|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#31
February 11th 04, 01:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
What is the visual difference between a stone and a satellite?
"Stephen Fels" wrote in message om...
"bart janssens" wrote in message om... That is why your chart of maximum speeds doesn't seem to allow for rocket launches (BTW, amateurs in the western desert are getting close to putting homemade rockets into orbit. For the cost of a Greyhound ticket, you could go watch a rocket launched by ordinary people, if you're so distrustful of the world's governments). What is the VELOCITY reached by those home-made rockets? 2,000KPH? That is FAR AWAY from 28,000KPH.... And gravity on the surface is FAR AWAY from the zero gravity experienced in space. You're really going to have to try harder. The gravity at a height af 300km is 9m/s^2, that is closer to 10m/s^2 than to zero... Why do you write "getting close to putting rockets into orbit"? Do you believe in "Santa Claus"? Is 2,000 close to 28,000? I DO NOT THINK SO! That's because you're a net-kook and probably some variety of insane. Good bye. Why do you not answer the question? Is the speed of a home-made rocket more than 2,000KPH? Is 2,000 close to 28,000? www.geocities.com/markpeeters96/a.html 
|
|
#32
February 11th 04, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the visual difference between a stone and a satellite?
"bart janssens" wrote in message om... Why do you not answer the question? You still haven't answered my question. How is GPS possible? Satellite phones? Satellite television? Satellite weather imagery? Satellite photography? The Starshine project? The Iridium flares? Pre-planned water dumps by the Shuttle? Pre-planned fuel dumps by launch vehicles. The recent satellite that was equipped with a green laser that many observers saw sweeping through the clouds. The ability to see the wire connecting tethered satellites? The ability to see and photograph the shape and structure of the Shuttle and the Space Station in a backyard telescope? The fact that I can watch the Shuttle take off from my backyard and an observer in England can see it at precisely the time one would expect for an object travelling at orbital velocity and then, roughly 90 minutes later, I can see it again, after circling the Earth? How is it that the OIG predicts, days in advance, the appearance of new objects orbiting the Earth? How is it that NASA predicts the dissapearance of objects, perfectly agreeing with the de-orbit of the Shuttle? How is it that this "conspiracy" involves millions of civilians, businesses, enemy governments and countless technologies all around the world and you are the only person on the planet who can prove them all wrong, with highschool math and gradeschool logic? -- Stephen Home Page: stephmon.com Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com
|
|
#33
February 11th 04, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the visual difference between a stone and a satellite?
"bart janssens" wrote in message om... Why do you not answer the question? You still haven't answered my question. How is GPS possible? Satellite phones? Satellite television? Satellite weather imagery? Satellite photography? The Starshine project? The Iridium flares? Pre-planned water dumps by the Shuttle? Pre-planned fuel dumps by launch vehicles. The recent satellite that was equipped with a green laser that many observers saw sweeping through the clouds. The ability to see the wire connecting tethered satellites? The ability to see and photograph the shape and structure of the Shuttle and the Space Station in a backyard telescope? The fact that I can watch the Shuttle take off from my backyard and an observer in England can see it at precisely the time one would expect for an object travelling at orbital velocity and then, roughly 90 minutes later, I can see it again, after circling the Earth? How is it that the OIG predicts, days in advance, the appearance of new objects orbiting the Earth? How is it that NASA predicts the dissapearance of objects, perfectly agreeing with the de-orbit of the Shuttle? How is it that this "conspiracy" involves millions of civilians, businesses, enemy governments and countless technologies all around the world and you are the only person on the planet who can prove them all wrong, with highschool math and gradeschool logic? -- Stephen Home Page: stephmon.com Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com
|
|
#34
February 13th 04, 08:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the visual difference between a stone and a satellite?
In article ,
says... Here's more of the same type of thread on another forum: http://www.sciencegroups.com/viewtopic.php?t=15409 If anyone can read Dutch, there's a lot more that can be found via Google, and I bet at least some of it is the same stuff. It would be easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to any rational person. Tell us where you are (in Belgium it seems), and we will tell you exactly what time and where in the sky to look to see specific satellites. We will tell you which objects they are -- International Space Station, Iridium flares, many others, including bright upper stage launch vehicles. Actually, you don't have to have us tell you, just go to heavens-above.com and find your location and see which objects are predicted for you. If you're unwilling to try such a simple experiment -- which will prove you wrong -- then you don't deserve to be listened to one more time by anyone. If you're just trolling due to not having a life ... well, it takes all kinds.... Ed Cannon - - Austin, Texas, USA (Remove "donotspam".) http://wnt.cc.utexas.edu/~ecannon/satellite.htm
|
|
#35
February 13th 04, 08:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the visual difference between a stone and a satellite?
In article ,
says... Here's more of the same type of thread on another forum: http://www.sciencegroups.com/viewtopic.php?t=15409 If anyone can read Dutch, there's a lot more that can be found via Google, and I bet at least some of it is the same stuff. It would be easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to any rational person. Tell us where you are (in Belgium it seems), and we will tell you exactly what time and where in the sky to look to see specific satellites. We will tell you which objects they are -- International Space Station, Iridium flares, many others, including bright upper stage launch vehicles. Actually, you don't have to have us tell you, just go to heavens-above.com and find your location and see which objects are predicted for you. If you're unwilling to try such a simple experiment -- which will prove you wrong -- then you don't deserve to be listened to one more time by anyone. If you're just trolling due to not having a life ... well, it takes all kinds.... Ed Cannon - - Austin, Texas, USA (Remove "donotspam".) http://wnt.cc.utexas.edu/~ecannon/satellite.htm
|
|
#36
February 13th 04, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the visual difference between a stone and a satellite?
"Stephen Fels" wrote in message . com...
"bart janssens" wrote in message om... Why do you not answer the question? You still haven't answered my question. How is GPS possible? Satellite phones? Satellite television? Satellite weather imagery? Satellite photography? The Starshine project? The Iridium flares? Pre-planned water dumps by the Shuttle? Pre-planned fuel dumps by launch vehicles. The recent satellite that was equipped with a green laser that many observers saw sweeping through the clouds. The ability to see the wire connecting tethered satellites? The ability to see and photograph the shape and structure of the Shuttle and the Space Station in a backyard telescope? The fact that I can watch the Shuttle take off from my backyard and an observer in England can see it at precisely the time one would expect for an object travelling at orbital velocity and then, roughly 90 minutes later, I can see it again, after circling the Earth? How is it that the OIG predicts, days in advance, the appearance of new objects orbiting the Earth? How is it that NASA predicts the dissapearance of objects, perfectly agreeing with the de-orbit of the Shuttle? I have answered those questions already many times! But you wrote... "home-made rockets are getting close to orbit"? Is 2,000 close to 28,000? I DO NOT THINK SO! That's because you're a net-kook and probably some variety of insane. Why do you not answer the question? Is the speed of a home-made rocket more than 2,000KPH? Is 2,000 close to 28,000? (Is 28,000KPH not the velocity that is needed for an orbit?) And why did you not repeat "the question"? How is it that this "conspiracy" involves millions of civilians, businesses, enemy governments and countless technologies all around the world and you are the only person on the planet who can prove them all wrong, with highschool math and gradeschool logic? This is precisely the same reaction, that was given to Copernicus and Galileo... But, as you probably know, Copernicus and Galileo were right... and all the other civilians, millions of them... were wrong... NOTHING IS MORE UNBELIEVABLE THAN THE REALITY www.geocities.com/markpeeters96/a.html
|
|
#37
February 13th 04, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the visual difference between a stone and a satellite?
"Stephen Fels" wrote in message . com...
"bart janssens" wrote in message om... Why do you not answer the question? You still haven't answered my question. How is GPS possible? Satellite phones? Satellite television? Satellite weather imagery? Satellite photography? The Starshine project? The Iridium flares? Pre-planned water dumps by the Shuttle? Pre-planned fuel dumps by launch vehicles. The recent satellite that was equipped with a green laser that many observers saw sweeping through the clouds. The ability to see the wire connecting tethered satellites? The ability to see and photograph the shape and structure of the Shuttle and the Space Station in a backyard telescope? The fact that I can watch the Shuttle take off from my backyard and an observer in England can see it at precisely the time one would expect for an object travelling at orbital velocity and then, roughly 90 minutes later, I can see it again, after circling the Earth? How is it that the OIG predicts, days in advance, the appearance of new objects orbiting the Earth? How is it that NASA predicts the dissapearance of objects, perfectly agreeing with the de-orbit of the Shuttle? I have answered those questions already many times! But you wrote... "home-made rockets are getting close to orbit"? Is 2,000 close to 28,000? I DO NOT THINK SO! That's because you're a net-kook and probably some variety of insane. Why do you not answer the question? Is the speed of a home-made rocket more than 2,000KPH? Is 2,000 close to 28,000? (Is 28,000KPH not the velocity that is needed for an orbit?) And why did you not repeat "the question"? How is it that this "conspiracy" involves millions of civilians, businesses, enemy governments and countless technologies all around the world and you are the only person on the planet who can prove them all wrong, with highschool math and gradeschool logic? This is precisely the same reaction, that was given to Copernicus and Galileo... But, as you probably know, Copernicus and Galileo were right... and all the other civilians, millions of them... were wrong... NOTHING IS MORE UNBELIEVABLE THAN THE REALITY www.geocities.com/markpeeters96/a.html
|
|
#38
February 13th 04, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the visual difference between a stone and a satellite?
"bart janssens" wrote in message om... "Stephen Fels" wrote in message . com... "bart janssens" wrote in message om... Why do you not answer the question? You still haven't answered my question. How is GPS possible? Satellite phones? Satellite television? Satellite weather imagery? Satellite photography? The Starshine project? The Iridium flares? Pre-planned water dumps by the Shuttle? Pre-planned fuel dumps by launch vehicles. The recent satellite that was equipped with a green laser that many observers saw sweeping through the clouds. The ability to see the wire connecting tethered satellites? The ability to see and photograph the shape and structure of the Shuttle and the Space Station in a backyard telescope? The fact that I can watch the Shuttle take off from my backyard and an observer in England can see it at precisely the time one would expect for an object travelling at orbital velocity and then, roughly 90 minutes later, I can see it again, after circling the Earth? How is it that the OIG predicts, days in advance, the appearance of new objects orbiting the Earth? How is it that NASA predicts the dissapearance of objects, perfectly agreeing with the de-orbit of the Shuttle? I have answered those questions already many times! Cite? "home-made rockets are getting close to orbit"? Is 2,000 close to 28,000? I DO NOT THINK SO! Those home made rockets are limited by the amount of fuel they can carry and the ratio of fuel to payload weight. Their limited speed is a matter of money and materials, not physics. The Shuttle carries 4,400,000 lbs of fuel, to propell 165,000 lbs of Shuttle. The burning fuel exits that back of the Shuttle at about 6,000 mph (this can be independantly verified, since it is known that those explosives expand between 5,000 and 10,000mph). The solid rocket boosters burn for about 2 minutes and generate about 3,300,000 pounds of thrust each at launch (they average 2.65 million pounds each during their burn). The three main engines burn for about eight minutes, producing 375,000 lbs of thrust each, before Main Engine CutOff (MECO). So, you have 7,725,000 lbs of thrust accellerating 4,400,000 lbs for 2 minutes and then 1,125,000 lbs of thrust accellerating roughly 250,000 lbs for 6 more minutes. That's plenty of power to accellerate at 3g's (the maximum allowed for shuttle launches, since they carry civilians. Earlier manned launches experienced harder accelleration forces) for 480 seconds. Accellerating 96 feet per second, every second for 480 seconds, or 96fps + 96fps + 96fps + .... 480 times. That's escape velocity. How is it that this "conspiracy" involves millions of civilians, businesses, enemy governments and countless technologies all around the world and you are the only person on the planet who can prove them all wrong, with highschool math and gradeschool logic? This is precisely the same reaction, that was given to Copernicus and Galileo... But, as you probably know, Copernicus and Galileo were right... and all the other civilians, millions of them... were wrong... If Copernicus and Galileo had told Magellan that the world was flat, AFTER he had circled the globe, he would have rightly called them kooks. -- Stephen Home Page: stephmon.com Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com
|
|
#39
February 13th 04, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the visual difference between a stone and a satellite?
"bart janssens" wrote in message om... "Stephen Fels" wrote in message . com... "bart janssens" wrote in message om... Why do you not answer the question? You still haven't answered my question. How is GPS possible? Satellite phones? Satellite television? Satellite weather imagery? Satellite photography? The Starshine project? The Iridium flares? Pre-planned water dumps by the Shuttle? Pre-planned fuel dumps by launch vehicles. The recent satellite that was equipped with a green laser that many observers saw sweeping through the clouds. The ability to see the wire connecting tethered satellites? The ability to see and photograph the shape and structure of the Shuttle and the Space Station in a backyard telescope? The fact that I can watch the Shuttle take off from my backyard and an observer in England can see it at precisely the time one would expect for an object travelling at orbital velocity and then, roughly 90 minutes later, I can see it again, after circling the Earth? How is it that the OIG predicts, days in advance, the appearance of new objects orbiting the Earth? How is it that NASA predicts the dissapearance of objects, perfectly agreeing with the de-orbit of the Shuttle? I have answered those questions already many times! Cite? "home-made rockets are getting close to orbit"? Is 2,000 close to 28,000? I DO NOT THINK SO! Those home made rockets are limited by the amount of fuel they can carry and the ratio of fuel to payload weight. Their limited speed is a matter of money and materials, not physics. The Shuttle carries 4,400,000 lbs of fuel, to propell 165,000 lbs of Shuttle. The burning fuel exits that back of the Shuttle at about 6,000 mph (this can be independantly verified, since it is known that those explosives expand between 5,000 and 10,000mph). The solid rocket boosters burn for about 2 minutes and generate about 3,300,000 pounds of thrust each at launch (they average 2.65 million pounds each during their burn). The three main engines burn for about eight minutes, producing 375,000 lbs of thrust each, before Main Engine CutOff (MECO). So, you have 7,725,000 lbs of thrust accellerating 4,400,000 lbs for 2 minutes and then 1,125,000 lbs of thrust accellerating roughly 250,000 lbs for 6 more minutes. That's plenty of power to accellerate at 3g's (the maximum allowed for shuttle launches, since they carry civilians. Earlier manned launches experienced harder accelleration forces) for 480 seconds. Accellerating 96 feet per second, every second for 480 seconds, or 96fps + 96fps + 96fps + .... 480 times. That's escape velocity. How is it that this "conspiracy" involves millions of civilians, businesses, enemy governments and countless technologies all around the world and you are the only person on the planet who can prove them all wrong, with highschool math and gradeschool logic? This is precisely the same reaction, that was given to Copernicus and Galileo... But, as you probably know, Copernicus and Galileo were right... and all the other civilians, millions of them... were wrong... If Copernicus and Galileo had told Magellan that the world was flat, AFTER he had circled the globe, he would have rightly called them kooks. -- Stephen Home Page: stephmon.com Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com
|
|
#40
February 16th 04, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the visual difference between a stone and a satellite?
I have answered those questions already many times!
Cite? I have answered those many questions already many times! Go to groups.google.com and do a search on "Mark Peeters", combined with the question you want... But, now back to MY question! "home-made rockets are getting close to orbit"? Is 2,000 close to 28,000? I DO NOT THINK SO! Why do you drop five lines of the question? "home-made rockets are getting close to orbit"? Is 2,000 close to 28,000? I DO NOT THINK SO! That's because you're a net-KOOK and probably some variety of insane. Why do you not answer the question? Is the speed of a home-made rocket more than 2,000KPH? Is 2,000 close to 28,000? (Is 28,000KPH not the velocity that is needed for an orbit?) I will repeat "the" question that you do not dear to answer. Is the speed of a home-made rocket more than 2,000KPH? And if the answer is "yes",...why do you claim that... "home-made rockets are getting close to orbit", since you need a velocity of 28,000KPH for an orbit? If Copernicus and Galileo had told Magellan that the world was flat, AFTER he had circled the globe, he would have rightly called them KOOKs. If Magellan had claimed that the earth was flat, after he had circeld the globe, Copernicus and Galileo rightly would call him a LIAR,INSANE or a KOOK! If you claim that space-travel is real, because "2,000 is greater than 28,000" then I can righly call YOU a liar, insane or a kook... and that is probably the reason why you wrote... "That's because you're a net-KOOK and probably some variety of insane."
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Mars Rover Inspects Stone Ejected From Crater | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 17th 04 10:58 PM |
Linear Mode
