Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - stack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 97  Next >
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: July 21, 2021, 06:43:23 PM »
I'm not sure those figures are right. I plugged them in to my calculator ©
And got 248,219ft if you don't take variations in G into account and 250,776ft if you do.
Now, it could be that my calculator is still wrong, but if you use these figures:
1878mph and 229,738ft - which is the point at which Zero G occurs, and thus is when I believe all engines must have shut off,
then my calculator gives you 352,310ft for apogee, which is pretty much spot on

I'm not sure the G figures are correct. I used some online calculator for those. As for the other figures, I just pulled them from the telemetry displayed on the video feed. The bar on the left highlights each event as it occurs. For instance, when the rocket hits MECO, the word "MECO" brightens up. Same for "Separation/0 G". But I'm not really sure exactly when the latter occurred. But the latter lights up right about at:

T+ 02:35
Speed = 1873 MPH
Altitude = 230,234 FT

Approximately 14 seconds after MECO.

Again, not a super accurate assessment, just a ballpark. But still interesting that the capsule continues up another 160,000 FT after engine cut-off. It's basically just a bullet at that point.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: July 20, 2021, 10:44:47 PM »
Interesting data from Blue Origin today and how it may relate to some of the calculations here. Rough estimate of telemetry:

Blue Origin

 Time = T+ 02:21
 Speed = 2,178 MPH
 Altitude = 188,044 FT
 G = 9.63

 Time = T+ 04:03
 Speed = 000 MPH
 Altitude = 351,210 FT
 G = 9.48

Duration after MECO to Apogee: 01:42
Altitude gained after MECO: 161,748 FT

So after MECO, Blue Origin, unpowered, almost doubled its altitude. Interesting.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 20, 2021, 10:11:46 PM »
Literally the next paragraph "Latitude Tests" you note that gravity measurements vary by latitude and then explain away why that might be.

And the explanation is that the experiment is not controlled against the environment, with references showing that the environment affects the scale. This hurts your insistence that we take uncontrolled experiments as fact.

In your wiki article, "Weight Variation by Latitude”, you very prominently cite a quote from a paper written by Andrew Huszczuk, Ph.D.:

"Would you take a medication knowing that a pharmacy used an uncalibrated scale to weigh its ingredients? Would you board a plane knowing that the fuel or altitude gauges are not calibrated at frequent intervals?
In these and thousands of other applications scientific bases and rules of metrology must be obeyed to assure chaos-free operation of modern societies. To scrutinize performance of measuring devices a process of calibration must be carried out by means of applying a known standard and getting back a correct reading.

It’s from his paper titled, "Deception of the Douglas Bag Validation Method

Which is a paper about methods used to calibrate Metabolic measurement systems, machines that measure the human bodies metabolic rate.

What does that all have to do with Gravity measurements?

As well, in the addendum that you wrote, it states: “If a scale is affected by any of that then those factors should be excluded, ideally in a vacuum chamber experiment which demonstrates the matter empirically, independent of any assumption about the atmosphere. Merely claiming or asserting that there are no factors that affect the device is insufficient. Yet, a search for examples of this experiment conducted in a vacuum chamber finds none." (bolding, mine)

However, the very design of gravimeters employs the measurement mechanism within a vacuum:

"Absolute gravimeters provide such measurements by determining the gravitational acceleration of a test mass in vacuum. A test mass is allowed to fall freely inside a vacuum chamber and its position is measured with a laser interferometer and timed with an atomic clock.”

So the actual mechanism that is performing the gravity measurement is, in fact, inside of a vacuum.

There is also a link in that section which shows latitude tests which did not see variations by latitude, in contradiction to Einsteins's prediction and the scale latitude experiments. You ignored this.

Which link are you referring to? I couldn't find the one you're describing.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: July 17, 2021, 05:57:14 PM »
Because at a velocity of 16,000 km/h, at 250km, experiencing g=9.08m/s2, and decelerating, the rocket will reach 0 in 17 min.

Will not travel the additional 4250 km to apogee given these conditions.

According to your calculations, what was the rockets altitude after 17 minutes?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 16, 2021, 08:45:15 AM »
The debunk article which claimed it was false that the World Economic Forum wanted us to own nothing was clearly a lie. The WEF authored a Forbes article about it:

That's the exact same article the Reuters piece discussed, and I linked to it a few posts back. You haven't discovered anything new here; you're just revealing that you haven't been paying attention to the things you're responding to. So, like the Reuters piece said, the existence of that article does not mean that the scenario described therein is a "goal" for the WEF or something they've set an "agenda" for, and like I said, the scenario is impossible with today's technology.

Are you talking about this Reuters article?

The Reuters link is talking about a video. The Forbes article is neither linked or mentioned at all. That's incorrect. The article is clearly trying to sell us the concept as a utopia, and goes into it with more depth than the video did, which represented it as a prediction. They like the concept enough that they are making videos and writing articles about it, and imagining a society based on the concept.

At the bottom of the Forbes article it says that it was written ahead of their annual meeting

This blog was written ahead of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils.

Ida Auken is a Young Global Leader and Member of the Global Future Council on Cities and Urbanization of the World Economic Forum,

The person who wrote that article is a Danish Politician and former Minister of the Environment:

The video that Reuters refers to is an outgrowth of Auken's blog post, which you already cited, "Welcome to 2030. I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy, and Life Has Never Been Better"

In an update, which Reuters also referenced, she states:

"Author’s note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading – for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

Written by Ida Auken, Member of Parliament, Parliament of Denmark (Folketinget)

Not to mention at the bottom of every article published on the WEF site it has the caveat "The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum."

Lastly, the article and video were from like 2016. You know, a few years before Covid. So how is it relevant to this thread?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 15, 2021, 01:05:48 AM »
In a promotional video, the World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:

- People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.
- The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate.
- Organs will not be transplanted but printed.
- Meat consumption will be minimized.
- Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees.
- To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.
- People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life.
- Western values will be tested to the breaking point..

Not to further a great reset discussion when it comes to Covid, but just as an aside, as Tom put it, "I just presented the data. You can make of it as you will."

Fact check: The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people own nothing by 2030

A video repeating misinformation about the World Economic Forum (WEF) has been shared widely on Facebook.

The WEF does not have a ‘stated goal’ to remove everyone’s private property by 2030. As addressed in previous Reuters fact checks, these claims likely originated from a WEF social media video from 2016 that stated eight predictions about the world in 2030, including: “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy. What you want you’ll rent, and it’ll be delivered by drone.”

Danish politician Ida Auken, who wrote the prediction in question (here), said it was not a “utopia or dream of the future” but “a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse.”

In a written update, she clarified that the piece aimed to “start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.”

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: July 14, 2021, 08:12:03 PM »
Further, an object traveling at a velocity of 16,000km/h at a height of 250 km, is at that moment, subjected to g=9.08m/s2. Given those figures, that object will fall to the earth in just over 17 minutes.

This is a fact.

How did you calculate the 17 minutes after cut-off bit? It seems like a fairly precise number you came up with.

According to your calculations, what was the altitude of the rocket after 17 minutes?

Did you factor in the mass of the rocket after cut-off?
Did you factor into the 17 minutes what the g was 1 minute after cut-off, 2 minutes after cut-off, etc, up to 17?
Did you factor in the density of the atmosphere, drag, 1 minute after cut-off, 2 minutes after cut-off, up to 17?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 14, 2021, 07:57:04 PM »
Oh, so the flu is nearly completely eliminated in the 2020-2021 Flu Season, but COVID runs unchecked during that same period, creating similar numbers to what the flu did in the 2019-2020 Flu Season (38 Million). That definitely makes a lot of sense.  ::)

What's the point you're trying to make? That we shouldn't have had lockdowns, limited travel, mask mandates? That we shouldn't have a vaccine for Covid? That Covid is really just the annual flu? What exactly is it that you are suggesting?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing
« on: July 10, 2021, 06:54:22 PM »
We already know the cameras/film couldn't survive the supposed temps, let alone stay centered and in focus. Fake as a $3 bill


Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« on: July 10, 2021, 05:23:19 PM »
One of the original "Rocket hits the Dome" YT posters, after some research, posted a follow-up way back when that shows the yoyo de-spin tech employed and the recovered rocket, without and dents, damage or any evidence of smacking into a dome.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: July 10, 2021, 08:10:53 AM »

I'm blindingly confused by all of this. But agree with you. Why would average velocity matter in the slightest? Isn't the only velocity of concern what it is at engine cutoff, 16000km/h? Who cares what happened between 0 and 16000, the latter is the only figure that matters.

I know this has come up a dozen times all ready, but the metaphor seems to be a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun, that velocity and a whole host of other factors, drag, trajectory, g and such, determine the distance and/or altitude traveled. I kind of think of it as the ballistic missile is fired out of a barrel that 250 km high at engine cut-off. The question becomes, just like the bullet out of the barrel, how far/high will it travel from that point on. Not what happened in the "barrel".

And like I pointed out earlier, which was considered a strawman, which it is not, is that a dozen plus parameters all enter into the calculations to figure that out. It's very, very complicated to say the least.

When the projectile hits engine cut-off at 16000km/h at an altitude of 250k and g of 9.08, having all its fuel burned off, take-off weight of the HS-15 is estimated at approximately 73 to 74t or 67000 kilos. Propellent for the 2 stages estimated to weigh 67 tons or 60000 kilos. So the projectile at cut-off now weighs 7000 kilos traveling at 16000km/h - That is your bullet velocity and some elements to be concerned with.

With that, if it continued up to let's say 500 km post cut-off, our 7000 kilo bullet would be experiencing g of now 8.43.

The question is how fast is our bullet going now?

if it continued up to let's say 1000 km post cut-off, our 7000 kilo bullet would be experiencing g of now 7.32.

The question is how fast is our bullet going now?

Let's say it kept going up to a whopping 2000 km post cut-off, our 7000 kilo bullet would be experiencing g of now 5.68.

And so on. And that's just factoring in a one, gravity, of the many elements needed to accurately calculate just how high it could go from a 16000km/h speed, 7000 kilo mass starting point.

So I agree, to even mention an average is absolutely meaningless. Is there something missing?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: July 09, 2021, 02:50:32 PM »
It has already been admitted the calculation I provided is correct.

I'm not so sure of that at all. This rocket trajectory estimation business is way more complicated than what you lay out.

This from an MIT Lab notes called, "Trajectory Calculation - Lab 2 Lecture Notes"

Here's all the stuff you have to take into consideration when it comes to calculating rocket trajectories and such. It's not just a simple average of velocity equals altitude/distance. It's way, way more complicated:

The lab notes go on to bring all of these factors to the fore. Through a slew of daunting equations. You're factoring like two or three parameters out of the 16+ that need to be taken into account. Just try and bend your mind around fuel mass flow rate, for one, and your head will explode.

So no, you are no where near qualified to say your calculations show that ICBM's aren't viable (neither am I), but there are people that are able to show that they are viable.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: July 08, 2021, 02:10:22 AM »
My intuition tells me no and I think humanizing them would go a long way to silencing your inner bigot. Maybe read the Bible, paying attention to the parts where they discuss empathy and acceptance?

I've read it.

Deuteronomy 22:5 - "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this."

Deuteronomy 23:1 - "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

I don't think those are the "empathy and acceptance" parts of the bible one should pay attention to that Rama was referring to.

I had no idea the bible had a thing about crossdressing. Are the Scots godless with their kilts?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2021, 01:59:32 AM »
***Warning: Disturbing Footage***

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only shot fired was by Capitol police and the result was a 50 year old, unarmed, female Trump supporter was murdered.

Not that age makes a difference, but facts do to lend credibility to claims. She was 36, not 50.

The barricade was on the other side of the windows and she was shot while behind the other people who breaking the glass.

Yes, a barricade other than the doors and windows was on the inside. However, there doesn’t appear to be anyone in front of her as she is climbing up and through the already smashed out window - This is her climbing up and through the broken window a second before she got shot:

TIL a window isn’t a barricade. A gold medal in mental gymnastics from Lackey.
A window isn't a barricade.

She was not attempting to go through the window.

Perhaps you missed the part where she was shot while standing behind others who were.

Stop lying.

Apparently she was attempting to go through the window and there were no other people in front of her (See above). Now just who is lying?

In the Cornell link it says as much as well. It also says you could see stars during the daytime on the moon. Obviously that counters what I've been saying and I dont have the willingness to say that's wrong, but I do wonder if we're getting enough context from that short portion of the quote, i.e. are they visible everywhere you look or only if you look away from or block the moon's reflective surface and the sun itself.
That appears entirely irrelevant to stack's flippant dismissal of basic knowledge he should have gathered around the age of 4-7. To say that the Earth scenario and the Moon scenario are analogous is demonstrably incorrect, and to demand sources to show that the atmosphere disperses sunlight, causing starlight to be obscured is a ridiculous attempt at disruption. It deserves to be called out as such.

Apologies for being flippant. I wasn't intending to disrupt I was just, well, being flippant.

In any case, I contacted Dr. Kornreich, the professor who answered the question you cited ( at Cornell's "Ask An Astronomer" asking him to clarify what he wrote. Specifically the part, "If you were standing on the Moon, for instance, where there is no atmosphere, you would see the stars both day and night."

I didn't expect a response, but he got back to me right away which is amazingly cool. Here's what I asked:

I was reading an answer on Ask An Astronomer that I believe you wrote. The question was, "Why can't you see stars during the day?". I'm trying to settle a debate with an Apollo denier friend of mine.
Specifically, the notion of whether the astronauts could see stars from the lunar surface. Looking at transcripts and such, they said that they couldn't see stars due to the glare, which I believe to be true. However, my friend found your response to the above question and is using that as his claim that the astronauts were lying. Here is what you wrote as part of your response: "If you were standing on the Moon, for instance, where there is no atmosphere, you would see the stars both day and night."
My understanding is that the Apollo astronauts could only see stars from the lunar surface when they themselves were in shadow (Ex., behind the LM) or when orbiting around the dark side of the Moon.
His point is that earth's atmosphere is what makes it so that we can't readily see stars during the daytime and that the Moon w/o an atmosphere makes it so you actually can readily see stars from the daylight side surface.
So the question is, could the Apollo astronauts see stars from the daytime Moon surface (when not in shadow) because there is no atmosphere? Basically I'm looking for a clarification of your answer I referenced above.

Here's his response:

"Yes it is and was possible to see stars during the day on the Moon. But also yes, you would need to shade your eyes from the Sun because eyes don’t have the dynamic range (no camera does) to see the Sun and stars at the same time. In the Apollo 17 mission logs, Gene Cernan writes at some length about shading his eyes from the Sun with his hand in order to see the stars. I’m sure you can find that online somewhere if you search diligently enough."

Based upon his suggestion, I scoured the web for the Apollo 17 logs and found them. Here's what I think Dr. Kornreich was referring to:

113:19:58 - [Schmitt - "We couldn't see the stars out the window or when we were out on the surface. It took the collimation of the telescope to eliminate all of the reflected light reaching your eye from your surroundings. Even in the LM shadow, there were too many bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible."]

[A telescope - or any long, straight tube - admits only light rays coming from a small range of directions. The light rays that reach the end of the tube are virtually parallel to each other and to the long axis of the tube and, therefore, have been "collimated".]

[Cernan - "When you were in the lunar module, looking out the window, you certainly couldn't see stars. Using the telescope was sort of like being in a deep well; it cut out all the reflected light and let you see the stars. It was also generally true that, when you were on the surface in the LM's shadow, there were too many bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible. But I remember that I wanted to see whether I could see stars, and there were times out on the surface when I found that, if you allowed yourself to just focus and maybe even just shielded your eyes to some degree, even outside the LM shadow you could see stars in the sky. And, quite frankly, under the right conditions here on Earth on a bright sunlit day, you can do the same thing. I could see stars through my helmet visor; not easily, but it can be done."]

So all in all, interesting stuff that one can make of it what they will. Some extra context always helps.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: UFO and shooting stars
« on: July 07, 2021, 08:33:47 AM »
Hello everyone,
Have you ever noticed how UFOs clips resemble shooting stars ?

No, I haven't.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 07, 2021, 08:08:31 AM »
They left out the parts where the police welcomed them in with open arms, unlocked the magnetic doors and took selfies with the protestors.

Yep, I've seen footage of one officer seemingly taking a selfie with the rioters. And a couple moving some gates out of the way, seemingly to let people in. As for the "magnetic lock" thing, it's unclear:

In the latest filing, prosecutors devoted an entire section to a The Gateway Pundit interview of an anonymous Marine veteran from May 24. The magistrate judge said the government previously fell short in proving that the veteran was Dolan, but this time prosecutors claim they can show it was Dolan who espoused a “conspiracy theory” about police opening “magnetic locks” to let him and others into the Capitol.

“Just two weeks ago, Defendant Dolan apparently gave an interview to the Gateway Pundit, describing his actions on January 6 and a conspiracy theory about the Capitol Police actually unlocking the ‘magnetic’ doors to let him inside. Judge Matthewman held that the government did not meet its burden to prove that Defendant Dolan in fact gave the interview. The government does so below,” prosecutors began.

Seems questionable at best.

You realize guns were drawn and such, right? You know, to stop the "threat".

Are you saying January 6th wasn't that big of deal? And that the entirety of the Capitol police welcomed the throngs with open arms and said "Do whatever it is you want to do to the Capitol and its occupants"?
And let's say that's all true. Would it be ok in your mind if Antifa did the same? If BLM did the same? Why would it be ok for Trump supporters to demand free roam in the Capitol and not any other group?

Maybe storming the Capitol should be a daily thing. Instead of tours, you can just bust in and try and thwart legislative proceedings.


What's this about how it's the atmosphere that makes it so we can't see stars during the day?

Everyone knows the atmosphere goes away at night, which is why we see stars at night. Nothing to do with any other bright things out there...

Yeah, my bad. I forgot the whole "Night time disappearing atmosphere" thing...Good thing Lackey didn't though.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 07, 2021, 07:02:10 AM »
Short video (40 mins) put together by NYT on Jan 6. Reconstructions of the events in chronological order, built almost exclusively from protestors own footage and subpoenas of security and police body cam.

Those were some busy tourists.

In seriousness though, it does show how unprepared the security forces were and how a few organized groups can incite a mob to do just about anything, especially if they have the feeling of moral superiority delivered from POTUS

I watched this the other day when it came out. I've been of a mind that January 6th was really bad, an horrific insurrectionist assault on America. Then after watching this I realized how much worse it actually was. Chilling all around.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 07, 2021, 06:58:42 AM »
I guess this means people should maybe reconsider going with the Pfizer vaccine and go with J&J, Moderna, or AstraZeneca instead.
Maybe, although all these vaccines have to go through independent trials before they’re approved. We don’t just have to take their word for it. And it’s now been rolled out to I guess hundreds of millions of people. In a population that size you are going to get some people who have reactions. People with a certain agenda will then cherry pick those cases to try and make a case which doesn’t stand up statistically

Agreed. I guess I'm not really sure what Tom's point is. I took it as "vax bad" as I am not in the "vax bad" camp. I was pointing out (not so well) that if one has a problem with Pfizer's history, it doesn't wipe out all of the other vax's.

Not to mention the case he brought up, though terrible, requires some nuance to understand as opposed to just a lively twitter quote. They got busted for continually providing incentives to Dr's to prescribe their meds, golf trips, vaca's of other sorts, etc. Incentives, a no no. And they had a history of doing that. For two, they were promoting some of their drugs for uses that were not FDA approved. They are allowed to "suggest" alternative uses for their drugs, but not "promote" them. So yeah, terrible big-pharma behaviour. So the devil is in the details not in a cherry-picked twitter burst.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 97  Next >