tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post6350961100528685165..comments2023-12-19T09:40:12.020-08:00Comments on The Emoluments of Mars: Hoagland shamed, Bara mockedexpathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-63464982741224226782014-12-07T14:18:43.737-08:002014-12-07T14:18:43.737-08:00Last comment by Novvak deleted. Wrong place, and i...Last comment by Novvak deleted. Wrong place, and it's merely a re-post from Hoagland's FB fan page. I won't allow it in the other thread either.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-78868650358678598532014-12-07T10:52:24.884-08:002014-12-07T10:52:24.884-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.THE Orbs Whipererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08651754060614417385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-40012430868763193592014-12-05T06:42:04.914-08:002014-12-05T06:42:04.914-08:00**sigh**
The question cannot be answered because ...**sigh**<br /><br />The question cannot be answered because it arises from a false assumption.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-4995850364727633912014-12-05T03:26:17.568-08:002014-12-05T03:26:17.568-08:00@ Captain Novvak
expat said...".....But I be...@ Captain Novvak<br /><br />expat said...".....But I beg you to stop this tutoring stuff, it's not what the blog is for."<br /><br />I agree so why not stop horsing around and stop side-tracking and answer questions raised to arguments you brought forth. So....the following is still open...<br /><br />@Captain Novvak<br /><br />"Zero Gravity is Relative. Rotation creates gravity. Rotating bodies curve Space like a bowling ball on a table cloth thereby reducing distance resulting in decrease of travel Time."<br /><br />please then explain how on earth or to put it more correctly how on Uranus this works because this planet has an obliquity of 97,86 degrees ? In a way perpendicular to the orbital plane of our solar system ?<br /><br />I would really like to know your answer to that one<br /><br />Adrian<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-69484437408695681102014-12-04T18:09:01.571-08:002014-12-04T18:09:01.571-08:00The point is that Gravity curves Space which short...The point is that Gravity curves Space which shortens distance thereby Relatively decreasing Time; therefore Gravity = Time.<br /><br />The there is the fact that damn near everything in Outer Space rotates. A body in motion tends to remain in motion; nearly perpetually. That takes a lot of Energy, which cannot be destroyed, but can be converted.<br /><br />The question is how?THE Orbs Whipererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08651754060614417385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-29146348659163078822014-12-04T12:46:30.504-08:002014-12-04T12:46:30.504-08:00Novvak: I think I'd call it quasi-linear. But ...Novvak: I think I'd call it quasi-linear. But I beg you to stop this tutoring stuff, it's not what the blog is for.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-3361797438946255522014-12-04T12:22:25.720-08:002014-12-04T12:22:25.720-08:00So then you are saying that one can travel in a li...So then you are saying that one can travel in a linear direction in Outer Space?THE Orbs Whipererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08651754060614417385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-17567120973402547762014-12-04T09:24:42.354-08:002014-12-04T09:24:42.354-08:00In an idle moment I ran through the calculation of...In an idle moment I ran through the calculation of Mike Bara's weight loss as he's standing on top of a very tall spiral staircase.<br />I did it in kilograms and metres, because the pound/foot system adds confusion. Since the word "pound" is used for mass as well as force it can get hard to tell which we're talking about.<br />In the metric system, mass is measured in kilograms while force is measured in newtons. <br />Since I can't use superscripts in this comment box, I'm using the convention of ^ meaning "to the power of".<br /><br />Data:<br />=====<br />Mass of Mike: 113 kg (250lb)<br />Mass of planet: 5.97 × 10^24 kg<br />Radius of planet: 6.371 × 10^6 m<br />Altitude of Mike: 120,000 m = 0.12 × 10^6 m<br />So distance of Mike from center of Earth: 6.49 × 10^6 m<br />Gravitational constant G: 6.67 × 10^-11<br />Acceleration due to gravity g: 9.81 m s^-2<br /><br />Formula:<br />=======<br />F = G m1m2/d^2<br />where<br />F is the force attracting two massive bodies<br />m1,m2 are the masses of the two bodies<br />d is the distance between the centers<br /><br />Calculation:<br />============<br />Mike weighs 113 kg on the surface of the planet<br />That means the force pulling him down is 113 × g, or 1108 newtons<br /><br />at 120km altitude, the force pulling him down is given by<br />6.67 × 10^-11 × 113 × 5.97 × 10^24<br />--divided by--<br />6.49^2 × 10^12<br /><br />top is 4500 × 10^13<br />bottom is 42.1 × 10^12<br />result is 1070 newtons<br /><br />1070 divide by g = 109<br />113 - 109 = 4<br />so Mike's weight is 4kg or 8.8lb less than at surfaceexpathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-66894871492803344502014-12-04T07:19:19.863-08:002014-12-04T07:19:19.863-08:00Novvak: >>Would the astronaut not be weightl...Novvak: >>Would the astronaut not be weightless out between solar systems, while traveling in a linear direction?<<<br /><br />He would be weightless, since he is not in any gravity field. Although mathematically you could derive a figure for the influence of the nearest star, it would be infinitesimal and in any case the whole spacecraft would be falling towards it by that infinitesimal amount.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-47538147126432635582014-12-03T19:17:49.856-08:002014-12-03T19:17:49.856-08:00Okay, here's one for you. How come you can ju...Okay, here's one for you. How come you can jump up in the air from the rear deck of a fast, forward moving yacht, and not land in the Ocean, yet you can float around in the air, weightless, in a nose diving 707, and how would that work on Uranus?THE Orbs Whipererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08651754060614417385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-24034720491374192142014-12-03T18:54:00.723-08:002014-12-03T18:54:00.723-08:00Would the astronaut not be weightless out between ...Would the astronaut not be weightless out between solar systems, while traveling in a linear direction?<br /><br />There actually was an experiment on Skylab, where salt crystals were attracted to each other by the force of Gravity created by their own mass.THE Orbs Whipererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08651754060614417385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-66729911907078172762014-12-03T07:04:57.493-08:002014-12-03T07:04:57.493-08:00Novvak:
>>If mass creates Gravity then how c...Novvak:<br />>>If mass creates Gravity then how can the Astronaut be weightless? <<<br /><br />Oh dear. I never really saw myself as an 8th grade science teacher, but wtf....<br /><br />The astronaut is weightless because it's gravity that is keeping him in orbit. The situation is no different from the weightlessness he would experience while falling from a great height (minus the effects of air rushing past him). Mike Bara has a similarly primitive idea of what gravity is. I tried to explain to him that zero gravity is not simply a consequence of being at orbital altitude (120 km plus) -- you have to have forward motion as well. If you built a spiral staircase reaching up to that altitude, and stood at the top, you would not be weightless. In fact, a man of Mike Bara size would weigh some 10 lb less than on the surface, by virtue of being that much further from the center of the planet.<br /><br />Please note again that in all cases gravitation does not change a body's MASS. A Skylab astronaut has whatever mass he has, measured in the M172 rocking chair. Mike Bara standing 120km above the Earth still has a MASS of 250lb although his WEIGHT is reduced by the altitude.<br /><br />Class dismissed.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-52152586416336421872014-12-03T00:38:26.131-08:002014-12-03T00:38:26.131-08:00@Captain Novvak
"Zero Gravity is Relative. R...@Captain Novvak<br /><br />"Zero Gravity is Relative. Rotation creates gravity. Rotating bodies curve Space like a bowling ball on a table cloth thereby reducing distance resulting in decrease of travel Time."<br /><br />please then explain how on earth or to put it more correctly how on Uranus this works because this planet has an obliquity of 97,86 degrees ? In a way perpendicular to the orbital plane of our solar system ?<br /><br />I would really like to know your answer to that one<br /><br />AdrianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-72127602378936068752014-12-02T17:13:37.132-08:002014-12-02T17:13:37.132-08:00If mass creates Gravity then how can the Astronaut...If mass creates Gravity then how can the Astronaut be weightless? <br /><br />If you take the Astronaut out for a Spacewalk and swing him around by his tether, then the rotation of his mass only then will create Gravity.<br /><br />Consider how the Spaceship in the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey created Gravity.THE Orbs Whipererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08651754060614417385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-78705152256353782022014-12-02T15:50:04.743-08:002014-12-02T15:50:04.743-08:00...although I suppose you might argue that "w......although I suppose you might argue that "weighed" is not strictly correct in the Skylab case. "Measured" or "calculated" would be better. An astronaut's body has no WEIGHT, by definition since he's weightless. However, it still has MASS, and that is what was measured.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-24948375810962108032014-12-02T15:26:51.478-08:002014-12-02T15:26:51.478-08:00>>How much does mass weigh in zero gravity?&...>>How much does mass weigh in zero gravity?<<<br /><br />zero<br /><br />>>What experiment utilizing the Scientific Method has ever physically weighed mass away from a rotating body? <<<br /><br />Skylab experiment M172, body mass measurement.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-59146945065023311952014-12-02T15:19:28.789-08:002014-12-02T15:19:28.789-08:00How much does mass weigh in zero gravity?
What ...How much does mass weigh in zero gravity? <br /><br />What experiment utilizing the Scientific Method has ever physically weighed mass away from a rotating body?THE Orbs Whipererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08651754060614417385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-82067863592577865722014-12-02T10:15:20.251-08:002014-12-02T10:15:20.251-08:00Not true, Novvak. Rotation does not create gravity...Not true, Novvak. Rotation does not create gravity. MASS creates gravity.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-49818298834641667872014-12-02T10:02:07.802-08:002014-12-02T10:02:07.802-08:00Zero Gravity is Relative. Rotation creates gravit...Zero Gravity is Relative. Rotation creates gravity. Rotating bodies curve Space like a bowling ball on a table cloth thereby reducing distance resulting in decrease of travel Time.THE Orbs Whipererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08651754060614417385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-52052397486364341052014-12-01T03:10:05.950-08:002014-12-01T03:10:05.950-08:00@Dee
and I also said somewhere that time is actua...@Dee<br /><br />and I also said somewhere that time is actually a concept, an idea, an event, an incoherent and abstract representation of movement, a philosophical statement and no real physical object which can be explained..like space and that physics is all about explaining...well physical things. So...<br /><br />since we are still on the subject of clocks, albeit terrifying accurate caesium clocks, please give a specific definition of time then if you please?<br /><br />Specifying time as "time or duration of an event" or similar accounts to that effect will not to because it still says nothing about time or notion thereof. <br /><br />and as long as we do not have a specific definition and explanation of time....there will always be the other thing which it supposed to represent.<br /><br />So if we look at this with no bias whatsoever and the notion that we have no specific definition of time is remains actually quite ludicrous to say that clocks drift in time, lose and or gain time. <br /><br />concerning the terrifying accurate caesium clocks it would be better to state that the speed of oscillations of caesium atoms increase or decrease. <br /><br />So if we want to un-bamboozle current physics regarding the HK experiment etc it should be stated as follows<br /><br />the oscillation speed of caesium atoms are "relative" <br /><br />lacking a specific definition of time<br /><br /><br /><br />Adrian<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-82553985264759550652014-12-01T01:56:55.320-08:002014-12-01T01:56:55.320-08:00@Dee
to a certain degree I agree with you and thi...@Dee<br /><br />to a certain degree I agree with you and this was never an issue for me however<br /><br />- My first point is and was that if people or educational systems etc etc are stating that the HK experiment is proof of 1Steins correctness in regard to his postulations is simply unscientific for various reasons and borders on manipulation if not told the whole story. We can all have different opinions, views and ideas but when it comes to science and physics....elimination of data or smoothing out of data or mothballing uncomfortable results is not a scientific argument, it is simply fraude and a bamboozle<br /><br />- My second point concerning the HK experiment done 25 years later as an anniversary scoop...is that there is a lot of "tweaking" going all as well which is rather curious<br /><br />So if one tweaks towards a certain concept or idea in order to proof it one cannot simply do without the full picture taking into account the full spectrum of variables. And that means that the experiment which you are referring to is highly controversial in itself because because of that. <br /><br />The experiment was done in order to test if velocity could account for time dilation. and right there the tweaking starts because only the height, speed and estimated position were observed. <br /><br />the data on the aircrafts acceleration and the forces of acceleration when and if the aircraft experienced any turbulence during the flight or other alterations where simply not recorded in the experiments.<br /><br />Furthermore this experiment has never been looked at from the point of view of acceleration only. There is no account for turbulence during the flight or variations in the acceleration during take-off and landings etc etc and we could make the list even longer with all kinds of topics which where not taken into account<br /><br />Surely the anniversary experiment stands a better chance in court then the original bamboozle done by HK but there are a lot of bugs as I pointed out. <br /><br />So as a point of argument lets say there comes a time [pun intended] when we have a perfect experiment which includes all possible interfering variables....and it would turn out proving the doodlings of Herr 1Stein in that regard...I have no problem with that...my world and your world does not change because of that....but until then...<br /><br />the sum of Herr 1Stein doodlings can only be appreciated in reality and scientifically as a nice theory which seem to work only in certain corners of physics. And as I pointed out earlier...there is no real reason in terms of physics to Heil and praise Herr 1Stein as the be and end all of physics. <br /><br /><br />Adrian<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-50101642364668589672014-11-30T13:00:21.899-08:002014-11-30T13:00:21.899-08:00Nope, not me.Nope, not me.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-82234305534832491042014-11-30T10:32:31.950-08:002014-11-30T10:32:31.950-08:00Dear expat,
I thought you might have something t...Dear expat, <br /><br />I thought you might have something to do with this!<br />....http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland<br />This is hilarious!....needs updating though!<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />BillBillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502701354589019386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-53710833368208048952014-11-30T03:42:57.957-08:002014-11-30T03:42:57.957-08:00Adrian, regarding the Hafele–Keating experiment yo...<b>Adrian</b>, regarding the Hafele–Keating experiment you wrote: "<i>zero results [deliberately not published but surfaced none the less]</i>".<br /><br />Lets just take one actual reference, a proponent who argues in a similar way: <a href="http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H%26KPaper.htm" rel="nofollow">Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything?</a> by the late Dr. Al Kelly, Ph.D in Civil Engineering and author of the book "Challenging Modern Physics". Are you okay with this reference as representing your POV?<br /><br />Apart from simply ignoring my argument that this test was later <i>repeated succesfully</i>, e.g by the National Measurement Institute in 2010 using way better equipment and publishing the actual results which were in line with expectations, there's also some error in the critique from Kelly. Which I'll try to show instead of just hinting at.<br /><br /><a href="http://books.google.nl/books?id=XVLmihZnsvUC&lpg=PA31&ots=Xx_Smkpjbf&dq=Hafele%E2%80%93Keating%20examined&hl=nl&pg=PA33#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Here is</a> the test result in table form, with the original and modified numbers, from Kelly's book. I'll assume this is accurate.<br /><br />At first glance it seems rather weird, those obvious differences. But when one someone actually <i>reads the paper</i>, e.g. "Performance and results of portable clocks in aircraft" by J.C. Hafale, published by the U.S. Naval Observatory in 1971, another picture emerges. There one can read that <i>one clock</i> is not an accurate measurement at all, not with the state of technology at the time! The financial compromise was to use four instead of <b>at least 15</b> used to track mean time at USNO! Fluctuations in atomic clocks are deemed random and cancel each other out by averaging many different clocks. So you have to understand the "clock" at USNO is not an actual single clock at all and the clocks on the plane cannot be simply treated as four separate clocks with separate readings. The science of those clocks just doesn't work that way! <br /><br />Now comes the difference between practical engineering experience with atomic clock drift versus the remote criticisms of Kelly: the drift of a single clock can be calculated as a Gaussian distribution and as such taken into account. Added to that all kinds of deviations in flight, course and altitude which all causes the <i>raw clock measurement</i> to be meaningless without correcting for all that first.<br /><br />To insist on using the raw measurement instead is not possible considering the noise included within the individual signal. But the discussion really boils down to the question if that noise can be canceled out by calculation using statistical methods: <i> and that is what they do in the labs as well, it is not new to this experiment</i>. While one can dispute the correctness of that "filter", the actual proof will always lie with future repeats using better clocks and more accurate flight paths, to cancel out potential errors within the experimentation itself, over time.<br /><br />Which I've already showed <i>has been done</i> with rather telling results. So yes the original Hafele–Keating was "shaky" and quite improvising as an experiment, that's correct. They would have needed dozens of clocks on board for more significant results at the time, although the individual numbers might still look weird. But there were good reasons to publish the corrected results and in no way it was implied that this was the final evidence. The future would tell -- and it appears it did.<br /><br />Hope this helps, Adrian!<br /><br />DeeDeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-4971087696590296172014-11-29T02:04:45.630-08:002014-11-29T02:04:45.630-08:00@Dee
Well..."....with more and more modern e...@Dee<br /><br />Well..."....with more and more modern equipment and the results getting closer and closer to the prediction."<br /><br />Such a statement says it all does it not....from zero results [deliberately not published but surfaced none the less] to closer and closer results to a prediction...Interesting scientific set of rules. But then again your reasoning surely is somewhere in the spirit of...."that's the way things are done and then we learn" right? Again ignoring some facts and analysis of the data to the contrary which leads to a real and open scientific debate. But then again if the mindset is that 1Stein must be right you can call everybody who is not playing ball a crackpot, uneducated and what have you. There is a word for such behavior, surely you know that as an intelligent person.<br /><br />I am the last person to ignore that the postulations of Herr 1Stein seem to work in certain areas in physics and that it does not work in a lot of others. That is the reason why I called it a nice theory in the first place :-)<br /><br />Ignoring that is simply unscientific no matter how hard people start kicking and screaming the moment they realize that the very foundation of their pet theory is crumbling beneath their feet. <br /><br />you may think of yourselves as a [self]appointed high commissioner of the truth but you really start to sound like a frustrated wikipedia moderator. <br /><br />Scientific rules are simply not there for the bending if data tells tells a different story. <br /><br />concerning the HK experiment[s] the flaw mostly lies within "perspective and location and interpretation" as I pointed out earlier not to mention the obfuscation of their original data.<br /><br />So be scientific and explain the following since you keep on going about this HK experiment that proofs it all in your opinion.<br /><br />You know that clocks have the awkward tendency to gain or lose time which is called "drift" [although in reality time in itself does not "drift" but gives us that impression based on the inaccuracy of the clocks mechanism itself] if this so called drift occurs in a steady rate, we can simply do some adding or subtractions. Alas this "luck" of steady rate drift was nowhere to be found in the so unjustly praised HK experiments. This drifting was enormously irregular for all of the clocks. <br /><br />???is that not "strange" given the fact that they used such refined and accurate clocks??? for all intents and purposes they where not cheap and of the shelve clocks right??? So why do such costly highly accurate clocks behave in a cheap way :-) ???<br /><br />Going by the data the total range of this drifting was no where near the 59 nanoseconds that was expected to be measured. It was off by a factor of almost 12. <br /><br />Not to mention the highly variable "drifting" of the clocks involved and the "drifting" of these individual clocks during and throughout the experiments. <br /><br />And what was the reason again which makes it necessary for the "experimentors" to shield ceasium clocks? Indeed from magnetic effects. So if one hauls ceasium clocks through a different medium then that of the base clocks....you already have a problem right there. Because the effect of all kind of particles in the earths atmosphere is still unknown and unaccounted for and nowhere explained in this HK experiment. <br /><br />This kind of bamboozle is really an embarrassment to and for science...but obviously science has long lost it rigor and motivation being scientific. <br /><br /><br />Adrian<br /><br /> <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com