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.

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

Postby scud on September 11th, 2012, 4:18 pm

Is it believable that anything NASA (or any other ‘administration’) sends upward beyond the vertical equivalent of London to Edinburgh is going to survive when the general consensus of opinion now acknowledges that our immediate environment within the Universe, even within the confines of our own upper atmosphere is hostile in the extreme?
When talking of ‘space radiation’ images of penetrative, ionizing emissions that’ll reduce any living organism, unprotected by copious thickness of lead into a blistered, cancer riddled goo from phenomena such as gamma and X-rays usually come to mind. But let’s ignore this well worn bone of contention and concentrate instead on something more readily understood as in ‘radiation’ meaning one of the three age old known physical methods of conveying everyday heat...conduction, convection and...Hmmm...isn’t that fire lovely!

The higher echelons of our atmosphere are...how shall I put this...bloody hot, with the clue in the pre-noun ‘thermo’... http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/A ... phere.html Get that? “Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher.” And “...extends from about 90 km (56 miles) to between 500 and 1,000 km (311 to 621 miles) above our planet.”

So, do we or do we not have a serious problem here? Naturally, NASA thinks not with this frankly hilarious Q & A... http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html where we’ll start with question 3 “Does heat travel through a vacuum?” to which NASA’s Dr. Eric Christian replies...

“Heat travels through a vacuum by infrared radiation (light with a longer wavelength than the human eye can see). The Sun (and anything warm) is constantly emitting infrared, and the Earth absorbs it and turns the energy into atomic and molecular motion, or heat.”

Oops! Cock up by inadvertent admission number one...so the Earth is warmed (through a vast and complex insulating blanket of air) by the Sun’s IR energy (up to this point, having traveled through near vacuum, virtually unimpeded) but spaceships and satellites, completely and utterly exposed to this raw power are not?
Well yeah...sort of, if NASA’s Dr. Eberhard Moebius (great name!) is to be believed with his answer to question 5 “The cold of space.”

“....this is the second secret of the vacuum bottle (or thermos): while the vacuum suppresses heat exchanges by conduction and air convection, exchange by radiation is suppressed by the shiny metallic coating of the bottle. This shiny coating reflects the heat radiation like a mirror and keeps it either inside the bottle (if the content is hot) or outside (if the content is cold).”

Nice try Dr. Eberhard but you know, I don’t recall any of your wondrous space machines being covered head to toe, inside and out with light reflecting mirrors (which anyway would be quite useless). In fact, didn’t the space shuttle have a black underbelly, a white painted top and a lovely big window upfront to let both visible and IR light stream in for those awe-inspiring views?

Perhaps this is all a bit difficult to comprehend because we’re talking ‘space’ and evidently weird things happen up in ‘space’ so let’s bring this all back down to good old terra-firma and replicate the situation as best we can. I could talk of the Edison (Tesla) electric light with evacuated bulbs that you most certainly want to leave switched off for a good few minutes before attempting to replace but I’m in the mood for a little story, so let’s imagine a ‘ship in a bottle’ that just for the hell of it, looks awfully like the ISS and similarly constructed chiefly of aluminium alloys, suspended away from the glass walls by means of a tungsten wire. The glass of our bottle is a super duper, near perfectly transparent to IR wavelength ‘pyrex’ from which we suck out as much air as is humanly possible and seal him up. Next, we take our unusual ornament to the nearest steel works and inform Roger, the shop floor manager that we’d like to see if his blast furnace (operating with a core temp’ similar to that of the upper end of the thermosphere) is warm enough to do damage to our vacuum shielded work of art.
Of course we can’t actually place it within the confines of the blast furnace because that would subject our model to complete ‘surround sound’ IR radiation and not a directional one as coming from the Sun. So we ask (nicely) whether or not we can place him a few inches away from the pig iron tap at the base of the furnace to which Roger kindly agrees (though for some reason or other appears to have a sort of knowing grin about his face).

‘Oh no!’
‘What?’
‘The solar panels...they’re sagging!’
‘Oh yeah. Shit!’
‘Flippin’ ‘eck. Now the Russian module’s collapsing into the Japanese sector!’
‘Yep.’

Not long after, our lovingly crafted model of the ISS is just a simmering molten mass at the bottom of the bottle which, with a little extra time, begins to emit visible light as the temperature climbs to match his ambient, toasty environment emanating from the molten flow of metal.

Ok, so this is probably not entirely fair on the ISS for ‘real’ as we’re told that its orbit is a little lower than where we’d expect to be encountering this kind of energy extreme, (meaning that ISS must be in significant density of atmosphere...go figure) but for sure, ‘Curiosity’ and his preceding interplanetary mates as well as a good majority of satellites would. So what possible way could these vehicles shed themselves of this incoming radiative energy and thus prevent themselves from wilting in the resulting heat?
Here’s the good Dr. Christian again answering Q7 “How does a spaceship dissipate heat?”

“...thermal radiation is ALWAYS there, and that is what a spacecraft uses. To get rid of heat, you can point thermal radiators at the dark sky, and to warm up you can point at the Sun or Earth. The Sun warms the Earth through radiation, not convection or diffusion.”

See? Simples. You just point a radiator at the ‘dark sky’ and Bingo! the second law of thermodynamics (“Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy of the system”) is err...toast :)

Oh yeah, just for a laugh, read how the twats who control the info at corruptipedia try to get over this little hurdle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere with this quote, right up there in the exosphere of pure, unadulterated bullcrap .. “The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.”
FFS!!! It is not these lonesome atoms that the energy is coming from, the few atoms that are there are simply responding to the intensity of electromagnetic radiation. I am made of atoms and I will respond accordingly to this radiation just as my chicken soup responds according to the power setting on my microwave...the vacuum bit has got absolutely fuck all to do with it.

To see just how conditioned we are to believe the opposite, try a little test on your friends / family by asking them what they think the temperatures up there are...I virtually guarantee you that they will all say the same thing, no specifics but erring on the side of really, really cold yet we’ve all screwed up our eyes and angled our vizog toward a summer Sun haven't we? We feel its power most definitely and most assuredly yet we know with equal conviction that this power is reaching us (still with potentially lethal effect) having first travelled through hundreds of miles of protective gas.

Here’s a typical graphic showing the truly remarkable properties of our atmosphere (though I’m not sure what this particular one means by ‘gravity waves’). Typical also in the sense that there is usually a depiction of one of NASA’s well known spacecraft, apparently comfortable to be sitting up there being spit roasted to thousands of degrees as well as receiving the full Monty of penetrative, ionizing radiotherapy, clearly without the authors of these various works realising that this just might be a problem...
Image


Interestingly, there are only two metallic elements to be found on Earth that could be expected to structurally survive such temperatures, these are Tantalum (Ta) and Tungsten (W). Unfortunately, both would have severe draw-backs for the construction of space ‘craft’ or even more hilariously; ‘suits’ as both are extremely dense / heavy (in the case of Tungsten, almost double that of lead) with a rather annoying tendency of being very good conductors of heat as well as being a bit on the stiff side. Oh dear...looks like we’ll just have to make do with plain old Earth for the foreseeable then.

Would this reality explain what many posters here claim to have seen (myself included) in the clear night sky. That strange, illuminated object clearly traveling far too fast to be a plane?
Personally, I’ve witnessed this phenomena very rarely and cannot remember where or when the last time was, though whenever conditions are good and circumstance allows, a good neck strain at the heavens I find to be most enjoyable.
But perhaps this rarity of sightings ties in with the fact that energy levels surrounding us vary quite dramatically in accordance with the activity of the Sun, though even at the lower end of the scale it is certainly high enough to cause any solid object, metallic or rock that maybe bypassing or in orbit around us to fluoresce with a deep red at around 500° C (unlikely to be visible unless its bloody big) to an intense white light at anything above 1400°C... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation . Ah! Just read Simon’s post 24 / 08 concerning ‘Near Earth Asteroids’...seems a very, very likely bet to me!
Also, this naturally brings into question the surface temp’ of the Moon. I’m of the mind that the oft quoted daylight temp’ of 105 - 115°C is simply the highest that the chimps running the show thought they could get away with and still have people believe that an obviously non-pressurised ‘space suit’ could provide adequate protection. Yes, we can be pretty sure that its not hot enough for the surface features to melt (I double-checked this for myself last night) but believe the Moon to be massive enough to be able to conduct enough heat away from its surface and radiate enough during the lunar night to prevent this from happening. Rest assured though, the exact same levels of radiant energy that excite the molecules in our upper atmosphere to such extremes of temperature will also be relentlessly frazzling the lunar surface during its day, rendering anyone or anything on it a lot worse off than just ‘slightly overdone’.
Hmm...what about Comets? Standard model say’s that they are ‘dirty balls of ice’ that ablate in the solar wind forming the familiar tail, illuminated only by means of solar reflection. ‘Ice’?! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k wouldn’t a more feasible explanation be that they are simply largish asteroids in an unusually eccentric / elliptical orbit that when in close enough proximity to old sol begin to fluoresce, not from reflection but from its own heat which in turn, produces the spectacular tail from the effects of said solar wind?...Dunno, just an idea, they’re all just ideas because of course, bar the discovery of a new and reasonably abundant element that possess the necessary properties to cope with conditions beyond our natural protective layers we will be forever able only to observe, measure and quantify through it...how bloody inconvenient!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, so with this realisation, what on Earth :) could be the motivation for what must be the biggest, most audacious lie ever told? Yeah, I know there’s lot’s of taxpayers money involved, enabling a host of piggyback scams and it's all excellent diversionary entertainment for the masses, but still, I could not reconcile these with the shear enormity of what they’ve been doing.
Now, I should imagine it may sound as mad as a box of frogs to you chaps as it did me at first, but I think its worth lending it your ear as history appears to show a most palpable link between what we all think we know of the Universe and its basic machinations and an organization that appears to have been scurrying about, working to undermine humanities progress in anyway it can for centuries. So here (in the briefest of nutshells) is how and by whom we’ve arrived at our present understanding...

Nicolaus Copernicus, a 15th C Catholic priest and part time astronomer was the first (of notoriety) to propose the theory that what we actually observed of the heavens (everything, including the stars rotating clockwise around us...looking down from a Northerly perspective) was actually wrong and instead, an illusion caused by an anti-clockwise rotating, tilted (to explain the seasons) Earth which orbited the Sun. Initially, (and not surprisingly) this crazy, far out and heretical idea did not gain a great deal of traction and it wasn’t until the best part of a century later with arrival of Galileo that things started to become interesting.

I guess that it would take some serious study time to confirm or dismiss each of the claims made in the following link (something that I confess to not having done) but given the nature of the beast I’m prepared to give most of it the benefit of the doubt...

“Galileo was a Jesuit monk and a Florentine FRAUD!” He he...love it! http://www.reformation.org/galileo-unmasked.html

So, Galileo was a member of an unsavory group of usurpers (who of course still exist today, with EU ‘president’, Herman Van Rompuy naming their fraudulent GPS equivalent in honour of his old Renaissance alumni).
Galileo steals the astronomical work of others including the newly invented telescope and by means of his network of fellow freaks manages to gain positions of authority that he’d otherwise of stood no chance in obtaining (just like Herman :angry: ). Through these various appointments, his fame rises ensuring that his book, ‘Sidereus Nuncius’ or ...'The Starry Messenger' which merely hints at the musings of the now largely forgotten Copernican ideas of the solar system becomes a 16th C ‘bestseller’.
Various shenanigans follow between Galileo, his mates and successive Popes until he meets Urban VIII (‘The Urbanator’ Ha harr :lol: ) who sets him up for a show trial on charges of heresy for publication of his second work regards the Copernican model ‘Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems’.
Galileo is found guilty as charged and sentenced to the usual, gruesome punishment of the times...house arrest, which, as the Jesuits correctly predicted, sent his notoriety / popularity and sales of ‘World systems’ into the thermosphere (remembering that this was all going on during the ‘counter-reformation’.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation) and thus set the foundations for what is today, generally referred to as the ‘Heliocentric model’ which as we all know, is taught as absolute and inarguable fact in every classroom in every Western land.

The original, underlining importance of all this to certain members of the Vatican, was that the Copernican system undermined various scriptures apparently contained within the Bible that describe such things as a ‘fixed Earth’... ‘an immovable Earth,‘ ‘a rising, descending Sun, Moon’ etc, which naturally had the effect of diminishing the general populations belief in the Bible’s authority whilst further empowering the devilish little minds of those who were / are so keen on complete control of Earth’s entire congregation.
Also, to consider the solar system in this way meant that Earth automatically became ‘less special’...now just another member of the planets (which means ‘wonderer’ in ancient Greek) performing the same orbital dance around the Sun who was himself, off on a journey to nowhere; all in all, amounting to a crunching demotion from our previous pride of place as well as ‘proof’ that God’s book, that had no need for any human devised power structure, or ‘church’ was bunk.

Apart from an ever growing consensus from the time of the ‘Jesuit fraudster’ that the Copernican model was scientifically correct and any other suggestions just silly fiction, nothing much happens to, or challenges the overall concept until a little known experiment is performed in 1887 by physicists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley who set out simply to confirm (what everybody already knew but had never produced evidence for) Earth’s lateral speed around the Sun which should have returned a result of about 67,500Mp/h.
At this time everyone believed (jezzy jesuit or not), that there must be a mysterious substance that we could neither see nor detect, an all pervading ‘aether’ which was thought essential for the transportation of light waves just as a gas is necessary for sound, or water necessary for surfing.
Basically, the experiment involved shooting beams of light in various directions and assuming that the Earth was indeed moving at this colossal speed, variations should have been detected on the reflected light within Michelson’s ‘interferometer’. I’m not sure exactly how it was supposed to work but the results, no matter how hard they tried (the experiment and equipment were performed and upgraded many times) always showed no change; in other words, could not detect any motion of the Earth.

Wether the Michelson - Morley experiment was flawed or accurate doesn’t really matter, as what’s far more interesting is the reaction from the gate-keepers because by now, another theory, symbiotic to the Heliocentric model that reinforced the notion of a ‘just a chance universe’ was well on its way to also gaining ‘universal acceptance’ and it was pretty bloody obvious that some were not prepared to see this threatened in any way, shape or form.
Of course this is Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which required time, lot’s and lot’s of time for lifeforms to ‘evolve’ from things like single celled amoeba into slightly more advanced creatures like the former England captain John Terry and only the jezzy invention of Heliocentricity could provide this time...in fact, it was possible to attach any age one felt appropriate, as we shall see.
Was Charles Darwin a jesuit? There are plenty of people who seem to think that he was but evidence seems a little thin on the ground for me to go flinging the muck. It is though generally understood, that without the theory evolution, two other human jollies... Freudianism and Marxism would never have seen the light of day (I'll explain in a jiffy).

Incredibly, it appears true to say that had it not been for the Michelson - Morley experiments there never would have been an Albert Einstein embedded into the public consciousness, as the sole purpose of ‘Special Relativity’ was to disprove their findings with something so incredibly fucking special that nobody (apart from his misses who’s rumoured to have written it) understands a single word of it. But never mind, Michelson - Morley is now suitably rubbished, the previously unknown patent office clerk gets his Nobel prize and ‘Voila’ the Heliocentric solar system is saved!...Hurrah!

Here’s Sikipedia on the issue, though you’ll have to scroll down to the bottom to find the disingenuous mention of Einstein... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson- ... experiment

A little later, it’s decided that there must be a credible, scientific scenario of how the now fully accepted Copernican model came into existence, after all, those crazy God botherers had an answer to this little poser (some far out old man with a beard and a tool kit who designed and constructed the whole thing in six days :o ) and there just had to be an equally stupid (but ‘sciencey’ sounding) alternative. Enter ‘The Big Bang’, a phrase attributed to British astronomer Fred Hoyle who meant it satirically in response to Georges Lemaître’s ideas (another Jesuit freak) where clever people actually argue that ‘everything was created out of nothing’ as in the words of the late, great Tommy Cooper...‘Just like that’.
Unbelievably, all notable eggheads of 20th C astrophysics immediately thought that this was the most plausible explanation (fuck off! it was just shear bloody laziness!) and then set about expanding the size of their exploded Universe by means of a phenomena known as ‘redshift‘ or ‘Doppler effect’ where everything was ‘proven‘ to be moving away from each other at incredible speed, eventually rendering it so large and so old that the significance of Earth was reduced to merely one of perhaps potentially billions of other life supporting planets.

Annoyingly for the protagonists, this desired objective (of increasing size and therefore age) came at a cost because Newton’s laws of gravity (still officially recognized to be the only force out there worth its salt) could no longer explain a Universe so vast but so sparsely filled with physical mass (the stuff that mysteriously generates gravity and thus holds structural forms).
Easily solved though, it had worked before with ‘Special Relativity’ so why wouldn’t it work again...got a problem? just make something up! Which introduces us to Jan Oort’s ‘Dark matter’ and ‘Dark energy’...which we have never seen (because it’s conveniently ‘dark’) and never detected because we don’t know what it is; rest assured though, it’s there...it must be, because without it our almost infinite Universe as we know it today could not exist.
With this laughably crude shoring up it was then ‘open house’ to introduce to school children across the globe (again, as absolute fact) such fantasies as black holes, quasars, pulsars, neutron stars etc, etc but most importantly, unimaginable distances (our own ‘Milky Way’ galaxy being 100,000 light years across, being my own personal favourite).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever considered, given the rotation of the Earth alone just how fast you’re supposed to be traveling? Here in South East England I am, as I write this, apparently flying around West to East with a lateral speed of 652Mp/h. Anders Breivik will be doing an imaginary 534 and my mates in Singapore 1037Mp/h! Yet yesterday, I noticed that the clouds above me were all traveling in this same direction only a little faster, now just how could this be? ‘Gravity...dumbass’ is the standard response when entering into ‘polite conversation’ on all things Heliocentric. Yet this is really a very bad answer as it goes against Newton’s equations that are easily verified as correct by simple experiment, gravity works from the centre of any mass, hence the phrase ‘centre of gravity’ and can be applied to any object, spherical, cube...whatever, the centre of mass and nothing to do with its surface or whatever that surface, or indeed the body as a whole maybe doing.
So what business has the atmosphere got in following the surface of Earth? Why does it rotate in near perfect harmony throughout its various layers, densities and latitude?
Yes, we know that we can move air and that we can move through it with relative ease but a rotating sphere whose surface is more than 70% smooth (water) does not an effective fan make. Gas / solid interactions simply do not work like this...verifiable in any junior school physics lab. Therefore, I should be exposed to a constant, Westerly wind strong enough to skin a rhinoceros yet of course I am not so there can only be two possible answers to this: either there is a force that we have not yet identified that somehow manages to keep all the air molecules at all altitudes and latitude of Earth in near perfect synchronization with its rotation or the Earth is not moving.

Here’s another little story... Jens Stoltenberg stands with his arms behind his back with fingers firmly crossed as he watches 10,000 tons of Norway’s gold reserves surreptitiously slip out of Narvik port (the worlds most northerly) bound for the port of Esmeraldas Ecuador (the equator) where Pablo eagerly awaits his ill-gotten gains.

Three weeks later the prime minister’s phone rings...

“Hello?”
“Yessa. Eets a Pablo here. You muuuutha fukka. You fucking shorta change me by 30 ton (just under $1.6 billion at todays exchange rate)...I come over and a shove my 45 up your muutha fuckin’ boney ASS!”
“Oh God sorry Pablo (eyes the size of saucepans). I forgot to factor in the rotation of the Earth...what’s your bank account number again?”

It’s not much, but story has it that pole to equator, the Earth’s lateral speed goes from zero to supersonic plus some, which will cause a 0.3% change in ‘weight’ through something that is commonly known as ‘centrifugal force.’ Story also has it that we’re galloping around the Sun in a circular path at 67,500 Mp/h. This too will have significant effect on Pablo’s scales depending upon the time of day he chooses to weigh the spoils. At mid-day, when Pablo and goods are closest to the Sun, the result of centripetal acceleration will be trying to push him towards Earth’s centre (increasing the force applied to the scales...in this case by approx’ 6.1 tons) and at midnight will be trying to fling him away from Earth’s centre, resulting in an equivalent loss. Not much, but as you can see, in the case of valuable commodities our standards become meaningless. The really should be a ‘Greenwich mean weight’ that goes latitudinally, cross referenced with time that goes longitudinally, e.g 1Kg is 1Kg only in Greenwich at 6 in the evening on say April 1st (as we mustn't forget to include that 23.5 degree axis).

“What’s that sir? 2lb of bananas? Sorry governor, can’t be arsed to work that out. We’re one degree North of GMW, it’s the middle of bloody winter and its only 10 in the morning...‘ave the bunch instead”.

Feel free to mess about with this calculator (I used the oft quoted 94m miles distance from the Sun as a radius which is almost certainly horse-shit...but it’s what we’re told, right?).
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal

So this would mean then, just by considering the elementary and undeniably unlikely physical reality of our Earth performing a single rotation every 24 hours ...never mind Michelson - Morley and all subsequent null result experiments with light...that the Sun (and everything else, including the stars) must be orbiting us just as everybody believed before a certain bunch of weirdos, lurking behind a Godly disguise with a nasty penchant for power, corruption, Satan worship, sexual perversion and burning people at the stake decided to stick their noses in.
But you see what’s been done here. Over the centuries, since the time of the Polish Catholic priest Copernicus, our Universe has grown. At first, this growth was slow as there was not much available to back up the claims...not even a simple ‘spyglass’ but as time went by, the inventors and keepers of this idea were able to inject any story that sounded plausible with an absolutely explosive spurt occurring after Einstein’s introduction, to such enormous proportions that to say that it is not us rotating, but everything else going around instead (as we observe) is simply ridiculous...its too big, stuff cannot move at these speeds!

On this purely observational basis, it is actually impossible to tell whether it’s ‘us’ or ‘them’ that’s moving and this is why, I believe, that it's taken hundreds of years for full, public confidence in the Heliocentric story to take hold, as before the emergence of NASA, the only physical evidence cited to counter such basic observations above was / is a phenomena known as the Coriolis effect, first formulated in 1835 by Monsieur Coriolis but mused over some 200 years earlier by...yep, you guessed it, another jesuit monk, Giovanni Battista Riccioli who contradictorily, was supposedly against the Copernican model... http://www.technologyreview.com/view/42 ... is-effect/
This ‘force’ explains certain spiral weather formations (cyclonic / anti-cyclonic) some ocean currents and the motion of ‘Foucault’s pendulum’ and is the only terrestrial phenomena cited as proof of a rotating Earth. However, ‘Geocentrists’ argue that these observable effects are much more likely explained by the opposite being true, i.e that they are caused by all the motion contained within a fantastic ‘celestial sphere’ rotating around us rather than us getting all dizzy.

So where would I find one of these pendulum thingys then, that ‘proves’ a Heliocentric solar system? (just in case you’re wondering, the inventor Leon Foucault, was of course a fully fledged member of the gang). Here’s a few pertinent examples...

Here... http://www.sacred-destinations.com/pola ... church.htm

Here.. http://www.pantheonparis.com/

Here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... f_Sciences

And lastly here.. https://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/untour/subfou.htm Lobby, United Nations building NYC!!

No wonder then, that they yearned for something with a bit more razzmatazz than a bloody weight swinging about on a string!

‘Main engines start...and lllllifffft off!’ With the ludicrous exploits of NASA and various other phony space agencies (so superbly exposed here at September Clues) to the unknowing (that’s just about everyone) it is, if nothing else proof positive that we understand with total assurance the fundamentals of the solar system. That of course it is Heliocentric and are absolutely sure of all the distances / relationships / forces involved otherwise we wouldn’t have put men on the Moon, sent probes to all known planets, satellites into orbit blah de blah. Then by extension the rest of it (mind boggling size / age...enabling such human demoting ideas as evolution, a sense of total isolation, the likelihood of ‘extra-terrestrial life’ with the added bonus on top, of being able to instigate murderous political constructs / regimes) must also be pretty much on the money.

You see though, just how differently we would perceive ourselves if all this nonsense was just torn up and chucked in the bin where it rightfully belongs and a more honest appraisal of our true situation were to be set in err...planetary motion? (unfortunately, this re-appraisal will not include space travel, due to the ferocity of the Sun and for other reasons which I’ll leave for you to discover...)
The link between a Heliocentric solar system which enables evolution and therefore sordid human politics will probably seem extremely tenuous at first (it certainly did me) but imagine that it was common knowledge...everyone knew, that our Universe is actually far, far more amazing than the one we are taught to believe in. Oh yeah, they’ve tried their damnedest to make the fictitious one ‘incredible‘ alright (everything else that is...except for plain old boring, insignificant Earth) but whatever the collective imaginations of these jokers can amount to, it’ll always be as of nothing compared to the reality.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, you’re probably thinking by now that this bloke must be some raving ‘creationist’ lunatic, in eternal fear of God who every Sunday morning attends ‘happy clappy’ Jesus knees ups. Well, I’d be glad to disappoint and say that in all honesty, that I have not read the bible, almost got into a fist fight with my ‘RE’ teacher at school, hate the idea of going to church and always regarded the general religious scene as depressing, farcical, divisive, an enormous hinderance (and in many cases a downright evil) to people everywhere no matter its particular colour or creed.
However, if a geocentric universe were to be as generally accepted today as is the patiently nurtured lie of the Helio model that currently exists, then we would without doubt have begun to understand that something of this complexity and nature could not have simply happened by chance and in a perfect world wouldn’t need / trust a priest, monk, nun, Rabbi, Tony bastard Blair, etc, etc to tell us who, or what was responsible.

Just one more thing before I paste up some links for further reading (if interested of course).
I discovered the marvelous work here at SC and the NASA threads way before stumbling across geocentricism. People who believe this system to be true are naturally perturbed by NASA’s supposed achievements particularly ‘geo’ stat’ satellites’...since they, along with the weight on the end of a string ‘prove’ that the world rotates. Most of them appear to suspect that there’s some kind of skullduggery going on but you can tell that the never ceasing torrent of bullshit is having its desired effect. Readers and contributors of September Clues will have a distinct advantage in going into this ‘revisionist’ subject!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s a good little starter... ‘Helio Vs Geo’ (though I’d have to disagree regards size equivalence of the Moon / Sun)...

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2011 ... icity.html

Be warned about the following two, as despite the excellent analytical work of physics doctorates the immediate and rather hysterical conclusion is that the scriptures of the bible ‘said it was all so...and you’ll all be off to hell in a handcart’ type thing, which personally I find off putting and doesn’t help their credibility. Just read between the lines (should you happen not to be a man of the cloth).
Also, they’re of the bent that ‘it was the Jews what done it’ yet as we can see, the ever so carefully nurtured history of the Helio system is exclusively linked to those that profess to hate Judaism. Yeah, I know some argue that the Jesuit order are in fact infiltrated ‘double-agents’ and what not, but really, who cares what these nefarious, corrupt arse’oles are all about, its exposing their lies that’s gonna count...

https://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception/

http://www.fixedearth.com/ (bonkers layout, bonkers colours with a religious fervour to match...but some very interesting ideas and heaps of various other links within).

http://www.alcazar.net/galileo.pdf A detailed account of the beginnings of the Heliocentric model (much of which confirms what I have said concerning Galileo).

Other stuff which I’ve recently happened upon in attempting to ‘cube the sphere’...

“No less a space-scientist than Dr. Werner von Braun has cited Father John for “ turning the classroom into a launching pad of exciting new ideas.”  http://www.jesuitpartners.org/site/News ... _ctrl=1241 I’m thinking that we should have a closer look at Hitler’s ‘vengeance weapon’ the V2.

Our friendly child abuser and ‘inventor’ of ‘geo stat’ satellites, Arthur C Clarke muses about a jesuit priest, apparently ‘lost in space’... http://bestsciencefictionstories.com/20 ... -c-clarke/ of which I find this review especially pertinent “ ... then you owe it to yourself to read this amazing short story of how space exploration can affect a person’s deepest beliefs.” Oh yeah! Can’t it just!!!

A future career with NASA? Only if you have the ‘right’ education I suppose... http://clc.cet.edu/


Happy reading into this truly astonishing subject!
Last edited by hoi.polloi on June 4th, 2015, 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Changed name of the thread to "Our World"
scud
Member
 
Posts: 117
Joined: July 23rd, 2011, 6:56 pm

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

Postby fbenario on September 12th, 2012, 1:50 am

That is the longest post of all 34,000 on the forum. I doubt if any reader, even with the most empty life, could make it to the end.

Please post a summary, with bullet-points, of your most relevant conclusions/proofs. Thank you.


**********
ADMIN NOTICE (simon): Well there you go, Fbenario. THIS is the sort of mindless contributions of yours which I just can't stand. If you have nothing to say, just shut up. Thanks.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

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

Postby resolution on September 12th, 2012, 7:11 am

fbenario wrote:That is the longest post of all 34,000 on the forum. I doubt if any reader, even with the most empty life, could make it to the end.

Please post a summary, with bullet-points, of your most relevant conclusions/proofs. Thank you.


Apparently I have the most empty life of any reader :rolleyes: Honey vs. vinegar FB.

A thoroughly interesting introduction scud. A summary might be useful, but it isn't necessary for everyone. Not everything can be broken down into bullet points.

Indeed I think it'd be a useful thing to put the myriad posts that make up the collective base of information on cluesforum into something more long-form and accessable, rather than pint sized bits of information across pages and pages of threads that you need to put together in your own head. If there was a well written e-book with embedded gis, video and referenced links to proof I'd buy it. It'd also be a lot easier to desiminate the collective knowledge contained in the forum.
resolution
Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: May 12th, 2012, 6:15 am

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

Postby Cosmicdrum on September 12th, 2012, 11:23 am

Hi, I am new on here. What an amazing site, stops me feeling so insane and alone. Thanks for such an indepth post, I find it refreshing these days for someone to steer away from bullet points, especially when they have such an engaging writing style. I aren't ready to throw away my helio model yet but even that completely obliterates nearly all known space travel once you scratch the surface. I have read about 80 books on cosmology, quantum physics etc and am hugely embarassed for myself as I have been blinkered. Thanks again, even if your assumptions turn out to be rubbish, it gets you thinking, that is critical. :)
Cosmicdrum
Newbie
 
Posts: 2
Joined: September 12th, 2012, 11:08 am

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

Postby waterwitch on September 12th, 2012, 3:19 pm

What can I say? An incredibly funny, deep and spine-tingling post. It's a direction I've been considering recently too and thanks, Scud, for putting this theory out there. If true, does heliocentricity get the prize for the greatest hoax of all time?
waterwitch
Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: March 26th, 2011, 4:42 pm

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

Postby john gault on September 12th, 2012, 5:56 pm

Trying to tie up all the ‘loose ends’ associated with the heliocentric “model” has got to be exhausting work as the scriptwriters attempt to maintain continuity in their ever-expanding fairytale. But what choice do they have? In for a penny, in for a pound –it’s all aboard the nonsense express to infinity and beyond!

Please understand that all of the layers of nonsense are intended to sow confusion; to make the simple appear complex; to keep you from trusting your “lying eyes”. Many (it appears) have abandoned reason in exchange for the sugar-coated lies of the magician/illusionist, preferring the warmth of the crowd over whatever truth has been shrouded by the clever lies. May your chains rest lightly upon you.

To the rest, I offer a simple proof of the absurdity of the heliocentric model. You will need the following tools: a rational mind and a globe (or the ability to visualize one).

Let us consider the sun’s path and the heliocentric model.

The “apparent” movement of the sun is the inverse of the (alleged) movement of the earth. That is, per the heliocentric model, as we rotate away from the orbital plane the sun moves south; as we rotate towards the orbital plane the sun moves north. When we are southwest of the sun, it appears to our northeast. As we -in a given location- “rotate” in a northeasterly direction, the sun appears to move to the southeast; as we “rotate” in a southeasterly direction, the sun appears to move to the northwest. Clarity on this issue requires a clear understanding of this inverse relationship between the “movement of an observer’s location” and the “movement of the sun”. Review as needed before proceeding.

The earth is said to “tilt” such that during the northern winter the “north pole” “tilts” away from the sun (at 23.44 degrees). Taking our globe into our hands (or visualizing the same) we consider the circular path (elliptical relative to the orbital plane) around the ‘axis of the globe’ of an observer standing in Topeka, KS, USA on December 21.

We note that –from “sunrise” to solar noon- the observer will travel “up the globe” (away from the orbital plane) then from noon until midnight- back “down the globe” (towards the orbital plane) and then back “up the globe”” (away from the orbital plane) as the observer rotates towards “sunrise”. The corresponding “movement of the sun”-- “rising” in the east, moving south/southwest until noon and then moving north/northwest until it “sets” in the west. This is similar path- sun arcing to the south-- to what is observed on a daily basis--so far, so good.

Now let us consider this same circular path of the same observer in the same location (Topeka, KS, USA) on June 21.

The North Pole is now “tilted” towards the sun (at 23.44 degrees). From “sunrise” to solar noon, the observer travels “down the globe” (towards the orbital plane) and then from noon until midnight, the observer travels “up the globe” (away from the orbital plane) and then back “down the globe” as the observer “rotates” towards “sunrise”. The corresponding “movement of the sun”-- “rising “in the east and then moving north/northwest until noon, then moving south/southwest until it “sets” in the west. This is a path—sun arcing to the north –that is NEVER observed in the “northern hemisphere”.

The sun most certainly does NOT arc to the north (as observed from northern latitudes).Yet this is exactly what we should see if the heliocentric model was correct.

You know that the sun does not arc north. Wake up, sleepy head. We do not live in tilt-a-whirl world. We live on Earth.

For extra credit (and lots of laughs) I invite you to sort out the sun’s path as observed from a point on the equator on each of the two equinoxes.

What a tangled web they weave.

“If you are confused, check with the sun…” (Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe)

JG
john gault
Member
 
Posts: 31
Joined: October 25th, 2010, 5:48 pm

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

Postby Gauging on September 13th, 2012, 12:23 am

Brilliant post, scud, thanks a lot! Not a quick read but certainly an insightful and entertaining one (especially the quip about Terry!). There are many elements here that require further study (eg: I never knew that the upper atmosphere was hot!).

Is the "Earth is insignificant" meme being maintained in order to discourage earthlings from improving our lot here? If we didn't have the distraction of "a better future in outer space", perhaps we'd look inward and decide to make this world a better place? Because apart from being overwhelmed by our apparent insignificance in the cosmos, we are also assaulted by the Darwinian meme that places us as accidents of mutation (even though the Theory of Evolution is, IMHO, unprovable and unlikely). Absent the power of these memes to depress and demoralize us, how would we behave? (And if we were to embrace entheogens, how quickly would we demolish these facades?!
Gauging
Newbie
 
Posts: 8
Joined: April 26th, 2012, 4:16 pm

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

Postby TrutherInTX on September 13th, 2012, 1:55 am

Scud,

What a wonderful and thought provoking post. I'm going to re-read it and read all the linked articles. If its really true then I am awe struck at the level of deception. It sure is a lot to think about. I read it on break at work today and have been thinking about it all day. Please keep sharing your insights.
TrutherInTX
Member
 
Posts: 93
Joined: November 11th, 2011, 1:38 am

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

Postby fbenario on September 13th, 2012, 2:10 am

resolution wrote:
fbenario wrote:That is the longest post of all 34,000 on the forum. I doubt if any reader, even with the most empty life, could make it to the end.

Please post a summary, with bullet-points, of your most relevant conclusions/proofs. Thank you.


Apparently I have the most empty life of any reader :rolleyes: Honey vs. vinegar FB.

Well said. My apologies to all. I know no hard science. Is there anyone who could give me a cogent summary 'proving' the heliocentric model is bosh?
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

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

Postby fbenario on September 13th, 2012, 2:21 am

Scud, you have my highest respect, and my greatest apology. I have just read your long post from beginning to end, and (if you are acting in good faith and are actually right on all this) have to say this is one of the finest essays I have ever read. I'm not bullshitting you.

Maybe you could extract the portion proving true the geocentric model, so some dullard folks like me could more easily digest this material. Thank you, and I look forward to all your future posts.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

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

Postby john gault on September 13th, 2012, 4:02 am

Logically, there is no need or requirement to “prove true the geocentric model” to disprove the heliocentric.

The issue is the heliocentric model and it will be best examined on its own and for its own merits. Excluding one possibility, in this case the heliocentric model, is a much different task than proving what the exact configuration is.

While the heliocentric and geocentric models are (most certainly) mutually exclusive, they do not represent all possibilities. To suggest that they do is a fallacy of the false choice.

Happy thinking to all.
john gault
Member
 
Posts: 31
Joined: October 25th, 2010, 5:48 pm

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

Postby Maat on September 13th, 2012, 9:08 am

Fascinating ideas, Scud, thank you for such a thoughtful, insightful and entertaining post! B)

See, this is what I mean about out-of-the-box, critical thinkers that I love (like Reichstag fireman’s thought provoking posts too) — there’s nothing more edifying to me than observing independent minds rise above the various factions of consensus realities to spark a new trajectory, or possible paradigm shift — whether it makes it to orbit or only a fiery re-entry, it’s always a truly celestial sight! :D

It really doesn’t matter if anyone else thinks they’re half-baked ideas, or even off track, the most important thing is that they trigger a new perspective or line of thinking worthy of investigation and discussion, right? Any important discovery or awakening has to start somewhere; often the first hurdle to overcome is our own mental inertia (which can take some effort).

I’m so glad this unique forum has the ability to attract and inspire seriously inquiring minds to do that.
Per Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Now, if you haven’t run across it before, Andrew Mauro, a Brazilian, has been declaring the Moon missions, Nukes, 9/11 and the Heliocentric theory all frauds on his site since 2004! (Unfortunately, he still apparently believes planes were used on 9/11, but he gets it half right at least): http://www.showdalua.com/

Google translation from Portuguese: http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... lua.com%2F
(The site owner’s English version is not so good & the links don’t work from it: http://www.showdalua.com/ingles.html )

As for the particular Geocentric theory Mauro promotes, I haven’t read enough to determine how much or what parts of it are scientifically solid or bunk, but here are the links to check it out:
“The Earth Does Not Revolve Around the Sun” is his promotion of Davino Servidio’s geocentric arguments: http://www.showdalua.com/terra1509.html
Translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... a1509.html

“New Science” : http://www.showdalua.com/novaciencia.html
Translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... ibida.html

Forum: http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... a1509.html

"What is the first business of one who practices
philosophy? To get rid of self-conceit.
For it is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows."

— Epictetus

;)
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

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

Postby Heiwa on September 13th, 2012, 10:18 am

I think this is the wrong forum to discuss the fact that you get hot exposed to the Sun. Yes, anything exposed to the Sun gets warmed up and hot at the exposed surface … unless the Sun radiation is reflected away or absorbed by some Sun tan or whatever. Is the Universe exposed to the Sun, you may ask. Well, the Sun exists (AFAIAC) in the Universe and other items in the Universe may be exposed to the Sun. You see? Anyway, when something that was exposed to the Sun is no longer exposed to the Sun it cools off. However, the Universe is mainly empty vacuum with not even a little atom flying around in that space for the Sun to heat up. I hope you agree! So cool off. :rolleyes:
Last edited by Heiwa on September 15th, 2012, 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

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

Postby fbenario on September 14th, 2012, 1:28 am

Maat wrote:[T]here’s nothing more edifying to me than observing independent minds ... spark a new trajectory, or possible paradigm shift

Blueshifts, I hope - not redshifts.

Wiki - "In a contracting universe, cosmological blueshift would be observed; the expanding universe gives a cosmological redshift, and the expansion is observed to be accelerating."

I've always been bothered by the idea of a constantly expanding, at breath-taking speed, universe. As others here have questioned, with all this speedy expansion occurring, along with earth's supposedly fast rotation AND orbiting speed, we might expect to feel more wind all the time.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

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

Postby nonhocapito on September 15th, 2012, 8:18 pm

How a fixed earth, or a super heated space rather than a cool one are ideas that make more sense? :wacko:

I am not a scientist, so as far as my knowledge go, and what I can verify personally, none of this makes any sense. Nor the endless space, nor the little one. Nor the flying bodies, nor the fixed ones. Nor religious truth, nor its refusal.

However, if I had to pick from my imagination a picture of the universe of some credibility I think that I would discard the fixed, flat earth pretty quickly.
The old question is still valid: What keeps the earth "in place"? If not movement?

For as much disdain I have for the academic "once for all" truths, most of them have appeal because they have some logic and some credibility to them. Many of them, such as Galileo's observations, can be verified and have been verified by scores not only of scientists but of amateur astronomers.
For better or worse such discoveries have made possible scientific progress, which also is before our eyes and was not around a thousand or a hundred years ago. And this progress, with all its ugly, human side, still accounts for something. How could it all be possible was it not for some actual breakthrough that recently happened in the way we observe what's around us?

[Just an example taken from one of the pages linked by OP:
We (true science Geocentrists) are 100% sure that the Earth is STATIONARY because the unattached atmosphere (a gas) cannot be "gripped" and rotated along with the alleged rotation of the Earth, and we experience no 1,038 mph winds as a result of this rotation. Helocentrists will do anything to avoid and redirect the topic or issue in the conversation (thirty-eight debating tricks) to something else (like the phases of Venus, etc.) because a rotating Earth is their Big Lie is the basis, the bedrock foundation, the chief cornerstone, the taproot of their entire edifice of cosmic lies and deceptions. Pull a rotating Earth away and their entire mathematical, hypothetical model collapses. Talk to any chemistry professor or Ph.D. who understands the properties of the States of Matter (and who is not a fool) and they will confirm this foundational issue of the interaction between "solids, liquids and gases".
From https://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception/

This statement takes in no account gravity. Without gravity, not just air, but oceans and people would fly away as the earth rotates. Perhaps the "Geocentrists" don't realize that, before the grand forces of nature, a human body isn't much stronger or heavier than gas. We are "unattached" too. And Gravity as far as I can tell, for mysterious that it is, cannot be denied, because apples still fall from trees down on our heads.]
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2492
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Next

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests