Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by nonhocapito » Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:36 am

alex_ro wrote:
nonhocapito wrote:It's a pity the picture does not include the giant coffee table the earth is sitting on
That was completely uncalled for. Like Heiwa, you only show your ignorance.

People believing in the flatness of the Earth were always a minority. But you were brainwashed by atheists to think that science have always made progress. So that the ancients were fools and you are smart.

So in your view, Socrates and Plato SHOULDN'T be studied. And Euclid's geometry should be trashed away. Along with Pythagoras et al. Right?

Of course, you would have to also trash away ALL THE THINGS IN THE WORLD (incl. your iPod and iPhone and your home), but you wouldn’t mind, would you?

After all, those ancient guys were so primitive. We should finally get rid of them, right?

So unevolved… Enough to make pyramids that no one today can replicate.

...

You are so deep in Plato’s cave that you don’t even realise…

Of course, as admin, you have the capability to ban me. But that wouldn’t make you right. That would only prove you wrong.
Alex_ro. First of all: calm down.
You are putting words into people's mouths and I don't like it one bit.
You are obviously NOT familiar with this forum and its members so you just assume that your interlocutors are all the same individual with the same ideas you dislike so much. This isn't helping.

You should know that all your arguments are deeply flawed and partial, because such is as the nature of metaphysical arguments. They are all flawed and yours aren't an exception.
So how about some humility and humor? You should know that your position is just as nonsensical as the one of those who argue that science has an answer for everything.
Besides your arguments are really more commonplaces than anything else.

As I stated previously, none of the proposed explanations for the nature of the universe and of life makes any sense. They all go beyond the realm of our experience and personally I refuse to get enamored with one or the other.

But you want to be concerned with logic. I posted a picture with two sentences and you figured all sorts of conclusions from those. So, I'll ask you, in homage to logic: where would the "flat earth" be sitting on? And what sort of force would keep the astral bodies spinning around it?

Cosmicdrum
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:08 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by Cosmicdrum » Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:18 am

I don't think its sensible to completely shackle yourself to one paradigm or another. I went through a phase after Catholic school of hating and rubbishing religion, years later I see its natural place in the evolution of knowledge and understanding our place in the universe. I love the electric universe, got to it through black hole research and it makes a lot of sense but doesn't preclude a many billion year old cosmos. Gravity annoys me, I don't believe it has a graviton and It would appear we need to rethink that whole area. Whilst the bible has a lot of useful points and insights, it has unarguably led to the death and subjegation of millions over the years, so is rubbish.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6943
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:49 am

alex_ro wrote:
Of course they did. They still do. By their calendar it's about year 5800. About 2 centuries until the end of the world.

However, I would rather estimate (I have reasons for this) that it's 2 decades or even less. Until all the clocks in the world will stop. Forever.
Well, I'll predict that your time on this forum will stop in approximately 2 seconds.
If you turn out to be right, enjoy your armageddon party and send me the bill - drinks will be on me, for being wrong ! <_<

(Any complaints about me refusing to discuss a "less than 6000-year-old universe" can be mailed to simonshack@libero.it )

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:30 am

I just wanted to point out that, being someone who has physically traveled by airplane somewhat, I can state that the Earth appears to be round, that it does behave as if there were only one sun and that it does appear to be in one position at a time. This indicates to me that we are on a sphere, and not a "bowl".

Numerous other observations can be made to support this, so please enough with the "Earth is not round" stuff. Let's please move on from this elementary stuff.

If we are going to debunk NASA's science, we have to be on the same page about what is and is not real. Can we please all agree that the Earth is round?

Andrew1484
Banned
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by Andrew1484 » Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:00 am

fbenario wrote: Andrew, since Hoi wants this thread to return to its central theses on the solar system, planets, NASA, and the earth, please quote the entirety of this post of mine as part of your response; then make that forthcoming response of yours on this issue the very first post in a new thread called something like 'The Problems With Historical Dating Methods'.
The Problems With Historical Dating Methods
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1446

scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by scud » Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:55 pm

A quick re-cap concerning temperature of the higher realms of Earth’s atmosphere.

Here’s NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory citing verbatim the line seen over and over again from every site on the net concerning this subject... “Within the thermosphere temperatures rise continually to well beyond 1000 degrees C. The few molecules that are present in the thermosphere receive extraordinary amounts of energy from the Sun, causing the layer to warm to such high temperatures. Although the measured temperature is very hot, the thermosphere would actually feel very cold to us because the total energy of only a few air molecules residing there would not be enough to transfer any appreciable heat to our skin.”

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/maps/satellite ... re_layers/

So there you have it folks, straight from the horses mouth. The rarified atmosphere at these altitudes (where we are told that the majority of man-made satellites reside) is heated by extraordinary amounts of energy from the Sun. Well blow me down with a feather...you don’t say!
Now, if anyone would like to proffer up a reasonable explanation of why this same power source would not heat up, for example an aluminium can, laden with sensitive communications gear to precisely the same, ambient temperatures (other than JPL’s preposterously contradictory claim) I’d be most interested to hear.

Heiwa. I look forward to your analysis. I’ve the greatest respect for your research into the more physical aspects of SC but you’ve swerved on this one and its a fundamental issue because if there isn’t a satisfactory answer then we know that the worlds ‘space programs’ of any nature are false without any further too-do.

Seems that a new ‘geocentric’ site has emerged since I’ve been on hols... http://earth-central.weebly.com/index.html
Not much new here and as usual the authors claim the same and rather tedious religious bent but I’d recommend a gander as it’s relatively short and easily understood, particularly with regards to Earth’s supposed rotation. Remember, if we are not spinning (and evidence to my mind at least, stacks firmly in favour that we’re not) then, well, that carries the rather huge implications as already discussed.
Whilst you’re at it, be sure to check out the link contained within... http://www.space.com/15048-astronaut-ph ... ation.html ‘Star trails captured by astronaut Don Pettit’ whilst cruising around the world aboard the ISS.

Image

Besides these ‘photo’s’ looking absurdly cartoony there are two factors here that should also ding a few bells. Firstly, What?! Stars?! and bright enough too, to compile a time lapse. As has been pointed out numerous times here at SC, NASA don’t usually ‘do stars’ so what’s up? (my guess, is that because this is as titled, they’re not so worried about amateur astronomers pointing out pesky mistakes in positioning of the constellations).
Secondly, if ISS is whizzing around Earth once every 90 mins or so why would Don’s camera record such perfectly concentric circles?

They haven’t thought about this one much, have they.

Here’s Don...

Image

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/pettit.html

Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by Heiwa » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:23 pm

scud wrote:Heiwa. I look forward to your analysis. I’ve the greatest respect for your research into the more physical aspects of SC but you’ve swerved on this one and its a fundamental issue because if there isn’t a satisfactory answer then we know that the worlds ‘space programs’ of any nature are false without any further too-do.
Compare a car in sun shine. It heats up inside! And cools down, when in the shade. But a black car heats up more than a white and, if the aircon is running, it is OK inside, etc. I doubt the car will melt like ice cream in the sun. I doubt it will heat up to a 1000°C. The Moon doesn't melt in the sun, etc. :)

scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by scud » Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:25 am

Hi Heiwa.

Ok, but obviously I’m not talking about a ‘car’ sitting on a parking lot under the protection of hundreds of miles of complex and constantly renewed atmosphere. I’m talking about a ‘car’ that’s been elevated beyond this insulating, protective barrier where general consensus of opinion, including NASA’s (we’ll have to leave it that) says that temperatures (for obvious reasons) are much, much higher than they are below said insulating blanket.

‘The Moon doesn’t melt in the Sun etc’. Yes I know this and did touch on the subject in my original post.
Foremost, the Moon is somewhat larger than any effort we’ve supposedly sent into orbit or on interplanetary missions, meaning that it has a volume and mass observably able to cope with the incoming electromagnetic radiation from the Sun by means of conduction away from its surface and re-radiation in equilibrium during the lunar night.
As we all know, once a month the Moon is ‘Full’ but also once a month, the Moon is ‘New’ (a game of precisely two halves) where It shows only one face to the Sun from any vantage point on Earth (heliocentric reasoning for this is that it rotates in perfect, synchronous harmony with Earth. Geocentric reasoning is that like us, it doesn’t rotate. You be the judge as to which of these scenarios is most likely).
That’s my best guess as to why it doesn’t melt, however I’d also hazard a guess that during the lunar day, surface temps would be way beyond the currently accepted 105 - 116 degrees C. See, I’m not aware that we have the tech’ to accurately measure this through our atmosphere :)



Going back to Earth’s thermosphere (a general term which encompasses the ionosphere and exosphere) another point of interest is that out of direct sunlight, temperatures do not drop off as markedly as one might expect but rather dip only by a couple of hundred degrees or so. Meaning that for any object within our proximity to the Sun there’s not a great deal of respite from hostilities.

So again, how does say, a soldered circuit board or an aluminium panel within this sort of environment survive for years on end?

Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by Heiwa » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:14 pm

Hi scud,

The Sun is just like a fire. If you are close, you burn, if you are far away you freeze. Planet Earth seems to be at the right distance from the Sun to neither burn nor freeze. I assume the same applies to any objects orbiting Earth. But I am not up there orbiting Earth, so I do not know.
Planet Mercury close to the Sun seems to be a very hot place. I don't know really, haven't been there. Planet Venus further away is also quite hot according to experts of Venus.
Planet Mars further away from the Sun than Earth is a very cold place according to thermometers that NASA has landed there. It is possible but I seriously doubt NASA has managed to to land anything on planet Mars. Or on the Moon. Or on planet Earth.

But the Universe is there. I am quite certain. Maybe I am at it's centre? :P

Frost
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:42 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by Frost » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:35 pm

Image
http://laughingsquid.com/beautiful-phot ... n-outback/

This photo was taken by long exposure in Australia.It does look cartoony, but it may be real Scud.( maybe not, who knows? ) We've got same colours in a space :D

Image Obviously the star trials can't be in circles if picture is made from ISS. Nasa have also( on the same site) some looking correctly from logical point of view.

Image

I'm trying to imagine these photos as the last one made from the front window and the other from the side one. Like in the car. Still doesn't work does it? The trials would be round, but rather horizontal I think.

I really enjoy reading your posts Scud. Visit us more often please!

agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by agraposo » Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:32 pm

scud wrote: Seems that a new ‘geocentric’ site has emerged since I’ve been on hols... http://earth-central.weebly.com/index.html
Not much new here and as usual the authors claim the same and rather tedious religious bent but I’d recommend a gander as it’s relatively short and easily understood, particularly with regards to Earth’s supposed rotation. Remember, if we are not spinning (and evidence to my mind at least, stacks firmly in favour that we’re not) then, well, that carries the rather huge implications as already discussed.
:lol: Easily understood indeed, that this is complete bullshit.
So this is the "proof" that the Earth is not moving, because we don't see the stars changing their apparent relative distances. :lol:

Image

Another "proof" is that there are no 1670 km/h winds at the equator, because the earth and the surrounding air cannot travel at the same speed, so the earth doesn't move. QED. Fantastic reasoning!

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Nov 23, 2012 1:02 am

I agree. A 100,000 km difference in perspective is a drop in the ocean compared to the distances from our star to the other stars. No need for a biblical 'firmament' - the distances are so vast that the perspective just doesn't change much. Although, over many millions of years, we apparently do orbit the milky way's galactic center.

It is very interesting to think about the tilt of the Earth affecting the angles that we view the stars, but I suppose that's why we have zodiac diviners and all ... haha!

scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by scud » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:07 am

Hello Frost.

Yep, the images are wrong on several counts as is the misguided excitement of the blokes responsible for the ‘Geocentric’ link I posted, as the only way that Don Pettit could have recorded what’s shown would be for the ISS to have slammed on the brakes and come to a complete stop relative to Earth’s surface (whether or not the solar system be ‘Heliocentric’ or ‘Geocentric’).

Look at this one...

Image

An atypical time-lapse of the northern constellations as we’d witness from a fixed, (very important that)...fixed standpoint on Earth.

We can estimate the exposure time of Don’s ‘camera’ by how many degrees of a circle each star has traced (should all be the same, a complete revolution equalling one ‘sidereal’ day or 23 hours, 56 mins and 4 seconds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time ). So in this case, I’d say an exposure of just under 6 hours; enough for Don’s unusual form of transport to have taken him round 4 laps of Earth, or 4 ISS days and 4 nights.

For simplicity, let’s just concentrate on the Pole star (centre of star circles) and ask ourselves how it can possibly be recorded as an almost static dot, less Don’s unusual form of transport happened to be circling exactly above Earth’s equator with some kind of angular tracking device fitted to his camera. Well clearly, ISS is not following this route, because if it was, the Pole star would be just shy of 90 degrees to Don’s vantage point, i.e. almost directly overhead where we’d see nothing of Earth at all.

Again though, tis interesting to note NASA’s sloppiness in compiling these daft composites as it does nothing but reinforce the SC notion that in reality, they’re probably no more than a crap version of Pixar studios.

scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by scud » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:18 am

...and agraposo and Hoi

Yeah, I agree that the star parallax simulations from the link are a bit crude. They also omit some other ‘known facts‘ of the Universe which I’ll come back to in a minute but first, let’s take another look at the “no 1670 Km/h winds at the equator” issue.

I didn’t want to upset the Redbull skydive thread with Geocentric musings so I’ll upset this one, vice versa instead.

Here’s what we’re told: Felix Baumgartner took off from the extraterrestrial infested land around Roswell at 9.30 am in clear conditions with a slight, south - easterly breeze averaging about 3mph. Two and a half hours later he’s ready to hurl himself into the abyss having reached ‘space’ at 128,000 feet (not really ‘space’ but who am I to get in the way of a good yarn?). Anyway, after the show’s over, the ridiculously successful fizzy drinks company finds Felix’s capsule 55 miles due east of the launch site.

Forget about this being a silly hoax or not for the moment and let’s just see what might be wrong with this picture from the point of view of the accepted Heliocentric model of the solar system.

Roswell is 33.4 degrees north of the equator which means that it should have a lateral speed of approximately 850mph (to make one complete circle every 24 hours)... http://www.thevlecks.net/rmj/earth.html
Looking down from the north, the direction of this lateral speed is due east, so in 2.5 hours (plus whatever time it took for Felix’s contraption to fall back to Earth...let’s say a total of 3 hours) the launch site will have moved easterly 2,550 miles yet Felix and his equipment managed to end up plus 55 miles in the same direction. In other words, at no point during the ascent (with the air becoming increasingly rarified with altitude) did the Earth begin to appreciably move beneath him.

There can only be two possible answers as to why this should be:

1 Earth's atmosphere (excusing meteorological phenomena) moves synchronous at all latitudes, altitudes and density with Earth’s surface, i.e the higher it is, the faster it has to go and just to compound things...the slower it has to go for every arc second, north or south of the equator. This would be ‘Heliocentric’ reasoning.

2 The atmosphere doesn’t rotate because the surface doesn’t rotate. This would be ‘Geocentric’ reasoning.

It is this fundamental question that I boringly keep coming back to. If you’d like to have a stab at justifying option 1 (knowing that gravity could not be responsible or solid to gas, then gas to gas interaction) I’d be most grateful to be put out of my misery :(

Image

Ok, going back to the parallax conundrum. Hoi points out, that “a 100,000 km difference in perspective is a drop in the ocean compared to the distances from our star to the other stars.” This maybe so but I have found no concrete evidence whatsoever that the distances claimed are in anyway accurate, rather they seem to be nothing other than proclamations all based around the ludicrous, jesuit idea of ‘the big bang’ that’s no longer theory, but fact...I’m tellin’ ya...fact.

Well let’s give it the benefit of the doubt and say that a vantage point change of 100,000 clicks is indeed too small to notice any change in our perspective of the biblical heavens :D but hang on a mo’! The standard model as taught throughout the ‘civilised world’ says that actually, our change of vantage point is absolutely humungous, even on an hourly basis.
Firstly we have our own orbit around the Sun...103,000 Kph. Then we have the entire Solar system apparently orbiting around the centre of the Milky Way galaxy at 792,000 Kph and finally the galaxy itself, speeding away (presumedly from the origin of the big bang) at a leisurely 2,160,000 Kph!!... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

Hmm. So, with the first reliable positioning of certain elements of the cosmos rightly attributed to Dutch astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546 to 1601) one might reasonably expect some shifting around of our notable stellar bodies within our galaxy since this time, but apparently not! nope...not one little incy-wincy shift for the couple of trillion odd miles covered (and that’s just rotationally about the galactic centre) since Tycho went and popped his clogs.

agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by agraposo » Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:32 pm

scud wrote:There can only be two possible answers as to why this should be:

1 Earth's atmosphere (excusing meteorological phenomena) moves synchronous at all latitudes, altitudes and density with Earth’s surface, i.e the higher it is, the faster it has to go and just to compound things...the slower it has to go for every arc second, north or south of the equator. This would be ‘Heliocentric’ reasoning.

2 The atmosphere doesn’t rotate because the surface doesn’t rotate. This would be ‘Geocentric’ reasoning.

It is this fundamental question that I boringly keep coming back to. If you’d like to have a stab at justifying option 1 (knowing that gravity could not be responsible or solid to gas, then gas to gas interaction) I’d be most grateful to be put out of my misery :(
So you have problems understanding that the atmosphere moves synchronously with the Earth, but you accept that in geocentrism all the universe moves synchronously around the Earth, despite of the distances involved! :huh:
scud wrote: So, with the first reliable positioning of certain elements of the cosmos rightly attributed to Dutch astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546 to 1601) one might reasonably expect some shifting around of our notable stellar bodies within our galaxy since this time, but apparently not! nope...not one little incy-wincy shift for the couple of trillion odd miles covered (and that’s just rotationally about the galactic centre) since Tycho went and popped his clogs.
This star moves a lot in only 20 years.

Image
Barnard's Star, showing position every 5 years 1985–2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion

If you like computer simulations, here you can see the proper motion of the constellation Ursa Major in 200,000 years.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txJH8RlIoXQ

Regarding Tycho Brahe's star measurements, who lived about 400 years ago, compare the position of the stars in a 1,000 years lapse. Do you notice any difference at first sight?
ImageImage

Before posting more astronomic nonsense, you should read some astronomy books! ;)

Post Reply