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.
Again, how do you know that no controls were used?
Did the reading material have a detailed schematic of the probe?
Is there supposed to be a link there? If so, then I'm not seeing it.
So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?
Also: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Seriously? You are basing your claim that there is no corroboration on a Wikipedia entry? That is a terrible source if you are expecting completeness.
If it exists, then find it for us. I've already provided evidence that it does not exist.
What? No you haven't. You linked to a Wikipedia page, and pretended that was an exhaustive source.
Seriously? You are basing your claim that there is no corroboration on a Wikipedia entry? That is a terrible source if you are expecting completeness.
So now you're saying that not all experiments need controls? Make up your mind, will you?Oh? What's the control in that experiment?
None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.
2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially the metal components gravimeters.QuoteWhat makes you think that magnetic fields, plus any number of other potential sources of error, haven't been taken into consideration?
QuoteWould you care to cite this data that you are referring to?QuoteSo you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys? How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements? What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?
1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.
Oh? What's the control in that experiment?
So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys? How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements? What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.
from what I understand they were going to do it in a lab but they couldn't get the whole earth through the doors.
All measurements are experiments.They are? What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?
What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what protocols were used in those gravity measurements? What sort of controls would you propose for gravity measurement from orbit and how do you know that they weren't used?
The gravity space missions aren't experiments, they're measurements. Do you know what a measurement is?These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.Please elaborate. What do you mean by "not controlled"?
Do you know what a controlled experiment is?
I did not say pressure was the same anywhere. That is a gross misreading. Atmospheric pressure is controlled in the gnome experiment by zeroing the balance. So unless the pressure suddenly changes on one side of the balance it does not affect the weight measurement.
The Earths magnetic field is approximately 1/4 the strength of a fridge magnet, so I doubt it has a significant effect on a ceramic gnome or a lead weight, but the burden of proof is yours to show it does, so go to!
Could you explain why a gnome might be lighter underground when the Earth's magnetic field should be stronger there? As shown in the link I provided?
The second effect that can change an object's weight with location is that the Earth is slightly flattened at the poles. That means its radius at the equator is about 20 kilometres bigger than at the poles, Jillings said. Objects at the equator are therefore slightly farther away from the centre of the Earth, so the gravitational force is not as strong.
These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.Please elaborate. What do you mean by "not controlled"?
Atmospheric pressure would not be an issue on a balance unless the pressure varies greatly over the span of a square foot, which is highly unlikely. Signifigant digits would rule out the Earth's magnetic field in the Gnome experiment since the Earth's magnetic field is measured in millionths of a Tesla, too weak to account for the tenth of a gram variations you can see in the gnome experiment. It also would not account for the gnome weighing less underground, since magnetic fields get stronger as you reduce the distance between the attracting masses. See below for the results of the gnome experiment at a laboratory 2kms underground:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979
SSFL was slated as a United States government facility dedicated to the development and testing of nuclear reactors, powerful rockets such as the Delta II, and the systems that powered the Apollo missions.
Rocket engine development
North American Aviation (NAA) began its development of liquid propellant rocket engines after the end of WWII. The Rocketdyne division of NAA, which came into being under its own name in the mid-1950s,[citation needed] designed and tested several rocket engines at the facility. They included engines for the Army's Redstone (an advanced short-range version of the German V-2), and the Army Jupiter intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) as well as the Air Force's counterpart IRBM, the Thor.[citation needed] Also included were engines for the Atlas Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), as well as the twin combustion chamber alcohol/liquid oxygen booster engine for the NAVAHO, a large, intercontinental cruise missile that never became operational. Later, Rocketdyne designed and tested the huge F-1 engine that was eventually used as one of a cluster of engines powering the Apollo booster, as well as the J-2 liquid oxygen/hydrogen upper stage engine also used on the Project Apollo spacecraft.
The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.
the difference is that no "car" can go 800mph.
It's not an engine issue, rockets however can go that fast when scaled up.
the only "cars" that do get into the region of 800mph are not in fact cars, they are rockets and other aircraft with unpowered wheels bolted on. You might as well use the fact that you cant scale a car engine up to allow a car to fly as evidence that car engines can't power planes.
QuoteAnalog computers, digital computers, or digital differential analyzers designed or modified for use in the systems in Item 1 (see § 121.1, Category XI (a)(6), having either of the following characteristics:
(a) Rated for continuous operation at temperature from below minus 45 degrees C to above plus 55 degrees C; or
(b) Designed as ruggedized or "radiation hardened".
shoulda quit while you were "ahead", controlled NOT banned.
As evidence by the fact that many companies including British Telecom (used to anyway, they were a bit crap) use military laptops for their workforce.
(c) Global Positioning System (GPS) receiving equipment specifically designed, modified or configured for military use; or GPS receiving equipment with any of the following characteristics:
(1) Designed for encryption or decryption (e.g., Y-Code) of GPS precise positioning service (PPS) signals;
(2) Designed for producing navigation results above 60,000 feet altitude and at 1,000 knots velocity or greater;
Avionics equipment, "technology" and components as follows; designed or modified for use in the systems in Item 1, and specially designed software therefor
...
(ii) At altitudes in excess of 18 km (60,000 feet), (see § 121.1, Category XV(d)(2)
Analog computers, digital computers, or digital differential analyzers designed or modified for use in the systems in Item 1 (see § 121.1, Category XI (a)(6), having either of the following characteristics:
(a) Rated for continuous operation at temperature from below minus 45 degrees C to above plus 55 degrees C; or
(b) Designed as ruggedized or "radiation hardened".
Tom, this is getting way off topic. Let's try getting back to why you think that SpaceX wouldn't be able to (or allowed to) design and build their Merlin rocket engines from scratch.
The following articles, services and related technical data are designated as defense articles and defense services pursuant to sections 38 and 47(7) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 and 2794(7)).
Category IV-Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs and Mines
*(a) Rockets (including but not limited to meteorological and other sounding rockets), bombs, grenades, torpedoes, depth charges, land and naval mines, as well as launchers for such defense articles, and demolition blocks and blasting caps. (See § 121.11.)
*(b) Launch vehicles and missile and anti-missile systems including but not limited to guided, tactical and strategic missiles, launchers, and systems.
(c) Apparatus, devices, and materials for the handling, control, activation, monitoring, detection, protection, discharge, or detonation of the articles in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this category. (See § 121.5.)
*(d) Missile and space launch vehicle powerplants.
*(e) Military explosive excavating devices.
*(f) Ablative materials fabricated or semi-fabricated from advanced composites (e.g., silica, graphite, carbon, carbon/carbon, and boron filaments) for the articles in this category that are derived directly from or specifically developed or modified for defense articles.
*(g) Non/nuclear warheads for rockets and guided missiles.
(h) All specifically designed or modified components, parts, accessories, attachments, and associated equipment for the articles in this category.
(i) Technical data (as defined in § 120.21 of this subchapter) and defense services (as defined in § 120.8 of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this category. (See § 125.4 of this subchapter for exemptions.) Technical data directly related to the manufacture or production of any defense articles enumerated elsewhere in this category that are designated as Significant Military Equipment (SME) shall itself be designated SME.
Missile Technology Control Regime Annex.
Some of the items on the Missile Technology Control Regime Annex are controlled by both the Department of Commerce on the Commodity Control List and by the Department of State on the United States Munitions List. To the extent an article is on the United States Munitions List, a reference appears in parentheses listing the U.S. Munitions List category in which it appears. The following items constitute all items on the Missile Technology Control Regime Annex which are covered by the U.S. Munitions List:
Item 1-Category I
Complete rocket systems (including ballistic missile systems, space launch vehicles, and sounding rockets (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(a) and (b)) and unmanned air vehicle systems (including cruise missile systems see § 121.1, Cat. VIII (a), target drones and reconnaisance drones (see § 121.1, Cat. VIII (a)) capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km.
Item 2-Cateogry I
Complete subsystems usable in the systems in Item 1 as follows:
(a) Individual rocket stages (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(h));
(b) Reentry vehicles (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(g)), and equipment designed or modified therefor, as follows, except as provided in Note (1) below for those designed for non-weapon payloads;
(1) Heat shields and components thereof fabricated of ceramic or ablative materials (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(f));
(2) Heat sinks and components thereof fabricated of light-weight, high heat capacity materials;
(3) Electronic equipment specially designed for reentry vehicles (see § 121.1, Cat. XI(a)(7));
(c) Solid or liquid propellant rocket engines, having a total impulse capacity of 1.1 x 10 N-sec (2.5 x 10 lb-sec) or greater (see § 121.1, Cat. IV, (h)).
(d) "Guidance sets" capable of achieving system accuracy of 3.33 percent or less of the range (e.g., a CEP of 1 j,. or less at a range of 300 km), except as provided in Note (1) below for those designed for missiles with a range under 300 km or manned aircraft (see § 121.1, Cat. XII(d));
(e) Thrust vector control sub-systems, except as provided in Note (1) below for those designed for rocket systems that do not exceed the range/payload capability of Item 1 (see § 121.1, Cat. IV);
(f) Warhead safing, arming, fuzing, and firing mechanisms, except as provided in Note (1) below for those designed for systems other than those in Item 1 (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(h)).
Propellants and constituent chemicals for propellants as follows: (see § 121.1, Cat. V(c) and § 121.12 and § 121.14).
(a) Propulsive substances:
(1 ) Hydrazine with a concentration of more than 70 percent and its derivatives including monomethylhydrazine (MMH) (see § 121.12(a)(22));
(2 ) Unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDHM) (see § 121.12(a)(22));
(3 ) Ammonium perchlorate (see § 121.12(a)(23));
(4 ) Spherical aluminum powder with particle of uniform diameter of less than 500 x 10-m (500 micrometer) and an aluminum content of 97 percent or greater (see § 121.12(a)(1));
(5 ) Metal fuels in particle sizes less than 500 x 10-m (500 Microns), whether spherical, atomized, spheroidal, flaked or ground, consisting of 97 percent or more of any of the following: zirconium, beryllium, boron, magnesium, zinc, and alloys of these (see § 121.12(a)(2));
(6 ) Nitro-amines (cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramene (HMX) (see § 121.12(a)(11)), cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine (RDX)) (see 121.12(a)(35));
(7 ) Perchlorates, chlorates or chromates mixed with powdered metals or other high energy fuel components (see § 121.12(a)(4);
(8 ) Carboranes, decaboranes, pentaboranes and derivatives thereof (see § 121.12(a)(10);
(9 ) Liquid oxidizers, as follows:
(i) Nitrogen dioxide/dinitrogen tetroxide (see § 121.14.(g));
(ii) Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (IRFNA) (see § 121.12(f)(1);
(iii) Compounds composed of flourine and one or more of other halogens, oxygen or nitrogen (see § 121.12(a)(9).
(b) Polymeric substances:
(2) Hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) (see § 121.12(a)(38);
(3) Glycidyl azide polymer (GAP) (see § 121.12(b)(1)).
(c) Other high energy density propellants such as, Boron Slurry, having an energy density of 40 x 10 joules/kg or greater (see § 121.12(a)(3)).
(d) Other propellant additives and agents:
(1) Bonding agents as follows:
(i) tris(1-(2-methyl)aziridinyl phosphine oxide (MAPO) (see § 121.12(b)(17));
(ii) trimesol-1(2-ethyl)aziridine (HX-868, BITA) (see § 121.12(b)(13));
(iii) "Tepanol" (HX-878), reaction product of tetraethylenepentamine, acrylonitrile and glycidol (see § 121.12.(b)(11));
(iv) "Tepan" (HX-879), Reaction product of tet enepentamine and acrylonitrile (see § 121.12(b)(11));
(v) Polyfunctional aziridene amides with isophthalic, trimesic, isocyanuric, or trimethyladipic backbone also having a 2-methyl or 2-ethyl aziridine group (HX-752, HX-872 and HX-877). (see § 121.12(b)(13)).
(2) Curing agents and catalysts as follows:
(i) Triphenyl bismuth (TPB) (see § 121.12(b)(23));
(3) Burning rate modifiers as follows:
(i) Catocene (see § 121.12(b)(5));
(ii) N-butyl-ferrocene (see § 121.12(b)(5));
(iii) Other ferrocene derivatives (see § 121.12(b)).
(4) Nitrate esters and nitrato plasticizers as follows:
(i) 1,2,4-butanetriol trinitrate (BTTN) (see § 121.12(b)(3));
(5) Stabilizers as follows:
(i) N-methyl-p-nitroaniline (see § 121.12(d)(1)).
Structural materials usable in the systems in Item 1, as follows:
(a) Composite structures, laminates, and manufactures thereof, including resin impregnated fibre prepregs and metal coated fibre preforms therefor, specially designed for use in the systems in Item 1 and the subsystems in Item 2 made either with organix matrix or metal matrix utilizing fibrous or filamentary reinforcements having a specific tensile strength greater than 7.62 x 10 4 m (3 x 10 6 inches) and a specific modules greater than 3.18 x 10 6 m (1.25 x 10 8 inches), (see § 121.1, Category IV (f), and Category XIII (d));
(b) Resaturated pyrolized (i.e. carbon-carbon) materials designed for rocket systems, (see § 121.1 Category IV (f));
(c) Fine grain recrystallized bulk graphites (with a bulk density of at least 1.72 g/cc measured at 15 degrees C), pyrolytic, or fibrous reinforced graphites useable for rocket nozzles and reentry vehicle nose tips (see § 121.1, Category IV (f) and Category XIII;
(d) Ceramic composites materials (dielectric constant less than 6 at frequencies from 100 Hz to 10,000 MHz) for use in missile radomes, and bulk machinable silicon-carbide reinforced unfired ceramic useable for nose tips (see § 121.1, Category IV (f));
The much simpler, more obvious, and fact-based explanation is that China's stat-run news agency prepared the article in advance of the event because they're just the mouthpiece for China's propaganda machine. Xinhua is run by the Propaganda Department. Literally. That's what it's called. Propaganda machines usually aren't super concerned with journalistic ethics.'
Great, then we can discount this "moon landing" as additional propaganda and need not discuss the matter further.