|
Post by AtomicDog on Jun 7, 2007 11:53:00 GMT -4
Well, rocky, the viewers seem to be watching and judging...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 7, 2007 12:49:10 GMT -4
popping my forum cherry so be gentle
Hi!
I can't remember specifically but I believe starfish Prime was specifically a test to measure and confirm the Van Allen Belts, as opposed to being a Hi Alt ERRB ABM test.(prob both)
Not really. I've read pretty much everything on Starfish Prime that has been declassified, including the post-mission operational report. There's nothing in there about measuring the Van Allen belts. In fact, nothing about the Van Allen belts at all. If there was any such component to the test, it remains either undiscovered or classified.
Starfish Prime was intended to study whether a nuclear detonation in space could disable an enemy's ground-based radar such that it would no longer be able to see incoming missiles -- defeating the ABM, as you suggest. The theory was that if you exploded a warhead over the Soviet Union, you could shortly thereafter send a salvo of ICBMs while the anti-missile defense were still clouded by EMP. So a series of radar installations was set up across the Pacific and a test tracking target was launched along with the Starfish Prime vehicle and a series of space-base monitors. The data were inconclusive since a number of the space monitors malfunctioned. The ground radar was not sufficiently clouded for long enough to make the scout warhead a viable offensive strategy.
The effect on the Van Allen belt was noted later and measured subsequently, but the lingering effect had not been anticipated. It was not a planned part of the test.
I can't remember if it was Keppler or Newton (I Think probably Keppler) that was a little upset with observed elliptical orbits differing from the common sense view that they should be circular...
Copernicus proposed circular orbits. Kepler originally proposed circular orbits spaced as circumscriptions of nested "perfect" solids building on Copernicus' work, but got pushed by Tycho Brahe in a new and ultimately correct direction that resulted in the three Keplerian laws of elliptical orbits. Newton didn't really enter the picture except to show that Keplerian orbits and Newtonian dynamics were compatible.
I don't think any amount of bribery could have kept the political machine of the USSR silent given the political atmosphere at the time.
A large number of hoax proponents today are younger people who remember only post-glasnost Russia. Their concept of the Cold War is only as two words in their history books, not a cloud hovering over every aspect of life. I grew up in a time when it was a given that the Soviet Union was an evil empire whose quest for world domination would play out as a shower of missiles over the U.S. or tanks rolling across Western Europe.
oh and don't give me that Layman can't understand crap...
I wouldn't be here if I thought that. My whole presence is based on the notion that a layman can learn or be taught what he needs to know, whereupon he becomes a little less lay. What I object to is the idea that a layman's intuition can stand solidly against an expert's knowledge when the expert clearly has a better grasp of a complex situation. The stubborn layman tries to make real-world problems fit his basic knowledge and chalks the discrepancies up to problems in the authenticity of the data. So in that model everything ought to be a matter of "simple" ballistics and "simple" aerodynamics, and if it isn't then it's fake. That appeals to other laymen who appreciate abstract simplicity. But it doesn't appeal to experts who have run up against the limitations of the basic methods.
Anyone who passed basic algebra can solve the simple problem of the trains leaving stations at different speeds and meeting in the middle. Of course that breaks down when you realize that actual trains' respective speeds aren't constant and don't vary according to any purely analytical formula. Yes, the basic math is correct, but it predicts outcome only as far as the underlying assumptions hold -- which they never do for very long.
Real-world guidance deduces location by integrating measured accelerations over very small time intervals, not solving the one simple derived equation once and for all. The basic formula applies over that small time slice as you would expect, but the resulting summation of all the time slices does not also submit to that basic formula.
Similarly the standard ballistic equation predicts the behavior of a dust particle given its departure conditions. But it doesn't predict the aggregate behavior of a cloud of millions of particles whose departure conditions differ. In my work with finite-element methods I routinely see the amazingly complex aggregate effect of millions of little elements, each element behaving according to very simple rules.
If you've experimented with cellular automata (e.g., Conway's game of life) you can see analogous effects: each cell obeys only two or three rules, but the overall effect of thousands of these cells working together creates astounding macro effects. Skilled Conwageans can create communities of cells that propagate themselves in predictable directions and even "shoot" projectiles of cell-propagations. Experts learn under what conditions aggregations of simply-directed constituents don't collectively obey the same simple directives. It's not a violation of any physical law; it's simply the proper application of scope.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 7, 2007 13:42:35 GMT -4
*Strolls in and sups beer*
Not really. I've read pretty much everything on Starfish Prime that has been declassified, including the post-mission operational report. There's nothing in there about measuring the Van Allen belts. In fact, nothing about the Van Allen belts at all. If there was any such component to the test, it remains either undiscovered or classified.
Yup, your right Starfish was a WE (Weapons effect) test for EMP, As was pretty much the whole of the Dominic operation (pretty huge series), The other prime/fishy and Starfish warhead tests, primarily for the Nike series of rockets and dedicated EMP weaps,
it was the earlier Argus tests ('58) used in relation to early satellites (Explorer 4) to help grade the possible effectiveness of an EMP device by measuring magnetic/electron flux/density after establishing a baseline activity of the belts.which I was thinking of., and although an extrapolation of the belt charge density could be extrapolated from the starfish test, if either Altitude or yield where calculated it was not the primary function of the test
The Layman can't understand, was in relation to A certain posters constant requests/comments that if it's too complex and can't understand it is not a proper answer, but wants a full and expert answer,
=^..^=
editted checked which explorer probe it was
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 7, 2007 15:40:16 GMT -4
I'm and "educated" layman...I know enough about some of the space science to recognize the more blatent claims of the HBs, but get lost in many of the more detailed discussions. I can read...I can learn about radiation, flux, density. I know the basics of orbital mechanics, but realize the magic of rendezvous is the result of precise math in the context of understood variables. I know that variances in terrain will affect the appearances of shadows. So many HB claims can be dismissed by just observing the world around you. Others require a small bit of study and research.Then, poof! they're gone. It doesn't take a bona fide rocket scientist to see through the hoax calls and the evasion and deception they are based on. Just a bit knowledge, or willingness to learn just a little something about the topic on which they make outrageous claims, goes a very long way.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 8, 2007 5:41:34 GMT -4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_AnomalyYou're assuming that this is true. How can we verify that this isn't bogus data? There have been so many cases of lies by the government that it would be downright naive to just assume this data is real. What am I supposed to think when I find stuff like this. ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm(excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Herbert Friedman, in his book Sun and Earth, describes Van Allen's global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I, launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief: 'All space must be radioactive!'." Herbert Friedman later explains that "Of all the energy brought to the magnetosphere by the solar wind, only about 0.1 percent manages to cross the magnetic barrier." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All I can say is that you should go back and take a course in logic. There are all kinds of plausible scenarios. Countries can have pacts with each other. Countries can bribe and blackmail each other. The press in one country can lie about what the press in another country says and the people never know the difference. Anything that has multiple plausible explanations is not proof. They'd laugh you out of the debating hall. You're missing the whole point. What's in peer-reviewed journals and science textbooks is part of the data that are allegedly bogus. There are lots of things that come to my mind when I read this. Maybe you didn't really try to contact him. Maybe you really did but he considers you to be a government plant who doesn't even believe his own arguments and doesn't want to take the time. Maybe he thinks the same thing--that all those people are government public relations people and he doesn't want to take the time. I've seen some pretty lame explanations for things by the so-called experts on this forum. This is part of the data that is allegedly bogus. Presenting the allegedly bogus data as evidence that it is not bogus doesn't prove anything. This is really pretty basic. It would be easy for the government to select a group of peers who have sold out. I've given example of that at the risk of being banned. Any data that the government makes public may or may not be bogus. The government releases bogus information all the time. No conclusions can be formed based on any data released by the government.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 8, 2007 6:36:17 GMT -4
It would be easy for the government to select a group of peers who have sold out. I've given example of that at the risk of being banned. Any data that the government makes public may or may not be bogus. The government releases bogus information all the time. No conclusions can be formed based on any data released by the government. Rocky who is The Government in question?, the US Government, The Politburo, The Seat of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg perhaps. which government of which country is bribing all of the worlds academics to agree with the line towed, even though this may compromise their research / project / reputation.? All data is open to inspection, the data in question to do with the VAB can be independentally verified, remember other countries were in space and are now in space, this IS a very important fact, this allows independant review. You also have to remember that the other Space Agency at the time was controlled by a government Hostile to the US.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 8, 2007 7:02:41 GMT -4
You're assuming that this is true. How can we verify that this isn't bogus data? How can we verify that your data isn't bogus? What is your source that space radiation is impassibly fatal to humans? What is your source that there even is any radiation in space? rocky, I sincerely hope you someday find yourself wrongfully accused of a felony, facing a jury of people exactly like yourself who are perfectly willing to accept "plausible scenario" in place of actual evidence of guilt. [emphasis mine] "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is accused of a heinous crime. The prosecution rests."
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 8, 2007 7:24:00 GMT -4
The large majority of dangerous radiation within the vicinity of the Earth and Moon comes from our own sun. Our sun and its processes is studied carefully and at great depth by a large number of scientists. A surprising amount of detail on what happens within the sun and what influence that has on space weather is known and talked about by people down to the college undergrad and interested amateur level. Same goes for our own magnetic field and its part in space weather; the Van Allen belts, after all, were not first observed but in fact _predicted_ from purely terrestrial understanding.
NASA, or whatever nefarious Ministry of Truth you want to name, can do what they like with the hard data about the actual space environment. That's just detail. The magnitude of the radiation hazards is calculable from other data. Other data which has dang-all to do with probes into the Van Allen Belts.
This isn't like, say, fourteenth-century nautical exploration, where a small continent could be known in detail only to a select few (that is, excepting the current inhabitants). This is more like someone standing in a public square in Florence and shouting that he knows what happens if you drop two objects of roughly the same shape and size but of different weights. He can should all he likes, and he might be the only person who actually hopped over to Pisa and borrowed the Campagnile for a demonstration, but any person in the crowd can check his assertion with whatever cannonball and cantelope they might have at hand.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jun 8, 2007 8:09:06 GMT -4
How can you debate somebody who waves off any data that could possibly contradict his position as 'could be bogus'?
Talk about a sure-fire way to, at least in ones own mind, never loose a debate.
Rocky, this point has been brought up to you, but It warrants repeating; if any data can potentially be bogus, how exactly do you decide which data to accept as legitimate?
My thought is that your one criterion for accepting information as legitimate is if you agree with it. If that's the case, you are pretty much a dud as an investigator.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Jun 8, 2007 8:20:23 GMT -4
What am I supposed to think when I find stuff like this. I think you have got the punctuation wrong. This should read: Then the correct answer becomes, "yes you are."
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 8, 2007 8:48:14 GMT -4
What am I supposed to think when I find stuff like this. I think you have got the punctuation wrong. This should read: Then the correct answer becomes, "yes you are." I Office LOL'd --- HBs & CTs might want to read the following little study guide www.studygs.net/scimethod.htmand maybe they could apply it when producing/countering evidence. I Think I will turn it into a video and YT it, (Is it just me that uses You Tube! as a comment to a person that has just been a twunt )
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 8, 2007 8:59:05 GMT -4
Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect. And what level was the instrument designed to detect? Without numbers the statement means very little. No, YOU are missing the point. If the data are bogus, we learn the bogus data, we build things to the bogus data, then we send them up and reality laughs in our face and kills our satellites. You can write what you like, have pacts, bribe, blackmail, obfuscate and talk total nonsense, but it WILL NOT CHANGE THE REALITY OF THE UNIVERSE. Maybe you have evidence for those suggestions? Maybe you are in the employ of a jealous rival power trying to spread lies and innuendo to undermine the US government. Maybe you have a grudge against someone in NASA so you're trying to make them look bad. Maybe you are actually a quadruplegic dwarf who types with his nose. All of those are plausible suggestions. I'd say the most likely is that you are yanking our chains and really have no clue what you are talking about. You constantly change horses so that no-one can ever prove you wrong in argument, and you constantly refuse to do any experiments that would prove you wrong in reality. You're a waste of time and space. I think we can safely dismiss your dismissal, given your own ADMITTED limited understanding of science. So what, EXACTLY are your selection criteria for deciding what is real and what is bogus? You'll no doubt handwave away that argument, but whatever you say it is clearly written in your own posts that you expect ludicrous standards of proof from us but accept conspiracy theory writings without question. How long until you accuse someone here of editing your posts so they say things you never said?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 8, 2007 10:13:07 GMT -4
I will never understand why HB's don't get it. NASA can not lie about the Van Allen radiation because they can't control it. They might get away with it for a little while, but only until someone else studies the radiation for themselves.
I've used this analogy before, but maybe Rocky missed it:
NASA lying about the VAB is like me lying to you about the weather outside today. If I told you that it was raining outside all you would have to do to verify it is look out the window. If I was lying I would be caught.
Likewise, if NASA lied about the VAB then it would only be a matter of time before someone verified it. Maybe it happens 40 years later... the result is the same, the hoax is exposed and the US government is embarrassed. So why would NASA lie about something they can't control or hide? Why fake the Moon landings if they are going to get caught?
So either NASA is telling the truth and the VAB is safe to pass through, or they are really stupid and lied about something they can't lie about.
You don't even need to know anything about radiation to know it doesn't make sense logically, and the fact that Rocky doesn't get it is all the proof I need to know he just doesn't use logic.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 8, 2007 10:13:24 GMT -4
You're assuming that this is true. How can we verify that this isn't bogus data?
Because the data are given in rebuttal of your claims and have been verified by others. If you intend to refute that rebuttal by saying that the data are false, and to further refute it by saying all those who say they've verified it are also false, and that any number of subsequent verifications must also be false, then that constitutes an affirmative rebuttal for which you have the burden of proof.
Since you refuse to accept any burden of proof, much less satisfy one on this point, then no on is under any obligation to accept your counterclaims as anything but wishful thinking.
What am I supposed to think when I find stuff like this.
There's no evidence that you do any thinking when you read.
All I can say is that you should go back and take a course in logic.
LOL! I've taught courses in logic at the college level. Once again, on that subject as well, you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
There are all kinds of plausible scenarios.
And the whole technique of induction exists to weigh the relative plausibility of each one against its peers and accept only the most plausible as the prevailing conclusion.
You say there is radiation in space that is too harsh to allow travel to the moon. When told of all the data that your claim doesn't explain, you simply wave that away saying it "must" be fake. No evidence given.
You say there must be (somewhere) another set of data that's the real data, and that's the data you believe supports your claim of harsh radiation. Again, no evidence of that counterclaim either.
When confronted with hundreds of instances where those public data have been tested and verified correct in international commerce, you continue your handwaving and say that all those tests "must" be fake as well, and the testers "must" be in cahoots with the government. No evidence of that counterclaim given either.
When the prima facie unlikelihood of that situation is pointed out, all you can do is continue to wave your hands wildly and assert that we have to consider it because it's not completely impossible. Yet you provide absolutely no evidence in favor of any of these alternate scenarios over the prevailing one.
Your counterclaims unequivocally fail inductive scrutiny and are thus dismissed.
Anything that has multiple plausible explanations is not proof. They'd laugh you out of the debating hall.
No, they'd correctly label your argument as denial of induction, begging the question, and sheer straw-grasping and laugh you out of the debating hall. As I'm doing.
You're making the common beginner's mistake of shifting the burden of proof. You don't get to pick an alternative at random and hold it up as the default or presumptive conclusion when all others fail. You don't get to identify the abstract possibility of other alternatives as an argument that the one most supported by evidence is not credible.
What's in peer-reviewed journals and science textbooks is part of the data that are allegedly bogus.
More wishful thinking.
There are lots of things that come to my mind when I read this [regarding David Wozney]. Maybe...
More wishful thinking. My rebuttal to the most egregious of his ignorant claims about radiation has been published since 2002. If you can get him to answer those, be my guest.
But I do not accept David Wozney as an expert on anything and I've given reasons why.
Maybe he [Eric Hufschmid] thinks the same thing...
Or maybe I've had conversations with Eric Hufschmid myself and seen the ways in which he tries to weasel out of having his claims examined by qualified persons.
Oh, he tried to defend his Apollo claims for a bit. But after it became obvious that he didn't stand a chance against actually-qualified people, he tried the same desperate litmus-test approach you did and then ran away to hide.
What did you do to verify that Eric Hufschmid was any kind of expert before you cited him?
I've been following this topic for many years, Rocky. There's hardly an author you can quote in favor of the hoax theory whose writings I have not thoroughly examined and answered. So be forewarned that I will require you to investigate the expertise and credentials of every source you cite, because I already have.
I've seen some pretty lame explanations for things by the so-called experts on this forum.
All stuff that you admit you're too ignorant too judge for yourself, so you're waiting for some never-gonna-happen "third party" to settle the question. Either argue the points or don't. But quit casting aspersions you don't intent to support and admit you can't.
Presenting the allegedly bogus data as evidence that it is not bogus doesn't prove anything. This is really pretty basic.
Hogwash.
You're using "That's allegedly bogus" as your Get Out of Jail Free card. Any evidence anyone provides that challenges your belief is simply met with your denial.
You make a claim. We say, "Here is Evidence A that suggests your claim is false." You answer, "That's allegedly bogus. How will you prove that it's true?"
So then we say, "Here's Evidence B that suggests Evidence A is true." And you answer, "That's allegedly bogus too. You need to prove that it's true."
So we say, "Here's Evidence C that supports evidence B." And predictably you say, "No, that could be bogus too. You need to stop giving evidence that might be bogus."
Do you see the pattern? There's only one side of the debate actually providing evidence. The other side (you) simply refuses to acknowledge it. You just expand your unsupported, delusional counterclaim as necessary to encompass it and dismiss it.
Got news for you: if your answer to evidence is that the evidence is bogus, you have the burden to prove it's bogus. And that burden is most certainly not satisfied in the least by empty handwaving assertions that it's "not impossible" for it to be bogus.
Any data that the government makes public may or may not be bogus.
Ad hominem. When the data purport to be about the physical world, the truth of them lies in the data, not in who has released them.
The same then could be said for conspiracy theorists: any data they make public could also be bogus. And those of us who have tested that data and found it to be bogus demand that you do the same before citing it here as evidence.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 8, 2007 11:00:52 GMT -4
rocky is in his own little world, where there are no physical laws, and governments determine everything...knowledge, science, the whole order of the universe. I guess my question would be, what was the radiation environment in space 100,000 years ago, before the governments started meddling with reality?
Why do airplanes have flaps, rocky? Because of some bogus world government aerodynamic data that says they should?
|
|