Did the Space Shuttle dock at the Secret Space Station tonight?

reply to post by zorgon


Awesome links and info, Zorgon!

But, what is that persistent, petulant whine we keep seeing pop up every time you post something of significance?

It would be so distracting, if we weren't actually aware of why it keeps happening.

Carry on Z, well done!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Z, my friend, how is your CSM orbit calculation going? If you need help, just whistle.

I will let John play with you on the gravity issue Its his project. I will add more from me later... patience is a virtue

As to 'whisle blowing' You bet I will keep at it

Originally posted by goosdawg
Carry on Z, well done!

Thanks... Got a lot for the Rainbow thread... doesn't all tie in to the shuttle... yet spikedmilk really opened up a can of worms there.

Originally posted by zorgon
I will let John play with you on the gravity issue. Its his project.

Oh I see. You are abandoning his ship. Wise idea. Because if you did do this calculation, he'd have to count you as one of "skeptics" who sold out to "mainstream science".

It's hard to believe that you can spend hours staring at pics of lunar rocks and explaning to yourself and others how these look like alien ships and you neglect to go and get a piece of real knowledge that out there for you, for asking.


[edit on 20-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by zorgon


I like this post Z, in fact I like it so much you can have a star.

Just trying to get my head around the technical side though or maybe the basics if you like.

1.57 million amperes, let me just say that again because that is a lot of power, 1.57 million amperes, yeah it sounded just as good the second time.

So at the moment I am assuming that is power in, so I am I right in assuming the end product is heat ?, just trying to get a picture here.

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon,

keep 'whistle blowing' please. As to your suggestion that I had a 'discourse' about Lunar gravity, methinks you doth mistaketh me for another...

Kidding aside, I enjoy your technical posts...not that I have the level of education, yet, to comprehend...that's why I keep learning. Wondering, from what I am seeing, looks like human stuff, I mean, being developed by human engineers, way ahead technologically from what's been revealed in the mainstream. What about the other stuff? What gets us to the Moon since 1962 and to Mars today?

If that has yet to be revealed, so be it....

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Oh I see. You are abandoning his ship.

Not what I said at all... John is putting together something and I will wait for him to do so... but it will probably have to wait until we come back from the mine..

It's hard to believe that you can spend hours staring at pics of lunar rocks and explaning to yourself and others how these look like alien ships

What I spend my time looking at is my choice. As I have said many times I am on a personal quest and share what I find along the way with others that are interested.

and you neglect to go and get a piece of real knowledge that out there for you, for asking.

The 'knowledge' that you expect me to get is based on your ideas and figures. When I have the relevant data to properly respond to your request, I will do so. You may make of that what you will.



[edit on 21-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by sherpa
So at the moment I am assuming that is power in, so I am I right in assuming the end product is heat ?, just trying to get a picture here.

The end product will be electricity...

The advantage is that it produces no radioactive waste and requires only minimal shielding

As to the picture... picture a 1/2 ton ring floating in the air...

The dipole magnetic field is the simplest and most common magnetic field configuration in the universe. It is the magnetic far-field of a single, circular current loop, and it represents the dominate structure of the middle magnetospheres of magnetized planets and neutron stars. The use of a dipole magnetic field generated by a levitated ring to confine a hot plasma for fusion power generation was first considered by Akira Hasegawa after
participating in the Voyager 2 encounter with Uranus

In other words The Earth itself is a magnetic dipole...

What I find interesting in this paper is this line... It is merely a hint... like the hints we have been finding in the anti matter papers... but it is there ...

Teller and co-workers [7] developed a conceptual design of a levitated dipole space propulsion system.

www.thelivingmoon.com...

I will pick this up in the other thread. Though this covers propulsion, its not tied to the Shuttle and ISS.... yet

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 21-11-2007 by zorgon]

For Zorgon, et al...I've been trying to understand a concept I read about recently, something called 'Zero Point Energy'. Sounds a little like the 'perpetual motion' ideas of years ago, but knowing that we don't yet know all about science, it is intriguing. I think it has something to do with energy being available from a vacuum (not a Hoover :lol. Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by weedwhacker

For Zorgon, et al...I've been trying to understand a concept I read about recently, something called 'Zero Point Energy'. Sounds a little like the 'perpetual motion' ideas of years ago, but knowing that we don't yet know all about science, it is intriguing. I think it has something to do with energy being available from a vacuum (not a Hoover :lol

. Care to elaborate?

Thanks for the post weedwhacker. Zorgon will respond also but before he does let me say that in my opinion 'zero point energy' is a theoretical fantasy which has yet to produce one erg.

Hello John,

Originally posted by johnlear
let me say that in my opinion 'zero point energy' is a theoretical fantasy which has yet to produce one erg.

There is a definition of zero-point energy which is the energy of the ground state of the system as described in quantum mechanics. There is nothing fantastical about it, just one of the things that come in naturally.

From the concept of zero-point energy, folk science produced a concept of "free energy" in the sense of something that can be extracted from the system. I would agree with you John, that this is an unfounded speculation with no roots in science.

Your comment was right on point, I just wanted to clarify the terminology.




[edit on 21-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by zorgon
The 'knowledge' that you expect me to get is based on your ideas and figures.

I'm but a humble physisist moderately successful in his field. What I pointed you to were not "my ideas" but classical physics developed by the likes of Newton and Kepler. I'm not in this distinguished company, Zorgon, and those are not ideas I somehow invented. I have nothing to do with it, and it's scary that you fail to see that. So if you want to discredit this, you'd have to write a paper debunking Newton. Good luck, Zorgon.

The knowledge you like to scoff at has so far been pretty successful in providing you with means of transportation, heating your house, and entertainment. I haven't included "education" in this list because you apparently elected to not partake in that delight of civilization.

reply to post by buddhasystem


buddha...we can all be friends here. You're intelligent, accomplished, and a good speller. However, you can seem a little caustic on occasion.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not (fill in the blank)...

...an agent
...an apologist
...anything other than a normal person interested in extraordinary
things

Just writing this to say, while I appreciate your erudite posts, IMHO sometimes your comments verge on vitriolic, and that kinda makes you seem a little petulant. I've seen enough petulance from our 'Idiot in Chief' for the last seven years, thank you very much.

Just trying to be Switzerland here....

As always, my tongue is firmly in cheek.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

buddha...we can all be friends here. You're intelligent, accomplished, and a good speller. However, you can seem a little caustic on occasion.

Just writing this to say, while I appreciate your erudite posts, IMHO sometimes your comments verge on vitriolic, and that kinda makes you seem a little petulant. I've seen enough petulance from our 'Idiot in Chief' for the last seven years, thank you very much.

I'm very much with the Swiss weedkiller here. I don't quite get the level of disgust you aim at Zorgon and John Lear, Buddha - I'm sceptical about a large portion of what they say. I follow what they write not out of blind belief but because I find what they write thought-provoking and interesting. I do find it a little tiresome that after every post they make Buddha is the first to respond apparently simply with the aim of bashing it.

It's obvious that quite a lot of ideas they come out with are unconventional, difficult to prove and occasionally even go in the face of what is generally accepted to be scientifically true. That point has been made, I think - I don't see the need to keep repeating it.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't question what John or Zorgon say, or argue against it if we think it is inaccurate. I've seen plenty of questions asked of John in the past - and have asked one or two myself - when the theories seemed to be flawed. He often says the questioners are wrong - sometimes he offers evidence of why, sometimes that's satisfactory, sometimes not - but I don't recall him ending any of his arguments by suggesting someone was ill-educated.

Believe what you want to believe, you've read enough threads to know what to expect from Lear and Zorgon - there doesn't seem to me to be any need to descend to lobbing personal grenades at them just because you think they're talking nonsense - I do too, but I'm still intrigued by the post Zorgon put up recently because I find the technology interesting. I don't need it spoiled by bitter rants every time they try to contribute something. If you're not interested in the theories, there's an easy way to avoid them. Don't read them. Let us all be misled in peace, please!

Thanks, and take it easy,

LW

Apologies to anyone I might have offended.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
we can all be friends here.

Aren't we already?

you can seem a little caustic on occasion

That may be true. It's in part a result of my background, where all things you say/write/publish are subjected to scrutiny and consistency checks, and where if you caught falsifying or cherry-picking your facts, or failing to substantiate your claims, you are not taken seriously and that is permanent. Challenges to claims must be answered, it's a norm.

Just writing this to say, while I appreciate your erudite posts, IMHO sometimes your comments verge on vitriolic

...without really crossing that line, right?

I tell you what, this works both ways. People like myself have been called "sheeple","mainstream dogmatics" etc.

I've seen enough petulance from our 'Idiot in Chief' for the last seven years, thank you very much.

Jee, speaking of vitriol, you take the cake... Are you saying I am in idiot? Comparing me to Mr.Bush is way too much and probably in violation of T&C.

To LoneWeasel:

I don't quite get the level of disgust you aim at Zorgon and John Lear

I must have been misunderstood. I never experineced any disgust of John Lear and Zorgon. I never expressed such feelings in my posts either, and if I ask a pointed question and am dissapointed at the apparent lack of an asnwer, that's not disgust at all. You haven't seen me disgusted yet, and never will (there are other forums for that).

I'm grateful to Zorgon for posting interesting material that is solid and sound. When this does happen.




[edit on 21-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

[edit on 21-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

you can seem a little caustic on occasion

That may be true. It's in part a result of my background, where all things you say/write/publish are subjected to scrutiny and consistency checks, and where if you caught falsifying or cherry-picking your facts, or failing to substantiate your claims, you are not taken seriously and that is permanent. Challenges to claims must be answered, it's a norm.

That sounds like fun. Does this background have its own message boards? Are they full of people writing posts like yours? Where do I sign up?

I've seen enough petulance from our 'Idiot in Chief' for the last seven years, thank you very much.

Jee, speaking of vitriol, you take the cake... Are you saying I am in idiot? Comparing me to Mr.Bush is way too much and probably in violation of T&C.

Can't argue with that, weedwhacker - there are limits to what one can imply, no amount of John Lear bashing would ever go so far as to compare him to your awful president...

LW

[edit on 21-11-2007 by LoneWeasel]

reply to post by buddhasystem


buddha! Let me make this perfectly clear, I in NO WAY compared you to Bush number 43! I would never insult anyone in that way, he does it very well by himself, thank you very much.

Ah, the danger of writing on a blog...so easy to be misunderstood.

Peace

(composing myself...)

This is John Lear's thread, in his Forum. We indulged ourselves enough, I think, already. Let's talk about the subject at hand??

Thanks

Buddhasystem said,

where if you caught falsifying or cherry-picking your facts, or failing to substantiate your claims, you are not taken seriously and that is permanent.

I'm sorry but I don't believe history has proven this to be true. Many science facts, which were held up as the truth and then shoved down people's throats, including the throats of other scientists, managed to succeed as the truth for decades and in some cases, centuries, only to be proven wrong. Depending on the amount of papers written in support of it, the fame and social standing of the scientist in question, the truth would be outted only after the individual had passed on to the afterlife. And then, only another scientist of the same caliber of fame or social standing, has been allowed to supplant it. The whole thing is a popularity contest. The victor writes the history (or the science), whether it's true or not.



[edit on 21-11-2007 by undo]

Allow me to give an example of how popularity/fame/social standing can effect important facts, such as history:

In mainstream Egyptology, the Osirieon in Abydos, Egypt, is thought to be built by Seti I. There's nothing to back that up. In fact, Margaret Murray who worked alongside Flinders Petrie on the last discovery and excavation of the Osirieon, wrote a paper on the subject. She firmly believed it was NOT built by Seti I. The mainstreamers ignored her, even though she was herself, a mainstream egytologist and archaeologist. So to this day, they continue to present the Osirieon as a Seti I construct. Stuff like this, messes up the history books, badly.

"It is the style of the building, the type of the masonry, the tooling of the stone, and not the name of a king, which date a building in Egypt." - Margaret Murray

It will take someone with more clout than she had (which was apparently overshadowed by her gender at the time) to supplant the idea that the Osirieon was built by Seti I. It's still taught today, that Seti I built it. What utter, head- in- the- ground, science.