Topic: I'm a Rocket Scientist 🚀 - page 4. (Read 22893 times)

This stealing from the budgets of all countries. Each person has no idea how much it deceived and forced to pay taxes and then steal the money for Nasa.

It depends on the state of war and the money system. The indicators that suggest that the money system should have collapsed way back in 2014 are not working. Yet, they are age-old indicators that have always worked in the past. Probably their failure is due to the amount of money brought into being through Quantitative Easing. QE is simply putting off the big crash for a while.

The point? If big war, or the money crash, come, who knows what will happen? There may be no future space exploration at all.

Interestingly How far humanity can move forward in space exploration in the next 10 years? Will the possible tourist flights, the colonization of the Moon and travel to Mars?

That's great. But standard rocket science is real, just the same.   

At the expense of world politics it is very difficult to say anything at all. We do not participate in any negotiations, or even do not know the real situation regarding the issues that guided policy.

I am really kinda curious as to what your game is. Are you truly a wacko in some kind of funny farm? Or, are you a disgruntled scientist who is out to ruin the science community because they snubbed you somewhere along the line? Or, are you working for the CIA in some kind of psyops testing? Or, might you truly have the goal of becoming part of a minority group that is big enough to get government funding? If it is this last thing, Trump's government will be shutting down a lot of free money, so it will be harder than ever to get your money gravy-train going.

Even amateur rocket scientists know that the V2 flew to the edges of space, and then, simply dropped, free fall style, onto whomever the targets were. By the time they reached thick enough atmosphere where the sound of their coming might be heard, they were already traveling faster than the speed of sound, so that they were ahead of the sound they were making, including the sonic boom they made. In their explosion, nobody could tell the difference between the explosion, and the sonic boom that followed shortly on the heels of the explosion. Besides, nobody knew what a sonic boom was back then... so all they understood was the explosion.

Why are you promoting something as silly as your fake rocket science? Is it a religion for you, and you simply really believe it? I understand that I probably won't get a truthful answer from you, but my curiosity, and that of others, has truly been piqued. Are you totally a troll, attempting to see how long you can push this thread? I mean, everybody has heard the proverbial idea of pushing a rope. But are you really trying to push a thread?

Now, quickly reply, with a bunch of replies, so this post of mine gets hidden in the obscurity of your blabber.

^ liar, the elites in the UK were complicit in the re-appropriation of assets and re-location of people; the V2 is 100% propaganda.

The point is that the Nazis were great rocket scientists. Anything that proves their existence is pro rocketry. Just ask the people of England about the Nazi rockets that destroyed them and their families in WW2.

It's an interesting story and a lot is still unknown to the present day. I do not believe that nobody is interested in and what about the treasure forgotten.

I'll look into these as well. I'm just wondering if you actually believe in the aether, flat earth, motionless earth, etc, or if you are just curiously looking into the possibilities of phenomenon found from prominent experiments? I absolutely don't reject the idea that you should always question anomalies, if we didn't we wouldn't ever discover new things, but if you do actually believe in the contrarian points of view, I'm genuinely interested why.

As I said, I haven't looked into the cases you recommended I look at yet, and I intend to, but whats great about science, is that its typically mostly absolute, and repeatable. I can probably list 50,000 ways to prove that the earth is round, it is in motion, and that there is likely no aether (that last one I'll put a question mark by, because there could be some medium of interference in the atmosphere which we could call aether). A good portion of them that you can verify for yourself with cheap and simple experiments. If you ever read a lot of posts by flat earthers, they are absolutely ridiculous, and rely heavily on semi logic. Taking bits of conclusive data that progresses their point of view, and rejecting the parts of the same experiments that work against it.

I used to write out this math expression that stated a+b = a^2 + b^2 and solved it algebraically to prove it was true. It had a few conditions, but the algebra stated that it was true. It used to annoy the hell out of my elementary/middle school math teachers, because they couldn't disprove it. After taking differential equations, I figured out that the trick was that half way through, I was using an identity for linear transformations, but the expression was affine rather than linear. It was something like a 50 step problem to setup, no one would notice that I was making a misleading step, because typically it would have been true, except for a tiny detail that most people don't think about. I find that a lot of these countertheory explanations use similar tricks to mislead people.

The Sagnac Experiment is irrefutable empirical proof of the aether, I highly recommend and in-depth look at it. Then check out Airy's Failure Experiment, it uses a water filled telescope to slow the speed of light from a star and it empirically proves the Earth is motionless. Finally the Michelson & Morley Experiment corroborates Airy's Failure in providing empirical proof that Earth is motionless.

I'll start by saying, no one really knows what light is. Everyone including Einstein knew that Relativity is not 100% correct, there are a number of experiments that find fundamental flaws in relativity, however the degree of error is so minor, they haven't be consequential to physics applications thus far. Relativity is currently the closest model we have today, but there are some pieces that we are missing about light. Relatively doesn't account for light having momentum but no mass, no mass, but being effected by gravity, etc (relativistic mass aside). The current theory that light is a photon is to some degree wrong. The Aether theories are pretty fundamentally incorrect though. The vast majority of them were based on the classical physics assumption that light is a wave and therefore requires some medium, like sound to travel. Classifying light as a photon states that its some sort of "mass-less particle that exhibits some wave behavior" which rejects the need for a medium. Though I theorize that light does have some amount of mass, just to an inconsequentially small degree.

Neutrinos which share a pretty high rate of similarity with light (minus the wave behavior) were discovered in the 1990s, so the laws of physics are still changing to minor degrees. Both are quazi energy emissions from the sun's fusion reactions. Neutrinos approach the speed of light, but have mass so likely don't exceed the speed of light (though thats been a subject of study for a while).

My point being, there are a ton of topics that haven't quite been proven yet, but that doesn't mean our existing understanding is wrong. Hell, look at magnetic monopoles, there is absolutely no reason that they don't exist, but no one has yet proven their existence. Throw some irregular electric fields into the equation, and that might correct the 0.000000000000000000000000000001% error that exists in current mathematical projections, and solve all of the experiments that had strange conclusions.

I've heard Sagnac's theory mentioned before when talking about orbits/satellites, but I had never looked in depth about it. It has applications within relativity that it wasn't trying to create. From what I read into it (on both sides of the argument pro and against) it looks like a frame of reference experiment. I found that this page pretty well described the experiment and what can be drawn from it, without bias. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm