Author Topic: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?  (Read 861596 times)

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #960 on: January 11, 2013, 08:15:37 PM »
del
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 09:26:08 PM by Chew »

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1274
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #961 on: January 12, 2013, 01:14:19 AM »
I note from Heiwa's website that he was born in 1946. I wonder what his thoughts were at the time the Apollo missions were happening.
Ecosia - the greenest way to search. You find what you need, Ecosia plants trees where they're needed. www.ecosia.org

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #962 on: January 12, 2013, 06:10:27 AM »
And to add, I'm just rolling out and vacuuming the red carpet for the hopeful return tomorrow of his emminence.

Me too.  He tried to log in again yesterday!
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #963 on: January 12, 2013, 09:20:07 AM »
Think of Han Solo on the Family Guy being told what a parsec really is, and you'll get an approximation of the HB response to your suggestion.
So Han did shoot first!

Physicists (and astronomers) might validly argue that time and distance are equivalent in the same way that mass and energy are equivalent; the latter by c2 and the former by c. In natural units where c=1, they are the same...


Offline frenat

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #964 on: January 12, 2013, 09:43:09 AM »
there is a retcon where the Kessel run is a route that runs very close to multiple black holes.  The closer you get to them the shorter your route but the greater chance you'll get pulled in.  by flying faster and being a good pilot you can take a shorter route.  Doubt that is what Lucas meant when it was first written though.
-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 sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #965 on: January 12, 2013, 09:53:13 AM »
Daggerstab started the So, who wants to win 1 million Euro? thread by quoting from Heiwa’s site, and Heiwa joined in with additional claims.  I thought I’d organize some of the claims Heiwa made and assign them some rather arbitrary numbers.

Claim 1:       Heiwa has a million Euros to offer as a prize for his challenge.  However, despite saying the money is “evidently” there, he has failed to provide any evidence to back up this rather extraordinary claim.  The consensus is that he does not have a million Euros to offer and that his claim is therefore a priori fraudulent, even though no court is any more likely to bother with this than any other random crank claim on the Internet.

2.   Heiwa claims the CSM/LM could not carry enough fuel to get into lunar orbit:

2a.   He used the wrong values for the vehicle speeds, and did not account for the change in mass due to propellant burned, claiming that NASA “cannot inform” him of the actual values… after the exact reference for said values had already been provided for him, a number of places.  He continued to use wrong numbers as specific references were provided to him (such as here).

2b.   He calculated a certain value for a fixed mass and initial and final speeds.  The proper way to do it was demonstrated to him by ka9q and by BobB and others.   Nevertheless, he keeps insisting that his energy balance equation works by comparing the kinetic energy of the CSM+propellants+LM before the LOI burn to the CSM+remaining propellant+LM after the burn, neglecting (on purpose!) the expelled reaction mass.  ”I like energy balances. You study A and B and the difference in energy between A and B”, except that A and B are different because he is discarding part of the system A to make system B.  He claims this is perfectly OK because “It is gone.  Forever.” 

Countless explanations that his approach is fundamentally wrong bounce off of him.  Jason Thompson finally illustrates how his approach is clearly broken by the example of a non-propulsive propellant dump.  This reduction to the simplest possible case goes right over Heiwa’s head.

3.   He is not a conspiracy theorist.  (“I am not in conspiracy theories…”  “…pls do not call me a conspiracy theorist…”)  (At posts linked above and below.)  But he believes that Apollo, the ISS, the Shuttle, etc. are all hoaxes perpetrated and covered up by NASA.

4.   “Every change in speed or direction during Moon travel requires energy.”  And yet he contradicts this by statements such as below, where changes of speed and direction are caused by the gravitation of the Earth and other bodies.

5.   Earth satellites are possible, but not probes to other planets, “because the gravity of [other bodies] may pull them down at arrival, so they crash before they start orbiting, or they miss…  all together [sic].”  He does not support this argument, and of course the gravity of other bodies acts the same way as the gravity of Earth.

6.    He was unaware of how the CSM and LM could change their orientations or translate other than by their main engines.  (“At some time on the flight to the Moon the lunar module, LM, was shifted from below the SM to the top of the CM. How it was done is unclear”.)  A number of people immediately explained the existence and purpose of the reaction control subsystem (RCS) engines. 
 
6a.   Heiwa did also not know what kind of fuel was used by the SPS, and kept on making the error despite repeated corrections such as this one.

7.    He thought the surface temperature was 150°C during Apollo 11 EVA (wrong), that the astronauts’ boots should have melted at that temperature (wrong), that their visors were made of “glass” (wrong) and should have cracked(wrong).

8.   Heiwa incorrectly identifies the SPS engine as a “P-22KS”, despite having it pointed out to him numerous times that the engine is an AJ10-137 (manufactured by Aerojet, whom in the interests of full disclosure I should mention is a former employer).

9.    The Shuttle reenters the atmosphere backwards, has no heat shield, and does “loops”.  There’s not much to be said about this, except that no one who has even casually read about the Shuttle would make such egregious howlers.  Heiwa kept on repeating this frankly idiotic claim.  Then he said it turned around – although he was ignorant of how – but went back to saying it had no heat shield.  I guess all those black tiles are for decoration.

10.   Apollo 4 went around the Moon.  When this was immediately pointed out to be wrong, Heiwa dodged for a little bit and said that he didn’t believe it actually went around the Moon – an obvious evasion of his mistake in claiming that Apollo 4 was alleged to have gone around the Moon (wrong).  He finally tried to wave off his error as “No big deal, actually, and nothing to get upset about”.

11.    He claims no spacecraft could return from orbit because they are “thin steel structures” and are heated by turbulence.  He keeps repeating the bit about “turbulence” despite multiple explanations provided him about compressive heating and the role of the stagnation layer in managing heat transfer into the bulk of the heat shield and the vessel structure itself.  He called heat shield technology “nonsense” and said he could not get information from NASA because it was “SECRET!”  Detailed documentation of the ablative shielding provided by NASA was immediately provided to him, but as far as I know he never acknowledged it.

12.    No one has ever actually seen the Shuttle or ISS, just some “other satellite”.  Of course, Heiwa is completely ignorant of the amateurs who have imaged both in excellent detail, like this guy and this guy, not to mention the radio hams who routinely communicate with ISS crew.

13.   Heiwa does not understand how a spacecraft could be navigated or guided in space, and claims that “nobody, incl… NASA, can explain what systems - manual and or automatic - were used to carry out maneuvers…”  This is refuted by a number of posters, including explicit references such as provided here.

There's much more, but that's enough effort for a partial catalog of Heiwa's errors and inconsistencies.  I left out all the silly 12-year-old-level insults he's been generating.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 09:57:25 AM by sts60 »

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #966 on: January 12, 2013, 10:04:35 AM »
So, in summary, he's your common-or-garden nutjob, is fruitier than the very best fruit cake and madder than a box of frogs.

 :o :o ;D
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #967 on: January 12, 2013, 10:06:00 AM »
Wow. I'd forgotten there was so much stupid.

I like the bits where he admits his ignorance of basic things like TD&E but doesn't piece it together that maybe he should show some humility and realise he could be wrong.

Offline Daggerstab

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
    • Badly Honed Bytes (my blog)
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #968 on: January 12, 2013, 10:34:55 AM »
And here comes the next update! (It's from the 10th - sorry about the delay, family matters.)

Almost no changes this time:

Björkman now refers to himself in the third-person in the introduction - "Anders Björkman explains:" - and provides a link to his homepage.

He has also expanded the caption of Mark Kelly's picture:
Quote
Above (fake) photo is of US Air Force captain Mark Kelly floating in space of the ISS (or in an airplane against a green screen!) just prior to return to Earth in the last Shuttle. It is very simple to return to Earth from the ISS! Jump into the Shuttle, speed away from the ISS and then step on the brakes all the way down. But easier to trick film it at Hollywood. Then remember to kiss your wife Gaby Giffords on her head on arrival; the head that was hit by a bullet earlier. How to play guitar in the ISS swimmingpool =
[/url" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">!

(The "guitar" link is to some conspiracist video on YouTube claiming that the ISS is fake.)

While it's true that weightlessness can be simulated in airplanes moving on a ballistic trajectory (such as the "Vomit Comet"), the period of weightlessness is quite short - about half a minute of full weightlessness or so. On YouTube, there are videos from the ISS and other space stations that easily exceed this limit. The bluescreen claim is no less ridiculous, as astronauts can be seen interacting with their environment during those videos. There are even videos showing what it looks like on the inside during re-boost - this can't be simulated in an aircraft, as the overload during the "bottom" of the trajectory is higher than 1g, unlike the gentle thrust of the reboost.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #969 on: January 12, 2013, 10:50:52 AM »
I don't think airplane zero-G is a particularly good way to fake even a short space video. Look at any number of videos taken on zero-G parabolas and you'll see people, although floating free in the cabin, suddenly seeming to accelerate without having hit the walls or anything else.

The airplane experiences only approximate zero-G; its wings still have to maintain a zero angle of attack, and that requires a continuous pitch-down maneuver that means only its center of mass can be truly weightless. And in reality, wind shears and control errors mean even the plane's center of mass won't follow a perfect parabolic trajectory.

So long as you don't touch the walls, floor or ceiling of the plane you'll (by definition, actually) experience true zero-G, but the plane itself won't and that's why it will move relative to those who are floating within it.

Along with the rapid edits, this was a giveaway in numerous scenes of "Apollo 13".



Offline dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 685
    • Live Tv From the Moon
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #970 on: January 12, 2013, 11:13:01 AM »
So basically Anders is such a genius engineer that not even the laws of physics have had time to catch up?
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #971 on: January 12, 2013, 11:19:54 AM »
One thing to his credit though (of a sort). Believing that all manned spaceflight is fake is more internally consistent than the usual thing of thinking that some spaceflight and fake and some isn't. That assumes a compartmentalisation to spaceflight that just isn't the case.

Offline Noldi400

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #972 on: January 12, 2013, 03:36:41 PM »
 ka9q touches on something the HBs always seem to miss (or just ignore): from Apollo 13 to From The Earth To The Moon, movies create the illusion of low- or zero-gee. One main device of course, is that a shot rarely lasts longer than a second or two.

Contrast this with the minutes and hours of continuous Apollo video. IMO, there is no way in hell that the best  FX or CGI shop in the world - or all of them working together - could keep up a realistic low-grav gag for hours on end. 

Somehow, you never see anyone who actually works in film say "Sure, we could duplicate that".
"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 dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 685
    • Live Tv From the Moon
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #973 on: January 12, 2013, 03:47:53 PM »
I got in touch with one of Hollywood's leading compositing companies and asked their CEO whether chroma-key could have conceivably been utilized on image compositing of the Apollo TV record. The response was a resounding "NO!!" Unfortunately following the crash of my PC system, I lost all reference to who and when. The main thing was that the industry leader in such effects resoundly said there was no way that keying was used and not noticeable*.

*ie to industry professionals who actually do know what they are looking at and not guessing what is and isnt keying.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 03:49:32 PM by dwight »
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #974 on: January 12, 2013, 03:52:43 PM »
So the ISS is a fake as well?  ::) ::)

How the hell does he explain that bright thing that shoots across the sky then? And the thousands of amateur astronomers (myself included) that have seen it through our own telescopes? Or people like Thierry Legault who is an expert at imaging the ISS?
http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/iss_100424.html

Truly, some people are dumber than rocks.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov