Friday, April 20, 2012

How wrong are Hoagland & Bara? It depends when you ask

Hoagland & Bara are wrong about practically everything, of course. We know that—it's the fault of their amoebic education combined with their Himalayan arrogance. They're quintessentially wrong about Explorer 1, as this blog has pointed out here, here, here, here, and here. However, they can't seem to make up their tiny minds how wrong they want to be.

On the web discourse he called Von Braun's Secret, Hoagland wrote that the overperformance of the solid upper stages of Explorer 1's rocket, Juno, was "almost  20%." During his four-hour errorothon on Coast to Coast AM (21 August 08) he said 30%. Mike Bara, writing 16 pages of drivel and calling it chapter 12 of The Choice, opted for 60% (Mike simply took the actual apogee, 2,562 kM, subtracted the planned apogee, 1,609 kM, and arrived at 953 kM, which is 59.23% of 1,609. He didn't realize that if you want to know about orbital velocities and energies, you measure from the center of the planet. D'oh!!!)

It's worth re-iterating the correct calculation, because it's really pretty simple and it gives the lie to Hoagland & Bara whether they decide to use 20%, 30%, or 60% as their wrong data.

DATA:
Planned orbit 354 x 1,609 kM (220 x 1,000 miles)
Actual orbit 359 x 2,562 kM (223 x 1,592 miles)
Gravitational constant, µ, of Earth 398,660 kM3/s2

CALCULATION:
semi-major axis of planned orbit, Lsmaj, (354+6375+6375+1609)/2 = 7356 kM
distance from center of Earth to orbit point, R, 6375+354 = 6729 kM

planned velocity at orbit injection, Vorb = sqrt(µ(2/R - 1/Lsmaj))
2/R - 1/Lsmaj = 0.0001613
Vorb = sqrt(64.3) = 8.018 kM/sec

semi-major axis of actual orbit, Lsmaj, (359+6375+6375+2562)/2 = 7835 kM
distance from center of Earth to orbit point, R, 6375+359 = 6734 kM

actual velocity at orbit injection, Vorb = sqrt(µ(2/R - 1/Lsmaj))
2/R - 1/Lsmaj = 0.000169
Vorb = sqrt(67.493) = 8.215 kM/sec

So we're really talking about a velocity excess of about 3%. Well within the uncertainty about the thrust of the solid rocket fuel, as stated on p.12 of  this technical report.

No, Mike, John Glenn didn't fly to the Moon
On the radio today, Mike made plenty of other mistakes."The accretion theory of planetary formation simply doesn't fit observation" (Oh yes it does.) "NASA was established by Nazis" (Oh no it wasn't—the Nazis didn't arrive until two years later.) But the prize-winner was "The Apollo astronauts still can't tell the truth [about what they saw and found on the Moon]."

To substantiate this, Mike trotted out yet again the guest-appearance of John Glenn on Frazier Season 8, Ep 184, first aired March 6, 2001. Glenn said, in part, "...we know what we saw out there. And we couldn't really say anything." There are two problems with that, as evidence for what Mike Bara believes. One is that Frazier is A COMEDY SHOW and the whole Glenn schtick was A SPOOF, as this blog has already pointed out. The other is that Glenn never got closer than 240,000 miles to the Moon. Once again, D'ohh!!

Jiminy Oddbird said...

You may recall how Hoagland used to try and act as if he were trying to be objective, by telling Art Bell that "Enterprise doesn't do UFOs," until more recently, starting with his comments about the "Triangle over the Kremlin". Of course when challenged on this by Dr Minsk at his Facebook wall, he defended that it wasn't a UFO because he had identified the object as a tetrahedron.

This brings to mind the scenes where Doctor Strangelove has to keep slugging his arm to keep it from saluting sieg heil.

Jiminy Oddbird said...

FLICK'n Space NAZIS, anyway.

Biological_Unit said...

The accretion theory of planetary formation simply doesn't fit observation

Baranter aside -

It doesn't. There are wrongly spinning planets and tilted ones. There are NO reasons why a cloud of dust would have angular momentum at all - the motions of dust should average exactly ZERO.

expat said...

The wrongly spinning planets (Venus) and the tilted ones (Uranus) are as much a problem for the Solar Fission theory as for accretion. Moreover, chemical differentiation is a powerful point in favor of accretion and against fission.

Jiminy Oddbird said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jiminy Oddbird said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jiminy Oddbird said...

The accepted theory for the creation of the asteroid belt is "failed planet accretion" -- that during the primordial beginning of the solar system a planet which astronomers call Astera was forming in the place now occupied by the asteroid belt, but because of its insufficient mass, and due to Jupiter's gravitational influence, it fragmented. This theory cannot be correct, as it is becoming obvious that both the planet Mars and the mysterious parent planet of the asteroid belt once sustained oceans and atmospheres. This parent planetary body was broken up in a cataclysm of Biblical proportions.

More from Van Flandern's presentation:

'Exploding Planets &
Non Exploding Universes

The mechanism for the explosion? Back in the '50's, when the 200-year-old exploded planet hypothesis was last in vogue, people were working on that, and Ramsey came up with a number of ways in which terrestrial-sized planets could either implode or explode with changes of state of certain elements in the core of terrestrial-sized planets. Changes of state means like water turning to ice. There are certain pressure and temperature conditions where you can have a change of state that results in spontaneous explosion or implosion. However, Ovenden showed that the parent of the asteroid belt was apparently a giant-sized planet. He estimates 90Earth masses or Saturn sized.

Nobody has done research on objects in that medium-sized mass range. People have done lots of papers on explosions of nova or dwarf stars, but nobody has done explosions of planets, because nobody thought there was an example of that. So the trick now is to convince astronomers that the evidence is good enough that research in that area ought to commence. We know things about Jupiter, for example, that it's emitting twice as much heat into space as it takes in from the Sun. There is something going on in the core that we don't understand, and I have some speculation as I
mentioned in the book about what that something could be. But really the answer is - we don't know."

Asteroids, Comets, Rahab & Mars Cherubim & the Megaliths of Cydonia The " Stones of Fire " and Pre-Adamite Civilizations

Biological_Unit said...

To anyone familiar with plasma physics, it is well known that plasma makes up 99.99% of the Universe. The amount of gravitational mass invented to save conventional theories is the same as the ionized plasma in an Electric Universe that is overlooked.

Jiminy Oddbird said...

Is plasma the same thing as aether? What about ectoplasm?

Chris Lopes said...

Bara isn't even trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about. His heart just isn't into the whole con. Oh sure, he'll turn on the BS machine to impress some cougar in Vegas, but engaging in real (or what passes for it in the world of pseudo-science) debate is just not his thing. As anyone who's tried to talk to him on his blog can tell you.

Thanks for the heads up. Personally, I can't speak for Mike. For me... as much as I would like to know every detail that I can about my guests and the subjects discussed... it simply is impossible. It should be noted that the premise of my show is actually very different than that of others... whereas I do not claim to be an expert. I consider the experience/show as a way to research along with the listener. I also do not claim to believe all that i hear but my job is to discuss it all. In the end... we must all find what we believe too be the truth ourselves and it seems like you are a great example of someone who is doing just that. I forwarded this to Mike so that he can respond if he so chooses. Thanks again for the feedback. - John Zaskoda (Host - Stranger Advice)

Jiminy Oddbird said...

Is it the same kind of ectoplasm as in my high def big flat screen TV?

Jiminy Oddbird said...

Tom Snyder was a great interviewer. Sometimes he would read the guest's book before the show - sometimes he wouldn't, but either way, he would always say up front. Regardless of the case, he would always ask just the right questions to arrive at the truth. He's worth a study.

Biological_Unit said...

If you have a Plasma TV, get an LCD.
You'll save on your Electric bill.

Biological_Unit said...

Ionized and Partially-Ionized Gases were given the name Plasma because they seem biological, Cell structure for example.

Jiminy Oddbird said...

Even if I were to pay for electricity, the additional expense of buying an inferior LCD TV would not be cost effective over the useful life of the set.

So is all plasma the same or not? What about blood plasma.? You know, there really ought to be more consistency in terminology for such a technical word.

Biological_Unit said...

Inferior? LCD beats Plasma far and away, and LED beats them both.

Blood Plasma is not the other.

strahlungsamt said...

Misti,

Plasma is a state of matter, like solid, liquid or gas, where the electrons are stripped off the atoms in a gas and the atoms are charged. It is the state of gas in a neon light, an electric arc and in the Sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29

Aether was thought to be the medium which carries light waves through the universe. It has been proven not to exist. Google "Mitchelson Morley experiment" sometime for more info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28classical_element%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

Ectoplasm is a mythical substance which is supposed to appear in seances when people try to contact the dead. It has never been proven to exist. Nor has contacting dead people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectoplasm_%28paranormal%29

Or put more simply:
Plasma exists.
Aether was thought to exist but doesn't.
Ectoplasm never existed.

(Blood plasma is merely an unfortunate choice of words and has nothing to do with any of the above)

expat said...

John Zaskoda: I appreciate your response. Nobody expects radio hosts to be experts in every topic that comes their way, sure. A little googling, however, would have told you that many questions have been raised about the truth of the schtick that Mike Bara peddles. I don't think confrontational interviewing makes good radio either, but the "Coast to Coast AM" style of not challenging any crackpot codswallop guests come up with is going too far in the other direction, IMO. A little controversy makes it interesting, don't you think?

Good idea to forward this to Mike. However, he won't respond. He and Hoagland have been caught out in errors so often they've both decided the only way to survive is to ignore the truth and keep on selling books to the kool-aid drinkers.

Chris Lopes said...

Expat,
That was a nice response John Zaskoda. One of the things that Art Bell had going for him was that he didn't always buy what his guests were selling and made that clear to his audience. To be sure, he was entirely to ready to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast, but even he had his limits.

Since I haven't listened to Mr. Zaskoda's show, I won't comment on how he does things. I have though, listened to both Bara and Hoagland on similar shows, with hosts too willing to just let them use up air time. It's boring as hell to listen to such nonsense without the host even trying to challenge the absurdity of what is being said. The host has an obligation to stick up for his loyal listeners when he sees their intelligence being insulted. In not doing so, he is showing the same contempt for the audience that his guest is.

Anonymous said...

Dick bans people from his FB page if they dare ask the all-knowing master a question that might challenge him or prove him wrong - he's hardly likely to appear regularly on radio shows where the host challenges him and interrupts his self-promotion / asking for money... look at the last long appearance on C2C, how quickly callers were cut-off when they called him out, yet the all-thanking sheep always seem to get through.

(That said, even if a host did call him out or give him a grilling, we all know Dick would nonchalantly and egotistically say "well you simply don't get it" - it must be hard for him to be around idiot mortals all the time)

expat said...

Well, he would just LIE.

As he did last time with "I never said Elenin was a spaceship."

As he did after the Port-au-Prince earthquake, when a caller pointed out that the epicenter was not at 19.5°. RCH said "I was thinking of geodetic latitude." He's quick on his feet, I'll give him that, but he's a GOD-DAMN LIAR.

Chris Lopes said...

One of the things both Noory and Hoagland have in common is that they both have complete contempt for their audience. I guess if I sat there night after night, spewing nonsense that people actually believe, I'd have a dim view of the people listening to my show (or reading my FB page) too. The thing is, you get the audience you aim at.

Noory doesn't really have to do a show that just appeals to the lowest (and most paranoid) common denominator. He could try to go for a more intelligent, less gullible audience. Of course such an audience would be less likely to buy most of the crap advertised on the show, but a more intelligent demographic is likely to have more disposable income.

Hoagland on the other hand, has no choice, not now anyway. There was a time (from what Don Davis has said) when Hoagland was actually interested in science, but those days are long gone. Now he's just trying to keep the lights on by selling nonsense.

Jiminy Oddbird said...

Like Art says, it's a long show. They got several hours to have to fill with something, so he lets guests have their full say, interrupting mostly to enhance the story telling by having the guest elaborate on some outrageous, yet glossed over point. Noory on the other hand, just lets the guest ramble incessantly. Art usually in the last hour, just before opening the phones up for the audience to question the guest, will ask one tough question. If the guest evades, he will let the guest further have their say, then he will simply ask the same question again; once or twice more, if the guest continues to be non responsive. After that, Art will drop it and go to the break. It's obvious enough to the audience by then, what's up with the guest, and they can continue to harp on it, or ask anything else they want.

Art challenges Hoagland way more than he does any other guest, but he does it in a good natured way. Hoagland has an answer for everything, but he never concedes to any valid point that Art ever makes.

Chris Lopes said...

Art was more secure in his position as ring master of the circus. His mad prophet of the airwaves (the guy was broadcasting from a trailer in his backyard, in the middle of the Nevada desert) personae made him a vital part of the show. He could afford to play rough with a guest now and then.

Noory tries to play it like a conventional journalist. He's quite secondary to the show. That makes the guests lot more important and Noory more protective. With a guy like Hoagland (and his Mars sized ego) that's a recipe for disaster.

Jiminy Oddbird said...

Looks like Hoagy finally paid his webslave.

enterprisemission.com

Anonymous said...

Haha! Dick's website STILL looks like it was put together by some school kid with a 1990s computer!...

To be fair: he cannot go around spending money on fancy web designers when he's got a trip to Giza to pay for... oh wait, he wants EVERYONE ELSE to pay for HIS trip so that he can continue to be the all-knowing high-master of hyper-dimensional goings-on and tell us all about the magical ectoplasm venus gives of with it does it's transitional thang...

http://i42.tinypic.com/33xd7qd.png

Personally, I think a giant of modern science passing the hat around his disciplines asking for money, is very embarrassing indeed... and it would be even MORE embarrassing if he'd not just made a comment condemning people who want a "free handout"... oh wait... HE DID...

http://i43.tinypic.com/2jfxhj.png

Cost of a vacation to Egypt: \$5,000. Cost of a trip to Mars: \$5,000,000,000. Watching Hoagland make a clown of himself: Priceless.

expat said...

Misti: I'm inclined to think that subtle change to the mish-mash site is just an indication that "The action's all over there ---->"

The fact that he's promising a "major" analysis of John Carter means no more than all the other dud promises did.

Chris Lopes said...

Expat,
I have to agree with you. Changing the banner is nothing compared to actually writing a paper. While it does indicate he has positive control over his site again, that doesn't mean he's willing to waste time and effort for the non-paying customers. Offering stuff for free to generate a larger (paying) audience hasn't been a very successful business model for him. That's because the paid stuff isn't any better than the crap he's given away.

strahlungsamt said...

I see he stole another still from "Mission to Mars" for that Facebook banner.

Anyone feel like reporting him for copyright violations?
(If M2M wasn't so mind-numbingly boring, I might actually watch it again to find out who owns the copyright. Then again, the makers of that abomination need to be terminated somehow so I won't bother)

Chris Lopes said...

strahlungsamt,
Hoagland is depending on both the ignorance of his followers and the copyright holders (as in the infamous "artist's rendition" of YU55 case) to keep him out of trouble. If the material ever makes it in book form though, the publisher won't be able to afford to over look the issue. Which means we'll be left with just a written description (similar to the Von Braun/Disney video discussed in DM) of what he wants us to see.

Chris Lopes said...

FYI,
I made a point of sending the EM website's contact email address (it's a Yahoo account for pete's sake!) a message pointing out the copyright infringement issue. They have been warned.

Esteban Navarro said...

Let's see: This whole Hoagies and Bara thing is an “ufológic cult”. Modern religious anthropology deals with it, at least near here, in Barcelona. (http://manueldelgadoruiz.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/sobre-los-niveles-de-tipificacion-de.html#comment-form – great blog-) is a religious phenomenon, that's it. It´s no big deal. But its conspiranoic component is what revolts, I know: Already criminalizes and insults science and-all above- their workers ,and that´s unacceptable.

But in its background are something that can not be true or false, is what it is:” pret a portér“religion.
Dick & Bara repeates cienciológics litanies , more or less elaborated, and a little bit "originals", but… hey, something they have to live. And it seems to live well. Fraud on their “evideces” & “data” is unacceptable already.

Phil Plait is right: “Not worth it”. And why? Because they are in a record of the media- mystery-Show.

Anyway, I support your hobby , out of the distance, here in Madrid, Expat,(I myself have studied the photoshopped “data” , the ruins of the Moon, -I have to send you-, it´s really funny if you Know some optics laws and a little bit of that processing images program )
The next cartoon i´ll draw must be one of Bara saying "Doh!" at the news that John Glenn never landed on the moon.

Greetings from Spain. Some Albariño wine miss you (LOL)

PS: Chris, make no mistake, they are there to give his public what it calls them, They reclame them to say that things, no matter how absurd or delirious may become. They want Magic and "new" religion .However, the premise is absolutely clear:The trick is not to be seen. Any priest, magician, illusionist has to know this.. But it seems that their public hearing, the membership , the audience do not care and that is what seems unforgivable to us..I have to say it .They need this kind of discourse .Doesn´t matter how contarrevolucionary results. People usually do not like complicated to think

Siempre os leo, hasta luego, amigos. [You´re lovely Misti…so as you B.U.;)]

expat said...

Holà, Esteban, and thanks for the comments. Fortunately, I'm able to find albariño right here without constantly shuttling to Galicia.

Esteban Navarro said...

Ah, well, then...
I was about to send you a couple of boxes ..., and one of "Tempranillo de Valdepeñas" , extremenian"Tentudia" and other delicious one:"Ribera de Duero".... ( LOL )
I was just in Hoaglands´ FB .... Miracle! they still don´t have erased the message.I posted that:

I´m terribly sorry, Mr. Hoagland,believe me it pains me to say this , I´m a real fan of your work (It´s true, your blog testifies that, isn´t it?) , but the wise men should not be ever seen with the trick.That´s their premise all along in the histoy of humanity, from the Chamán to the priest : Here the commands in your "image enhancement" : Image / Adjustments / invert / Curves / Variations / RGB channel / more blue / more Cyan. (previous selection) Please , be honest.
Hurry up, boys, before it gets deleted, see for yourself, do the “homework”, be free…if you want, obviously. ;) Regards from Spain,
Belive me when I say I´m you fan.I mean serious....

I swear these are the commands, I know a few things ´bout Photoshop And that is a crude manipulation.

Do you see why I think he´s harmless?

Un saludo, Expat.Y gracias.

Jiminy Oddbird said...

When Hoagland puts the images on the cover of his book for sale, then there might be copyright infringement.

Such a whiny, little, tattle tale, Chris.

Chris Lopes said...

Misti,
He's using the image on a site that is used to sell things. The only thing saving his ass from a take down notice is the fact that for the vast majority of humanity, he doesn't actually exist. All I did was let him know (for the record, and in a snarky way) that what he is doing is illegal. If he continues to use it, he is knowingly breaking the law.

Biological_Unit said...

Tolerance isn't acceptance and freedom isn’t license.

Jiminy Oddbird said...

Oh, I thought you told whoever it was that Hoagland ripped off.

Jiminy Oddbird said...

Since you didn't inform the artist, then I guess that makes you an accessory, now doesn't it Chris?

Chris Lopes said...

Misti,
I don't know what your problem is, and I really don't care. Hoagland is (once again) using someone elses work to help him sell his. It's something he has done time and time again. He takes ideas, art work, and whole books from other people and tries to pass them off as his own. Then he has the nerve to complain when someone posts one of his long dead videos on the Web.

In this case, he's trying to make his 1990's style website look a little professional by using the artwork from a movie. This is artwork he has no right to use. He didn't pay to have it done and he sure hasn't asked anyone's permission to use it.

So what he is doing is wrong and I let him know about it. I don't expect him to actually correct the problem, as Hoagland does not recognize other people's intellectual property rights. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, Walter Myers had to actually go to Hoagie's ISP to have his stuff removed, even after many attempts to contact Hoagland on the issue. He's a thief by nature, and a petty one at that.

Jiminy Oddbird said...

Chris, I'm going to have to report you to the Patents and Copyright Office, for conspiring with Hoagland against the movie studio. Or are you simply trying to blackmail him in order to extort some of that book advance dough he seems to have just come into?

Chris Lopes said...

I was giving him a chance to do the right thing. In this case, that simply means not using someone elses intellectual property. He can end the issue by taking down the image. If he doesn't, he doesn't.

Jiminy Oddbird said...

Just who are you, Chris, to be the judge that no damages have been done? The studio might just take a different view of this, and hold you as an accessory.