|
Post by Daggerstab on Jan 31, 2012 5:45:56 GMT -4
Well that was a great load of help! Thank you! It's called "Kerbal Space Program" and it's a load of fun. It has taught me a lot about Orbital Mechanics. Ah, another KSP fan. An early version of the game is available for free download as a demo version. It looks like a sillier, more user-friendly version of Orbiter (Orbiter doesn't have green-skinned bug-eyed astronauts). I recommend at least trying the demo. kerbalspaceprogram.com/Here's a video demonstrating a flight to the Mun: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGd_BFu9e10And yes, it works as a nice introduction/demonstration of orbital mechanics. I laughed the first time I thought "Now I'm going to reach apogee and execute a circularization burn" and it worked.
|
|
|
Numbers
Jul 23, 2011 11:46:39 GMT -4
Post by Daggerstab on Jul 23, 2011 11:46:39 GMT -4
Is this guy related to Dennis Markuze? This posting style is eerily similar.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Apr 22, 2011 7:56:59 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Apr 22, 2011 6:37:03 GMT -4
This reminds me of the webcam feed from the Mt. Wilson fire.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Apr 22, 2011 6:34:55 GMT -4
Here's Amazon's server status page: status.aws.amazon.com/Clicking on the "more" links opens log-like comments. It seems that only a couple of servers are (still?) affected.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Apr 6, 2011 9:59:33 GMT -4
Actually, I recently finished writing an Excel spreadsheet to give me orbital parameters for Nibiru based on selected assumptions. The results can be copied into Stellarium Ostensibly, I wrote it to prove that it would already be naked-eye visible, but it does make for some fun visuals: You know, I actually thought of posting something like this in the Stellarium news feed on 1 April ("Nibiru found! Here are the orbital elements to add to Stellarium!"), but I couldn't be... bothered to think of orbital elements and it was too late in the day anyway. (Of course, I also wasn't sure how the other developers would react.)
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Apr 4, 2011 5:34:24 GMT -4
A Canadian article is making the rounds: It contains its own debunking, so it's not clear why they have framed it that way. (Actually, it's clear, if you are cynical enough. ) The explanation is in the middle of the article, but it seems that a lot of people don't reach it or skip it. (It's really easy to do - I missed it when I skimmed the article for the first time.)
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Feb 20, 2011 10:11:28 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Jan 23, 2011 13:43:39 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Dec 13, 2010 8:28:45 GMT -4
There are several wallpapers on the wikileaks.ch mirror, probably user-donated. This is one of them: wikileaks.ch/img/wallpapers/wall3.jpgLook at the box in the corner bottom. (It looks like the Weighted Companion Cube from Portal, but with a different decal.) The author of the wallpaper probably wanted to put in as many conspiracies as possible, but some people are interpreting it as some kind of hint...
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Dec 9, 2010 5:01:07 GMT -4
I didn't know that Apollo helmets had dramatic internal illumination. Anyway, the sad part is that some people are going to latch on to this movie as some kind of confirmation. Every time a conspiracy theory is mentioned in a work of popular culture, they see it as the author "trying to tell them something", "the elites preparing the sheeple for disclosure" or something like that... Edited to add: I wonder if we are going to see screenshots from this movie as "proof". Has it happened with some other movie?
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Dec 4, 2010 8:54:23 GMT -4
Something closer, er..., further from home: www.google.com/search?q=wikileaks+ufoApparently, someone mentioned UFOs somewhere in the materials that Wikileaks have. As you can see in the search results, the usual suspects are frothing in anticipation.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Nov 25, 2010 4:56:56 GMT -4
Is metapedia for real? I looked at the "moon hoax" article and it appeared to have been written by trained macaques. I've seen better grammar from my ADHD 10 year old. Probably because it was written by a non-native speaker. As I said earlier: Fetzer now has resorted to citing Metapedia's "Moon Hoax" article. I'd love to see someone point out to him the following: - Metapedia is a neo-Nazi site- their Moon Hoax article itself is the creation of "Lucho", former Wikipedia user Luchezar, who inflicts it on every open-access wiki on the Internet that will allow this kind of junk to go unchallenged. A brief glimpse at Lucho's Wikipedia user page will make clear the root reason for his doubt in the Apollo landings. (Hint: Bulgaria's flags no longer feature a prominent red star...) Of course, this doesn't say much the validity of the claims in the article (the generic fallacy, argument ad hominem, etc.), but it's another example of how clueless is Fetzer and how uncritically he will accept a source if it fits his preconceptions. My favourite part of the article is the reference-backed "Dr." in front of Clinton's name.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Nov 17, 2010 13:37:57 GMT -4
Note that in the computer simulations that precede the actual footage, there are stars in the background and visible flames. Reality is unrealistic, as they say in the TVTropes wiki.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Nov 17, 2010 13:09:30 GMT -4
The Planetary Society Blog has a post with 5 videos from the cameras of the Chinese probe Chang'e 2: planetary.org/blog/article/00002774/They show a close-up of the engine bell during orbital maneuvers, with the lunar surface and space as the background. The engine glows red during work, but it doesn't produce any visible exhaust. The background doesn't show any stars.
|
|