[homie12]

swansont, on 6 February 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Putting satellites into space, for one. Gravity.

what part of cell phone technology has to do with gravity? and did you know sattelites are constantly monitored for position alignment/ seems something else is putting a force on them. Could it be magnetic? And von braun discovered gravity wasnt universal in 1958 during the explorer project http://www.enterpris...m/Von_Braun.htm

[D H]

homie12, on 12 February 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:

And von braun discovered gravity wasnt universal in 1958 during the explorer project [link to cracked beyond crackpot site elided]

No. He. Didn't.

That link you gave was to an article by Richard Hoagland. Hoagland is either an absolute nut or a very canny charlatan, or perhaps both. The electric universe crackpots look almost legit in comparison to Hoagland's nutty writings.

Over fifty nations have put satellites into orbit, about nine of them with their own launch vehicles, the others using one of those nine countries / associations of countries to put satellites into orbit. The United States has a program that lets colleges put microsatellites (cubesats) into orbit. If Hoagland was right, somebody would have blabbed. There is nothing to blab.

Rather than focusing your time and energy on crackpot sites, I suggest that you spend your time and energy learning some real science.

[swansont]

homie12, on 12 February 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:

what part of cell phone technology has to do with gravity? and did you know sattelites are constantly monitored for position alignment/ seems something else is putting a force on them. Could it be magnetic? And von braun discovered gravity wasnt universal in 1958 during the explorer project http://www.enterpris...m/Von_Braun.htm

Who the hell said anything about cell phones? You asked about gravitational theory. Putting payloads into space and having them do what you want (orbit, or go to the moon or another planet and land or orbit there) requires an accurate model of gravity.

We can measure magnetic forces. They aren't responsible for gravity. They don't act like gravitational forces. That idea is DOA.

[John Cuthber]

md65536, on 6 February 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

Isn't that a bit like saying "Planetary movement isn't possible without epicycles" some time in the past?

No.
Because at that time people were not relying on the model in order to put planets in motion.
On the other hand we do rely on our understanding of gravity to put satellites in orbit.

That's one of the important bits of science- you can use scientific models to predict how things will work and, on that basis, you can undertake projects like satellite communication.

[homie12]

swansont, on 12 February 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Who the hell said anything about cell phones? You asked about gravitational theory. Putting payloads into space and having them do what you want (orbit, or go to the moon or another planet and land or orbit there) requires an accurate model of gravity.

We can measure magnetic forces. They aren't responsible for gravity. They don't act like gravitational forces. That idea is DOA.

you didnt back read your text. of course i know thats why i was questioning your test because it was ambiguous

thank you

D H, on 12 February 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

No. He. Didn't.

That link you gave was to an article by Richard Hoagland. Hoagland is either an absolute nut or a very canny charlatan, or perhaps both. The electric universe crackpots look almost legit in comparison to Hoagland's nutty writings.

Over fifty nations have put satellites into orbit, about nine of them with their own launch vehicles, the others using one of those nine countries / associations of countries to put satellites into orbit. The United States has a program that lets colleges put microsatellites (cubesats) into orbit. If Hoagland was right, somebody would have blabbed. There is nothing to blab.

Rather than focusing your time and energy on crackpot sites, I suggest that you spend your time and energy learning some real science.

you are the expert of whats a waste? Well then could you post a link or 2 of your latest accomplishments? Show me what you can do since you feel you,re an authority. I know some sites are crackpots. so i test out as much as i can. You use the words real science now show me your deeds thanks. oh and the fact that the satewlite trajectory was way out of alignemnt enough to cause a 12 min plus delay or over shot is what they refered to.

John Cuthber, on 12 February 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

No.
Because at that time people were not relying on the model in order to put planets in motion.
On the other hand we do rely on our understanding of gravity to put satellites in orbit.

That's one of the important bits of science- you can use scientific models to predict how things will work and, on that basis, you can undertake projects like satellite communication.

but they dont included the data when sattelites have to be adjusted. and let me get a list so im not just spouting off thanks

[D H]

homie12, on 13 February 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

you are the expert of whats a waste?

It doesn't take much expertise to know that anything and everything that Richard Hoagland says is 100% excrement. He lies, sells a book, someone debunks his lies. He lies again, sells another book, makes some paid appearances, someone debunks his lies. He never recants his lies. He does this over and over and over again. He preys upon the gullible.

Quote

Well then could you post a link or 2 of your latest accomplishments? Show me what you can do since you feel you,re an authority.

This is my field of expertise, and no, I don't need to prove it to you.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe this. http://www.thespacer.../article/1224/1

[hypervalent_iodine]

homie12, on 13 February 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

you are the expert of whats a waste? Well then could you post a link or 2 of your latest accomplishments? Show me what you can do since you feel you,re an authority. I know some sites are crackpots. so i test out as much as i can. You use the words real science now show me your deeds thanks. oh and the fact that the satewlite trajectory was way out of alignemnt enough to cause a 12 min plus delay or over shot is what they refered to.

Resident experts don't nominate themselves for the title, you know. Even ignoring that, ad hom attacks are a silly way to hold a debate. If you have some evidential, scientific basis to argue the points brought up by D H or by other members, then do so.

[homie12]

D H, on 13 February 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

It doesn't take much expertise to know that anything and everything that Richard Hoagland says is 100% excrement. He lies, sells a book, someone debunks his lies. He lies again, sells another book, makes some paid appearances, someone debunks his lies. He never recants his lies. He does this over and over and over again. He preys upon the gullible.



This is my field of expertise, and no, I don't need to prove it to you.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe this. http://www.thespacer.../article/1224/1

ok i read that article you linked me. With hoagland aside is it typical for them to make all those alterations in that inexact of an effort?In other words ; they sound like in hindsight they didnt control the whole operation in an exact of a way that they usually are known to?

[D H]

homie12, on 13 February 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

ok i read that article you linked me. With hoagland aside is it typical for them to make all those alterations in that inexact of an effort?In other words ; they sound like in hindsight they didnt control the whole operation in an exact of a way that they usually are known to?

That 2.5% error in Δv (change in velocity) was very small considering the capabilities of those times. That vehicle had no inertial navigation system, no onboard computer, no GPS. It used solid rocket upper stages rather than liquid. Nowadays rockets are launched into orbit with liquid upper stages so that the rockets can be turned off when the desired Δv is attained.

Modern vehicles have elaborate inertial navigation systems to assess the Δv and to control the vehicle. As an example, here's the planned mission timeline for the rendezvous and capture of the Japanese H2 Transfer Vehicle: http://spaceflightno...ontimeline.html. Notice the complex sequence of burns used to make this rendezvous and capture happen.

[homie12]

I read that obtaining a stable orbit was a pretty exact formula and that rocket performance in achieving it was exact also. Hoagland states the initial trajectory was 800 miles off or something to account for the missing 12 minutes. they assert that during that launch they were changing how they create trajectories? or why was it nescessary to complicate that launch?

[mississippichem]

hypervalent_iodine, on 13 February 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

Resident experts don't nominate themselves for the title, you know. Even ignoring that, ad hom attacks are a silly way to hold a debate. If you have some evidential, scientific basis to argue the points brought up by D H or by other members, then do so.

!Slightly off topic alert!

For the record:

Experts are nominated by members of the staff. The floor is then opened for those opposed to their nomination to object.

[D H]

homie12, on 13 February 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

I read that obtaining a stable orbit was a pretty exact formula ...

Where did you read that?

Obtaining a stable orbit is pretty simple. Lift the object out of the bulk of the atmosphere and give it a horizontal velocity somewhere between 17,500 and 24,700 miles per hour. Achieving a precise orbit is a bit more taxing.

Quote

... and that rocket performance in achieving it was exact also.

Where did you read that?

Rocket science is not all that exact a science -- at least not the thrust (typical variance from expected thrust is 2 to 10 percent, depending on the thruster), or the delta V (typical variance from expected performance is a percent or so). This is one of reasons why spacecraft control systems are so hideously complex.

Quote

Hoagland states the initial trajectory was 800 miles off or something to account for the missing 12 minutes. they assert that during that launch they were changing how they create trajectories? or why was it nescessary to complicate that launch?

How did you read that into the link I provided?

There were no changes in how they create trajectories. They didn't complicate the launch. That launch was quite simple compared to modern ones. They just didn't know the initial trajectory all that well. The vehicle gave slightly better performance than nominal.

Suppose Hoagland was right, that there is a fifty year old secret. Our allies and our enemies would also have to be in on the secret or they would not be able to have satellites orbiting the Earth the way we do. I would have to have been informed of that secret to do my jobs. Tens of thousands of others like me would have to have been informed of it as well -- and that includes students from all over the world. Somebody would have spilled the beans long ago.

There is no secret. Hoagland is just lying (again).

[homie12]

D H, on 14 February 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

Where did you read that?

Obtaining a stable orbit is pretty simple. Lift the object out of the bulk of the atmosphere and give it a horizontal velocity somewhere between 17,500 and 24,700 miles per hour. Achieving a precise orbit is a bit more taxing.



Where did you read that?

Rocket science is not all that exact a science -- at least not the thrust (typical variance from expected thrust is 2 to 10 percent, depending on the thruster), or the delta V (typical variance from expected performance is a percent or so). This is one of reasons why spacecraft control systems are so hideously complex.



How did you read that into the link I provided?

There were no changes in how they create trajectories. They didn't complicate the launch. That launch was quite simple compared to modern ones. They just didn't know the initial trajectory all that well. The vehicle gave slightly better performance than nominal.

Suppose Hoagland was right, that there is a fifty year old secret. Our allies and our enemies would also have to be in on the secret or they would not be able to have satellites orbiting the Earth the way we do. I would have to have been informed of that secret to do my jobs. Tens of thousands of others like me would have to have been informed of it as well -- and that includes students from all over the world. Somebody would have spilled the beans long ago.

There is no secret. Hoagland is just lying (again).

Or all of you would have to be not in on this secret . I dont trust the government. and if you did you would let them do your tax returns for example. Have you heard of richard dolan?

[D H]

homie12, on 16 February 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

Or all of you would have to be not in on this secret .

Many tens of thousands of us would. There are many from outside the United States who would have to be in on the secret. Students from all over the word would have to be in on the secret. Do you really think there are no students in Italy who are working on the GOCE or LARES experiments wouldn't just love to make the US look stupid? People whose very job it is to understand gravitation would have to be in on the secret. The thousands of people around the world working on this topic would blurt it out. Think of the scientific papers they would get their names on if they did. The thousands who work on precise orbit determination and rendezvous/docking in space would have to be in on the secret. They vast majority do not have any kind of security clearance. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who can't say what they do (google the terms "geospatial intelligence" and "gravimetric MASINT") who would have to be in on the secret. Some of them would almost certainly leak the secret to Jane's or Aviation Week.

Quote

I dont trust the government. and if you did you would let them do your tax returns for example.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Quote

Have you heard of richard dolan?

Aside:
- Sentences start with a capital letter.
- They end with a single period, not two or three or more.
- There is no space before the ending period.
- Proper names, such as Richard Dolan, start with capital letters.
- So do titles of books, even if they are nonsense books.
- Electricity is spelled "electricity", not "electgricity".
- Text speech, such as " ill post a list" and "Not 1 of you has reviewed thunderbolts of the gods" is something best avoided.

If you want to be taken seriously, write seriously.

Aside finished, what about Richard Dolan? He's just another crackpot. What is it that attracts you to all of these crackpots? There is a world of wonder out there in real science. Crackpots have nothing to offer. I suggest that you try learning some real science rather than glomming on to any and every crackpot notion you can find on the web.

[homie12]

D H, on 16 February 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Many tens of thousands of us would. There are many from outside the United States who would have to be in on the secret. Students from all over the word would have to be in on the secret. Do you really think there are no students in Italy who are working on the GOCE or LARES experiments wouldn't just love to make the US look stupid? People whose very job it is to understand gravitation would have to be in on the secret. The thousands of people around the world working on this topic would blurt it out. Think of the scientific papers they would get their names on if they did. The thousands who work on precise orbit determination and rendezvous/docking in space would have to be in on the secret. They vast majority do not have any kind of security clearance. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who can't say what they do (google the terms "geospatial intelligence" and "gravimetric MASINT") who would have to be in on the secret. Some of them would almost certainly leak the secret to Jane's or Aviation Week.



What does this have to do with the topic at hand?



Aside:
- Sentences start with a capital letter.
- They end with a single period, not two or three or more.
- There is no space before the ending period.
- Proper names, such as Richard Dolan, start with capital letters.
- So do titles of books, even if they are nonsense books.
- Electricity is spelled "electricity", not "electgricity".
- Text speech, such as " ill post a list" and "Not 1 of you has reviewed thunderbolts of the gods" is something best avoided.

If you want to be taken seriously, write seriously.

Aside finished, what about Richard Dolan? He's just another crackpot. What is it that attracts you to all of these crackpots? There is a world of wonder out there in real science. Crackpots have nothing to offer. I suggest that you try learning some real science rather than glomming on to any and every crackpot notion you can find on the web.

you are teaching me english composition? and you cant review the material first? what is everyone afraid of? take yourself serious.

why ask the question if you already know the answer? you know the proverb: hear no evil speak no evil see no evil? look up Richard Dolan, he is an academic historian. Check out his credentials. Then reply and in an honest manner, no matter your grammer or syntax or typing problems.

[D H]

homie12, on 17 February 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

you are teaching me english composition? and you cant review the material first? what is everyone afraid of? take yourself serious.

Regarding the final comment ("take yourself seriously"): Right back atcha. You give the appearance of one who gloms onto every nutty notion out there. Take yourself seriously. Learn some real science.

Regarding the first, yes, I am. We all make mistakes. However, people who make simple mistakes over and over again are in my mind (and in the minds of others) prima facie evidence of someone who should not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously you should present yourself seriously. Look at what you wrote before you post it.


Regarding the meat of your question, FFS, we have reviewed the material over and over. Here's a small subset of the threads where this nonsense has been addressed:
In 2007: http://www.sciencefo...sun-hypothesis/
In 2008: http://www.sciencefo...lasma-universe/
In 2009: http://www.sciencefo...y-really-works/
In 2011: http://www.sciencefo...einstein-wrong/

That's just a subset. After a while it gets old.

You appear to have missed my questions that I asked in another of your multiple threads on the same subject. So I'll ask them again. They are simple yes/no questions.

• Has the Sun been shining for more than 4.5 billion years?
  
• Is fusion the ultimate source of energy that explains why the Sun does shine?
  
• Does gravitation explain why the planets orbit the Sun, the planets' moons orbit their planets?
  
• Does gravitation explain why the sun and other stars orbit the galaxy?
  
• At the scale of solar systems and larger, is gravitation the dominant force in the universe?
  
• Does electromagnetism play any role in explaining the cosmos?

Contrary to the parody of cosmology as presented by electric universe crackpots, the answer to the last question is "yes". I'll leave the others up to you.