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.
Post Reply
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
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 » Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:44 am

*

Dear Agraposo,

Thanks for linking to that Coriolis-effect video. It is a quite timely addition to our modern understanding of interacting circular motions - as I am about to expound over at the SSSS thread, in relation to the 15-year-long MARS cycle : in fact, it would seem that the 'red planet' swivels around our planetary system tracing a 'spirograph-like rose pattern', its motion helping along our entire 'solar system' (whether by virtue of Newton's Universal Gravitational Laws or not) to precess around itself - completing a full circle in something like 24.000 years or so. This extract from the video you linked to gives an idea of how MARS revolves around our system:

Image GIFSoup


Here's an interesting site discussing the gradual precession of our entire planetary system. Not sure about all the claims made by this researcher - but it's well worth the read nonetheless:
"The principal cause of precession then is not an Earth that wobbles relative to the Sun, but a solar system that moves in a curved elliptical pattern through space resulting in all the current observables of precession; a changing pole star and movement of the equinoctial point through the zodiac, but the wobble is only apparent relative to the fixed stars because it does not exist relative to the Sun."
http://endgametime.wordpress.com/unders ... e-equinox/

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 » Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:35 pm

simonshack wrote:Here's an interesting site discussing the gradual precession of our entire planetary system. Not sure about all the claims made by this researcher - but it's well worth the read nonetheless:
"The principal cause of precession then is not an Earth that wobbles relative to the Sun, but a solar system that moves in a curved elliptical pattern through space resulting in all the current observables of precession; a changing pole star and movement of the equinoctial point through the zodiac, but the wobble is only apparent relative to the fixed stars because it does not exist relative to the Sun."
http://endgametime.wordpress.com/unders ... e-equinox/
:wacko: I haven't heard this before:
Our Sun is probably part of a binary system, gravitationally bound to another star, likely a dark companion
One of the main reasons being:
Majority of star systems are binary star systems(Richichi and Leinert 2000). Why should we assume our solar system is not and we are the odd solar system . Logic tells us that most likely, our solar system is like most others and is a binary system.
This is another quote found in the same blog: :lol:
I am almost confident the U.S. went to the moon, but faked the photos as a cold war bluff. The Russians must of saw the U.S. as so superior in technology at that time that they abandoned their quest for the moon and ended the cold war almost 20 years after Apollo 11 made history.
http://endgametime.wordpress.com/proof- ... -on-earth/

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
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 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:05 am

agraposo wrote: :wacko: I haven't heard this before:
Our Sun is probably part of a binary system, gravitationally bound to another star, likely a dark companion
Me neither - and that's why I submitted my disclaimer about that blog.

What interested me there though, was the concept of our entire 'solar system' precessing (swivelling around veery slooowly around in relation to the starfield in 24000 years or so). This sounds rather likely to me at this time - following my ongoing Mars studies which I'll soon post on the SSSS thread. But what do I - or anyone - know about precession? However, if ancient data is to be believed, Polaris won't be forever above our North Pole. Vega will replace it in a few thousand years time. Well, that's what we ("we" as in "the international scientific community") seem to 'know'.

Let's try and live long enough to verify these claims with our own eyes ! ;)

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 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:01 am

Anyone remember the discussion in this thread about tides? Here is Physicist Richard Feynman explaining the phenomenon in a lecture. First, he jokes saying:

"It was the earth that was pulled by the moon away from the water" (audience laughs)

Then he gives the correct explanation (different gravitation pull due to the moon in different parts of the Earth).

And just in case nobody understood that, he tells the simplest (and wrong) explanation to avoid going into details: the centrifugal force, but adding the comment "if you wish".

So beware of explanations from well known physicists. :rolleyes:

At 25:12

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mhkYbznBk

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 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:13 am

With the mention of the Tamarack mine experiments, Morrow’s ‘rectillineator’ and various others that appear to question not so much our understanding of the ‘Universe’ but the form of Earth itself, I was intending to write up a piece exploring further these seemingly incomprehensible, yet compelling results.

No need to bother. SC’s member ‘Totalrecall’ has set up an excellent site, thoroughly investigating the issue (and others) with much evidence that indeed Earth maybe thus...
Image

...sans celestial footbridge supporting heavenly giants in silly shorts :rolleyes:

http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

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

Unread post by lux » Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:28 pm

I like his site's analysis of NASA hoaxes and he makes a number of other very intelligent observations about curious phenomena in the physical world around us but I also think he's jumped to some not-so-logical conclusions in his cosmological hypotheses.

For example, his “where is the constant wind?” argument in support of his anti-heliocentric hypothesis. As I understand his concepts, it is evidently impossible to conceive that the Earth's atmosphere might somehow rotate along with the Earth in some unexplained way yet it is perfectly plausible to believe that the universe and its galaxies do not exist and are in fact simply dots of light on an immense rotating contraption that revolves around the Earth, the origin of which is never explained.

In other words, how is the rotating atmosphere idea harder to accept than the giant merry-go-round in the sky?

I also see a conflict in his Hubble comments vs his "there are no galaxies" conclusion.

However, I do like his "path of the sun" argument but I don't see that his anti-heliocentric conclusion is the only one possible for this phenomenon.

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 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:31 pm

Wotcha Lux.
“As I understand his concepts, it is evidently impossible to conceive that the Earth's atmosphere might somehow rotate along with the Earth in some unexplained way yet it is perfectly plausible to believe that the universe and its galaxies do not exist and are in fact simply dots of light on an immense rotating contraption that revolves around the Earth, the origin of which is never explained.”
Indeed Lux, indeed. You know, when I wrote the opener to this thread there was always a little niggler in the back of my mind that was saying ‘No scud, no. Even if you fixed the apparent, most distant celestial object at just one light second (not year!) away, the lateral speed required to complete a 24h circuit around us would be just too immense to be credible.' Yet I was almost as convinced then as I am now that Earth is neither rotating or orbiting the Sun. Convinced by the one simple issue above all others, which I personally consider to be the ridiculousness of a synchronously spinning atmosphere at all altitudes and latitude (ignoring weather patterns). As I have said many times previously, this apparent phenomenon is not explained by Sir Isaac’s theories of gravity, nor friction, nor gaseous / solid dynamics so it’s either something else, some other ‘force‘ which hasn’t been identified or discussed outside the realms of the internet or Earth simply doesn’t rotate.

“Galaxies do not exist”? On page 9 of this thread I wrote concerning my findings as to just how modern cosmology had reached this ‘inter galactic conclusion’ and had found it more than wanting, if not laughable... http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... &start=120

I’ve absolutely no doubt that these spiral formations exist, just doubt the accepted structure, which is said to be hundreds of millions of ‘+/-Sun equivalents’ combined to stretch tens of thousands of light years across with +light year distances between individual sources, all millions of light years from us!! Nah, it’s just a story and one that has been extremely lucrative in many, many more ways than one as well as the added bonus of having the general populace believe that they are nothing other than evolutionised frogspawn, ripe for any kind of ‘leadership’ one might desire.

‘Cellular cosmology’ or ‘inverse universe’ theories aside for the moment, ‘Totalrecall’ has a thread entitled ‘Where are the stars’? It’s got me thinking. Have I ever seen the stars through the window of a night time flight?...I don’t think I have, yet according to apologists of ‘atmospheric distortion’ and hence the need for a Hubble space telescope I should have borne witness to them on pretty much each and every occasion, better defined and generally more glorious than down here, 7 - 9 miles below an increasingly thick layer of air. What say you guys...you seen ‘em? Perhaps we could all have our wits about us next time we book that window seat and report back our findings.

totalrecall
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:23 am

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

Unread post by totalrecall » Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:25 am

Hi guys,

Thought I'd drop by.

When I said I don't believe galaxies exist, I mean that the little lights in the sky (which we think are galaxies) exist, but that is it.

I have changed my "tune" regarding the disappearing stars. While researching the next article I came across a couple of facts which make the stars much further away but just invisible at high altitude. I've updated the end of the homepage: http://www.wildheretic.com to include this.

Why stars are invisible at high altitude is the real question I suppose and to that I have no answer. Lord Steven Christ ( :D ) reckons its because the aether is more dense at low altitude. At least its something to think about.

Astronomers see little lights in the sky with a telescope and know exactly where and when those lights will be located and be seen and the pattern they take as they move around the sky relative to one another... and that is it. Everything beyond that is philosophical conjecture with light years here and black holes there with sprinklings of dark matter. You know what I mean. In other words, observations correct, philosophy wrong. I don't know when astronomers decided to become philosophers, but it was a bad move whenever it was.

I've largely finished researching the "last" article on the blog and have come to the conclusion that heliocentricity is largely correct (minus the Earth bit) and geocentricity is also largely correct (minus the geocentric planets part) and this can be all reconciled by Concave Earth Theory.

It'll take a while to finish especially as the busy time for me approaches. I'll get it done though, hopefully by Christmas.

At the end of the day, it will only be a hypothesis and so it could be wrong... but at least it is an adventure!

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 » Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:52 am

totalrecall wrote:
It'll take a while to finish especially as the busy time for me approaches. I'll get it done though, hopefully by Christmas.

At the end of the day, it will only be a hypothesis and so it could be wrong... but at least it is an adventure!
Universe/space is evidently volume wise ~99.9999+% nothing, i.e. isn't much, and therefore cannot have any temperature or be hot or cold or anything. The remaining 0.00001+% consists mainly, 99.9%+, of suns of various sizes fusing atoms together releasing energy in all directions, some of it seen as light for us bystanders to watch, and the remainder is masses in space, e.g. our planet Earth where you and I are watching the show above and around us. It isn't much BUT quite interesting anyway. If you do not want to watch the real show, just switch on your TV! I look forward to see the result of your reasearch.

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 » Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:56 pm

Heiwa wrote:
Universe/space is evidently volume wise ~99.9999+% nothing, i.e. isn't much, and therefore cannot have any temperature or be hot or cold or anything.
Of course Heiwa, until something that IS made of atoms...ie a spacecraft, spaceman, spacesuit....space/helmet. Tis all gonna be raised in temperature in accordance with the electromagnetic radiance from the Sun...why is this so difficult for you to understand?

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

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

Unread post by lux » Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:01 am

Speaking of the temperature of objects in space, does anyone have an explanation for the huge difference in temperatures of objects in the Thermosphere (thousands of degrees F) vs the temperature of the sunny surface of the moon (hundreds of degrees)?

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

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

Unread post by fbenario » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:26 am

lux wrote:Speaking of the temperature of objects in space, does anyone have an explanation for the huge difference in temperatures of objects in the Thermosphere (thousands of degrees F) vs the temperature of the sunny surface of the moon (hundreds of degrees)?
Is it reasonable for us to believe anything scientists have told us about the temperature of outer space, including the thermosphere and the surface of the moon?

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 04, 2013 2:25 am

lux wrote:Speaking of the temperature of objects in space, does anyone have an explanation for the huge difference in temperatures of objects in the Thermosphere (thousands of degrees F) vs the temperature of the sunny surface of the moon (hundreds of degrees)?
The ISS is supposed to orbit Earth in the Thermosphere every 90 minute and is half time in the sun and half time in the shade and the thermometer fitted outside the observation window should tell the asstronots what temperature is in outside vacuum, when they step out. My feeling is that it is cooler in the shade than the sun but I can be wrong as usual. It would look funny if they used parasols in space in the Gravity movie, but I would recommend it. Wet rain is rare in the thermosphere and on the Moon - only risk is a shower of meteorites, so bring a hard hat. It seems the Apollo asstronots forgot to bring a thermometer to the Moon (Universe movie studio) so no help there. :rolleyes:

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

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

Unread post by lux » Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:36 am

fbenario wrote: Is it reasonable for us to believe anything scientists have told us about the temperature of outer space, including the thermosphere and the surface of the moon?


Good point.

However, I do tend to believe the data on the thermosphere's temperature because I doubt NASA would invent and publish data that proves its orbiting objects are hoaxes. Even if it was a lie made by mistake they could easily 'revise' the information by saying, "it turns out the thermosphere isn't as hot as we once thought" but they haven't done that. Instead they have given nonsensical "reasons" that the high temperatures don't affect satellites.

And, I tend to believe that the moon's surface temperature is well below that of the thermosphere because there are only 5 or 6 elements which can withstand the thermosphere's reported 4500° F peak temperature and the moon doesn't look like a cinder to me.

But, of course, I could be wrong. :)

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 » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:28 pm

Yeah, think I touched on this issue in the opener, speculating that the oft quoted +/-105 degrees c during the lunar day was simply the limit to credulity that a supposed ‘air conditioned’ space suit could cope with :lol:

The more one thinks about it, the odder the Moon becomes. From the fable that is a heliocentric solar system placing the Sun at about 93m miles distant and the Moon a further / closer 1/4 million miles (depending on position of orbit around us) then its surface should logically be at least equal to the high temperatures of the upper reaches of Earth’s atmosphere (anything up to 2,500c ).
Yet I don’t think that it can be, as we know with certainty that all but a handful of the known elements melt and absolutely all solids will radiate an intense white/ blue light and as we can all see with our own eyes, the Moon’s surface is neither of these. It has structure...is not a molten sphere of goo and does not emit the kind of light known solids do under these conditions.

As fbenario has pointed out, in true ‘Clues’ fashion it’s feasible that the stated high altitude temperatures of the so called ‘Thermosphere’ might simply be wrong / a hoax even. I’ve been searching high and low for answers as regards our history of understanding into this glaring contradiction to space travel and so far come up empty handed...no names, no dates of discovery but can’t help feeling that it must have been ‘consensus of opinion‘ in way, way before NASA ventured where no man had ever ventured before*
So unless future digging proves us wrong, I’m with Lux on this. NASA were left with a choice of either attempting a re-write of known and accepted observations prior to kissing Earth goodbye or had to explain it away as a non-problem, which is evidently what they did. Copied almost verbatim throughout the interwebs the explanation is thus...

“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. A normal thermometer would read significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact.”

... which as Lux correctly points out, is pure garbage. The energy that heats these sparse molecules can only come from the Sun’s electromagnetic radiation. Doesn’t matter if molecules are ‘loose’ (thin atmosphere) or packed (spacecraft) the resulting temperature on exposure will be the same...melted / ionised, burnt to a fracking crisp.

Just as a footnote to this, it seems that the atmospheric layers have been designated various terms (Troposphere, Stratosphere etc) in accordance with their temperature characteristics. There is a different equation that gives us something and something or other against altitude to arrive at how hot / cold each is... http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/A ... print.html
Here is an online calculator that uses these parameters... http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/ ...as you will see (and typical of every other) it does not accept a height input above 86Km. I’m guessing that the reason for this is that our region in question is recognised to be forever in a state of flux, changing properties in direct relationship to solar activity and therefore cannot be reliably modeled mathematically.

So, back to the Moon. Well obviously this is all speculation because I think that we can be quite sure that if the above is only half the truth then we have not ventured vertically, manned or unmanned the equivalent of a two hour journey on a London bus (not very far at all). However, if it is a solid tangible object (it may not be...who knows) that is sans atmosphere or magnetosphere as we are so assuredly told then it does stand to reason that its surface temp’ is at least equivalent to that of the highest reaches of Earth’s envelope since it too is completely exposed to the raw energy of the Sun.

I stated in the opener to this thread that I thought that it might perhaps be possible that the Moon was massive enough to enable absorption through conduction from its surface and then to re-radiate this heat back into ‘space‘ during the lunar night to prevent melting or heat glow but that kind of sounds like a cop out to me now.

Perhaps it’s composed of an element / elements that are not found on Earth. After all, the night time light it emits appears to be far too bright to be a simple reflection from old Sol of which many independents agree...some sort of phosphorescent, heat resistant material? Explaining why we see it in such crystal clarity on a cloudless day / night when landscapes here on Earth, thousands of times closer fade comparatively in resolution...No idea.

What about SC member ‘Totalrecall’s’ assertion of the stars disappearing with altitude? http://www.wildheretic.com/disappearing-stars/ This one really interests me as I know he’s right...you cannot see the stars from 35 - 40,000 feet up as one would expect and it isn’t anything to do with that smeary plastic window and dim cabin lights. Earth’s surface (+/- a bit) a focal point for the entire cosmos?...dunno, just guessing.

Post Reply