|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 5, 2005 9:24:00 GMT -4
You can't demonstrate anything about movements of objects in space because YOU CAN'T MAKE EXPERIMENTS.
Orbital mechanics consists solely of gravity and momentum. Those exist on Earth and can be studied and used in demonstrations. The reason mass is irrelevant in orbital altitude and velocity is the same reason Galileo's famous experiment at the tower of Pisa had its noted outcome. That's how they were demonstrated in the early 1600s and onward.
You can't build a planet and launch it in space to see its behaviour.
We'll use the planet we already have. And we have launced nearly 1,000 objects into space to see their behavior.
Galileo, Newton, Kepler, only old theories UNDEMONSTRATED.
Then you don't know anything about the work of those men.
Further, novelty is not the sine qua non of a correct scientific theory. The oldest (working) theories are the best ones because they've literally undergone hundreds of years of people trying to disprove them or find exceptions to them. Newtonian physics is still taught and used today because it still works, and works well.
NASA ENGINEERS DON'T CONSIDER EARTH'S VELOCITY IN THEIR WRONG CALCULATIONS SO THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GO ANYWHERE IN SPACE
Yes, keep telling yourself that. The nice men from the hospital will be there soon to take you back to your room.
While you're waiting, please explain how a 100,000 kg orbiter is able to match orbits with a space station twice its mass and an orbiting telescope one-tenth its mass. I know the answer. Do you?
Who knows, does; who doesn't know, teaches, dear professor.
I'm not a professor. I'm a practicing engineer. And you're an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 5, 2005 9:32:04 GMT -4
> You can't demonstrate anything about movements of objects in space because YOU CAN'T MAKE EXPERIMENTS. > You can't build a planet and launch it in space to see its behaviour.Perhaps you've forgotten that planets are already in space, and therefore we can see their behavior. Tycho Brahe did it centuries ago, and from his observations Johannes Kepler ws able to deduce the laws of planetary motion. Isaac Newton built on this to construct the universal laws of (classical) motion, including the law of gravity. All of this was made possible precisely because we can see the behavior of the planets directly. > Galileo, Newton, Kepler, only old theories UNDEMONSTRATED.This is one of the more bizarre statements you have made. The laws of motion, including planetary motion, have been used for centuries to understand and predict the dynamic behavior of macroscopic objects, from bullets to planets. Every satellite in orbit explicitly demonstrates these laws. Many billions of dollars of business each year absolutely rely on them. Dear professor, Cassini made this path www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_cassini_trajectory_02.gif&cap=The
To increase its velocity at 59,250 miles per hour!
>>> But it already went at 101,000 miles per hour: 65,000 (earth velocity) + 36,000 (Cassini's velocity) = 101,000 miles per hourYou still seem to think that you can just point in the direction you want to go, accelerate, and get there in a straight line. That is not possible under the influence of a central force like gravity, any more than it is possible for you to make a tetherball go straight in the direction you strike it. This is not an advanced concept. It is a high-school - actually a grade-school - concept. That you still fail to understand it astonishes me, especially with the explanations and links already provided to you. NASA ENGINEERS DON'T CONSIDER EARTH'S VELOCITY IN THEIR WRONG CALCULATIONS SO THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GO ANYWHERE IN SPACECompletely wrong, and I provided you explicit examples of NASA mission designers using the Earth's velocity in their calculations. I have given you direct counterexamples to your claim, which you have apparently chosen to ignore. That's not surprising; you've ignored everything else we've told you, because you are obviously just here to listen to yourself talk. Of course, those examples are not really necessary to disprove your point. The mere existence of Earth satellites directly contradicts your absurd claim that the principles of orbital motion are "undemonstrated". >>> Who knows, does; who doesn't know, teaches, dear professor.Jay is a practicing engineer. So am I. We know; we do, and we've tried very hard to teach you. But not only can you neither do nor teach, you apparently cannot learn. At all. I didn't think that was possible. You are a troll and a sock-puppet, and I'm through wasting time on you, unknown/pierre/wildbill. I deal with 3- and 5-year-old boys that not only have a better grasp of reality than you, but are better at taking their fingers out of their ears and listening to the grownups. After reading your foolishness this long, I'm convinced that not only could you take lessons from them in dressing yourself, they could probably teach you a thing or two about toilet hygiene as well. Good riddance.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 5, 2005 9:53:40 GMT -4
They didn't go to the moon because rockets can't move backwards braking with their rocket engines. They can move only forward.
But if you turn the spacecraft 180 degrees, backwards becomes forwards. The spacecraft's thrust is applied in whatever direction the spacecraft is pointing, regardless of what direction it's traveling.
They can't go to Mars or Saturn because they have not technology to follow their probes, to see Mars or Saturn relatively to their probes.
Of course we have. You wish to restrict "seeing" to a narrow band of visible light. We use other, more suitable bands of the electromagnetic spectrum that allow us to see farther.
Radio signals from their probes are no use because Earth runs at 65,000 miles per hour and turns around itself at 1000 miles per hour.
So according to that logic you can't read street signs from your car because you're on a moving platform. Solar system navigation is done in a sun-fixed coordinate system in which the motions of the Earth are reckoned and corrected for. Not very hard, really. Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean there aren't those who do.
Even if the Earth was fixed like the sun a radio signal from the infinite 3D space is no use to locate their probes.
Good thing that's not the way we do it then.
Professors like JayUtah can do complex calculations with their pens but they couldn't steer their probes to a target...
That's what the calculations are for. You're really a piece of work, "unknown"/pierre/wildbill. You tell me I'm adept at complex calculations, and then you tell me the problem of space navigation is a complex calculation and therefore impossible.
They are making joke of you...
You're doing quite a good job of making a joke of yourself. I am acquainted with children who can speak more intelligently about space travel than you can.
Dear friend peterb, reason with your head.
You first.
If Cassini already went at 101,000 miles per hour, why all this comedy?
Because, as many people have tried to tell you, space travel is not the simplistic fantasy you make it out to be. And since you've been directed to -- and handily ignored -- many free references to proper science, I cannot believe your condition is a product of misfortune. You are deliberately, wilfully ignorant as you have been in all your other incarnations.
You are a troll, and we won't suffer you.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 5, 2005 11:33:25 GMT -4
Wildbill has been banned.
I want to turn something wildbill said against him:
"Those who can learn, do. Those who can't learn, work at McDonalds."
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 5, 2005 12:08:57 GMT -4
Do they accept applications filled out with crayons?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 5, 2005 12:15:23 GMT -4
Wildbill has been banned. Don't worry, he'll be back. He just has to think up new handle, so we've got few weeks to prepare.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 5, 2005 13:58:09 GMT -4
Then he can talk to himself until he's banned again. Why spend any effort on trying to help a fool who doesn't want to be helped?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 5, 2005 15:13:23 GMT -4
It's worse than that. Not only does he not want to be helped, it seems he's interested in making others just as ignorant as he.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 5, 2005 23:26:34 GMT -4
I think that you'd have to be pretty darn ignorant to start with to actually believe what he says. Anyone with a mere fraction of understnding about the world about them, ie anyone who ever kicked a stone and watched it fly, or threw a cricket/baseball, know's he's spouting rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Aug 6, 2005 10:15:21 GMT -4
I think that you'd have to be pretty darn ignorant to start with to actually believe what he says. Anyone with a mere fraction of understnding about the world about them, ie anyone who ever kicked a stone and watched it fly, or threw a cricket/baseball, know's he's spouting rubbish. Which is why even we who haven't studied orbital mechanics can tell he's spouting rubbish. Also, If any lurkers out there even remotely thought that after reading the first couple posts he was just uninformed and wanted to learn, reading the entire thread pretty much blew that out of the water, too.
|
|
|
Post by Arneb on Aug 6, 2005 17:00:45 GMT -4
Just paying a visit from BABB - I read about 30 % of this thread during a lazy evening with a glass of wine. One question comes to mind: Was this not a textbook example of "feeding the troll"? I am just trying to imagine how much of their valuable time everyone sacrificed to try to educate this guy - although it became clear after pretty much the second post (at the latest) that he wasn't remotely interested in learning anything from it The result was a thread 17 pages long which was fun to read only if you 1. Want to educate yourself about what goes on on bulletin boards (my reason for reading it) or 2. have fun watching people making complete idiots of themselves. Of course it is always good to read Jay Utah's and other people's lucid prose, but it was a bit awkward to see their pearls thrown at the feet of this, um, yeah: ;D ;D ;DTROLL. Or did I miss something?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Aug 6, 2005 18:36:23 GMT -4
Just paying a visit from BABB - I read about 30 % of this thread during a lazy evening with a glass of wine. One question comes to mind: Was this not a textbook example of "feeding the troll"? I am just trying to imagine how much of their valuable time everyone sacrificed to try to educate this guy - although it became clear after pretty much the second post (at the latest) that he wasn't remotely interested in learning anything from it The result was a thread 17 pages long which was fun to read only if you 1. Want to educate yourself about what goes on on bulletin boards (my reason for reading it) or 2. have fun watching people making complete idiots of themselves. Of course it is always good to read Jay Utah's and other people's lucid prose, but it was a bit awkward to see their pearls thrown at the feet of this, um, yeah: ;D ;D ;DTROLL. Or did I miss something? As always, it's not about the troll, it's about the lurkers. What you define as ' feeding the troll' is actually 'educating the lurkers'. If just one person who read the thread but didn't contribute comes away with something, then it is all worth while, IMHO
|
|
|
Post by Arneb on Aug 6, 2005 18:54:12 GMT -4
As always, it's not about the troll, it's about the lurkers. What you define as ' feeding the troll' is actually 'educating the lurkers'. If just one person who read the thread but didn't contribute comes away with something, then it is all worth while, IMHO Yes, I understand that motivation - dreary work though. All the more respect to those who do it!
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Aug 6, 2005 19:12:42 GMT -4
Yes, I understand that motivation - dreary work though. All the more respect to those who do it! I will second that
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 8, 2005 9:12:32 GMT -4
Well let's see, Jay and Bob are both in the areospace industry as proffesinal engineers ... Just to set the record straight, I am not in the aerospace industry. My degree is in civil engineering and I work in the construction industry. Furthermore, although I have B.S. degree and comfortably passed the engineer-in-training examination, I never took the examination to obtain an engineering license, thus I really can't be called a "professional engineer". (A P.E. license is generally unnecessary in the construction business.) My interest in aerospace is only a hobby and I am mostly self-taught in the subjects specific to that branch of engineering. Jay and sts60 are the real aerospace experts among us.
|
|