Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Everything Space


  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

#1 Microbe

Microbe

    civis scientiam

  • OG VIP
  • 4,372 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 15 April 2018 - 04:00 PM

I am kind of a space nerd and really it was of the most fascinating place to me. Perhaps there are other people here that share the same interest. Lets talk about black holes to dark matter to space travel and etc.


Start with this. I would travel to mars!


The Controversial VASIMR Engine Could Get Us to Mars in a Matter of Weeks | @curiositydotcom

https://curiosity.co...urce=androidapp
  • onediadem, Samwise, Spooner and 3 others like this

#2 Spooner

Spooner

    Horney Toad

  • Black VIP
  • 2,752 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 15 April 2018 - 10:04 PM

Hot engine!

 

[Direct Link]

 

 


  • onediadem, Skywatcher and Microbe like this

#3 onediadem

onediadem

    Insidious Drivel

  • OG VIP
  • 15,056 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 15 April 2018 - 10:12 PM

I was born on mars. I in fact wrote a short story years ago about mars lol. I may have even posted it here. Fantabulous thread!

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Lets kick it off in style with some Mars Volta..

 

[Direct Link]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • Skywatcher, Spooner and Microbe like this

#4 Microbe

Microbe

    civis scientiam

  • OG VIP
  • 4,372 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 06:19 AM

When we land on mars, i will be the silliest person around. I couldnt imagine what it was like witnessing our first lunar landing..... How amazing some felt at that time. I know there is controversy around government funding for space exploration but man alive it is remarkable that we can escape the grips earths gravity and venture into outer space.

We are so unbelievably small!

[Direct Link]


  • onediadem, Skywatcher, Spooner and 1 other like this

#5 Spooner

Spooner

    Horney Toad

  • Black VIP
  • 2,752 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 08:17 AM

We are about half way between big and small.

Try out this site,  I can get lost here for hours.

Just move the slider at the bottom of the page to go bigger or smaller.

Cool link for peeps stuck in middle earth scale...

http://htwins.net/scale2/

...and click on individual objects to learn a bit more.


Edited by Spooner, 16 April 2018 - 08:26 AM.

  • onediadem and Microbe like this

#6 onediadem

onediadem

    Insidious Drivel

  • OG VIP
  • 15,056 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 09:04 AM

https://mycotopia.net/topic/80212-the-rhyme-thread-lyricists-and-poets/?p=1128981

 

Here is Nasa's site for the Mars info.. It has always been in the top 5 favorite planets..

 

https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/


  • Spooner and Microbe like this

#7 onediadem

onediadem

    Insidious Drivel

  • OG VIP
  • 15,056 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 09:43 AM

... wrong thread lol.


Edited by onediadem, 16 April 2018 - 09:44 AM.


#8 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,313 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 09:46 AM

Huh? Where you at, girl?



#9 onediadem

onediadem

    Insidious Drivel

  • OG VIP
  • 15,056 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 10:00 AM

LOL, I was replying to your post about rock star, and put it here instead f there. Too may windows open.


  • Alder Logs likes this

#10 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,313 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 10:04 AM

Yup, figgerd that.

 

I think maybe a competency test for posters is coming.


  • Zwapa likes this

#11 Microbe

Microbe

    civis scientiam

  • OG VIP
  • 4,372 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 11:34 AM

We are about half way between big and small.
Try out this site, I can get lost here for hours.
Just move the slider at the bottom of the page to go bigger or smaller.
Cool link for peeps stuck in middle earth scale...
http://htwins.net/scale2/
...and click on individual objects to learn a bit more.

I have been there before. I have a few apps on my phone with the same concept. The known universe is mind blowing to me, i cant comprehend how massive it is and scientist are now saying it may be much larger then once believed. Looking out into space is almost like looking back into time. If you have not seen it yet check out Nat Geo's Journey to the edge od the universe. I have been there a few times on DMT but its not the same lol
  • onediadem and Spooner like this

#12 Microbe

Microbe

    civis scientiam

  • OG VIP
  • 4,372 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 11:51 AM

Dark matter has gone missing.....

https://www.theguard...in-the-universe
  • onediadem and Skywatcher like this

#13 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,313 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 12:23 PM

IMHO, they are searching for the ejaculations of the mathturbation after this Newton porn: gallery_131808_1351_1408.png.


  • Spooner likes this

#14 Spooner

Spooner

    Horney Toad

  • Black VIP
  • 2,752 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 01:15 PM

IMHO, they are searching for the ejaculations of the mathturbation after this Newton porn: gallery_131808_1351_1408.png.

 

For many years, I have been intrigued by your very interesting hypothesis that there is a better explanation than gravity, for the apparent attraction of massive bodies to each other.  Would love to know more about what you feel is a better explanation.  Gravity, like magnetism can feel conceptually uncomfortable, so I look forward to any better idea you can come up with.

 

The equations have often proved to be useful, but it perhaps that is just a coincidence.  What do you propose as a replacement?


  • Microbe likes this

#15 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,313 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 02:28 PM

Spooner, on 16 Apr 2018 - 11:15 AM, said:
 

Alder Logs, on 16 Apr 2018 - 10:23 AM, said:

IMHO, they are searching for the ejaculations of the mathturbation after this Newton porn: gallery_131808_1351_1408.png.


For many years, I have been intrigued by your very interesting hypothesis that there is a better explanation than gravity, for the apparent attraction of massive bodies to each other. Would love to know more about what you feel is a better explanation. Gravity, like magnetism can feel conceptually uncomfortable, so I look forward to any better idea you can come up with.

The equations have often proved to be useful, but it perhaps that is just a coincidence. What do you propose as a replacement?

It's my problem that while I see the unfounded assumption in that equation, I am yet, not really a mathematician. Yes, because that equation was fall-out from Newton's thought experiment involving cannonball trajectories, with essentially the cannonball occupying the position of one of those 'm's, using the so-called law to put any cannonball-like object into orbit around any gravitating body, has been assumed to be evidence of the correctness of the equation. I like to call it, "Newton's Universal Law of Cannonball Ballistics."

My bitch is the assumed equivalence of the two masses in the equation, Earth, and a cannonball. It effectively says that what is massively true of cannonballs, judged by way of their tendencies to drop to Earth, is also massively true of all gravitating bodies, or assumed to be gravitating bodies. Further, what is apparently dynamically true of this planet Earth, is dynamically true of any cannonball-like object. In other words, the assumption became that it was the mass, measurable only of the cannonball and not the Earth, that is the generator of what is called the gravity force. The assumption of this immeasurably slight force (calculable alone from this equation) in the cannonball is being in its possession of mass, is used, again by such calculation, to derive a mass for this, and any observed celestial sphere. All the celestial spheres we observe then have their masses and assumed attractive forces calculated by where they are, and how they are seen to move. Hence, all cosmology and cosmogony has arisen out of the base assumptions of this single unverifiable equation.

In the wake of this equation, a continuous stream of anomalous observations have come, each requiring a mathematical reckoning. These reckonings have spawned the birth of so much we imagine to be going on out there in space by literally weighting everything seen with the notion that it must be huge cannonball relative masses that puts everything where it is.

A second assumption, not so much related to this one is the "Red Shift." The assumption that only motion can be its source, and not simply the amount of space traversed by light that could be causing the wavelengths to to lengthen. Between these two possibly errant assumptions, we have built a cosmology that, as Terence liked to say, comes from our experts who will tell us, "Allow us this one miracle, and we'll fill in the rest."

So, from the universe I have been observing throughout my life, I am more prone to assume much less mass required, and a different dynamic than simply, 'mass makes something called gravity.' My assumption has become that another force, which we see acting on mass with attraction (or even repulsion in this case) at distance is electrostatic force. For me, electric charge has been mistaken for what is called "gravity." But like measuring the weight of Earth, determining its charge is just as impossible at this moment. So, to develop a mathematics to replace Newton's Law, we would have to be just as arbitrary as was the guessing that it's because Earth was just like a cannonball. We never measured Earth's weight. We watched what a falling mass does, measured the force of the fall, and used it to weigh, by calculation only, the Earth. Now, I might want to know the charge of Earth, but in relation to what? Where do I place my meter leads?

When someone decided that electricity was not a stand-alone force, a force only known by its manifestation, pretty much only its relationship to magnetism was considered. It became officially, electromagnetism. But the relationship of the two involves what is called electric currents for the two to be seen together. When electric potential, called in measure, voltage, is held only in potential, we find it shows attractive force at distance to unlike charges.

 

I have seen that electric force, as potential, arises in fluid motion domains, i.e., vortices. While I see that if a celestial sphere's electric force is generated by way of its motional dynamics, I see that all such spheres would have like polarities and therefore repel each other. So, I see the assumption that the Sun and Earth are held by their calculated forces, after observation and application of the Universal Gravity Law, by which they attract, to be likely not the case. 

 

I also have to think that electrostatic (or electrogravitic) force acts at or near instantaneously at distance.  If the model of all mass being attractive, and the forces between Earth and Sun acting at light velocity, the force's vector would be eight minutes (and a matter in measurable degree) behind the true vector, and pull in a direction that could not support the exclusively attractive mass model of orbital mechanics.

So, I have to assume that there is an action at distance that resides in motion itself, and that charges that probably will remain immeasurable, unmeasurable, are what determine orbital mechanics. Because the relationship between charge and vortex motion is a reciprocal relationship. Not only are solar systems, star systems, and beyond, moved by charge, the motions involved, in themselves, generate charge, but here, I would have to assume that motion is primary.

 

It is my assumption that motion is primary and exists as a field in some density that is prior and emphatic to matter and its mass. Since vortices in fluids (which I believe space is an example, however dense or rarefied) Have their densest regions at their highest electrically charged regions within their centripetal whorls, and their least dense regions at their cores.  I have also to make my guess that the celestial spheres are, if not always, then usually, hollow, and that their cores are holding the least negatively charged electric force we might encounter anywhere in either filled or empty space.

In the beginning was the Motion, and the Motion was with God, and the Motion was God.

Universe: Unus: One. Versus: Turning. One Turning.

Frequency range:

 

High end: Infinite cycles per unit time.

 

Low end: One cycle forever.

The arising of the What Is is still in its first alternation, Its Prime Motion.  It expresses in motion, then electric force, then material. What comes into being as material is just space stuff flowing, in the way stuff wants to flow.  Fluid stuff moves in curves and meanders, and loves the resonant form of the vortex.   A secondary vortex in the greater centrifugal region of a greater vortex will form a spherical vortex.   A secondary vortex occurring within the centripetal regions of a greater vortex (as like here on Earth's vortex's surface) will tend to align perpendicularly to the greater vortex and in the form of a funnel. 

 

I hope the red shift due to Doppler, and the attractive inert mass of the Universal Law of Gravitation, are both circling a theoretical and hypothetical drain.

Posted after long effort and no proof reading (yet).

 

This edit, a half hour downstream from posting.  Whoo!  Enough already.

 

Nope, still at it.

 

Read it again -- edit again.


Edited by Alder Logs, 16 April 2018 - 07:38 PM.

  • onediadem, Skywatcher, Microbe and 1 other like this

#16 Microbe

Microbe

    civis scientiam

  • OG VIP
  • 4,372 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 07:04 PM

Spooner, on 16 Apr 2018 - 11:15 AM, said:

Alder Logs, on 16 Apr 2018 - 10:23 AM, said:

IMHO, they are searching for the ejaculations of the mathturbation after this Newton porn: gallery_131808_1351_1408.png.

For many years, I have been intrigued by your very interesting hypothesis that there is a better explanation than gravity, for the apparent attraction of massive bodies to each other. Would love to know more about what you feel is a better explanation. Gravity, like magnetism can feel conceptually uncomfortable, so I look forward to any better idea you can come up with.

The equations have often proved to be useful, but it perhaps that is just a coincidence. What do you propose as a replacement?

It's my problem that while I see the unfounded assumption in that equation, I am yet, not really a mathematician. Yes, because that equation was fall-out from Newton's thought experiment involving cannonball trajectories, with essentially the cannonball occupying the position of one of those 'm's, using the so-called law to put any cannonball-like object into orbit around any gravitating body, has been assumed to be evidence of the correctness of the equation. I like to call it, "Newton's Universal Law of Cannonball Ballistics."

My bitch is the assumed equivalence of the two masses in the equation, Earth, and a cannonball. It effectively says that what is massively true of cannonballs, judged by way of their tendencies to drop to Earth, is also massively true of all gravitating bodies, or assumed to be gravitating bodies. Further, what is apparently dynamically true of this planet Earth, is dynamically true of any cannonball-like object. In other words, the assumption became that it was the mass, measurable only of the cannonball and not the Earth, that is the generator of what is called the gravity force. The assumption of this immeasurably slight force (calculable alone from this equation) in the cannonball is being in its possession of mass, is used, again by such calculation, to derive a mass for this, and any observed celestial sphere. All the celestial spheres we observe then have their masses and assumed attractive forces calculated by where they are, and how they are seen to move. Hence, all cosmology and cosmogony has arisen out of the base assumptions of this single unverifiable equation.

In the wake of this equation, a continuous stream of anomalous observations have come, each requiring a mathematical reckoning. These reckonings have spawned the birth of so much we imagine to be going on out there in space by literally weighting everything seen with the notion that it must be huge cannonball relative masses that puts everything where it is.

A second assumption, not so much related to this one is the "Red Shift." The assumption that only motion can be its source, and not simply the amount of space traversed by light that could be causing the wavelengths to to lengthen. Between these two possibly errant assumptions, we have built a cosmology that, as Terence liked to say, comes from our experts who will tell us, "Allow us this one miracle, and we'll fill in the rest."

So, from the universe I have been observing throughout my life, I am more prone to assume much less mass required, and a different dynamic than simply, 'mass makes something called gravity.' My assumption has become that another force, which we see acting on mass with attraction (or even repulsion in this case) at distance is electrostatic force. For me, electric charge has been mistaken for what is called "gravity." But like measuring the weight of Earth, determining its charge is just as impossible at this moment. So, to develop a mathematics to replace Newton's Law, we would have to be just as arbitrary as was the guessing that it's because Earth was just like a cannonball. We never measured Earth's weight. We watched what a falling mass does, measured the force of the fall, and used it to weigh, by calculation only, the Earth. Now, I might want to know the charge of Earth, but in relation to what? Where do I place my meter leads?

When someone decided that electricity was not a stand-alone force, a force only known by its manifestation, pretty much only its relationship to magnetism was considered. It became officially, electromagnetism. But the relationship of the two involves what is called electric currents for the two to be seen together. When electric potential, called in measure, voltage, is held only in potential, we find it shows attractive force at distance to unlike charges.

I have seen that electric force, as potential, arises in fluid motion domains, i.e., vortices. While I see that if a celestial sphere's electric force is generated by way of its motional dynamics, I see that all such spheres would have like polarities and therefore repel each other. So, I see the assumption that the Sun and Earth are held by their calculated forces, after observation and application of the Universal Gravity Law, by which they attract, to be likely not the case.

I also have to think that electrostatic (or electrogravitic) force acts at or near instantaneously at distance. If the model of all mass being attractive, and the forces between Earth and Sun acting at light velocity, the force's vector would be eight minutes (and a matter in measurable degree) behind the true vector, and pull in a direction that could not support the attractive mass model of orbital mechanics.

So, I have to assume that there is an action at distance that resides in motion itself, and that charges that probably will remain immeasurable, unmeasurable, are what determine orbital mechanics. Because the relationship between charge and vortex motion is a reciprocal relationship. Not only are solar systems, star systems, and beyond, moved by charge, the motions involved in themselves generate charge, but here, I would have to assume that motion is primary.

It is my assumption that motion is primary and exists as a field in some density that is prior and emphatic to matter and its mass. Since vortices in fluids (which I believe space is an example, however dense or rarefied) Have their densest regions at their highest electrically charged regions within their centripetal whorls, and their least dense regions at their cores. I have also to make my guess that the celestial spheres are, if not always, then usually, hollow, and that their cores are holding the least negatively charged electric force we might encounter anywhere in either filled or empty space.

In the beginning was the Motion, and the Motion was with God, and the Motion was God.

Universe: Unus: One. Versus: Turning. One Turning.

Frequency range:

High end: Infinite cycles per unit time.

Low end: One cycle forever.

The arising of the What Is is still in its first alteration, Its Prime Motion. It expresses in motion, then electric force, then material. What comes into being as material is just space stuff flowing, in the way stuff wants to flow. Fluid stuff moves in curves and meanders, and loves the resonant form of the vortex. A secondary vortex in the greater centrifugal region of a greater vortex will form a spherical vortex. A secondary vortex occurring within the centripetal regions of a greater vortex (as like here on Earth's vortex's surface) will tend to align perpendicularly to the greater vortex and in the form of a funnel.

I hope the red shift due to Doppler, and the attractive inert mass of the Universal Law of Gravitation, are both circling a theoretical and hypothetical drain.

Posted after long effort and no proof reading (yet).

This edit, a half hour downstream from posting. Whoo! Enough already.

Nope, still at it.
You sir are a scholar and a literacy master. I wish i would have applied myself more when it came to grammar!
  • onediadem likes this

#17 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,313 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 16 April 2018 - 07:45 PM

 

I wish i would have applied myself more when it came to grammar!

 

Too bad that's not the bar I wanted the work judged under.    Like Sagan, admiring Velikovsky's scholarship, bemoaning how scandalously he was suppressed by his (Sagan's) colleagues, and then adding, "...but of course he was wrong." * 

 

* That jury is still out, as it continues to seem, the more evidence that comes in from space exploration, the closer what's found conforms with Velikovsky's modeling than the science when he published, and as the years have proceeded.   The pieces just keep on falling into place, and the latest volume I know of is, The Velikovsky Heresies, by Laird Scranton.


Edited by Alder Logs, 16 April 2018 - 07:56 PM.

  • onediadem, Soliver and Microbe like this

#18 Spooner

Spooner

    Horney Toad

  • Black VIP
  • 2,752 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 April 2018 - 05:18 AM

Thanks Alder.  It is such a pleasure to read your logical and eloquent writings on a topic that you seem to have carefully examined.  I understand your clear reservations, none the less it would seem that some utility has been achieved by utilizing the theory of gravity, and that will continue until a more useful model arises.  I am reminded of an old saying from the film editing room,"if it works, it's right." which I take to mean that  the usefullness of something validates it, not that it proves anything beyond it's utility. It is simply appropiate to the particular task at hand.
 
Would love to use a better model, but none is apparent.


Edited by Spooner, 17 April 2018 - 06:35 AM.

  • Microbe likes this

#19 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,313 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 April 2018 - 09:33 AM

Well, there is pretty good evidence that in classified spheres of activity, electrogravitation is being applied, but as it is, is serving in weapons programs, hence, the classifications are about as high as classifications get.   There seems to be a component in NASA using these applications, once again, not for public dissemination.   If so, we will continue to use what is truly "anti-gravity" in as we will continue to explode things to resist the nominal gravity force, i.e., rocket science.   Thomas Townsend Brown revealed electric propulsion and lifting to the navy in 1955 at Pearl Harbor.   That's when it left "research" and went into "development."   The system is called, "compartmentalization."    It's how the secrets are kept.    The keep-away game is now said to be many decades ahead of the technologies known to the unwashed.

 

I will say just this much here:  I in no way believe the lunar lander was rocket science.  It was a lifter.  The telltale is this:  watching the liftoff, what is seen is charges going off.   An electric 'grav-lev' cannot lift off using electrogravitation alone.  This is because when the gravity generation reaches the negative electrical potential great enough to sufficiently resist the Earth, Moon, or planet's gravity (negative charge), it then goes into competition for the material in its immediate environment.  If it does lift off, it will take part of the ground with it.   So, some kind of mechanical thrust is required for initial liftoff, before the full negative charge is applied to the vehicle's lower surfaces (or complete shell).    This phenomenon is known as "matter snatch" and has been noted around some events in the UFO realm of research.  Before I had heard of it, I predicted it in the first paper I published on it in 1985.  

 

It comes down to the only way I know for myself to prove my thesis is to build a flying saucer drive, with which, some extremely expensive plant (where my design would be the one used) would be required.   Funny thing is, I was offered backing not long after I first published, and told there were backers and money was no object.   The man who conveyed the offer owned a security business working for a bank, while he remained a active officer in the Air National Guard (I learned he had this connection when he had to temporarily leave the area to go help secure Ferdinand Marcos' fortune {which was delivered by our military to Hawaii} when he fled the Philippines).  This highfalutin rent-a-cop was someone whom I had been directed to by an author whom I had come across in while researching in Space and Aviation.   He had suggested a hollow Venus and made a reference to Viktor Schauberger, a second time seeing the name after another correspondent who had read my paper and had initially brought Schauberger to my attention. 

 

It seemed I was looking for gravity in a way that was related to Schauberger's work.    When I found out about Schauberger, I saw that connection and changed my own direction somewhat, as his work was way beyond where I was at the time.   Then I believe I made a 'quantum' leap from what he did, though unless I can build my machine, I won't know.  

 

While others, following the path of T.T. Brown, have built lifters using straight electrical theory and circuitry to get charge, my approach stems from my belief that motion is prior to charge in nature.  So, it is from the vortex I begin, and my vortex creates, and is in a nearly, or perhaps, total vacuum.   It makes from this vacuum, what would be called, raw electrons.   I will be told that matter cannot be created or destroyed.  I disagree.  Matter is made at its origin from motions in non-material densities in the form of vortices. *  Call it "æther" if you like.  It will be whatever it is, it just won't be material.   The materialists will just have to struggle with this.  Why are they so materialist?   Blame it on this:

 

gallery_131808_1351_1408.png

 

I'd love to keep going but I have to go get a root canal.

 

No time to edit this.

 

*

Annie Besant's and S.W. Leadbeater's UPA (Ultimate Physical Atom).   Later shown to be quarks by Stephen M. Phillips, PhD.

 

gallery_131808_1351_18594.jpg

 

 

Apparently Stephen Phillips' website is gone.  I hope he hasn't passed on.  I was on it not that long ago.

 

Root canal done, got back in the edit time window.


Edited by Alder Logs, 17 April 2018 - 06:01 PM.


#20 Microbe

Microbe

    civis scientiam

  • OG VIP
  • 4,372 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 18 April 2018 - 06:20 AM

With This App, You Can "Walk" on Mars | @curiositydotcom

https://curiosity.co...urce=androidapp
  • onediadem likes this




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!