View Single Post
  #127  
Old 10-06-2009, 01:41 PM
Laokin Laokin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 45
Default Re: The Space Shuttle and the ISS are a Hoax!

Quote:
Originally Posted by galexander View Post
If your science is so good how come you have not heard of Rayleigh scattering? Check the following link:

Blue Sky and Rayleigh Scattering



Next time you are in the library look up the 1st ionization energy of atomic oxygen in kJ/mol and you will find it is greater than all the bond energies known to man. If a photon of UV light can ionize oxygen in the Earth's upper atmosphere then according the the laws of quantum physics it can therefore break open every bond known to man based upon this simple mathematical consideration. Understand the science now?

And please don't forget the UV you get on Earth is not the same as the UV light you get in space. A large spectrum is involved.

As for the proposed satellite technology NASA claims to have, Earth based technologies are more than adequate. I'm talking about fibre optic telecommunications and over-the-horizon tropospheric scattering. Is it a co-incidence that the Sat Nav's are supported by a vast global network of ground stations which apparently tell the satellites exactly where they are at any given point in time?

Its so easy to assume that satellites must exist but just think how technically difficult it would have been. For example the satellites need to know which way up they are so they need Sun sensors and sensors to detect the Earth's limb in addition to star trackers. But further in the case of geosynchronous satellites they need to rotate exactly once every 24hrs so the high gain antenna (dish) is pointing towards the Earth. And this is while tracking the position of the Sun, stars and the Earth. Its a veritable balancing act. In theory it might be possible but in practice.......... And also don't forget the satellite is all doing this while being bombarded by high energy particles and magnetic storms which can flip satellites over and set them spinning. Wouldn't it have been easier to have used fibre optics and over-the-horizon technology........?

Wow. Are you a quantum physicist? No. Not only that, but to be a quantum physicist, you first have to accept the facts that quantum physics is a theory, and only a theory.

Secondly. "For example the satellites need to know which way up they are so they need Sun sensors and sensors to detect the Earth's limb in addition to star trackers."

It's called Gyro meters and Accelerometers. If your son's Wiimote can do it, surely a satellite can. As for tracking stars, it wouldn't have to... but just for the sake of entertainment.... My telescope auto tracks star positions. Ground breaking technology INDEED!!!!!

Your a crack pot dude. Satellites have fallen out of orbit and hit peoples homes. I've seen one with my own eyes. Not to mention my Uncle pioneered Metro One. One of the first cellular telecommunications networks. He owned his own satellite and I was there when it launched. He later sold it to Singular, which became "Singular One."

Get real. You haven't a clue what your talking about.

As for satellite images, I'm sure we just fly hundreds of thousands of planes over enemy territory to get a peak at what they have out in the open. Mmmhmm. Google Earth, you propose they use a sky tower or planes to produce these images? Where is this sky tower? How do these planes not get shot down flying over restricted air space?

Not to mention if the images were taken by "over the horizon" technology.... every image produced would be on a severe angle. They aren't, they are TOP down. Why is this?

Better yet, you know you can lease the use of a satellite and look at whatever you wish with it? It comes with a hefty price tag and a year waiting list... but yes, even you can control a satellite.

Your an uneducated goof ball, that read books written by other uneducated goof balls. Either that, or you just fail to comprehend what your actually reading.

P.S.

Hyper physics? Georgia State University. My point is, you don't understand a lick of what is on that page, not only that, but that page contradicts any rhyme or reason for the sky to be any other color other than blue. It's only a partial equation.

Last edited by Laokin : 10-06-2009 at 01:50 PM.
Reply With Quote