|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
 Posted - 08/15/2005 : 22:46:00 [Permalink]
|
| I'm going to remember that one. Thanks! |
 |
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2005 : 02:33:08 [Permalink]
|
Interesting.
Why do we seem to attract this sort person from time to time?
You know, totally convinced that they are right, ignores all evidence presented that plainly contradicts their idiocy, makes either an endless list of unsupported claims or repeats the same nonsense over and over...
This one isn't even really good for a laugh, because its disheartening to think anyone capable of speaking is stupid enough to believe that orbital mechanics only needs to account for 2 variables to launch a spacecraft from Earth to Saturn.
Or maybe Valliant has him pegged correctly. Troll. The masochistic kind who get a kick out of being abused on internet forums...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2005 : 04:33:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
"... This one isn't even really good for a laugh, because its disheartening to think anyone capable of speaking is stupid enough to believe that orbital mechanics only needs to account for 2 variables to launch a spacecraft from Earth to Saturn ..."
It's not enough to say: "NASA's buffoons" band uses TRSLPS system (Triangulations of Radio Signals to Locate the Probe near Saturn)
In this drawing angles near base of isosceles triangle are 70° or 75°
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/nav-triangulation.cfm
Have you any CAD software?
Draw an isosceles triangle with height 1 500 000 000 (distance from Saturn) and base 12 000 (exaggerated distance between control towers)
Measure the angles: 89.99977082°
In the real world those angles are 89.99977082° You can't miscalculate 1/10,000°
BUT, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, YOU CAN'T LOCATE YOUR PROBE TAKING THE EARTH AS REFERENCE.
YOU NEED A FIXED POINT: THE SUN, ONLY THE SUN CAN BE TAKEN AS REFERENCE FOR ANY OBJECT THAT MOVES IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM BUT "NASA'S BUFFOONS" BAND HAS NOT TECHNOLOGY TO DO IT
Sun Solar System Reference Point (SSSRP) is very difficult
Where the Hell Are We Going (WHAWG) is instead an easiest system  
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
| Edited by - bigbrain on 08/16/2005 06:26:20 |
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2005 : 06:49:13 [Permalink]
|
Why do we seem to attract this sort person from time to time?
You know, totally convinced that they are right, ignores all evidence presented that plainly contradicts their idiocy, makes either an endless list of unsupported claims or repeats the same nonsense over and over...
Don't forget that when they actually do Google up something related to the issue, they completely misunderstand (or ignore) the explanation in their ignorance and desire to shoehorn it into whatever their particular little obsession is.
For example, the Cassini home page clearly explains that range can be determined to the meter at Saturn distances - an accuracy of about one part in 10^12 if you take Saturn's maximum distance from the Sun of 1.5*10^9 km as a representative value. (The Earth-Saturn distance, of course, can be less than this by about 20% or greater than this by about 10%, depending on where the planets are in their orbits.)
At such distances, the angular separation of two Earth stations 1000 km apart, as viewed from the spacecraft, is only about .002 degrees or seven seconds of arc. Clearly, the angular resolution provided by two ground stations taking simultaneous observations is insufficient to perform ordinary triangulation. However, just as clearly explained on the Cassini site is that triangulation is based not on pointing data from the stations, but on the extremely accurate ranging measurements. The site also points out that repeating the measurements over time helps, as the motion of the Earth itself provides as long a baseline as you need.
But what about accounting for the motion of the Earth? Is it a problem? No, not really. The Earth's motion about its axis of rotation, the Earth's motion about the Sun, the drift of the continents - all are extremely well characterized by many, many years of observation. ("Primitive" peoples could predict solstices and other events - even eclipses; that's how far back the study of the Earth's motion goes.) Nowadays, the geocentric position of a ground station can be calculated to a few millimeters, and time and frequency references such as atomic clocks and pulsar observations enable the amazingly accurate ranging measurements. With such measurements, reducing the heliocentric position of the Earth, or an individual ground antenna, over a series of measurements is nothing more than a lot of geometry. Complicated, yes; but not only doable - it's routinely so. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2005 : 09:26:08 [Permalink]
|
All in all it seems that bigbrain is comfortable with his roll here. That he is just a plaything does not seem to bother him. We have had many keepers of the truth (Latinijral comes to mind) who were deeply offended by our refusal to believe their baloney. Not so with bigbrain. At least he doesn't appear to be offended. (Of course he does lump us in with those “NASA buffoons” from time to time.) But hey, he seems harmless enough. And this discussion has proved to be educational. Not in the way bigbrain might have preferred, but I am learning a lot about things I never really gave much thought to.
So sure, I have no doubt that bigbrain is probably certifiable. There are lots of conspiracy nuts out there that are high functioning enough to hold down jobs and live an otherwise normal life.
If he is comfortable in his roll as a plaything for those who those who enjoy debating with fools, and that does seems to be the case, what the hell?
Eventually we will tire of him. Repetition and his complete refusal to consider any possibility that he might be wrong will no doubt lead to boredom. His threads are already slowing down and more time is being devoted to his mental state than his actual ravings. He will soon have to move to greener pastures to get his ya-yas out. Oh well…
I would worry if more than a few fringe whack-jobs were seriously considering what he is promoting. But that is clearly not the case.
The only threat he poses is to him by way of his own pathology.
Skeptics have bigger fish to fry. But sometimes it's entertaining and educational to engage those who are of little consequence in the larger scheme of things…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2005 : 10:32:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sts60
"... At such distances, the angular separation of two Earth stations 1000 km apart, as viewed from the spacecraft, is only about .002 degrees ..."
No, dear friend sts60,
you have miscalculated. Draw an isosceles triangle with your CAD software: height 1 500 000 000 base 1000
If the two Earth stations are 12,000 kilometres apart you must calculate this way: 180°- 89.99977082°- 89.99977082 = 0.00045836° Angular separation = 0.00045836° about 4/10,000°
if, as you say, the two stations are 1000 km apart, the angular separation of them, as viewed from the spacecraft, is only 180°- 89.99997878° - 89.99997878° = 0.00004244° about 4/100,000°
Have NASA's buffoons miscalculated? Or have you miscalculated? |
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2005 : 12:10:46 [Permalink]
|
At such distances, the angular separation of two Earth stations 1000 km apart, as viewed from the spacecraft, is only about .002 degrees or seven seconds of arc.
This fails the "sanity check", when I think about it. The apparent angular diameter of Saturn as seen from Earth ranges from 14 to 20 seconds of arc. Since Saturn is almost ten times wider than earth (radii of 60,000 km vs. 6370 km), it is obvious that two Earth stations cannot be anything like seven seconds of arc as viewed from a spacecraft near Saturn!
I'm not sure we're I goofed the calculation, but let's start over. Consider two Earth stations observing the spacecraft signal, one of which happens to be directly in line between the Earth center and the spacecraft, and is 1000 km closer to the spacecraft. A little diagram-drawing and trig shows that the other station is a little over 3400 km away, as the crow flies. Recrunching, I get 0.00013 degrees or a little under a half-second of arc separation between the two ground stations as seen by the spacecraft. Since the angular diameter (not "distance" - fixed) of the Earth is 2*tan^-1(6370/1.5*10^9) = 1.75 arc sec at this distance, this also makes sense.
This does not, however, change my point - actually, it reinforces it: Triangulation is not performed using pointing knowledge from the radiotelescopes, which is much too fuzzy to give accurate values, but rather from the extremely accurate ranging data provided by the dishes. |
| Edited by - sts60 on 08/16/2005 12:52:38 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2005 : 13:25:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Or maybe Valliant has him pegged correctly. Troll. The masochistic kind who get a kick out of being abused on internet forums...
The heavy use of the smile-smiley and grinning-smiley sure makes it look that way. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2005 : 13:25:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sts60
"... I'm not sure we're I goofed the calculation ..."
Finally someone who says: "I was wrong"
But then the usual words: "This does not, however, change my point - actually, it reinforces it"
FIFTH STATEMENT: you go to Mars and to Saturn to demonstrate your power and your superiority to all the world. Then you should film (at 30 frames per second) Mars and Saturn raising out of the darkness of universe while you are going more and more closer to them. It would be a fantastic sight that would demonstrate your power, your superiority.
Why don't you make these films of extraordinary beauty and why do you make ugly movies with tons of stones made by fisheye lens and few frames per second like films of 1900?
BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT NEAR MARS OR SATURN AND 3D SOFTWARES CAN'T MAKE THESE FILMS IN A REALISTIC WAY: WE WOULD UNDERSTAND THEY ARE FAKE
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2005 : 13:43:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
"... Or maybe Valliant has him pegged correctly. Troll. The masochistic kind who get a kick out of being abused on internet forums..."
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
"... The heavy use of the smile-smiley and grinning-smiley sure makes it look that way ..."
I like smileys and I use them because they are here on the left, but I'm not a troll. I'm a skeptic (incredulous) person  |
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
| Edited by - bigbrain on 08/16/2005 13:47:13 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2005 : 16:08:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm a skeptic (incredulous) person
No, you are a whackadoodle who refuses to acknowledge empirical evidence that clearly demonstrates you are in error.
You are pretty far from a skeptic.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Stargirl
Skeptic Friend
USA
94 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2005 : 16:24:49 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry but this is a long thread and I may have forgotten if someone already asked this but here goes.
Bigbrain, if we can't send space craft to the other objects in our Solar System how do you explain the recent Deep Impact mission. This was where NASA slammed an 800 pound probe into comet Temple 1. The resultant impact created a large crater spewing dust and gasses out from the comet. The important aspect was that right here on earth professional and amateur astronomers were watching the comet before during and after the time of impact. And about 8 minutes after impact the comet began to brighten, mostly due to the increase of material in the comets coma. By the way the delay was the result of the approximate 8 minute light travel time between the comet and Earth. To me this was independently verifiable evidence by anyone with a moderately sized telescope (8 inches or 20.3 centimeters) that NASA did indeed slam the probe into the comet.
Now if this was a NASA hoax how did they get the comet to brighten at just the right moment? Or are professional and amateur astronomers from around the world in cahoots with NASA too? Or maybe you think NASA asked a psychic when the comet would brighten due to a natural outburst and used that time for their time of impact? If it's the later that psychic should try for James Randi's million dollar prize
Edit for spelling
|
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him - Voltaire |
| Edited by - Stargirl on 08/16/2005 16:26:46 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2005 : 16:46:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stargirl
I'm sorry but this is a long thread and I may have forgotten if someone already asked this but here goes.
Bigbrain, if we can't send space craft to the other objects in our Solar System how do you explain the recent Deep Impact mission. This was where NASA slammed an 800 pound probe into comet Temple 1. The resultant impact created a large crater spewing dust and gasses out from the comet. The important aspect was that right here on earth professional and amateur astronomers were watching the comet before during and after the time of impact. And about 8 minutes after impact the comet began to brighten, mostly due to the increase of material in the comets coma. By the way the delay was the result of the approximate 8 minute light travel time between the comet and Earth. To me this was independently verifiable evidence by anyone with a moderately sized telescope (8 inches or 20.3 centimeters) that NASA did indeed slam the probe into the comet.
Now if this was a NASA hoax how did they get the comet to brighten at just the right moment? Or are professional and amateur astronomers from around the world in cahoots with NASA too?
Excellent questions, Stargirl!
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
