Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are We Really Moving At These Amazing Speeds Through Outer Space?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
Save your troll labeling for the elves,gnomes and faries and thanx for highlighting one of my most popular threads...


Yes the fact that your thread was debunked on the first page lol.

You really still don't understand why you were wrong do you?

Maybe you're not a troll after all, which only leaves the other choice I highlighted in my last reply.


Actually I think you're just an attention seeker, because you seem to enjoy the attention, even if it is negative which most of the replies to your thread are. Popularity of your thread doesn't mean your were correct in your OP.

edit on 3/26/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by Foxe
Throw on that the Galaxy itself is moving about 1,342,161.78 miles an hour in it's own direction.
My computer crashed when i was only half way finished with my opening post and it took about ten minutes for me to fix it...modern day progress?...but its completed now and i added in some more velocities...


Maybe you were moving too fast



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Your OP makes this thread at first belong here.

Since you are refusing to accept the VERY BASIC science that has been explain to you for 3 pages, and have now shown that you never really intended to learn anything, but instead have a very HIGHLY SPECULATIVE belief instead (that everything is static, and nothing in our universe is actually moving). Then this thread should be moved to the Skunk Works.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Blocula,

Regarding OP... Simple answer... its both moving and stationary depending on the world view you subscribe to. On a Concave inverted earth the cosmos whirls around on the inside of the hollow cell thus producing the illusion that earth is rotating when really all the other planets and stuff are moving...The cosmos being spread out on a flat plater is akin to the Geocosmic Torus field where space shrinks across the double toroids equatorial disk zone produced by the two toroids as cosmic hemispheres of void sitting together.

Check this site out www.weltbildfrage.de...

Here is something I found on TFES


"Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle. 

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.) 


Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

www.geocentricuniverse.com...

Airy discovered that there was no change in the aberration through the refracting water in a supposedly "moving" earth. So what did it show then? It showed that only one side was moving and since that was the star side, it means the earth was stationary all along! 


On a flat earth the toroids are the structure as well where the sun is orbiting the singularity vortex at the north pole in the same way... so light is pulled into the centre as it travels behind the north pole axis' from ones own location - thus day becomes night as the rays pulled in never reach ones eyes... the warping of shrinking spacial depth is what accounts for the smoothing out of the northern hemisphere into a "disk" i.e. it resolves the distortions of a half sphere - think of a tennis ball cut in half, when you take half of it and try to flatten it the edge (equator of the earth) makes ripples and distortions so that the thing cant be made flat the equator's ring always wants to make it pop back into a dome one way or the other... with space that expands into depth outwards rather than inward as in concave earth this is resolved.. so the infinite depth factor of flat earth space and concave earth space are inversions of one another on flat earth it shrinks outwards into depth allowing more mass to accumulate in the outer bands of the toroid instead of inward.

So the curved warp of the north hemisphere to the equator is gradually unravelled into a flat disk via fractal progressions of spacial depth graduation. Like wise the same applies to the southern hemisphere - both occupy the same space but on inverse channels of quantum foam so that the equator at limit of the toroids horizontal disk is like a seamless wormhole whereby as one passes through it they are actually being turn around and walking back into the same space they came from but on the south poles flip side of the disk and then the south is where the north was but consciousness locality has no reference to what occurred as its all relative and endlessly contained running back on itself like a 360 degree mobius strip.

This is one way to describe the torsional possiblity of a flat earth with no errors and which preserves all the mathematical distances and values and physics occur in the same sort of irrefutable way that inversion allows them to be accountable in the concave Geocosmos model.

P.S. have you read my post for what was posted in the recent evidence for simulation thread? i think it pg 7.
edit on 26-3-2012 by Spiratio because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-3-2012 by Spiratio because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Your OP makes this thread at first belong here.

Since you are refusing to accept the VERY BASIC science that has been explain to you for 3 pages, and have now shown that you never really intended to learn anything, but instead have a very HIGHLY SPECULATIVE belief instead (that everything is static, and nothing in our universe is actually moving). Then this thread should be moved to the Skunk Works.

Just like those in the past who refused to believe that the earth was flat and were killed for their beliefs and just like those who refused to believe that the earth was the center of creation and were killed for their beliefs,i refuse to believe most of what they are telling us about reality and slowly but surely,what they are telling us are facts today,will be proven to have been false tomorrow...



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I think you will find the true figure is 100,000 mph + or - 2,000.

That is 2.4 million miles per day.

Something to think about on those days when you feel your not getting anywhere.

Cosmic..



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
i understand that people aren't as interested in physics as i am, but there are a few pretty fail explanations in this thread.

off topic, but a few months ago i tried to make a schrodinger's cat joke in class, and while it was very applicable, everyone looked at me like i was retarded because no one even knew who schrodinger was. i cried inside, realizing how much of a nerd i must be.

i'll try to set a couple basic things straight without picking on anyone.

movement can only be defined as relative to something else; there is no pervading absolute reference frame that we're aware of, so saying something like "our galaxy is moving at "x" speed through the universe" without including a reference is meaningless. this means that as i sit in my chair and type, relative to the earth i'm not moving at all. i can't physically feel the rotation of the earth because it is indistinguishable from my own velocity.

while we're on motion, technically the moon falls towards the earth, but it moves fast enough forward so that the two orbit. same goes for the earth and the sun. the earth is falling towards the sun, but it moves fast enough forwards to be in a perpetual orbit.

rockets propel themselves by pushing against the fuel they expel. the faster/harder you push something, the faster/harder it pushes against you.

no offense blocula, but you may not want to major in physics or the sciences. maybe you're young and haven't gone through much school, but...yeah. sorry, i tried.

in the end, yes, we are moving that fast. have you ever looked up at a jet in the sky blocula? how fast does it look like it's traveling? not very, yet in actuality it's speed is probably over 500 mph.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Your OP makes this thread at first belong here.

Since you are refusing to accept the VERY BASIC science that has been explain to you for 3 pages, and have now shown that you never really intended to learn anything, but instead have a very HIGHLY SPECULATIVE belief instead (that everything is static, and nothing in our universe is actually moving). Then this thread should be moved to the Skunk Works.

Just like those in the past who refused to believe that the earth was flat and were killed for their beliefs and just like those who refused to believe that the earth was the center of creation and were killed for their beliefs,i refuse to believe most of what they are telling us about reality and slowly but surely,what they are telling us are facts today,will be proven to have been false tomorrow...


That's the point: the world isn't flat, nor is it the center of the universe: and the universe is not one really huge version of the Truman Show.

You have posted time and again asking why, if we are traveling in the excess of 2 million Mph, does our atmosphere remain around our planet?
The answer has been given to you several times: because it is also moving at the same speed with us, and there is nothing out there to pull/push/tear on it, except the solar wind, and the Earth's magnetic field protects it against that.

You also asked why we don't see it. And again, it's been explained to you: interstellar and intergalatic distances are mind boggling huge. 2.7 million Mph is NOTHING compared to the distance. Not when 1 light year is the same as 5.87849981 × 10^12 miles. That the reason we know things are moving as fast as they are is because of:

a) Parallax (for planets and stars)
b) Red Shift (for objects much further, like galaxies).

Ever flown on a jet? You exceed 500 Mph on that jet. Yet, with the exception of acceleration (and the difference between acceleration and velocity has been explained to you), you do not feel it, unless the pilot makes a sudden change in direction. That's because everything inside the plane is moving at the same speed as you.

You asked how our deep space probes can keep going the speed they are going, and that was also explained to you: space is a vacuum. There is nothing to drag on the probes except gravity from the sun and other planets. As long as their speed is enough to exceed the sun's pull, and they don't get too close to another planet, they keep going at that speed: forever, as once the acceleration was complete, the velocity will remain unchanged.

If your intention all along was to propose your theory that none of this actual, testable, has been proven without a doubt science that we all know is false, then you should not have presented your OP as you did. Instead, you intentionally posted a misleading OP and thread title, making many of us believe that you wanted to learn about this subject, and the science behind it, and instead introduced an argument, and then finally on page 3 posted what you very speculative theory is.

Intentionally misleading people on this forum is a violation of the T&C.
edit on 26-3-2012 by eriktheawful because: spelling



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I don't know, but we could be standing still. It could be all a program. Why is the brick heavy? A friend asked in meditation. Because is a program!



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 
If rockets are propelling themselves against the fuel they expel,in the earths atmosphere,is it the same for them in the frictionless vacum of outerspace?

and then whats propelling the voyager and discovery deep space probes at around 30,000 mph for the last 30 - 40 years,when they have no rockets to keep propelling themselves at those fantastic speeds,for those incredibly long periods of time?

And what kind of man made materials and space suits are able to withstand passing through the van allen radiation belt that surrounds the earth?

And what manmade materials are able to withstand the 3 or 4 degrees above absolute zero! deep freezing temperatures of outerspace,which is 455 degrees fahrenheit below zero !?

Or,are the moon landings and our entire space program itself one huge hoax and a very massive lie? which is exactly what im beginning to lean towards these days...

edit on 26-3-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 
If i could get up high enough i could blow around portions of little clouds with air exhaled from my lungs, but the earth,supposedly moving 1,118 x faster that a bullet fired from a high powered rifle,doesnt effect them at all? somethings very wrong with what they are leading us to believe,imo...



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 
Simulation Hypothesis > en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by eriktheawful
 
If i could get up high enough i could blow around portions of little clouds with air exhaled from my lungs, but the earth,supposedly moving 1,118 x faster that a bullet fired from a high powered rifle,doesnt effect them at all? somethings very wrong with what they are leading us to believe,imo...


I've already explained the difference between speed and acceleration, but I'll do so again considering that you might have missed it last time.

Astronauts on the space station are moving around the Earth at 17,000 mph, but they feel as if they are standing still because they are not accelerating or decelerating -- they are moving at a constant 17,000 mph. The Earth is not accelerating or decelerating -- it has a constant speed. Therefore, to everyone and everything on Earth, the Earth may as well be standing still.

edit on 3/26/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
Wether or not someone is speeding up or slowing down,17,000 mph would tear someone apart flying through the earths atmosphere or driving along on the ground at those speeds,but in outer space 17,000 mph does nothing and has no negative effects?

Whats propelling the voyager and discovery deep space probes at around 30,000 mph for the last 30 - 40 years,when they have no rockets to keep propelling themselves at those fantastic speeds,for those incredibly long periods of time?

What kind of man made materials and space suits are able to withstand passing through the van allen radiation belt that surrounds the earth?

What manmade materials are able to withstand the 3 or 4 degrees above absolute zero! deep freezing temperatures of outerspace,which is 455 degrees fahrenheit below zero !?

Or,are the moon landings and our entire space program itself one huge hoax and a very massive lie?

Which is exactly what im beginning to lean towards thinking these days...


edit on 27-3-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I have a feeling im wasting my time but in case you are sincere and want to know i will answer your questions.


Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 
If rockets are propelling themselves against the fuel they expel,in the earths atmosphere,is it the same for them in the frictionless vacum of outerspace?


Yes however not as much propulsion is needed outside of earth gravity.


and then whats propelling the voyager and discovery deep space probes at around 30,000 mph for the last 30 - 40 years,when they have no rockets to keep propelling themselves at those fantastic speeds,for those incredibly long periods of time?


First this is a common misconception the van allen belt is not just a mass of radiation there is different types of radiation. The belt consists of particle radiation and should not be called "radiation," but it is too late to educate the public, especially since many detector instruments (such as Geiger counters) respond both the particles and to X- or gamma rays. Particles can be shielded with plastic aluminum and glass (actually the best).Between the spacecraft and there suits most of the particles were stopped. The remaining ones that actually passed through them was for such a small period of time as to not effect them.Even in highest radiation flux regions, an astronaut could survive several months before receiving a lethal dose. Of course they spend nowhere near that much time in the belts and flight paths are chosen to pass through low intensity regions.


And what kind of man made materials and space suits are able to withstand passing through the van allen radiation belt that surrounds the earth?

This is going to be slightly counter intuitive for you but a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung (particle radiation hitting metal and creates gama rays the bad radiation).The space craft used basically fiberglass as there primary defense and it is the most effective shielding against particle radiation.There was also aluminum and polymers.



And what manmade materials are able to withstand the 3 or 4 degrees above absolute zero! deep freezing temperatures of outerspace,which is 455 degrees fahrenheit below zero !?


Colds not the problem at all thats easy to handle more insulation and a heater. The more pressing point is infra red radiation tends to heat things up. This is solved by reflecting it away from the craft and spinning the craft so the same side doesn't always face the sun.


Or,are the moon landings and our entire space program itself one huge hoax and a very massive lie? which is exactly what im beginning to lean towards these days...


I suggest you start going to science websites and stop reading conspiracy sights youll quickly realize science tears apart the conspiracy theories.As proof i suggest you get to understand telemetry readings this is how we keep track of things we send into space. We were not the only country that understood this is very basic. So countries such as Russia,Australia,United kingdom not to mention random colleges throughout the world it was kind of a big deal. If that's not enough for you there's selene the Japanese spacecraft they sent to the moon.This took photos of the landing sight in fact there team was quite excited about it. And theres the Apollo Lunar Laser Ranging Retro Reflector (LRRR). This was placed on the moon to reflect a laser back to earth and still in use today. Hopefully with a little research youll lean back to the correct conclusion WE WENT TO THE MOON!



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 
Thanx for all your responses and if extreme cold is no problem at all,then what about all those films i have seen where objects are momentarily placed into near absolute zero temperatures and then pulled out and they become so cold that they shatter like glass when lightly struck against something and turn to frozen dust when crumpled in someones gloved hand,but our space craft are able, supposedly, to fly for days,weeks,months and years through those same - 455 degrees! below zero temperatures and not have the same things happen?...Sounds more than a little suspicious and very impossible to me and the voyager and discovery deep space probes are well beyond pluto by now and the suns not able to heat them up at all...
edit on 27-3-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Regarding the temperature in space, it is entirely different than being immersed in cold matter. Space is empty. Empty space is the best insulator (it is even used in those vaccuum thermobottles). There is nothing to cool the spacecraft or conduct the heat away from it. We could even say that space has in fact *no* temperature (altough technically incorrect). The only way to cool is by radiating heat away. So any object in outer space will *very slowly* cool to absolute zero (not true near Earth orbit, where Sun will keep it warm). And even a weak source of heat will keep its temperature stable.




and then whats propelling the voyager and discovery deep space probes at around 30,000 mph for the last 30 - 40 years,when they have no rockets to keep propelling themselves at those fantastic speeds,for those incredibly long periods of time?


They are coasting. You do not need to fire a rocket to coast. They will continue to do so indefinitely.
edit on 27/3/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by dragonridr
 
Thanx for all your responses and if extreme cold is no problem at all,then what about all those films i have seen where objects are momentarily placed into near absolute zero temperatures and then pulled out and they become so cold that they shatter like glass when lightly struck against something and turn to frozen dust when crumpled in someones gloved hand,but our space craft are able, supposedly, to fly for days,weeks,months and years through those same - 455 degrees! below zero temperatures and not have the same things happen?...Sounds more than a little suspicious and very impossible to me and the voyager and discovery deep space probes are well beyond pluto by now and the suns not able to heat them up at all...
edit on 27-3-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)


You need to learn about Thermodynamics. This is normally something taught back in high school.

Heat can transfer 3 different ways: Conduction, Convection and Radiation.

Conduction: This is the transfer of heat through actual physical contact, like a frying pan resting on the burner of the stove. The heating element, or flame if it's a gas stove, physically touch the bottom of the frying pan, heating it up.
The films you have seen where someone sticks a rose, or a banana in a container of say liquid nitrogen, yes freezes those things instantly, but only because they are being immersed in a liquid that physically touches them,

Convection: This is the transfer of heat through currents. Good examples of this is warm or cold air moving through our atmosphere, or warm and cold currents moving through the oceans.

Radiation: This is not nuclear radiation, but something that radiates out, like light. A good example of this is the sun warming our planet. The heat from the sun warms our planet through radiated heat because we don't touch the sun (Conduction) and there is no air in space (Convection).

Certain materials conduct heat better than others, and those that do not conduct heat very well are called insulators. Good examples of insulators are: Fiber Glass and Styrofoam. You can see these in action since your home uses fiber glass insulation and a cooler filled with ice to keep things cold while on a road trip is another good example.

As was pointed out: space is empty. It's a vacuum. So our deep space probes can't loose heat from their power supplies except through radiation, and since the power supplies still work, they are still producing heat. Once they fail, then those probes will slowly loose heat, but it will take a very long time.

The probe's speed has been explained to you many times now: objects that have velocity and are moving in a vacuum with no gravity, will continue to move in that direction, at that velocity, with no more propulsion needed, until they either come close to another gravity well that can pull on them.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 
Voyager and Discovery certainly didnt leave the earths surface at 30,000 mph and they were not traveling at 30,000 mph when they left the earths atmosphere either and so how were they able to reach and keep those speeds,15 times faster than a bullet,especially since they have been supposedly flying,or should we say falling at those speeds for around 35 years! with no built in rockets to propel them?

And - 455 degrees is unimaginably cold,its only 3 or 4 degrees above absolute zero and at those kinds of temperatures near absolute zero,nearly all molecular motion ceases,except the molecules that make up our spaceships i suppose? The space probe materials are obviously not effected by the extremely extreme colds of deep space? Why not? theres no reason why they wouldnt be,thats how cold it is up there...

The coldest natural temperature ever recorded on earth is around -128 below zero
edit on 27-3-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula some ignorant words


The voyagers left earth on a rocket to get into orbiot, and then get propelled by a technique called a gravitational slingshot in combination with radioactive power source (RTGs)

You can google this stuff in stead of making wild and very ignorant claims.

Here is a clear animated explanation

Edit also:
the Voyager explorers have an internal heater

^from the article:

Voyager 1 and its cargo of scientific equipment were designed to operate at temperatures as low as minus 31° Fahrenheit (minus 35° C). But NASA has had to turn down the thermostat again and again over the past 17 years in order to push Voyager 1 to keep working up to 2025 – far beyond its scheduled retirement date of 1989. It is now operating well below expected temperatures.




edit on 27-3-2012 by XyZeR because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join