|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
 Posted - 08/14/2005 : 01:29:02 [Permalink]
|
You say I'm a troll (therefore troll is anyone who doesn't think like you. For example for believers all atheists are trolls because they will never think like them).
This is not a nice way to reason 
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2005 : 04:22:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
You say I'm a troll (therefore troll is anyone who doesn't think like you. For example for believers all atheists are trolls because they will never think like them).
This is not a nice way to reason
Your conclusion is falty.
You sometimes display intelligence higher than a mere idiot or imbecil. But then you write lines like "Well, they couldn't steer their probe to Mars because it has not foot brake." which really is one of the most idiotic lines this far.
I submit your line as evidence that you are acting much less intelligent than you really are, therefore you qualify as a Troll.
A troll is not someone that thinks differently, a troll is someone who knows better, but keeps posting stupid things just to get a reaction.
You are smarter than this, and I feel sad that you are wasting your energy on this when you could be more productive. |
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 - 08/14/2005 : 07:59:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
" ... You sometimes display intelligence higher than a mere idiot or imbecil. But then you write lines like "Well, they couldn't steer their probe to Mars because it has not foot brake." which really is one of the most idiotic lines this far ... "
Perhaps you don't understand my humour
But, speaking seriously, do you think really they can brake their probes retro burning rocket engine?
It is easy to draw a vector and an opposite vector because in this case we are in the mere abstraction.
But imagine a probe coming towards you at 50,000 miles per hour.
If it retro burnt its rocket engine it would spin round like a whisk.
Look at this movie:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia06243.html
No star like in moon landing fake pictures.
Dear friend
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT SOME CLOUDS CAN HAMPER SPACE SHUTTLE LANDING
WHEN NASA'S BUFFOONS SAY TO BE ABLE TO HIT A COMET RUNNING AT HIGH VELOCITY IN THE DEEP DARKNESS OF UNIVERSE
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2005 : 09:18:40 [Permalink]
|
| "NASA's Buffoons" would be a great name for a band. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2005 : 10:35:17 [Permalink]
|
You are right. It sounds well.
Go here please:
http://www.nasa.gov/mov/120426main_ge-062405.mov
ERRORS of the "band":
1 - In this scale of drawing the Earth's orbit should be almost a circumference not an ellipse.
2 - The sun should be in a focus and instead it is in a strange position.
3 - Tempel 1 is not like that bad animal with eyes, nose, mouth that we all know
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
| Edited by - bigbrain on 08/14/2005 22:58:49 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2005 : 13:44:19 [Permalink]
|
Dear friend sts60
make some calculations. I'm anxious about your absence.
Explain with some drawings and complex calculations how NASA's buffoons can locate their probe with radio signals that take 1 hour and 20 minutes to go and 1 hour and 20 minutes to come back while the Earth has travelled for 1.20 hours + 1.20 hours = 2.40 hours x 65,000 miles per hour = 173,000 miles and has turned around itself 40 degrees.
Explain how they can brake the probe so that it doesn't spin round like a whisk.
Calculations are very nice but are no use in front of the difficulties of real world  |
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2005 : 14:17:17 [Permalink]
|
Bigbrain 30
Gullible friends 0
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2005 : 14:36:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
But, speaking seriously, do you think really they can brake their probes retro burning rocket engine?
Yes. No question about it.
quote:
But imagine a probe coming towards you at 50,000 miles per hour.
If it retro burnt its rocket engine it would spin round like a whisk.
What makes you think that?
All you need is to align the thrust vector to go through the center of the mass. This is basic mechanic: As long as the accelerating force is vectored through the center of the mass, no part of the force will make the probe spin.
However, it is hard to make it perfect, therefore there is a guidance system in place to make necessary adjustments in order keep the probe aligned. Inertial guidance system, I think it's called.
quote:
Dear friend
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT SOME CLOUDS CAN HAMPER SPACE SHUTTLE LANDING
WHEN NASA'S BUFFOONS SAY TO BE ABLE TO HIT A COMET RUNNING AT HIGH VELOCITY IN THE DEEP DARKNESS OF UNIVERSE
Listen, you dunsel! The Space shuttle CAN land through cloud cover. It's just that they prefer not to. Flying by instruments only increase the risk of a crash, and they thing that adding that risk is not worth it. |
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. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2005 : 16:20:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dr. Mabuse wrote:
A troll is not someone that thinks differently, a troll is someone who knows better, but keeps posting stupid things just to get a reaction.
You know what? I never realized this was what a troll meant (what a virgin I am). I too have learnt something from this thread. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2005 : 00:13:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
" ... Inertial guidance system, I think it's called ... "
You have made a big mistake, you must write "Inertial Guidance System".
NASA's buffoons like acronyms, with them they solve any problem:
go here please
http://klabs.org/history/apollo_11_alarms/eyles_2004/eyles_2004.htm
LM = Lunar Module
LGC = LM Guidance Computer
DPS = Descent Propulsion System
RCS = Reaction Control System
AGC = Apollo guidance computer
CM = Command Module
PGNS = LM Primary Guidance and Navigation System
IMU = Inertial Measurement Unit
DSKY = Display and Keyboard Unit
PDI = Powered Descent Initiation
MET = Mission Elapsed Time
LPD = Landing Point Designator
VAC = Vector Accumulator
RR = Rendezvous Radar
AGS = Abort Guidance System
ICD = Interface Control Document
ATCA = Attitude and Translation Control Assembly
CDUs = Coupling Data Units
... 
But with all these acronyms could they land on the Moon with a computer of
74k Memory
4k RAM  (YES, YOU HAVE UNDERSTOOD WELL)
without testing LM on the Earth before of landing it on the Moon?
They trained with this Crane-Rocket (CR) http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-000215.jpg
and they landed on the Moon with this famous Tramp-Rocket (TR)
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001110.jpg
ARE PERHAPS ALSO STUPID NASA'S BUFFOONS?  
UNFORTUNATELY YES |
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
| Edited by - bigbrain on 08/15/2005 02:04:50 |
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2005 : 07:25:34 [Permalink]
|
One of the more common features of hoax believers is a curiously inconsistent view of technology when applied to historical events. (Well, it's curious in the sense that a normal person, who thought about it for a few minutes, wouldn't think that way. It's quite normal for HBs.)
I am of course mainly thinking of Apollo HBs. On the one hand, they claim that the vast gummint conspiracy corps could use sophisticated computer hardware and software to fake an enormous array of still and motion imagery - the "Photoshopped Moon". Then they turn around and claim that the technology did not exist to { control the launch vehicle | navigate the CSM/LM stack | land the LM }, because their space game needs a Pentium 4 with a fancy graphics card to run.
Such internally inconsistent claims don't present any problem to the HB, who is not constrained by rational thinking or mere facts. Anything can be tossed out to "support" their claims, even if it contradicts the previous statement, because they are not interested - and in many cases are simply incapable of - dealing with correction. I don't know what the psychological term for this is, but you see the same thing with religious fanatics and many politicians.
As with religious fanatics, empirical data and logic are useless in dealing with committed HBs (and with trolls, for that matter). The fact that the image manipulation tools claimed or implied to have bulk-produced Apollo imagery didn't exist back then is irrelevant. The fact that a PC game requires vastly more resources than a real spacecraft computer (which doesn't have to support graphics, a bloated operating system, and other such junk) is irrelevant. Everything is irrelevant to the committed HB unless he (most HBs seem to be male, for some reason) can somehow fit it into his worldview.
This leads to some amusing situations when trying to drag them, kicking and screaming, into touch with reality. All they know, by and large, is what they can dredge up on their whizbang commodity PC, and they have no idea how technology is really used or how it changes. I have designed and written code for a spacecraft computer, and the PC I used for developing it was far more powerful than the spacecraft computer itself, which had (IIRC) 128K each of RAM and EEROM, no disk, graphics, etc., and no operating system at all. The S/C computer, which flew three times, was also badly outpaced by the controllers for new experiments. (We had to slow one experiment's computer down simply because it responded too fast for the older main computer.)
It's a lot like automobile technology. Your new car simply will not run without a number of pretty powerful microprocessors, memory, sensors, and firmware all doing their thing. By HB reasoning, their should have been no such thing as a functioning automobile during the Apollo era: isn't it laughable to think of a car running without a powerful computer? |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2005 : 07:57:59 [Permalink]
|
Could be a form of cognitive dissonance responding with cognitive incompetence.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 08/15/2005 08:00:15 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
artists (artists?) haven't much fantasy.