Why not admit that Hubble is lost and gone ?

[Jack by the hedge]

As you amusingly admit that it has no identifying features , we can retire safe in knowing that it can never be seen .
Why try for the impossible ? Although in terms of a good post , you seem to , several times most days .
Check Mate

Not quite. Since the track of its orbit is made freely available to the public, and anyone can go look for it any time they please, and any amateur observer can look in the right direction at the right time and see the thing, you still have the small problem that there is indeed something orbiting in the right place at the right time.

An amateur observer would have no way of identifying whether the thing they were looking at was the Hubble telescope or not, but they would have a much better chance with the ISS, since it's so large and its profile is very distinctive (as a Google image search for "ISS silhouette sun" will illustrate).

Since any random person can make an observation from anywhere below the track of their orbits on any occasion they care to try, how do you propose all these sightings can be faked using Japanese fireworks?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Not quite. Since the track of its orbit is made freely available to the public, and anyone can go look for it any time they please, and any amateur observer can look in the right direction at the right time and see the thing, you still have the small problem that there is indeed something orbiting in the right place at the right time.

An amateur observer would have no way of identifying whether the thing they were looking at was the Hubble telescope or not, but they would have a much better chance with the ISS, since it's so large and its profile is very distinctive (as a Google image search for "ISS silhouette sun" will illustrate).

Since any random person can make an observation from anywhere below the track of their orbits on any occasion they care to try, how do you propose all these sightings can be faked using Japanese fireworks?

Exactly, the identifying profile is more distinct than a stocker on the nose. But if there is something the right shape, in the right orbit, on schedule, it is identifiable.

 

[Daniel]

Wait - you think you've disproved NASA?

Yea.

How about you stop just puking out claims that these things aren't true and prove them? With some actual words, evidence, so on.

Ahhh, I just did SEE the post you just "DODGED": ENTROPY 1 ea.

How about you tell me why what I see through my telescope is wrong?

"SEEING" (Observing) is merely the First Step in The Scientific Method (Heard of this?); SO, Go on....? Step 2/Step 3/Step 4...?

How about you prove a scientist lied?

Errr, I just did. SEE the post you just "DODGED": ENTROPY 1 ea.

How about you prove I haven't seen satellites pass overhead, and the ISS, with my own eyes.

Sure. FIRST CONFIRM you observed 'satellites' and the ISS....?

Your style of 'debate' is transparent trolling.

My 'style', eh? Goodness your position is absolutely bankrupt. Thanks for tacitly Illustrating


regards

 

[Tomtomkent]

Daniel... Have you tried walking outdoors to observe satellites? You know you can see something like the ISS with some simple kit?

If so, how do you explain those observations? You mentioned projections...how do you differentiate between those and real satellites to prove what is observable is not a satellite?

 

[NoahFence]

Sure. FIRST CONFIRM you observed 'satellites' and the ISS....?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsc80evqJ88

Aw hell, just look at them yourself, professor youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ISS+Passing+overhead

 

[sts60]

threadworm is right. The quality of trolling on this thread is terrible. The incoherent wall-of-noise approach, coupled with plain-vanilla automatic denial, is the laziest form of trolling.

As obnoxious and useless as Anders was, he was a dedicated troll. He knew the refined trolling touches like occasionally pretending to listen and acknowledge corrections, only to restart the exact same rubbish over again later. The current trolls just don't put any effort into it.

 

[NoahFence]

There are a Myriad of satellite tracking apps for iPhone and Android. Why would they exist if there were no satellites?

 

[Dr.Sid]

It's simple .. trolls are to be ignored ..

 

[Daniel]

Gravity. In the absence of a restraining force we could expect the earth's atmosphere to expand and diffuse into space. Gravity is the restraining force.

'gravity', eh?? You could have said 'Duccolslopelgerts' and it would have had more Veracity!!

Let's see...

"Alright So, today we're gonna shoot down Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwell's Theory. We're like the Press, we build somebody up only to destroy them".
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.
Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality. (2:00 minute mark.)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eFv7ne_Q

We can stop right here, since NEWTON'S 'speculations' (Mytho-matheMagics) have been Falsified by Experiment; but where's the fun in that...

Definition of terms: M = Mass, Fg = force of gravity, w (weight) = Mg (mass x force of gravity), G = Gravitational Constant, r = radius (distance).

Newton never calculated "G" and proposed this before he died: Fg ∝ m₁M₂/d², so the Force of gravity is "Proportional" ( ∝ ).

Big "G" in Modern 'Classical Physics' is the ANCHOR Point for just about everything (i.e., calculating weight of Earth/Moon/Sun/Galaxies; 'theoretically' to calculate the birth of the universe' ect ect)

The quest for the Gravitational Constant "G", enter Henry Cavendish ~120 years later: This "purported" gentleman was extremely rich (member of the Royal Society: read 'Freemason') and a contrary breeze away from cutting off his own ears. I personally found 8 different portraits of this gentleman i.e, apparently he was "conjured", but I digress.

The 'Torsion Bar' Experiment, which has NEVER EVER been Repeated Successfully, poofed into existence: "G" = 6.67408 × 10-11 m³ /kg s² .

So Cavendish said: weight = Fg (Mg) ; Ergo: mg = "G" m₁M₂/r² . Now he could calculate the Mass of Earth (M2 is Mass of Earth, r² is radius of Earth)....

mg = "G" m₁M₂/r² so, mg = "G" m₁M₂/r² . So, M₂ = g r²/ G. Solving, for the Mass of Earth... 5.972 × 1024 kg.


Ahhh, Questions...

1. Please VALIDATE "G" by Experiment; CITE Source.....?

2. Begging The Question (Fallacy): where'd he get that "Radius" from ?? Then, VALIDATE the Radius of Earth....? (You'd have better chances of resurrecting Alexander the Great's Horse!!!). Please post Eratosthenes, Make MY DAY !!!

In summary, the Corner Constant "G" of Modern 'Classical Physics' is based on based on an Un-Verified Experiment (assumption) and a Logical Fallacy.

"There is no model of the theory of gravitation today other than the mathematical form."
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize Physics), The Character of the Physical Law. Page 39
people.virginia.edu/~ecd3m/1110/Fall2014/The_Character_of_Physical_Law.pdf

Wait...What, Huh? Richard Richard Richard... a Mathematical -- "Scientific Theory", eh? This is tantamount to having a "theory" of Married Bachelors!! If anyone needs me to explain "why", you have more "pressing issues" than Flat Earth or 'gravity'.
Richard should've turned in that Nobel and headed back to and passed 5th Grade General Science!!


Let's hammer this nonsensical Mytho-matheMagics into oblivion once and for all, mmm K? So let's go back to Newton, Fg ∝ m₁M₂/d² (and Cavedish: Fg = G m₁M₂/d² ) so the Force of Gravity is critically dependent on all the elements in these expressions, Right?

OK, let's assume that both equations above, including Big "G", is correct.

Let's look @ the relationship between "Centrifugal Force" (F_c) and (F_g) "Force of Gravity". Basically, we want to set them "Equal" ...that way, we can calculate "The Force" holding ANY planet in their "alleged" respective orbit around the Sun.
So as before we'll define terms:
m₁ (Mass of 1 Body...I will be using the Earth here but it can be any mass), M₂ will be the Mass of The Sun, V = Velocity, r = Radius (distance between Earth and Sun) :

F_c = m ( V²/r )
F_g = G m₁M₂/d² or (r²)

Let's set them Equal:

F_c = m_Earth ( V²/r ) = G m_Earth M_Sun / r² = F_g . So a little Algebra...

F_c = m_Earth ( V²/r ) = G m_Earth M_Sun / r² = F_g ....

F_c = ( V²/r ) = G M_Sun / r² = Fg !!! We can Stop right here, See The Problem??

F_c and F_g are NO LONGER "FORCES" because we just Eliminated ( " m " ) from both sides of the Equation! Remember...

F_c = m ( V²/r ) and...... F_g = G m₁M₂/d² or (r²) !! D U N "DONE". When you cancel " m "...you cancel "The FORCE", simple. This is the epitome of Mytho-matheMagical Buffoonery.


Turn out the lights when you're D U N !



EinsHtein's Turn (relativity):


So Relativity, sr and gr via different mechanisms (Speed vs. Gravity), can: Dilate/Bend/Warp...TIME ??

Primary School Falsification:

Sir, TIME is a "Conceptual" relationship between 2 motions. Specifically, it's based on an "Alleged" single rotation of the Earth on it's axis in respect to the Sun (A Day).
It's a "CONCEPT" (Non-Physical). It is without Chemical Formula/Structure, no Dimensionality/Orthogonality, and no Direction or Location. You can't put some in a jar and paint in red.

I mean c'mon now, let's reason together....can you Dilate/Bend Warp Non-Physical "Concepts"??
Is it your contention that if you have Poison Ivy on the brain you could scratch it by thinking of Sand Paper??

That which you are using to measure....isn't the thing you're measuring.

** A Football Field is 100 Yards long but a Football Field isn't Yardsticks!! If I bend a Yardstick...does the Football Field Bend also? **

So if something affects say...Cesium Atomic Clocks, or any modern "Clock" for that matter, does that then IPSO FACTO mean the Earth's "Alleged" rotation is Affected?
These Two Mytho-matheMagical Fairytales (sr and gr) were falsified 30 seconds after their respective publications by 3rd graders @ recess, for goodness sakes.
IN TOTO, each are Massive Reification Fallacies on Nuclear Steroids!!


Here's the Grown-Up Falsification:

"Non-Locality"--

(Einstein's, "Spooky Action @ a Distance", SEE: 'EPR Paradox' 1935) where Einstein et al floated a 'thought experiment' in an attempt to 'Debunk' Quantum Mechanics. Why? Well... he couldn't have anything traveling faster than the Speed of Light, cause his 'theories' would IMPLODE. (Side Note: He never published in Physical Review Letters again because he didn't appreciate the Paper being "Peer-Reviewed".
journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777 )...


In the 1960's, John Bell explored Einstein et al thought experiment and proposed an Inequality (Bell's Inequality). If it was shown to be false, Einstein and his theories would take a dirt nap.
www.drchinese...l_Compact.pdf

Bell's Inequality was first Violated Experimentally in 1972 by John Clauser and Stuart Freedman:
dieumsnh.qfb.umich.mx/archivoshistoricosMQ/ModernaHist/Freedman.pdf

Then in 1982, Alain Aspect PhD Physics Jacked it Forever "Yard" !! Ergo....Einstein and his "theories" = Dirt Nap !! (He got "de-bunked")
www.qudev.ethz.ch/phys4/studentspresentations/epr/aspect.pdf

Ever since Aspect's Falsification, "Non-Locality" has been CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENT roughly 500 times, Without Exception!!! See...

New Scientist "RealityCheck" 23 June 2007: "There is no objective reality beyond what we observe". Leggett's Inequality along with Bell's (again) have been violated. "Rather than passively observing it, WE IN FACT CREATE REALITY". {Emphasis Mine}
SEE: Landmark Parent Paper...

Gröblacher, S. et al; An experimental test of non-local realism Nature 446, 871-875 (19 April 2007) | doi :10.1038/nature05677.
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html

AND, Validated/CONFIRMED AGAIN (for the 500th Time) here: Hensen, B et al: Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686 (29 October 2015) doi:10.1038/nature15759
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/abs/nature15759.html


THEREFORE: There are 2 Doors that can be breached per the results of these Experiments:

Door #1: Information (however they conjured that) can travel Faster than the Speed of Light. Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE !!!

Door #2: Space and Time are Illusions. Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE !!!

Take your pick...?

Einstein himself after 30 years of attempting a Unified Field Theory finally reckoned with it prior to his death and was partial to the Latter Door (as am I)...

"I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature. My opinion is if that the objective description through the field as an elementary concept is not possible then one has to find a possibility to AVOID the continuum (together with SPACE and TIME) ALTOGETHER but I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory".--- Letter from Albert Einstein to David Bohm, 28 October 1954.


It's Crystal Clear you need to conjure another "Just So" Story...perhaps this time, ensure it's within 3 degrees of sincerity and some semblance of logical and/or Scientific Coherency. mmm K?


regards

 

[Tomtomkent]

But have you been out to observe satellites?

 

[NoahFence]

'gravity', eh?? You could have said 'Duccolslopelgerts' and it would have had more Veracity!!

More tasty word salad! YUM!

Are you now saying that along with satellites, Gravity doesn't exist?

 

[Daniel]

Daniel... Have you tried walking outdoors to observe satellites?

This after I just explained that: "SEEING" (Observing) is merely the First Step in The Scientific Method; SO, Go on....? Step 2/Step 3/Step 4...?

If so, how do you explain those observations?

Open your Eyelids then billions of bits of data hit the Retina which the Photo-Receptors have to ENCODE then send to the Visual Cortex for DECODING (Symbolic Logic)--- which btw, the Laws of Physics and Biochemistry have no Symbolic Logic Functions --- Viola, an 'object'.

The "Independent Variable" here... your EYELIDS !!

You mentioned projections...

Yes, for a small fee (and the ok from 'nasa' ) you can have yourselves:

Artificial Stars, Distant Suns, Shooting Stars, Meteor Showers.
global.star-ale.com/project/visual

I'm sure the ISS/Hubble et al can be 'Conjured' for a fee


"This Japanese company wants to rain down artificial shooting stars over the Tokyo Olympics."
www.sciencealert.com/this-japanese-company-wants-to-rain-down-artificial-shooting-stars-over-the-tokyo-olympics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAs4TCov1Sw (Start @ 9:52)

how do you differentiate between those and real satellites to prove what is observable is not a satellite?

Go up there and hack a piece off.... then bring it back for analysis


regards

 

[Tomtomkent]

You missed the bit where I asked how one could differentiate between projections and prove they were not projections. You just said observation is only the first step. But it is a step you seem determined to skip.

It is really quite embarrassing that you keep avoiding it.

 

[Dash80]

threadworm is right. The quality of trolling on this thread is terrible. The incoherent wall-of-noise approach, coupled with plain-vanilla automatic denial, is the laziest form of trolling.

As obnoxious and useless as Anders was, he was a dedicated troll. He knew the refined trolling touches like occasionally pretending to listen and acknowledge corrections, only to restart the exact same rubbish over again later. The current trolls just don't put any effort into it.

It's near impossible at times to respond to such incoherent gibberish, maybe that's the strategy...

Claim nobody can refute you, when really we are just trying to understand what kind of screwed up version of English they're employing.

 

[NoahFence]

I wonder what Junior thinks sailors used back before NASA. Why bother with a sextant when all the while what we're seeing is Future Japanese technology?

 

[Daniel]

You missed the bit where I asked how one could differentiate between projections and prove they were not projections.

I missed it, eh? Then why did I say: Go up there and hack a piece off.... then bring it back for analysis "

Is there something particularly confusing that needs more explanation?

You just said observation is only the first step.

That's right. So you Observed a Phenomenon (Step 1)

Step 2 Literature Review. 'nasa' claims there are man-made objects in the sky (sateliites/ISS/Hubble et al). Other companies (nasa' affiliated) have demonstrated they can produce Celestial Objects; so it's not beyond unreasonable to conclude these things can be FAKE!!

Step 3 Hypothesis: Since you don't have a prayer of producing a single viable "Independent Variable" so as to set up an Experiment; Ergo... it's outside the scope of the Scientific Method.
Try Philosophy or Religion

But it is a step you seem determined to skip.

Only if you close your eyes or have some serious reading comprehension issues.

It is really quite embarrassing that you keep avoiding it.

The only thing that's 'embarrassing' is suffering 'out of their depth' by Exponential Fathoms--- Pseudo-Science nincompoops which should be entertaining Cake Decorating Threads or asking for help with constructing their Hot Wheels Race Track --- post on Grown-Up Topics.


regards

 

[AdamSK]

This after I just explained that: "SEEING" (Observing) is merely the First Step in The Scientific Method; SO, Go on....? Step 2/Step 3/Step 4...?

So have you done "step 1" or not? Have you attempted to observe Hubble yourself?

 

[threadworm]

That's right. So you Observed a Phenomenon (Step 1)

The existence of the Hubble

Step 2 Literature Review. 'nasa' claims there are man-made objects in the sky (sateliites/ISS/Hubble et al).

Objects that are tracked around the world by professionals and amateurs alike. Objects for which we have masses of data and witnesses to their launch. Did you know you can buy equipment that will download data from orbiting weather satellites. I did it in the late 1980s using METEOSAT and NOAA data. Predictable as clockwork, that's what the literature says.

Other companies (nasa' affiliated) have demonstrated they can produce Celestial Objects; so it's not beyond unreasonable to conclude these things can be FAKE!!

Naughty naughty, you're prejudging the conclusion, and given that you have not actually demonstrated that anyone can produce celestial objects (Japanese satellites in orbit producing short lived shooting stars are not enough) your conclusions are unreasonable and illogical.

Step 3 Hypothesis: Since you don't have a prayer of producing a single viable "Independent Variable" so as to set up an Experiment; Ergo... it's outside the scope of the Scientific Method.

This is not a hypothesis. Try again.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I missed it, eh? Then why did I say: Go up there and hack a piece off.... then bring it back for analysis "

Is there something particularly confusing that needs more explanation?

Well as I already pointed out that skips several steps.
The silly thing is you seem to know this as you try to list the steps later in your thread.

But I made it quite clear I was questioning your initial observation.

So take one last crack at this. Prove you can get the first step right before you continue to make a mess of the rest.

You are staring at a possible satellite down a telescope. What are your OBSERVABLE traits that indicate more evidence is required. What is the OBSERVABLE trait that even suggests need a to "go up and hack a bit off"?

This should not be a taxing question. It should not need this many attempts to get you to answer this. I know you would rather run off and rant away about your theory, but I am not going to waste time on that if you miss the first principle.

Why? Because there are only so many reasons you would not address this.

Either you know you can't offer a first principle reason to investigate projections, because they do not exist. Or you can't because, despite your silly posts claiming this is coherent science, you have not the skill and understanding to meet the test. Or, thirdly, it is because for some reason, you know there is a flaw you do not wish to expose.

And if you think "hack of a bit" fits the question I asked, you clearly have no understanding, and further discussion is futile.

 

[NoahFence]

I missed it, eh? Then why did I say: Go up there and hack a piece off.... then bring it back for analysis "

Is there something particularly confusing that needs more explanation?





That's right. So you Observed a Phenomenon (Step 1)

Step 2 Literature Review. 'nasa' claims there are man-made objects in the sky (sateliites/ISS/Hubble et al). Other companies (nasa' affiliated) have demonstrated they can produce Celestial Objects; so it's not beyond unreasonable to conclude these things can be FAKE!!

Step 3 Hypothesis: Since you don't have a prayer of producing a single viable "Independent Variable" so as to set up an Experiment; Ergo... it's outside the scope of the Scientific Method.
Try Philosophy or Religion





Only if you close your eyes or have some serious reading comprehension issues.





The only thing that's 'embarrassing' is suffering 'out of their depth' by Exponential Fathoms--- Pseudo-Science nincompoops which should be entertaining Cake Decorating Threads or asking for help with constructing their Hot Wheels Race Track --- post on Grown-Up Topics.


regards

Word Salad Fallacy: See above