Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Grandpa wrote:I've been thinking of how easy it would be to prove the earth was moving if it had some sort of acceleration or de-acceleration. But the earth has no acceleration of any kind.

How can that be? If all this junk was shot out of the middle of the universe in a complete vacuum,(big bang), shouldn't everything be acclerating at some given acceleration? If it is not accelerating then what caused it to stop accelerating? Whatever it is that caused it to stop accelerating how come it isn't acting right now to de-accelerate everything? Shouldn't everything be slowing down?

But what we see instead of acceleration or de-acceleration is constant speed. No acceleration. Isn't it odd that nothing is accelerating or de-accelerating?

Gravity is an acceleration. If gravity were pulling on everything in a vacuum then we should be witnessing acceleration towards the object exerting the gravity. Everything should be trying to do a reverse big bang if gravity held everything together. And everything would be accelerating...

But everything conforms to perfect order. That's because God is awesome.

You're Welcome - God

thank you - me

Well, most modern cosmological models do maintain that the universe is expanding, and curiously also accelerating where we might have expected it to be expanding and decelerating. What you have described with gravity pulling the universe back together is a "big crunch", which given that matter in the universe appears to be accelerating apart there is not enough matter, nor is gravity strong enough to counter and overtake this expansion over cosmological scales.

oscarkipling wrote:
Well, most modern cosmological models do maintain that the universe is expanding, and curiously also accelerating where we might have expected it to be expanding and decelerating. What you have described with gravity pulling the universe back together is a "big crunch", which given that matter in the universe appears to be accelerating apart there is not enough matter, nor is gravity strong enough to counter and overtake this expansion over cosmological scales.

Hi Oscar.
i'm the least articulate in the cosmological debate.
so dialogue with me will be on the simplest levels (which is always fun:).

if i may ask (i'm not prying if you're not comfortable) - being an agnostic, what made you decide to debate christians on the stationary earth issue? even within christianity we're a minority.

more and more mainstream secular cosmologists are open to this discussion, which is really exciting, though not unexpected - man was created with, and even after the fall maintains, the knowledge of God within himself... but he hates to admit it.

until he surrenders to the reality of being a creation, and that in God's image, he'll go to just about any length to find answers for his existence and the larger creation.

with that said, re - 'the universe is expanding':

let's go one big hypothetical step beyond that: let's say the 'big bang' never happened:

what exists(ed) besides the result of it? what is the space/place the big bang exploded and is expanding into? does it have a beginning and and end?

zone.

actually oscar...i don't want to use up your time with my inanities. i'll go get my popcorn and wait for Doc.

i remember you from BF.
again, welcome to the wilderness.
zone.

zone wrote:]

Hi Oscar.
i'm the least articulate in the cosmological debate.
so dialogue with me will be on the simplest levels (which is always fun:).

if i may ask (i'm not prying if you're not comfortable) - being an agnostic, what made you decide to debate christians on the stationary earth issue? even within christianity we're a minority.

more and more mainstream secular cosmologists are open to this discussion, which is really exciting, though not unexpected - man was created with, and even after the fall maintains, the knowledge of God within himself... but he hates to admit it.

until he surrenders to the reality of being a creation, and that in God's image, he'll go to just about any length to find answers for his existence and the larger creation.

with that said, re - 'the universe is expanding':

let's go one big hypothetical step beyond that: let's say the 'big bang' never happened:

what exists(ed) besides the result of it? what is the space/place the big bang exploded and is expanding into? does it have a beginning and and end?

zone.

nah, I dont mind at all answering your questions, besides it might help us to get to know each other. Well, honestly I became interested in the debate because I found it intriguing that there were actually people who held the geocentric view. I found it even more intriguing that there were claims of science supporting the view. Oh and it was weird timing too because I had just finished helping my girlfriend study for her astronomy midterm, so I was in the mood to talk about cosmology on a deeper level than freshman astronomy.

As to your last question, that is a hearty "I dont know". I'm familiar with some theoretical work in that area, but nothing that is confirmed and nothing I would hold up as if it were scientific knowledge.

cool.
i like you a lot oscarkipling.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, honestly I became interested in the debate because I found it intriguing that there were actually people who held the geocentric view. I found it even more intriguing that there were claims of science supporting the view.

I recommend the book 'Des Labore Solis' by Walter Van de Kamp for a fascinating treatment of the subject and the fickle nature of hypothetical science. He's got a grand writing style too. Short book, doesnt take long to zip thru it buddy.

I fell asleep earlier and missed everyone being online. But, cool i'll read this and post my thoughts.

Okay, I've gotten to the his explanation of the expectations of the airy experiment, which like in the other thread have explained my objections to. I will reproduce that post here:



I dont know the size of airy's telescope, but lets say 1 meter because that's how long mine is, and it makes the math simpler. Lets say the earth travels around the sun @ 29,805 m/p/s and for good measure lets add the rotational speed to that 408 m/p/s for a grand total of 30,208 m/p/s. In air light travels at something like 2.9x10^8 m/p/s (290,000,000) and in water 2.2x10^8 m/p/s. now given that our telescope is only 1 meter long we can expect that light will traverse that distance in 3.3 x 10^-9 seconds in an air filled scope and 4.4x10^-9 s in a water filled one. So from the time that the light enters the scope, till it reaches the base with the base moving at 30,208 m/p/s it can only deviate 9.9x10^-5 meters or 99 microns in air, and 1.3x10^-4 or 130 microns for water a difference of 31 microns. for comparison, a human hair is only 40 to 100 microns in diameter. there should be no expectation that you would need to change the angle of your telescope.


It looks like he's refuting luminiferous aether...which is fine with me.

ah Okay I see, he was refuting luminiferous aether.

I'd say he did a passable job of dismantling luminiferous aether and aether drag with logic and some science, but his part on Einstein was especially light on the science. Not sure where this is going, but apparently we are back to airy's failure. p52

oscarkipling wrote:
I dont know the size of airy's telescope, but lets say 1 meter because that's how long mine is, and it makes the math simpler. Lets say the earth travels around the sun @ 29,805 m/p/s and for good measure lets add the rotational speed to that 408 m/p/s for a grand total of 30,208 m/p/s. In air light travels at something like 2.9x10^8 m/p/s (290,000,000) and in water 2.2x10^8 m/p/s. now given that our telescope is only 1 meter long we can expect that light will traverse that distance in 3.3 x 10^-9 seconds in an air filled scope and 4.4x10^-9 s in a water filled one. So from the time that the light enters the scope, till it reaches the base with the base moving at 30,208 m/p/s it can only deviate 9.9x10^-5 meters or 99 microns in air, and 1.3x10^-4 or 130 microns for water a difference of 31 microns. for comparison, a human hair is only 40 to 100 microns in diameter. there should be no expectation that you would need to change the angle of your telescope.


It looks like he's refuting luminiferous aether...which is fine with me.

hi oscar.
its me....the cosmologial simpleton.

question:
are our satellites travelling? under their own power?
at what speed? (presumably the same speed of the earth?)

would instability; objects slamming into stuff; vibrations; radiation; or general interferences of any kind interrupt the perfect imaging that we receive on earth? how are the satellites and other space vehicles/stations kept perfectly timed and stable?

i mean to say, how it is that - in the event of noise, turbulence and whatever other interference may be going on while we and our satellites are hurtling through space at unimaginable speeds - the cameras manage to produce perfect images? gyro-thingees?

how does Google earth manage to record such detail under such hostile circumstances? are the images we receive REAL pictures or are the computer generated?

how fast are we moving and how did they manage to get the space stuff to travel in sync? and how are they made perfectly stable?

(i'm a NASA denier - do i need a lawyer?)

also, if you have a powerful telescope...what do you need math for? just for measuring distances?
zonest

question:
my late husband (English professor) and i had a very good friend, a physicist we socialized and went camping with many times (i always beat him at monopoly), and who was a not-bad center-fielder on our ball team.....who was a tenured prof at Bishop's University in Quebec....worked on the Hubble telescope thingee in the years somewhere between the late 70s and 1983 (approx) to what real degree i don't know, but he was a regular guy for the most part. i think that was before it became known as the Hubble.

he indicated to me on more than one occassion that life ran smoothly when we didn't ask too many questions. he said whatever research he and his buddies contributed was co-opted and they were told to shut up.

he liked grateful dead records and smoking pot, and was a tobacco chain-smoker but a really funny guy....and he was smart enough i reckon.

but he scoffed at the idea that the thing was remotely related to what they said it was.

he died years ago, so i can use his name, John Emerson. we may or may not find his name attached to it. his wife and i were very good friends. she also said we weren't allowed to talk about it. this was way back, i was 21 year old Art & History major at Concordia in Montreal.

does this make any sense (about John and the hubble thing, and his hints that it was not what the publicity was pronouncing it would be)?

another question for anybody - K.S.plz:

what are the various theorists meanings of aether?

and what is it really doc?
alot seems to hang on it.

oscarkipling wrote:ah Okay I see, he was refuting luminiferous aether.

I think you'll find his point is EITHER there is no luminiferous aether OR the Earth is stationary in space.

Which is what the experiments showed.

Luminiferous aether simply means the 'stuff' that space is made out of, that light manages to travel in, its medium. Albert Michelson called it "the most generalised term in science".

So I think we can take it for granted that space is made of 'stuff'. And the Sagnac experiment proves the aether. I noticed you and the person you were debating on Sagnac eventually petered off into concluding that the only explanation was that air resistance caused the sagnac effect (??). You may need to rethink that one.

So....that basically leaves the Earth being stationary in space. An absolute horror for most people, God fearing and agnostic alike.

oscarkipling wrote:I'd say he did a passable job of dismantling luminiferous aether and aether drag with logic and some science, but his part on Einstein was especially light on the science.

Thats cuz when your talking Einstein theres barely any real science to discuss bud.

zone wrote:another question for anybody - K.S.plz:

what are the various theorists meanings of aether?

and what is it really doc?
alot seems to hang on it.

Stuff?

Some-thing?

..........rather than no-thing.

P.S. no-thing is a logical fallacy. You cant have no-thing. Theres always something there. Even in an empty box. Even in a 'vacuum'.

Strangelove wrote:

I think you'll find his point is EITHER there is no luminiferous aether OR the Earth is stationary in space.

Which is what the experiments showed.

Luminiferous aether simply means the 'stuff' that space is made out of, that light manages to travel in, its medium. Albert Michelson called it "the most generalised term in science".

So I think we can take it for granted that space is made of 'stuff'. And the Sagnac experiment proves the aether. I noticed you and the person you were debating on Sagnac eventually petered off into concluding that the only explanation was that air resistance caused the sagnac effect (??). You may need to rethink that one.

So....that basically leaves the Earth being stationary in space. An absolute horror for most people, God fearing and agnostic alike.

Well, I was providing an ongoing commentary as I read, I was only on page 52 when I stopped last night, so at that point all he had done was essentially dismantle luminiferous aether. As far as the luminiferous aether being general, I'd have to disagree, Its not simply undefined stuff, it was proposed as stuff with properties. The problem i'm seeing is that there are several experiments that were designed to test different properties of different models of luminiferous aether foremost being its immobility and whether or not it is pulled along with matter (aether drag). We can call space an aether, but certainly not the luminiferous aether of these expirements. the sagnac effect does not prove a luminiferous aether.

I wasn't arguing that turbulence in air would cause the sagnac effect, I just conceded that density changes in the air could affect the results. This is only reasonable since light would travel at a different rate through cooler denser air. So density changes in the air will necessarily have some effect. I think that this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the apparatus is spinning providing some mixing of the local air probably causing local homogeneity. The other person suggested that perhaps the leading and trailing detectors might have been causing density changes because of the localized pressure changes of a spinning apparatus, which I also necessarily conceded, although these do not in and of themselves explain the sagnac effect. It is the change in travel times that explains it, which I also illustrated in that convo, I can find it if you like. It should be easy enough to calculate the effect of air pressure at a given rotation speed and a given detector size...i may do this later.

zone wrote:another question for anybody - K.S.plz:

what are the various theorists meanings of aether?

and what is it really doc?
alot seems to hang on it.

well aether in the most general sense is simply a medium, like water or jello. I think the confusion arises because from a scientific standpoint there have been various aether models. Whats worse there have been various luminiferous aether models. Technically you could call the modern understanding of spacetime an aether, but its a different model with different properties than the luminiferous aethers proposed back in the day. I think that using the word aether really confuses the issue, because its been used in so many different ways throughout history and throughout science.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, I was providing an ongoing commentary as I read, I was only on
page 52 when I stopped last night, so at that point all he had done was
essentially dismantle luminiferous aether.

But he hadn't done that oscar. And I never got that impression when I read the book. Not at all. I would have remembered.

oscarkipling wrote:As far as the luminiferous aether being general, I'd have to disagree,
Its not simply undefined stuff, it was proposed as stuff with
properties. The problem i'm seeing is that there are several experiments
that were designed to test different properties of different models of
luminiferous aether foremost being its immobility and whether or not it
is pulled along with matter (aether drag). We can call space an aether,
but certainly not the luminiferous aether of these expirements.

Why not? It's the most generalised term in science. That was Albert Michelson who said that, the guy who performed one of the experiments. That quote used to be on his wiki page but it dissapeared about a year ago.

Just because something is defined with certain properties doesnt make it non-general.

I could say that a 'toy' (general term) in the room next door is red coloured. Doesnt change the fact that the word 'toy' is a generalised term.

oscarkipling wrote:the sagnac effect does not prove a luminiferous aether.

I
wasn't arguing that turbulence in air would cause the sagnac effect, I
just conceded that density changes in the air could affect the results.
This is only reasonable since light would travel at a different rate
through cooler denser air. So density changes in the air will
necessarily have some effect. I think that this is somewhat mitigated by
the fact that the apparatus is spinning providing some mixing of the
local air probably causing local homogeneity. The other person
suggested that perhaps the leading and trailing detectors might have
been causing density changes because of the localized pressure changes
of a spinning apparatus, which I also necessarily conceded, although
these do not in and of themselves explain the sagnac effect.

An aether explains the effect.

oscarkipling wrote:It is the change in travel times that explains it

No oscar, because light is supposed to travel at the same speed RELATIVE to the source, whether the source is moving or not. That was the point that your friend made first time up. According to relativity, there is no change in distance because the whole apparatus is moving.

oscarkipling wrote:well aether in the most general sense is simply a medium, like water or jello. I think the confusion arises because from a scientific standpoint there have been various aether models. Whats worse there have been various luminiferous aether models. Technically you could call the modern understanding of spacetime an aether, but its a different model with different properties than the luminiferous aethers proposed back in the day. I think that using the word aether really confuses the issue, because its been used in so many different ways throughout history and throughout science.

If you stick to the most general sense, then theres no confusion.

zone wrote:
hi oscar.
its me....the cosmologial simpleton.

question:
are our satellites travelling? under their own power?
at what speed? (presumably the same speed of the earth?)

hello zone, I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my ability. Well some (artificial) satellites are geosynchronous meaning that they do travel at the same speed as the earth rotates in order to satay over a certain spot. There are other satellites that travel at different speeds than the earth rotates. In one sense they are not traveling under their own power, but in another sense it could be said that they are...i'll explain. Satellites are essentially falling but at such a height and rate of speed that they fall around the earth, they reach that height and speed via rockets that initially shoot them up there. So they are sort of coasting on that initial energy input especially the satellites that are really far up there where the atmosphere can be said to be almost a non factor. Satellites however do encounter drag, especially low orbit satellites (atmospheric), and those in very high orbits encounter solar wind. because of this they also have thrusters, so that they can readjust their speed in order to stay in orbit where we want them...and sometimes in order to take them out of orbit and send them hurtling back to earth in the most safe way possible.

zone wrote:
would instability; objects slamming into stuff; vibrations; radiation; or general interferences of any kind interrupt the perfect imaging that we receive on earth?

space is generally very diffuse, there isn't really much up there generally speaking. But space junk is becoming something of a problem and its becoming more difficult to create orbital paths that avoid all the junk we leave up there. There really isn't a way to avoid items that are to small to track like bolts and micrometerites. anyway there isn't much externally to cause vibrations, but they do get hit with stuff from time to time, it really cant be helped. But because space is still relatively empty and because people try to avoid collisions, they are only likely to be hit with tiny things every few years or so, which is something they do design around. If an imaging satellite were hit with something significant then yeah, I'm sure it wouldn't be imaging very much anymore...and the thing is it would probably be cheaper to send up another one than to try and repair it especially since the space shuttles were decommissioned. Radiation is a big problem, if you've ever bought a cheap webcam, or had a cheap cameraphone then you've seen some of those little speckles in your pictures or video. Some small portion of those aberrations are due to radiation from other sources striking the ccd and not the awesome regular visual em spectral radiation you were trying to record. This can be mitigated however with better ccd designs and better shielding. of course even with all of this sometimes radiation causes aberrations even in the finest of satellites, but again its something people who design satellites design for. Another thing that radiation can do is cause errors in transmission to and from the satellite, but error correction is one of the things that scientists are very familiar with and has tonnes of terrestrial applications, mostly in computers, your computer/phone/iPod/bluray player all do tonnes of error correction , and they do it so fast that you dont even know that it had to do something 6 times to get it right. Again i'm sure problems come through from time to time, but people who make satellites certainly do what they can to get thier money's worth. Of course sometimes radiation is so strong that they simply turn off the satellites to protect them.

zone wrote:
how are the satellites and other space vehicles/stations kept perfectly timed and stable?
i mean to say, how it is that - in the event of noise, turbulence and whatever other interference may be going on while we and our satellites are hurtling through space at unimaginable speeds - the cameras manage to produce perfect images? gyro-thingees?

well yes gyroscopes are used, and earth based tracking, and tiny adjustments with thrusters, application specific software. You also have to take into consideration that this is all they do, go around the earth taking pictures, they have lots of opportunities for do overs.

zone wrote:
how does Google earth manage to record such detail under such hostile circumstances? are the images we receive REAL pictures or are the computer generated?

well, I suppose in some sense they are computer generated, but probably not in the way you mean. They certainly aren't photographs captured on light sensitive film, but the process is very similar. light is focused onto a light sensitive chip, the data is recoded and/or transmitted to earth where it is processed in such a manner as to depict the light in a way that we recognize it as...well cars and trees and clouds and stuff.

zone wrote:
(i'm a NASA denier - do i need a lawyer?)

also, if you have a powerful telescope...what do you need math for? just for measuring distances?
zonest

I'm sorry I dont understand either of those questions, could you rephrase?

Strangelove wrote:
But he hadn't done that oscar. And I never got that impression when I read the book. Not at all. I would have remembered.

perhaps once I have finished I may assess it differently

Strangelove wrote:
Why not? It's the most generalised term in science. That was Albert Michelson who said that, the guy who performed one of the experiments. That quote used to be on his wiki page but it dissapeared about a year ago.

Just because something is defined with certain properties doesnt make it non-general.

I could say that a 'toy' (general term) in the room next door is red coloured. Doesnt change the fact that the word 'toy' is a generalised term.

Hmm, well as far as this point goes I suppose I can agree that aether and medium could be used interchangeably, but as soon as you define it in a model it is a specified type of aether. This is why certain models of aether are not interchangeable with Eisenstein aether or spacetime or deSitter space.

Strangelove wrote:
An aether explains the effect.

Okay, show me how.

Strangelove wrote:
No oscar, because light is supposed to travel at the same speed RELATIVE to the source, whether the source is moving or not. That was the point that your friend made first time up. According to relativity, there is no change in distance because the whole apparatus is moving.

no light moves at the same speed regardless of whether the source is moving or not. What you are talking about is C+v, which would nullify the Sagnac effect, but only if the light was coupled to the source, that is to say that the photon or wavefront would need to know how fast the source was moving after it was emitted. Neither of which are true, because the light has no idea what the emitter is doing (at least in this case), and it cannot travel at C+v.

oscarkipling wrote:Hmm, well as far as this point goes I suppose I can agree that aether
and medium could be used interchangeably, but as soon as you define it
in a model it is a specified type of aether. This is why certain models
of aether are not interchangeable with Eisenstein aether or spacetime or
deSitter space.

If your point is that 'certain' types of aether model are not interchangeable with certain other theories of what space is made from then I got no problem agreeing with that.

oscarkipling wrote:Okay, show me how.

Well, once the light leaves the source it is controlled by the movement of the medium and not the movement of the apparatus.

The medium is the aether. (general term). This is the most simple explanation. Just like the most simple explanation for Michelson-Morley is that the Earth is not moving.

oscarkipling wrote:no light moves at the same speed regardless of whether the source is
moving or not. What you are talking about is C+v, which would nullify
the Sagnac effect, but only if the light was coupled to the source, that
is to say that the photon or wavefront would need to know how fast the
source was moving after it was emitted. Neither of which are true,
because the light has no idea what the emitter is doing (at least in
this case), and it cannot travel at C+v.

The light is coupled to the source. The whole apparatus is moving. The distance between the source and the mirror remains the same. Therefore we should see no interference pattern whether the table is moving or not. Unless the medium is controlling the light. Which it is. The medium is the aether (general term, no particular model which might not line up with certain other hypothetical models....just a medium ).

The Sagnac effect is unexplainable using Einsteinism. Albert never mentioned it in all of his writings.

You say its simply a matter of a further distance. This cannot be right because relatively, the distance remains the same. The light is not moving in slow motion and the table is not spinning at light speed. It must be something else. Aether.

Strangelove wrote:

If your point is that 'certain' types of aether model are not interchangeable with certain other theories of what space is made from then I got no problem agreeing with that.

well yep,then i guess we simply misunderstood eachother at first.

Strangelove wrote:
Well, once the light leaves the source it is controlled by the movement of the medium and not the movement of the apparatus.

The medium is the aether. (general term). This is the most simple explanation. Just like the most simple explanation for Michelson-Morley is that the Earth is not moving.

Are the properties of the aether mathematically defined anywhere that you could link me to. Because it would be simple enough to test against some general observations i imagine.

anyway in relativity in no way would you expect the movement of the emitter to impart, reduce or in any way modify the velocity of light. This is why when people are explaining relativity they usually say that its not like a baseball thrown on a train or something like that. in Einstein's model The speed of light is a constant its C, this is a fundamental expectation in Einstein's model...that is to say that photons cannot speed up or slow down under any circumstances. This includes the movement of the emitter. The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to detect aether wind through interferometry, if there was a static luminiferous aether, and if the earth was moving in respect to it. This experiment failed to detect this aether wind thereby rendering this particular model of the luminiferous aether invalid. This experiment has nothing to do with the sagnac effect. He gale and pearson went on to later to perform thier experiment which was a sagnac effect experiment, but one designed to detect the rotation of the earth, and had nothing to do with luminiferous aether.

Strangelove wrote:
The light is coupled to the source. The whole apparatus is moving. The distance between the source and the mirror remains the same. Therefore we should see no interference pattern whether the table is moving or not. Unless the medium is controlling the light. Which it is. The medium is the aether (general term, no particular model which might not line up with certain other hypothetical models....just a medium ).

again its not coupled to the source,and there is no expectation that it would be within relativity because the speed of light is constant. While the distance between the emitter and the detector remain for most all intents and purposes constant, the light is not moving with the emitter.

Strangelove wrote:
The Sagnac effect is unexplainable using Einsteinism. Albert never mentioned it in all of his writings.

Einstein probably never mentioned it (cant say that I personally know if he did or didn't), because its not really a test of relativistic effects, outside perhaps the constancy of C, which it is completely in line with. Your entire arguement hinges on a misrepresentation of what Einsteins model predicts about light. which is that the speed of light with respect to any observer is independent of the motion of the light source.

Strangelove wrote:
You say its simply a matter of a further distance. This cannot be right because relatively, the distance remains the same. The light is not moving in slow motion and the table is not spinning at light speed. It must be something else. Aether.

well, I think I've already covered this.

hi oscar. thank you.
quick question - are you a freemason?
i hope not because i am less than polite about their activities below.
i know a few who are nice people, and the goal is to get them out of it.

oscarkipling wrote:
hello zone, I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my ability. Well some (artificial) satellites are geosynchronous meaning that they do travel at the same speed as the earth rotates in order to satay over a certain spot. There are other satellites that travel at different speeds than the earth rotates. In one sense they are not traveling under their own power, but in another sense it could be said that they are...i'll explain. Satellites are essentially falling but at such a height and rate of speed that they fall around the earth, they reach that height and speed via rockets that initially shoot them up there. So they are sort of coasting on that initial energy input especially the satellites that are really far up there where the atmosphere can be said to be almost a non factor. Satellites however do encounter drag, especially low orbit satellites (atmospheric), and those in very high orbits encounter solar wind. because of this they also have thrusters, so that they can readjust their speed in order to stay in orbit where we want them...and sometimes in order to take them out of orbit and send them hurtling back to earth in the most safe way possible.

thanks oscar.

oh.
well i find that hard to believe.

oscarkipling wrote:
space is generally very diffuse, there isn't really much up there generally speaking. But space junk is becoming something of a problem and its becoming more difficult to create orbital paths that avoid all the junk we leave up there. There really isn't a way to avoid items that are to small to track like bolts and micrometerites. anyway there isn't much externally to cause vibrations, but they do get hit with stuff from time to time, it really cant be helped. But because space is still relatively empty and because people try to avoid collisions, they are only likely to be hit with tiny things every few years or so, which is something they do design around. If an imaging satellite were hit with something significant then yeah, I'm sure it wouldn't be imaging very much anymore...and the thing is it would probably be cheaper to send up another one than to try and repair it especially since the space shuttles were decommissioned.

hmm...and all this is going on while everything is spinning and shooting and rotating through space?

oscarkipling wrote:
Radiation is a big problem, if you've ever bought a cheap webcam, or had a cheap cameraphone then you've seen some of those little speckles in your pictures or video. Some small portion of those aberrations are due to radiation from other sources striking the ccd and not the awesome regular visual em spectral radiation you were trying to record. This can be mitigated however with better ccd designs and better shielding. of course even with all of this sometimes radiation causes aberrations even in the finest of satellites, but again its something people who design satellites design for.

Another thing that radiation can do is cause errors in transmission to and from the satellite, but error correction is one of the things that scientists are very familiar with and has tonnes of terrestrial applications, mostly in computers, your computer/phone/iPod/bluray player all do tonnes of error correction , and they do it so fast that you dont even know that it had to do something 6 times to get it right. Again i'm sure problems come through from time to time, but people who make satellites certainly do what they can to get thier money's worth. Of course sometimes radiation is so strong that they simply turn off the satellites to protect them.

right. radiation.
would that moon astronaut's family polaroid have survived in its plastic wrapper...just kinda laying there for the freemas...i mean scientists to take a picture of it using their chest mounted cameras?

just wondering out loud.
and i wonder how they got through the van allen belt without cooking.


not saying there aren't things up there...but up there AND rotating and whizzing around and thrusting and surviving all that space action?

oscarkipling wrote:
well yes gyroscopes are used, and earth based tracking, and tiny adjustments with thrusters, application specific software. You also have to take into consideration that this is all they do, go around the earth taking pictures, they have lots of opportunities for do overs..

okay.
they could fake anything they wanted, right?
cuz the moon landing was BS...so...you know.
its kinda hard to trust the guys.

re the lawyers and telescopes:

lol. i mean NASA is the baby of the project paperclip nazis,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

and they're a buncha freemasons and royal instituters (rothschilds etc) whose aim is to deceive and subjugate the world.

Freemasons have always been in the forefront of the scientific community; from the founding of the British Royal Society to today’s NASA programme in the United States. The following is a short and incomplete list 1 of Brethren who have contributed to the exploration of outer space.

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/spacemason/

mostly homosexual weirdos who put nooses around their necks and roll their pant legs up and drink a lot of scotch. and they curse Jesus Christ.




so i don't trust anything they say or do.

re: the telescope - how far can we actually see with just a proper telescope?
what's all the math for?

what kind of mathematical system do we use in cosmology? the babylonian system based on 6's (which never has an end)?

thanks oscar.
i have some other questions about stars.
zone.

oscarkipling wrote:in Einstein's model The speed of light is a constant its C, this is a fundamental expectation in Einstein's model...that is to say that photons cannot speed up or slow down under any circumstances. This includes the movement of the emitter.


again its not coupled to the source,and there is no expectation that it would be within relativity because the speed of light is constant.

the speed of light with respect to any observer is independent of the motion of the light source.

well, I think I've already covered this.

hi oscar.
but....did i read elsewhere that you were saying that something indeed does effect the speed of light. you had it slowing down (?)

so what causes that and why didn't uncle albert deal with it?

also: side note -

the Big Bang theory and monster space with gigantic eons etc fits amazingly with the theory of evolution.

in the theory of evolution, life supposedly appeared as a result of dead matter + energy + time (sun hits rock for a billion years and presto).

do you see anything missing in that equation, or do you say life can spontaneously 'appear' with only those 3 elements?

also: what good is a theory if it can't be proven? something has to be repeatable to be accepted as a fact. billions and billions of dead sardines have been hermetically sealed, in billions and billions of cans for a century. and not one time has life spontaneously erupted within those cans....including cans just sitting in the sun.

do you believe you evolved from a rock? or is it just a wee bit more likely you were created....that the real equation for life requires INFORMATION input for start-up.

zone.

zone wrote:hi oscar. thank you.
quick question - are you a freemason?
i hope not because i am less than polite about their activities below.
i know a few who are nice people, and the goal is to get them out of it.

nope, but if I were a mason I would charge a reasonable fee for my stone cutting.

zone wrote:
oh.
well i find that hard to believe.

well, yeah its all quite amazing.

zone wrote:
hmm...and all this is going on while everything is spinning and shooting and rotating through space?

yes, I think the key thing to understand is that its not doing any of its spinning or shooting at random or in an unpredictable way. imagine a camera on a lazy susan spinning at 10 rpm. 10 times every minute it could take the exact same picture, and if you timed it you could predict where it would be facing in 3 minutes and 28 seconds very easily. now if I put the spinning platform onto the back of a truck and sent that truck around a 1 mile circular track at 60mph you could predict pretty easily both what the camera would be facing and where it would be in 7 minutes and 42 seconds. now if in the center of the track i placed another lazy susan with idk a rubix cube that rotated at 20 rpm, you could calculate when you needed to snap a picture to capture an image of the green side. this is possible because you know the rate at which all of these things are moving. satellite imaging deals with similarly tractable problems.

zone wrote:
right. radiation.
would that moon astronaut's family polaroid have survived in its plastic wrapper...just kinda laying there for the freemas...i mean scientists to take a picture of it using their chest mounted cameras?

I'm not sure what you think should have happened to it or why?

zone wrote:
just wondering out loud.
and i wonder how they got through the van allen belt without cooking.
study

Well radiation is dangerous to organisms, but there is no reason to believe that there was enough to literally fry the astronauts considering that the crafts were shielded not to mention that that they only spent an hour or 2 traversing the entire thing and only minutes traversing the most dangerous regions.

zone wrote:
not saying there aren't things up there...but up there AND rotating and whizzing around and thrusting and surviving all that space action?

well, I'm not sure how much action you believe there is in space, or why you believe it.

zone wrote:
okay.
they could fake anything they wanted, right?
cuz the moon landing was BS...so...you know.
its kinda hard to trust the guys.

I would stop shy of saying anything could be faked, but alot of stuff can be faked pretty convincingly.

zone wrote:

so i don't trust anything they say or do.

well, okay

zone wrote:
re: the telescope - how far can we actually see with just a proper telescope?
what's all the math for?

How far you can see with a telescope depends alot on size generally the larger it is the more light it collects so you can see fainter objects. Craftsmanship, and atmospheric conditions also play a part as well. I'm not sure what you mean by just a proper telescope, but I guess you mean something you can buy for a few hundred bucks, you could probably see very bright things out to 2 or 3 billion light years away.

zone wrote:
what kind of mathematical system do we use in cosmology?

based on the next question I assume you mean what base, and i'd have to say base 10 is probably the most common. although anything that you can do in one number base you can do in another.

zone wrote:
the babylonian system based on 6's (which never has an end)?

i'm not familiar with this, nor am I familiar with any numbering system that has an end.

zone wrote:
thanks oscar.
i have some other questions about stars.
zone.

have at it

zone wrote:

hi oscar.
but....did i read elsewhere that you were saying that something indeed does effect the speed of light. you had it slowing down (?)

so what causes that and why didn't uncle albert deal with it?

yes, this is refraction in water that we were talking about. Which doesn't actually slow photons down. Its a process of absorption and remission, think of it this way, if you lined up 10 baseball pitchers (water molecules/electrons) who all throw at exactly 100 mph, you throw the first guy a baseball (photon) at 100mph he catches it and throws it to the next guy at 100mph and so on. The ball always travels at 100mph but it takes longer than if you had just thrown the ball at 100mph from point A to Point B because of all the catching and winding up (absorption and reemission).

zone wrote:
also: side note -

the Big Bang theory and monster space with gigantic eons etc fits amazingly with the theory of evolution.

in the theory of evolution, life supposedly appeared as a result of dead matter + energy + time (sun hits rock for a billion years and presto).

do you see anything missing in that equation, or do you say life can spontaneously 'appear' with only those 3 elements?

abiogenesis is another one of those things that are very much in the theoretical phase, there are interesting compelling theories, but none of them are confirmed. So to this I must say, I dont know if it can happen or not.

zone wrote:
also: what good is a theory if it can't be proven? something has to be repeatable to be accepted as a fact. billions and billions of dead sardines have been hermetically sealed, in billions and billions of cans for a century. and not one time has life spontaneously erupted within those cans....including cans just sitting in the sun.

I also dont know if any of the abiogenesis theories are unfalsifiable, although none have been scientifically confirmed to date to my knowledge. However i dont believe that there is any prediction in any of them that life will spontaneously arise from canned sardines, not to mention that most cans of sardines are just eaten and not tested for novel life forms, so who knows maybe we've eaten the evidence.

zone wrote:
do you believe you evolved from a rock? or is it just a wee bit more
likely you were created....that the real equation for life requires
INFORMATION input for start-up.

zone.

again, i'm not familiar with any theory that suggests that we evolved from rocks, if it does exist, then no i dont find it very convincing at all. I'm fairly confident that life does indeed require information in some capacity, but I'm not convinced that information requires an intelligent designer.

oscarkipling wrote:

nope, but if I were a mason I would charge a reasonable fee for my stone cutting.

right. that's one answer masons give when they don't want to say, so maybe you shouldn't use it anymore. just sayin.

zone wrote:
oh.
well i find that hard to believe.

oscarkipling wrote:
well, yeah its all quite amazing.

no oscar. its outlandish.

zone wrote:
hmm...and all this is going on while everything is spinning and shooting and rotating through space?

oscarkipling wrote:
yes, I think the key thing to understand is that its not doing any of its spinning or shooting at random or in an unpredictable way. imagine a camera on a lazy susan spinning at 10 rpm. 10 times every minute it could take the exact same picture, and if you timed it you could predict where it would be facing in 3 minutes and 28 seconds very easily. now if I put the spinning platform onto the back of a truck and sent that truck around a 1 mile circular track at 60mph you could predict pretty easily both what the camera would be facing and where it would be in 7 minutes and 42 seconds. now if in the center of the track i placed another lazy susan with idk a rubix cube that rotated at 20 rpm, you could calculate when you needed to snap a picture to capture an image of the green side. this is possible because you know the rate at which all of these things are moving. satellite imaging deals with similarly tractable problems.

so.....you're saying the (un)created universe is not random but is orderly?
enough so that we can send up techno-objects and have them do things predictably?

that all sounds good...and does it ever sound like we are super-good at 'calculating' stuff.
yet we can't seem to calculate when 'osama bin laden' will do something.
nah. not buying it.

we've either got unthinkably advanced technology going on yet refuse to design a proper automobile...or some wizards have a plan.

today's cosmological theories are just souped-up kabbalah. majik.
all built around 6's.

zone wrote:
right. radiation.
would that moon astronaut's family polaroid have survived in its plastic wrapper...just kinda laying there for the freemas...i mean scientists to take a picture of it using their chest mounted cameras?

oscarkipling wrote:
I'm not sure what you think should have happened to it or why?

whats the atmosphere on the moon?



Apollo 16, foto no. AS16-117-18841: A family foto from Charles Duke, shrink-wrapped in plastic, shall be left "on the moon", which is impossible, because the foto would convolve immediately.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_moon-fotos-without-moon-photographer-foto-compositions-ENGL.html

zone wrote:
just wondering out loud.
and i wonder how they got through the van allen belt without cooking.
study

oscarkipling wrote:
Well radiation is dangerous to organisms, but there is no reason to believe that there was enough to literally fry the astronauts considering that the crafts were shielded not to mention that that they only spent an hour or 2 traversing the entire thing and only minutes traversing the most dangerous regions.

the crafts were shielded?
with tinfoil and scotch tape?
nope. no sale.

serious?








Apollo 11 foto no. AS11-40-5864: Landing engine of the "Lunar Module" without landing crater, an impossibility.









Apollo 16 foto no. AS16-122-19535: Defect ascent stage flying "over the moon", foto no. AS16-122-19535:
The defect ascent stage has no engine flame. So, the foto seems to be a bad foto composition with the moon model of the planetarium LOLA at Langley.

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_moon-fotos-without-moon-photographer-foto-compositions-ENGL.html

ya....so i don't think so. anyways:

Van Allen belts
Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[17][18]

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[19] A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[20]

The Apollo astronauts traveled through the Van Allen radiation belts on the way to the Moon; however, exposure was minimized by following a trajectory along the edge of the belts that avoided the strongest areas of radiation.[21] The total radiation exposure to astronauts was estimated to be much less than the five (5) rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[22]

wiki

total rubbish.

zone wrote:
not saying there aren't things up there...but up there AND rotating and whizzing around and thrusting and surviving all that space action?

oscarkipling wrote:well, I'm not sure how much action you believe there is in space, or why you believe it.

i thought our planet was spinning and we are hurtling through space as the universe expands and there's all this chaos since the big bang...(?)

zone wrote:
okay.
they could fake anything they wanted, right?
cuz the moon landing was BS...so...you know.
its kinda hard to trust the guys.

oscarkipling wrote:
I would stop shy of saying anything could be faked, but alot of stuff can be faked pretty convincingly.

did they fake the moon landings?
did oswald shoot kennedy with the majik bullet? or did a group of guys (the same ones) lie and cover it up?

zone wrote:
re: the telescope - how far can we actually see with just a proper telescope?
what's all the math for?

oscarkipling wrote:
How far you can see with a telescope depends alot on size generally the larger it is the more light it collects so you can see fainter objects. Craftsmanship, and atmospheric conditions also play a part as well. I'm not sure what you mean by just a proper telescope, but I guess you mean something you can buy for a few hundred bucks, you could probably see very bright things out to 2 or 3 billion light years away.

wow.

then why can't we see the dune buggy and stuff they left on the moon?

Exposing PseudoAstronomy

The Apollo Moon Hoax: Why Haven’t Any Pictures Been Taken of the Landing Sites?


Basic Optics


The reason that, as of the time of this writing, the sites have not been imaged is that there simply has not been a telescope that can image them from that telescope’s location.

Very basic optical theory says that the best angular resolution – the smallest angle that a telescope can resolve – is θ = sin^-1(1.220*λ/D). In this equation, θ is the angle in radians, λ is the wavelength of light, and D is the diameter of the telescope’s primary light-gathering optic (either the front lens or the primary mirror).

(I didn’t make this equation up, it can be found in any optics or even basic physics text, but I am not going to derive it here.)

How Big Are the Apollo Relics?


In physics, we like round numbers. We have some rovers up there, some instrumentation, a few flags (that would now be destroyed because of the sun’s UV radiation), and some lunar module feet. Let’s actually round up and say that the largest object we left has about a 5 meter-diameter footprint.

The moon is 384,400,000 meters away, on average. This sets up a right triangle with one leg the distance to the moon, and the other leg being half the size of our Apollo relic. The angle that relic makes is then θ = tan^-1((relic)/(distance)) = 3.726*10^-7°. That’s really small.

Let’s convert this to something astronomers use a little more often, arcseconds. 1° = 60 arcminutes = 3600 arcseconds. So, our relic now subtends (extends over) 1.34*10^-3 (0.00134) arcseconds from Earth. That’s really small.

For reference, the full moon subtends ~30 arcminutes, while Venus at its smallest is a little under 10 arcseconds.

http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/the-apollo-moon-hoax-why-havent-any-pictures-been-taken-of-the-landing-sites/

etc.

zone wrote:
what kind of mathematical system do we use in cosmology?

based on the next question I assume you mean what base, and i'd have to say base 10 is probably the most common. although anything that you can do in one number base you can do in another.

zone wrote:
the babylonian system based on 6's (which never has an end)?

oscarkipling wrote:i'm not familiar with this, nor am I familiar with any numbering system that has an end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_mathematics

zone wrote:
thanks oscar.
i have some other questions about stars.
zone.

oscarkipling wrote:have at it

where are they in this photo 'from the moon'?

nite oscar.
sorry for not being smarter.
zone.

zone wrote:

right. that's one answer masons give when they don't want to say, so maybe you shouldn't use it anymore. just sayin.

I didn't know that.

zone wrote:
so.....you're saying the (un)created universe is not random but is orderly?
enough so that we can send up techno-objects and have them do things predictably?

whether there is a god or not, i dont really see how anyone could support the claim that the universe doesn't generally work in a predictable fashion.

zone wrote:
that all sounds good...and does it ever sound like we are super-good at 'calculating' stuff.
yet we can't seem to calculate when 'osama bin laden' will do something.
nah. not buying it.

Idk, it doesn't seem to follow to me that if we can calculate some things according to physical laws that we should also be able to calculate someones intentions.

zone wrote:
we've either got unthinkably advanced technology going on yet refuse to design a proper automobile...or some wizards have a plan.

okay, space technology is super expensive, application specific and much of it requires extreme precision,training and tools to manufacture and repair. cars for the most part are relatively cheap, relatively easy to mass manufacture and are meant relatively easy to repair. cars could have better technology, but they would be more expensive, and harder to make. One of the main things that makes technology take so long to get from the laboratory to consumer products is finding a way to mass manufacture them in such a way that they can be sold for profit. Honestly I do think that better cars could be made, if manufactureres felt that it would be more profitable to make them. Its like every company has a hybrid now, one because manufacturing and battery technology have advanced, but mostly because everyone is obsessed with "going Green" and people will pay extra to seem green.

zone wrote:
today's cosmological theories are just souped-up kabbalah. majik.
all built around 6's.

what makes you say that?

zone wrote:
whats the atmosphere on the moon?

It barely has anything you would call an atmosphere.

zone wrote:


Apollo 16, foto no. AS16-117-18841: A family foto from Charles Duke, shrink-wrapped in plastic, shall be left "on the moon", which is impossible, because the foto would convolve immediately.

*without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst

well, that's only if a significant amount of air was trapped in the shrink wrap

*during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon

I agree it will bleach eventually, but not immediately . do you know how long it was exposed to the sunlight before taking this picture?

*with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven).

I dont know what the mechanical properties or type of shrink wrap used, but its at least feasible that it prevented the picture from immediately curling up, and again I dont know how long it had been sitting there before the picture was taken. When I zoomed into the picture it certainly doesnt look like its in very good shape though.

zone wrote:

the crafts were shielded?
with tinfoil and scotch tape?
nope. no sale.

serious?







Apollo 11 foto no. AS11-40-5864: Landing engine of the "Lunar Module" without landing crater, an impossibility.

I dont think they used scotch tape, but aluminum foil is actually a pretty good shield for the type of radiation encountered in the van Allen belt. as counterintutive as it may sound plastic film would also be a good choice for protection against van allen belt radiation. But the crafts heat insulation material (not very dissimilar from the kind in your homes walls) probably provided the lionshare of radiation shielding.

zone wrote:

ya....so i don't think so. anyways:



Van Allen belts
Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[17][18]

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[19] A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[20]

The Apollo astronauts traveled through the Van Allen radiation belts on the way to the Moon; however, exposure was minimized by following a trajectory along the edge of the belts that avoided the strongest areas of radiation.[21] The total radiation exposure to astronauts was estimated to be much less than the five (5) rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[22]

wiki

total rubbish.

why?

zone wrote:

i thought our planet was spinning and we are hurtling through space as the universe expands and there's all this chaos since the big bang...(?)

yes, that all appears to be true, but again space is just mostly empty space.

zone wrote:

did they fake the moon landings?
did oswald shoot kennedy with the majik bullet? or did a group of guys (the same ones) lie and cover it up?

I dont believe that the moon landings were faked, but I have no opinion on the JFK thing.

zone wrote:
wow.

then why can't we see the dune buggy and stuff they left on the moon?



The Apollo Moon Hoax: Why Haven’t Any Pictures Been Taken of the Landing Sites?


Basic Optics


The reason that, as of the time of this writing, the sites have not been imaged is that there simply has not been a telescope that can image them from that telescope’s location.

Very basic optical theory says that the best angular resolution – the smallest angle that a telescope can resolve – is θ = sin-1(1.220*λ/D). In this equation, θ is the angle in radians, λ is the wavelength of light, and D is the diameter of the telescope’s primary light-gathering optic (either the front lens or the primary mirror).

(I didn’t make this equation up, it can be found in any optics or even basic physics text, but I am not going to derive it here.)

How Big Are the Apollo Relics?


In physics, we like round numbers. We have some rovers up there, some instrumentation, a few flags (that would now be destroyed because of the sun’s UV radiation), and some lunar module feet. Let’s actually round up and say that the largest object we left has about

The moon is 384,400,000 meters away, on average. This sets up a right triangle with one leg the distance to the moon, and the other leg being half the size of our Apollo relic. The angle that relic makes is then θ = tan-1((relic)/(distance)) = 3.726*10-7°. That’s really small.

Let’s convert this to something astronomers use a little more often, arcseconds. 1° = 60 arcminutes = 3600 arcseconds. So, our relic now subtends (extends over) 1.34*10-3 (0.00134) arcseconds from Earth. That’s really small.

For reference, the full moon subtends ~30 arcminutes, while Venus at its smallest is a little under 10 arcseconds.

etc.

I'm confused, the article you quoted explains why you cant resolve our leavings on the moon. You can see a quasar from 2-3 billion light years away because its the size of a galaxy and one of the brightest things in existence, but still at that distance it would be no more than a faint dot with a inexpensive earth based telescope.

zone wrote:

wont let me post with links

I still dont understand, why would you say cosmology is based on babylonian mathematics?

zone wrote:



where are they in this photo 'from the moon'?

nite oscar.
sorry for not being smarter.
zone.

Nah these are all perfectly reasonable questions. you probably see no stars in that picture because the moon on the day side would be orders of magnitude brighter than the stars, and in order to get a detailed picture of its surface they needed to have a concomitantly short exposure time in order to not blow the highlights. Its sort of like taking pictures in the snow you want to have a fast shutter speed if you want to see details in the snow, but you will lose detail in anything in the picture that wasn't very bright.