Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
You only have this much potential energy available, and the flatter your trajectory, the more atmosphere you need to work with.
22
This was brought up in a discussion about sci-fi weapons, where people were discussing simply using kinetic projectiles from orbit to hit with tremendous force. That's obviously a theoretically possible thing. Where I'm being unsure is that some posters were claiming that you could get substantially more energy by launching a kinetic projectile just slightly slower than orbital speed, which would cause it to loop repeatedly around the planet (we'll say the Earth here) gaining speed on each pass until eventually it reaches the ground with enormous kinetic energy.

At a glance, "OK, it keeps falling toward the planet being accelerated by Earth's gravity so it goes faster and faster" makes sense, but...I'm pretty sure it doesn't work actually work that way. But my knowledge of physics and orbit dynamics is minimal and I've forgotten most of it. So I figured I'd crowdsource to a place with experts.

Some things that bother me about this:
* "It keeps gaining speed over a prolonged period of time" is possible with gravity involved, but always kind of a general physics red flag. Things go slower over time, not faster.

* Orbits degrade over time; they get slower, not faster. This isn't an orbit, but...it is very similar.

* As far as I know, satellites and things HAVE degraded and dropped out of of orbit unintentionally, which should follow pretty much the same path as an object fired just below the speed of a stable orbit. They didn't cause massive city-destroying damage when they fell. :D

* If an object every got going faster than escape speed, it would just fly away from the planet and no longer be orbiting, so it appears to me that the absolute fastest a projectile that looped the planet could ever go would be just below escape speed for whatever altitude started at.

* I have no idea how air resistance would factor in. Would a direct path have less air resistance than a looping one?

Any thoughts on this?
23
The Hoax Theory / Re: Blunder® takes on a Flerf
« Last post by bknight on February 19, 2023, 05:51:55 PM »
11 months was too light, IMO.
24
The Hoax Theory / Re: Blunder® takes on a Flerf
« Last post by Count Zero on February 19, 2023, 04:29:47 PM »
As for Brother Bart, he's become somewhat of a toothless, tragic figure.  I don't think he poses much of a threat to anyone unless he's behind the wheel of an automobile.

https://sci.ccc.nashville.gov/Search/CriminalHistory?P_CASE_IDENTIFIER=BART%5ESIBREL%5E12151964%5E180891

The vandalism case was funny.  He became enraged with a woman in a parking lot and jumped up and down on her hood ("bonnet" to His Majesty's subjects).  The woman's name appears twice in the court filing:  As the victim, and as the County Prosecutor.
25
The Hoax Theory / Re: Blunder® takes on a Flerf
« Last post by Obviousman on February 19, 2023, 02:20:21 PM »
Looks like he has a serious drinking problem.
26
The Hoax Theory / Re: Blunder® takes on a Flerf
« Last post by beedarko on February 18, 2023, 02:30:16 AM »
In a nutshell he calls Jay a liar. He justifies this by comparing 3 versions of the same event (ie the justifiable punch in the mouth Sibrel got), namely;

- Buzz recounting how he was interviewed by a Japanese TV company in 'Magnificent Desolation'
- Sibrel claiming he was merely an invited guest of that company in his work of fiction passing as an autobiography
- Jay's assertion that Sibrel was the TV company, using subterfuge to gain access to Aldrin, just like he did other astronauts


His shtick is and always has been character assassination. Dingbat seems to hyper-focus on irrelevant minutiae that has nothing whatsoever to do with the authenticity of the Apollo missions.

As for Brother Bart, he's become somewhat of a toothless, tragic figure.  I don't think he poses much of a threat to anyone unless he's behind the wheel of an automobile.

https://sci.ccc.nashville.gov/Search/CriminalHistory?P_CASE_IDENTIFIER=BART%5ESIBREL%5E12151964%5E180891

27
The Hoax Theory / Re: Blunder® takes on a Flerf
« Last post by onebigmonkey on February 18, 2023, 02:11:02 AM »
In a nutshell he calls Jay a liar. He justifies this by comparing 3 versions of the same event (ie the justifiable punch in the mouth Sibrel got), namely;

- Buzz recounting how he was interviewed by a Japanese TV company in 'Magnificent Desolation'
- Sibrel claiming he was merely an invited guest of that company in his work of fiction passing as an autobiography
- Jay's assertion that Sibrel was the TV company, using subterfuge to gain access to Aldrin, just like he did other astronauts

Of course Sibrel would never fabricate things, cherry pick facts and twist the truth in order to publicise his grift and make his story sit better with his marks. Doesn't have a history of that at all. No sir.
28
The Hoax Theory / Re: Blunder® takes on a Flerf
« Last post by beedarko on February 17, 2023, 08:41:27 PM »
It's a Youtube channel, not facebook

I think Ranb is referring to my response to Jay.  It includes a link to Blunder's latest manifesto in his little Facebook group.

Ran, you may be able to access it by logging out of Facebook first, or maybe by clearing all your cookies.
29
The Hoax Theory / Re: Blunder® takes on a Flerf
« Last post by Tomblvd on February 17, 2023, 05:09:54 PM »
It's a Youtube channel, not facebook
30
The Hoax Theory / Re: Blunder® takes on a Flerf
« Last post by Ranb on February 17, 2023, 08:04:24 AM »
Yes, from that Facebook page. 

I get the message, "This content isn't available right now
When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted".
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10