Comment on Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2) by BlueMoon.
As usual, a bunch of misplaced assumptions and obvious misunderstandings that are then cross-referenced with other misunderstood “proofs” that are really just cross-referenced assumptions and ad-hominem arguments to form the big intimidating tangled mess of dubious pseudo-information that is the concave earth theory. The roots of the theory are rotten and provide no nourishment, but the steroids of a deluded community keep it alive and growing. It provides no fruit of knowledge, but the community still holds out hope, choosing to focus on this gnarled, unwelcome blight on the surface of a very convex earth, surrounded by very intricate machines and orbiting a very hot sun within a very, very huge universe. Maybe someday they’ll look up, and see the very real beauty that I have.
BlueMoon Also Commented
Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2)
Again, ENGINEERING student. Not science. I test the stuff I develop, which are rockets, but I trust the science for my rockets to work, and it hasn’t let me down.
The rectilineator experiment is flawed, and Donald Simanek explains why.
Of course you’ll hear the usual replies about the thermosphere; that’s because they’re correct. How about you actually address my explanation of the thermosphere rather than saying the same old shill from your article? You’re going to keep hearing the same shill until you understand that the thermosphere was never a problem. Denying it further is clinging to ignorance.
Your points in that article are all based on the assumption that spacecraft get as hot as the thermosphere does. In reality, the thermosphere only reaches that temperature because the molecules are very light and have very few other molecules to transfer heat to or from.
To quote Wikipedia:
“The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer would be significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact.”
Furthermore, solids aren’t affected in the same way as gases. The atoms in a solid are surrounded by other atoms, which allow heat to be conducted away. This means that the atoms never get as hot as the atoms in the thermosphere, and gives the thermal control system plenty of time to to its job.
Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2)
Acceleration can mean either change in velocity or direction. The centripetal force of gravity would perfectly cancel the centrifugal “force” of inertia if the orbit was circular. As it is with orbits being elliptical, satellites speed up and slow down as they approach periapse and apoapse, respectively.
You might want to check out Kerbal Space Program. It’s quite fun and moddable, and will really help you understand the orbital mechanics central to heliocentric theory. After all, if you try to make a case against something you don’t understand, someone will call you out on it 😛
Recent Comments by BlueMoon
How do satellites work?
I have not tested rockets in a vacuum, because if I fired one in a vacuum chamber, it would quickly cease to be a vacuum. But I can tell you how they work in a vacuum. It makes sense if you think of the exhaust gas as individual particles. The particles bounce off of every surface in the combustion chamber and nozzle. However, since the nozzle is open at one end, the force is unbalanced. Rockets work whether or not there is outside pressure, but the ambient pressure does affect how the exhaust behaves.
Low earth asteroids have no business orbiting in the patterns that Iridium satellites do, and none of them have the identical reflective panels.
And as I’ve stated before, most satellites are in low earth orbit, completing their orbit in about 90 minutes. This requires them to go thousands of miles an hour. Not a problem when they’re over a spherical planet, but a pretty big problem if they have to skitter over a sheet of glass.
I could ask someone else about ion drives, but it’s exceedingly easy to find online. There’s no secret. And it has nothing to do with antigravity.
Molniya satellites have highly elliptical 12-hr orbits, and you can probably see them from Ireland. They are at a very high altitude, which matches up with the satellite tracker sites.
You can deny the credibility of satellite tracking websites and programs all you want, but if you go outside, you can see if the data matches up yourself. That can be your 2016 experiment #1.
What causes Earthquakes?
If tectonic plates are a theory, what are fault lines separating? Why does the land permanently move drastically when an earthquake happens, and move slowly at all other times? Do you have any evidence that lightning strikes cause earthquakes? And since lightning strikes above ground, why do earthquakes start below ground?
Space machines do not orbit the Earth
First off: stop calling them actornauts; that’s exactly what I’m saying you shouldn’t do.
As for women’s hair though, you’re right that when their hair is down, it should look like it does in the KC-135 clips. But that is not desirable for astronauts. On earth, gravity holds hair down and keeps it in check. But in space, the hair would float around and be very annoying to deal with. The best way to deal with it are tying it back, getting it permed, and cutting it short. Whatever keeps it out of the face.
As for the “bubbles,” those are actually water droplets from the space suit’s sublimators, no doubt in the process of boiling off or sublimating themselves. I couldn’t find anything on the “scuba tank” but if it was actually a scuba tank, it would have been yellow, not white. It’s probably something to help with suit pressurization, but I’m not sure. If you can find a more complete picture, we can discuss that. I’m also curious as to what the long curved thing is next to it. Possibly an antenna of some sort; I know I’ve seem pictures of something like it.
Also, I think you should drop your argument about the thermosphere being too hot until you study heat and thermal control. You’re a good researcher, so you should have no trouble with this.
Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
Of course hurricanes aren’t a straight line! The only people who say the Coriolis effect implies that are the people who don’t understand the Coriolis effect.
The Coriolis effect is all about deflection. In a hurricane, air is drawn to the point of low pressure. However, in the northern hemisphere, the air travelling north is deflected east, and the air travelling south is deflected west. This causes a counterclockwise vortex. As you might know from a bathroom drain, an initial rotation is easily sustained. Tornadoes are too small to be determined by the Coriolis effect. However, there was a YouTube collaboration between Veritasium and Smarter Every Day that actually demonstrated the effect. And, of course, you can see plenty of instances of the Coriolis effect in real life. Would you care to provide an actual explanation?
Can this theory make predictions?
Sure, you can retroactively apply the data to your model. But can your theory make predictions that heliocentric theory can’t? If not, it’s really more of a hypothesis. And if it can’t explain all of the phenomena that heliocentric theory can, like eclipses, it’s really not a very good hypothesis.
Your model needs to be simulated to see if all of the different aspects fit together. Then it needs to be tested to see if the data matches up with your predictions. The rectilineator experiment doesn’t count, because it was carried out over 100 years ago and had numerous flaws and biases.
But before you do that, take a step back and consider: Is heliocentric theory REALLY false? Take a look at it with intent to find actual answers, not to find evidence to promote your own hypothesis. Bias is the enemy of science.