It's not rocket science

Separate forum to permit easy exclusion when searching for serious information !
Manc33
Posts: 1634
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Manc33 » 18 Nov 2019, 1:34pm

All this mass attracting mass stuff is based on an eccentric man hanging two balls in a shed 200 years ago. There's no empirical evidence for it in the modern world. To think a force appears because an object is taking up space is ludicrous on the face of it. For a start where is that force when no object is there? None of it adds up.
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17399
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby [XAP]Bob » 18 Nov 2019, 1:34pm

Really - I can't see a hard line on my copy of the video...

You can hear Tim Peake grab the floor to control his rotation, I can't see a wire either - mostly because there isn't one.
Things aren't weightless in space - at the altitude of the ISS they have about 90% of the weight they would have on the earth's surface. But they are in free fall along with the ISS itself, so the environment is considered "microgravity".

That clip is from an hour long stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nael3k1LWSc
A person moving the background without any sign of support - must be on a wire, never mid the rest of the objects floating around. It is far more likely that he has something in a pocket - shock horror, person carries item in pocket on ISS....
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17399
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby [XAP]Bob » 18 Nov 2019, 1:35pm

Manc33 wrote:All this mass attracting mass stuff is based on an eccentric man hanging two balls in a shed 200 years ago. There's no empirical evidence for it in the modern world. To think a force appears because an object is taking up space is ludicrous on the face of it. For a start where is that force when no object is there? None of it adds up.



Can you reread that question...

Did you just ask the equivalent of "Where is the force of a magnet when the magnet isn't there"?


And then look up your first assumption - Gravity was known long before Cavendish - he just measured it.
Newton described gravity as mass attracting all other masses in 1687, Cavendish performed his experiments in 1797/98
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Manc33
Posts: 1634
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Manc33 » 18 Nov 2019, 1:41pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:Really - I can't see a hard line on my copy of the video...


Yet there it is on the screenshot I posted.

[XAP]Bob wrote:You can hear Tim Peake grab the floor to control his rotation...


How can you grab a floor?

[XAP]Bob wrote:...I can't see a wire either - mostly because there isn't one.


There's a line going up one leg and two lines going up the other.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Things aren't weightless in space - at the altitude of the ISS they have about 90% of the weight they would have on the earth's surface.


If they had 90% of the weight, such a somersault wouldn't be possible.

Don't you mean they have about 10% of the weight?


[XAP]Bob wrote:But they are in free fall along with the ISS itself, so the environment is considered "microgravity".

That clip is from an hour long stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nael3k1LWSc
A person moving the background without any sign of support - must be on a wire, never mid the rest of the objects floating around. It is far more likely that he has something in a pocket - shock horror, person carries item in pocket on ISS....


No, you can see the thing sticking up near the base of his spine that's holding him up.

No matter what you're shown you're always going to say "Nope, didn't see that" so what's the point.
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17399
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby [XAP]Bob » 18 Nov 2019, 1:48pm

Manc33 wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:Really - I can't see a hard line on my copy of the video...


Yet there it is on the screenshot I posted.


Nope - there are various edges, but not one marking the "top" of the atmosphere... For one thing the ISS is still in the thermosphere, the air density outside is small, but non zero (~10^-12 kg/m^3)
Are you looking at the tropopause, which does show as a fairly sharp change? Do remember that each pixel here is a significant width of view - and also a slice through many different altitudes...


[XAP] wrote:You can hear Tim Peake grab the floor to control his rotation...


How can you grab a floor?

Quite easily - same way as you grab anything else, open hand, close hand.
I grab the walls of my house quite often, because my disability makes me walk as if I've had 10 pints (assuming I can at all, which depends on other things)


[XAP] wrote:...I can't see a wire either - mostly because there isn't one.


There's a line going up one leg and two lines going up the other.

That's called a smart pair of trousers, they have a crease.

[XAP] wrote:Things aren't weightless in space - at the altitude of the ISS they have about 90% of the weight they would have on the earth's surface.


If they had 90% of the weight, such a somersault wouldn't be possible.

Don't you mean they have about 10% of the weight?


Nope - 90%

[XAP] wrote:But they are in free fall along with the ISS itself, so the environment is considered "microgravity".

That clip is from an hour long stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nael3k1LWSc
A person moving the background without any sign of support - must be on a wire, never mid the rest of the objects floating around. It is far more likely that he has something in a pocket - shock horror, person carries item in pocket on ISS....


No, you can see the thing sticking up that's holding him up.

Nothing is holding him up - he is in freefall, but so is the space station...
Care to watch the rest of the stream and suggest how they get objects to float and spin about for so long? That's because the person in the background isn't being "held up" by anything, they just had something in their pocket.
Last edited by [XAP]Bob on 18 Nov 2019, 2:14pm, edited 1 time in total.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17399
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby [XAP]Bob » 18 Nov 2019, 2:03pm

Manc33 wrote:No matter what you're shown you're always going to say "Nope, didn't see that" so what's the point.


Well quite...

You've so far singularly failed to explain a single natural phenomenon - and have declared that "I just don't see it" for every concept you are introduced to.

The best (simplest and most complete) current understanding of the mechanics behind gravity is curvature in space time - what do you suggest the mechanism is for the stratification of materials of differing densities?
How does that mechanism account for gaseous mixtures, colloids, ships?

How do you explain the presence of satellites, and the footage, some of which is shown above, of rocket engines firing in a vacuum, and accelerating the rocket?
How do you explain the results of repeated earthbound experiments firing rocket motors in vacuum chambers and measuring significant thrust?

You can't - because you simply "don't see" any of them.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Manc33
Posts: 1634
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Manc33 » 19 Nov 2019, 3:33pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:Nope - 90%


Tim Peake could not stay floating in the air like he did doing his so-called somersault, if he had 90% of his weight. In that situation, an object that takes 10 seconds to fall normally, will take 9 seconds to fall on the ISS. For a lot of items you wouldn't even be able to tell the weight difference if it weighs 90% of it's usual weight. Bob come on you can't think with 90% you'd be able to float at all like he was doing. It seems that he has perhaps 3% of his weight, not that I believe any of this stuff is legit anyway.

[XAP]Bob wrote:A person moving the background without any sign of support - must be on a wire, never mid the rest of the objects floating around.


Right but we have all seen Sandra Bullock and George Clooney floating around in space, it doesn't mean it's real, same with ISS footage. It's not real just because they can show us footage of it. Where do you draw the line then, Superman could be real, Star Wars, King Kong, Godzilla, it all falls under the same criteria - we get shown it via our TV screens or computer monitors.

You're ruling out that it can be faked, when it can be.

Nope, millions of people wouldn't need to be in on it, just a core team of people working on making the CGI, including the actornauts and so on, it's doesn't need to be millions of people lying. Uncle Joe working at NASA thinks he's really building satellites etc. Hardly anyone is lying or needs to be to pull this off.

Isn't it odd that we have not one single second of footage of the ISS being built?

Yes I would be able to say "they can fake that" like I just did but at least show us the fake footage you know what I mean! That doesn't even exist! So if there's nothing to go off to prove this thing was ever built at all, why believe it's an actual ISS in space? If there's no footage of it being built in space it means they are perhaps presenting to us some sort of holographic version, or a really fast craft flying around much lower.

Himawari-8 is another one that's not proving anything, it too can just be faked using a series of high altitude balloons patching images together to form a completed mock globe. If one high altitude balloon can see 6% of the earth then you only need 9 balloons and you have met the the required 51% coverage, with 54% covered. People use every excuse they can like "they can't render it in 10 minutes like they are doing" as if they can't when they have got absolutely billions and billions of dollars to develop the tech behind our backs. It's all a joke.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Nothing is holding him up - he is in freefall, but so is the space station...


You can see it sticking up from his lower back area, you're simply refusing to acknowledge that it's there for some reason.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Care to watch the rest of the stream and suggest how they get objects to float and spin about for so long?


CGI. This is like me asking you to explain how George Clooney and Sandra Bullock went to space when they aren't astronauts. You'd probably laugh if I asked that, right? Or if I asked you how people can be waving neon swords about on spaceships, again you'd find the question insane, right?

Why is one set of stuff that can be faked, definitely faked (Gravity movie, Star Wars, King Kong, Godzilla etc) while another set of stuff that can be faked is classed as something that cannot possibly be faked?

The usual answer "too many people would need to be in on it" isn't true, due to compartmentalization.
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.

mattheus
Posts: 1542
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby mattheus » 19 Nov 2019, 3:40pm

Well I for one would like to publicly thank whoever is funding this conspiracy; we make "satellite" parts, and the mortgage gets paid. Thanks to these con-artists I don't need to get a proper job. Fantastic!!!


(Is it you XAPBob? If so, have a pint on me!)

Postboxer
Posts: 1635
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Postboxer » 19 Nov 2019, 4:00pm

Weight is the force of gravity acting on an object. Mass is how much of an object there is, in space, mass stays the same, because you are further from the earth, the force of gravity acting upon you is less. The force of gravity acting on the ISS and acting upon Tim Peake is the same, per kg. Both the ISS and Tim Peake were in the same orbit, both accelerating towards the Earth at the same rate, in this case, the acceleration maintains the speed but causes both ISS and Tim Peake to move in an orbit rather than flying off in a straight line. Tim Peake appears weightless as the frame of reference:- the ISS, including the camera, is accelerating towards the earth at the same rate he is.

For the Atlanta Olympics, someone spent time trying to design a camera that would accelerate at the same rate as a falling diver, then they realised they could just drop it and it would keep the diver in frame.

I expect in the ISS you can grab the floor because it's designed to be grabbed, so that you can move around. I wonder if it's even the floor. I wonder if there are any volumes within it where you can get temporarily stranded, not being able to touch any surfaces. Just need to blow in a certain direction I guess.

Postboxer
Posts: 1635
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Postboxer » 19 Nov 2019, 4:02pm

Too many people would need to be in on it, like the USA and USSR would have to have collaborated throughout the Cold War, and not a single person would ever be able to say the truth. What's the point?

mattheus
Posts: 1542
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby mattheus » 19 Nov 2019, 4:04pm

Postboxer wrote:I wonder if there are any volumes within it where you can get temporarily stranded, not being able to touch any surfaces. Just need to blow in a certain direction I guess.


Apparently some IDIOT once designed mini pocket rocket engines for the 'nauts to use in emergencies like this.

Imagine! Trying to use a rocket in space - the fool!!!

kwackers
Posts: 14590
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby kwackers » 19 Nov 2019, 4:39pm

Postboxer wrote:Too many people would need to be in on it, like the USA and USSR would have to have collaborated throughout the Cold War, and not a single person would ever be able to say the truth. What's the point?

Don't forget sailors (folk have been navigating for centuries using methods that only work on a round earth).
Pilots.
Anyone who can be bothered standing on the top of a cliff watching the sun set over the ocean whilst their mate is at the bottom.
All those folk who've tried and failed to prove the world is flat.
Folk watching pendulums.
Folk watching tides.
Astronauts and pretty much everyone working for a space agency.
Elon Musk.
Kids sending weather balloons up with cameras for school projects.
All your mates in Australia / NZ or anywhere on the other side of the globe.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of trigonometry who fancied doing a few simple measurements.
Anyone who tried to figure out why satellite TV dishes only point to the same place in the sky if the world is round.

As conspiracies go its a biggie. Most conspiracies only fall apart when the number of people involved gets out of single digits, this one potentially has millions of people and more are being added by the minute.

Tangled Metal
Posts: 6735
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Tangled Metal » 19 Nov 2019, 4:51pm

Fart and you're in trouble! From your colleagues for being anti social and hitting the wall too quickly! :wink: :D

Tangled Metal
Posts: 6735
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Tangled Metal » 19 Nov 2019, 4:57pm

Manc, did you not know? Some of the George Clooney films were filmed in a studio space station tracking a little behind the ISS so it wouldn't be noticed. It's true! I read it in conspiracy theory monthly magazine. Check it out. Prove me wrong!

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17399
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby [XAP]Bob » 19 Nov 2019, 5:38pm

Manc33 wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:Nope - 90%


Tim Peake could not stay floating in the air like he did doing his so-called somersault, if he had 90% of his weight. In that situation, an object that takes 10 seconds to fall normally, will take 9 seconds to fall on the ISS. For a lot of items you wouldn't even be able to tell the weight difference if it weighs 90% of it's usual weight. Bob come on you can't think with 90% you'd be able to float at all like he was doing. It seems that he has perhaps 3% of his weight, not that I believe any of this stuff is legit anyway.


No - I mean 90%.
Because that's the force required to keep them in orbit - that's why they are travelling at the speed they are (and why all that speed is 'horizontal'

[XAP]Bob wrote:A person moving the background without any sign of support - must be on a wire, never mid the rest of the objects floating around.


Right but we have all seen Sandra Bullock and George Clooney floating around in space, it doesn't mean it's real, same with ISS footage. It's not real just because they can show us footage of it. Where do you draw the line then, Superman could be real, Star Wars, King Kong, Godzilla, it all falls under the same criteria - we get shown it via our TV screens or computer monitors.

You're ruling out that it can be faked, when it can be.

Ah - so they get everything perfect, and then don' take an object out of someone's pocket.
You can't fake the ISS overhead, and we can see it - it takes a reasonable telescope, but we can see it.

Of course everything nowadays could be faked - so how did they 'fake' the live apollo streams? They certainly couldn't do that at the time.
There is no evidence that the footage is fake - you see a wire where I don't.

There is every knowledge that the movies are faked - and there are things that tend to give them away as well.





Nope, millions of people wouldn't need to be in on it, just a core team of people working on making the CGI, including the actornauts and so on, it's doesn't need to be millions of people lying. Uncle Joe working at NASA thinks he's really building satellites etc. Hardly anyone is lying or needs to be to pull this off.

Isn't it odd that we have not one single second of footage of the ISS being built?

No it's not. Why would that be odd?

You think they're going to send someone to back off and hold station near the ISS to allow for some footage that you would just decry as fake?

Of course if you actually look for it, you'll find photographs of it in various stages of construction - all taken from the ground.

Yes I would be able to say "they can fake that" like I just did but at least show us the fake footage you know what I mean! That doesn't even exist! So if there's nothing to go off to prove this thing was ever built at all, why believe it? The fact that it was on TV means nothing, so is Superman and anything else you want.

This is why Himawari-8 isn't proving anything, it too can just be faked using a series of high altitude balloons patching images together to form a completed mock globe. If one high altitude balloon can see 6$ of the earth then you only need 9 balloons and you have met the the required 51% coverage, with 54% covered. People use every excuse they can like "they can't render it in 10 minutes like they are doing" as if they can't when they have got absolutely billions and billions of dollars to develop the tech behind our backs. It's all a joke.
Himawari-8 doesn't need to prove anything, it is providing wonderful scientific data.
if you reckon that you could stick together 9 circles each of which cover 6% of the globe (he edges of which would of course be photographed ~ parallel with the ground) into 54% of the globe then you are completely delusional.
Best case is hexagonal tessellation, which means you'd get ~45% (not run the maths), but even that wouldn't stitch together.

Of course you'd also need weather balloons that didn't move - maybe you could nail one to the sun?




[XAP]Bob wrote:Nothing is holding him up - he is in freefall, but so is the space station...


You can see it sticking up from his lower back area, you're simply refusing to acknowledge that it's there for some reason.

If I hold my arm up does that mean my arm is holding me up?
There is nothing holding him from his lower back - for one thing if that was a support in earth gravity he'd be face planting.
There is something sticking up, but then my hair sticks up in the morning, that doesn't mean I'm hanging from it.


[XAP]Bob wrote:Care to watch the rest of the stream and suggest how they get objects to float and spin about for so long?


CGI. This is like me asking you to explain how George Clooney and Sandra Bullock went to space when they aren't astronauts. You'd probably laugh if I asked that, right? Or if I asked you how people can be waving neon swords about on spaceships, again you'd find the question insane, right?

Why is one set of stuff that can be faked, definitely faked (Gravity movie, Star Wars, King Kong, Godzilla etc) while another set of stuff that can be faked is classed as something that cannot possibly be faked?

The usual answer "too many people would need to be in on it" isn't true, due to compartmentalization.

There is also the - CGI isn't good enough.
You don't get long clips of people in space films - and we know exactly they are produced.
We also know how these are produced - it takes a blooming' great rocket and a fabulously complex orbital station in LEO.

Same basic principles that took us to the moon, and we have footage of that as well...

Of course that was all faked by Kubrick, but he was such a perfectionist he insisted that they film on location.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.