August 8th, 2012, 12:17 PM
It all looks fake to me. Is there nothing so outrageous that the American people won't believe it?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - Carl Sagan
Don't believe anything you read, and only half of what you see. - my mom
Don't be so stupid.Originally Posted by sanchezal28
You look fake to me.
Don't be so gullible. There's no appreciable atmosphere on Mars so why did they use a parachute, and a small one at that? And they landed in "Area 51." It says so in these NASA photos.
Curiosity Rover's Home on Mars: A Powers-of-Ten Visual Explainer - Alexis Madrigal - The Atlantic
so what is it exactly that you find unbelievable about this ? do you find it impossible that a 16-metre parachute is sufficient to slow down the module as part of the landing sequence ?
remember, the parachute was only one of a number of descent mechanisms (see this wikipedia article) : heat shield friction, parachute slowdown, powered descent followed by sky crane
"The parachute has a constructed diameter of 71 feet and an inflated diameter of 51 feet. The back shell remains connected to the chute via 80, 165-foot-long suspension lines." [http://www.wafb.com/...type=printable]
. Why is it in box 51?
It could have landed in any of the boxes in that ellipse. The centre of the ellipse and thus the "ideal" target was box 50, but Curiosity missed it and ended up in box 51.
This thread is pathetic. A parachute will help with deceleration in any atmosphere, and there is no significance to "Area 51". The OP is obviously just trolling, and in doing so insults everyone who has contributed to this project. The OP ought to have to pay for air.
Lol, don't tell me it was really all done on a Nevada film set.Don't be so stupid.
August 9th, 2012, 09:51 AM
It might slow it down, but it's still implausible overall. The rover weighs 1 ton (on earth.) Then you have this "sky crane." That must weigh a ton itself. (I think the total weight was 3700 pounds for everything.) So you have about 2 tons with a 51 ft diameter chute. Someone posted somewhere that the chute slowed the thing down to 900mph. That's still mach 1.34. So you pop out a sky crane at mach 1.34 and lower the 1 ton rover the rest of the way. A parabolic chute for a full grown man (maybe an NFL lineman) is typically 35 ft diameter. Mar's atmosphere is 0.6 percent earth atmosphere.
I want to see that thing being tested on earth. And they landed in "area 51" by their own admission. Too many things don't add up.
I'm an electrical engineer with 30 years in aerospace. My first job was a rocket scientist on the Delta rocket, guidance and controls group. I also worked on the space station software. I also worked on an early U2 digital camera and sat in the cockpit in the skunkworks hangar many times at 3 AM to make sure the camera was functioning prior to takeoff. Just say I have a feel for these things.
Everybody can believe what they want. Go buy some penis enlargement pills because they said on TV that it works. My mom always said don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.
Wow curious stuff (NASA - Multimedia - Video Gallery) . It says those landing were really complex, consist of 500,000 line of programming codes. -It involve 1)braking with heat-shield & maneuver to target, and then 2)braking with parachute at supersonic, and then 3)braking with rocket & avoid collision with parachute, and then 4)lower rover safely & fly away.
Probably somekind of magic the computer not make any mistake like always... (because people has to code it, so people made mistake, brain freeeze)
For all that effort, where are the videos of them testing it?
news flash:
NASA scientist have conspired to send a probe to mars.
How's that for a conspiracy theory?
Good point. I don't believe you were a rocket scientist.
I think maybe they tested virtually inside computers? Computers are really incredible nowadays, once ago we had Autocad that can draw engineering part, but now we can even make the Autocad run an engine inside a computer. -I think IF they no longer do field test (like in NASA video of Apollo) then maybe it mean that they are doing it virtually (?).
Its possible.
I heard of a program called Simulink that do something like that, using drawing from Autocad to simulate engineering stuff.
Something must be lost in translation, what is a "Curiosity Conspiracy Theory" ?
(If its all over the news, pretend Im from an alternate dimension)
Fair enough. Contact Boeing and ask them what group I was hired into in 1980. (I worked for McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing.)Good point. I don't believe you were a rocket scientist.
On a $2.5 billion program, would you really trust Simulink to prove something worked on Mars, with like 500,000 lines of code? (Nobody in their right mind would do that.) You have to test stuff. In real life, nothing complicated ever works the first time. And you're sending something to a planet 140 million miles away and it's a one shot deal? That kind of stuff gets tested first, unless it's all fake. Aircraft carriers have sea trials.I think maybe they tested virtually inside computers? Computers are really incredible nowadays, once ago we had Autocad that can draw engineering part, but now we can even make the Autocad run an engine inside a computer. -I think IF they no longer do field test (like in NASA video of Apollo) then maybe it mean that they are doing it virtually (?).
Its possible.
I heard of a program called Simulink that do something like that, using drawing from Autocad to simulate engineering stuff.
For all those who didn't take much notice of the "Seven Minutes Of Terror" approach to landing Curiosity on Mars, here's a quick couple of links.
Before OMG this is NEVER going to work! – Greg Laden's Blog
What they were doing Curiosity Cam. Don’t miss seven minutes of terror. – Greg Laden's Blog
Approaching Mars is tugging on NASA Rover Curiosity – Greg Laden's Blog
Parachute NASA's Curiosity Rover Caught in the Act of Landing - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
And yet in another thread here (the only other thread you have posted in on this board), you claim that if there was surface water on the moon it would have evaporated, but there might be some ice on the "dark side".
A rocket scientist would know this is nonsense. I am calling you out. You were not a rocket scientist.
A rocket scientist would understand how impossible it would be to target the exact landing location for Curiosity in order for it to be planned to land in "area 51". A rocket scientist would understand that the "area 51" part of your argument is therefore entirely irrelevant.
Last edited by SpeedFreek; August 9th, 2012 at 01:37 PM. Reason: typo
I don't believe you were an engineer for any aerospace company.My mom always said don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.
SpeedFreek must not be a rocket scientist because he doesn't know being a rocket-scientist or a professor doesn't mean a person know everything.
Oh, I assure you he knows it. It's the alleged rocket scientist that doesn't.
What calculations, specifically, lead you to make this claim of implausibility?
Again, please show your calculations that "don't add up."I want to see that thing being tested on earth. And they landed in "area 51" by their own admission. Too many things don't add up.
Anyone can claim expertise, so your alleged credentials are largely irrelevant. Please show calculations that support your assertions re: Curiosity. Only from such calculations can a fruitful evaluation of your claims emerge.I'm an electrical engineer with 30 years in aerospace. My first job was a rocket scientist on the Delta rocket, guidance and controls group. I also worked on the space station software. I also worked on an early U2 digital camera and sat in the cockpit in the skunkworks hangar many times at 3 AM to make sure the camera was functioning prior to takeoff. Just say I have a feel for these things.
And anyone can spout nonsense, particularly in an internet forum. That's why presenting supporting calculations, evidence-based arguments, etc. underpin the scientific method. "Feels wrong" "doesn't add up" "I don't buy it" etc. are not reliable. As my thesis advisor was fond of saying, "Show your work."Everybody can believe what they want.
Your mom was smart, which is why I'm not buying what you're selling unless you show me the goods.Go buy some penis enlargement pills because they said on TV that it works. My mom always said don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.
It's put-up or shut-up time.
I am not a scientist, but I understand the scientific method. A rocket scientist should definitely understand the scientific method.
Someone who throws out baseless assertions or makes statements without understanding the science behind them is not acting in a scientific manner (see the other thread sanchezal28 is posting in for examples of this).
What I want to know is why sanchezal28 keeps referring to Curiosity landing in "area 51" and how that "doesn't add up"? What is the significance of a region in the projected landing area on Mars having the number 51? Why does that make sanchezal28 suspicious?
Does he think they are pretending to send a mobile scienfitic laboratory to Mars and are giving people clues that it is being faked, by using a number that is associated with an alleged secret research area on Earth? What is the motivation supposed to be here?
As for the parachute, well they have used parachutes for the other martian rover landings. Does this mean they were all fakes too?
Last edited by SpeedFreek; August 10th, 2012 at 06:56 AM.
Sorry to pile on...well not really; but I very much doubt a "rocket scientist," would use weight, instead of mass when talking about another planet, or the make the mistake of thinking the speed of sound is the same in a much thiner atmosphere--talking about something that doesn't add up.
Curiosity involved far too many people for more than a decade to keep any duplicity under wrap.
Water on the moon has nothing to do with rocket science you dumb fuck. Rocket science involves inertial guidance, rigid body dynamics, Euler equations, and Kalman filtering, which I'm an expert on. BTW, NASA claims it was aiming for area 50. Ha!!!And yet in another thread here (the only other thread you have posted in on this board), you claim that if there was surface water on the moon it would have evaporated, but there might be some ice on the "dark side".
A rocket scientist would know this is nonsense. I am calling you out. You were not a rocket scientist.
A rocket scientist would understand how impossible it would be to target the exact landing location for Curiosity in order for it to be planned to land in "area 51". A rocket scientist would understand that the "area 51" part of your argument is therefore entirely irrelevant.
I said "weight" because the average person wouldn't know what a "slug" was, you dumb fuck. I could have said kilograms, but the average American wouldn't know a kilogram from a quarter-pounder with cheese.
OK, I'll put up then. Here... work out this calculation for terminal velocity. I've done it before, but it was years ago. If you want me to do it again, you'll need to pay me.What calculations, specifically, lead you to make this claim of implausibility?
Again, please show your calculations that "don't add up."I want to see that thing being tested on earth. And they landed in "area 51" by their own admission. Too many things don't add up.
Anyone can claim expertise, so your alleged credentials are largely irrelevant. Please show calculations that support your assertions re: Curiosity. Only from such calculations can a fruitful evaluation of your claims emerge.I'm an electrical engineer with 30 years in aerospace. My first job was a rocket scientist on the Delta rocket, guidance and controls group. I also worked on the space station software. I also worked on an early U2 digital camera and sat in the cockpit in the skunkworks hangar many times at 3 AM to make sure the camera was functioning prior to takeoff. Just say I have a feel for these things.
And anyone can spout nonsense, particularly in an internet forum. That's why presenting supporting calculations, evidence-based arguments, etc. underpin the scientific method. "Feels wrong" "doesn't add up" "I don't buy it" etc. are not reliable. As my thesis advisor was fond of saying, "Show your work."Everybody can believe what they want.
Your mom was smart, which is why I'm not buying what you're selling unless you show me the goods.Go buy some penis enlargement pills because they said on TV that it works. My mom always said don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.
It's put-up or shut-up time.
Terminal Velocity
Those people were all being paid by NASA. In this economy, or lack thereof, if you're getting paid, you keep your mouth shut.
You sound like a chick (or gay - Lynx_Fox? if so, it's not my thing, but I'm alright with that. If you're a lesbo, I'm cool with that, too.) If you're a girl, could you post a naked picture so I can take your posts seriously.
The rover don't just fall, it also has braking rocket!
You are therefore a rocket scientist that doesn't understand the scientific method.
Good scientists don't make statements without checking them first.
BTW, it was me who told you NASA was aiming for area 50... so...?
Last edited by SpeedFreek; August 10th, 2012 at 12:51 PM.
I think this has earned you at least a few days off.Those people were all being paid by NASA. In this economy, or lack thereof, if you're getting paid, you keep your mouth shut.
You sound like a chick (or gay - Lynx_Fox? if so, it's not my thing, but I'm alright with that. If you're a lesbo, I'm cool with that, too.) If you're a girl, could you post a naked picture so I can take your posts seriously.
Truly pathetic, and pretty much what I expected. You can't do the calculations. You haven't done them, so you can't possibly know that things "don't add up." So instead you try to shift the burden of proof.
You are the one making the claim, so it's up to you to put up or shut up. You didn't put up.
Withdraw your claims if you can't support them.
Wow... I just lost 200 000 brain cells. This thread should have come with a health warning. Obviously a troll, though. Nobody can be that stupid.
August 13th, 2012, 09:58 AM
Is there only me who thinks that there is something we are not being told here?
I have some questions which I think need to be answered before I can believe in this. I have calculated that Mars curiosity has travelled 350,000,000 miles, and this is confirmed on Curiosity’s Wikipedia page, so even if Curiosity travels at 768mph (the speed of sound for those are not scientists), the fastest speed there is:
350,000,000 / 768 =
455,729 / 24 = 18,988 days
18,988 / 365 = 52 years!!!!!
Now I am not a conspiracy theorist, some people just accept the information that they are given, but some people like me are more rigorous and analyse data asking if it is true or not before they accept it. Am I expected to believe that Mars Curiosity was launched 52 years ago, IN 1960??!!! As the only other explanations for this are that the universe has expanded SINCE Curiosity was launched OR EINSTEIN’S THEORY OF REALITY, THE MOST IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC THEORY, IS WRONG! Come on people! Learn to question what you are being told!
There is one other possibility and the most likely one: Your calculations are wrong. Think about this: if they really wanted to pull the wool over our eyes, do you think they would have made such a simple mistake? By the way, the journey can be calculated with good old Newtonian mechanics quite accurately enough.
Thanks Kalster, but there is no mistake in my calculations.
Why would you assume it is travelling at the speed of sound? As it was travelling at 13,000mph when it hit Mars's atmosphere, that seems an unreasonable assumption.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/6...20rev-2900.jpg
The wikipedia page (which you are apparently happy with) confirms that it was launched November 26, 2011.Am I expected to believe that Mars Curiosity was launched 52 years ago, IN 1960??!!!
(And, BTW, ignore what the others say, your excessive punctuation doesn't make you look at all crazy.)
Maybe you need to be a little more rigorous in checking your data and your own assumptions.some people like me are more rigorous and analyse data asking if it is true or not before they accept it.
And, really, those block caps don't make you look crazy either. Honest.EINSTEIN’S THEORY OF REALITY, THE MOST IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC THEORY, IS WRONG
"Theory of Reality"
Strange by name, strange by nature (sorry, couldn't resist)!
I'm going to be gentle with you here, as you obviously don't have a scientific background, but Einstein's theory of reality states that nothing solid can travel faster than the speed of sound!
I think you will find that Einstein's theory of relativity says that nothing can travel faster than light.
Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have arbitrarily chosen the speed of sound for your calculations. After Googling for less than a minute, I found that the Mars Science Laboratory entered the Martian atmosphere at 13,200 mph, after a deceleration period. Even without that deceleration period, it reduces the travel time to 3 years already. Why on earth would you so easily jump to the conclusion that we are being conned without even taking 1 minute to check your base assumptions? Did you even go to NASA's site? And you say you are NOT a conspiracy theorist? Bad start.
By the way, this is the wrong thread for this kind of thing. Your next post will determine where I will move it.
Edit: I see you have already, hilariously, responded to Strange. This is going to pseudo.
Hi Kallister, I posted it in here because Mars Curiosity was in the news and I did some calculations based on the information I was given and noticed that something didn't add up. Where should it have been posted? This is how science works, mate, someone questions the accepted norm, the 'mainstream' turns on him (eg. Gallilao, Socrates), a bit later everyone realises he was right.
Re. the 13,200mph figure, sorry, but I just don't accept that... too fast!!!
PSEUDOSCIENCE?????!!!!!!!
The censorship of free-thought and the questioning of what we are told... on a science forum! Too ironic.
Yeah, see? That is how pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists operate. They pluck figures from the air (speed of sound? Why?), don't understand even the basics of the science involved (Why is 13200 mph too fast?) and they just love comparing themselves to Galileo etc.. That's three for three for you. You say you don't suffer fools gladly? Well, that's ironic! Show us you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about and we might take you more seriously.
Censorship?
If you mean sheltering the hard science sub-forums from infactic conspiracy theories based on lack of elementary school scientific knowledge you're quite correct.
You should thank Strange for his correction--not criticize him.
Aaaw. I was hoping we could get some more entertainment from this guy....
You are not being censored; you are equally free to demonstrate your impressive levels of ignorance in the Pseudoscience forum. (I think they have been generous by not moving it immediately to Trash.)
And I don't accept that the moon isn't made of cheese, life is tough sometimes.
Try doing the calculations the right way:
Miles 350,000,000
Days 253
1,383,400 miles/day=
27641 mph average speed. (16.1 miles/sec)
Escape velocity from earth 25,000 mph (we know it was moving at least that fast, or it never would have left the earth!
I am merging this with the other conspiracy thread
This must be one of the most classic posts in a long while!
I think this earlier bit we all missed earns him a permanent rest:I think this has earned you at least a few days off.Those people were all being paid by NASA. In this economy, or lack thereof, if you're getting paid, you keep your mouth shut.
You sound like a chick (or gay - Lynx_Fox? if so, it's not my thing, but I'm alright with that. If you're a lesbo, I'm cool with that, too.) If you're a girl, could you post a naked picture so I can take your posts seriously.
"I said "weight" because the average person wouldn't know what a "slug" was, you dumb fuck"....."Water on the moon has nothing to do with rocket science you dumb fuck. "
No one is censoring you -- you were allowed to post nonsense, right? So all we're doing is pointing out that it's nonsense.
Here are a couple of clues for you to follow up on: Look up the word "supersonic." Look up the name "Chuck Yeager" perhaps in connection with "Bell X-1." Read (or watch) "The Right Stuff." The sound barrier was broken by accident by pilots in WWII, and under controlled conditions by Yeager in 1947. Today's fighter jets routinely travel at several times the speed of sound. For some time, the Concorde offered supersonic passenger service.
You should exercise some (critical) thinking and consider why the speed of sound should be a limit at all in the vacuum of space, where sound does not propagate.
You should also examine why you "cannot accept" that something can travel 13,000 mph. The basic formula is: Give a mass a lot of energy and it well tend to go fast. Look at meteors.
Overall, you have a lot of confidence that is apparently unburdened by knowledge. The anonymity of internet forums allow spewage of nonsense, but you shouldn't be surprised when you get called on it. It's weak to then scream "censorship." Don't like it? Simple: Don't post nonsense.
A very accurate assessment and one which could be used to describe the posts of a number of others on this forum.
I think this Tom Edison is a troll. Despite claiming the name of the inventor of the light bulb, he's not all that bright.
OK, since this thread cannot get more idiotic, I will post my Curiosity conspiracy theory:
The "blob" of "puff" that was seen in the first photo that the lander sent back and consequently disappeared in any images after that (pointing at the same location) was actually not the lander miraculously caught just at the right moment it crashed a safe distance away like they claim. Do not believe their lies! It was much more likely some sort of Martian roadrunner escaping in a cloud of dust when it saw that thing land.
I think on this we will just have to agree to disagree. It's probably one of those situations - common in science - where no-one is completely right and no-one is completely wrong, but the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Kalister, how do I become an administrator on this forum?
I think you should go easy on this guy.No one is censoring you -- you were allowed to post nonsense, right? So all we're doing is pointing out that it's nonsense.
Here are a couple of clues for you to follow up on: Look up the word "supersonic." Look up the name "Chuck Yeager" perhaps in connection with "Bell X-1." Read (or watch) "The Right Stuff." The sound barrier was broken by accident by pilots in WWII, and under controlled conditions by Yeager in 1947. Today's fighter jets routinely travel at several times the speed of sound. For some time, the Concorde offered supersonic passenger service.
You should exercise some (critical) thinking and consider why the speed of sound should be a limit at all in the vacuum of space, where sound does not propagate.
You should also examine why you "cannot accept" that something can travel 13,000 mph. The basic formula is: Give a mass a lot of energy and it well tend to go fast. Look at meteors.
Overall, you have a lot of confidence that is apparently unburdened by knowledge. The anonymity of internet forums allow spewage of nonsense, but you shouldn't be surprised when you get called on it. It's weak to then scream "censorship." Don't like it? Simple: Don't post nonsense.
Look at the bigger picture – science is an extrapolation of life and there are no definites or certainties in life or science. Just look at quantum physics – that tells us that anything is possible, so he could be right.
For what it’s worth, my person opinion is that the Curiosity Rover (along with many other technological marvels) was built using technology reverse-engineered from the Roswell incident. The US government, via its many insidious agencies, works hard to make that line of reasoning look ridiculous. But if you scratch beneath the surface it’s not as crazy as it seems.
LOL, well not posting conspiratorial nonsense would be a good first step, but that horse has aleady sailed...
There are no certainties in science but there are degrees of certainty. Science generally requires a very high level of supporting evidence before something is accepted.
No it doesn't. And no he isn't.Just look at quantum physics – that tells us that anything is possible, so he could be right.
Your saying it is a weather ballon?For what it’s worth, my person opinion is that the Curiosity Rover (along with many other technological marvels) was built using technology reverse-engineered from the Roswell incident.
No, it is exactly as crazy as it seems.But if you scratch beneath the surface it’s not as crazy as it seems.
No. You are completely wrong in nearly everything you have said. Why should anyone take you seriously?
Maybe when you grow up and learn to think rationally. And maybe pay attention to little details, like getting people's usernames right.Kalister, how do I become an administrator on this forum?
There are no certainties in science but there are degrees of certainty. Science generally requires a very high level of supporting evidence before something is accepted.
No it doesn't. And no he isn't.Just look at quantum physics – that tells us that anything is possible, so he could be right.
Your saying it is a weather ballon?For what it’s worth, my person opinion is that the Curiosity Rover (along with many other technological marvels) was built using technology reverse-engineered from the Roswell incident.
No, it is exactly as crazy as it seems.But if you scratch beneath the surface it’s not as crazy as it seems.
Do you work for the CIA?
Quantum physics does not tell us that "anything is possible." It makes specific predictions quite accurately.
Which technology do you think was reverse engineered? What do you think you have found by scratching beneath the surface?For what it’s worth, my person opinion is that the Curiosity Rover (along with many other technological marvels) was built using technology reverse-engineered from the Roswell incident. The US government, via its many insidious agencies, works hard to make that line of reasoning look ridiculous. But if you scratch beneath the surface it’s not as crazy as it seems.
In fact, we all work for the CIA as part of an international misinformation campaign. Also, we not only got our technology from Roswell, we are in active communication with the beings that created that technology. The misinformation campaign is working so well, that even me laying all the cards on the table will produce no resultant security issues. Oh, and we can manipulate your mind from satellites, so better wear your tinfoil hat.
Who said there is no such thing as a stupid question.
For your information, if you ask a member of the CIA if they are a member of the CIA they have to answer truthfully.Who said there is no such thing as a stupid question.
I note that you evaded the question.
That logic proves I am not then, doesn't it.For your information, if you ask a member of the CIA if they are a member of the CIA they have to answer truthfully.Who said there is no such thing as a stupid question.
I note that you evaded the question.
Why on Earth would anyone think that some random non-US citizen on the Internet is in the CIA? What is wrong with you? And, to set your mind at rest: no, obviously not.
Are you a member of the KGB, the London Philharmonic, or the yakuza?
Actually, (and I hate doing this) I'm going to have to correct you in your corrections here. Quantic Mechanics says that anything is possible and nothing is impossible. It's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Perhaps some of the people who are pretty fast and jumping on others when they make a small mistake in a calculation will be a little bit more circumspect now that it has been pointed out that they have made a, ahem, RATHER LARGE mistake in 'flaming' someone else???!!!!
That logic proves I am not then, doesn't it.For your information, if you ask a member of the CIA if they are a member of the CIA they have to answer truthfully.Who said there is no such thing as a stupid question.
I note that you evaded the question.
Why on Earth would anyone think that some random non-US citizen on the Internet is in the CIA? What is wrong with you? And, to set your mind at rest: no, obviously not.
Are you a member of the KGB, the London Philharmonic, or the yakuza?
Your logic is unsound - you initially evaded rather than addressed the question, and then you replied 'obviously not'. It is not obvious as you have been posting suspicious comments.
With regard to your other comment, I doubt that members of the London Philharmonic Orchestra or the Yakuza are constitutionally obliged to identify themselves when challenged in chartrooms. The KGB no longer exists - I assume you are referring to the FSB? Mostlikely a deliberate mistake to make yourself look less like a CIA spy.
Your cover is blown - at least have the decency to change your online name.
Sigh.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not say that "anything can happen" nor that "nothing is impossible". Or would you like to provide a citation to support this claim?
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says, informally, that there is "a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be simultaneously known" [Wikipedia]. This is, of course, formally defined in mathematical terms:
Nurse! He's out of bed again.
Really? That's not what I get out of it.Quantic Mechanics says that anything is possible and nothing is impossible. It's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
No need to go much further than here. One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead: Scientific American
[Sigh] it’s pretty easy to just quote equations lifted from Wikipedia, or to cite scientific articles, but it doesn’t demonstrate an understanding of the subject.
I might put together an article explaining quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (both of which I have a pretty deep understanding of) using only layman’s terms so none-scientists like Strange and Adelady can understand it. Where would I post this?
But for the time being can I just say that I did not say that ‘anything is possible’, or if I did say that what I meant is we don’t know everything, there are more things in heaven and earth, Adelady and Strange, than are dreamt of in your philosophy!!!
Why not put it in "Physics"? I look forward to seeing it. You might want to learn how to spell "quantum" before you do, though.
Yes you did:But for the time being can I just say that I did not say that ‘anything is possible’
Well, of course we don't know everything. But there are some things that we know to very high degrees of accuracy and certainty. Quantum mechanics (including the HUP) is one of those, as you will of course realise.or if I did say that what I meant is we don’t know everything
HIGHLY unlikely, given that you keep calling it Quantic Mechanics.
Another howler. Your ignorance is only matched by your delusions of competency.Actually, (and I hate doing this) I'm going to have to correct you in your corrections here. Quantic Mechanics says that anything is possible and nothing is impossible. It's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Perhaps some of the people who are pretty fast and jumping on others when they make a small mistake in a calculation will be a little bit more circumspect now that it has been pointed out that they have made a, ahem, RATHER LARGE mistake in 'flaming' someone else???!!!!
Thanks Strange, of course I know how to spell quantum, but my spell-check out-corrected it. I have edited my post.
I will put together a summary for you (and anyone else who wants to get a better understanding of quantum physics and HUM (but who doesn't have £30k to spend on getting a PHD). But it might be a few days before I get round to this as I work full time, and I am also working on some theories that will have to take precedence (not for this website unfortunately). Are there any other areas of science that you struggle with but would like to know more about?
There's no such thing as Quantic Mechanics, unless it's some New Age thing involving incense and bells, or the guy who works on your time machine when it needs a tune up.
Actually, as seems to be your forte, it is YOU who has screwed up yet again.Perhaps some of the people who are pretty fast and jumping on others when they make a small mistake in a calculation will be a little bit more circumspect now that it has been pointed out that they have made a, ahem, RATHER LARGE mistake in 'flaming' someone else???!!!!
You also said: "Einstein's theory of reality states that nothing solid can travel faster than the speed of sound!". Was that also your spell checker?
In other words, you will copy and paste together an explanation and claim it as your own. Fine, but expect to answer detailed questions and be prepared to complete an exercise or two.I will put together a summary for you (and anyone else who wants to get a better understanding of quantum physics and HUM
Don't worry, we won't be missing them.But it might be a few days before I get round to this as I work full time, and I am also working on some theories that will have to take precedence (not for this website unfortunately)
Oh there are lots. Perhaps you could run a series of courses? I have always struggled with physical chemistry (you know, bonding and antibonding orbitals). And how about a quick tutorial on the big bang theory? And quantum gravity? The list is endless.
Hi Kalister, why would i need to copy and paste when AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID I have a deep understanding of both QM and HUM?
If this were a tennis forum and Rodger Federer started posting, do you think that people would just go on and on about his spelling, or about that time when he wrote 'forehand' but meant 'backhand'?? No, they would probably pick is brain about tennis. (And no, before any rumours get started, I am not saying that I work as a scientist, but rather than I read a lot of science books, watch a lot of science documentaries and UNDERSTAND SCIENCE).
Most of you (apart from Strange) seem a bit threatened that someone like me as strayed on to your board, rather than celebrating it, which i think is a little bit sad!
My name is KALSTER.
Why do you think? Because I don't believe you. None of us do.
Are you the Roger Federer of science now?If this were a tennis forum and Rodger Federer started posting, do you think that people would just go on and on about his spelling, or about that time when he wrote 'forehand' but meant 'backhand'?? No, they would probably pick is brain about tennis.
There has been NO evidence if this alleged scientific prowess as yet.(And no, before any rumours get started, I am not saying that I work as a scientist, but rather than I read a lot of science books, watch a lot of science documentaries and UNDERSTAND SCIENCE).
Not threatened, amused. You are the sideshow of the hour.Most of you (apart from Strange) seem a bit threatened that someone like me as strayed on to your board, rather than celebrating it, which i think is a little bit sad!
We have had plenty of people "like you" here. I am looking forward to your little science lecture. Based on the evidence so far (*) it should be hilarious.
(*) See what I did there? A little science joke to get us warmed up for your main act.
Oh, I missed the big one. Tell us again how nothing can travel faster than sound. And, presumably, how this proves that Concorde was some sort of government conspiracy.
You do realise that several people contributing to this forum are , in fact , working scientists, post-graduate science students, science teachers or otherwise engaged in real, honest-to-goodness science. Some of these people contribute to scientific activities and papers on topics which we discuss here.I am not saying that Iwork as a scientist, but.. I ... UNDERSTAND SCIENCE).
Most of you (apart from Strange) seem a bit threatened that someone like me as strayed on to your board, rather than celebrating it, which i think is a little bit sad!
Threatened isn't the word I'd use. Puzzled, wondering, confused ..... can't make up my mind.
I am also very interested to hear what his "theories" are. I'm sure that thread will be just as great as this one! (Hard to believe, huh?)
Anyways, thank you Tom_Eddison! (It's "Edison" BTW.)
Edit:
Sarcasm is much harder to convey through text.
Last edited by guymillion; August 14th, 2012 at 01:29 PM.
Do you personally know anyone that has travelled on "Concorde"?Oh, I missed the big one. Tell us again how nothing can travel faster than sound. And, presumably, how this proves that Concorde was some sort of government conspiracy.
Er, yes. But presumably that doesn't count as you seem to think I am some sort of disinformation agent. On the other hand, I'm not sure you exist.
I’ve posted an overview of HUM and QM in the physics section. I trust this will prove my understanding of the subject and is simple enough for non-scientists to follow… and yes, it is my own work (without any need to use other references)…
people-may-appear-bright-until-they-speak.jpg
Oh yeah, TV documetries on the science and history channel? Great way to learn "science".
First of all, it's Quantum, not Quantic. Second, that's not what the Uncertainty principle says. It says you cannot know with precision certain pairs of physical properties of particles.
And in case nobodies pointed it out yet, it is the speed of light which is the limit, not the speed of sound.
And it's the Theory or Relativity, not Reality.
Everything you've posted has been inaccurate. So there's been no mistake in pointing that out.
Since NOTHING you've posted has been correct, why would you think we would believe you? You've amply demonstrated that you're claim above is untrue.
While I've never travelled on Concorde, I have exceeded the speed of sound in a F-15E attack fighter.
Of course, I could be a CIA agent sent here to misinform you.
FFS, very soon Felix Baumgartner will travel faster than sound by simply falling from the edge of space!!
And the Earth orbits the Sun at an average speed of 107,200 km/h.
(Note to self - stop feeding the troll)
ancillary
Last year, an unmanned us military aircraft hit mach 20(13000 mph) then was lost. still not bad for flying in the atmosphere?
As a youth, I was fascinated by the exploits of the x planes...all the way up to the blackbird...and now maybe a new fascination is just around the corner?
"course, it'd be nice to find out what happened to the first HTV-2
Speaking of the earth, A few years ago, i found myself standing on a mountain in Ecuador hurtling toward the east at over a thousand miles an hour.
God bless relativity, there was no sense of motion, nor obvious sign of the 1kmph travel, 'cepting the sun's apparent motion.
....................
Speedo
feed whatever/whoever you want
feed the troll
feed the ogre
feed the snake coiled up at your feet
oh, and
when i lived in florida, some guy jumped out of a helicopter at a high altitude, claiming that the terminal velocity of a falling human was <600 miles per hour
current web search is claiming well under 200 mph(120 with arms and legs outstretched)
maybe Felix needs one hell of a weight belt?
Last edited by sculptor; August 14th, 2012 at 03:25 PM.
Really? This individual must be a troll, or at least, most likely. Can someone really misconceive 4 different well-known notions of physics?
(mind the profanity)
In 1960, Joe Kittinger jumped out of a balloon at an altitude of over 102,000 feet, and reached a maximum speed of 614 mph before opening his parachute at around 20,000 feet.
Felix is going to jump from 120,000 feet. He has already this year made a test jump from 96,000 feet and reached a speed of 536 mph.
There is something wrong there. Didn't someone mention Galileo earlier ...
On the other thread, actually.
| « How to debunk new age Quantum physics crankery | Teleportation and movement. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
35Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
