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 - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 ... 460 461 [462] 463 464  Next >
9221
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 18, 2013, 09:49:01 PM »
So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You are the one who claims that GOCE never corroborated their data with any ground-based source.  Now you can either show that explicitly to be true, or you can maintain your current position, which is that you did not find it on the wikipedia page.  Either is fine, except the latter position is fallacious.

A third option is to make an inductive argument, but you are a long way from that as well.

An expression of skepticism is a negative claim, not a positive claim. The burden of proof is on those with the positive claims.

"There is no evidence of ghosts" is an expression of skepticism, and is a negative claim. The burden of proof, consequentially, is on the people claiming the existence of ghosts.

9222
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 18, 2013, 09:48:09 PM »
Again, how do you know that no controls were used?

Because none were claimed.

Quote
Did the reading material have a detailed schematic of the probe?

If you assert that magnetic fields have been taken into consideration, then you should post your findings here for all to see.

Quote
Is there supposed to be a link there?  If so, then I'm not seeing it.

I posted evidence of its nonexistence.

9223
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 18, 2013, 09:01:37 PM »
So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

Quote
Also: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Says who? People who believe in spirituality, ghosts, and ESP?

9224
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 18, 2013, 07:07:07 PM »
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.

Here, I'll post evidence of its nonexistence again:

9225
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 18, 2013, 05:21:20 PM »
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.

9226
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 18, 2013, 04:46:52 PM »
Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.
So now you're saying that not all experiments need controls?  Make up your mind, will you?

It needs controls if you plan to pass it off as a valid scientific experiment.

Quote from: markjo
2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially the metal components gravimeters.
Quote
What makes you think that magnetic fields, plus any number of other potential sources of error, haven't been taken into consideration?

Because no such claims have been made in the reading material.

Quote from: markjo
Quote
Quote
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?

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.
Would you care to cite this data that you are referring to?

Sure, here is the evidence that no such trials have been associated with the measurements:

9227
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 18, 2013, 03:59:38 AM »
Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.

Quote
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?

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.

2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially metal components in gravimeters.

9228
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 18, 2013, 02:50:25 AM »
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.

If there are no controls to the experiment, it's not proper science.

9229
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 18, 2013, 02:49:16 AM »
All measurements are experiments.
???  They are?  What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?

When you step on a scale you are conducting an experiment to test your own weight. An experiment is any procedure meant to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.

Quote
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?

I've read all about the gravity space experiments. No controls were used what-so-ever. The data could have been controlled by repeating the experiment numerous times with different kinds of gravimeters, to see if the results changed over time or from device to device. Both land and space and land measurements could have been taken simultaneously to ensure a proper reading. Instruments used to test the strength of the earth's magnetic field could have been included in the system.

9230
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM »
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?
The gravity space missions aren't experiments, they're measurements.  Do you know what a measurement is?

All measurements are experiments. The gravity space missions were uncontrolled. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you and the 'scientists' at NASA go back to middle school and learn some science.

9231
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 17, 2013, 05:18:04 PM »
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.

Zeroing the balance won't help when things are physically lighter in high-pressure environments.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Would_an_object_weigh_more_or_less_in_vacuum

    Would an object weigh more or less in vacuum?

    An object will weigh more in vacuum than in air because of the upthrust. There is no upthrust in vacuum whereas in air the pressure pushes an object or person from all sides. The air is dense and it is similar like water where the weight of an object is equal to the weight of the water displaced by it.

Quote
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!

How do we know that all materials in the digital scale are non-magnetic?

Quote
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 link says that the first reading was taken above ground and the second reading was taken in an underground lab environment. There are a lot of factors at play. There may also be magnetic material in the earth between the surface and the building. This underground lab may have been pressurized differently than the building up top. There may have been a difference in the static force of the desk it was on, the floors, walls and ceilings of the two locations. The experiment is totally uncontrolled.

Your link also asserts the following:

Quote
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.

How can it be that things are "lighter at the equator" if the equator bulges out there and there is more mass beneath your feet?

It should be reversed, that things are heavier at the equator because there is more mass pulling you down. Otherwise the idea of being lighter as you travel underground does not make sense. Observations of gnomes weighing less at the equator would run contradictory to the model.

Clearly, they are making things up to justify observations which contradict RET.

9232
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 16, 2013, 10:26:28 PM »
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?

9233
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 16, 2013, 10:24:36 PM »
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

Your assessment that pressure is the same everywhere on earth and would not vary is false. The atmospheric pressure is different between locations. If you are in Death Valley, the air pressure is different than if you were at a beach in Florida or the top of Mt. Everest.

Your assessment that the magnetic field is far too weak for affect is also plainly false. It is certainly strong enough to keep a compass needle pointed at the poles, let alone affect the small parts in a digital scale.

9234
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 16, 2013, 05:22:11 PM »
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.

Gravity measuring experiment are incredibly sensitive and outside factors weigh in. For example, how are they ruling out that the varying magnetic field of the earth is not affecting the metal weights in the weighing machine?

Different areas on earth have different atmospheric pressures, if only slight, and thus things fall faster/slower via buoyancy. How are they ruling out that either the gnome or the balance are not affected by the pressure?

The static force is said to be orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. How do these experiments account for the static force from the floor, walls, and ceiling of the room the experiment is conducted in?

See: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Per the Mercator gravity map, my comment is that it comes from a space mission and is automatically invalidated on grounds that sustained space travel is not possible. These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.

9235
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 15, 2013, 04:29:19 PM »
For an example that these private rocket companies are operating on government bases, look no further than the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, where the Atlas, Delta, and Saturn class rockets were built by Rocketdyne and other 'private' companies.

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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

9236
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 15, 2013, 04:22:41 PM »
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.

What if a company claimed to have invented a car which could go 800 mph, but the technology was conveniently proprietary or out of reach fro others to reproduce?

Moller International has been claiming to have a working sky car for many years now, and is only waiting on a few more big investments before they can begin production.

If the technology cannot be reproduced by others freely, and is controlled, then the claims that such things have been built, or can be built, are dubious.

SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other rocket designers are all government contractors, operating under government regulation, with facilities on government bases, under direct supervision of government managers. There is no implicit trust of transparency or independence.

In fact, the government uses most of these contracting companies as temp agencies. While you might work for Lockheed Martin by name, the actual work you do for, say the Department of Defense, is done on DOD facilities and under the direct supervision of the government manager. There may be a small Lockheed Martin structure, where you report to your Lockheed Martin supervisor, who then reports to the government manager, but the environment is the same. The government calls the shots, not your contracting company.

9237
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 15, 2013, 03:53:32 PM »
Quote
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".

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.

Firstly, British regulations are different than American regulations, and hardened computer chips may be free to everyone there. 'Military spec' there may also be different from military spec here.

Secondly, telecoms are all government contractors, and may have access to that sort of thing. I know that AT&T, at least, has significant business with the government.

9238
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 15, 2013, 08:00:25 AM »
Also controlled technologies:

Quote
(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;

Quote
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)

Quote
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".

9239
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 15, 2013, 07:38:16 AM »
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.

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.

SpaceX is allowed to build space rockets because they are in league with NASA and the government. They have facilities at government military and research bases and launch from government launch pads, for crying out loud.

A space program I start in my basement is not allowed to build space rockets because not only is FAA and military clearance required, space rockets are regulated as weapons. Even meteorological and sounding rockets are weapons.

According to ITAR and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, both Launch Vehicles and Rockets are weapons. Even meteorological and sounding rockets are weapons:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p121.htm
https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

 
Quote
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)).


Quote
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.

From the annex we we see that controlled rocket technology is defined as solid or liquid propellant rocket engines, having a total impulse capacity of 1.1 x 10 N-sec (2.5 x 10 lb-sec), as well as rocket systems capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km:

Quote
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)).

Many propellants are also declared as controlled weapons:

Quote
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 for rockets in Item 1 are also controlled:

Quote
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));

9240
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon shrimp data
« on: December 15, 2013, 07:00:44 AM »
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.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 460 461 [462] 463 464  Next >