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 - Tumeni

Pages: < Back  1 ... 118 119 [120]
We know that a bunch of rocket fuel got spewed out at a certain exhaust speed.

Er, no. The rocket fuel combusted in a chemical reaction which generated bucketloads of rapidly-expanding, rapidly-moving exhaust product, and THAT got spewed out.

Go ahead and slap whatever video you have of anything traveling at 17,500 mph.

Look at it...Let all of us look at it and see if there is anyway possible of accurately verifying the spped of the object from the video...

Doesn't need to be video. I can go outside and watch the ISS for myself. I'm sure I could do the trig and arithmetic to calculate its speed for myself, but I really don't see any need to. I've seen primary school students do it, so why bother?

I suggest readers here take a look at planewavemedia. Their speciality is motorised tracking telescopes, as far as I can gather. Their YouTube site has a number of tracking videos, with their telescope switching from satellite to satellite. I'm sure they could do computations of, or already have, the data which will tell us how fast said satellites are moving.

On screen, you can see;
The telescope itself, moving back and forth
A star chart showing the area of sky it is looking at
The scrolling data that outlines what it's doing, and where it's pointing
The output from the telescope, showing the satellite it is tracking, along with the background starfields whizzing by

At least two independent telescope operators have tracked the SpaceX Tesla on its way to Mars or thereabouts. I haven't looked at their data in detail, but imagine that we could compute time taken against distance from Earth to derive its speed.

Yes, I've heard that by 'throwing' out fuel, they gain momentum. Apparently this is so effective, they reach speeds of 86 football field lengths in a single second. Makes you wonder why they even burn the fuel while in atmosphere if throwing it is so effective.

They burn the fuel because ignition generates more energy than merely moving the fuel from point A to point B.

Which is a more effective explosive? The stick of dynamite that you throw at the enemy without igniting, or the one that explodes under them?

These two videos should give some impression of the energy gained by ignition

"Epic Documentaries | BBC Explosions How We Shook the World - Must Watch!!!"

(If you're short of time, go straight to 27m30s and watch the Nitro-Glycerine sequence)


"Hypergolic Fuels – The Chemistry of a Rocket Launch"

(This one is 5mins or so)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Observation of the ISS
« on: February 11, 2018, 11:02:50 PM »
The other night I saw a notification by our local news station that the international space station would be passing overhead and would be visible between 6:56pm and 6:59 pm. It was a bright yellow dot that passed overhead at a very fast speed.

From a flat earth perspective, what else would this be if it's not the ISS?

It was more likely particle debris or some kind of atmospheric interference.

Wouldn't that be more likely to show random behaviour, though?

Particle debris or atmospheric interference is MOST unlikely to appear once at 5pm or so, then appear again to show EXACTLY the same behaviour at 6.30 or so..... most unlikely to move at constant speed, in one direction ....

In case that's lost on you, I saw the ISS, on more than one occasion, twice in one evening. Each time, separated by approx 90mins, the 'published' orbit time. Remarkably consistent particle debris, that is....

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the misinformation?
« on: February 11, 2018, 10:56:46 PM »
Then we reach the cold war, where each country is showing off just how much it can lie to its own people and the US won. The moon landing was faked, and since the popular belief at the time was that the world is spherical, the earth was depicted as a sphere.

.. but since then, hundreds of humans, regular folk like you and me, from Italy, Canada, Japan, Russia, UK and other countries have orbited the Earth, in a craft operated by Americans, Russians, Europeans and others.

India, China, Japan, Russia and the USA have all sent unmanned craft around and onto the Moon, regardless of whether or not the manned landings were fake or not.

It is amusing that you accuse us of dogmatism while simultaneously espousing a blind belief in authorities, unconcerned that you have no direct knowledge of the matter for yourself.

I invite you to share, in summary, the 'direct knowledge' you have.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Round Earth Theory explain the Selenelion?
« on: February 11, 2018, 06:04:31 PM »
Since more than one person wants to resurrect this, regardless of age of thread, can I ask Tom and other FEers;

If you imagine yourself looking down upon the Earth, Sun and Moon from above, and place an imaginary clockface over the Earth,
would you agree firstly that the situation being discussed, IF we take the textbook description of the Earth/Moon system at face value, has the Moon at 12 and the Sun at 6? i.e. each on directly opposite sides when viewed from above.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The International Space Station
« on: February 11, 2018, 05:50:42 PM »
I've already started a thread basically about this same thing. It was stated that it was probably a chunk of debris from the creation of the earth that got caught in the upper atmoplane that just resembles the ISS. I don't think you will get a better explanation than that.

Yet its path matches exactly the path that the space agencies intended and mapped out for it? And radio hams make contact with the astronauts on board as it passes by? And it's predictable to the extent that photographers now routinely capture it in transit over the Moon and the Sun?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: "It's true, I saw it on the Internet!"
« on: February 11, 2018, 05:44:43 PM »
No, these conclusions simply do not follow. If footage of the Earth from space is faked, it is only sensible to assume that there is one centralised source for this footage - otherwise the inconsistencies you were looking for would crop up early on. Whether this is achieved via a pack of textures and shaders, or a simple seed for procedural generation, it is not at all difficult to arrange for consistent results across sources. The only thing you can honestly conclude is that the two sources you compared were (arguably) consistent with one another.

That's quite an IF.

Do you have any evidence that anyone, anywhere has a "pack of textures and shaders, or a simple seed for procedural generation" available to .... SpaceX, NASA, JAXA, Roscosmos, ESA  ?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: "It's true, I saw it on the Internet!"
« on: February 11, 2018, 05:40:35 PM »
I posted in the other thread a way to prove it happened, or was at least live.
No, what you proved is that it's consistent with other sources that also claim the Earth is round. That's a good thing, granted, but it's a poor effort when it comes to reaching any conclusions.

How many consistent sources (please specify an actual number) should be found before you find the consistency acceptable?

If you have a basis for not accepting any specific sources as valid, what is it?

Perhaps the Original Poster could outline the 'things' that he/she considers would actually PREVENT a rocket from achieving those speeds?

We can discount air resistance, maximum RPM for mechanicals, and such, so ... what? 

Pages: < Back  1 ... 118 119 [120]