I’m nearly certain the Apollo imagery of men walking and riding on the moon was all faked. And I’ve also seen enough analysis of some footage from ISS to know there is fakery afoot there. But does that mean, for example, that all of the ISS imagery is faked? That nobody is really up in that tin can? Does it mean that there is no ISS and the thing we can observe through our backyard telescopes zooming through the sky is an elaborate hoax? Could be. If “Operation Fantasy Land” is a thing, then it means that fake imagery can be produced on purpose even if the thing it supposedly depicts is real.
Here is how I put it in the past: “We see the same thing with faked NASA imagery. They are using that imagery (and, I now suspect, deliberately creating obviously fake imagery) in order to misdirect people into the Flat Earth fantasy land. Just because some NASA footage is faked, doesn’t necessarily mean that all footage is faked. And even if all footage is faked, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the Earth is flat or that NASA can’t even so much as launch a satellite into space. In those examples, it’s very easy to see how the conclusions do not follow from the premises. But in other cases, it isn’t because the inferential leap is much smaller and usually more logical.”
Honestly, I’ve never really cared enough about this issue to really dig in to it and try to figure out where is the frontier between lies and truth. Nor am I willing to just throw my hands up and declare it all fake. But perhaps the readers of this blog would like to take a crack at it.
There was a long discussion in the comments of the ‘Defense of Miles Mathis’ thread (I would say it kicks off right around this comment here), and so at Jared’s suggestion I decided to devote a new post for discussion about these types of issues. He is the one who created the fake space image above using compositing. Keep in mind that promotion of Flat Earth in this thread will be grounds for immediate suspension of commenting privileges.
Here I’ll paste the most recent and relevant comments related to the question of whether it is even possible to lift heavy objects (like the Hubble telescope) into space. That conversation starts here, but there is more in the comments section below that about other topics as well. At the bottom I conclude with a request and suggestion for continuing this part of the conversation.
Rolleikin:
My belief is that Hubble is just another piece of fairy tale hardware like moon buggies and Mars rovers. There are ground based photos of the heavens that rival “Hubble images” and there are also aircraft like this …
https://www.sofia.usra.edu/multimedia/about-sofia/sofia-aircraft
… not to mention good old computer generated imagery.
But, there I go starting another argument, I suppose.
Jared (in reply to Rolleikin):
We don’t really have any hard evidence that Hubble is fake, do we? I mean some technical holes, but I remain unconvinced. Why? Two reasons.
One. we have other mainstream devices and observatories spitting out tons of excellent data and imagery to compare it with. The Solar Dynamic Observatory for example – which spits out new images of the sun in every spectrum, every day, and has for eight years now. And they’re really good pictures too.
Could they just have some dudes on staff to crank out new CGI art every day? Or a complex computer program to spit it out? Maybe. But take a look at those pics and tell me what you think.
And second, because I’m in CGI, and as I mentioned above this image and most of what we see from Hubble is not remotely like what the tools allow. I do a lot of particle physics stuff (mostly to try to demonstrate Miles’ theories) too and it would take me a LOT of work to come even close to that image, and I would still be able to tell it was faked. My guess is most of you would, too. I try to hit SOME level of realism but the tools aren’t geared towards such massive space sims in that fashion. Here’s what I mean. though sure there are people far more skilled than I in the field and sure if they pay them the big bucks to slave over it, they would achieve better results since they wouldn’t have to work otherwise to make a living, but:
https://imgur.com/N5h6fZR
Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t blindly follow anything. Especially from the mainstream! But unless someone could explain how or show me where that pic above of the center of the galaxy environs was faked, I remain skeptical but content with it as data to discuss for now.
Andrea (in reply to rolleikin):
Unfortunately I agree with you. I say unfortunately because I rather would believe that all these technical achievements are true.
The Hubble is a big disappointment for me.
Mathematically it is IMPOSSIBLE to bring 11 tons into low earth orbit (LEO). I encourage you to do the math.
Allegedly, they repaired it in space sending the shuttle, which is even heavier and has to return to earth. Twice impossible!
The repairs lasted four hours in sunlight. What about the orbit? They are supposed to go from sun to shadow every hour or so, not every five. I am formulating it vaguely because NASA gives typically contradictory data (which is suspicious, if you only need to read them, but is the result of contradictions that come up).
How do they cool the instruments or the astronauts in space?
Lastly, why do you need a telescope on a plane, if you have Hubble?
Jared:
I’m confused about your information regarding Hubble and its (assumed, alleged) launch.
Hubble:
Launch mass 11,110 kg (24,490 lb)[1]
Discovery:
Payload to LEO 27,500 kg (60,600 lb)
Given the mission statements, the space shuttle DIscovery had more than enough leftover delta-V to take up Hubble AND these secondary payloads:
“Secondary payloads included the IMAX Cargo Bay Camera (ICBC) to document operations outside the crew cabin and a handheld IMAX camera for use inside the orbiter. Also included were the Ascent Particle Monitor (APM) to detect particulate matter in the payload bay; a Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) experiment to provide data on growing protein crystals in microgravity, Radiation Monitoring Equipment III (RME III) to measure gamma ray levels in the crew cabin; Investigations into Polymer Membrane Processing (IPMP) to determine porosity control in the microgravity environment, and an Air Force Maui Optical Site (AMOS) experiment.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-31#Mission_highlights
I’m not defending NASA or whatever here out of hand, but I don’t know if I’m ready to jettison the space shuttle yet. I don’t see why the Gravity Turn isn’t a viable approach to Low-Earth-Orbit, and that’s the Shuttle’s main role really. You can’t do it sooner because those boosters and tank need to drop off clean, and the best way to do that safely is still in the vertical ascent. So the Shuttle does the Turn after that, which is where it begins to outrun the Earth’s gravity.
That’s the story, anyway. The Shuttle doesn’t have to haul 12 tons up to space by itself. Most of the acceleration is still being done by the boosters, the real heavy lifting.
Andrea:
I understand your confusion very well!
Years ago I was calculating the Apollo flights to understand once and for all if it was possible or not to fly to the moon. I don’t know enough of photography to judge if the pictures are photoshopped or not, but I am an engineer by education, so numbers are my thing!
What I realized was shocking: not only it is not possible to fly to the moon, it is not even possible to send manned stations to LEO!
I started searching the internet to see if someone else had discovered the problem. And this is how I discovered Miles!!
Obviously, Miles doesn’t address the math of rockets but I found his physics stuff very interesting. Only later I looked into his „art“ papers. Since we now understand the amount of fakery, it is not that much surprising that most of nasa is a hollywood or walt disney production…
The question is finally, what is real and what not?
I think it is realistic to assume that a rocket can reach orbit or fly into the solar system. With a small cargo (one or two tons at most).
The ratio cargo to rocket should be 1,5% at most for LEO, much less for interstellar missions. All Apollo missions are thus fake, all russian, chinese, Indian missions are fake, the ISS is fake, Hubble is fake. However I assume that a few hundred small satellites are real. So they can provide real pictures.
It is not possible to come back or land on a planet or a moon or a comet. It requires even more energy. So all rovers on planets are fake. There is no doubt about that.
If someone among the readers is upset by my statements, and thinks otherwise, please provide your numbers. I will gladly tear them apart, one by one.
Russell Taylor:
Andrea…. I tend to agree after I watched a brilliant lecture showing the math behind rocket launches but as with most of the YouTube video’s I have watched on controversial subject, they no longer seem to exist. YouTube censorship in action? The man was showing the impossibility of getting those Shuttle payloads into orbit.
We have to believe the numbers NASA give for gross lift off weights and payloads as they are the ones who should know.
Believe NASA? I can’t believe I just said that!
But they lie about so many things how can we believe the numbers?
This is the description of the first Hubble servicing mission: https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/hubble/missions/sm1.html
Notice they say a few small mirrors the size of a nickel were needed, then say the thing was the size of a telephone booth. So what size was it? Tiny or huge? Maybe the booth was filled with special space engineers? Maybe it was a huge toolkit? Maybe it was a mobile canteen for the engineers to shower and get something to eat & drink?
This weapon is for use in the lower atmosphere but would be far more efficient and useful in space.
https://www.livescience.com/60029-how-futuristic-laser-weapons-use-telephone-tech.html
Jared:
I must politely disagree with both of you, and would like to see the math you’re using so we can find where it went wrong.
Orbital dynamics are about acceleration – ▲v (delta-v) or “change in velocity”. A space-launching craft’s limits are defined by its total ▲v-budget, which is a measure of its acceleration of course, but also a measure of its acceleration against its thrust-to-weight ratio since we have two MORE changes over time. First, the TWR increases dramatically as fuel is used, increasing the acceleration also dramatically.
That’s what the gravity turn is. You hit the point of diminishing returns on atmospheric escape, and you turn perpendicular to “outpace” the pull of gravity. You’re up high enough to negate most of the drag of the atmosphere when you begin the turn.
The Space Shuttle’s ▲v budget was more than enough on paper to pull LEO with 55,000 pounds of cargo.
“The Space Shuttle weighed 165,000 pounds empty. Its external tank weighed 78,100 pounds empty and its two solid rocket boosters weighed 185,000 pounds empty each. Each solid rocket booster held 1.1 million pounds of fuel.”
The combined mass fully fueled is said to be “4,470,000 lb”, or 2,070 tons. Hubble was said to be 24,490 pounds. That makes Hubble just over HALF a percent of the total weight, at .0054.
“The ratio cargo to rocket should be 1,5% at most for LEO”
So even by your own math and logic, Hubble is 1/3 of that ratio. Even with the rest of the cargo for that mission it would have been barely 1%.
Andrea:
Please find numbers in kg, m/s etc. otherwise it becomes very confusing. Nasa does it on purpose this way, you hardly find two numbers that match. Then we go over it together.
Jared:
It’s not confusing, just simple division. We don’t need velocity in these ratios at all. You said “ratio” previously so that’s what I did. It is just percentages, which are ratios. It doesn’t matter which metric you use as long as you use the same metric for your division. The ratio is the same no matter if you use pounds, grams, stones, or copper pfennigs.
Hubble mass / total Shuttle mass = .5%, or ~½ a percent.
24,490 / 4,470,000 = 0.00548
.005 = .5%
You stated previously:
“The ratio cargo to rocket should be 1,5% at most for LEO”
Thus:
.5 / 1.5 = .333, which is 1/3.
Hubble is one-third of the mass limit you defined and less than half of Discovery’s payload limit of 55,000, which is also still below 1.5%. We can check that for you as well if you like:
55,000 / 4,470,000 = 0.01230
.012 = 1.2%
So even according to your premise, the Shuttle at max payload is still well below that “ratio cargo to rocket”. The Shuttle could have carried almost 3 Hubbles, if it could have fit them in the cargo bay. This is why I was confused about your math, because it doesn’t seem like you did any when forming your premise that they couldn’t have launched it or the following repair equipment.
Russell Taylor:
The reason I tend to agree with Andrea that the figures are made up is because the person I saw a few years ago, giving the talk was highly qualified in another area, jet propulsion I believe, and just couldn’t believe the figures he was seeing in NASAs descriptions. He analysed it in the same way Miles does and proved it didn’t make sense. But then you try to find his video and it’s gone. In it’s place are several video’s showing the same disbelief but by people who seem spooky, like they are unsure of their own math, as if they are black-washing the whole idea…or to put it another way deliberately making themselves look stupid.
We never see how far technology has progressed. The stuff they show in the media is probably 10 or more years out of date. Perfect example is the F117 Stealth bomber. No one knew it existed until someone took a blurry photo thinking it was a UFO. It wasn’t revealed to the public until 10 years later but this was 20 years after it was first test flown and put into production.
So if they are showing Humvee mounted crowd dispersing microwave weapons and admitting using them in the Iraq wars, and also laser weapons shooting down full sized drone aircraft, then I wonder what else they have up their sleeves?
How far have they developed these weapons?
Over the years there have been several maintenance missions to the Hubble, to do what exactly? Its a telescope with several specialist cameras. So why the multiple multi-million dollar missions to do what….change the flippin’ batteries? Clean the lenses?
I don’t doubt they send stuff up there but to make the ISS completely believable for the continued in-pouring of tax-dollars, I believe they fudge the numbers, sending up maybe 4 ton loads not 29 tons at a time.
They did the same trick with the Apollo 11 numbers where they brought back lots of heavy rock yet used a tiny amount of fuel to push back into lunar orbit, including lining up to rendezvous with the orbiter. With about the same computing power as a ZX81.
To push the fakery a bit more, they say the thrust when landing didn’t move a lot of dust because in a vacuum the jet efflux disperses as soon as it exits the exhaust nozzle.
Pack of lies! Watch a video of the jet thrusters on the Shuttle keeping the thing flying straight.
The burnt gas can clearly be seen exiting straight out from the thrusters and continuing in a straight line. It does not disperse in the way NASA describe….not that we need to travel down that endless avenue of deceit in this thread…
They lie about everything… isn’t that what Miles says?
Andrea:
Jared, this is supposed to be fun! Before we start, think to a Las Vegas magic show. The magician will show you a lot of (irrelevant) details and conceal the trick. Nasa is doing very smart tricks. They do it under our nose, but they are smart, intelligent and experienced.
Miles showed us that most of the time the mathematicians write equations that are not properly defined in order to extrapolate whatever result they need. If I wrote „3=7 and therefore if follows…“ everyone would call the contradiction. If I hide the same equation in a very complex formula, hardly anyone will notice.
I asked you to pick your numbers and I will be very generous with the assumptions. While the correct ratio is likely more 0.5% I don’t mind if we assume 1.5% will work as well. We have to start somewhere and I am willing to agree on a lot of numbers, even though I might know better.
To begin the show we need a fully loaded cargo and assume it can reach orbit. Don’t be too impatient, the topic is complex!
Jared:
I mean the show began already and in that show, I showed the math twice and it fell well below your personal limit of feasibility at 1.5%, so I don’t know why you can’t just admit that. It was simple math, so you don’t need to hedge on this topic. I refuse to believe one simple division is beyond your capacity. You’re hedging out of pride is all. It’s okay to be wrong – I try to do it at least once a day myself, just to keep some measure of humility.
In addition, I have logged thousands of flight tests and orbital tests in the best simulator around, KSP. Most of the craft we designed failed to get to orbit, by pilot error or design error or both. But once you dial in your ▲v-budget properly and get your gravity turn right, it’s really not that hard to get into ANY orbit. I’ve done countless Hohmann Transfers, orbit-matching, and even docking procedures as well. Landed on the Mun, and other planets too, all using existing rocketry techniques. Some fiction is involved with futuristic add-ons such as the HX and OPT-Spaceplane parts, and MechJeb automation, but it’s all based on actual, real mechanics and actual, real physics. They of course don’t have the charge field and use the modified Pi just as the mainstream does, but otherwise it is dead-on accurate and easily the most accurate simulator available.
The hardest orbits to achieve are with spaceplanes, since you have to fly into your gravity turn in a different way. You have to get up fast enough and hard enough but not vertically, and hit that 2,200 m/s velocity laterally, switching between air-breathing engines and rocketry modes, and still have enough remaining ▲v to circularize the orbit once you get up there. It’s much more difficult – and this may be why there are no spaceplanes yet, in reality too. It’s MUCH more difficult to pull off.
What this means is that the math and physics for achieving orbit are real and work. Miles has added to this and fixed big parts of it, but to claim that they don’t work means one hasn’t studied the topic, and is just putting faith in… Someone else who hasn’t studied it very well.
This doesn’t mean by any stretch that everything they tell us about the space programs and satellites and telescopes and the ISS is true, it simply means that orbital mechanics are real and we can even prove it just by watching the moon for a few months. The moon orbits the Earth, remember? Real.
Andrea:
And of course we need velocities. To reach LEO nasa tells us we need a speed of 9.3 to 10 km/s. Pick your favorite. We don’t know the direction of the speed, it could be orbital velocity, or tangential velocity or a combination. From Miles paper you should know that he found plenty of problems in the definition of orbital velocity. All, that applies to small objects, applies to rockets as well. Pick your favorite again.
At start the air friction is very relevant, so rockets start vertically, then go tangential over 20-30 km, where the atmosphere is very this. We don’t at which height they turn, pick your choice.
Delta-v is an approximation without air friction, in open space. Never mind, we will just ignore friction. The logic behind the formula is that of action equal reaction. If we let a rocket engine fire in one direction, we will get an acceleration in the opposite direction. The mass of the carburant on one side times the speed is equal to mass of the rocket on the other side times another speed. The problem is more complex by the fact that the carburant is cargo at the beginning so you need to accelerate stuff that you are going to burn. Never mind, for our imaginary rocket we will assume that the acceleration is instantaneous!
This, I hope you realize it, is a great simplification. Coincidentally the same assumption is also included in the delta-v formula. In other words, if you use it you are assuming the rocket is accelerating to the final speed without air friction, in an instant. I am accepting all these parameters, but understand we are being very generous.
For our imaginary rocket we need a starting mass, a final speed, a final orbit height. Pick your favorites.
Jared:
You don’t appear to be reading my responses anymore, so I’ll go ahead and let you play your orbital mechanics game on your own, my dear.
Being able to admit when we’re wrong is the most important thing when studying and hypothesizing science. If we can’t do that, it’s going to be difficult to learn anything or teach anything, which is the point of these conversations, wouldn’t you say? Do you genuinely want to learn about orbital dynamics, or do you just want to be right about something we already showed you were wrong about? You’re misdirecting away from the simple math at this point.
From there things started to devolve into accusations. I’d like us to try not to pull off that path and stick to substance. It seems to me that Jared’s math has not been shown to be wrong. If it is, then it should be easy to show, even if the topic is complicated. Andrea, you said you already did the math in the past and found that it doesn’t work out–there’s no way they could have brought the hubble into orbit. Would it be too much for you to respond to Jared’s calculations with calculations of your own? There is no rush to provide a substantive response if you need more time.
Vexman said:
I had some extra time on my hands and went through some of Björkman’s calculations. I found a couple of issues where I believe he made an error in calculations, however some of his points firmly stand and raise serious scepticism about the mechanics of alleged spacecraft’s re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere.
He says: ” Two OMS produce 52.800 N thrust. This thrust applied to an empty 69 000 kg Shuttle brakes the Shuttle at 52 800/69 000 = 0.77 m/s² .”
This is completely wrong, Newtons (N) and kilograms (kg) have a fixed transform, whereas 1N to kg = 0.10197 kg. So you either need to transform N -> kg or vice versa and use the same units in the equation.
The next issue are units expressed in Bjorkman’s result as ” m/s² ” ; this would interpret as a form of acceleration or deceleration as meters per second per second. If you divide numerator expressed in N with a denominator expressed in kg, your units are annulated and the result is unit-less. So to claim N/kg = m/s² is completely false.
To calculate the deceleration, one formula is a = (v – u)/t, where a is the deceleration, v is the final velocity, u is initial velocity and t is the time taken. If distance covered is known, but time passed is not known, a second formula that can be used is a = (v^2 – u^2) / (2s), where a is the deceleration, v is final velocity, u is initial velocity and s is the distance covered. The deceleration formulas calculate the rate of decrease in overall speed and are typically measured in meters per second^2, or other distance per time unit squared units.
Another issue worth mentioning is Tsiolkovsky’s formula in general, which supposes ideal conditions. I’m not the first to say that such formula completely ignores gravity drag and air resistance applicable to i.e. Spaceshuttle re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. You can find serious discussions and further formula derivations here: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-07-dynamics-fall-2009/lecture-notes/MIT16_07F09_Lec14.pdf.
In essence, Björkman would need to adapt his calculations for both gravity drag and air resistance to represent his claims factually. On top of that, I think Björkman doesn’t know about charge. Neither did Tsiolkovsky when working on the rocket formula at the end of 19th century. So we should first address the question of equation and expand it for gravity drag and air resistance, then work in the charge as well.
I also concur with Jared’s claim about both kinetic and potential energy – these are theoretical constructs and should be treated as such. While energy preservation law has to be taken into account, there’s an absolute necessity to include all involved mechanics affecting the energy form of observed body as well. In Björkman’s math used, I can’t see any of that, which unfortunately makes him look just as bad as MSM sources – they all lack holistic approach.
What keeps me really wondering are many pictures of satellites and ISS, that were captured by more-or-less amateur photographers around the globe. Some of those seem very likely to be actual photographs, passing the smell test as authentic. There’s a guy named Thierry Legault from France, an amateur sky-watcher with 25-year experience and serious gear, who captured some of the most spectacular pics. A few examples:
“This image might be the last one of a space shuttle in orbit. It has been taken on July 21st 2011 at 08:27:48 UT, just 21 minutes before Atlantis’ deorbit burn, from the area of Emden, NW Germany. Transit duration: 0.9s. Distance to observer: 566 km. Speed in orbit: 7.8 km/s. All images of this page taken with Takahashi TOA-150 6″ apochromatic refractor (focal length 3600mm) on EM-400 mount, Baader Herschel wedge. Canon 5D mark II at 1/8000s, 100 ISO, working in continuous shooting at 4 frames per second.”
“Solar transit taken on July 15th from France (Caen, Normandy), showing Atlantis docked to the ISS. Transit duration: 0.7s. ISS distance to observer: 520 km. Speed in orbit: 7.5km/s (27000 km/h or 17000 mph).”
More here: http://www.astrophoto.fr/satellites.html , (disclaimer: it’s an archaic web page from 1990’s 🙂 )
So what gives? If these pictures along with many others by different authors are showing real objects, I think they’re actually man-made. If they weren’t man-made, these objects would’ve been noticed by generations of earlier sky-watchers, considering the existence of decent telescopes for couple hundreds of years. There is hardly any reasonable argument left against who made the observable objects in the sky. So how did they get up there? I think we’re not shown the actual technology capable of doing it. The main issue would be secrecy as i.e. hiding the knowledge about building any machine capable of space travel, with analogy to earliest knowledge of ship building and the conquering of Earth before anybody else knew how to build ships and navigate properly. If we’re talking about PTB here, they don’t know any other way, so deceptions, truth-spinning and misdirection is standard MO, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rascasse said:
Meaning that N=kg x m/s2 does not apply in space?
The definition of a Newton as a force is:
“One newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in the direction of the applied force.”
Like this: 1 N = 0.10197 kg × 9.80665 m/s2
No gravity in space, good point.
I have e-mailed Björkman and linked him here.
Excellent post Wex
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Rascasse said: “No gravity in space, good point.”
What did you mean by that?
LikeLike
Vexman said:
Rascasse: “Meaning that N=kg x m/s2 does not apply in space?”
No, that’s not the essence of my claim. Bjorkman took force (F) on the left side of the equilibrium he was looking at and made his calculation taking into the account the force (F) applied by Shuttle’s engines and simply divided it by the kilograms of the Shuttle; as per F=ma. Do you see what he did here? If not, bear with me for next few moments: the force of Shuttle’s engines expressed in Newtons, IS already a product of propellant’s mass expelled from the Shuttle at certain acceleration. That’s what describes it as a force. So this force applied to Shuttle’s mass has to do WORK (or energy transfer) in order to affect Shuttle’s moving mass. Meaning, F =/= E ; where E is kinetic energy. Energy (E) = Fd(istance) or in other words – Shuttle going at 7800 m/s has received energy of Shuttle’s engines while travelling over certain distance. If you want to decelerate / reduce the velocity of Shuttle’s mass, you need to apply WORK to it.
The issue with Bjorkman’s calculation is the way he constructed the problem to apply the math to it. In my opinion, he got it wrong. Why? Look at the sketch I made for the purpose of demonstrating the issue in question:
As you can notice, on the left side we have F=m*a describing Shuttle’s engines giving thrust, while on the right side we have a physical body’s (Shuttle’s) energy (E) accumulated from the recent acceleration (i.e. launch) while traveling (observable as speed). The WORK done by the rocket engines when going up was transformed into rocket’s velocity (and partially lost to gravity drag and air resistance) while on the way up.
So what is on the right side of the equilibrium’s equation? How to properly look at the energy transform? While Bjorkman claims deceleration is simple F=ma -> a=F/m, that’s obviously not the case. In fact, it’s wrong to claim so in the rocket’s case. It is about the equilibrium equation, where on the right side you actually have a form of energy transform and you’re looking at a theoretical kinetic energy. Ke would be written in units of Joules (J) or kgm^2/s^2, meaning if Shuttle came to a full stop in a fragment of time, it could release all that energy stored in a single instance. Therefore, the WORK done by the engines cannot have a form of Newtons (N) as such since N expresses force and NOT energy/work done. This work/energy can only exist as Newtons over distance (i.e. Newton-meters; Nm) or Joules, which is completely another dimension. That’s the big difference in comparison to what Bjorkman did in his attempt: F = E (while ignoring G, air resistance and charge influencing rocket’s trajectory) => can you see his error in postulating the equilibrium equation? True is F=/=E. The correct question to ask (postulate mathematically and calculate) is how much work do Shuttle’s engines need to provide in order to lower Shuttle’s speed?
I didn’t include this inter-step in understanding the issue as my post was already long enough. But your reply made me realize my most recent wish was granted, so thanks for the fun.
LikeLike
Vexman said:
Improved sketch
LikeLike
Rascasse said:
Many thanks for a clever and fine explanation Wexman. I believe I can follow what you mean.
Then, how did NASA present the break force of the OMS rocket engines? I wonder since Björkmans numbers comes from that source.
quote: “For a successful return to Earth and landing, dozens of things have to go just right, we are told.”
It seems Björkman his examples do not include the logarithmic part of this equation and instead uses the vacuum space simplified variant. For more on this math we also have http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm
And what Delta-v would we get if we use the Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky equation? Were (quote:) “the actual acceleration or delta-v vector would be found by adding thrust per mass on to the Earth’s gravity vector acting on the space craft.”
That should be Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
I really should not dabble to much with this since I am not a rocket engineer and lack profound knowledge of both physics and math, although I do have studied some biometrics at university level.
I am more in to sniff tests were my opinions are made on the fundament of Ockhams razor. Which brings us to Josh and his recent brilliant reflections on preconceived opinions.
I have contacted Björkman about this issue, he responded that he is just a simple sea safety engineer, that all we have learned about human space travel is fake and that he is quite busy at the moment.
I think he felt a bit annoyed after having participated and discovered that Hyttens c-forum was a bit too spooky a nest. Perhaps he is also under some kind of pressure. I believe his site has many visitors. He have guts and deserves great respect.
It would be fantastic if Miles chimed in and gave us a hint as to how much lifting force charge would have in a hypothetical situation like what we are discussing. With that speed it could perhaps become a force to reckon with although I expect the density of charged photons at that altitude to be less than in the actual atmosphere. Perhaps Jared have some idea.
My critical sniff test point on this is how on earth (pun intended) can a manned spacecraft survive such immense forces when reentering and how can the reentry and landing be done during such a short period of time and always with 100% accuracy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Vexman said:
I’m not a rocket engineer either. You don’t have to be one in order to apply logic to calculations. Bjorkman does deserve respect for what he did there, no doubt about that. As you may’ve noticed, I did say that many things he wrote make perfect sense to me and I do have a few issues about the mechanics of Shuttle’s re-entry. We’re definitely not told the whole story there or anywhere else on the net, not even on NASA’s own pages. The reasons for it may be simple as if they didn’t actually know the details, because it was all fake. On the other hand – and this is my pure speculation – they lied about the Shuttle’s reentry because they were hiding something. Was it only about the Shuttle? Or was it about the rockets in general? It doesn’t matter which answer best suits your taste for conspiracy flavors, as both / all options raise serious doubts about the official explanation.
Honestly, I don’t feel like deconstructing Tsiolkovsky’s or any other attempts at calculating “delta v” . Until Miles (or anybody else for that matter) incorporates charge into it, it will be a defunct equation since it not only ignores charge, but gravity drag and air resistance too. All the major parameters of a realistic equation are left out, so in my perception, the equation and its derivations need to be re-written from scratch.
LikeLike
Rascasse said:
Here is one attempt to spread what is known about a secret space program, a free e-book by Andrew Johnsson
https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2018/05/31/book-finding-the-secret-space-programme/
Then this film of what is known about the TR3B, a flying machine, the technology, its history and sightings. Persons involved as info sources include Edward Fouche, Brian de Palma and Tom Bearden
https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=184&part=1&gen=5
LikeLike
mantalo said:
“…Solar transit taken on July 15th from France (CaeN, Normandy), ….”
F C N ==> it’s signed
also, caen = cohen
normands = WTC’s friends
end of analysis 🙂
and just, why should we have G=0 in the space ?
i thought that the moon was caught by G-earth, and that our tides were due to G-moon…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
True MANTALO.
Gravity permeates the whole of the universe, or so I’ve been told. There is no such thing as zero gravity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
mantalo said:
or it tends to zero when the distance is enough…
gravity/attraction decreases as the square of the distance…
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
I am glad we’re getting to a common agreement on reality, nice to see.
Indeed; their own Copernican-Keplerian-Newtonian(-Einsteinian) model; until the brackets I take this still as the most reliable model for the observations we can make from Earth, says that every problem in space is by default a 2-body problem.
According to the model, basically all orbits are slightly elliptical with the main gravitational body in one of the two focal points of the elliptoid orbit. This makes every problem already a 2 body problem with 2 gravitational fields affecting 2 bodies. This is the bare minimum.
In case of Gaia, because of our gigantic sister Selene (replace by Bachué respectively Chía or any other figure or name at will), we by definition have a 3 body problem, without even introducing humans. Or a 4 body problem if we count that pretty omnipotent force of the Milky Way….
Yet, what we are presented with by NASA cum suis, is a 2 body problem with a “satellite” orbiting Earth. As if suddenly the gravitational fields of at least the Moon and the Sun; we know their effects on the gigantic mass that is the oceans, and most probably Jupiter/Mars/Venus, and the Milky Way spiral arm idea suddenly do not matter? Do not exist? Can be excluded to offer a solvable equation, otherwise it becomes too hard to present to gullible people on Earth?
These 2-body problems can never, ever describe reality.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
@Mantalo: Miles has already given us the solution to tides, in a series of papers. They start at #139 on his science page. Here is the first:
“The Trouble with Tides”
http://milesmathis.com/tide.html
LikeLike
mantalo said:
yes i discovered that just now… i’m reading…
i should have read it before, i apologise
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
No need to apologize, my friend. We’re all here to LEARN.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I concur with Vexman, that these photos look legitimate. There are no alpha artifacts, the noise is consistent and checks out, and they look natural.
Some folks don’t know anything about noise or alpha channels, and then there are some who don’t know what Difference means (Mark Tokarski, anyone?), and there are some who just want to disbelieve everything ever.
It’s really about sorting evidence (data) against claims of motive, to me. There’s quite a lot of chaff in this thread now but it’s easily winnowed. Poof.
LikeLiked by 2 people
nada0101 said:
Well, the landings look real and the shots “in Space” look real — so why the launch fakery?
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
(4 min video)
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Which launch fakeries do you mean? I mean specifically, do you think all the launch footage is fake? I don’t. Some of it, sure, and the official REASONS are highly suspect. But I personally don’t have any problem with rockets and missiles and think they’re pretty cool!
I know my stance isn’t very helpful on this one.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
I know man-made Satellites exist and that the Shuttle existed but why all the bulls**t with the launches? Into this gap the spooks here have poured much uncertainty which is why your stance was very helpful indeed. You saved this thread from ChaosFear which reminds me…
@ChaosFear I assume Verne was a spook — maybe gay and Jewish 😉 — and I will not be clicking on that link. I also studiously avoid reading your sophistry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Hold everything! I found the ISS!
LikeLike
Vexman said:
I get the sarcasm, but not the essence.
Can you clarify further? Are you saying all people using the telescope are liars, because there is nothing like ISS up there?
Or are you saying that there are only fake pics of ISS, but it does exist as noticed in the sky by thousands of people?
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
I’m simply saying that faking photos like the type you posted is child’s play.
The swimsuit photo took less than 5 minutes using an old version of Photoshop which I am not particularly adept at. The MM photo was quicker.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
A couple of kilograms per square metre there rolliekin!
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
OMG!
LikeLike
alewisreid said:
Is Mickey looking for Pluto?
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
No, he’s looking for alpha artifacts.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Failed rover mission, or successful covert insertion?
https://www.techspot.com/news/81799-india-latest-moon-shot-fails.html
LikeLike
Josh said:
I am going to weigh in on this debate with some trepidation, as it seems we were about to put it behind us. But I spent enough time trying to sort through all the different issues to come to a decision myself, and I’d hate having that effort go to waste.
It seems that we all agree that there are lights in the sky that behave like artificial satellites orbiting the Earth at some great distance (or what we’ve been told are orbiting satellites).
What we don’t agree on is whether those satellites are really orbiting the Earth from space or whether they are simply objects in our atmosphere that are made to mimic the movement of alleged satellites. I’ll call these the real satellite and fake satellite camps.
After weighing all the issues carefully and dispassionately, I’ve decided that satellites are real. Before I explain my reasoning, let me say that I am sympathetic to the arguments offered by Rolleikin and SMJ for thinking they’re fake. I actually think it’s a reasonable position. NASA lied about the moon landings and lied about people living in the ISS and nukes and so many other things, and so why shouldn’t anything they say (for example about satellites) be assumed to be a lie or fabrication? Footage of early satellite launches seems clearly fake, which indicates that the launches themselves must have been fake, and so we can assume that all subsequent launches were fake. (SMJ posted some video of the earliest US satellite launches, but nobody has really commented on them.) So when Jared rails at Rolleikin for ignoring or being ignorant of orbital dynamics, I can see how Rolleikin believes it’s beside the point, since he believes (as far as I can tell) that the science itself–with all of its equations describing orbital dynamicsz–is fraudulent.
Boris, who believes that satellites are real, said he follows “the principle of ‘same effect, same cause; unless there is extraordinarily strong evidence to the contrary’. The codicil to this is that if one single event, like the moon landings, is proved beyond reasonable doubt to be bogus, everything else to do with rocketry is a fraud until proved otherwise.”
By that principle, couldn’t we reasonably conclude that satellites are also bogus?
Rolleikin might counter that “Events can have fake aspects but that doesn’t mean that nothing happened. The WTC towers really did fall but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a whole lot of fakery with that event. Hiroshima really was destroyed but that doesn’t mean it was destroyed the way they said it was. And so on and so on.”
By that principle, couldn’t we reasonably conclude that satellites might be real?
The irony here is that although I am quoting Boris and Rolleikin accurately, I am also quoting them out of context: Boris believes satellites are real, whereas Rolleikin believes they’re fake. I’ve juxtaposed these statements in an attempt to show that each side that the position taken by the other is not that extreme or illogical. I think the amount of vitriol this topic has inspired has been totally—and to me, surprisingly—out of proportion.
Here are my reasons for thinking that satellites are real, in no particular order:
One is the data we get from satellites. One example that was brought up was the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). There seems to be an enormous amount of high quality imagery and other data on the sun coming from the SDO. Rolleikin countered that this data could be gathered by ground- or air-based satellites. I don’t think that’s the case, since the SDO is pointed at and streams data on the sun 24/7, day or night. I guess it could be possible to stream data on the sun 24/7 from the Earth if you have a couple of different data gathering arrays set up around the Earth, switching from one to the next as the planet revolves – assuming you could get the same resolution of data through the atmosphere. But then you’d have the problem of what happens when it’s cloudy. You can’t get that kind of clear image of the sun when it’s behind the clouds. Or even in a high altitude aircraft there are bound to be atmospheric, etc. distortions.
So maybe you go with balloon-mounted satellites, which do exist. There again you have a huge logistical problem of maintaining 24/7 coverage. You also have the problem of what appears to be an unwavering image of the sun coming through the SDO website. You also couldn’t do this all with balloon-mounted satellites, for various reasons. The main one being that balloon-mounted satellites don’t stay inflated forever. In fact from what I could tell the best they can do is to get them to stay aloft for 24 hours at a time.
As for imagery of the Earth from satellites or the ISS being spoofed by balloon-mounted cameras, I don’t think you could spoof the HD streaming video from the ISS that way, because the trajectory of the ISS is so steady and uni-directional, unlike what you’d get from a balloon-mounted camera. If fake, it would have to be CGI. That’s thousands and thousands of hours of continually streaming HD video of the Earth’s surface we’re talking about.
Even if one granted that it is possible in principle to fake or gather this data by other means, one can’t help but notice that with every new “what about x” question, the theory of how they fake satellites becomes ever more convoluted. In that respect it reminds me of theories of Flat Earth, in that they have to come up with ever more complex ways of explaining aspects of the observable world that are much more simply and easily explained by the heliocentric globe Earth model. Or I guess you could just claim the data are completely fabricated. Not just from SDO but from every other satellite. I guess it’s possible in principle but I for one don’t believe all of these scientists all over the world are just making up all of this data.
And then there’s the issue of lights in the sky that many of us have observed that move at the speed and trajectories of satellites. Rolleikin admits that he is uncertain how these could be spoofed, but one possibility is to have high altitude planes flying at very high speed. Of course one problem with this is the incredible effort and complexity required to pull off such a scheme. Let’s not forget the hundreds of satellites are visible with the naked eye, and thousands with the help of binoculars – though they are not all necessarily visible night after night. Go to a site like N2YO.com or heavens-above.com. You can find lists of the many thousands of satellites orbiting, with precise coordinates. If you had the equipment and were so inclined, you could presumably track these satellites — view them either with your eyes or with a telescope. I don’t do that, but I believe it would be possible to do so in principle. In any case, it seems like an unbelievable effort to go to in order to maintain the satellite fraud. (Admittedly, I don’t know to what extent anyone has tried to corroborate this information in any rigorous way. But I do believe there are amateur astronomers using at least some of this information to track some satellites.)
So then we naturally ask: to what end is this fraud perpetrated? If one of the goals of the satellite scheme is to overcharge the public for fake goods and pocket the remainder, it seems like the effort to fake the satellites would incur a huge, ongoing expense – one which would likely surpass the costs of simply launching them. Also keep in mind that many modern satellites are owned by and paid for by companies, not governments and taxpayers. So at this point it can’t just be a dip into the treasury. If a company pays for a satellite, they expect it to deliver.
Rolleikin suggested that the goal might be to “create awe in the technological prowess of the government and support for the reality of fake and more awesome space exploration missions. Populations in awe of their governments don’t revolt. They pay their taxes, believe their leaders, obey the laws and do what they are told. Awe is the ultimate and most cost effective state of mind for a slave. No whips or chains required.” I think that in a few cases (ISS, SpaceX), there is a sense of awe created. I don’t think the people are especially awed by satellites – at least not anymore. They are routine. Taken for granted. I just don’t see it, and I don’t see them going to such lengths to perpetuate this huge, ongoing hoax. [I will say, however, that I for one do not put a huge priority on understanding the “why” before accepting a conspiracy theory. I put emphasis on facts and observations; we generally have to guess much more about the why.]
Some people said that there was no way that a high altitude airplane could approximate the speed of a satellite. From what I can tell, and as I reflect on my own experience, satellites appear to move at speed that is not much faster than an airplane. So I believe this is possible in principle. However, one sticking point here are geosynchronous satellites, which don’t move but can be observed by telescope. See here, for example. Perhaps it’s some kind of high altitude helicopter? Except that the coordinates of the satellite are known. They can be viewed independently by people at various locations on the globe given those coordinates. That would only be possible with an object that is much higher up than a high altitude helicopter or whatever. Admittedly, I’ve never done this personally, but I believe it’s possible and probably has been done. I did not feel like digging through amateur astronomy forums to see more examples.
I will also point out that Miles has done a lot of work using satellite data, such as from the GOCE and GRACE satellites. In particular, he was pointing there to anomalous findings and then explaining those anomalies. He did the same thing with the Pioneer anomaly. If I’m not mistaken it was the idea of solving that riddle that drew him to studying physics in the first place. The way the GOCE and GRACE data were gathered could not really be replicated on an airplane. So they’d have to fake the data. But if they’re faking it, then why are they producing anomalies?
Rolleikin said that they are always introducing surprises and unexpected findings in order to make their fake data seem more real. “If everything turned out as expected it would start to look fake but unexpected occurrences make it seem real.” Maybe so. But then I’d say it’s rather surprising that Miles has been able to show how to make sense of these anomalies. I would have expected the anomalies to be sort of random stuff made up in the writers’ room. Perhaps they are Easter eggs dropped into the fake data in order to give clues to real physics? Perhaps, but I think it’s a stretch.
Vex and Boris have suggested that even if rockets are not capable of launching satellites (this is a separate if related debate), it doesn’t mean satellites are fake. They could be set in orbit by some kind of advanced tech craft alluded to in Miles’ paper on What’s Behind the Nuclear Program. Rocket launches are then spoofed as a smokescreen for this very advanced tech. I suppose it’s possible. If you’ve come to the conclusion that the video we see of rocket launches is fake, but satellites are real, then this is one way to square that circle.
However, I would point to this recording of a rocket-launched satellite as one that looks quite real, at least to my naïve eyes. I wonder what you all think of it. I can’t embed it here. You have to go to the site and play the video. It doesn’t have all of the smoky pyrotechnics of the shuttle launches. There is a brief initial billow of steam from the water well under the rockets, but then it looks very much like what you’d imagine a rocket launch and satellite deployment to look like. In my opinion.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Perhaps that will embed the video?
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
I know this is going to sound strange but I find the audio in that footage the most convincing of all (I used Jared’s link). Yes, that was beautiful and puts an end to any nasty cognitive dissonance, in my mind at any rate.
As for the early and continuous fakery regarding some launches, I cannot fathom the spooky reasoning. I mean Space X and the car? Rich gay spooks taking the p*ss?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Josh said:
As for imagery of the Earth from satellites or the ISS being spoofed by balloon-mounted cameras, I don’t think you could spoof the HD streaming video from the ISS that way …
Who said the video from the ISS was spoofed by balloons? Not me.
By the way, Josh, in your view, how did the ISS get up there? Don’t you agree with Miles’ paper on the Space Shuttle being fake?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
In anyone’s view, it was built in multiple stages first using the Proton rockets developed and launched by Russia, not the US. The Shuttle came later, which is something anyone can look up any time on the internet. Researching a topic is often fundamental to understanding it.
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
Good thoughts Josh and great to see you sharing them.
Some steps back in history:
The best image of space has always been in the hands of a happy few. That is no conspiracy.
On Earth we have several working, functioning solar observatories where real people measure real data, but admit the images are “processed to get the highest resolving power”. Any filter in a software program could be considered “processing”.
See the video on the page of the Big Bear Solar Observatory. Or China in 1938?
But why the “need” for an impossible to exist solar monitoring space thingy?
On Earth, we keep constructing ever larger and more refined but enormous observatories.
If they’d really be able to launch and keep functioning Hubble, Kepler, Gaia and others, how the heck did they fit all the technology that goes into ground observatories into such a tiny thing and if that is possible, why don’t we have tiny, cheap and easy mobile observatories on Earth??
This is an interesting paper about the history of lunar crater observations since 1820, very informative.
But what about…?
Hmm…
Brick Moon (1869), p.20:
Magic! Notice the first sentence. It’s all out there, there’s no conspiracy.
Brick Moon (1869), p.19:
Just like that!
Is this the plot for Star Wars?
Talking about that…
Jules Verne:
But…
About his work, from the Jules Verne Society:
(source: Verniana volume 9, 2016-17, Marie-Hélène Huet — Engineering Fiction, p.33)
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
In Miles’ most recently posted article titled The Space Shuttle Program was a Fraud he gives his reasoning for why the Space Shuttle is fake.
NASA says the ISS (a manned satellite) was built with the Space Shuttle and the Hubble Space Telescope (a photo satellite) was launched and serviced by the Space Shuttle. The ISS has itself supposedly deployed satellites as well.
It would seem then that those who believe the ISS and Hubble are “really up there” must either –
completely disagree with Miles’ paper on the Space Shuttle or
they have an alternate theory, not yet disclosed, as to how these satellites were built/launched.
Would those “satellites are real” folks care to weigh in on this conundrum and state either that they completely disagree with Miles’ paper and believe the Shuttle was not a fraud or tell us their theory of how these satellites got “up there”?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Miles has never said the shuttle was FAKE. The paper is entitled “The Space Shuttle Program was a Fake”, and the link on his page, “The Space Shuttle Program was a Fraud.” So he clearly intended that adjective towards the PROGRAM, not the shuttle itself.
Anyone is free to actually read it, of course. And in the very second paragraph:
“I have no intention of showing that Space Shuttles never existed, or only existed as holograms or something, from a parallel universe. That is not what I mean by fake. The planes certainly existed: I saw one being carted around on a 747 in Texas back in the 1980s. What I mean is that the planes were another massive fraud upon the taxpayers, doing nothing taxpayers wished to see done, little or nothing that needed to be done, and few or none of the things we are told they did. They were supposed to help launch various satellites, but we now launch satellites quite easily without them, and much more cheaply. ”
But I do disagree with him in one later statement:
“It doesn’t need engines to return to Earth, it just glides down. Right. Does the Shuttle look like a glider? No it looks like a banger with stubby little wings.”
It appears to glide very well, and my personal testing of it in simulation holds up well enough. Why would that matter, since it’s a simulation? Well, because it’s testable. I’ve constructed hundreds of planes, spaceplanes, SSTOs, and flyers in the simulation – most of them vastly different than the Shuttle. And the ones that follow the physics fly, glide, and land well. The ones that do not follow the physics, do not. On top of aerodynamics you also have Center-of-Mass (COM), Center-of-Lift, and Center-of-Thrust to balance out – moving fuel to and fro all the while to keep those as close to proper as you can. All these things work for the Shuttle craft the same as they do for other craft – though the Shuttle isn’t the BEST at flying, by a longshot. But it lands pretty well, better than some of my other creations:
Here is one way to build the Shuttle pretty accurately in KSP, if anyone would like to see it:
So while I often agree with him entirely, there are times where I don’t. Doesn’t change my agreement with his central thesis there, and we’ve gone over the financials earlier in this thread already, showing exactly where they stole the money.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Nice try.
From the same paper:
“What I mean is that the planes were another massive fraud upon the taxpayers, doing nothing taxpayers wished to see done, little or nothing that needed to be done, and few or none of the things we are told they did.”
So, my question has not been answered:
How did the International Space Station get to where it supposedly is today?
Just explain how the ISS got there. That’s all I’m asking. If anyone here believes it was built with the Space Shuttle, as NASA tells us, than put your fingers on your keyboard and SAY SO. 🙂
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Inter. National. Space. Station.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Assembly
“The first module of the ISS, Zarya, was launched on 20 November 1998 on an autonomous Russian Proton rocket. It provided propulsion, attitude control, communications, electrical power, but lacked long-term life support functions. Two weeks later, a passive NASA module Unity was launched aboard Space Shuttle flight STS-88 and attached to Zarya by astronauts during EVAs. This module has two Pressurized Mating Adapters (PMAs), one connects permanently to Zarya, the other allowed the Space Shuttle to dock to the space station.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(rocket_family)
But more to the point:
VS
Here’s another relevant, fun one I think we can all learn to enjoy:
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“First module.” Big deal. Still no answer. Just evasion.
You know what I’m asking. No more evasion or distraction.Give a straight answer to the question asked for a change. 🙂
NASA says the Space Shuttle was used to construct the ISS so, please explain how the ISS was BUILT IN SPACE.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“Pressurized Mating Adapters”
…oooer!
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Looks like our most verbose space expert has been rendered speechless by this simple question.
Can anybody state how they believe the ISS was built? Josh? Anybody?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
We gonna do this again and again, huh? Until Josh bans one of us?
You can’t read, can’t argue, and can’t come at me straight like a man. You refuse to learn. You twist Miles’ words willfully and are evidently unable to even distinguish between words beginning with “f”, somehow. Unless it’s the Forbidden one.
And you’re going to pretend I was rendered anything? No, sir. I was renderING, yes. Livelihood. Something else you completely can’t comprehend, but once again I’ll be the bigger man and try to just help you figure things out. Carry you kicking and screaming forward into cognition.
How was the ISS built? The same way anything else is built:
Now you can rest your pretty little head on the topic and find some other lazy, paltry, uneducated point to plaster all over an otherwise informative conversation. You’re almost as bad as the spoops with this nonsense misdirection – or maybe worse, since you should know better.
5 minutes in Photoshop? You were serious, too? 😉
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“Can anybody state how they believe the ISS was built?”
I don’t think it would be that difficult. They spent a lot of time getting the bits up there and loads of time building it. Took 10 years and 30 missions (allegedly).
ISS unladen mass (without crew or stores) a gnats foreskin under 800,000 lbs.
Shuttle payload to ISS 35,380 lbs multiplied by 30 missions = 1,061,400 lbs.
So plenty of spare cargo capacity to play with (all alleged – no proof whatsoever).
Also, wasn’t it made from preformed lumps just bolted together with a bunch of sealant? I don’t think it was assembled from a flat pack of 8,000 parts with all the nuts & bolts that would incur. So I don’t see a problem with the assembly.
The hairspray girls and green-screen flickers make me think that it’s no longer manned, and probably completely automated at this stage in its development.
If it is manned then why the Hollywood fakery?
To my eyes, everything seems kosher apart from the onboard video.
The cost is another matter entirely and is the thrust of Miles’ paper on the subject.
Like, it only took 30 missions to build the ISS yet they flew 133 missions…..doing what? They are due to decommission it around 2024. What a waste of money! Only $100 billion to you sir! Just 26 years from start to finish. $3,846 million a year. Seems like a bargain…..
NASA just haggled for a new contract to supply the ISS with beer and bagels.
Only another $1.6 billion. First few missions for the new contractor will be to sort out communications and docking procedures. Get ready for a smoking space station landing in your back yard any time soon.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
So, Russell, you feel the Space Shuttle was used in the construction of the ISS then?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I see them go up and see nothing particularly weird. They can be seen visually (telephoto lenses are so useful) reaching very high altitude, that is where the air is very thin and less thrust is needed to overcome atmospheric drag, hence the boosters are discarded. I have no problem whatsoever in believing they can make it the extra 30 miles or so, into LEO. I have a mental block with the attitude of the Shuttle when re-entering. Heat I don’t see as a problem but stresses, certainly make me shiver. As someone already pointed out, at those speeds, as the air gets more dense. The aircraft should vibrate and shake like a jack-hammer. Evidence: Do the astrospoops comment on the bumpy ride? I haven’t checked but will do tomorrow.
It wouldn’t take long for a rotating Shuttle crew to bolt together ready assembled lumps. So 10 years seems wholly appropriate.
So yes…
LikeLike
Josh said:
Rolleikin,
Your quotation from Miles’s paper on the Space Shuttle leaves out the end of the same paragraph, which is: “Over $200 billion was spent on the program over three decades, and what do we have to show for it? Some museum pieces. A handful of chubby planes that never got out of LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and that haven’t morphed into more useful tech.”
There you have it. Miles did not rule out that the shuttles (whichever ones actually existed) reached LEO. Therefore it’s possible that they were used to assemble the ISS. That doesn’t mean that the ISS really is what we’re told or was assembled the way we’re told. It could just be a floating pile of spare parts welded together to make a big, trackable, visible, shape in the sky. Who knows? But believing that the ISS orbits around the Earth does not contradict Miles’ argument, no matter how much you want that to be the case.
I don’t know how they assembled the ISS. I think Russell Taylor makes some good points. But I don’t see how I need to know that in order to think there is something up there orbiting the Earth that resembles what we’re told is the ISS. Do I have to know the details of how the WTC towers were rigged with explosives in order to believe they were brought down by controlled demolition?
Also, I never meant to imply that you said the ISS video of the Earth was taken by balloons. You did say that the photographs could have been taken by high altitude balloons, so I merely meant to point out that the same argument for the video is untenable. That being so, how are they taking that video? Or is that all just (thousands of hours of amazing, jaw-dropping) CGI?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“There you have it. Miles did not rule out that the shuttles (whichever ones actually existed) reached LEO. Therefore it’s possible that they were used to assemble the ISS.”
Thank you for answering my question, Josh. That is all I wanted to know.
Whew!
LikeLike
Josh said:
I realize now that the way I wrote that it sounds as if I’m only willing to hold a position if it is somehow sanctioned by Miles. That is not the case. It would have been possible even if Miles did not think so. I was merely pointing out that there is no contradiction between that belief and Miles’ position, contrary to what you had asserted.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Then, in your view, how is the Space Shuttle a fraud as stated in the title of Miles’ paper? It appears you are saying that the Shuttle did what NASA says it did while Miles seems to be saying it didn’t do much of anything of value.
LikeLike
Josh said:
Miles: ” What I mean is that the planes were another massive fraud upon the taxpayers, doing nothing taxpayers wished to see done, little or nothing that needed to be done, and few or none of the things we are told they did.”
I think that statement is open to many different interpretations depending on your prior beliefs. As for “doing nothing the taxpayers wished to see done,” I think you could say that about anything the shuttle is said to have done. Did the taxpayers want hundreds of billions of dollars spent putting together the ISS? No. Not most of them. I’m sure if it was put to a vote most people would rather keep their money in their own pockets than pay for the ISS. Was it something that needed to be done? No. So then we’re left with the last statement, that it did few or none of the things we’re told it did.
I guess we could debate the meaning of the word “few” and what exactly Miles meant when he said few. But if that’s where you’re going to pin your argument, then you’re grasping at straws. You want to say that I think the shuttles accomplished more than Miles implied? Fine. I have no problem with that. There is a huge gray area here and I don’t think Miles or anyone else would deny it. One thing that seems clear to me is that you think the shuttles did much less than he believes. And you should be OK with that. It’s OK to disagree. With me. With him. Even with Jared. You’re still welcome to comment here even though we disagree.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Josh, is there any NASA space project in the last 40 years that you believe is/was fake? By “fake” I mean it didn’t really happen. The object(s) said to have done something in space never went to space, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
If I may interject?
Rockets may have took men into space, even to the Moon but did they land on it, then go for a ramble, then return home via big space? The two things, for me, are miles apart in terms of doability. I used to think that maybe the later Moon missions were real but technology didn’t suddenly leap forward in the short space of time that the missions took place.
I think putting satellites in orbit is by far the easiest thing to achieve here.
There are different levels of doability for all these tasks, and I can’t see how it’s possible to logically lump them all together as fake just because the Apollo landings (etc) were a hoax.
I feel that some of the Mars missions are probably real, as far as reaching Mars orbit and maybe sending down probes to the surface. But putting a vehicle on Mars and controlling it remotely…..I do have trouble with that.
Don’t misunderstand me rolliekin, I have thought long and hard about whether everything space-wise could be faked but I just don’t see how they could get away with it.
911 happened they just lie about how and why it happened.
Hiroshima was flattened, they just lied about the how and why again. Over 3,000 atomic bomb tests? Underground, underwater or on some remote island a thousand miles from any impartial witnesses.
Its much easier to see through the climate scam because it’s just political jiggery pokery to push through a hidden agenda.
But to fake satellites and rockets into space, you need the public – regularly – to see those huge and powerful beasts setting off into the sky. Something I’ve noticed about the proven fakes is, that they don’t like wasting a lot of cash and resources making us believe shit. So if the Shuttle missions to build the ISS were faked, then why did they waste all that fuel, money, and other resources proving that that many Shuttles went up? Just doesn’t make sense. Did those 33 Shuttles take parts to the Moon to build a military base there? Or maybe a military type ISS in orbit around the Moon. Or is it much simpler than this, that they built the ISS in Earth orbit. Not necessarily full of medical experiments using Gerbils but for some other more nefarious reason?
So as with any bog standard confidence trick, they show you some real rockets and real bombs in real wars and real buildings, really collapsing, then con the shit out of us using that recently woven cloak of deceit, telling us anything they want us to hear….it’s the money equation that drives all of it I’m sure but all fake? I think 100% fake would be impossible. If 911 were made to look more real they would require a few hundred splattered corpses, so these fakes have limits to their levels of credibility.
James May has filmed footage of him flying to the edge of space in a U2 spy-plane. If that thing can get two dudes to fly along at 100,000ft that’s 19 miles up, using efficient jet power and bendy wings, then why can’t a massive, powerful machine like a Shuttle reach a little further? At 100,000 feet most of the hard work has been done and the air is getting pretty thin, which is a bonus for anything going supersonic. The last part of orbital injection is easy – weaker gravity, less air resistance.
LikeLike
Josh said:
@Rolleikin
Well yes, the Apollo moon landings. The videos you posted regarding fakery on the ISS I found very convincing. I especially liked the video you found of that woman going in the vomit comet to compare what real long hair would look like in zero g. Great work! So by implication none of the footage we’ve seen from the ISS is real. Which in turn implies that there isn’t really anybody up there, suggesting that there probably never was anybody who ever lived up there. In that case the ISS is not what we’ve been told it is. I happen to doubt it has any other nefarious military function. Probably just a huge white elephant up in the sky they can point at to justify siphoning off hundreds of billions of tax dollars to the space program.
Or…maybe, just maybe, those clearly faked videos of astronaughts in the ISS are made to intentionally throw us off as part of Operation Fantasy Land and lead people down the road to Flat Earthism, space doesn’t exist, stars are just holes they punched in the lid so we can breath, etc. etc. I’m not accusing YOU of any of that, to be clear. Just suggesting an alternative possibility.
I hope I replied quickly enough for you!
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
All right, thank you, Russell and Josh. I was just taking a sounding for navigational purposes. 🙂
It will be no surprise to you that I believe there is more space fakery afoot than either of you do. When I see a part of something that looks fake I assume the whole thing is fake whereas it appears you only assume that part is fake and the rest is real. Maybe it is because I am older than either of you and more cynical. “Fool me once …” and all that. Also, in my youth, I did performance magic and applied myself most diligently to the study of the art of fooling people (there really is a lot to know about it) and I tend to think of the space program as one huge magic trick. However, I do allow for a bit of “reality” with the space program. I have even said I think there are some satellites of some sort up there. After all, when the magician shuffles the cards, he really does shuffle them … sometimes. 🙂
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
We’ll rename it in your honour dude….the Space Shuffle…Endeavour.
You are certainly one to listen too carefully as you must have a good eye for detail and spotting fakery. Credit where it’s due.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
Ah yes, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…uh… won’t get fooled again.
You might very well be right about all this, Rolleikin.
I generally do tend to assume the whole is fake when I see part of it is. But in this case, I think the evidence broadly considered indicates otherwise.
A parallel I would draw is with the fake footage on 9/11. Shack et al say that all of the imagery and video of 9/11 is fake. They say the entire area around the towers was covered in some kind of artificial smoke that obscured actual people on the ground from seeing what was going on in the downtown area.
If I were to follow the logic of ‘fake in part, fake in all’ then I would conclude that indeed all the imagery was fake. But I don’t think that’s correct, although I agree much of it is fake.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Josh, I agree with your view of Shack’s contention that all 9/11 footage was CG.
I also don’t think that is the case. I’m not sure why he pushes that idea but I never went along with it. He seems to get pissed off if you challenge him on it for some reason.
When I say that all of something is fake I do allow for apparent details to be real. The lady is real and she really lies on the table and the saw is real but the magician does not really saw her in half and put her back together again. So, the entire feat that was supposedly accomplished is completely fake in my view. The magician must display real elements and trappings to gain the confidence of his audience in order to fool them. The handkerchief is real and the dove is real but the magician did not turn the hanky into the bird. So, the transformation is completely fake.
I believe that the Saturn V rockets did exist (or objects that looked like them) and they really did belch fire and smoke and rise up in the air with a thunderous roar. The fire and smoke and noise were real. But, were there human beings in those rockets who traveled to the moon and back? I’d say no. So, the event was completely fake in my mind even though some aspects could be called “real.”
LikeLike
Smj said:
From the lack of comments about it I gather the consensus here is that the explorer one footage I posted is a legit rocket with a legit satellite strapped to it. Maybe someone could tell me what they find convincing about the explorer one footage?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbs85I_AfEg
…and I was perplexed that nobody around here found it strange that Werner’s hand-picked psientific expert signed up to blow up with nukes his eponymous belts the same day he announced their discovery to the gullible world? Let’s not forget that the igy was dreamed up over Van Allen’s wife’s chocolate cake of course.
Butwhatever moving on, what’s the consensus around here about the challenger disaster? Rollekin and I can’t be the only shuttle skeptics. Personally, I can’t help but enjoy the exploits of our spacefaring heros(canines included); but maybe noone has ever been strapped to a slow motion ballistic phallic symbol balloon and been shot to space? That begs some questions about the iss and how it got built andsoforth but I digress. The thing is I laughed for days at that dick scobee cows in trees, ltd. logo that simon shack posted on the challenger disaster. Surely that cloudy 666 reminded someone else around here of the challenger explosion?
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=935&p=2395059&hilit=challenger+astronauts&sid=76cb8b363a01b63d44b2d236aae69eec#p2395059
…I hope it’s apparent that I find spaceships(all praise be to percy greg and john astor iv for teaching me the word) pretty feckin entertaining even if they aren’t real. I don’t know if the folks at movietone were being serious or not but here’s some footage of some Russian mutts getting some training in for muttnick 2. Go ahead try not to laugh…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Across_the_Zodiac
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Journey_in_Other_Worlds
…the same footage was included in this more serious newreel(everything is relative andwhatnot)…
…I can watch old newsreels all day. Sometimes I wonder if they were even meant to be believed. Maybe they were just credulity tests?
“Pathé Exchange was spun off from its French parent company in 1921, with a controlling stake held by Merrill Lynch. Charles Pathé stayed on as a director of the American firm.[1]
By 1923, after coming under the control of Merrill Lynch, Pathé Exchange was once again re-incorporated to American Pathé.
For many years, Pathé was closely associated with the distribution company Associated Exhibitors which handled independent productions. In late 1926 the struggling Associated Exhibitors was subsumed into Pathé, as part of a trend of mergers in the American film industry. In March 1927, American Pathé was acquired by Joseph P. Kennedy, and in 1928 merged with the Keith-Albee-Orpheum theaters, along with Cecil B. DeMille’s independent Producers Distributing Corporation to create what would eventually come to be known as RKO Radio Pictures”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathé_Exchange
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
@ Smj
I enjoyed the launch in the Explorer video at 26:00 with the spinning upper stage. The narrator says,
”Shortly before launch the upper stages are set rotating. If the spin were not provided, the payload would be hopelessly deflected.”
I’ve seen this same rotating gag in other launches of the period. For some reason they stopped doing that at some point. I guess the laws of physics changed and they no longer needed to spin the payloads to prevent “deflection.” Or, maybe they thought it would look pretty silly if they spun payloads that had astronauts inside them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
“Or, maybe they thought it would look pretty silly if they spun payloads that had astronauts inside them.”
Like a very expensive merry-go-round?
Now stop it …my amygdala doesn’t like it!
Tony – Jared:
I thought Miles’ take on caesium powered craft was just for atmospheric flight?
Brain teaser…
1 = wacky:
What if those dots in the sky that Boris and others have mentioned, the ones that seem still then shoot off, well, what if they are a type of light emitting particle/molecule that hasn’t been discovered yet. It may have been observed, but until it’s actual structure and function is known, it can’t be classed as discovered.
Or…
2 = possible:
They could be tiny, drones. How fast would something have to move to seem astonishingly quick to our eyes? If it’s tiny and in the sky, it’s going to be very difficult to judge distance accurately – if at all. So something suddenly accelerating to say 2,000 mph in a matter of metres but far enough away as to make a sonic crack (like a passing high velocity bullet), almost indiscernible, I think is highly probable. It’s the sound barrier that makes them seem impossible….where’s the sonic boom/crack? Here we go with sound pressure again. How far away would you have to be from a crack from a high velocity bullet before it began to sound like a distant snapping twig, blending in with all other sounds?
You all saw something strange.
3 = Highly probable:
The only other explanations I can think of are an anomaly in your own eye, in the old vitreous humour. Or a distant aircraft light, in your periphery, maybe almost overhead (most likely), and the tiny image of the light refracting through the eyes lens at an acute angle. The shape of the lens would, I think, lend itself to the light being steady for a time but as the light moved, at some point the image might suddenly race across your retina (lens shape) fooling you into thinking you just saw a light in front of you.
Seems plausible to my addled old grey/gray matter.
And rollie’….less of those rotating astronauts dude, you got my head in a spin!
LikeLike
Smj said:
Yep. That spinning top fourth stage is adorable. The official story is since there was no upper stage guidance system or gimbals or fins they just spun the fourth stage to make up for the lack of guidance. And so off to orbit the little explorer went. Life was easier back in the good ole days i reckon.
LikeLike
Ian said:
@Vexman said:
“I also concur with Jared’s claim about both kinetic and potential energy – these are theoretical constructs and should be treated as such.”
@Jared said:
“A moving vessel or mass doesn’t HAVE “potential energy”. PE is a defunct concept, post-Charge Field physics and after Miles’ vast contributions. Why do I say this? Because the moving mass has velocity, yes, and mass, yes (E=mc²) but that’s not energy – because there has to be a COLLISION for energy to occur or exist. Energy is not just the mass and velocity multiplied, it’s that number DURING an actual collision. Potential energy isn’t real, it’s a concept sure, but it’s not an actual thing.”
and
“To cut it deeper, imagine you have a single particle. Doesn’t matter which one. It’s moving through space all on its own. What attributes does if have? Mass, radius, velocity, spin. It doesn’t “HAVE” energy yet. One can say it has POTENTIAL energy but that’s just a nice way of perceiving an event that hadn’t transpired. Potential energy isn’t real. It’s not an attribute OF the thing, it’s a deduced measurement of a future event.”
(@Jared I’m presuming you mean kinetic energy not potential energy)
@Jared went on to say:
“Here’s a video I made awhile back showing how a single photon’s energy is expressed during various collisions…”
Kinetic energy and potential energy are not ‘defunct concepts’, in the context of Miles’ charge theory or not. Yes they can describe theoretical kinetic or potential energies, they can also describe real, and measurable kinetic and potential energies.
As Miles put it in his paper, Unlocking the Lagrangian, “Potential energy is just energy a body would have, if we let it move; and kinetic energy is energy that same body has after we let it move.”
Jared you say potential (kinetic) energy is “not an attribute of the thing”, but then go on to attribute this same energy to a photon, and also in the next comment about temperature you say “Temperature IS a measure of kinetic energy.” You cant have it both ways. Also when I asked you to define “collision energy”, it was not because I did not understand, I was hoping you would see your error, as this collision energy is the bodies kinetic energy, as expressed during a collision with one or more bodies, as a “transfer of momentum” as you put it (and very nicely too, I might add)
Miles explained this very succinctly in his kinetic energy paper, ” If a car hits you, you don’t just feel the forces from mass on the front bumper, you feel forces from the entire mass of the car. Any energy the car has, whether it is linear energy or spin energy or energy from mass, will sum to create the total effect upon you. If quanta are spinning, this spin must affect all energies and forces, at all levels. And this must apply to nucleons and electrons as well as photons.”
In that paper, Miles shows that the kinetic energy equation already fits the charge field theory due to the square of the velocity providing the field transform. Remember these equations were pushed to fit the data, if they didn’t understand why it didn’t matter, they worked.
In the discussion about shuttles etc we can only analyze the data provided, its not like we have personal access to any of the raw data or physical equipment. I’m sure that the dynamics of a flight by a vessel like the shuttle is way more complicated than we have so far gotten into, and certainly a lot more complex than the Kerbal Space Program game can model. Lets be honest, a quick look at the required pc specification to run KSP shows that its not a complex atmospheric model anywhere near approaching reality, no matter how much fun it is to play, and the gameplay videos attest to that.
I still hold reasonable doubt that the shuttle can safely de orbit and land in the way we have been led to perceive it. Thinking about the shuttle and at the point that it reenters the dense atmosphere, would it be a rough ride? In my mind the buffeting from the air when travelling at very fast speeds makes me imagine it would be pretty heavy going, when I put my arm/hand out of the car window when on the motorway, if I make it flat, and aerodynamic, I can kind of hold it in place without expending too much energy, but if I raise the angle, even by a few degrees, my arm wants to lift off, and I have to expend a lot more energy to control it.
So would there be enough “braking force” to slow the heavy, fast moving shuttle, nose up at 5 degrees? Yes probably. Would there be so much “braking force” as to cause a problem for the shuttle. Yeah, probably so. Of course the kinetic energy of the shuttle is not expressed in one moment, as Jared and Vexman have both correctly stated, but it still must be expressed in order for the shuttle to survive and land. NASA stated on this that the shuttle thermal protection system absorbs 5% of the energy expressed as heat, with the other 95% deflected. Again, this is based on the data we are given, as this is the only way we can analyze the energies concerned.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I completely agree with you, in point and purpose. What I disagree with is the terms themselves, “potential” and “kinetic” energy. The first is fine, as an extrapolation. An object weighing whatever moving at whatever speed could POTENTIALLY transfer its momentum. The second term is in my opinion simply superfluous, as ALL energy is kinetic. There isn’t really any energy that is NOT based on mass in motion, you know? So that’s what I meant by defunct terminology.
It’s kind of like when Normies say, “I don’t want any negative energy.” Well energy can’t be negative, by definition. Mass can’t be negative, velocity can’t be negative. The vectors can be negative relative to a certain resting point of observation, as a matter of graphing, but the energy can’t be negative. That’s what those equations are telling us, yeah?
But again if we’re going to remain honest, until you try KSP with whatever-specced computer you may have and feel the pain, knocking it won’t really get you any points here Ian. It is by FAR the most accurate, potent, and precise simulation of spacefaring ever made. Find one better and I’ll concede the point – but there isn’t one.
It’s the best test lab we’ve got for stuff like this. I am fully aware of its limitations, just as aware of how processor-intensive it can be despite the “minimum requirements.” Let me know when you write a better simulation and I’ll explore it with you. Or even help you with the models and graphics if you wish. I promise.
LikeLike
Ian said:
If all energy is kinetic energy, lets not throw the word kinetic away, lets keep it and redefine and reeducate as to its meaning.
Also Jared, please do not be so touchy, I’m here in good faith and I am not knocking, or looking to score points with my comments on Kerbal space program, it is merely my opinion, but there is no reason why this sort of software should be free from scrutiny.
The recommended hardware specs are what I was referring to, it runs within 4GB of RAM, and the Kerbal wiki states regarding system specs, “A fast (per core) CPU. Dual-core may help, but given the limitations of the Unity engine, more will do very little.”
So its just that given its limitations it is unable to give us definitive answers to our questions. In fairness the computing power to accurately simulate the sort of dynamic environments needed would be orders of magnitude bigger than a core i5 processor. Maybe Kerbal space program 2 will be a step in the right direction.
From wiki,
“Kerbal Space Program, commonly abbreviated as KSP, is a space flight simulation video game developed and published by Squad for Microsoft Windows, macOS, Linux, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One. In the game, players direct a nascent space program, staffed and crewed by green humanoid aliens known as “Kerbals”. The game features a realistic orbital physics engine, allowing for various real-life orbital maneuvers such as Hohmann transfer orbits and bi-elliptic transfer orbits”
and
“In May 2017, Squad announced that the game was purchased by video game company Take-Two Interactive, who will help support Squad in keeping the console versions up-to-date alongside the personal computer versions.”
Again from wiki;
“Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is an American video game holding company based in New York City. The company owns two major publishing labels, Rockstar Games and 2K, which operate internal game development studios. Take-Two’s portfolio includes numerous successful video game series across personal computer and video game consoles, including BioShock, Borderlands, Civilization, Grand Theft Auto, NBA 2K, Red Dead, and XCOM. As of March 2018, it is the third-largest publicly traded game company in the Americas and Europe after Activision Blizzard and Electronic Arts, with an estimated market cap of US$13 billion.”
and
“As a result of this mismanagement, the company’s majority shareholders led a takeover of Take-Two in March 2007, replacing them with Strauss Zelnick as the new Chairman and CEO. Take-Two subsequently rejected a US$1.9 billion buy-out from Electronic Arts in 2008. Since then, the company has continued to grow through acquisitions and creation of new studios. More recently, Take-Two created the label Private Division to support publishing from independent developers,”
Major shareholders in Take-two Interactive are
Strauss Zelnick, through Zelnick Media Capital (largest shareholder)
The Vanguard Group, Inc.
BlackRock Fund Advisors
SSgA Funds Management, Inc.
Jackson Square Partners LLC
JPMorgan Investment Management,
and others.
Current holdings of Zelnick Media Capital are
9 Story Media Group
CafeMedia
Cannella Response Television
Dynasty Sports & Entertainment
Education Networks of America
ITRenew
Take-Two Interactive
One way of reading this is that Kerbal space program, originally developed by Squad, had the potential, with further development, to show the space program up, and a decision was made to take it over and control development. Just speculation of course…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Russell Taylor said:
“had the potential, with further development, to show the space program up, and a decision was made to take it over and control development. Just speculation of course…”
Hmmmm! Well speculated Ian…interesting points you’ve made.
I’m still sat on that fence, waiting for someone to give me a hefty push one way or the other. I’m always open to persuasion.
LikeLike
Philip Cox said:
Yeah I made a similar post about a week or two, checking out the story behind KSP and the devs/publishers ande made a similar conclusion. Seems like they didn’t bank on KSP being so popular at first.
I did some research on Take Two awhile back, long before this discussion came up. The owners (or one of the owners) is the Brandt family, aka timber and paper processing industrialists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brant
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Cox said:
I checked out one of the sons, who has a Wikipedia.
This is gold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brant_II
“In 2014, Brant was quoted in a Harper’s Bazaar profile of him, his brother Harry and mother, Stephanie, about enjoying his clan’s notoriety, “We had to do a report about our parents: where they were born, what they did, and all that. Everyone else had to do theirs as homework, but I finished mine before class ended using Wikipedia.”[2]”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I actually agree with you on MOST of these points, Ian, just not a few specifics.
The minimum specs for KSP at 4GB RAM and a fast CPU core or dual-core are just hilarious, but of course that’s how they rate all games. It might LOAD, but good luck trying to do anything. Windows alone takes 3GB just to boot, really. And all the console versions are 8-core chips (AMD Jaguars), with custom AMD GPUs as well – so the minimum PC specs are about 1/16th what you’d need just to play. On my gaming system I’ve got 8 Bulldozer cores@5GHz, 16GB of RAM, and an older GTX 660 graphics card and the game still loves to bog down. Even highly modded so it can use more than 4GB of RAM (64-bit) it’s taxing. So yes, my systems are orders of magnitude beyond the “minimum specs” they state. And I also run a mod called “F.A.R.” (Ferram’s Aerospace Research), in which one of the Squad guys did his best to include all the aerodynamic physics the game engine could handle. He did well. But he’s still an asshole – got all mad when I brought up Miles’ Lift on a Wing paper. But whatever, my point is that as a SIMULATOR it’s quite powerful and as accurate as anything available, even to NASA. Ferram worked for JPL prior to joining Squad. That probably makes him spooky but his math is pretty good, if not perfect. The stock aero math is pretty good too, but F.A.R. is much better.
The Squad guys themselves are for the most part alright. I’ve talked to most of them personally in the forums. But it really does seem like they were forced to “sell out” or maybe they were infiltrated. KSP is actually more powerful and flexible than anything that NASA has, you know?
So I completely agree with your last statement. The game is better than NASA’s bullshit huge-ass rooms with fake computers and hundreds of employees. That stuff is all for show, to me, or at least mostly. Given how powerful consumer and pro-grade computers are these days, there’s absolutely no need for all that defunct hardware or all those actor/employees, in my opinion.
You’re right though, I don’t need to be so touchy. Hope you guys are both well, keep it up and keep pushing me towards more skepticism, by all means!
LikeLike
Philip Cox said:
@Jared: Hell if you think about it, almost all the media we’ve consumed over our lives has been produced by spooks, or controlled by them from above. It’s their world (at the present) after all. Don’t fret about it. They may be able to recruit talent in their corporate fronts, but that doesn’t meant we can’t coast around them, nor that the talent is part of the spook culture. Fronts being fronts. Also at that level, your Squad contact may have to act like that in order to keep this job.
In World War Z, they suggest for ‘survivors’ (truthers or awake people) to become partially zombified in order to survive in the modern world. Nah fuck that. I always suggested immunization instead, and MM research provides the best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
@Philip Cox: Inoculation of the MIND!
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
There is an idea here that a video game (not a simulator) with all its sci-fi is somehow more real than reality?
If so, I strongly recommend to throw such a game away; it distorts the sense of reality in favor of fantasy.
It’s like believing all drivers are like in Carmageddon.
A video game, chuckle.
Back to real life.
LikeLike
Ian said:
@Jared said
“I also run a mod called “F.A.R.” (Ferram’s Aerospace Research), in which one of the Squad guys did his best to include all the aerodynamic physics the game engine could handle. He did well. But he’s still an asshole – got all mad when I brought up Miles’ Lift on a Wing paper.”
Well he sounds like an interesting guy and certainly a bit suspect, I hope you got back in touch with him to update him about Miles’ charge binding gravity paper, and how that effects lift on a wing 😀
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
@GayestFear:
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Ian said: “Well he sounds like an interesting guy and certainly a bit suspect, I hope you got back in touch with him to update him about Miles’ charge binding gravity paper, and how that effects lift on a wing ”
It was in the official KSP forums, actually. And using Miles’ arguments, I stumped him over and over and he got mad and threatened to ban me. Meanwhile like thirty other users began pestering him too, since I’d opened the gates. It was great.
I basically called him out on using a “fudge” in his model, since his model couldn’t work without that hidden, mysterious vector UP (charge). I asked him to show us his math and he refused, of course. Quoted Miles heavily and was far more acute than I am, even here. Then he wanted to ban me so I fucked off and left my posts up for posterity anyway.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Now you can rest your pretty little head on the topic and find some other lazy, paltry, uneducated point to plaster all over an otherwise informative conversation. You’re almost as bad as the spoops with this nonsense misdirection – or maybe worse, since you should know better.”
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Asking a simple question is lazy? Paltry? Uneducated? Nonsense misdirection? Almost as bad as the “spoops” or maybe worse?
What’s got you so afraid of such a simple, harmless question?
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I think the most likely explanation is that they do what is possible….. and they fake that which is impossible.
God only knows how many test pilots( or animals) died.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tony martin said:
This just reminded me how all the countries are in cahoots with each other.
India’s moon landing suffers last-minute communications loss
Achieving a soft landing, where the lander is not damaged, is especially challenging.
“It is very hard,” said Pallava Bagla, author and science editor for NDTV.
Boy…… is that the understatement of the year!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/06/indias-moon-landing-suffers-last-minute-communications-loss
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
@Tony Martin:
“This just reminded me how all the countries are in cahoots with each other…”
Yes, this is key to understanding the big picture of our faux reality. Our puppet master governments all have to sing from the same hymn-sheet, as dictated by our invisible rulers. Global governance has been in place for thousands of years, when the idea of Nation States was invented. Before that there were just groups of different breeds of people across the globe, each breed adapted to best cope with their local climate and other environmental factors.
The idea of countries, property ownership and wealth, is a most important part of their ‘divide and conquer’ strategy, and is now firmly ingrained into how we all think.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Here’s something to keep in mind about all of this.
In Orwell’s dystopia,the truth and reality,are entirely malleable, subject to the arbitrariness of those who happen to be in power.
During one of his torture sessions, Winston Smith objects that there is a real world outside the world of the Party. His torturer, O’Brien, assures him that “reality is simply whatever the party says it is.”
In 1984, O’Brien refers to it as “reality control,” or in newspeak, “double-think.” Today we know it through individuals like Karl Rove as “reality-based community.”
In Rove’s own words,
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out.”
Reason and reality-defying statements and slogans, the continuous repetition of big lies, the desire to rewrite the past to make it consistent with present mendacities, the endless false equivalencies, are all depressing reminders that we are not that far removed from the dystopic world of 1984.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Well that’s what they want you to think, or is it?
When a news story is proved a hoax, then the hoax becomes reality. So if the hoax is fake reality – assuming it isn’t a fake hoax – then which is the real reality? Both?
I see what you mean…….. I’m going for a lie down zzzzzz!
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Doublethink:
Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Also related is cognitive dissonance, in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one’s mind.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
You mean like thinking the Space Shuttle goes into space as described but knowing it couldn’t return as described?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
You got it!
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
That was supposed to reply to Tony. It’s almost as bad as the predictive text on my phone.
Well rolliekin, the crew seem to go up in the Shuffle. They are seen to land in it too. So it’s the middle bit that also has to be real, otherwise, how the heck does the big fat shuffle stay orbiting the Earth but not in space? Land it on an island. Strap it to a 747, then take it up and drop it for a near perfect landing.
Awwww! You see what you made me do now rolliekin…..you got me falling off the fence on a side I never expected. I’m holding on tight….
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Some thoughts, but not necessarily conclusions, from my perspective.
Space fakery is MOSTLY a money-pit, as with mainstream astrophysics promoting “gravity waves”, “black holes”, and “the Big Bang”. These fake theories simply siphon money from the taxpayers through the NSF to the various corporate entities and commisions, directly into bankster pockets. It’s a cash cow they won’t give up. The ROI is too high. High enough to drown out any outcry from real scientists by far. Plus the banksters already own any publishing mechanisms that would even allow for outcry, except of course self-publication such as Miles’ work.
Spacefaring is a real and possible adventure, in my opinion. The real stuff includes the Shuttle, the ISS, Voyager and that era of probes (mostly), and likely much of the Russian, Chinese, and Indian stuff we’ve seen. French too. But most of them are NOT doing what we’re told or for the reasons we’re sold that they are. Most satellites are real, since (as Russell Taylor pointed out) that’s really easy to do. Most of those are for surveillance-state purposes, I imagine. And I of course think the SDO and Hubble are real. I believe in orbital dynamics and physics, since one is the subset of the other.
But much of the super-hyped up stuff like Juno’s data, much of the Mars “photographs”, and most of SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and those new third-party groups are fake. Again, money pits. A Tesla in space? Nope. Juno’s re-rendered data from Jupiter? Artistic expression at best. Marketing ploys to keep the People off their trail in other areas.
So I’m leaning towards a different explanation for this fakery, of late. I think it’s possibly a smokescreen, for other technologies that they simply do NOT show us. Given the massive, rapid advancement in silicon tech in the last thirty years, I think they’re doing the same kind of thing with space tech – only computers are saleable and highly profitable, where space tech is simply the Tyrants “probing” for something saleable and profitable. They want to be first. They want to own the space-mining companies before anyone else can get there. I believe that’s where the money is at, for them – resources that might be limited here on Earth but abundant elsewhere, or more easily retrieved and sold at great cost.
One example I’ll reference of tech growth is the CPU itself. In 1984, we had the Commodore 64 @ 1Mhz, with 16KB of RAM, going for $300. In 2019, we have the Ryzen 3500 @4GHz * 6 cores (12 threads), also going for $300. That’s a base upgrade of 48,000 times the power at the same consumer price – and that’s not even including IPC (instructions per clock) gains, which would multiply that to some 192,000 times the power of the good ol’ C-64, while using LESS energy too.
In my opinion, such progress is NOT limited to just consumer markets. The Tyrants own those companies outright, anyway, right? There’s no reason to believe they aren’t using them for their own gains in OTHER ways besides direct profit. They’ll use anyone or anything they can for personal gain. So I believe it’s likely they’re doing the same thing with spacefaring, perhaps even dumping some of those consumer-tech profits right into secret programs.
Remember, we didn’t know squat about the NRO for thirty years. They have no problem keeping secrets from us.
But my guess is they’re working on simply enhanced versions of previous tech in a similar way to how our computer tech “grows” – as opposed to actually learning about and utilizing, say, Miles’ newer theories of charge and physics, which are in my opinion probably just as new to the Tyrants as they are to us. Monetary power can’t buy intellectual power. Intellectual power either exists or it doesn’t.
Here’s an example of what I mean. A conventional-type craft but with very enhanced engineering, thrust vectoring, and efficiency gains over that standard hum-drum “rocketry” stuff we see from NASA and Space X and the public programs. A Single-State-to-Orbit (SSTO) that could actually work:
Just my thoughts. I think the MOTIVE for space fakery is to hide what they’re really doing, which is to monetize solar system resources as soon as possible (if they aren’t already) WHILE seeking the ability to perpetuate their own, twisted lives.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
You know this might sound crazy… But isn’t it possible that there Cesium technology planes or whatever their called can put anything they want up there?
I know if I were them I would try.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
How would the electrons generated from Cesium cause thrust, though? “Cesium technology” isn’t magic, right? It’s still gotta abide by physics, and as far as I know Miles only mentions it because Cesium isotopes can fling or upspin electrons more readily than most charge structures, and Cesium is one possible by-product from splitting Uranium. But electrons don’t cause thrust on their own, nor does electricity. It has to ACT against something (“work”, in physics).
How would we use charge itself to cause thrust? This has actually been proposed, but not in a very direct way, in science fiction. Using laser propulsion, by basically pumping as much focused charge into a receptor as possible to “push” a spacecraft to higher and higher speeds. This is outlined really well in the amazing novel “Aurora”, by Kim Stanley Robinson – who is also the author of the definitive work on colonizing Mars the trilog, “Red Mars”, “Green Mars”, “Blue Mars”. Except you can’t colonize Mars, not really. And in “Aurora” the Saturn-moon based laser is also supposed to SLOW the generational ship arriving back from Tau Ceti after massive disaster and human tragedy, but it never happens in time so the Aurora has to circle the sun and planets in intricate dips for decades to slow down as a result. It’s a great book, really poignant.
But it’s bullshit, just like most of science fiction. The physics are just for fun, at best. Robinson writes well and you sure love his characters but yeah, it’s just a fantasy.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I remember a while back you and someone else said you saw a UFO.
They hovered and they moved crazy fast.
What do you think they’re propulsion method was?
A lot of people claim they have anti-gravity technology.
Do you think that’s possible?
It sure would make things a lot easier to get up and back from there!
There wouldn’t be any crazy reentry speeds to create friction.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I’ve seen a few UFOs. One was quite close. Just above treetop level in an apple orchard directly above me. This was a warm clear night in California about 1968. I was with another person at the time who, of course, saw it too. When it left it streaked over the horizon in the blink of an eye. Completely silently without even rustling a leaf or making any other sort of disturbance. I don’t think “propulsion” is the right word to describe how it moved. I don’t even think “move” is the right word. It was here and then, nearly instantly, it was somewhere else far away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ian said:
Are you able to describe its physical appearance?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Your experience mirrors mine, Rolleikin. I was also with a friend who saw the same exact thing. It appeared to be a multi-light aircraft from a distance, not a single light in my case, but I definitely thought it was a plane coming towards us at first. Then the silent, lateral, almost instant acceleration to what should have been very hypersonic speeds. It still defies my ability to explain.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Are you able to describe its physical appearance?”
It was like looking into a car headlight at night. It was too bright to see detail but I had a sense that it was either spherical or nearly so. It could have had another shape though. It seemed to have a diameter of about 20-30 feet.
It came down and hovered over a nearby tree in an apple orchard. It was about 1-2:00 am and I was out with my lady friend on a stroll. I had just gotten off work (swing shift). We lived in an old house that had been converted to apartments in an otherwise uninhabited area near Mt Diablo in Contra Costa County, CA. We were walking along a road beside the orchard when we saw it high above us at first before descending.
I was an adventurous type then and I just had to take a closer look so we entered the orchard and walked to the tree it was hovering over. When I moved directly under it it was like entering a meat locker. Ambient temperature was probably in the low 70s but as I went underneath it the air was quite cold. I moved back and the air was warm again. I reached out and could feel the transition point of warm to cold air. So could she. I thought it best to stay out of the cold zone and I started talking to it. “Hey, why don’t you guys come out and say hello”, etc (It was the 60s after all). There was no response for a moment and then it streaked away over the horizon. We were not under the influence of any drug or alcohol.
LikeLike
Josh said:
“(It was the 60s after all). There was no response for a moment and then it streaked away over the horizon. We were not under the influence of any drug or alcohol.”
It was the 60’s and you weren’t under the influence? What kind of a square were you? (-;
LikeLike
tony martin said:
What if the whole chinese rocket flintstone tech is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that they actually have crazy ass shit that works a 100 times better!
In other words….. they just show off the rockets for the gullible public and make them believe that’s the state of our technology today.
This way they could do what they want with a high tech stuff without anybody knowing.
Is far is hovering without any sound… that seems like anti-gravity to me and maybe the cold has something to do with charge somehow?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Since that experience I’ve read many accounts of others’ sightings but I’ve never seen one that mentioned the cold bit. I don’t know what to make of it. It’s not unusual for people to report intense heat and some even claim to have been burned. But, I don’t know.
An A/C unit produces both cold and heat. You stick the hot part outside the house and the cold part inside. Maybe this thing was hot on top and cold underneath? Beats me.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“In other words….. they just show off the rockets for the gullible public and make them believe that’s the state of our technology today.”
I suspect there is truth to this. Personally, I think any culture accustomed to space travel would laugh at the idea of rocket ships. I have to laugh too after seeing the thing I saw described above. With a craft like that, rockets would be a joke.
LikeLike
Smj said:
Technically speaking, balloons are anti-gravity machines if they are filled with either of the supposed two most common elements, hydrogen and helium. Google monster atmospheric escape.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“It was the 60’s and you weren’t under the influence? What kind of a square were you? (-;”
I worked in rock bands, lived in Berkeley, played at the Fillmore, was at Altamont, hung out with other musicians (including one now in the R&R HoF), but my experimenting along those lines was relatively mild and brief. I just didn’t much care for being stoned. I still don’t. 🙂
LikeLike
tony martin said:
@Smj
I think the reason why a balloon seems anti-gravity is because it’s contents are less dense than the atmosphere around it… so it forces itself up because it’s less dense than the air molecules.
But that doesn’t mean that it’s anti-gravity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smj said:
Did you google monster atmospheric escape?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Did you google monster atmospheric escape?”
Yes. A number of things came up. Which are you referring to?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Well during mine, I was high as shit smoking a bong like an idiot at 18 on a street corner with my buddy. But weed doesn’t cause UFOs. Easily testable since I’ve never seen one since. Good times though.
LikeLike
Smj said:
The official story is all hydrogen and helium(uranium farts per the narrative) particles ignore the earth’s gravitational attraction and eventually bleed off to space(the individual particles achieve escape velocity).
The thing is we are not talking about sub-atomic particles. So how can all that helium that goes from the ground to space be reconciled with Newton’s universal law of gravity which states that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.
Apparently the big ass particle that we call the earth isn’t quite big enough to keep its two most common particles from escaping its crust and flying off to space only the gas giants can do so we’re told.
I don’t believe the official story of course. I take the hustle at face value cause they don’t hide shit(specific gravity is relative densities) so long story short I agree with Tony Martin; it’s just densities…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_gravity
LikeLike
Mindovers Platter said:
” I don’t think propulsion is quite the correct term to describe how it moved ” I concur. It’s movements defy any conventional description or known velocity limits. And it is even more difficult to imagine how any human could survive the g forces without being turned into liquid. I firmly believe that it is real, but real what is still an open question. I am reminded of the Richard Pryor movie where his wife catches him in bed with another woman and he says…” Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes “?
LikeLike
mantalo said:
i’m a little bit desappointed about how the space fakery has occulted all other subjects …
i want to leave the sky, come back on earth, and really, i need to speak about antartic because i am 100% sure now that antartic is not what we are told
.
please… come again in other subjects…
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
No one had even flown over Antarctica until technology made it possible in the 1950s (allegedly).
It’s mostly covered in ice several miles deep in places (allegedly), and polar. If it was ever not covered in super-deep ice, then it must have been hundreds of millions of years ago. Don’t forget, even the planet Mercury has water ice near its poles (allegedly).
But go for it….enlighten us. I like a good mystery (it is said).
Possibly better on the general discussion thread though.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I mean this is the “Space Fakery” blog, not the Current Events or Miles’ Defense ones or whatever… It’s kinda the topic on this page, Mantalo!
LikeLike
mantalo said:
yes, i agree of course, but since some days, there are really few posts in the other subjects.
oh, and being a fan of Terry Pratchett, i bought the books “The Science of Discworld”
written by a stewart and a cohen (but at this time i did’nt know 🙂 ) and they speak about space elevator to go out …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
“The space elevator is a real cosmic sea serpent. This is a new time to earth and a or-it of 36,000 kilometers above our heads today.
Conducted by a “collection of experts from around the world [and] under the auspices of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA)”, specify the site use of the space lift “was limited by technological progress” and that such a project should not be launched under the auspices of a “major international effort”.
As Space.com recalls, the very idea of a space elevator is rooted in history:
“Many people mentioned the” thinking “ahead of the time announced in 1895 by the Russian space pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. This is the creation of a hike from the Earth’s surface to the heights of a geostationary orbit (35.786 km). ”
Similarly, Arthur C. Clarke has promoted this kind of “massive Jack-and-the-magic-bean-like structure,” to use the term specialized site io9. Space.com recalls that the sci-fi author stated in 2003:
“The space elevator will be built ten years after being stopped laughing … and they stopped laughing!”
If the authors of the new study study carbon nanotubes or photovoltaic cells, let believe in the upcoming event of the space elevator, unlike much more reserved.
A few months ago, he made a list of the problems that still precluded the realization of such a project: the vibrations too violent were submitted, reinforced by the comings and goings of nacelles, space debris ( such as satellites) and the risks of attacks …
But also, and this is the first hurdle, do you buy the solid cable? Io9 moderates, so, hopes in carbon nanotubes, recalling that longer In short, it is far from won, especially when we say that other materials are simply unthinkable. As Terry Pratchett writes in World Record Science, “Ten centimeters in diameter on the ground,” a steel structure would require “4 billion kilometers at the top”!
This optimistic new perspective is not too completely isolated: in 2001 already, “two NASA teams carried out feasibility studies and two last conclusions, in terms of technology, it was possible,” says Pratchett. “Just” of course, but possible, if efforts are necessary (or even more) financial, are committed.
Efforts that have been supported by Google. That’s really all you think they were funded by the web giant and by research and development (nearly $ 7 billion in 2012) turn heads.
If this is not a rumor that has been asserted, Google has been very seriously projected in space, in his secret laboratory Google X., project plans in the corridors of his research center …”
http://www.slate.fr/life/83843/ascenseur-spatial-science
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Space elevators are purely sci-fi. In “Red Mars”, Kim Stanley Robinson’s epic saga, they build one on Mars (obviously) and eco-terrorists sabotage it. It falls and wraps around the planet TWICE, with the force of megaton nukeage as it hits. It rings the planet in a huge blast and glassifies the path and it’s pretty awesome.
But they build more anyway in the story, including several on Earth. Ridiculous.
LikeLike
mantalo said:
ok Jared,
let’s forget the space elevator 🙂
LikeLike
tony martin said:
He’s not that far off…. it’s common knowledge that antarctica holes the underground bases where the secret space program is maintained.😜
LikeLike
mantalo said:
staring ben Itler and the 3rd-reichsons
😉
« antarctica holes the underground bases where the secret space program is maintained »
Jared has insisted a lot about the definition of space… convincing everybody that space was beyond the sky…
but space is also what we start to miss here, on earth, because of 8 billions people, with spaces overcrowded, lands overbuilt, nature receding, …
so in this meaning, Antarctica could be THE place where space still exists…
and the fakery would consist in a lie about the climate, that could be very different from what we are told.
making all this really an underground (in the meaning of secret, not literally under the ground…) “space” program…
we make a mistake if we take their words at the first level 🙂
we have to look for 2nd or 3rd level of understanding 🙂
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Mantalo said: “Jared has insisted a lot about the definition of space… convincing everybody that space was beyond the sky…”
All due respect, my friend, but I have never said that space was beyond the sky. Space is simply the gaps between matter, where there is none. That’s it. It’s everywhere – everywhere that matter is NOT located.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
This is an interesting topic, that Smj started earlier: “The official story is all hydrogen and helium(uranium farts per the narrative) particles ignore the earth’s gravitational attraction and eventually bleed off to space(the individual particles achieve escape velocity).”
The mainstream explanation: https://www.quora.com/Why-wouldnt-Earths-atmosphere-escape-into-space
“We’ve been talking about nitrogen, but it isn’t the only gas in our atmosphere. There is an expression of kinetic temperature that can be derived from the ideal gas law:
“The kinetic energy is proportional to the temperature of the gas. So, if our volume of gas is at a certain temperature, molecules with less mass must have greater (average) velocity to compensate. That tells us that molecules less massive than nitrogen have an average speed greater than the average speed of nitrogen. Hydrogen, for example, has an average speed of 1930 m/s (6,332 ft/s). Still not fast enough for the average molecule to escape, but a small amount will be moving fast enough to escape. And in fact we see that. About 95,000 tons of hydrogen manage to escape our atmosphere each year. But don’t get too worried, that’s only 0.00000000000017% of the Earth’s supply of hydrogen.”
So they’re trying to tell us that “escape velocity” is all you need to defy an acceleration, basically. But what is accelerating this hydrogen or helium? The Earth’s charge (heat) can be the only real answer. Nothing else is PUSHING these tiny atoms out. Buoyancy isn’t a PUSH from below, it’s a pull from above (gravity) acting enough more on larger atoms/molecules (somehow, despite gravity being the same for all matter in range) and not as readily on others (again, somehow). Hydrogen is just a proton, Helium is just two protons. With electrons and a neutron or two along for the ride, at best. So what could push these small atoms up constantly, over and over, to cause an acceleration?
Velocity alone won’t do the trick. The atom would just return at some point, and it wouldn’t be a long trip. With no lateral thrust (another, perpendicular acceleration relative to the Earth’s surface) it’s not like these atoms could enter an orbit. So they’d go up and just come back down, right?
I don’t really have a problem with random protons leaving the atmosphere occasionally but they don’t give us any mechanism and then defy their own gravity on this one, as far as I can tell. I agree with Smj that this one just stinks, if we look at the mainstream for data or answers.
How are they even measuring hydrogen/helium “loss”, anyway? Looks like a shitty equation sans physics, to me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
calgacus said:
I wonder if people here want to speculate about the future. The next big thing seems to be the Artemis program. Artemis 2 mission is supposed to be a crewed lunar flyby mission in 2022-2023. Artemis 3 is supposed to be a crewed lunar landing mission in 2024.
The first speculation can be about delays. On the Wikipedia page of Artemis 2 we have this quote “Unlike Artemis 1 whose launch date has slipped from 2017 to 2021, Artemis 2’s launch date has not faced any delays so far”. Also, remember that the James Webb Space Telescope had an initial planned launch for the year 2007 and in 2019 the launch is set for 2021 (what a ridiculous situation). We can add that the Artemis program is a replacement for the cancelled Constellation program (2005-2010), which according to wikipedia ‘The major goals of the program were “completion of the International Space Station” and a “return to the Moon no later than 2020” ‘. So we see the major theme of delays after delays.
How much they can stretch the booshit with these types of farcical delays? There is also the budget scams or “cost overruns” . Mathis already wrote about the Webb telescope budget scams. We can expect a similar situation with Artemis or similar programs.
I assume that some people here believe that manned space exploration is impossible. If space exploration is indeed impossible, I assume that the elites would think about an exit strategy. Maybe people here can speculate about possible exit strategies. Can they booshit the masses indefinitely without the need of an exit strategy?
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
In my head i always had this idea that at some point they are going to have to admit they never went to the moon or…. somehow transport everything up to the moon to the correct locations to make it look like the lie was real. A massive cover up at taxpayers expense anyone? They wouldn’t….would they?
So maybe the last 50 years they have been carting stuff up there and preparing the set for future space tourism which i guess they may or may not believe will eventually happen – since they will own the tech they need to sell it to someone. Cant have some snotty teenagers landing in tranquility bay and it being tooooo tranquil y’knaaa?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“Artemis 3 is supposed to be a crewed lunar landing mission in 2024.”
Well I hope they remember to take a Go-Pro HD……
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Oh so it will be manned by a female-only crew of virgins? With a project name like that then it is the perfect sibling to the Apollo missions. I did not mean to say “manned”; I mean’t wahmanned or something like that.
Joking aside, the “Artemis” moniker does seem like the ultimate wink-and-nod to the Apollo programme which ironically enough was all balls-and-bollocks, idiomatically speaking.
LikeLike
calgacus said:
Artemis is the moon goddess (also connected to hunting, child birth and probably a few other things). Artemis is also the twin sister of Apollo. So the name makes perfect sense. David Mathisen gives some proofs that both mythological figures are also connected to the constellation Sagittarius (the archer). You can say that in a symbolical manner, they are shooting at the moon.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Maybe people here can speculate about possible exit strategies. Can they booshit the masses indefinitely without the need of an exit strategy?”
A “tragedy” is always a good exit strategy. One of their rocket ships to the moon full of school teachers and puppies blows up on the launch pad and the project is put on a back burner for a few decades while the nation goes into mourning for the puppies.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
@calgacus
There’s nowhere for them to go.
Who the hell would wanna live in outer space anyway!
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Artemis may be the replacement for the ISS. That is, instead of smiling, pooping, wild-haired astronauts on a “space station,” they will be in a “lunar habitat.” (my apologies to those who believe the ISS is real)
Since the moon does have some gravity, they will save millions on hairspray.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I really do believe there’s nowhere in outer space for the elite to go.
That’s why I don’t think that they’ll consciously destroy life on earth.
They might destroy it by accident because there bunch of fucken ass holes!
LikeLike
Vexman said:
I knew there is more to it than meets the eye. Hairspray isn’t just about faking zero-g . . . look:
See? It’s a handy rocket engine, a Canned Space Fart or CSF, in case of…an EMP or whatever, so they can stay in an orbit for really, really long 😀
Jokes aside, I watched many of ISS “live” videos analyzed by people and seen bubbles around the astronaughts (as if recorded inside a pool), peculiar video edit cuts, horrible actors, etc. All we’re allowed to see from within ISS seems to be faked. But the telescopes don’t lie. So ISS seems to be up there for real, but it’s nothing like we’ve been sold. Is it manned? Hard to be sure, so we can speculate. If it’s actually manned, nobody knows what it looks like to be inside. Nobody can trust their videos and that’s true, but we can still trust our own eyes when tracking ISS over the night sky.
LikeLiked by 2 people
rolleikin said:
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, they put an object in orbit that is the shape and size of the alleged ISS but is just a flat structure, very thin. From the ground it looks for all the world to be the ISS because of its shape and size. It would then have the appearance and orbital characteristics that it’s supposed to have but, of course, no one is inside it. It might even have the means to make adjustments to its status as needed.
This should satisfy the “something is up there” guys and the “it’s all fake” guys and even me (because, as I’ve said, I’m willing to believe there are some simple satellites up there though not what we’re told).
LikeLike
mantalo said:
or the ISS is just another way to make people bla-bla-bla and use the sound ISS
Because phonetically, ISS is close to
1) it’s easy, believe us, ISS EASY,
2) IS SS, never forget WW II, holocaust and hitler abomination, the SS, etc.
3) ISIS, the goddess, who, sure, is lightening the sky.
4) ASS, that they promote heavily to turn people away from normal sexuality, may be to decrease natality by pushing anal relation.
5) ICE, making cognitive distortion with the other top 2 subject, the global warming… and bringing us to Antarctica (again)
5) and surely other « sound like » local effects depending of your mother langage…
like P + ISS = peace
K + ISS = kiss
M + ISS = miss
etc…
in france for example, in 2006 and 2009, we had the movies « OSS 117 » from a serie of spy novels created in August 1949 by the French writer Jean Bruce, resumed at his death by his wife Josette, then by his children François and Martine. ($$$$)
It follows the adventures of an American secret agent, descendant of an old French family, whose “OSS 117” is the number in the Office of Strategic Services.
this family Bruce wrote a total of more than 250 volumes .
The series is one of the first of its kind in France, and even in Europe – Ian Fleming invented James Bond in 1953 – and is a great success, with 75 million copies sold worldwide. This success gave rise to several film adaptations etc etc…
13 years ago we had the OSS movies, now we have the ISS show…
each decade its motto 🙂
LikeLike
calgacus said:
Right now I do believe that there is a high probability that they will engineer a global economic crisis in the near future. I believe that USA and Europe will be hit harder than Asia, since it seems that they want to make Asia the economic engine of the world (with China at the center and Russia and India having a lesser role). Even in the 2030s they can prolong the economic hardships with pension crises (retirement of many baby boomers).
If indeed we will have an engineered global economic crisis, they can delay these space programs (like Artemis) without looking to suspicious. But this scenario can only provide a delay strategy, maybe up to the 2040s.
I believe that by 2040, the censorship on internet will be much greater than at the present moment (an economic crisis can help in this direction). But even if they censor people that question the official narrative, they still need to show some progress in space exploration. Airlines that used zeppelins existed since 1910 and for airplanes we have airlines since around 1919. The first practical zeppelin was from around 1900. So in less than 20 years, both the zeppelins and airplanes were put on commercial use by regular people.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
As Lewis pointed out on another thread.THE MAN IS BACK !
Welcome back MIles.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
SpaceX says they plan to launch nearly 12,000 satellites:
https://tinyurl.com/yxfn783h
Even our own resident aerospace gasbag has opined that SpaceX projects are fake so am I to understand that these thousands of satellites will be regarded as fake too?
Thousands of fake satellites? My goodness! Only a tinfoil hat would suggest such a thing!
Or, has SpaceX suddenly gone straight with all of their future projects being on the level?
LikeLike
Smj said:
It’s hard to be mad at elon, you gotta admit dude has a sense of humor…
“The Federal Communications Commission has already granted SpaceX permission to launch the entirety of its nearly 12,000-satellite constellation. SpaceX launched its first two test satellites, TinTin A and TinTin B, in February of 2018, and the company now has about six years to launch half of the full constellation to bring its license with the FCC into full use.”
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/15/18624630/spacex-elon-musk-starlink-internet-satellites-falcon-9-rocket-launch-live
…feckin tintin rockets, smh…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xb5FM67n9Bs&t=38s
…but I’m no expert of course, apparently, tintin rockets do work in video games…
LikeLike
Vexman said:
Gee, you’re really persistent with this satellite issue, Rolleikin. So persistent that it really makes me wonder why do you want to keep posting about it, when most of us here already know what’s your stance on it. It’s OK to disagree, you know. Nobody will hold it against you even if you think we’ve been fooled.
Anyway, this is an amateur photograph of the night sky by Bob King:
with caption: “This photo was taken from my yard on September 12th at 10:23 p.m. The Amazonas series are Spanish telecommunications satellites; the Echostars are used by DISH Network.”
Can you notice the smaller dots? Those few dots are geostationary satellites. You can look up for the description, I won’t link to it because it’s irrelevant to my point.
This map shows the approximate location of the geosynchronous belt from latitude 42°N. When observing or taking photos, if one section of the belt has few geosats, move along the arc to look for others.
Of course, you’ll need to know the location of the geosat belt from your latitude. Northern hemisphere skywatchers see the belt several degrees south of the celestial equator because of parallax. For instance, from the latitude of 47°N, the belt arcs across the southern sky at declination –7°, or about 36° high at the meridian.
To identify the satellites you see or photograph, go here: https://www.calsky.com/cs.cgi/Satellites/10?&lang=en
So what are these dots in the sky? Just big light bulbs that somebody installed up there? If so, who did it if not humans? Are you saying that those geosats are alien light-show? I really don’t see the point in saying that all 12.000 satellites are going to be fake. Are you going to personally watch the launch of every single one of them to be sure of your claim? Or are you going to, just as you’re doing now, use the YT and other MS (video) content to prove anything?
Like I said, I really don’t entirely get how you interpret things you see with your own eyes. What I wish for is that you’d have a chance to lay your hands on a 10×50 binoculars and look up for once in your life. You’d be amazed by what can be seen up there.
LikeLike
Josh said:
Vex, thanks for chiming in. To be fair, Rolleikin didn’t say anything about satellites. Jared bright them up in a comment I deleted, then SMJ jumped on the opportunity to bring them up again. I think Rolleikin will be happy to let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak.
LikeLike
Vexman said:
Thanks for the heads-up, Josh. My issue with it sticks to what I wrote earlier, why are satellites suddenly swamping this thread? I do apologize to Rolleikin, though I think he may find my reply challenging to his wordview.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“I think Rolleikin will be happy to let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak.”
Yes, all the pooches may return to their slumbers with nary a peep from me. 🙂
LikeLike
garrettderner said:
Anyone wants to change the subject, could maybe talk about the new papers:
http://milesmathis.com/updates.html
http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html
LikeLike
Smj said:
I have no idea what’s going on in the sky. I know elon is one of the world’s greatest hustlers though. So it’s no big deal that elon is launching the telstars now?
LikeLike
Vexman said:
Well, maybe you should get yourself informed about the sky since you’re commenting on issues that relate to Space, like for instance satellites. You can track them with your own naked eye. if only you managed to look up once in a while. That would give you a rough idea about what’s going on in the sky. As it seems, the idea is that it’s going around the sky following a predictable path with calculable speed and distance from observing point, Or it stays fixed in the sky at the known location. What complicates this idea is physics, but you don’t need to pay any attention to that idea either. It’s just silly people talking about silly things.
LikeLike
Smj said:
Well seeing as you avoided my question, Vexman, I take it you don’t think elon musk launching thousands of artificial moons is a big deal. the thing is I do. I do realize that doubt offends some folks so I thank you and Jared for your patience.
Anywhoo, I’m sure you realize the first communication satellites, the syncom satellites, placed in a clarke orbit were built by hughes aircraft. now as you are probably already aware, Howard Hughes also ran jfk’s daddy’s movie business, rko…
“In May 1948, eccentric aviation tycoon and occasional movie producer Howard Hughes gained control of the company, beating out British film magnate J. Arthur Rank as the buyer of Odlum’s interest.[143] Hughes bought Atlas Corporation’s 929,000 shares for $8,825,000.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKO_Pictures#HUAC_and_Howard_Hughes
…he acquired rko from Floyd Odlum(the atlas rocket program was named after his company) and Hughes aircraft was based in Culver City like mgm and Sony pictures of course. maybe that’s why a movie studio executive(t.Keith Glennan) had to be the first nasa administrator. Somebody had to keep all those movie moguls in line.
Butwhatever, let’s assume elon and movie moguls can strap satellites to rockets and place them into geosynchronous orbit. We’re told clarke orbits are at least 22,000 miles up, no? and we know the biggest communication satellites in clarke orbit are not all that big, no? Let’s look at the biggest, the Telstar 19 vantage, it’s hard to find its exact dimensions on-line so here’s a youtube video that is purported to be the Telstar 19…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D9jxs7R6GtE
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/07/spacex-falcon-9-telstar-19v-launch/
…I know it’s a YouTube video but I’m not using it to prove anything it’s just all I have to go on. What do you reckon the surface area of Telstar 19v is? I have no idea of course but seeing as you are quite certain that you are looking at artificial moons up there in the clarke belt I’m guessing you have looked into the specs of the lights you see up there. I’m clearly out of my depth so I beg your patience as the following physics questions may seem silly to you.
When calculating the light reflective area of the man made artificial moons you have assumed are up there do you take into account the black solar panels? I’m only asking because I thought black only absorbed light. and shouldn’t the solar panels be always pointing towards the sun anyways?
So let’s say we don’t count the solar panels what do you reckon the reflective surface area of telstar 19v is? once we know the answer to that it should be relatively simple to determine whether it’s even possible to see said artificial moon thru our atmosphere with our naked eyes from the ground at a distance of over 22,000 miles away. If we assume the lights you see up there are actually 22,000 miles away and if we ignore extinction I reckon we just need the reflective surface area of the artificial moon facing the ground, the luminosity of the sunlight reflecting off of the artificial moons in the clarke belt, and the inverse square law, no?
I’m sure I’m missing something of course; but the natural philosophy seems simple enough to figure out. Here’s space x launching said largest clarke orbit man made artificial moon with falcon 9. I have no idea how to measure the luminosity of the light bouncing off of Telstar 19v up there. It’s all over my head of course; but it would be nice if elon would stick a bolometer on one of the artificial moons he launches.
My incredulity doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy spaceships bytheway; my favorite part about elon’s satellite launches is when the first stage of the bird returns to the drone boat named ‘of course I still love you’ to land on its tail…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_ship
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
As Josh said, I was reminded of the satellite issue by odious comments posted by another on that subject which Josh kindly removed.
However, I think the questions I posed above are worth asking. How do those who believe in satellites but agree that SpaceX is fake regard the satellites of SpaceX? Especially when SpaceX says they will soon launch nearly 12,000 of them?
I’m just asking. But, sadly, I don’t expect to get a straight answer. However, I do expect to get evasive replies that do not answer the actual questions asked and thus result in lots of unnecessary posts by others which will then eventually be blamed on me by those same others who can’t answer simple questions with simple straight answers.
“What I wish for is that you’d have a chance to lay your hands on a 10×50 binoculars and look up for once in your life.”
I have owned many fine binoculars,Vexman, and I was watching “Sputnik” in the sky before the wiseacres on this forum were born. So, please spare me the “for once in your life” insults.
And, dots in pictures do not change my world view. I can put all the dots you want in all the pictures you want. Dots in pictures are worthless as evidence to anyone with a 3-digit IQ.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Oh, sorry. I just noticed Vexman asked me some questions so I will answer them. I am only doing this because it wouldn’t be right for me to complain about my questions going unanswered if I didn’t answer other peoples’ questions. I have no intention of further discussing topics that upset others here such as the “S” word.
Vexman asked –
“So what are these dots in the sky? Just big light bulbs that somebody installed up there?”
I doubt that.
“If so, who did it if not humans? Are you saying that those geosats are alien light-show?”
Nope. I never said any such thing. I’ve never said anything about aliens at any time on this forum and I have no such belief that geosats are an “alien light-show.”
In fact, as far as I know, the only one who has mentioned aliens in connection with satellites is you (in your question above).
“I really don’t see the point in saying that all 12.000 satellites are going to be fake.”
Neither do I which is why I didn’t say that. I only asked for others’ opinions on SpaceX’s claim.
“Are you going to personally watch the launch of every single one of them to be sure of your claim?”
No and I made no claim to anything regarding this as I noted above.
“Or are you going to, just as you’re doing now, use the YT and other MS (video) content to prove anything?”
I don’t understand the question. I sometimes post videos here on various topics as do other members. I’ve never seen anyone object to the practice before.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Vexman said, ““So what are these dots in the sky? Just big light bulbs that somebody installed up there?””
Rolleikin said, “I doubt that.”
Imagine such a paltry dodger complaining and whining about question-dodging, claiming otherwise, then doing precisely that the first chance they get. Just dream of that for a moment, if you will. Contemplate the audacity.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Imagine such a paltry dodger complaining and whining about question-dodging, claiming otherwise, then doing precisely that the first chance they get.”
Huh? When the answer is NO there is little more to be said, Jared. Especially when the question is just sarcasm to begin with as Vexman’s question was. No, I don’t think there are big lightbulbs in the sky that somebody installed up there.
And, no one has answered my recent questions at all. (Not that I care anymore) Please don’t try.
LikeLike
Vexman said:
I didn’t insult you with my choice of words, which is hard to say about your own reply. The sarcasm you’re accusing me of is probably the construct in your head. I sincerely said that I wish you’d look up and find one satellite with your own eyes, but you interpreted that as sarcasm. It’s fine by me if you hold such belief, but know that it wasn’t true.
You did reply to my questions, true, but have dodged answering to the point. As if you didn’t understand what I was aiming at with it, which I doubt is true in your case.
You’re again referring to my posted pictures as if they’re edited to prove my point. So I reckon it’s impossible to engage in a serious debate with you using this kind of evidence. That’s a shame, but I can live with it.
You didn’t answer my question, actually. But even that’s ok, because I somehow expected this kind of evasive reply, so I’m not disappointed with it. I’m actually perplexed by how your logic functions.
You’ve seen Sputnik and you tracked the dot, which is identical to the ones I pointed to in my pics? Hmm, just how in the world did that dot get up there so you had a chance to track it? You don’t need to answer it, Rolleikin, just ponder on that for a while. The only thing you can be sure of is that Sputnik didn’t get up there in the orbit using a balloon.
So to answer your questions about SpaceX and 12000 satellites – I don’t know how they’re going to do it. What I do know is that their rockets can’t be examined by watching YT videos or any other MS videos showing them. Just like watching 9/11 videos ain’t going to tell you the truth about towers’ destruction mechanism. So I’ll again base my belief on what can be trusted 100% – my eyes, large binoculars and logic. I’ll look up at night and locate those satellites when I’m in the mood for it. And I’ll wonder again and again, just how did they put them up there since SpaceX seems fake? If you want to know my stance about it, just reread my very few posts to this thread, I don’t want to repeat myself.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Uhm it’s “aggressive twat”, not “aerospace gasbag”, kiddo. At least use the proper nomenclature when referring to your betters. Show some respect. 😉
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“So to answer your questions about SpaceX and 12000 satellites – I don’t know how they’re going to do it.”
All righty then. Thanks for answering my question. All the rest is emotional reaction which I have no interest in. 🙂
LikeLike
Vexman said:
Not much is all right since this community just lost a knowledgeable (!) member over freaking satellites that you, smj and Gaia keep pushing down this thread along with undefined arguments. There’s a reason this place is called “cutting throgh the fog”, since reason and logic are preferred. Did my answer satisfy you, actually? I don’t even wanna know. You’re continuously making wrong conclusions and I feel sorry for you.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Vexman, I posted some opinions on the topic of space fakery in a thread on space fakery. I expressed some skepticism on an aspect of the space program. That is all that has happened. You are free to disagree, of course, as is everyone else here.
You know what I do when someone posts stuff I don’t like? I DON’T READ IT. Problem solved. Try it.
Whatever issues you may have regarding this, I suggest you just get over it. Your protests are way, way over the top overreaction bordering on hysteria. Calm down, already!
LikeLike
tony martin said:
With all due respect I still don’t really know what rolleikin actually believes.
Maybe rolleikin could write something like an Apostles Creed of of Space Stuff Beliefs or something like that…… to at least finally let everyone know where he stands on things.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Oh, let’s not start this again!
My advice is to not concern yourself with what others believe. Do your own observations and decide yourself what is true for you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
tony martin said:
If nobody understands what you believe then it’s no use posting anything.
LikeLike
RT said:
You guys are arguing a lot lately — try not to lose sight of the real enemies here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Do I not trust space agencies?
Guilty.
Am I skeptical of everything they claim to do?
Guilty.
Does my skepticism include satellites?
Guilty.
As for the means by which a hoax of this nature might be perpetrated, I have suggested some speculations, all of which are nothing more than speculation with the caveat that I am not asserting them as fact nor even opinion really. I thought I made that clear but evidently some here didn’t get that memo.
Silly me. I thought the members here were interested in space fakery and might enjoy discussing the idea that something might be fake about satellites since that is the lion’s share of what space agencies do. But, don’t worry. I’ve disabused myself of that idea some time ago.
I would also like to point out that I had stopped discussing this topic and that it was Jared who brought it back up (in a post that was removed by Josh) and I only then posted a link to a claim about satellites made by SpaceX and asked if anyone cared to comment on what that meant as regards this subject. That’s all. One post. Go back and read it if you don’t believe me.
A few members (well, one mostly) then overreacted (in my opinion) and decided that I am now the cause of terrible horrible things.
Personally, I think some legs are being pulled here and some academy awards are in the offing but, again, that is just my opinion. 🙂
LikeLike
Josh said:
I have also been surprised that the satellite issue has evoked such strong emotions. I think the reason is that for many people it is akin to Flat Earth, and so they view it as basically promoting nonsense as a discredit by association tactic. Also, in light of Gaia–someone several of us have already written off as a disinfo agent–suddenly showing up and promoting the idea (along with SMJ who we hadn’t heard from in awhile), I reckon some may have felt the forum was under attack. They may have been right, for all I know.
As I’ve stated, I don’t think that doubting the existence of satellites or questioning the means by which they achieve orbit are illegitimate questions, and I don’t equate it with flat earth. But at the same time I can definitely understand how others would make the connection. (It doesn’t help that Gaia’s posted multiple links to the music videos of ‘Flat Earth Man,’ which are clearly aimed and getting people to move from NASA skepticism to not believing in satellites, and then not believing in ball Earth, not believing in Gravity and then not believing the existence of space at all. It’s a slippery slope, and I would say that the satellites are fake is the dividing line.
Not for nothing is the subtitle of this post “the final frontier.” It’s because I think that the horizon between fake and real when it comes to space fakery will always be beyond our reach, off in the distance. The satellites issue is the defining example, since I think honest people on both sides of the debate would have to admit there is a great deal of information that is hard to reconcile with their position. There are a lot of unanswered questions, and unfortunately I don’t think we can get answers to those questions. We just have to piece together the information we have as best we can and make a judgment call. I respect the judgment call you’ve made, Rolleikin, although I disagree with it. I think there are some here who can’t imagine how you’ve reached your position and therefore conclude that you must be attached to Operation Fantasy Land. I don’t agree with that, but at the same time I can definitely see how others might think that and am open to the possibility that I am wrong.
I simply ask that we try to treat each other with some degree of respect and patience and to save our snide, derisive put downs for the people who are obvious shills. For example, here are a few comments that recently went to moderation from some sick, twisted, anonymous buffoon:
“Hey, Miles. Mister Genius. Watch Epstein Island video where FBI closes curtains. Lol! Are you, “In hospital”? LOLOLOL MI6. Peerage. Men-are-pigs or Jews-are-child-rapists…are you protecting Jew Child Rapist Andrew Windsor?”
Which was followed by:
“Josh is a Jew. You live in New Mexico. I want to show the the mafia is real.”
Capped off by:
“Miles I would like to meet you in person in New York City. And I really wanna crush your skull on the street. Ask your handlers if it’s okay that I beat and crush your skull. Josh is Mossad. Spook Jew. CIA, Mossad.”
I would hope this serves as a reminder that we have a common enemy here. Let’s try not to let them turn us on each other.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
The Earth is not flat, Josh, and I think there are people here who may be starting to believe you yourself are not what you claim to be. I don’t believe that, of course, since I believe you are sincerely trying to unravel the mysteries, so to speak, in the fairest way possible and adjudicate disputes by looking at both sides, which I do appreciate.
But, in any case, the strong emotions on this topic have only been from a very few individuals so I wouldn’t worry about that.
I do find it strange that merely expressing skepticism about an aspect of the space program could generate such vehement objections. Don’t you? It’s almost like I’ve “touched a nerve,” as they say. Like maybe somebody somewhere would rather that certain things not be discussed at all. But, that’s probably my paranoid imagination. 🙂
And, by the way, I don’t think I’ve written anything about “how satellites achieve orbit” so I don’t know what you’re talking about there. As I understand it, they do it by expelling massive quantities of hot gasses.
Cheers.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
@Josh
I am suspicious of the “there are no manmade satellites” position being part of the “Flat Earth” psyop.
@Everyone
Miles updates one of his papers on nukes and caesium wotsits…
Click to access caes.pdf
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Sorry, someone already updated you on the Miles’ update 😛
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
@ ada0101
I believe there ARE some man-made satellites. I also believe there is fakery afoot in connection with them.
LikeLike
Josh said:
@Rolleikin. Interesting! Can you please say more about your belief in some man-made satellites and how you reconcile that belief with all the other things you’ve pointed out with regard to NASA fakery. Based on what you’ve been saying so far, I am surprised to hear that you believe there are any satellites at all.
Based on what you’ve written I was under the impression that you believed that no rockets had left the Earth’s atmosphere or at least none bearing any kind of satellite. I thought you also raised (IMO legitimate) doubts as to how we were able to launch satellites into orbit, especially with primitive 1950s technology. But maybe that was SMJ or Gaia.
Here is a statement of yours:
“I don’t see how someone can laugh at the early satellites yet think the current ones are any more real. IMO, all that’s improved is the methods of fakery.
“Those same people might want to ask themselves what technological foundation the current satellite tech is based on? It takes lots of trial and error to advance a technology so when did satellites suddenly start being real? And, how did they get real with nothing but fakes preceding them?
“‘OK, guys. No more fake stuff. From now on we’re REALLY gonna start launching satellites!'”
At the same time, you have also said, “Just for the record I don’t think I’ve ever said there are no man-made satellites. But, I do strongly suspect that the ones we are told about are fake. What do they really have up there? I don’t know. Maybe high tech or maybe low tech.”
So how have you reconciled these contradictions?
And for the record, I wasn’t accusing you of pushing Flat Earth. I was simply stating that there are some people who view ‘satellites are fake’ as akin to Flat Earth or part of the FE project. I know you don’t believe in FE. I also read the comments at fakeologist where Ballsack and his goons ganged up on you when you argued that rockets will work in a vacuum (in fact, I learned the answer from you in that debate). I remember you always had incisive comments at PoM and if memory serves you were very skeptical (much more than me) of Mark’s face-chops. I value your contributions here, and I feel quite certain that you are legit and are not spreading disinfo, at least not deliberately. But I am way more certain about Jared and Vex, both of whom I know better. So yes I do think you’re being paranoid if you think their responses are anything but genuine–even if you think they’re over the top.
I’m curious who you think is starting to believe I am not what I claim to be and why. The only e-mails I’ve gotten are from people who think satellites are fake is BS and are wondering why I allowed Gaia to post her nonsense here. Do you mean those people?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
@ Josh
“So how have you reconciled these contradictions?”
Easy. They aren’t contradictions. My quote about those who believe early satellites were all fake was just that. And, that is what I said: “I don’t see how those who laugh at early satellites … ”
It was directed at those who have that belief. It was not an assertion of my belief. Though I do believe there was much fakery in early satellites, I don’t necessary think that nothing was ever put into orbit.
I guess you missed that I’ve also said at other times that I don’t necessarily believe there are NO satellites. I’ve also suggested that “balloon satellites” may exist. But, before readers have a fit over my use of the word “balloon” look up “balloon satellite.” They aren’t balloons in the usual sense. They are metal objects that ARE in orbit in space and are publicly known about. They are satellites and I suggested their existence.
I’ve also suggested here that the ISS may be an object in orbit (i.e., a satellite) that is the shape and size of the alleged ISS but is not what we’re told the ISS is.
Or, of course, any hunk of shiny metal in orbit would appear as a bright dot moving across the night sky. It’s not the satellite we are told it is but it IS a satellite. This could still be called a fake satellite because it isn’t what it is purported to be.
“Based on what you’ve written I was under the impression that you believed that no rockets had left the Earth’s atmosphere or at least none bearing any kind of satellite.”
I’ve never said that nor do I believe that to be the case. In fact, I’ve recently been considering that NASA’s Ranger Program (rockets shot at the moon) may have been legit. Most of those rockets failed.
“I thought you also raised (IMO legitimate) doubts as to how we were able to launch satellites into orbit, especially with primitive 1950s technology.”
I’m glad you agree my doubts are legitimate.
BTW, if you find any spelling errors in any of my posts I would appreciate it if you publish your findings here so that I may work to do better in the future. It’s very helpful. Thank you. 🙂
LikeLike
Josh said:
Tony, Rolleikin says you shouldn’t be concerned with what others believe. Leave it be. You might consider listening to him, at least until you remember that he impatiently hounds everyone else about what they believe, and especially starts chomping at the bit when he thinks their beliefs conflict with something Miles has written.
So yeah, Rolleikin. What is your position? Here’s what I’ve been able to glean:
NASA (and by extension every space agency and private aerospace company or companies that have allegedly launched or depend on satellites) are liars and not to be trusted. Nothing they say can be believed and is most likely (or definitely) not true.
He is not exactly certain how to explain lights in the sky, but they could be high altitude airplanes rigged to mimic what we are told satellites look like. Presumably this is true of the ISS as well. Data from scientific satellites comes from some hodge podge of ground, air, balloon based instruments plus CGI and manufactured data.
Satellite TV and radio come from radio waves bounced off the ionosphere or whatever.
GPS is based on an attena-based military technology.
Let’s see… what else? Regardless of how all of this (and I’m sure we could think of additional satellite-based technologies) actually accomplished, one thing that seems certain is that no satellites were every launched into space on rockets.
Does that seem about right, Rolleikin? Inquiring minds want to know.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Please see my answer above.
LikeLike
alewisreid said:
I for one am sad that Jared has gone. A lot of what he wrote was beyond my ken with the technical science stuff, but we’re all here to discuss, dissect, disseminate phoeny business. We don’t all have to agree with every point raised.
Like for instance, the ISS in my opinion is unmanned, the RT reporter who took viewers around an identical model for an inside tour, some while since, convinced me thereof.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“…the RT reporter who took viewers around an identical model for an inside tour,”
Really? I’m off to find a link….thanks Lewis.
So a similar story to the one about scale models of the moon used for Apollo 11 footage, of which there is film footage of the studio. Must have been manned to start with, to build it, then once all the automation was set up, just press the green button.
Save money on hairspray and PIXEL studio’s, who just happen to be situated in Houston…. So what were all the other Shuttles used for? They were witnessed going up and I can only assume most were witnessed landing by someone local to the airfield. So wft were they doing up there? Many were said to be servicing the ISS crews. Hmmm! With hairspray no doubt.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I live about 50 miles from Edwards AFB and I have heard several times the famous “double sonic boom” of the shuttle as it lands. I didn’t see it land but I heard evidence that it landed. As Miles stated in his paper on the shuttle, I don’t doubt that it existed and that it flew through the air and landed. I only doubt its space exploits.
LikeLike
Phillip Johnson said:
Whats your opinion on the Flat Earth Psyop?
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
“Whats your opinion on the Flat Earth Psyop?”
It’s purpose appears to be to discredit by association those who question the reality of the space program.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Josh said:
Yes, I’m sad, too. But optimistic he’ll return. Perhaps those of you who want to see him back here could write to him expressing your support and desire to see him back.
LikeLike
mantalo said:
i’m sure he is reading and starting to feel itch 🙂
it’s itching him to participate and answer, for now his ego forbids him, but if we ask him nicely saying that we miss him, he will come back because he likes this forum and he needs it … like all of us.
Otherwise, we have no place to express ourselves
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“Otherwise, we have no place to express ourselves”
A bit like a nervous breastfeeding mum!
I’ll get me coat!
LikeLike
tony martin said:
To me the thing about satellites is this.
If anything in space is useful to humanity then it’s definitely satellites. With all the work they do from communication to weather to GPS….. I’m sure the list is quite long.
I don’t see any possible way that it could be faked! And I really don’t see any good reason to fake them anyway.
The Gaia guy had some convoluted explanation that I said I guess could possibly work…… but man that was a big stretch.
It kinda reminds me of the Bible apologists who give any kind of explanation no matter how stupid it is to prove their point. When we talk to people we don’t want to sound like a complete moron.
So to me if it’s impossible to fake, then they must be real.
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
It is funny; I have the exact opposite approach. Instead of following the narratives, my starting point is physics; reality. And that says there is no way there could be man-made satellites. As explained in multiple posts about the material properties of metals at these two extremes; hot and extreme cold at the same time, all the time.
No matter how many “witnesses”, “footage” or “narratives” there are, if something cannot physically exist, it cannot exist, simple as that.
So my view:
If it is impossible to do for real, then they must fake it.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Jared agreed with this:
The thermosphere could have a temperature of a million degrees, and would still not heat up satellites, space stations, or space junk by more than a few degrees. At a height of 200km, it’s as near to a vacuum as it’s possible to get on Earth using the best vacuum pumps. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of molecules. Heat is the product of #molecules x kinetic energy. Too few molecules up there to hold much heat. Direct sunlight is something of a problem. The simple solution is for satellites etc. to rotate slowly to spread the heating evenly. Remember also that satellites spend 1/2 the time in Earth’s shadow, cooling down.
So how do satellites cope with the heat?
Because even in Low Earth Orbit, there is a very low pressure around the spacecraft, making a smaller amount of atoms colliding with the satellite. As temperature is determined (by definition) as the measure at which atoms vibrate and collide with one another, temperature in orbit is experienced way different than it is on Earth, meaning the heating of the surface is not caused by the same processes at the Earth’s surface. Heating is by conduction is negligible, because this works with the exchange of energy between atoms around the spacecraft and the spacecraft itself by collisions. Heating by convection (warm fluids/gasses flowing to colder areas of fluid/gas) is impossible, obviously, because there is a negligible amount of gas and certainly no fluid in space. This leaves only heating by radiation (light from the sun) and internal components that produce heat.
To ensure that the spacecraft doesn’t heat up too much by solar radiation, the satellite is coated with a material that reflects lots of solar radiation, minimizing the amount of absorbed solar energy by the spacecraft itself (of course this isn’t done for the solar panels)because at the side facing away from the sun, the amount of incoming solar energy is very low, this side cools to very low temperatures, because of the extremely low amounts of absorbed energy. As the side facing the Sun has the problem that it has to absorb less radiation, rotating the satellite slowly makes the ‘hot’ side of the satellite cool down, and the ‘cold’ side of the satellite heat up, as the spacecraft rotates. This helps in maintaining a constant temperature for the satellite.
Excess heat can be released from the satellite (or any other spacecraft), by placing radiators. These are components, placed in particularly hot sections of the satellite, which are reflecting on the outside, and transparent on the inside (just like these mirrors in stores, behind which security may reside). These make radiation from only the inside the satellite to the outside possible. These things work the same way as a window, everyone can feel the sun’s heat trough a window, imagine only that for these radiators, it works only in one direction.
The heat produced by internal components can be lost by creating a heat conducting path using a metal or liquid (thus convection) between the hot component and a radiator. Or by using pumps that pump evaporated cooling ‘liquid’ away, thus making sure that the still liquid cooling material doesn’t heat faster due to the presence of hotter gas.
This is only a short summary of the most common methods, I hope it was clear for the people who did not understand this obviously hard subject. I also hope that people understand now that there is more than meets the eye and start doing a bit of research in the subject or their question before residing to theories with arguments that are easily debunked, with proper knowledge on the subject.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Jared Magnesonsaid:September 4, 2019 at 8:27 pm
I personally don’t have any problem with satellites or radiators. We use radiators in computers (for example) every day – and even in our phones. Thermal radiators aren’t that difficult to make and design and they’re very effective. For example, the stock AMD CPU fan that came with my Piledriver 8-core tops out around 80° C under full throttle, which is far too hot of course. So applying a specially-designed CPU fan/radiator drops that down to around 60° C under full load, which allowed me to increase the voltage and overclock it up to 5GHz. So it’s pretty easy to test how these things work. Here’s what I mean:
Stock 8350FX cooler:
My replacement:
It’s offset from the CPU, MUCH larger, and has a bigger almost silent fan. The fins of the heatsink maximize the surface area to bleed off even more heat. And since it’s pointed sideways (out the back of the computer case), instead of straight down, the heat is REMOVED faster from the main chip below. So yes, to anyone curious, I have experience with thermals and cooling. Granted cooling a CPU is not the same as cooling a satellite, but the principles ARE the same.
Here’s an example of a milspec fluid cooling system for satellite circuitboards:
And here’s a shot from the ISS of its bigger, spreader radiators which also act as insulators or shades, allegedly:
You can read more about that here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Active_Thermal_Control_System
Here’s another new radiator type for smaller satellites that contracts and expands to bleed heat or keep it:
I feel like ALL of these methods are easily testable using just stuff around your house, for the most part. Now does this mean all satellites are real, or the ISS is up there doing what we’re told? No, not to me. It just means that heat transfer methods exist and we can readily test them or try them in many ways. Easily testable.
Like
Jared Magnesonsaid:September 4, 2019 at 8:29 pm
Also, another fact nobody has mentioned on that topic – meteors passing by that miss the Earth narrowly do NOT burn up and/or explode that high up, right? We’ve never seen that happen. Even small metallic ones pass through all the time without burning up, so I don’t think that heat is as big an issue as people make it out to be and definitely not a barrier to vessel or probe design.
There are other, bigger fish to fry in my opinion.
Like
Jared Magnesonsaid:September 5, 2019 at 3:04 am
Sorry, Tony, the link to my aftermarket CPU cooler didn’t post. Maybe these will work?
And viewing the base, which contacts the CPU itself (thermal silver paste applied):
In contrast, here is the base of the stock AMD FX-series “Wraith” cooler. It’s all flat copper but has no “pipes”, and those pipes play a big role in distributing heat:
Like
Jared Magnesonsaid:September 5, 2019 at 3:09 am
Gah! The base didn’t post. Last try:
If THAT one works, you can clearly see where the copper base-pipes are flattened to contact the CPU. It’s actually milled REALLY flat in real life, the image is just a bit punchy or something. The silver thermal paste is just to even out micro-divets and stuff.
But my point is, there’s lots of ways and even practical ways to test and determine how heat transfers work. While I fully believe there’s some fishy, spooky stuff going on in space, I don’t really have a problem with the physics of heat transfer and don’t consider it a “smoking gun” argument.
Re-entry is similarly not very fruitful to me, in finding fakery. It should definitely NOT be impossible, given orbital mechanics, physics, and engineering. But that’s just what I think.
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
Good news everyone! We’re only a few short years away from hotels in space:
https://mymodernmet.com/worlds-first-space-hotel/
Don’t forget your lead underpants!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Josh said:
“The hotel will simulate lunar gravity, making it the first station of its kind to have artificial gravity and ensuring that your belongings won’t be flying around in the air.”
So I guess that means everyone will be moving around in slow motion…
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
At first I thought it was a satire of current space travel propaganda. But if you look around their very glitzy site, they’re serious. As serious as people in advertising can be anyway.
LikeLike
Ollie said:
Btw, did anybody notice that while the term space tourism implies an increasing availability of space travel to a wider public, increasing the number of spacefaring individuals and therefore making it more believable, it was either limited to billionaires (which might be in on the con, but then the numbers were still surprisingly small) due to cost, or, as is the case with Virgin Galactic, admitted to be suborbital and even then hopelessly delayed? Space tourism is like fusion power. It’s always around the corner and somebody is currently working to make it accessible to everybody in the near future.
LikeLiked by 2 people
elpaydoublay said:
Like those flying cars they promised us in the 1950’s. And personal jet packs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
I found this an amusingly odd thing to say:
“Named after controversial rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, who was affiliated with the Nazi party early in his career and later went on to serve as director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center…”
I’ve never before seen a hotel promoted by associating it with Nazis. 🙂
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
Ze vill make ze rockets run on time, ja ja?
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Vee haff vays uff makink yoo kumfee, ya!
LikeLiked by 1 person
alewisreid said:
Do you have to Heil a cab to get to one of those hotels?
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
Taxi for alewisreid! 😉
LikeLike
mantalo said:
what do you think about this
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Area_51,_They_Can%27t_Stop_All_of_Us
fake or real ?
LikeLike
mantalo said:
oups sorry
i didn’t want to post my question here…
i wanted to put it at the end of forum…
sorry
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
It’s freal.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I’d laugh if they stormed the place and found 250 office workers in a call centre, but no spy planes or military shit…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Maybe that’s where all those East Indian customer service people are actually located. 🙂
(note to Josh and Vexman: this is a joke post)
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
In regards to this comment (I’m not sure who said that — tony? or Jared?)
“The thermosphere could have a temperature of a million degrees, and would still not heat up satellites, space stations, or space junk by more than a few degrees.”
I think something is being missed here. It assumes that the thermosphere is the source of heat. But, the heat of the thermospere has a source too. It’s not just hot because it decided to be hot. Something is causing it to be hot. Presumably that source is the Sun.
So, if the thermosphere’s source of heat can heat up the thermopsphere then couldn’t it also heat any other object that is in the same location to the same high temperatures? If the thermosphere is heated to, say, 2000°F, then wouldn’t any other object in the same place be heated by the same source to that temperature as well ?
LikeLike
Vexman said:
The context of Jared’s reply was different, as it explained why thermosphere can’t transfer any heat to a satellite. His full reply also included the source of thermosphere’s heat by saying: ” Direct sunlight is something of a problem”.
You need the presence of a medium to transfer the heat between objects. In essence, you need a lot of gas molecules around / betwixt the objects to carry the heat. The higher up you go, the lower air pressure and gas density, thus less gas molecules are present in the medium to efficiently transfer the heat betwixt objects. # of molecules x kinetic energy = heat, where temperature is the measure of that kinetic energy -> less molecules -> less heat.
What heats up the thermosphere is direct radiation of light from the Sun as well as Earth’s charge. And it would definitely heat up any objects’ surface flying that high up, depending on properties of such surface. But the temperature measurement of a low-pressure, low-density gas is high because the energized gas molecules are unable to transfer their energy to another object or gas molecule, so they retain their kinetic energy (temperature) and build it up to the limit. Solid objects would dissipate / radiate heat energy over their whole surface due to different molecular bonding and charge flow, which is much more orderly composed in solids than in gases. That’s also why solids exhibit different properties than gases, for instance no solid material can achieve temperatures where hot-plasma is formed as they would vaporize long before getting that hot. Technically, elements have their properties due to their charge recycling capabilities, you may refer to Miles’ science work for more details on this subject.
To cut the story short, solid objects wouldn’t heat up nearly as much as low-pressure, low-density termosphere’s gas molecules.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Thank you, Vexman, and thank Jared for me too. 🙂
LikeLike
Vexman said:
You’re welcome. And beyond incredible…since you suggest that my answer came from Jared, so I should thank him for you. Why is that? Do you consider me incapable of writing something like that on my own? Or are you having an itch for another theatrical conspiracy, where Jared is a boogeyman pulling strings from the shadows of internet? Sure, both options are possible. I’ll let you decide which one is it.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Or are you having an itch for another theatrical conspiracy…”
Of course! We’re all a bunch of conspiracy nuts here! 🙂
(Actually, it was just a joke.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
mantalo said:
never ending propaganda
Ad Astra (Latin for “to the stars”) is a 2019 American science fiction adventure film produced, co-written, and directed by James Gray. Starring Brad Pitt, Tommy Lee Jones, Ruth Negga, Liv Tyler, and Donald Sutherland, it follows an astronaut who goes into space in search of his lost father, whose experiment threatens the solar system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Astra_(film)
Release date
August 29, 2019 (Venice)
September 20, 2019 (United States)
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Spooky dates, spooky location — “Ah, Phoenice!” — spooky project and isn’t Gray one of the Family names?
LikeLike
mantalo said:
yes
100% funky 🙂
oups funiX
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
100 Phoenky 😉
LikeLike
mantalo said:
just now i realise that the movie is released in US the same day than the area 51 event, which has been created by a Robert or Roberts or robber, that is the name of the ancestors of french royalty during #1000 years
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertians
LikeLike
Mindovers Platter said:
Also a beer type from the Freestate Brewery in Lawrence Kansas. Probably better than the movie. In fact, it might improve the movie.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
I just came across this on t’internet and wondered if there was/is a better explanation for this effect as the explanation given doesn’t seem to be very rigorous….The Dzhanibekov Effect
For me, early on in the explanation we are told that spheres only have 1 moment of inertia and by the end of it we are told that planets all spin along their major axis or moment of inertia
Surely, then, the experiment earlier would have been to add some weights/mountains to the outside of the spherical ball and spin that the same way?
Also the CGI graphics state that there needs to be an initial cause of acceleration on the minor axis/moment of inertia but if you watch the spinning wing-nut (cgi) or spinning T-Bar, there is nothing /no force happening to initiate this extra spin.
There also must be some correlation with the number of rotations per flip
Enjoy….answers on a postcard to NASA…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ollie said:
Well, at least we know why rockets and satellites are no longer spin-stabilized.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Are they? I mean are they “no longer” spin stabilised? and Were they before?
Spin stabilised is different from this effect. The other name for this is the tennis racket effect
If I “spin stabilised” my tennis racket I’m sure it wouldn’t exhibit this effect
However, I have a problem with this phenomenon. It pre-suggests that ANYTHING with 3 axis’ will always have a major moment of inertia
How slow or fast does something have to be spinning for this effect to take place??
It can only affect a single individual object (per effect) and not, say, a system of objects (ie a solar system or galaxy wouldn’t flip over)
And how would this affect whether satellites etc were spin stabilised or not?
It should only affect anything rotating around its own axis. So how did it affect that long satellite in the video?
Something ain’t right…..
LikeLike
Ollie said:
Putting aside all the complicated mathematics that are suggested in that video, I think that any object that exhibits this effect needs to have a major imbalance in mass distribution. The t-bar is not a spinning cylinder with a weightless “t-upstroke”. The center of mass is in the upstroke not in the upper t-cross (at least not where the t-cross would have its own center of mass were it alone without the t-upstroke) . So it will eventually wobble and spin around this center of mass. The torque of the t-cross which is spinning end-on-end and the torque of the upstroke which spins around it’s axis is not balanced. The video mystifies a trivial outcome. Same with the wing-nut. In one of three directions it’s not symmetrical, same with the tennis-racket (in the handle to net direction). In these bodies, there is no rotation axis, since they are not really symmetrical, just a center of rotation. For some time it might look as if they rotate around an axis when in reality they rotate around a point. The torque from the “outliers” precludes that they wobble in all directions but it can’t preclude that it occasionally flips around that point.
A can or ball, if the density is evenly distributed, exhibits the same torque upwards and downwards from its center of mass.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
That’s the thing, you know? Spins are INTRINSICALLY difficult to understand, and I’m definitely not expert. But when it comes down to the actual physical momenta, there has to be a REASON these things flip, just as there has to be a REASON that spins can stack or that energy expressed through a collisions can flip a spin, stack a spin, or despin a spin. It has to WORK, mechanically.
And I think that’s all Miles has been trying to do. All I’ve been trying to do too, for years now. It’s not easy since we can’t observe quanta at that scale directly actually flipping or reversing – because they cannot reach our eyes or camera lenses if they’ve shifted direction AWAY, you know? It’s tough stuff. It’s all highly suspect but the math and of course Mathis is dead-on in my opinion. It’s the actual WORKINGS of it that are squishy, and most critically how I express them myself, in my videos.
How does one prove that stacked spins work at all? Nested gyroscopes have always been my go-to, but is that even applicable? I’d sure love some dissent just so I can refine my arguments, if nothing else. I myself have had no problem making something spin on multiple axes.I do it almost daily in construction alone, bashing and demoing houses.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Ollie I have re-read your response about thirty times now and its starting to make sense (to me that is – it obviously already makes sense to you :-).
I have also watched the video as I re-read your response and I get what you are saying. Very eloquently put unlike those moron physicists.
@Tony – Chainsaw Jugglers! lol I bet they could too since their lives depend on catching them eh?
So yes I see the centre of mass is now offset due to the T-bar extension and the wobble must ensue
Then it has inertia in THAT direction and so it rotates in THAT direction. so it actually IS tumbling. its rotating in two different directions at the same time but in an orderly queued fashion
Why it stops for a beat is still a mystery so will need to work out the ratios involved I guess
I am starting to think of a ten pin bowling ball as an example. It can only rotate on a single axis at any one time but it can skid down the track in one direction then the spin takes hold and moves it in that direction
@Jared – instead of ‘nested’ gyroscopic spins or stacked spins in this case maybe a ‘compound’ spin is more accurate? (forgive me here if I’m talking absolute pish as we say in Scotland!) But do please tell me if I am 😀
so if we had 2x gyroscopes one would spin in the major axis and one (internal) would spin in the minor axis. But since this is a single object, it compounds the 2x spins and the inertia is what moves between the axes.
So is this phenomenon then transfer of inertia?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Haggisneeps said: “@Jared – instead of ‘nested’ gyroscopic spins or stacked spins in this case maybe a ‘compound’ spin is more accurate? (forgive me here if I’m talking absolute pish as we say in Scotland!) But do please tell me if I am ”
No, I don’t think that using “compound” spin is odd at all. That’s how it appears to me, but why and how it happens I couldn’t say just yet. It’s a weird phenomenon, definitely.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I watched most of the video, but in no place that I saw did he discuss nested gyrsoscopic spins or stacking of spins. It seems he’s unaware of how spins can stack, which is not anti-physics but definitely fishy to me. All those screenshots of 3D Studio Max and he can’t get an object to spin properly? Max isn’t Maya but it’s still fully capable of analyizing and demonstrating the point in question, in my opinion. Max is at least as good as Maya in animation, if not better in some cases.
I’ll try to watch the rest of the video but it sure gets tedious when the demonstrator gets so many things wrong.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
“it sure gets tedious when the demonstrator gets so many things wrong”
indeed – my point exactly. They miss so many opportunities to actually apply some values and measurements. So I will try myself
OK first things first. Assumptions
1) All videos and animations I have seen so far have the rotation anti-clockwise from the viewers (or spin initiator’s) perspective. I wonder if thats a) random or b) just my lack of investigation and if the same thing happens anti-clockwise or c) just a manifestation of the fact that the screw threads we bore all happen to be threaded that way
2) This his happens in real life in zero G (space station) and also in Kerbal. Since Kerbal doesn’t account for Miles’ charge field (and all the rest that has been missed) then can we safely assume its not a charge field effect? Otherwise Kerbal wouldn’t exhibit the same effect?
Things I want to find out:
1) Is there a ratio of rotations to flips?
2) is it precession (of the extended t-bar section) that causes the flips?
3) if it is precession, could a “perfect” spin negate the wobble that causes the flip?
4) is there a minimum speed it happens at? as all the videos show a very fast spin
more later. need to pop out
LikeLiked by 2 people
tony martin said:
I think most if not all of your questions could easily be answered by chainsaw jugglers rather than moron physicists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vexman said:
Just click on that mute icon, should fix it instantly 🙂
I was impressed, this seems to be a really hard case to solve, doesn’t it? I could somehow understand wobbling motion before it made a flip. What I can’t understand is why does spiral-like wobbling stop at one moment and orderly rotation continues, just mirrored over one axis? What defines maximum wobble limit? Then the pattern repeats, suggesting it’s a periodical flip. What kind of spin stacking could cause all that?
I’ve seen many of your animations, but have never seen such wobbling of spinning particles, even though many orders of stacked spins were involved. Maybe I missed it, can you think of any one of those animations that would look similar to this kind of motion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I’m leaning toward’s Arborfest’s clue as some sort of mechanism involved, but really couldn’t say for sure what’s happening here.
But it DOES resemble some of the results I got trying to simulate stacked spins for video diagramming – when I got things “wrong”. That is to say, when you’re modeling Miles’ theory you have to be VERY careful where your pivot points are and track the collisions causing that new spinover (like a spin tipping over, or “upspin” as Miles has explained it). And it gets harder and harder to track the more spins you gain. I mean, harder for ME to track. To keep up with what I’m trying to show and stay accurate to MIles’ explanations combined with Nevyn’s fantastic work and assistance along the way. If you mess up a pivot, the spin-trail looks totally different. I had to get each one correct to make my videos match Nevyn’s brilliant coding apps – and he walked me through the tedium (of dealing with Maya, not of the topic) like a champ.
So each new spin has to happen on a different pivot point (axis, basically) at 90° to the prior one – and as far as I know, it can be EITHER other axis. I could be wrong and should probably ask Miles and/or Nevyn, but a stacking could go:
Axial, X1, Y1, X2
I don’t know that it HAS to go:
Axial, X1, Y1, Z1
…because EITHER the X or Z axis are at 90° to Y, right? Just in different directions. SO let’s say we have a string of upsins that are something like:
Axial, X1, Y1, X2, Y2, X3, Y3, Z1
So that last Z1 spin is the FIRST Z-axis spin in this stacking progression. Perhaps this is added somehow by the outward motion of the unscrewing? Maybe this is what we’re seeing in this phenomenon? It’s just a guess, and I could very well be completely wrong. Those two are the experts; I just try to understand it better and diagram vids to help others study it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vexman said:
Jared, that’s interesting suggestion: “…that last Z1 spin is the FIRST Z-axis spin in this stacking progression. Perhaps this is added somehow by the outward motion of the unscrewing?”
It may be just like this. In my view of your explanation, the flip is along Z-axis. I’m still wondering though: if the Z1 spin is added, how is it taken away? Or is it present all the time, but it has micro wobbling amplitudes even when we think it’s moving perfectly balanced? But if so, what is causing such amplitudes?
For a moment, as the wobbling starts to appear, it actually looks as if somebody poked the mass at its upper edge as Arborfest said, de-balancing it and inducing wobble to its motion. But that doesn’t happen, there is no phoeny hidden hand in this case involved 🙂
LikeLike
tony martin said:
This might seem petty and I’m not a portrait painter but…… the first time I saw this guy he reminded me of Elon Musk.
Could it be a family resemblance?
https://www.google.com/search?q=Elon+Musk&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS765US765&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTsfD6-fPkAhWxq1kKHRglASgQ_AUIEygC&biw=969&bih=554&dpr=1.5
LikeLiked by 1 person
arborfest said:
This is fascinating! Thanks for sharing it. I love inexplicable macroscopic phenomena.
As I understand the effect, the key is the spinning along the axis, PLUS motion in the same direction of the axis. I believe if you just have a spinning wingnut in zero gravity, it won’t do the flipping. When the wingnut travels up the screw and once free continues on the same trajectory, it takes on a motion along the same axis it is spinning. This second motion somehow runs counter to the angular momentum of the spin, and the entire object periodically wobbles.
I think it is akin to having a perfectly spinning top, then you poke its axis near the top and it starts wobbling while it spins. But whereas the top has two moments of inertia, the wingnut has three, making it that much hard to visualize what’s going on.
Intuitively, that’s my understanding of this, but I’m still trying to wrap my head around it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
haggisnneeps said:
“As I understand the effect, the key is the spinning along the axis, PLUS motion in the same direction of the axis”
ok this is the kind of thing I would like to know for a fact rather than an understanding
It also begs the question does this ‘direction of travel axis’ affect the direction of the flip which always seems to be uniformly doing a figure 8 or even a mobius strip or annulus shape? can’t quite visualise it properly
Also then if we were then to model this spin as applied to some of the element configurations (thanks Vexman for bringing that up:-) ) would it solve or explain any puzzles there?
And yes – why doesn’t it continue tumbling in an orderly fashion. what tells it to stop then start again??
I would love to know the scale at which this will continue to work
Again we only have a few spinning T Bars to extrapolate from and maybe some wing nuts (though the wing nuts I saw are CGI)
Would different materials behave differently? I would guess not but would be nice to know
Imagine if each and every elemental particle is doing the same thing? While also doing their own stacked spins
Is the presence of gravity a requirement? What is the orientation of the spin relative to the gravitational field of the earth/sun/moon etc (theres an excerpt on the vomit comet but it uses a piece of wood he made and I can’t tell from that)
questions questions….
LikeLiked by 2 people
arborfest said:
Here’s some more fodder. To me this looks like an Earth-bound example of the Dzhanibekov effect:
In the comments there’s a link to an explanatory paper:
Click to access 0507198.pdf
where they say friction causes the flipping(?).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Aye, but there’s no friction in the spinning-microgravity videos? Friction with the air, maybe?
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
I was thinking about that. If the micro gravity videos are really in LEO, in a pressurized environment, would the gas mix of oxygen and nitrogen be dense enough to produce enough friction? Especially for a such a quick reaction? My intuition is telling me to keep looking for a better answer.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
this is weird. So this one starts spinning clockwise from the viewers perspective then flips over to spin anticlockwise from the viewers persepctive
But looking at the T-Bar in space, it spins anticlockwise then flips over but continues to spin anticlockwise
So is this a different but similar effect or a different outcome of the same effect?
Or is it just a flipping of perspective? With the sphere, we are seeing it from above and when it flips we are, in essence, seeing it “from below” because it has flipped and changed OUR perspective too
Whereas with the T-Bar we do not see the same effect. We still see it from a fixed perspective (call it above) and the it travels towards us while flipping but it doesn’t change our perspective as we still see it rotating anticlockwise “from above”.
Why doesn’t it appear to rotate clockwise when it flips? if we changed our position to be where the hole is that it come out of, it would be rotating clockwise all the time
What is different? Why does one change our perspective and the other doesn’t?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Are we seeing a similar effect with the Sun and it’s magnetic field keep flipping?
Could we use this to predict the next flip of the Earth’s magnetic field?
Where does charge being recycled come into this?
I haven’t looked but does this only happen with metallic objects?
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
it does the same if the tippe top (or whatever its called) is wooden
not sure if its a charge field effect as it happens in Kerbal Space Program too and that doesn’t include the charge field (as far as I know)
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Kerbal just has an algorithm to reproduce the effect.
Wooden so not magnetic but still doesn’t rule out the Sun.
I wonder if a charge photon could have this motion while zipping along at c?
Just like other posters have postulated, it resembles stacked spins, so perhaps describes the charge photons motion, but in the macro world so we can see it and understand it better. Wasn’t that what Jared was saying?
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Yes I think what Jared is saying is that it resembles the way he builds stacked spins code and that the Z axis spin has to wait its turn effectively before it gets its change to rotate
But my understanding of “stacked” spins (which is admittedly nowhere near others’ understanding of it) is that they are all happening simultaneously and Nevin’s animations seem to bear this out
This effect seems like an orderly queue as the z axis spin patiently waits for its turn
Going back to something I said earlier about why the tipped top inverts and spins the other way and the t-bar doesn’t…..are we seeing 2x different levels of stacked spin here?
level 1 – spherical where the object can only invert
level 2 – offset centre of gravity where we actually see it perform 2x flips – one along the z axis and a simultaneous orthogonal flip to continue the anticlockwise rotation?
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Or level 1 = single axis and level 2=dual axis
could we get a level 3 with the correct object / dimensions?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Haggisnneeps said: “But my understanding of “stacked” spins (which is admittedly nowhere near others’ understanding of it) is that they are all happening simultaneously and Nevin’s animations seem to bear this out”
No, you are correct. I was incorrect – they do NOT process like that, but the LAST spin is the main one and all the others happen underneath it, as both Nevyn’s apps and my animations show. I was reaching too far with that assessment and missed that critical point. Thank you for pointing it out!
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Also I myself have never seen that in Kerbal, but I’ve never spun tiny objects either. It certainly never happens to ship-sized structures that I’ve seen, or even probes. I imagine that they coded it in, just like they dodged “charge” by A) not knowing about it and B) creating elliptical orbits using fudged math. It’s the same math NASA uses, the mainstream nonsense. So they HAVE to fudge things or else orbits won’t work. And in the game, they definitely DO work.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
ahhh ok so I was referring to a youtube video that shows the effect happening to a space station in Kerbal – don’t know if you have seen that one or not? I will try and find it….
it has loads of jets on it and it rotates really fast then explodes and the central t-bar shaped section remains intact and spinning and it does this flip thing…
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
here it is – looking at it again it seems to be a bit less realistic or a bit less fluid or something
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Ahh, yes. That’s what they call “the Kraken”, where KSP’s physics breaks down basically. But I don’t think this is the same effect we’re seeing in those other videos, as this T is spinning along an off-center axis? In the other videos, the object is spinning many more times before the flip, as well. I mean, I could be wrong on this stuff. Just conjecture.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Interesting comment from YouTube
Mike Collins
3 years ago
+Himadri Samanta “There will be no friction at zero g.” That doesn’t follow. If you’re in the International Space Station, there will be zero-G, but the top would slow down due to air resistance.
I haven’t done the experiment – zero-G places are so hard to come by – but I think that the reason why it turns over is the moment given it by the pressure of the surface on which it spins, causing it to precess. As it precesses, so the point at which the pressure is applied to this little gyroscope changes, causing it to precess futher until the stem comes into contact with the surface, and its edge stands the top upside down because it has a higher peripheral speed. If it was in a vaccuum, it would spin until the friction of its point against the table surface slowed it down – which could be a very long time – and if it was in zero-G, there would be no force to cause it to precess, and it would simply maintain a stable axis, the same as any other spinning object in space.
Himadri Samanta
Himadri Samanta
3 years ago
+Mike Collins You are correct that there is a pressure involved. What little I understand is this: The gravity pulls the top down causing a pressure on the table, which produces a normal force on the top. That in turn causes a frictional force opposite to the direction of the top’s motion at the contact point. That causes the top to precess. I probably was too brief in my comment and neglected the details. When I said there will be no friction, I did not mean the air friction. I meant the friction of the top with the table. Air friction will be symmetrical, but the friction with the table is not for this top. Please feel free to correct me. Thank you.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
it would seem our problem is lack of available zero-g labs to test what hasn’t been tested
I reckon in zero-g the toppee tippee will flip end over end without the gravity vector through the table.
LikeLiked by 1 person
R T said:
“I’ll put some heavy point-masses on this axis, and some light-point masses on the other” What a fool. How can a point have mass? That quite literally is an oxymoron.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Just preposterous. Sad state of affairs, in the mainstream.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I think if you slow down the spinning T-shaped tool video to 1/4 speed you will see what is happening and why it flips. It has a wobble due to its imbalance on that axis or just due to nutation (or both) and the wobble increases with each rotation until it reaches a “tipping point” and must flip over to continue spinning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I think you’re right. It’s the simplest, easiest answer too.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Yep spent a lot of time slowing it down and trying to figure it out. So the nutation/precession/wobble seems to be due to the fact the centre of gravity is no longer the centre of the pipe shape
I would assume from this that if the COG was within the tube but not exactly central we would get the same thing happen but just not as noticably and since the tube continues to rotate the same direction from our point of view then we would be none the wiser
However the question on the table now (for me anyway) is will it try and spin around the centre of gravity if we introduce another axis. same length, 90 degrees to the first
Is it spinning around the COG in all possible spin directions along all possible axes?
When it reaches its maximum acceleration going from front to back (the t-Bar) it does a huge accel then deceleration to stop perfectly before beginning again
with another axis involved the COG would probably not even lie within the physical structure and would rotate/flip around a barycenter
Then i think we will start to see some fireworks.
Just need to finish off my see-through Stainless Steel Self-returning rocket and quickly build a space station to do some proper experiments….
aww crap.. i have a puncture on my bike….
LikeLike
Vexman said:
The wobble makes sense until the moment of its maximum point, just before the flip appears.
Then the object flips and becomes less wobbling over one axis and more orderly spinning until the wobble almost disappears. And then the wobble re-starts, from its min to max point until it flips again, making the flip periodical.
What is expected is that inertia from the spin on wobbling axis would take over the plane of rotation, and not diminish it’s amplitude while flipping.
How would a wobble explain its own amplitude and flipping frequency ? What defines its min and max points? Why is inertia that drives the wobble diminished after its peak point and what stops the wobble from taking over the overall spinning momentum / plane?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
You know I wouldn’t agree with Rollekin on anything out of hand or lightly. We can track the nutation specifically even further if you want. I can diagram it even deeper, and readily. I just have to take the time to add markers for the viewer to see – they’re already there, inside of Maya.
He’s right. And I don’t mind backing him on this one. If we apply ONLY a rotation on the out axis we get a smooth, uniform spin. If we apply ANY deviation to the single-axis spin we get that flip at some point. Longer or shorter intervals, but that’s just how the deviation expresses itself.
This one isn’t a mystery to me. I’ve watched it and generated it and don’t mind Rolleikin being correct at all, since it’s the simplest solution and if my video doesn’t make it clear I’ll make a better one. Past differences aside, we’re all on the same team here and I personally assure you this one isn’t a big signal that we have Space Fakery about the topic. It will ALWAYS happen if there is even a slight degree of inaccuracy in the outward spin. And any time you have hands involved, or screw threads, you will have that deviation.
I am still open to being wrong here but really don’t think I or Rolleikin is wrong. Maya doesn’t contrive anything you don’t tell it to. People do, but Maya does NOT.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Also I hope it’s clear that I am eager to bury the hatchet for my own sake. Rolleikin can hate me all he wants, but if he’s right about something I won’t hesitate. It’s the same for Miles and anyone else – we’re looking for answers here, not persona. I don’t want to be clouded by personal bias and I know that some of my answers may have seemed so in the recent past, despite the poplar acceptance. But it’s not a popularity contest. And I don’t mean to imply that you made it one, Vex.
I just happen to agree with Rolleikin for once and I hope that stands on its own. My video (to me) proves his theory, or THAT theory. I’m not here for animosity and I hope he feels me on it. We’re here on this thread to unearth and extract Space Fakery – and there’s plenty of it, but this one isn’t fake as far as I can tell or as far as I can dictate for MAYA to tell. It’s still crap-in, crap-out, but as you can see in my video I’ve isolated as much crap as I can.
The positions, vectors, impuluses, and masses are accurate down to the micrometer. Maya doesn’t really fuck that stuff up – you would have to TELL it to, and even then it’s accurate down to the millimeter. If we need more accuracy, we can just feed it to Maya and she will respond accordingly. But in my experience Maya doesn’t lie – only my inputs have wiggle, at most. It’s accurate enough to calculate ocean waves with billions of particles so it feels accurate enough to me to calculate two forces and one spinover, you know?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vexman said:
All is clear, my friend. It looked counter-intuitive to me, but that’s no surprise. Thanks for the animation, though it doesn’t help in my understanding of this issue.
As noticed, when one axis flips over during its rotation, the other orthogonal axis is completely thrown out of its own balanced rotation. It’s rotational plane is heavily disturbed, yet it is able to achieve its default rotational plane orthogonality as the experiment shows. Which then makes me wonder about the mechanical rules of such motion. As much as visualization helps, it doesn’t answer the question of ‘why’ and ‘how’.
Btw, I don’t care much about the author of correct explanation of anything. As long as I can learn and progress from learning the right answer, we’re all good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Who ever thought that a mere wingnut would cause such serious debate….
…..flippin thing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
haggisnneeps said:
Hi – for the record i wasn’t bringing this topic up as in the sense that it is/was fake or faked
I’m with Vex on this – what we are seeing is real and is happening and Rolleikin’s explanation of nutation/precession was something i had asked about at the outset of this conversation (i dont think i used the term nutation to be fair)
So my point of view is the same as Vexman’s – the mechanics and the “how and why” which is why i want to see how it rotates with an extra limb – will it try and achieve three spin axes all individually “stacked” pr processing? Or will it now tumble around its barycenter which i calculate (in my imagination) to be now OUTSIDE of the physical structure of the T-Bar 🙂
i am, all about the answers and mechanics too.
Is this the basics of stacked spins? off-centre nutation? precession? can we extrapolate this out?
LikeLiked by 2 people
rolleikin said:
“I just happen to agree with Rolleikin for once and I hope that stands on its own.”
Really? You agree for once?
My email account has dozens of emails that say “Jared Magneson liked your comment on …” going back over a year to when I first started posting here and even before that when I was posting on the POM forum.
I don’t really care who does or doesn’t agree with me but, when discussing me on a public forum, at least have the balls to tell the truth ** for once**.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I’ll make a better video, with rotation markers and whatnot so you can see the nutations more clearly.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Haggisneeps said: “Or will it now tumble around its barycenter which i calculate (in my imagination) to be now OUTSIDE of the physical structure of the T-Bar ”
No, it’s not rotating outside of its barycenter. But its center happens to appear that way due to the shape of the object. I’ll show it better in my next video, and hopefully it’ll clear things up a bit more.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
the reason I am so interested in this particular phenomenon is that early on when I started reading Miles’ work there was some argument from someone (I think it was around the time Miles published his first book) who was saying that these stacked spins were impossible
If I remember correctly (which is unlikely!) they said something along the lines of “how are we going to keep these spins going – run alongside with a stick to keep it rotating ” or something
So showing actual stacked spins that we can see is ammunition
Also, when I watched the film First Man there was a bit when they were in Gemini 8 and docked with the orbiter and then lost control and went into a spin end over end.
The gemini craft would then have acted like our spinning tube and started to rotate around its major axis so it would have been rotating say clockwise lengthwise and spinning rapidly around that long axis too
The solution to this spin was for Armstrong to fire the thrusters to stop the lengthwise end over end spin which in turn dropped the rate of rotation or spin around the long axis
So in this situation in order to slow the end over end spin if you fire the rocket while the ship is spinning like a drill too, you would have to time it perfectly to get the forces to balance out otherwise you would actually worsen the spin
I wonder if KSP can replicate that Gemini 8 sortie… or if it has already been done?
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Hi Jared, just for clarity:
In my mind:
the single cigar shaped object with no t-bar on it will rotate end over end along its major axis and while it does so, if it is balanced perfectly and the spin ws initiated perfectly, then the cigar will rotate around a COG at the exact middle of the spherical diameter and exactly half way down its shaft. It won’t rotate around the major axis (ie spin like a drill bit)
We will call the first motion rotation end over end like helicopter blades) and the second spin (like a drill bit)
If we then add the extension bar , say a quarter the length of the whole cigar shape, we will call this the T-Bar and its pointing away from us
So now the COG is in the centre of the circular TBar diameter about maybe a fifth of the way up it from the centre of the cigar shape. But it is still inside the physical structure
Now if we add a third structure at 90 degrees to the T-Bar and call it T-Bar2, the COG of the physical system now moves to a point halfway between these two extensions and is now outside of the physical structure.
I wish I could draw this – I hate MACs they’re crap. I have Visio on my other laptop. im away to draw this its easier to explain
But in summary I thought parlance was for a barycentre to be a point outside of the physical systems that rotate around it – but then that may only be for unconnected systems like the earth and the moon rotating around each other
Or is a barycentre just another mythematical entity like the Lagrange points ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
@Haggisnneeps: Yep, they’ve done every “mission” in KSP. Doesn’t mean they are all real, and of course many require parts and items that didn’t exist at all back then (Apollo), effectively falsifying them.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Haggisnneeps said: “the reason I am so interested in this particular phenomenon is that early on when I started reading Miles’ work there was some argument from someone (I think it was around the time Miles published his first book) who was saying that these stacked spins were impossible
If I remember correctly (which is unlikely!) they said something along the lines of “how are we going to keep these spins going – run alongside with a stick to keep it rotating ” or something”
Well we don’t really NEED any ammo against those arguments, which are horseshit and petty anyway. We already have vast, vast ammo – Us. And the Earth. And the sun. And the moon and all the planets and everything we’ve ever seen or done in reality.
If you must argue against stacked spins, stand up and personally SPIN around. Don’t make yourself too dizzy. Don’t fall and bonk your head, but you just added another stacked spin to yourself. You are spinning on the spinning Earth, which is revolving around a spinning sun which is spinning AND revolving around a spinning galactic core. We have multiple stacked spins right there.
An apologist would claim that these spins are NOT stacked, as the frames of reference and forces aren’t stacked. But as Rolleikin pointed out and Miles and Nevyn have exhaustively in other ways, these are just the fundamentals of having three degrees of freedom in the rotation.
The Dzhanibekov Effect is NOT an example of stacked spins, however. It’s only one spin. It just happens to be offset enough (relative to the center of the object) to APPEAR to be multiple axes. But really, it’s literally just a diagonal spin axis on what we perceive as a pretty orthogonal object. Even a tiny fraction of deviation in the spin will cause this, which is effectively the margin of error of the screw threads AND the hand-spinning, in this case. It would be highly unlikely NOT to cause this effect.
I apologize for not making more videos today on this like I said I would but I got swamped with work. I’ll attack it again later but my mind is pretty much at rest. There’s no spin-stacking here at the macro-level, just a slight deviation/nutation as Rolleikin said, and my last video demonstrates.
But in the 3D software (Maya), it’s actually vastly EASY to make it NOT flip about. You simply tell it to spin on only one axis, the Z in this case. You lock the others and it spins perfectly straight, or you just keyframe that spin. In my video I purposely did NOT do any of that and those two opposing balls hitting our Spinner object hit it using straight mechanics and physics. I let Maya’s Nucleus engine do the work, not keyframing or planned animation. I literally just Playblasted the result and uploaded it to Vimeo for us and we had a match to Rolleikin’s solution. I’m happy with that, despite him being mad about being right or whatever. 😉
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Elon announces his stainless steel “starship” which is supposed to go to the Moon and Mars which I guess he thinks are stars.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I saw this on Techspot and immediately thought, “Why stainless steel? Isn’t that too heavy? If that’s all it took, why didn’t they just use that on every ‘rocket’ the entire time?”
Good call-out, Rolleikin.
LikeLike
mantalo said:
may be because stainless steel is “acier inoxydable” and as usual, the answer is in the question 🙂
This is hoax to make people blablablabla… 🙂
LikeLike
arborfest said:
Yes, exactly! It’s like they suddenly discovered stainless steel, so much cheaper and stronger than any other materials the other fools have been using for the past 80 years.
I think obviously they did this just to impress the rubes, make the rocket look cool and retro, like something out of a 50s sci-fi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Why not make it out of transparent aluminum which is lightweight and there’d be no need for windows?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Reynolds 301 steel is what they make expensive lightweight cycles from? Not the most expensive, which are carbon fibre or composites, but traditional metal frames are mostly 301, because it’s very lightweight, very strong and corrosion resistant.
“Grade 301 stainless steel, with its higher carbon content (0.15% compared to 304’s 0.08% by weight), can better withstand mechanical force. In room temperature conditions, grade 301 stainless can take up to 120 ksi (kilopounds per square inch).”
source https://bit.ly/2pyvVOt
So it’s incredibly strong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
And yet they make most airplane parts out of titanium? I mean, I know they do because my brother and my roomy both actually MAKE them here, in Auburn, for Boeing planes. Titanium likely isn’t as strong though, so maybe it’s only used for non-structural parts?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Yes titanium probably loses it’s integrity under temperature extremes. I’ll look it up later. I used to work at a foundry in London that made frames for Tornado jets from manganese alloys. Extremely lightweight – small castings felt like they were made from polystyrene when you picked them up – and very strong, but also had a high degree of malleability for specific stresses. They also used the same material for nuclear submarine parts which we also made. Interesting subject metallurgy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
R T said:
How did they convince the world this is the smartest guy alive? Just listen to him speak.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
“Just listen to him speak.”
I know. It sounds like he’s on uppers. He’s babbling like a coke head.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jared Magneson said:
I cannot even stomach his speech for one second. Definitely on SOME kind of crack or whatever, he’s just terrible in every way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
elpaydoublay said:
I suspect The Dzhanibekov Effect, as described in this video, applies to photons as well. What do you Physics and Math guys think?
I had never heard of it before today.
LikeLike
Ollie said:
Photons are spheroid and have no off-center center of gravity. But I guess certain atomic structures could exhibit this effect.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Photons with no spin or a single spin are indeed spheroid, perhaps even perfect spheres as far as we know. But once you start stacking spins they take on a completely different range of shapes, as they tumble about upon various off-sphere axes. Yes it’s correct that only the original “sphere” has a center of gravity, but its center of spin offsets by double with each new stacked spin. After the second spin, it’s no longer spinning just near its barycenter, but its primary pivot point is well, well outside the center of that sphere.
So we don’t need atomic structures for offset pivot-points to exist. They exist at all levels above the second spin. An infrared photon (as shown there) has a very complex shape-path, which one might argue is not the actual SHAPE of the photons, and that is true. But since it’s moving so fast AND spinning so fast it’s actually traveling that path quickly enough to intercept or collide with far more other photons or matter, as a function of propensity. An infrared photons is more LIKELY to collide with another photon than a lower-spin photon is, basically. It’s travelling a much larger radius. Yes, it’s only in one place in any given instant – this isn’t standard QM. It’s not in ALL the places I’ve shown along its motion-path at once, but if you could see it individually with the human eye it would certainly appear so. It’s moving at light speed and SPINNING at light speed, you see.
Just clarifying here, not really arguing.
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
Sorry – didn’t realize I was double posting a video from the discussion above.
LikeLike
mantalo said:
what do you think about that ?
LikeLike
mantalo said:
arghhh
it’s the new airport :
Beijing Daxing International Airport (nicknamed “starfish”), located on the border of Beijing and Langfang, Hebei Province, is Beijing’s second international airport.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Daxing_International_Airport
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
As a kind of nail in the coffin, this quick video I made definitely confirms Rolleikin’s theory. Any imperfections in the impulse pressures, even as microscopic as Maya’s tolerances, will result in enough nutation to cause this effect. Good work slamming that one, sir.
In “real life” the threads might tend to diminish the nutation but once the screw reaches that last point of contact one side will exit the threading first. You can easily program the “thingy” to just go straight out, in the CGI. And I think if this were a fictional effect that’s what we would have seen from the newbs over at NASA or whatever.
Just means this one is no big whoop, really. Next problem.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
In other news, I would like to call bullshit on this latest Juno set of images of an eclipse on Jupiter – Io casting its shadow:
https://www.space.com/juno-sees-io-moon-shadow-on-jupiter.html
there are many more images and sites but this one below was posted on twitter by Astronot Chris Hadfield:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA23437
If this is the shadow of IO passing over Jupiter and casting a shadow 2000 miles across, it doesn’t match any of the other shadows cast by other moons ever caught on film or presented
I think they’re taking a few liberties with this photo and other images but would like to know others’ opinions
Thanks
LikeLike
tony martin said:
This looks totally fake to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
But, the Juno spacecraft is totally real.
They just faked this one photo, right? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
haggisnneeps said:
Both things could be true (ie Juno is real and they created or edited this photo / event) – but in the history of space observation i find it highly unlikely this event has never been spotted before on this scale
When our moon passes over the earth it leaves a ~ 270 km shadow which i don’t think is totally opaque and kind of blends at the edges:
Io is only slightly bigger than Earth’s moon so how can it cast a 2000 mile shadow (umbra) with what looks like zero penumbra?
So the question is why they would do this very obvious looking fake?
Time for some research into Io’s distance and historical Io eclipse events
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I wouldn’t spend too much time on Juno. We already outed it waaaaay early in this blog. I haven’t seen one real photo from Juno and we never will. It was just a CGI-based tax fraud.
Yes, both those photos you posted above are fake as shit. The angle of incidence is wrong, there’s no skew, and there’s no ambient lighting at all. It was done in Photoshop by a Second Grader, effectively. And of course none of the other moons, including Ganymede which is FAR larger, cast any such shadows.
Shadows aren’t “casting darkness”, they are an absence of light. Sunlight of course brightens its day side but Io cannot “cast darkness” any more than anything else in reality can. Even in full totality of solar eclipse with OUR moon, the Earth is not dark. It’s vibrantly lit from stars and most of all the corona itself. It’s beautiful. It’s the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Any comments on this “picture perfect” launch & landing of Jeff Bezos’ New Shepard self-landing rocket ship?
LikeLike
Enki said:
At 12:22 the altimeter indicates 3721ft and then follows suddenly the capsule touchdown and the altimeter goes to 0. WTF?
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Good catch.
I don’t see where all the cameras are that are recording this. For example, at 9:20 we are looking almost straight up at the descending rocket but in the long shot that follows I see no camera beneath it. Then, when it touches down, it appears the camera is resting on the pad next to the rocket but why didn’t we see the camera from the long shot?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Continuity errors are one of the simplest ways to blow fakery.
The Kinks
Supersonic Rocket Ship 1972
Let me take you on a little trip
My supersonic ship’s at your disposal
If you feel so inclined. Well alright.
We’re gonna travel faster than light
So do up your overcoat tight
And you’ll go anywhere you want to decide. Well alright.
Too many people side by side
Got no place to hide.
On my supersonic rocket ship
Nobody has to be hip
Nobody needs to be out of sight. Out of sight.
Nobody’s gonna travel second class
There’ll be equality
And no suppression of minorities. Well alright.
We’ll take this planet, shake it round
And turn it upside down.
My supersonic rocket ship.
It ain’t no magic, ain’t no lie,
You’ll laugh so loud you’ll cry.
Up and down, round and round
On my supersonic rocket ship.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
From the cutaway as it’s about to land, the rest is CGI. The low-resolution fluid sim gives it away, and notice how clear and crisp the craft itself becomes so rapidly.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
This is supposed to be an accurate representation of currently existing space debris:
I got it from here. Admittedly not to scale.
Some quotes from the article on that page that caught my eye:
”There are some 12,000 known debris objects in low Earth orbit, many of which are tracked by the U.S. Air Force and partners. But they only track debris down to 10 centimeters across — meaning in reality there may be hundreds of thousands of objects up there, just as potentially destructive to a satellite but totally unknown.”
”They’re small, yes, but moving at thousands of miles per hour. Something the size of an M&M still hits hard enough to take out a satellite at that speed.”
I think it’s very brave of our space agencies to put multi-million dollar objects up in space when there are hundreds of thousands of unknown loose cannons whizzing around at thousands of mph, any one of which could destroy them at any moment. Not to mention natural objects such as meteoroids.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
To me, this stinks of mainstream fearism and “playing both sides”. They want us to think it’s safe but not TOO safe, so they can justify their absurd budgets, grants, and NASA funding. They want us to think it’s crazy up there and only THEY can handle the alleged chaos, by us giving them billioins and billions in taxes and NSF grants and SpaceX and Virgin Galactic contracts. This whole “problem” is the entire plot of the spook movie “Gravity” which gets absolutely everything wrong about space and orbital motion.
To even REACH the same orbital altitude as another object, an object must be going a certain velocity perpendicular to gravity in the first place. You can’t just “fly up” and stay in orbit. To increase your orbital altitude, you have to speed up sideways. To decrease it, you have to decelerate sideways in reverse (backwards). Flying “up” just eccentricizes your orbit, making it unstable. You increase your apoapsis (upper-most altitude) but decrease your periapsis (lower-most). If your orbits becomes too eccentric and your periapsis falls below the altitude of the atmosphere, you crash. You have to push SIDEWAYS (relative to gravity’s down-vector) to effectively outRUN gravity, so that you’re “falling” sideways faster than gravity is pulling you down.
So two objects in the same orbit cannot “hit” each other. They’re going the same speed, by the very definition of “orbit”. It’s just like cars on the highway going the same speed in the same direction. In fact it’s exactly like that. They cannot collide unless one of them changes speed to go ABOVE the other object, wait for that other object to come back around, then decrease speed to intersect it’s orbit. Naturally orbiting objects (such as debris) have no way to do this at all. This is called a Hohmann Transfer. You cannot do this without artificial propulsion.
Now, two objects at the same orbital altitude but NOT going in the same direction could potentially collide. An orbit can go N/S or E/W, or any angle in between of course. So there is some potential there for a collision, until we get to the sheer volume of space involved. Even a million of 10cm objects in orbit is nowhere near any dangerous density. Gases are more dense. The simple math, and we’ll raise that COUNT to a million but give the debris a spherical shape for benefit of the doubt, though some could be cubical I imagine. As always, check my math if you like. I did it four times and fixed it three times, myself:
1 million small objects :
10cm object (5cm radius) = 523.6 cm³ volume * 10^6 = 523,600,000 cm³ = 0.00000005236 km³
LEO @ 300-400km + radius of the Earth = 6,671-6,771km
thus
Volume of space in LEO @ that altitude =
5,676,600,000 km³
Again, our density: 0.00000005236 km³ / 5,676,600,000 km³
So the density of even a MILLION objects of that size in such a vast volume of space is absurdly tiny. It’s 9.2238311665433534157770496423916e-18. For those not familiar with scientific notation that’s 0.0000000000000000009 of our 10-cm diameter objects per cubic kilometer. Even the hydrogen up there is denser. Even the helium.
So the chances for two objects to hit each other via intersecting orbits is obscenely low. And to top it all off, these natural debris orbits are not self-correcting so if they don’t collide the first time, they never will. Decay could change that, but not for man-made satellites with avoidance mechanisms – which many of them have. All it takes is a tiny push once in awhile to maintain a stable orbit, or re-circularize. A fart. Debris doesn’t fart.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
In space….no one can hear you fart! (as you witness the Klingon warship de-cloak)
LikeLiked by 1 person
ihatestarwars said:
Tho’ a fart in a spacesuit can be lethal…
LikeLiked by 2 people
gaiassphere said:
A warning system a la automatic brakes in a car. Serious question; you really believe this utterly ridiculous shite and want to stick to those irrational beliefs, don’t you?
WHY?
LikeLike
Vexman said:
Are we back to basic lessons in physics, over satellites? Again? My goodness. Will it ever end?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jared Magneson said:
We can just ignore the little gremlins. Not even big enough to BE a troll, that one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
gaiassphere said:
Indeed, you’re right. It is baffling that people still seem to believe these stories against all physical reality.
Automatic Trajectory Adjustments in space. At 27,000 km/h.
Even Jules Verne couldn’t come up with such nonsense.
Jim Carrey: “And the thing is; they’re BUYING it”.
LikeLike
Smj said:
I’m still waiting for my basic physics lesson on how satellites purportedly in clarke orbit can reflect sunlight all the way back to earth.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Smj said: “I’m still waiting for my basic physics lesson on…”
And we’re all still waiting for you to be a real person with a real name instead of hiding behind your Langley 3-letter shadows, but then we’re not actually waiting at the same time. If you’d ever made a single point in this blog you might deserve a further rebuttal, but we’re also waiting for that as well. Just without thinking, caring, or worrying about such “waiting” because it won’t ever happen anyway.
LikeLike
Smj said:
How does one wait and yet not wait?
And why would someone from langley want to dissuade you from your belief in satellites?
Butwhatever, since free physics lessons were being given out I was wondering how under the inverse square law sunlight could be reflected over 22,000 miles off of something roughly the size of a conex box. Maybe you could ask your video game for me?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Whomsoever you happen to be Smj, you have a point. That inverse square law is a bitch aint it? Without trying to work it out – and probably getting the answer wrong anyway – it is the Sun we’re talking about so the intensity is pretty forking bright. That’s one heck of a lot of photon’s getting bounced toward the ground.
I’m thinking about an airliner at say, 30,000ft, probably 100 miles away, reflecting the setting Sun off it’s fuselage. That can be a pretty intense flare and through the mucky atmosphere too.
An arc welder just a few feet away can cause you serious eye damage so welding filters have to be worn. When observing a solar eclipse, a welding filter is the minimum advised protection. So the absolute brightness must be very similar. The Sun having more absolute brightness but it’s a heck of a long way away. The arc welder has a similar apparent brightness but doesn’t produce the same volume of light but does a similar amount of damage from just a few feet. If someone were welding outside the ISS, I doubt you would see the sparks….not enough photons (inverse square law) and too far away. But you might see the Sun reflected off the welders visor. Its a difficult subject to understand apparent versus absolute brightness. I suggest you ask a professional astronomer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
@Jared
Thanks for this information. I know you’ve presented some of it before, but somehow this time it clicked. You could imagine some danger if the debris start falling out of orbit, no? Though I guess as you point out the chances of collision would be tiny given the volume of space out there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Sure, there’s always a chance for collisions to occur. And we also have incoming “cosmic rays” which are of course not rays at all, but baryonic matter accelerated by explosion to great velocity. There’s plenty of STUFF up there, man-made and natural. But there’s also a vast volume to contain it. As Rolleikin pointed out then ignored, that GIF of the orbitting space-stuff was not to scale at all. Even the largest images ever still wouldn’t show much, since the scale is so vast.
In fact we DO see minor collisions all the time, and call them shooting stars. Some, perhaps most, are incoming meteorites but some will also be human garbage as its orbit decays, and some might be that garbage STRUCK by a meteor or enough cosmic rays to knock their orbits off, finally. There’s a lot going on up there, but this is true of every large body. As you stated below, it doesn’t really MEAN anything about space fakery. But refuting the allegedy phantom-premise was worth doing (for me) and fun too because I am not a great mathematician, but good enough to dissect simple volumes and do some easy algebra and the practice doesn’t hurt. I even DID mess up the first three times, but took my time to think harder and recalculate. It’s kinda fun, attacking a problem – like a puzzle, you know?
I’ve posted this elsewhere but here’s another example of a plantary body which seems just surrounded by matter – Saturn, and all its moons and rings. But even there, it’s all-natural (as far as we know) and the gravity/charge fields have acted upon these bodies for so long that most are in balance. Most don’t collide. But it sure looks busy, especially with the motion paths!
LikeLiked by 2 people
tony martin said:
Like I said before what’s the big deal for them just to put another one up if it breaks….. since they’re stealing trillions of dollars anyway.
This might be a bad analogy….. but how many times do you get hit by birdshit with all the thousands of birds flying around?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Here is NASA’s own live streaming web cam from the ISS:
I am watching it and counting how many of the hundreds of thousands of pieces of space junk I can spot. Or, even any sort of space object, functioning or not.
So far the count is 0 but I’m sure one will pop into view any moment. 🙂
LikeLike
Josh said:
Rollei, why would you think that you could see any of them on that camera? And if you did see them, would you believe what you’re seeing?
I’m pretty sick and tired of you posting these pseudo-rhetorical questions that imply skepticism or disbelief on your part, without you actually saying what you think about them. A few weeks ago we were all chasing our tails about satellites, with you posting comment after comment that clearly implied you thought it was all fake BS. Only later to find out that, no, you actually do believe there are satellites. WTF?
I have the distinct impression that you are low-key trolling here. Not in the sense of a shill, but in the sense of someone who gets his jollies trying to get other people riled up. Maybe you’re bored and you’re trying to get a rise out of Jared. Or me. or Vex. I really don’t know. You seem to enjoy that. But if you’re going to post this stuff, in addition to the “who believes this malarkey” snark, I’d like you to also give us your opinion about it. What do you believe is the truth about space debris and why?
LikeLiked by 2 people
tony martin said:
Low earth orbit is about 400 km up.Most of the space junk is much higher up.
Lower or higher orbits are used for the satellites. And space is very big and very empty. It’s a little like asking why airliners don’t hit objects at 35,000 feet. There’s just not much up there.
“Space is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mind bogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.”
– The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy
LikeLike
tony martin said:
PS
Could they be lying about how really cheap they are to put up?
Remember the $300 screwdriver for the army or something like that.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Oh, and yes, I know most of the space hardware would be above the ISS and would not enter the frame of this downward-pointing camera but I figure I should still be able to spot some objects off in the distance there.
And, yes, I know that much of the junk is small but even small metal objects can reflect sunlight and show up as a flash in the darkness of space.
By the way, why are there so many small objects anyway? Do these space objects just fall to pieces after a while all on their own? I’m told collisions and meteor strikes are extremely rare so how do they brake apart into little bits only a few centimeters in diameter?
LikeLike
Josh said:
@rolle
Why would you expect to see debris on the camera? Did you not follow Jared’s calculations about how sparse the space debris would be? Or perhaps you failed to realize its significance? Add to that from most angles the sunlight would not reflect into the camera. And of course if you did see a flash, you would dismiss it as CGI.
So the lack of space debris on this video is no evidence for or against your point, even though you haven’t actually made a point. You’ve only implied a point, but last time I inferred the point you were making, it turns out you weren’t making that point at all. So why are you wasting our time with this? Why don’t you just come on and tell us what point you are trying to make.
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
How does Jared (or anyone else) know “how sparse space debris would be”?
According to NASA, in just a week the Apollo astronots would have suffered 30 needle-sized micrometeorites that would have penetrated their suits, them, the LM and everything with 55,000 km/h….
Read the pathetic (typical governmental organization) “handbook” on MMOD protection (2009) here.
And in the case of “satellites” we are not talking a good week, but several decades.
They must those special NASA protections like:
– suits designed for -150 C but perfectly working with no problems at 120 degrees below that (where gases cannot exist)
– magical “heat shields” that stop a known physical process from happening
Come on Josh, you started this blog post for a reason, right?
Do you really believe in space travel? Why? What makes you believe it exists?
You know the “ISS” footage is filmed with greenscreens and in swimming pools, right? Add a bit of CGI, what is the problem? It is not they haven’t done it before….
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
They’re just some questions that occurred to me, boys. They won’t hurt you. You can simply answer them or ignore them or whatever. Even Jared v2.0 answered without tantrum or rancor.
What is so horrible about questioning space matters in a thread about space fakery? We’re not all aerospace experts. I like to pose questions and learn from the responses from like minded individuals. So, sue me or have me arrested for Curiosity Without a License.
I get tired of some of the things you guys write too but I don’t whine about it or try to get you to shut up.
And, by the way, what makes you and Vex and Jared the World’s Foremost Authorities on Space?
LikeLike
Philip Cox said:
Josh is right. How long were you obviously triggering Jared here? Plenty of posts here showing you doing just that.
If you were on my forum, I would had you kicked out months ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
“If you were on my forum, I would had you kicked out months ago.”
I wouldn’t be on any forum of yours so your hypothetical is moot.
LikeLike
Vexman said:
Josh didn’t mention me as any kind of authority. He said you came here to stir the pot. And get Jared or Josh or me provoked with it. Which is exactly what is likely to happen if we start discussing physics and mechanics behind your ideas. Both being something you refuse to accept as any real authority when it comes to understanding movement, orbits, acceleration etc. So when we take any such discussion to a level above your comprehension, you start ignoring everything Jared or Josh (or anybody willing to use logic) use in a physics debate. That is, arguments. Substance behind our claims. Just like mechanics is the substance behind all the formulas you perceive as fancy. They’re not, it’s only about you decidedly refusing to look into them with reason. So what gives? And what’s the name of this game?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Vex, I find your post odious in its arrogance so I will not bother to reply to its individual erroneous accusations.
I have posted many ideas on many topics here (including on this thread) and the vast majority did not seem to offend anyone. Many were received quite favorably. I find Josh’s calling me a troll offensive and wrong. And, you, Vex, have posted similar comments about me as well which I feel are uncalled for.
Just recently I posted several videos which showed things I was skeptical about and they received only favorable replies and agreement and some pointed out things I had not noticed which I appreciate and all was hunk-dory. Then I post something that seemed contradictory about space junk and the Space Bullies burst on the scene flinging insults and calling me names and acting like I just farted in the punch bowl. What the hell is with you guys?
If there are topics or ideas that are forbidden or frowned upon here than I suggest that a do-not-talk-about list be posted so that it is available to all rather than leaving it up to the arbitrary caprice of Josh and his dynamic space duo who decide on a post-by-post basis what may or may not be discussed here or what is considered “trolling.”
LikeLike
Vexman said:
For one, I admit, you’ve reached the limit of my patience. As it happened, another ingenious commenter came here to leave his trail of stupidity, as is seemingly always the case when any kind of space travel is mentioned here. With such debates, usually instigated by you, getting their link at Fakeologist podcast’s notes, as if they can prove any ridiculous points made during eerily long exchange of thoughts between very suspicious characters there. When I see anything like that, I immediately think of blackwashing CTTF by associating it to the spook nest just mentioned above. So yes, I’m very much upset and you got it right.
Nothing is forbidden or off the table here except for repeating everything just described above.
Why is it that you have fakeologist(dot)com written next to your monicker? What is your role in promoting that site?
PS: Of course, you need to post something sensible from time to time, or everybody would see right through you. That’s what I’d do if I was trolling with purpose. If you’re not, then accept my sincere apologies. In that case, I congratulate you for deceiving me with naivety.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
“Why is it that you have fakeologist(dot)com written next to your monicker? What is your role in promoting that site?”
WTF are you talking about? There is no site “next to my monicker.” I have no connection to fakeologist nor any knowledge of debates there nor any desire to promote it. Why are you making this shit up?
LikeLike
Josh said:
@Rolleikin
Just so the terms are clear, here is the Wikipedia definition of troll:
“In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord … with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain.”
I chose the word troll very carefully, because if I thought you were doing it for money, I would call you a shill. And I used the adjective “low-key” because you are doing it in a low-key way.
As to your complaint:
“Then I post something that seemed contradictory about space junk and the Space Bullies burst on the scene flinging insults and calling me names and acting like I just farted in the punch bowl. What the hell is with you guys?”
Your complaint perfectly fits the mold of what I was accusing you of doing: provoking people until they get pissed off, then play victim when they go there.
The truth is that I wanted to “go there” weeks ago when you wrote that you do believe there are satellites in space. When you wrote that, a light when on inside my head. It was a big A-Ha! moment for me. After all your snarky, incredulous questions about satellites that sowed discord, provoked very emotional reactions, and created a great deal of tangential discussion (see definition of troll above), it turned out that, after all that, you actually do believe satellites exist. How come you didn’t mention that earlier when you saw people going apoplectic and the conversation going off the rails? I’ll tell you why: because that’s what you wanted to happen, for whatever reason(s). What I realized is that these types of questions are not innocent, but are intended to goad people (and it would seem, Jared, in particular) into getting upset and then you get to play the butthurt innocent victim with the fragile ego.
This time, you posted some snarky question about space debris, with the implication (I think) that you don’t believe there is space junk, otherwise it would have already caused a lot of problems. Jared answered, very respectfully, explaining why this wouldn’t be an issue. But instead of responding to the substance of his comment, you completely ignored him and posted another snarky question about why couldn’t you see any space junk from NASA’s videos of Earth from the ISS, implying (I think) that either there is no space junk or the videos are fake–even though his answer gave you some information that could have helped you to solve your puzzlement. So instead of engaging with him, you just continued with your goading. THAT is what pissed me off, not your question about space junk. And when I called you out on it, you again played butthurt innocent victim.
In response to your question “What is so horrible about questioning space matters in a thread about space fakery? We’re not all aerospace experts. I like to pose questions and learn from the responses from like minded individuals.”
Give me a break. I haven’t seen you actually learning or trying to learn from anybody here. And that is why Jared is so fed up with you. There is nothing wrong with questioning, of course, but behind every question there is an intent. Is the intent to actually gain information or new knowledge because you are curious? Clearly your questions do not have that intent. They seem to always have the same snarky, incredulous tone implying that whatever topic you are asking about is obvious bullshit. You are not asking questions to learn. You are asking questions to cast doubt–even on things that you believe are true! Who does that?
Your defense here actually sounds like the same defense I’ve heard from more than a few Flat Earther’s. “Guys, I don’t believe in Flat Earth. I’m just asking questions. I’m curious. What’s wrong with asking questions? Guys? Guys?”
And speaking of questions, I asked you a direct one: what is your opinion about space junk? Do you think it exists? Why or why not? Why is it so hard for you to give a straight answer to a direct question? That would contribute far more to the discussion here than an endless string of snarky, incredulous questions of dubious intent.
LikeLiked by 2 people
rolleikin said:
Josh, regarding the satellite thing, I said all along that I believed that SOME satellites do exist and I said this repeatedly from the beginning to the end of that discussion. And, also gave at least one example of the types I was thinking of. So, your statements above implying that I contradicted myself are a misrepresentation of the truth. You seem to have a habit of doing that I might add. It’s as if you want me to appear as something I am not and keep trying to paint me as someone who changes positions to suit some evil agenda. I have also corrected you on this at least one earlier time yet you persist in pushing this falsehood. According to Vex’s logic that must mean it is above your level of comprehension, so I forgive you.
Let me add one admission. I admit to having a snide way of communicating at times. It happens when I am repeatedly insulted and/or wrongly accused of wrongdoing. I do that instead of returning the insults directly (when possible) as I detest arguments, spats and quarrels. However, if you prefer, I can return insults with the best of them.
OK, I am skeptical of the space program including satellites. Whoopy-woo. Get over it, already. That doesn’t make me the anti-christ, does it? (oops — forgot you were Jewish — sorry)
I don’t know about space junk, Josh. I am skeptical but I don’t rule it out completely. It reminds me of that alleged huge swirling island mass of garbage that is supposed to be out in the ocean somewhere getting larger each day but I’ve seen little or no evidence of it. There probably is some space junk, I figure, but I am wary of the idea of hundreds of thousands of pieces and I find that gif I posted hard to believe. Jared seemed to agree with that anyway. Or, at least I think he did. Why you and Vex got pissed off and Jared didn’t, I do not know.
OK, there you are: I claimed innocence for something (sort of) so, per your logic, that’s more proof that I am on a sinister and covert campaign to … uh … do … uh, what is it I’m supposed to be doing again?
Everybody knows that if you say you didn’t do something then you must have done it. Of course, if you say you did do it then you also must have done it. So, basically, everyone who is accused of something must be guilty regardless of what they have to say about it. Wow! Think of the tax dollars we’ll save on court costs!
Now, I answered your direct question about space junk so may I ask you a question, Josh?
In the period covering just the last few days, what idea or opinion do you consider that I stated or implied that you object to?
LikeLike
arborfest said:
I admire your wisdom and patience, Josh.
As an observer, I thought rolleikin’s original post was fine. I myself am curious about this space junk problem. And I thought Jared’s response was great. I had never thought to analyze the problem logically like that, to look at the volumes involved, and I feel like I learned something (that the problem likely does not exist).
If that had been the entire exchange it would have been useful. But the rest of rolleikin’s posts did seem unnecessarily provocative.
LikeLike
Vexman said:
I’m not making anything up. This is TF that I talk about:
Do you see it? It says Fakeologist right next to you bloody monicker. It is there because you need to write that into a sign-in form when you login in order to post a comment. Most probably, you’re logging in auto-mode, so you probably already forgot about it.
Now, would you mind answering why is it that you’re promoting that particular site?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phillip Johnson said:
You need to explain the Fakeologist connection.
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
@Rolleikin, I have never seen you at Fakeologist.com, at least not under that name, only in the past at POM, how does it appear on screen like that? Does Ab know this? You can join the Discord to talk if you like.
The general consensus, especially after the many podcasts we had over the past weeks, with another one released today about the ridiculous selenology; lunar geology (the whole start of my research 5+ years ago), is that space travel is indeed impossible.
The idea that meteorites are somehow not real is only held by smj as far as I know. And it is ridiculous; you can observe meteors and find meteorites in many accessible places on Earth.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
@ gaiassphere
As I noted elsewhere I posted there briefly a long time ago but left due my judgement it was too spooky for me. I don’t know in what context Vexman nabbed that “moniker” or what date it was from but it couldn’t be recent unless some hanky-panky is going on.
Judging by the lengths some misguided individuals have been going just to discredit someone who questions satellites, I wouldn’t rule out such hanky-pankiness.
LikeLike
R T said:
It upsets me that for whatever reason this forum has devolved within the last month or two into petty arguments and shit-slinging. I would argue that someone is putting a lot of effort into just these ends, because it’s hard to effectively distract a community that is on the constant look-out for people who are doing their best to surreptitiously degrade the quality of conversation here, but here we are. I think we should just try to ignore those who are here to sew discord (in my opinion that would be Gaissphere, and probably others [sorry bud, just a hunch]), and go back to discussing the topics of Miles’ papers, as well as having further discussions inspired by Josh’s posts to this very forum. However, there have not been many posts by Josh, and I know that’s because he’s very busy lately in his personal life. I respect that, however, we could definitely use some fresh content to inspire fruitful discussion. I know that’s easy to say — you might ask why don’t I just write them myself if I want essays so bad. Well, some of us were gifted with the sight, and others not so much. If I could spot the fakes myself, I’d be writing papers as well. I can spot the fakes sometimes, but as far as digging into the sticks and figuring out what really happened and why, well — that’s not one of my skills. So I look forward to reading papers from those who can.
Miles has been writing a lot lately, thankfully. I think we should continue to support him and others who are creating this content, and continuing to grow our community. That’s the most important thing, I think. If our community grows large enough, we will be impossible to ignore.
LikeLike
alewisreid said:
I agree entirely, RT.
LikeLike
Josh said:
@RT
Thanks for expressing yourself. I have really been delinquent in new posts. I have indeed been super busy. Hope things will budge a bit in November. The problem is that I always want to do too much when I post. So I’ll try a different approach with smaller bite-sized morsels that we can expand on in comments.
Gaia has been disinvited from this party, and we won’t be hearing from her/him/it again. I should have done it much sooner. Her most recent questions have already been answered, so I’m not going to bother again.
I let the reigns get a bit too loose around here. My mistake.
LikeLiked by 1 person
R T said:
Don’t be too hard on yourself — this is something you do as a hobby on your off-time. I, nor anyone else for that matter, expect perfection from you! I think you’re doing as fine a job moderating this place as anyone could expect you to. The fact is that Miles is really offered no significant opposition to his research, in both scientific and cultural criticism realms. The only pushback he receives is in the form of harassment and other forms of manipulation. So I understand why you would be light on the banhammer; our ideas really do stand up to the scrutiny of being put under a microscope. I think that’s what differentiates us from the spooks with their crummy websites that have no discussion allowed — like the science forums where if you question the standard model in any sense you are immediately suspended. Or the wikis that will ban you from editing if you make any changes that go against their narrative. So I can understand why you might be averse to committing the same mistakes as these arrogant forum owners. I think you’re doing the balancing act quite well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Josh said:
Thanks, RT!
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I agree with R T as well – you do just fine here, and you’re very patient which is almost always a good thing. Hell, you’re even patient with twats, of whichever variety! 🙂
Now back to the good stuff, wherever that might lead.
I recently took a nice five-day vacation and ended up doing a LOT of elevator-riding, as my room was on the 29th floor and my Jeep was on the tenth floor in the garage, so a lot of 40-floor rise and drops constantly throughout the days. Now I’m experiencing a rather severe elevator… dysphoria? I mean it’s settling, just got back home today. But it’s quite interesting to me that simply accelerating up and down over and over can mess me up so bad – and I wasn’t the only one dealing with it.
We joked about what this might mean to space-faring people, at first. But now I’m kinda wondering…
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Maybe it’s just a personal thing. What about air-crews and other frequent air travellers? Do they get accustomed to the effect? Is this a known effect with high speed elevators? I’m thinking about the staff in the super tall buildings like the Burj Khalifa Tower in Dubai.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Well, like I said – I wasn’t the only one dealing with it. It’s nothing crazy, just motion sickness much like being seasick or from a train or car ride. The only difference is that it’s a vertical thing, not a lateral one, so it seems to affect the balance a lot more.
Of course, many people get over motion sickness with practice so it’s not exactly a damning clue.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I have travelled by road, sea and air and never suffered from motion sickness until I watched my son playing Halo. He swung the camera from side to side so violently, I felt physically sick and had to avert my vision immediately. It took maybe 5 minutes to calm down the effect. I have since noticed some motion sickness while playing my own games but it does seem to be tied to the camera angle.
My son told me to try changing the screen refresh rate but that made it worse.
Once triggered it can take 30 minutes for the nausea to stop.
Have you ever suffered from labyrinthitis Jared?
Have you had your ear canals checked out for abnormalities?
My wife has narrow passages (now now), and is prone to sudden onset of labyrinthitis.
When it’s bad, just rising from a chair can make her dizzy and nauseous. Vertical movement?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Russell Taylor said: “My son told me to try changing the screen refresh rate but that made it worse.
Once triggered it can take 30 minutes for the nausea to stop.
“Have you ever suffered from labyrinthitis Jared?
Have you had your ear canals checked out for abnormalities?”
That’s the thing. I’ve played literally every game worth playing, ever, and never had any issues with motion sickness – but that’s because I was PLAYING them. Watching another person play a first-person shooter (FPS) at a low framerate (frames-per-second, also aNOTHER FPS) is not the same thing at all. I’ve been doing it my entire life. And yes, WATCHING another person play a shooter is kinda fucked up. I can’t imagine why you’d want to. You should have just played it with him on split-screen, so you could control your own Field-of-View (FOV). Then you wouldn’t have felt any kind of weirdness. Watching another person play is definitely going to feel weird.
But this isn’t the same thing at all. My elevator thing is literally just motion sickness, and it’s completely (or almost) faded away after just 24 hours. My body simply wasn’t used to accelerating up and down rapidly in elevators. Like I said, 29th floor hotel room. And being a smoker in a non-smoking city, a lot of ups and downs. Plus the regular functions of leaving the room, non-smoking aside.
It’s just interesting to me how rapidly the effects came on. In space, to traverse orbits or just maneuver around at all, you’d be bracing against various angles (generally up towards your head or down towards your feet) at all times thrust was initiated. There is no “floor down” in reality. There is no “artificial gravity”. In fact, everything we’ve ever been sold on the topic in the movies and TV shows is absolutely fake. Every Star Trek or Star Wars epsiode: impossible. Orbital dynamics don’t work like that at all. You can’t just FLY TO your target. You have to match orbits and intersect your target. The target doesn’t just sit still, any more than the moon does. Why would it wait? It cannot.
The ONLY way to build a spacefaring vessel for humans is to build it like a skyscraper building, with the floors aligned DOWN towards the engines. When thrust initiates, gravity feels DOWN, to your feet. The Bridge is at the top, the engines are at the bottom. The acceleration of the entire structure acts like gravity in that situation, but only so long as you’re actually accelerating. “Artificial Gravity” is not only science fiction, it’s an outright myth. It’s not even theoretically possible aside from a forward acceleration to mimic it. Rotating cylinders are only fine so long as you never have to maneuver, which would be constantly. They aren’t viable to me. It’s fiction.
NASA, SpaceX, nor any of their cronies have not come anywhere close to this design – which is how we know all their designs are fake, or will fail. Or both. You cannot simulate gravity with a centrifugal force. It’s better than nothing but still nowhere near enough. Gravity doesn’t work that way and neither do people.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Russell Taylor said: “Have you ever suffered from labyrinthitis Jared?
Have you had your ear canals checked out for abnormalities?””
No, I have not suffered from that directly. But also no, I have never had my ears checked in recent times – not since I was a teenager. I haven’t been to a doctor since 1996. I’m fine with that. But my ears are doing okay and my hearing is still quite acute, though my left is not as good as my right.
That said, I do get claustrophobic on occasion and I have had my skull cracked at least two times. But both times, I suffered no severe trauma and needed no surgeries. I am more prone to “bonking my head” now than I was before but it’s simply spatial awareness and I grew up with long, frizzy hair and now I shave my head to a 2cm. So no early warning system, which in my opinion offsets the prone-to-bonkiness. I don’t find these things abnormal at all, and in fact justify them when my son, who has a red ginger afro often, reports the same thing every summer when he shaves his head too. He’s 20, I’m 43. It follows that when you have less hair you have less warning upon impact, so I just kinda think that’s the case here.
Point being, the ELEVATOR holdover stuff was new to me simply because I haven’t spent that much time going up and down 30 stories a lot. Astronauts MIGHT. But I think it’s still a possible factor in any long-term space flight. Transitions are a bitch.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Dear Vex,
I used to post at fakeologist. I also used to post at POM and cluesforum too as have others here including Josh and perhaps others here. It’s no secret. I stopped posting at those other forums when it became apparent that they were spooky sites.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
To further clarify:
I am not “promoting” any sites. Fakeologist is a flat-earth site as far as I’m concerned and I want nothing to do with that.
BTW, you can see Josh’s posts at POM. Why not ask Josh why he is promoting that anti-mathis forum?
LikeLike
Vexman said:
The hanky-panky going on, dear Rolleikin, was very recent. The picture I posted was taken as a screenshot of a standard wordpress comment menu, accessible under bell icon in the upper right corner after logging in. As the pic I posted shows, just subtract 8 hours from the moment of my post. That’s how recent it was. You need to flush your browser’s cache once in a while, that may help. Or you can continue associating with fakeologist out of ignorance. Nothing like that could’ve happened to me and I don’t know anyone else, other that fakeologist’s owner Ab(irato) promoting that site. What should I make of it?
I wasn’t going at some great length with my research about you. If I did, I’d copy&paste some juicy bits you left at CF. Which would be a very bad idea I won’t further explain here. Somebody may pick up on it and make this thread drowned in BS propagated by spooky characters.
I’m suspicious of you for the reasons listed before by me and many other people, whom I respect. But it’s Josh’s blog we’re all visiting here, so I guess there’s not much left for me to do here.
LikeLike
Phillip Johnson said:
“I have no connection to fakeologist nor any knowledge of debates there nor any desire to promote it.”
You is busted you need to go back to the dumpster fire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
How do you figure?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
OK, obviously it is forbidden to post anything here that questions the existence of satellites and now space junk as well. These topics are considered too “provocative” for this forum, I’m told. Mentioning such opinions, no matter how calmly, “causes arguments” and “triggers” certain members here into fits of rage.
OK, now please tell me what other subjects or opinions it is forbidden to discuss here. Speak now or forever hold your peace. 🙂
And, please don’t give me that “no topics are forbidden here” BS because we both know that isn’t true.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
The idea or concept that satellites cannot work is getting very very close to flat earth reasoning.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Dear tony martin,
please provide a link to where I wrote that satellites cannot work.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
rolleikin said:June 19, 2019 at 4:53 pm
“The timelines for satellites and for spy planes are roughly the same. Spy planes began flying when satellites began orbiting. My suspicion is that “spy planes” have always been used primarily to fake satellites. That is, high altitude plane photos are passed off as satellite photos.”
rolleikin said:June 19, 2019 at 4:56 pm
“I should have said “WERE passed off as satellite photos” since they can now use computer generated images instead.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
@Rolleikin
Here’s the thing: I actually think you’re very smart. That’s why I know you didn’t just completely misunderstand my point and ask me which topics are not allowed, which is totally not to the point. Obviously questioning the existence of satellites was OK, and I allowed the conversation on that to go on for a very long time–arguably too long. So if you’re too smart to misunderstand my point, then your misconstrual must be deliberate. Now why would you do that, I wonder?
My problem was not with the topics, but with the weaselly way you approach many topics, especially space fakery. There is something that is simply not upfront about the way you go about introducing and discussing things. Here’s an example:
You had already formed an opinion about space junk before posting that comment about, right? So what was your purpose in posting that comment? You claim that you like to pose questions and learn from the responses from like minded individuals. So I guess you brought it up because you wanted to see what other people thought about it.
But as we know you ignored the intelligent response Jared offered and continued with your line of snarky questioning. But I think if you were really earnest about it, your post would have a completely different tone, something like: “Here’s what NASA says about how much space junk there is. I can’t believe there’s so much. I mean, maybe there’s some, I guess, but not THAT much. What do you folks think?” But that’s not even remotely the way you approach this or any other issue having to do with space fakery. The questions you pose seem intended either to mock people who don’t hold the same position as you or to cast doubt — even about things you say you believe in. Now why would you do that, I wonder?
You wrote that you said from the beginning that you believed some satellites do exist. I went back because I couldn’t remember you saying that until the end of the discussion in mid-Sept. I found a comment of yours from July 31: “Just for the record I don’t think I’ve ever said there are no man-made satellites. But, I do strongly suspect that the ones we are told about are fake. What do they really have up there? I don’t know. Maybe high tech or maybe low tech.”
So, that’s not exactly making your position clear from the beginning. “I’ve never said there aren’t” isn’t the same thing as saying that there are. It’s not really admitting anything. And you certainly didn’t make your position clear “repeatedly” throughout the discussion. I know because I’ve gone through all of them. The picture that emerges is that you are really all over the place. On the one hand, you said in mid-Sept. that you do think there are some satellites of some sort up there. But all throughout the discussion, you were trying to cast doubt on the absurdity of believing that there are satellites. For example, in your comment on July 31st you added:
“I also think it would be far more difficult to have a partially real and a partially fake space program than to simply have one that is fake.”
Later:
“I just wanted to point out that the evidence of von Braun being a fraud as noted above is some pretty profound stuff… Still believe in those modern satellites?”
And then later:
“I don’t see how someone can laugh at the early satellites yet think the current ones are any more real. IMO, all that’s improved is the methods of fakery. Those same people might want to ask themselves what technological foundation the current satellite tech is based on? It takes lots of trial and error to advance a technology so when did satellites suddenly start being real? And, how did they get real with nothing but fakes preceding them?”
And then later:
“So, if part of the space program is real and part is fake, how do they organize that exactly?
Do they have one team of guys doing the fake stuff and another team that does the real stuff? And, do they keep them apart so they don’t have a chance to compare notes? Like separate restrooms and break rooms and whatnot?
“Per Miles’ papers, are some of the serial killers real and some fake? Are some of the shooting incidents real and some fake? Are some famous historical figures real and some fake? Are some nuke blasts real and some fake? (And, so on and so on.)
“Do you see a pattern here, folks? Hello? How many times does the man have to take your money at 3-card monte before you smell a rat?”
That’s only a sampling, Rolleikin, but I definitely smell a rat. Or in this case, a weasel. Eventually I asked you how you could resolve the contradictions in believing in satellites given everything else you had said, and you said there was no contradiction. Bullshit. I let you off WAY too easily on that one. There’s a huge and obvious contradiction. You kept pushing other people to resolve (among others) the contradiction of “how could you have a fake program and a real one” without telling anybody how YOU yourself resolved the contradiction. And then when confronted directly about it, you just said it wasn’t a contradiction.
And now when confronted about your low-key trollish behavior, you change the subject and make it an issue about content rather than form. But no. You’re not really interested in content. If you were, your form would be completely different. If you were earnest, it would be apparent to all of us. But it isn’t.
Pardon my French, but if Jared is an aggressive twat, then you’re a passive-aggressive twat. I happen to prefer Jared’s brand of twattiness, because at least he’s upfront about what he believes and doesn’t seem to be playing both sides of an argument. At least with him you know who you’re dealing with.
So let this note serve as a first and final warning. In the even that you choose to continue posting here, there will be zero tolerance for your brand of trollish behavior. If you want to bring up a topic, tell us what your opinion and position is about it and how you resolved for yourself the information to come to the position that you did. Ask questions in a genuine spirit of being interested in what other people have to say, not simply ignoring their answers and then posting another snarky question mocking their position. Almost everybody else who posts here has no problem with this, and I haven’t had to call anyone else out on this. That’s because it isn’t difficult. The next time I see you up to your old tricks again, you will be disinvited from this party.
And please, spare us the butthurt crybaby response. You’ve been around the block too many times for anyone to believe it’s genuine.
LikeLiked by 4 people
bmseattle said:
Josh,
It is not uncommon to see people arguing points purely for attention… often very intelligent people.
Playing the contrarian can boost one’s ego, both by trying to make others seem silly/stupid, and at the same time, making it seem like they have some yet unspoken knowledge that they have yet to reveal to the audience.
It is, of course, extremely aggravating to the people being “played with”, especially when the contrarian acts the victim and refuses to take any responsibility for their actions after being called on them. Not even to acknowledge how others could interpret their behavior, and take ownership of that.
The fact that “Rolleikin” cannot or will not even act like they grasp your perspective or the point you are making, is enough to infer ill motive in this whole exchange.
You’ve been more than polite and accomodating to this point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
Thanks, bmseattle. Nice to know you’re still around!
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
agreed Josh – very well put. Rollie and Gaia have been very time consuming and very very eloquent in their discourse which has also been very diversionary
very clever of them. they have finally sent some quality to the battlefront it has to be said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
A sophist can have you running round in circles all day long.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tony martin said:
I still never got an answer as to what I was focusing on back in the day when I had a TV satellite dish?
Did I hallucinate that entire part of my life?
Gaia said some bullshit about long distance radio waves reflecting off the atmosphere????? WTF
When radio waves reflect off the atmosphere they do not have the same coordinates all the time….. it might move according to the weather and such and such. So there would be no “exact coordinates” to reflect off the atmosphere because it’s always changing….. a little bit at least.
The extremely meticulous focusing in of the satellite dish was very important in order to receive a signal.
Was it a hovering TV broadcasting spy plane?
That’s all the proof I need to believe in satellites.
LikeLike
Josh said:
Tony, I think we’ve beaten the satellite issue to death. I don’t see any reason to open it up again. If you really want an answer to your question you can search for it on the web — there are other places where the theory is discussed at length.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
OK….That’s the main thing I wanted to say anyway. About the satellite dishes.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
PS
I’m not talking about those little satellite dishes that we see around now.
The shit I had was big! And not that easy to focus.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwje-OCDvajlAhXtkOAKHayLBqMQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdebategate.com%2Fnew3dhs%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D1817.0&psig=AOvVaw0-wNpYOY-74_P_ClIQ8h0L&ust=1571579748482268
LikeLike
tony martin said:
That was not the right link maybe this will work. I just wanted a image.
I sure wish we had editing abilities on this forum.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
WHO REMEMBERS C-BAND SATELLITE DISHES?
https://www.signalconnect.com/blog/who-remembers-c-band-satellite-dishes/
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Perhaps it’s time to get this thread back on topic, after all the diversions and angst about satellites and rocketry.
Just came across this IR photo of Jupiter while I was looking to see if the billion dollar Very Large Telescope at the European Southern Observatory in Chile was fact or fantasy. Turns out to be an excellent example of Miles’ charge photon field!
More detective work to be done on the VLT, but first looks are providing galaxy images which seem very similar to those from the suspect Hubble Telescope.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Josh said:
Boris, great find!
For the record I actually think the satellite discussion was very much on target for this thread. I’m glad we had it despite the bumps in the road. I learned a lot, and I do think Rolleikin offered some interesting food for thought. I think we can all agree that there is a lot of fakery afoot with the space program, satellirez included.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phillip Johnson said:
Hey Josh,
Hate to bring up Flat Earth but we have Mr. Owen Benjamin going full Flat Earth in a latest video.
I think because Miles mentioning Owen in a paper beforehand it’s worth mentioning here. The video he references in the stream is from a youtube channel named ‘Taboo Conspiracy ii’.
I personally despise the linkage he keeps insisting towards the Bible affirming Flat Earth. Reeks of theosophy and the flat earth historical linkages to the OWENITES.
LikeLiked by 1 person
R T said:
That is a great photograph, I agee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
It’s a very interesting photograph.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I sent this over to Miles in case nobody else did. Of course, it fits his Charge Theory models perfectly – but I’m also curious about the other bands. Could those be influences from the moons (Ganymede, most of all) or perhaps perturbations from the Jovians?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
“…or perhaps perturbations from the Jovians?”
Seems highly likely.
I wonder, is the great red spot visible on that photo?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I mean, it’s definitely NOT visible in that photo. But it could very easily be on the other side? My guess is that it’s colder than the surrounding environs, not hotter, but that’s just a guess. I feel like it’s matter/gas sinking rather than rising, or else we’d see billow rings about it more often. Could be wrong.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
A real mystery that one. Almost impossible to analyse with any success with today’s technology.
My own thoughts are along the lines of a captured moon. If there is a central planet of fairly humongous proportions, which captured a moon, which wasn’t completely destroyed in the impact, then as the atmosphere passes the lump where the moon sits, a giant eddy will be created. There has to be a solid planet at the centre otherwise, what’s holding that huge atmosphere in place?
It always made me smile when, as a child, I saw artist’s impressions of what the centres of all the planets were like. ‘How could they possibly know’, I thought?
Today, they give us detailed diagrams showing the layers, all the way to the planets centre, yet don’t know what causes the great red one. It’sh paffetic!
If you think of a low pressure weather system in our atmosphere, with it’s sunken centre, then extrapolate that out to the Jovian atmosphere passing over a huge lump, there would be a drop in pressure over the lump causing sinking and twisting. There would probably be a slight raise in pressure upwind of the lump. This animation shows the multiple eddies set up downwind of the spot. Looks to me like the clouds are passing around something large, leaving a wake of turbulence.
On Earth, as air is forced up over high ground, the pressure and temperature drop and water vapour is forced out as rain. Are we seeing a similar mechanism? Infrared imaging shows the great red and great white spots glowing, so in seeing deeper into the atmosphere, we are witnessing higher temperatures. Miles’ recycled charge? So a warmer centre and colder flow around the lump. The redness being the lower atmospheric layers when the upper, cooler ones are forced out of the way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Cool theory, Russell! If I get time, I’ll attempt to run a fluid simulation based on it and see how that looks. I mean it certainly sounds feasible to me that you’re right. And we definitely do NOT know what the center of ANY planet is like. It’s all just extrapolated from theory and often very little data. Especially here on Earth.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
I would have thought that the huge Charge Field emitted by Jupiter would have precluded a Moon crashing into it (ie a moon falling out of orbit) Maybe a huge asteroid or rogue planet or the remains of Mars or something (or whatever crashed into Mars – or i suppose whatever Mars crashed into…..)
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Haggisneeps said: “…the huge Charge Field emitted by Jupiter would have precluded a Moon crashing into it (ie a moon falling out of orbit)…”
You’re correct. Natural, balanced orbits (charge vs. gravity) don’t “fall out”. They are naturally stable until perturbed by another force. An orbiting moon can’t just fall in, by definition of orbit.
But natural orbits are actually extremely hard to achieve, even with Miles’ theory. We’re working on showing just this thing in 3D animation but it’s slow going. Here you can see my initial simulation setup, showing how 3 bodies perturb each other in this manner:
But in that sim, there’s no initial impulse or velocity to CAUSE an orbit, it was just a test of the mechanics in Maya. I’m working on a two-body simulation that causes a natural orbit. It’s just hard and tedious. Even my 28 cores aren’t as fast as I need them to be, and GPU acceleration at this level doesn’t exist yet in Maya. So it’s slow going to tune the input vector, impulse speeds, and then the charge and gravity fields. Gravity is easy; charge, exactly the opposite. But it’s going to work sooner or later and then I’ll make an extensive video about it.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I’m sure I speak for all of us when I say thank you for putting all that effort into the simulation Jared. Blimey! Who else has the skills or the enthusiasm in the world of science to even consider such a thing, yet, I see it as a stepping stone to a truer understanding of just what Jupiter is in it’s construction, and in so doing maybe lead to a better understanding of the make up of the Sun. Things which seemed impossible and absurd yesterday, can be accepted as obvious and normal by tomorrow, and you & Nevyn are on the cutting edge with your animations, helping us see the obvious…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Thanks for the words of encouragement, Russell! It is SLOW going on my end, plus I gotta work too. But we’re getting somewhere, and Nevyn and LongTimeAirman are MUCH faster at their WebGL stuff than I am with Maya and PyMEL. Great guys. I’ve learned so much from them, and Miles obviously!
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
I’m going to ask a stupid question — I thought gravity was a form of charge? Getting coat!
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Jared and Russell Taylor not only for being clever and knowledgeable, but for enthusiastically sharing what they know.. I don’t know what you guys are talking about half the time — that is a compliment. I get the gist, sometimes.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
NADA:
Thanks for the compliment. I really don’t deserve it though.
An observation. You seem very proficient with words, to the point where I would carefully assume you are/were an English teacher, or maybe an editor of some sort. You also crack me up with your wit, on a regular basis. An example? In reply to the Mozart faked his death paper, when you said you smashed up your harpsichord. Brilliant! Then glued it back together … a lol moment!
Are you really Graham Linehan?
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Click to access grav4.pdf
Because you are not a big spinning sphere with polar vortices, you can’t channel up and down like that. Your body has to align to one field or another,and can’t align to both at the same time. Since the charge field coming up out of the Earth is stronger,
you align to that one and channel that one.
Because you are (mostly) channeling it, its photons are mostly not propelling you up. They are energizing you with their spins, via current and magnetism, but they are mostly moving on through you, as a matter of linear motion or impacts between photons and atoms.
But when we look at the charge or photon field moving down, the opposite is the case. You are already channeling up, so you can’t also channel down. So the photons coming down from above don’t channel, they impact.And, as with the nuclear equator, the photons moving up spin up the photons moving down, raising their energy. So when they hit you they have more force.
You will say the photons moving up also have more force, so they should drive you up. But that is only if they are not channeled, so we must assume they mostly are
channeled. And since there are more photons moving up, the photons moving down will be spun up more. All the photons moving down will be spun up, while only some of the photons moving up will be.
You will say, “By that mechanism, you should weigh more lying down than standing up, since you then have more surface area above for impacts”. Except that you also have more surface area below, for more impacts from below.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Yep……and on the 8th day, Miles invented logic.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
@Russell
I wish I had Mr Linehan’s bank account. Unfortunately not a professional writer but I am trying to write something, anything. I have lots and lots of story ideas scribbled into many notebooks, entire novels plotted out, stuffed with background research and “motivated” characters…but I always find an excuse not to actually write anything. I am also working on a long planned WWII paper I hoped to send to Mr Mathis, but procrastinating as ever.
My background was Librarianship but I drifted into IT work: some development and some support work at a variety of British Museums, Archives and Libraries. Did you know that Harrods has a 3-in-1 in the Attic? The Archivist there was a sorcher (posh totty remember!). Now I’m a carer for a den of opinionated and irascible family members. That is why the Vitamin A insights on this site were a sight to behold — I am hoping it cures irascibility. I broke my foot over 2 months ago, so I’ve been hobbling around as the most useless carer you can imagine. Thankfully now weaning off the “Therapeutic Boot”, which sounds like a helpful kick up the behind.
But thank you for the compliments. I’m determined to start writing a long-delayed short story tomorrow, but then there’s always a little bit of extra research required, aint that right 😉 I am not superbly cognisant of the rules of the English Language (I would probably fail an English grammar examination) but I am always learning how to write “by ear”. The writing styles here are phenomenal — Miles (of course), Josh, yourself, Jared, Vexman etc… Always a joy to learn and to read.
LikeLike
helios22 said:
Hello everyone ! I got this, published by Gilbert V Levin (Jew surname). Credible ?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/im-convinced-we-found-evidence-of-life-on-mars-in-the-1970s/
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
New papers up from Miles. Marvel’ous Parsons and The Old Stars!
Reading now hehehe….bliss!
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Gaddamn you, Miles — you just black-washed Yoda 😉
LikeLike
alewisreid said:
Or You Yoda just blackwashed.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
alewisreid, taxi for
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Buzz Aldrin says the biggest obstacle with spaceflight is mental health.
Former astronaut Buzz Aldrin discusses why mental health is the most important hurdle to overcome for space travel and colonization.
Yeah… Because you have to be prepared to lie your ass off the rest of your life and that definitely can take its toll on your mental health.
Unless maybe you’re a psychopath!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/health-science/i-inherited-depression-buzz-aldrin-says-the-biggest-obstacle-with-spaceflight-is-mental-health/2019/06/18/6c6c01a4-7ed2-4d36-adda-5a8e459ccb43_video.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Gotta love it though – Buzz, Washington Post…
It’s gotten even more prolific with the recent Star Wars nonsense, too. Little baby yoga, splattered all over the internet, to warm the cold, numb hearts of the fake sci-fi nerds. Jon Favreau is the new director (of the show, not the movie) and of course he himself is an absolute spook.
They even called him out personally in the Sopranos – and he let them. He played himself, and all the “gangsters” in New Jersey picked on him and called him a bitch, basically, right there on the show. It was actually hilarious. A spook show calling out another spook who willingly just TOOK it. Because they have no shame at all.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I laughed my ass off when he started talking about taking a screwdriver and fixing the spaceship!
So NASA (or this moron) had to revert to MacGyver tactics if something failed?
Thank God he got back in one piece so we could all witness his stupidity.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Apollo 15 astronaut reveals why ‘return to Earth’ was not an option
The technological limitations of the time meant NASA’s astronauts could not always rely on their onboard computers to safely fly them back home.
In space, however, Mr Worden said he had to rely on the solar system and the position of the stars.
He said: “We had 37 stars in the sky that were the brightest. The brightest 37 stars and they were our navigation stars.
“What I would do in flight, I was kind of the navigator. What I would do in flight is I would find one of the stars in the telescope and then find the second star and we had a sextant on board.
“I could lock onto those two stars, superimpose one on the other. The computer would then calculate the angle.”
The things they expect us to believe……and I thought they said they couldn’t see any stars.
Like I said… Flintstone MacGyver tactics? WTF!!!!
http://investrecords.com/2019/12/14/nasa-moon-landing-apollo-15-astronaut-reveals-why-return-to-earth-was-not-an-option/
LikeLike
tony martin said:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/christmasspecials/images/5/57/Um_Natal_Flintstone_1977_%28A_Flintstone_Christmas%29_hanna-barbera_%282%29.jpg/revision/latest/top-crop/width/300/height/300?cb=20171105214352
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Wow, that’s bad,Tony! However, not even close to the recent Si-Shite epic (fail) Ad Astra, starring wooden top Brad Pitt. Although it could get an award for for having the maximum propaganda.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
I was going to read the plot “summary” of Ad Astra on wikipedia but I cannot wade through it — I just get the feeling it will be a convoluted pile of crap. Plot summaries on Wikipedia are lift threatening — just try and read the “story” of Frozen II as an example 😉
@JARED “Fandom Menace” Youtubers I respect are banging on about Baby Yoda aswell — I expect they’re all spooks; I hope some are genuine.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
life threatening, jeebus.
LikeLike
Josh said:
And then there’s Roman Polanski’s new film, “An Officer and a Spy.” It’s his take on the Dreyfus psyop. I’m tempted to watch it, but I don’t know that I can stomach it.
LikeLike