Author Topic: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?  (Read 596990 times)

Offline frenat

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #360 on: December 31, 2012, 02:40:05 PM »
Do not worry about the money!
Translation:  I don't have it and never had any intention of awarding it anyway!

Show that you are clever, intelligent, have Nobel price level mental ability, etc, and not nobody not even capable to clean a WC! Clear?
Translation: Because that's my job!  I don't want you taking it!
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
 -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.

Offline Sus_pilot

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #361 on: December 31, 2012, 02:54:10 PM »
You could save us and yourself a lot of trouble, Heiwa, and just send the money to W. David Woods. He wrote a great book called How Apollo Flew To The Moon.  He explains everything in such a way so that even a layman such as yourself could understand it.

Offline Daggerstab

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
    • Badly Honed Bytes (my blog)
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #362 on: December 31, 2012, 02:55:40 PM »
BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.

What is wrong with your website is that it is full of malware.  Why will you not respond to this basic point?  I am not going to copy-paste from your site, because I am not going to visit your site.  I do not feel the need to infect my computer, because I can tell from what you write here that you don't know what you're talking about.  You do not have the money.  You are not an engineer.  You are not intellectually honest enough to admit to the people who correct you that you were wrong about something.

If you are getting a malware warning from Google, it's possible that it's backlisting the whole domain (members.tripod.com), not the Heiwa sub-site specifically. As someone already pointed out, Tripod is a free hosting site with notoriously lax security.

Google's Safe Browsing reports for the specific heiwaco page and for the whole domain are identical:
http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/moontravel.htm
http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.members.tripod.com/

I checked the page. The only external contents that I load are hotlinked images (demonstrating the usual level of integrity and competence of the webmaster) and a Javascript from statcounter.com, presumably a visit counter. So yeah, it appears that that specific page is safe. (You can block statcounter with some browser plugin or disable Javascript temporarily, if you want to be extra sure. :))

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3726
    • Clavius
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #363 on: December 31, 2012, 03:17:08 PM »
So, Heiwa, since you're listening, do you not agree when doing an energy balance equation that all energy needs to be taken into account?

Including potential energy.  In a generalized closed orbit, total mechanical energy is a constant (for some mass, or in "specific" form with mass factored out) but it is formulated as the sum of potential and kinetic energies.  One term is the "mass suspended above a planet and acted upon by gravity" term, and the other is "mass moving through space at some velocity" term.  In the general case, the values of the potential and kinetic energy terms respectively fluctuate at each point along the orbit, in a ratio bounded proportionally by the eccentricity of the orbit, but their sum remains constant.

It should be noted, however, that transfer orbits are not considered closed orbits and the energy-sum conservation game isn't helpful in that formulation.

Quote
Your idea of keeping it simple involves missing out terms in the equation and getting signs wrong.

Indeed every conspiracist who attempts to impeach Apollo on technical grounds sets aside the actual working models and formulates his own simpler forms.  Ostensibly, according to the proponent, this is to spare the layman reader from the tedium of complicated models, but it doesn't take much discussion to reveal that it's really to try to shoehorn the problem into the proponent's rudimentary knowledge of the relevant science.  Here Anders has tried to re-invent the science of orbital mechanics from some incomplete smattering of basic physical principles, and running into the anticipated problems.  Understanding specific energy as negative in some cases and positive in other cases (most appropriately, negative for closed orbits), is no problem for people who understand the concept of energy and have seen the wisdom in choosing the reference frame as we have, so that we can generalize the results to all orbits instead of orbits around some arbitrarily chosen planet.  He doesn't know how orbits work, so he works out how he thinks orbits "must" work.  He works an equation and the energy comes out negative, so he panics.

We saw this also in his failure to consider a rocket as a variable-mass vehicle.  Which is to say, he knew that was a property of rockets, but he didn't know how to incorporate it.  He wasn't aware of the Tsiolkovsky model, and his incompetence at mathematics and general physics seems to have prevented him from deriving it.  So he ignores it.  And he doesn't even ignore it in the traditional pseudo-science manner of assuming it's negligible.  In true foaming-at-the-mouth form, he writes it off to "NASA's inability" to provide him with correct figures.  He implies he'd be able to account for it properly if only NASA hadn't been so secretive, but then proceeds to ignore its effect entirely and insinuate that his known-inaccurate figure is somehow irrefutable proof of a hoax.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Mag40

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #364 on: December 31, 2012, 03:19:38 PM »
But ref [1] says something else. Willy Low is of course dead (since 1986) and cannot reply but ... maybe he is wrong? What do you think?

What do I think? I think your arrogance far exceeds your poor research capabilities and so called engineering skills. The mission report is slightly different to the web page I quoted....but sadly for you, nowhere near your figure of 8,777kg.

The [1] is http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf

From page 122 (pdf page 134)....we get two tables showing the totals.....

Descent propulsion 18,184lbs = 8,248kg :


Ascent propulsion 5,238lbs = 2,376kg :


So, tell everybody where you got your 8,777kg figure from......are you going to correct your rubbishy web page again?


Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3726
    • Clavius
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #365 on: December 31, 2012, 03:28:38 PM »
I like energy balances.

Your predilection is irrelevant, as it is not a correct method of quantifying orbital mechanics and orbital maneuvers.

Quote
You study A and B and the difference in energy between A and B. Simple.

But incorrect.  Simplicity is not a virtue if you have omitted important parts of the problem.  You refuse to believe that your home-made attempt to reinvent orbital mechanics can be so fundamentally wrong, hence there is very little that can be said to you.  You wish us to correct you within the framework of your naive misconceptions.  You must correct your thinking at a more fundamental level.

Quote
Forget rockets.

No.  Your claim is about rockets, and about how your alleged "energy balance" method proves they cannot work -- in general, or in the case of Apollo.  Hence you may not simplify away the properties of rockets.  You may not simply ignore how a rocket changes its energy properties.  You may not ignore the sources of mechanical energy that prevail in the environment in which rockets operate -- namely, in the regime of orbital mechanics.

Quote
And try to be polite. Try to behave like a nice person. Do not behave like a huligan. Or like a gangster. I know it is very difficult to do that, if you work for NASA or JPL. But you can try.

This is pure mean-spirited hogwash.  You have viciously libeled people for having done nothing more than disagree with you and attempt graciously and politely to correct your errors.  You are the least qualified person here to lecture on the subject of decorum.  You are being corrected by people who are not employed by NASA, but who nevertheless practice the principles of space flight professionally.  Your delusion that NASA controls all of space flight does not license you to defame your critics in a puerile and unlawful fashion.

Quote
BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.

Asked and answered repeatedly.  Your entire approach is wrong from its initial treatment of first principles, and continues to predicate error upon it.  I outlined exactly what those first principles were and what you needed to do to correct them.  I argued then, as I argue now, that it is pointless to discuss the rest of the page until you fix the fundamental errors that occur early on.  I have asked you several times to explain why you have not corrected those errors, but you refuse to give me any sort of answer.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1067
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #366 on: December 31, 2012, 03:40:30 PM »
I'm being told to be polite after being called bankrupt? The irony might make me explode.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1596
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #367 on: December 31, 2012, 04:52:29 PM »
I like energy balances. You study A and B and the difference in energy between A and B. Simple.

Really? The whole area of physics involved in rocket flight is that simple is it? And yet when presented with such an energy balance problem as a man walking on a plane, you ignored it and pretended it wasn't relvant. Why?

Quote
Forget rockets.

I think that has to be the funniest thing I've ever read coming from someone who is specifically trying to lecture us on rocket behaviour....

Quote
And try to be polite. Try to behave like a nice person. Do not behave like a huligan. Or like a gangster. I know it is very difficult to do that, if you work for NASA or JPL. But you can try. It is difficult. DHS listening maybe?

You really are obnoxious, aren't you? How dare you presume to lecture us on being polite after the things you said here and in your website?

Quote
BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.

Listing what is wrong with your website would require a lot more time than I have. Your assumptions and inability to do proper research are a study in themselves, frankly.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Noldi400

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #368 on: December 31, 2012, 06:12:32 PM »
Quote
Yes, that schematic has been reproduced in a few places - including Wikipedia - but appears to be wrong in several respects.

I especially liked this part:


Is anyone else reminded of Ralph Rene's tendency to make up his own rules of science?
"The sane understand that human beings are incapable of sustaining conspiracies on a grand scale, because some of our most defining qualities as a species are... a tendency to panic, and an inability to keep our mouths shut." - Dean Koontz

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1596
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #369 on: December 31, 2012, 06:31:43 PM »
Wow, I hadn't even noticed that one! Since there are so many things wrong with just that one little annotation, how does he expect us to have time to point out everything else that's wrong?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Daggerstab

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
    • Badly Honed Bytes (my blog)
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #370 on: December 31, 2012, 06:42:43 PM »
Quote
Yes, that schematic has been reproduced in a few places - including Wikipedia - but appears to be wrong in several respects.

I especially liked this part:


Is anyone else reminded of Ralph Rene's tendency to make up his own rules of science?

I think that it is supposed to be sarcasm - see the symmetric note on the other side of the booster.

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1609
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #371 on: December 31, 2012, 07:02:00 PM »
I don't know, how do we tell with this one?
He's so ignorant for all we know that may be what he thinks. :-\

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #372 on: December 31, 2012, 07:02:28 PM »


I am not listening. I look at a PC screen. OK, some nice music in the background.

I like energy balances. You study A and B and the difference in energy between A and B. Simple. Just establish energy at A and compare same thing at B. And compare with others As and Bs. Forget rockets. Keep it simple. Just compare. And try to be polite. Try to behave like a nice person. Do not behave like a huligan. Or like a gangster. I know it is very difficult to do that, if you work for NASA or JPL. But you can try. It is difficult. DHS listening maybe?

BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.

So why didn't you?

The black-box method doesn't work if you ignore half of what came out of the box.  Which you did.  You neglected to include the kinetic energy of the waste products.

You also put the wrong value in the front end of your black box.  You treated mass as a constant, and it is not.

This is not a failure of clarity on the part of your web site!  Your web site makes your reasoning quite clear.  Clear enough to be able to see and describe the flaws in it.

Offline Noldi400

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #373 on: December 31, 2012, 07:45:05 PM »
That's the problem with trying to simplify "energy balances". They are inherently complex; the simpler you try to make them, the more error you introduce.

Why not use the Tsiolkovsky equation that's been used to accurately predict rocket behavior since 1813 (that we know of)?  Could it be that the published figures from Apollo agree with it, so it must be suspect? My, what clever shills we are, introducing false science a century and a half before we would need it.




The estupid! It burns!
"The sane understand that human beings are incapable of sustaining conspiracies on a grand scale, because some of our most defining qualities as a species are... a tendency to panic, and an inability to keep our mouths shut." - Dean Koontz

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #374 on: December 31, 2012, 08:04:42 PM »
The way I learned it (and, no, I wasn't trained as an engineer!) was that a black box/energy balance was useful as a sanity check.  NOT as a way to achieve any accurate understanding of a mechanism.  Just something to let you know if you were potentially missing something and should check your assumptions.

And, used this way, the black box shows Ander's failure.  He gets a number that is out of range.  Instead of going "Hrm; what did I miss?" he goes "NASA lied!  Everything is a hoax!  Science is wrong!"

Which means, really, it is nothing more than a fancier way of doing what all hoax believers do; starting with an assumption then coming up with whatever rationalization or skewed facts can appear to support that assumption.



(Or, to be more precise; he is using a tool that is supposed to check YOU as a tool to check the WORLD.  It is like using a checksum error to declare that math is wrong.)