|
Post by gwiz on Nov 23, 2005 7:43:27 GMT -4
IIRC, Voyager 1 may be behaving a little oddly, but that is speeding up, not slowing down. No, it was Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, and they are slowing down. The effect is very small, less than a billionth of a g, and can't be detected on Voyager because of the small velocity changes produced during attitude control manoeuvres which swamp the effect. This wasn't a problem on the Pioneers as they were spin-stabilised.
|
|
|
Post by Van Rijn on Nov 23, 2005 7:48:19 GMT -4
You'll have to ask Sibrel. What I am saying is that there are leading scientists, according to him, who dismiss the issue. I'll contact him about that. And you believe him ... why? Look, you obviously aren't going to listen to us, so why don't you do a little research yourself. I suggest you look up actual research on the Van Allen belts, and precautions taken, and see if it matches what Sibrel says. Or are you unable to do the research?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 23, 2005 7:51:37 GMT -4
No, it was Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, and they are slowing down. The effect is very small, less than a billionth of a g, and can't be detected on Voyager because of the small velocity changes produced during attitude control manoeuvres which swamp the effect. This wasn't a problem on the Pioneers as they were spin-stabilised. OK, thanks for that: memory updated accordingly ;D
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 23, 2005 7:53:18 GMT -4
this is what the theory says, that you don't need to put more power, but it is wrong, according to Rob Moore. The real clincher that orbital mechanics works as advertised is surely the recent Deep Impact mission to Comet Temple 1. You might convince people that the pictures from other probes are faked, but pretty well every astronomical observatory in the comet-facing hemisphere of the world saw the impact occur right on schedule.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 23, 2005 8:12:19 GMT -4
more from Sibrel: "Then I came upon a highly credible source, in his late seventies, who I verified worked for the space program during the 1960s. He asserted, most confidently, that the Apollo moon landings were first, impossible, and second, falsified as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into thinking the United States had greater capability than it really did." yahooooooooooo Sibrel has one anonymous source, and Sibrel doesn't have a good track record of telling the truth. We have, apart from NASA and the US government who you don't believe, the following international witnesses to the truth of Apollo. 1. The geologists who examined the moon rocks, showed them to be not only different form any earth rock, but also impossible to manufacture on Earth. 2. The communications engineers who pointed their antennae at the moon and heard the Apollo transmissions. 3. Astronomers who observed propulsion events and the Apollo 13 debris cloud, right where they should have been for objects on lunar trajectories. 4. Astronomers who bounced laser beams off reflectors deployed on the lunar surface at the Apollo landing sites. In addition, several of us are non-US engineers, we know how space vehicles work, and we have no problem believing that the Apollo hardware was capable of doing the job.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 23, 2005 8:16:04 GMT -4
You'll have to ask Sibrel. What I am saying is that there are leading scientists, according to him, who dismiss the issue. I'll contact him about that. And you believe him ... why? Look, you obviously aren't going to listen to us, so why don't you do a little research yourself. I suggest you look up actual research on the Van Allen belts, and precautions taken, and see if it matches what Sibrel says. Or are you unable to do the research? I am not qualified to judge scientific info, but wsent email to Sibrel to furthr querry about what he says. I will be listening to what you say, but will most probably discuss the issues with Drs. here at the university. Having said this, I leave you to debate the issues, but be assured not to give absurd answers as criminals do when answering detectives questions whereby they give possible scenarios, but very absurd ones, which lead later on to their arrest. Goodbye for ever
|
|
|
Post by Stout Cortez on Nov 23, 2005 8:55:37 GMT -4
"Goodbye for evrer"? Isn't that a little, I don't know, melodramatic for a discussion of science?
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Nov 23, 2005 9:04:52 GMT -4
more from Sibrel: "Then I came upon a highly credible source, in his late seventies, who I verified worked for the space program during the 1960s. He asserted, most confidently, that the Apollo moon landings were first, impossible, and second, falsified as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into thinking the United States had greater capability than it really did." yahooooooooooo Probably a relative of Una Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 23, 2005 10:31:40 GMT -4
Ah great, rob Moore, is very idiotic and dumb. He understands nothing about physics,If "Rob Moore" even exists, he has little grasp of physics. That's evident from his patently false claim that there's a "belt of resistance" which slows escaping space vehicles down at some great rate, and the implied statement that rockets need to keep thrusting to maintain their speed in free-fall. The former is directly contradicted by observation of a large number of spacecraft which have left Earth on an escape trajectory - spacecraft built and launched by a number of nations. The latter is a failure to grasp elementary-school physics. that is why he was hired by NASA. So we are told, but what evidence do you have that this person even exists, let alone worked for NASA? What he said, and was confirmed again by another edited, top-secretive governmental project, "Confirmed?" Where is the evidence that such a report existed? Oh, and now it's not "confidential", it's "top-secretive" [sic]. ...is stupid. A straight A student who ws hired by NASA Where did he go to school, and when? And again, when did this person work for NASA, and in what capacity? knows nothing about theories and their practicalities.Correct; see above. Just you guys, you know everything.No, certainly not. But any reasonably educated layman can debunk the claims discussed earlier. The man who says important encounters with important ppl, is obviously lying according to you, The physics in the claims contradict reality. There is no reason to believe that the rest of it is not made up as well. Certainly there is no evidence for any of it, just third-hand storytelling. or what he has been told by his friend is false, which means that NASA hires unprofessional ppl and come to them to have their projects done. You can believe your dreams that the man is lying, never heard anything about that from Rob, never watched the top-secretive project, never read th confidential report that states as I remember that the earthorbiting is the only true project, being confirmed by another presentation as I said...How about some evidence that the friend existed, that "Rob Moore" who worked for NASA existed, that the "top-secretive" project existed? All we have so far is third-hand storytelling. I can make up any fantastic story I want. Did you know that Rob Moore was actually a CIA plant meant to discredit hoax believers? just you don't make sense to me.The claims in the story make no sense. They contradict observed reality. Did you know the Japanese just landed a spacecraft on an asteroid? That would not have been possible if the "Rob Moore" story was true. No, things that are hidden and admitted hold lots of weight, I'm sorry. No. They hold no weight whatsoever; it's just third-hand hearsay without any evidence to back it up. This man is King Witness, if you want to go into detective work.You're the one relating the fantastic story; you do the detective work if you want us to take it seriously. perhaps I am not competent to answer the questions you raise, I am not Rob Moore, but that author has really brought something important to me. It's made up. Why in the world would you give any weight to a story with absolutely no corroboration? Speaking to fanatical ppl is really pointless.Yep. But we keep trying because there are people who learn something from such threads.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 23, 2005 10:39:29 GMT -4
You'll have to ask Sibrel.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Sibrel, the guy who keeps lying to astronauts to trick them into ambush "interviews"? The part-time cameraman who was fired from his job for lying about his credentials? The guy who knows less about spaceflight than my dog?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
more from Sibrel: "Then I came upon a highly credible source, in his late seventies, who I verified worked for the space program during the 1960s. He asserted, most confidently, that the Apollo moon landings were first, impossible, and second, falsified as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into thinking the United States had greater capability than it really did."
Absolute made-up bulls**t. Why do you keep treating third-hand stories as evidence? Or are you just yanking our chain?
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 23, 2005 12:24:13 GMT -4
LotR, I'm curious. You pull up "credible witnesses" and "experts" a lot, even when they're extremely dubious, controversial, and often act the exact opposite of what they claim (I.E., not having the basic knowledge needed for their credentials).
Yet, in our argument about homosexuality leading to crime, you posted up a lot of surveys, done supposedly by credible studies (which I doubt, but that's a topic reserved for that argument, not this one).
Here's a question: Why is it when all the physicists, all the engineers, all the geologists, all the telemetry experts, and all the astronomers tell you that the Moon Landings were real, you immediately disbelieve them...
Just to pull up an "expert" you found online, that has very shakey credentials, and then pull up an "anonymous expert" that Sibrel "talked to", when Sibrel is obviously incredibly biased on the subject, even to the point of harrassment on his part?
Why would the latter have more weight than the former? That's what I'm really curious about.
|
|
politik
Venus
on a crusade against ignorance
Posts: 83
|
Post by politik on Nov 23, 2005 12:44:29 GMT -4
You'll have to ask Sibrel. What I am saying is that there are leading scientists, according to him, who dismiss the issue. I'll contact him about that. I e-mailed Sibrel myself. The guy is a certifiable moron. He thinks that just cause my stop watch has more computing power than the LM, then the LM couldn't have done its job. What is he gonna say in another 40 years when my stopwatch has more computing power than Shuttle has? Is that gonna be a hoax then too? His current webpage is making a direct comparison of the Apollo program to the Shuttle. His claim is that since the Shuttle is so unreliable, has killed over a dozen people, and can't break earth orbit, then a craft built before the Shuttle should not be capable of going to the moon. If you want to put your faith into someone who is as logical as a 3 year old, go right ahead. You needn't continue arguing with us anymore. You are a classic HB who has his mind made up that Apollo was faked. You will blindly accept anybody and any story that supports your beliefs, no matter how absurd.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 23, 2005 12:51:32 GMT -4
I guess LOTR is gone now. Did she ever say what university she goes to and what her major was?
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 23, 2005 13:05:50 GMT -4
<LOTR> I have evidence the moon landings were faked!
<Us> OKay... what've you got?
<LOTR> I listen to SIbrel and strange websites!
<Us> Okay... this is why the strange websites and Sibrel aren't trustworthy...
<LOTR> But they claim to have credentials!
<Us> This is why the credentials are wrong...
<LOTR> Fine! *Gone!*
Seriously, I find the whole thing amusing. I kinda wish I could turn LOTR to the logical side, but oh well.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 23, 2005 13:20:19 GMT -4
Ah great, rob Moore, is very idiotic and dumb.
Yes.
He understands nothing about physics, that is why he was hired by NASA.
There is no evidence any "Rob Moore" even exists. You simply have a third-hand story with no way to verify it. And the original reporter of it has recanted.
What he said, and was confirmed again by another edited, top-secretive governmental project...
There is no evidence any such report exists. You simply have a third-hand story that is demonstrably wrong on what facts it reports, and there is no way to verify it.
Nearly every conspiracy theorist claims there is a top-secret report that confirms his story, but only he has been allowed to see it and it obviously cannot be produced now. Don't you see through that obvious fraud? Documentary evidence has value only if it can be produced and examined. The only reason these proponents say the alleged report is "top secret" is so that they have an excuse not to be able to produce it for critics to see!
You are ultimately gullible. A snake-oil salesman could make a mint off you.
A straight A student who ws hired by NASA knows nothing about theories and their practicalities.
You don't seem to understand just how wrong "Rob Moore" is. He can't even get right the facts that are common knowledge and were widely reported by news agencies. I gave you an example of just such a fact. He can't even get basic orbital mechanics right.
Just you guys, you know everything.
I make no claim to know "everything". But I do know a considerable amount regarding space engineering and the historical facts regarding Apollo. That is enough to determine that "Rob Moore" is full of nonsense. One doesn't actually need to know much about Apollo to see where his historical claims (e.g., regarding splashdown) are entirely ignorant.
The man who says important encounters with important ppl, is obviously lying according to you...
He claims to have had encounters with important people. He claims to have been told by a scientist that the moon landings were false. He claims to have seen a top-secret report that corroborates all of this. And all these claims are made under the color of his devotion to a religion that mandates as a matter of doctrine that moon landings are impossible. To top it all off, we have a recantation that admits these were foolish, youthful beliefs.
You are simply unable to distinguish between a claim and a fact, and you are selective in what claims you pay attention to.
You can believe your dreams that the man is lying...
It is no dream. I know for a fact that he is lying -- if he even exists -- because I have eyewitness and documentary evidence that contradicts his story. Either all that evidence is wrong, or "Rob Moore" is wrong. And since the original reporter of "Rob Moore's" story has actually disavowed it, I think it's clear which story has no credibility.
...just you don't make sense to me.
That's because you apparently aren't used to thinking critically. You can't expect people to accept your beliefs until you can demonstrate that you have tested them critically yourself.
No, things that are hidden and admitted hold lots of weight, I'm sorry.
LOL! You put ultimate faith in a third-hand claim that has serious factual errors in it. Yet when that same claimant withdraws his claim, you simply ignore that part. You selectively accept evidence based on whether it agrees with what you have already decided to believe.
This man is King Witness, if you want to go into detective work.
I do detective work, albeit of the technical variety.
Your "witness" has a third-hand claim with serious factual errors and a later disavowal. It is not even admissible in court. If, by some miracle he were admitted into testimony, he would be opposing counsel's dream witness. Cross-examination would take roughly 30 seconds.
perhaps I am not competent to answer the questions you raise...
The perhaps you should consider the possibility that I'm right.
I am not Rob Moore...
You don't have to be Rob Moore to assess his credibility.
...but that author has really brought something important to me.
Yes, a straw to cling to in order to support your predetermine conclusion.
Speaking to fanatical ppl is really pointless.
Yes. You are fanatical in your belief of "Rob Moore" and you are unwilling to examine his claims critically.
|
|