Good points all, Jove. Thing is, I firmly believe that one doesn't need to be a professional scientist in order to understand the scientific method. I would present James Randi (http://www.randi.org) as a perfect example. The guy's a magician by trade, but a terror to the pseudoscientific community. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] However, you have to want to learn. I've asked this forum before for a more lay explanation to things I didn't clearly understand and found them to be more than accommodating. Sometimes to the point where I've been embarrased about the amount of people's time given to providing me an answer.

Comic...er, sorry, cosmicdave had no desire to learn a thing here. His sole purpose was to try and make a show of upstaging the experts for the benefit of his little group. Fortunately, when I say "little" I'm not kidding. His bulletin board has had maybe two dozen posts in the last three months. And that's counting Ian R.'s posts trying to get him back over here to present his evidence. Maybe his lack of an audience proves there's hope yet? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

(corr. sp.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-05 01:34 ]</font>

Another thing I noticed is how rushed and harried his posts were getting when he was trying to keep up with Jay, but then how much more legible and polished (and nasty) his last post was when he thought Jay wasn't going to respond. I got the very distinct impression that he felt he had "won" and he just couldn't resist what was in his mind a gloating victory speech. I guess that just bolsters the point that he was playing by a different set of standards.

(corr. grammer)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-05 01:12 ]</font>

I totally agree. I'm a layman myself, and yet I always try to view every piece of information with a critical mindset, combined with whatever relevant knowledge I can obtain and comprehend. I'm not sure that people like CosDave are capable of that kind of mental discipline, however.

Cheers,

JB

__________________
Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness. ...in the principles of evolution we have had our answer: of men elsewhere... there will be none, forever. - Loren Eisely, The Immense Journey, 1956.

Thought I'd just give one last shot.

JayUtah Quote:'I have no patience for people who refuse to read answers they ask for.'

Back at ya!

My 'little group' by the way counts to 145 thousands hits. A bit more than this little group of back patters.

Nice to see Jay's still got the knack of saying he knew about satellites all along, even though he made his glaring mistake earlier. Its easy to agree with the answer once you've been told... Satellite Expert? - not!

Incidentally, if the groups belief in light scattering being able to make a black sky appear blue, why do we not see this if looking out from a bright room through windows at night? Always seems to be black to me?

Tha Tha That's all folks

Baaaaa......

Ah, Dave – I wish you would read the thread. No one except you said the image outside the window was blue. The response to you was that the window looked blue because of sun light or cabin light scattering off of the glass and/or substances on the glass. It was you that maintained that the blue was actually the earth.

Please, I beg you, at least pay attention to what you post, even if you can’t follow the responses!

[spelling]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-05 08:43 ]</font>

Unless you have a big spotlight outside shining on the glass at an angle. Then you can't see the sky. (I've got a big patio light, so I see this effect every night).

WOW! Cosmic Dave latest post is a true gem. Only in the mind of a CT can utter defeat be turned into victory. Jays post on the mindset of a ct is so right on the mark. CD shows us how it works. I wonder if CD knows Jack White? Two peas in a pod.

140,000 of which are likely accounted for by the 50 or so popup ads one is forced to fight through during the course of getting a post on your "forum".

Glad to see you at last dropped the pretense of truly debating any issues, though. Name calling suits you better.

My 'little group' by the way counts to 145 thousands hits. A bit more than this little group of back patters.

"Hits" do not necessarily equate to individuals; typically a Hit Counter registers how many times any pages on your site are accessed.

And "Hits" certainly do not equate to agreement with what your site presents.

Also, Hit Counters are date-dependent, counting hits since they were placed on a site, and can be "adjusted" to start anywhere you want.

BTW, where do you get your information on hits to the BA? I can't find the Hit Counter.

Nice to see Jay's still got the knack of saying he knew about satellites all along, even though he made his glaring mistake earlier. Its easy to agree with the answer once you've been told... Satellite Expert? - not!

Jay has been displaying his considerable knowledge of satellite dynamics for quite some time here. I don't know what you mean specifically, but my guess is that (once again) you have misread or misapplied an answer.

When you ask a specific question and get a specific answer, you should not then revise the question and point out that the answer is (now) wrong.

Incidentally, if the groups belief in light scattering being able to make a black sky appear blue, why do we not see this if looking out from a bright room through windows at night? Always seems to be black to me?

As mentioned by Spaced, it isn't the "sky" that is tinted blue, it's the window. This is due to sunlight being scattered by the window and giving a blue tint to the view through it. Unless your home's windows have the same construction as Apollo's - double paned, new gasketing/sealant which gives the outgassing effects, etc - you won't see this. And you certainly won't see it at night when there is no sunlight to scatter.

Oh, but during the day - when the sun is up - you will notice this scattering effect. It makes the sky appear blue, even though air is transparently colorless. This is similar to the effect with the Apollo's windows.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

In fact, cd's claim is even more misleading then that. Every hit counter I've ever installed is based on server hits. Images, servlets, popup ads, server-side JavaScripts, anything on a page that requires a seperate call to the server results in a new "hit". That's why Internet advertisers dropped hits as a relevent reference for determining rates several years ago.

Nice to see Jay's still got the knack of saying he knew about satellites all along, even though he made his glaring mistake earlier.

"Glaring mistake"? You haven't gotten one thing right on the subject of orbital mechanics yet. The only reason you labor under the delusion that I don't know anything about space is that you're too ignorant about it to know when you're wrong.

Interesting that you had to come back and attempt to gloat, but you won't answer any of the substantive issues I and others raised about those various orbits and how they apply to your argument. You go on for days about low-earth orbits, and then you suddenly change horses and bring up irrelevancies of geosynchronous and geostationary orbits (which you got wrong in the process). Why do you think abruptly changing the subject and trying to equate two rather dissimilar concepts somehow makes you a genius?

You may be able to fool your little UFO club, but we can surely tell that you're faking it. It appears my assessment of you is pretty close to the mark. You care very little for the actual arguments you make, so long as you can spin the discussion to make it seem to your friends like Dave Cosnette is the smartest guy in the world.

Incidentally, if the groups belief in light scattering being able to make a black sky appear blue

No, once again you either fail or refuse to understand what scatter is.

Perform the following experiment:

1. Wait until daylight.
2. Go outside.
3. Look up.
4. Note the color of the sky.

You just made a black sky look blue. Any astronomer or physicist you consult will assure you it's due to scatter.

why do we not see this if looking out from a bright room through windows at night?

First of all, I doubt your windows are of the same composition as the Apollo windows, nor have the same coatings.

Second, since it's at night, the sun is illuminating some other part of the earth and is therefore not available to shine in through your window. You can't see much potential scatter from interior lights if you're also on the interior.

Third, you've forgotten part of the original explanation, which was that the film's response to wavelength is nonlinear. In order to fully duplicate the effect you'd have to take a picture through your window with the proper type of film. Direct observation is not necessarily equivalent.

I'm glad you're back and are reading this thread. That means you've seen that the quote you lifted from the other thread regarding duplicating an Apollo photograph in various types of light, was in fact a misstatement which I have corrected. You are therefore advised that it does not now (nor did not at the time) represent my belief and so if you represent otherwise in any public context, you will be guilty of outright deception.

Let's just see what kind of satellite expert Cosmic Dave is. Here are some questions for you, Dave. They should be easy for you.

1. What is the orbital velocity of a 4,000 kg satellite in geostationary orbit?

2. Name a satellite which is in geosynchronous, but not geostationary, orbit. Also, name a satellite which is in geostationary, but not geosychronous orbit.

3. During insertion in geostationary orbit, why does the COP manuever come after the transfer manuever?

4. Two satellites are to be place in a circular low earth orbit at exactly the same altitude. One has a mass of 1,000 kg. The other has a mass of 3,000 kg. Which one must orbit faster in order to retain its orbit?

5. What is meant by "orbital inclination"?

6. What are the two nodes of an orbit?

7. Name two methods for circularizing an elliptical orbit.

8. What is the relationship of an orbit's major axis to its period?

I know many of you know the answers to these questions. Let Dave figure them out, if he dares.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-05 13:28 ]</font>

And please tell us how you figured it out (what sources or equations you used).

CJSF

After a reasonable wait for cosmicdave can you post the correct answers so I can see how I did?

Sure, I'll post the answers. Just let me know when you think we've given C. Dave enough time.

Hi Dave, welcome back! I'm also still hoping to hear a reply as to exactly why the Apollo Guidance Computer couldn't have done exactly what it was claimed to do.

For your convenience, here again are some relevant bookmarks with lots of material on the AGC, which were posted earlier by dasi:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi.../compessay.htm
http://home.planet.nl/~faase009/Ha_Apollo.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi.../contents.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...ers/Ch2-5.html

If you are unwilling to defend this argument, perhaps you should remove it from your list. If you are willing, I'm looking forward to hearing your argument.

Nice to see Jay's still got the knack of saying he knew about satellites all along, even though he made his glaring mistake earlier.

Cosmicdave, you need to go back and look at some older posts made by Jay... I'm certain he has discussed geosyncronous satellites on numerous occassions. You are not the first person here to mention them.

I find it funny that you are even using geosyncronous satellites as evidence, since they prove NASA is telling the truth.

If Apollo hid in geosyncronous orbit the astronauts would be exposed to the Van Allen radiation for longer than they would if they just passed through it on the way to the Moon. Also, if the radiation is as deadly as you think satellites wouldn't be able to function in that orbit.

As far as the Apollo blueprints/documentation is concerned, NASA didn't really need to keep it all. If they want to go back to the Moon using the same technology as Apollo they would only need to reverse engineer the existing LM's, CM's, Saturn rockets, space suits, and rovers that are currently collecting dust in museums.

But of course NASA won't use 1960's technology to return to the Moon, they'll start from scratch using more modern technology.

__________________
" We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." - John F. Kennedy
TheSpaceRace.com

Sure, I'll post the answers. Just let me know when you think we've given C. Dave enough time.

OK, that's enough time. Let's hear the answers.

Or am I being just a little impatient? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I'm certain he has discussed geosyncronous satellites on numerous occassions.

Whether I have or not is largely irrelevant. The question is the degree to which the characteristics of a geostationary orbit apply to a low earth orbit and the various applications of it that C. Dave has proposed.

I find it funny that you are even using geosyncronous satellites as evidence, since they prove NASA is telling the truth.

I'm not entirely sure C. Dave intends his statements regarding geostationary orbits to apply to any specific argument. He seems only to want to use it as some kind of proof that I don't know what I'm talking about.

This was all about whether the object seen above Japan was a spy satellite. The article he posted as evidence says the object was visible in a certain area of the sky. An object in low earth orbit cannot be stationary in the sky. C. Dave brought up that it is indeed possible to have a satellite remain stationary in the sky. And so overly pleased was he with this revelation that he now considers his knowledge of orbital mechanics superior to mine.

Unfortunately in his misplaced glee, he has neglected some salient facts. First, that in order to achieve a geostationary orbit, the spacecraft has to be a hundred times farther from earth than any existing reconnaissance satellite. Second, in order for something to be visible to the naked eye from earth at that altitude, it would have to be monumentally huge.

C. Dave wants you to believe that I didn't know about geostationary orbits and so all of this has come as a surprise to me. He thinks he's found some sort of smoking gun. But in fact I correctly regard geostationary satellites as irrelevant to anything having to do with spying, hence not a credible solution to his Japanese UFO dilemma. C. Dave says, "Ha! You didn't know about this." I say, "I didn't mention it because it's irrelevant to the problem."

As you have no doubt seen, C. Dave has a tremendous problem with relevance.

If Apollo hid in geosyncronous orbit the astronauts would be exposed to the Van Allen radiation for longer than they would if they just passed through it on the way to the Moon.

Not just for longer, but also at a constant exposure profile.

Going through the Van Allen belts presents a steady increase in exposure, peaking at a certain point, and then a falloff as you exit. The integral of this curve is the total dosage. Basic calculus demonstrates the difference between this profile and the flat curve of a continued presence in the danger zone. If that level of constant exposure is greater than about half the level of momentary peak exposure, you will actually receive a greater dose for the same amount of time.

You are quite correct that putting a manned spacecraft in a geostationary orbit for up to two weeks presents a much more difficult radiation problem than simply making a round trip across them.