Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 53 of 53

Thread: Chinese space walk conspiracy

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,139
    I don't know, why don't you tell me?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,793
    Quote Originally Posted by plindboe View Post
    1.Do you agree that any debris sent flying by astronauts or moving parts of the spacecraft will continue in a straight line relative to the spacecraft (at least within a limited time frame)?
    Provided it does not interact with sometime else.

    2.Do you agree that the debris in the upper left corner in the footage (at 3:06 in the video, post #12) is flying downwards and to the left?
    You need to qualify this. It appears to be moving in that direction, but that image is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimension reality. What direction it really is moving it would require photogrammetry.

    3.Do you agree that there are no astronauts and no moving parts of the spacecraft above the camera (the camera that's films the moving debris)? (You can see this clearly as it changes to an oppositely positioned camera at 3:07)
    No astronauts certainly, but I don't know that there are no spacecraft components above the camera position. there may be antennae for example.

    If you agree with all three questions, what set in motion the debris in the upper left corner?
    I don't think anything set it in motion. I supect it is a piece of debris that has changed its motion because it has remounded off something behind and possibly above the camera. But I don't know this.

    Again, only an "insane conspiracy nut" would see this as evidence for something sinister.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by plindboe View Post
    ...
    1. Do you agree that any debris sent flying by astronauts or moving parts of the spacecraft will continue in a straight line relative to the spacecraft (at least within a limited time frame)?

    Simplistic. Newton's laws predict uniform motion in a straight line only if unaffected by any other force. While the absence of air and gravity remove the typical sources of such force as observed on the Earth's surface, it does not mean that all spaceborne objects immediately should be expected to appear to move in straight lines in film. Photographic factors apply, line-of-sight factors apply, and unseen outgassing or thermal effects apply.

    The anomaly-hunter has the burden of proof that the motion is unexpected; the respondent's inability to conclusively identify the source of "anomalous" motion does not satisfy that burden.

    2. Do you agree that the debris in the upper left corner in the footage (at 3:06 in the video, post #12) is flying downwards and to the left?

    No. Prior to 3:06 the object see in the upper right corner of the image, alleged to be departing the helmet of the astronaut at camera-right, is more likely an object reflected in his visor. Its motion does not visibly extend beyond the boundary of the visor.

    At 3:06 the object seen in the upper left corner of the image is a single-frame transmission artifact.

    There is absolutely no evidentiary justification to explain both these features of the image by a single object or phenomenon.

    3. Do you agree that there are no astronauts and no moving parts of the spacecraft above the camera (the camera that's films the moving debris)?

    Yes. But that is irrelevant to the question since the connection of the artifact at the right of the image and the later artifact at the left is purely conjectural. In the real world, the inability to connect one occurrence to another causally is exactly the refutation of a common cause. The presumption of single-cause is exactly what separates conspiracy theorists from serious investigators.

    I have to say that all this "analysis" of the video of the Chinese spacewalk is tediously amateur. There are so many elementary mistakes being made. Clearly none of these "analysts" knows what he's talking about. The demand to be taken seriously is unfounded.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,793
    Plus the video's use of The Epoch Times (a mouthpiece of the Fauolong Gong and certain Taiwanese nationalist interests) as a source!

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    I don't know, why don't you tell me?
    I don't know either.

    If you're interested in what the conspiracy theory claims, you can see the video in the OP at 2:23.


    Quote Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
    Provided it does not interact with sometime else.
    Of course.


    Quote Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
    You need to qualify this. It appears to be moving in that direction, but that image is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimension reality. What direction it really is moving it would require photogrammetry.
    Perhaps it would help if you thought of it like this: Imagine a x,y,z cartesian coordinate system where the origin is located at the point where the upper-left-corner-debris makes its entrance, the x-axis parallel to the top of the screen, the z-axis parallel to the side of the screen and the y-axis perpendicular to both. What I state is that the z coordinate of the debris decreases between the time the object enters into view until it leaves. My reasoning for this is, that if the debris was merely moving away from us in the xy-plane (or z might be slightly increasing), then we'd see the debris decreasing in apparent size and speed.


    Quote Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
    No astronauts certainly, but I don't know that there are no spacecraft components above the camera position. there may be antennae for example.

    I don't think anything set it in motion. I supect it is a piece of debris that has changed its motion because it has remounded off something behind and possibly above the camera. But I don't know this.
    As it switches to the other camera at 3:07 (video post #12) I think it's quite clear there's nothing above the first camera. Googling for pictures and drawings of the craft hasn't revealed anything either.


    Quote Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
    Again, only an "insane conspiracy nut" would see this as evidence for something sinister.
    I thought Peter B made the point better in post #20 and without violating rule 2, and I already stated my agreement with his point.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    Simplistic. Newton's laws predict uniform motion in a straight line only if unaffected by any other force. While the absence of air and gravity remove the typical sources of such force as observed on the Earth's surface, it does not mean that all spaceborne objects immediately should be expected to appear to move in straight lines in film. Photographic factors apply, line-of-sight factors apply, and unseen outgassing or thermal effects apply.
    Can you choose one, and explain in sufficient detail how it can account for this oddity?



    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    The anomaly-hunter has the burden of proof that the motion is unexpected; the respondent's inability to conclusively identify the source of "anomalous" motion does not satisfy that burden.
    I'm not making a claim, I'm posing a question. I don't understand how this oddity can be explained, so I'd like to hear if others can come up with something. If you can't, that's fine. I don't claim your inability to answer the question as any kind of proof of anything.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    No. Prior to 3:06 the object see in the upper right corner of the image, alleged to be departing the helmet of the astronaut at camera-right, is more likely an object reflected in his visor. Its motion does not visibly extend beyond the boundary of the visor.

    At 3:06 the object seen in the upper left corner of the image is a single-frame transmission artifact.
    Are you watching on a laptop? If not, I think you need to revise your screen settings. It very clearly flies beyond the boundary of the visor, and the 3:06 object very clearly moves, several frames being apparent.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    There is absolutely no evidentiary justification to explain both these features of the image by a single object or phenomenon.
    There's no guarentee that it's the same object, bur it's of a similar size, moving at a similar speed, and the ~3:06 object enters a short time interval after the ~3:05 object leaves, an interval that seems consistant with it being the same object.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    Yes. But that is irrelevant to the question since the connection of the artifact at the right of the image and the later artifact at the left is purely conjectural. In the real world, the inability to connect one occurrence to another causally is exactly the refutation of a common cause. The presumption of single-cause is exactly what separates conspiracy theorists from serious investigators.
    There's something you've misunderstood here. Whether it's the same object or not, the problem is still the same; i.e. that there is nothing above the camera. Whether we're dealing with a piece of debris that changed direction, or whether we're dealing with two entirely different pieces of debris, it doesn't change the puzzling issue that the 3:06 debris is coming from seemingly nothing.



    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    I have to say that all this "analysis" of the video of the Chinese spacewalk is tediously amateur. There are so many elementary mistakes being made. Clearly none of these "analysts" knows what he's talking about. The demand to be taken seriously is unfounded.
    Sure, it's amateurish, and many of the arguments poorly conceived. But likewise, I've seen plenty of refutations that haven't been well conceived either. It's easy to find some flaws and handwave the rest away. The difficult path is to focus on the few things you don't understand, and that's the one I'm currently on.

    Peter

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by plindboe View Post
    ...
    Can you choose one, and explain in sufficient detail how it can account for this oddity?

    I don't have burden of proof. You claim it's out of place. Prove it.

    Are you watching on a laptop? If not, I think you need to revise your screen settings.

    I'm watching on the calibrated system I use to do professional image analysis.

    There's no guarentee that it's the same object...

    Good; it isn't until you prove it is.

    ...an interval that seems consistant with it being the same object.

    "Consistent" under what scenario? That's pure conjecture.

    ...it doesn't change the puzzling issue that the 3:06 debris is coming from seemingly nothing.

    It's only "puzzling" to you. I see hours upon hours of footage from space. I see all this stuff all the time.

    Sure, it's amateurish, and many of the arguments poorly conceived.

    Glad you agree. No further attention necessary.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,128
    Quote Originally Posted by plindboe View Post
    Can you choose one, and explain in sufficient detail how it can account for this oddity?
    Why would you assume it's only one factor?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    28
    Good post. Had a nice time reading it.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    28
    By the way, it's very detailed, which is really nice..

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    91
    Hmm dunno but looks fake to me.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    I don't have burden of proof. You claim it's out of place. Prove it.
    So as soon as I ask for details you retreat to this defensive reaction? Why not simply admit that you don't know the answer?

    Btw, I don't claim it's out of place. What I say is that I personally can't explain it, I've outlined in detail why, and I ask others to help me explain it.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]I'm watching on the calibrated system I use to do professional image analysis.
    Then the problem is most likely a blinding bias.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    Good; it isn't until you prove it is.
    Whether it's the same or not doesn't interest me, and I explained why in my last post: "Whether it's the same object or not, the problem is still the same; i.e. that there is nothing above the camera."


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]"Consistent" under what scenario? That's pure conjecture.
    I must remember that tactic in my next online debate. Instead of thinking up counter arguments I'll just say "that's conjecture". Much easier.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]It's only "puzzling" to you. I see hours upon hours of footage from space. I see all this stuff all the time.
    If it's only puzzling to me, surely you'd be able to explain it. Is it a secret?


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]Glad you agree. No further attention necessary.
    Nice quote-mining.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Why would you assume it's only one factor?
    I wouldn't. I just wanted him to go into detail instead of his laundry list of impressive sounding words.

    One of my hobbies is debating creationists. They always enter into debates with impressive sounds words like "2nd law of thermodynamics", "transitional fossils", ",information", "micro-/macroevolution" etc., but as soon as you try to go into detail you realize that they haven't the faintest clue what they're talking about.

    Not that it matters anymore, as he obviously had no interest in answering my question.

    Peter

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,331
    Quote Originally Posted by plindboe View Post
    Not that it matters anymore, as he obviously had no interest in answering my question.
    I guess it depends what your question is.

    If your question is "what is it?", the answer, given more than once in this thread, is "based on the claimed scenario (a Chinese spacewalk), it could be one of several mundane things, but we don't know for sure; it could also be something else".

    If your question is "does the fact that nobody's sure what it is support the conclusion the the spacewalk was faked?", then the answer, also given more than once in this thread, is "no, not really, on account of we see these kinds of unexplained phenomena all the time, over hundreds of hours of spacewalk footage spanning several decades; not only that, but we're also aware of several mundane explanations for these kinds of phenomena".

    If your question is "are these phenomena, in this footage, consistent with the spacewalk having been faked in a water tank?", the answer, also given several times in this thread, is "no, not really".

    The problem arises, I think, when you attempt to upgrade your questions to assertions. When that happens, you acquire a burden of proof for those assertions. It's your burden, and only you can shoulder it.

    In the several years I've been reading this forum, I've never known JayUtah to avoid answering a question, and I've never known him to accept a burden of proof that properly belonged to someone else.

    If you want him to answer your questions, I think you'll find him most generous. If you want him to prove or disprove your claims for you, I think you'll find him most miserly. And this is all as it should be.

    So which is it? Are you asking questions, or making claims?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,531
    Quote Originally Posted by plindboe View Post
    One of my hobbies is debating creationists. They always enter into debates with impressive sounds words like "2nd law of thermodynamics", "transitional fossils", ",information", "micro-/macroevolution" etc., but as soon as you try to go into detail you realize that they haven't the faintest clue what they're talking about.
    I need a new irony meter.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,139
    I must remember that tactic in my next online debate. Instead of thinking up counter arguments I'll just say "that's conjecture". Much easier.
    Without evidence to support it all you have is conjecture. BAUT is not a debating forum, We ask for some support for ideas and arguments.

    Plindboe
    As the person supporting the idea that there is something wrong with the video the onus is on you to support it.
    Read the sticky at the top of the forum giving advice to ATMers, also take some time to re-read the rules for posting to the board
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by plindboe View Post
    ...
    So as soon as I ask for details you retreat to this defensive reaction?

    No, as soon as you attempt to shift the burden of proof, you find it thrust squarely back upon you.

    Why not simply admit that you don't know the answer?

    Why don't you simply admit that I don't have to know the answer in order to disbelieve your "conjecture?"

    Btw, I don't claim it's out of place. What I say is that I personally can't explain it...

    And I say, "So what?" The mundane world is full of inexplicable details. Why single this one out? Why single it out in a context where the validity of the video is being debated?

    Either state a case or don't. But don't duck and dodge.

    Then the problem is most likely a blinding bias.

    Begging the question.

    "...the problem is still the same; i.e. that there is nothing above the camera."

    Why is that a problem? Why do you assume there must be something up there that is the source of it in straight-line image-projected fashion?

    I must remember that tactic in my next online debate. Instead of thinking up counter arguments I'll just say "that's conjecture". Much easier.

    There's nothing wrong with speculating. But your conjecture doesn't oblige a response. You're mad because no one will take a step toward disputing you, giving you a straw-man to attack. But if all you pose is conjecture then there isn't anything to dispute. You're trying to shift a burden of proof.

    If it's only puzzling to me, surely you'd be able to explain it.

    Hogwash. There's a difference between being able to explain it and knowing that the nature of the domain from which the image is taken is "messy" enough (in the physical law sense) that you can't expect to find an explanation for everything you see. In any case a cardinal rule of photographic interpretation is that you can't explain everything. Lines of reasoning that rely on the maxim, "If this were ordinary it would be explicably, evidently, and provably so," are seriously flawed in that discipline.

    Okay, so here's one of the zillion possibilities that leap to mind. Something that is ejected, say, from the capsule by an impulse of escaping gas or a mechanical effect does not fly away from the capsule in a straight line. In fact it enters its own orbit around Earth, very similar in period and other orbital elements to the capsule itself. But what this means is that as the capsule pursues its orbit and the fragment pursues its own very similar (but not identical orbit) the fragment will be seen to move in various directions relative to the capsule. In orbital operations this is known as periodic recontact, and it is something we have to plan for when we schedule intentional ejections.

    In short, the notion that something ejected from a space capsule will fly away from it in a straight line, never to return, is hogwash.

    Now can I be sure that this is what happened in this case? No. Why not? Because there simply isn't enough information in the video to be able to test that explanation. But before you run around claiming that this or that "can't be explained," you might consider that the candidate explanations -- as they are in the real world -- simply cannot be so easily enumerated and dispelled.

    Your whole approach is flawed from the get-go.

    I just wanted him to go into detail instead of his laundry list of impressive sounding words.

    Why don't you go into detail? You hand-wave a few claims, demand that everyone else supply rigor, and then back away from your own responsibility by disclaiming it as conjecture only.

    One of my hobbies is debating creationists.

    One of my hobbies is debating would-be image "analysts."

    They always enter into debates with impressive sounds words like...

    They always enter debates with very simplistic notions of the nature of the mundane world, the behavior of objects depicted in film, and the physical laws of nature.

    ...but as soon as you try to go into detail you realize that they haven't the faintest clue what they're talking about.

    As soon as you ask them to substantiate their expectations, you realize they haven't the faintest clue what they're talking about. Not only that, they parlay their lack of experience and knowledge into something everyone should be concerned about.

    Not that it matters anymore, as he obviously had no interest in answering my question.

    I had no interest in accepting a burden of proof that was not mine.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by stutefish View Post
    I guess it depends what your question is.

    If your question is "what is it?", the answer, given more than once in this thread, is "based on the claimed scenario (a Chinese spacewalk), it could be one of several mundane things, but we don't know for sure; it could also be something else".
    "What caused it" is my question. I haven't, as far as I can tell, been presented with any credible mundane explanations thus far.


    Quote Originally Posted by stutefish View Post
    If your question is "does the fact that nobody's sure what it is support the conclusion the the spacewalk was faked?", then the answer, also given more than once in this thread, is "no, not really
    ...and I agreed with that.


    Quote Originally Posted by stutefish View Post
    on account of we see these kinds of unexplained phenomena all the time, over hundreds of hours of spacewalk footage spanning several decades; not only that, but we're also aware of several mundane explanations for these kinds of phenomena".
    What bothers me with this is that I can't find any mundane explanations for this one. There is probably one, but I'd like to hear some possibilities. What's yours?

    I'd also be happy if you could share some videos where similar phenonema occur.


    Quote Originally Posted by stutefish View Post
    If your question is "are these phenomena, in this footage, consistent with the spacewalk having been faked in a water tank?", the answer, also given several times in this thread, is "no, not really".
    That might be the case, but no one has specifically explained why.


    Quote Originally Posted by stutefish View Post
    The problem arises, I think, when you attempt to upgrade your questions to assertions. When that happens, you acquire a burden of proof for those assertions. It's your burden, and only you can shoulder it.
    But I'm not upgrading my questions to assertions. I think the problem is that I posted the conspiracy video in the OP, so people keep reacting to that video instead of what I actually say. I've clearly said, even in the OP that I find problems with the video.


    Quote Originally Posted by stutefish View Post
    In the several years I've been reading this forum, I've never known JayUtah to avoid answering a question, and I've never known him to accept a burden of proof that properly belonged to someone else.

    If you want him to answer your questions, I think you'll find him most generous. If you want him to prove or disprove your claims for you, I think you'll find him most miserly. And this is all as it should be.

    So which is it? Are you asking questions, or making claims?
    I think I've made it very clear, even in the post you responded to (first paragraph), that I'm asking a question, and not making a claim. That's why I found JayUtah's kneejerk dismissal rather bizarre and misplaced. That he doesn't even seem to have watched the video carefully, yet reached premature conclusions about it nonetheless, showed that he had no interest helping me out.

    I'm entirely open to a non-conspiracy explanation, in fact more open to that than a conspiracy explanation, but when I'm met with such a low-quality answer as he provided in post #36 it's obvious I'll get no honest communication from him.

    Peter

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    I need a new irony meter.
    Why? Be specific.

    Peter

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    Without evidence to support it all you have is conjecture. BAUT is not a debating forum, We ask for some support for ideas and arguments.

    Plindboe
    As the person supporting the idea that there is something wrong with the video the onus is on you to support it.
    Read the sticky at the top of the forum fiving advice to ATMers, also take some time to re-read the rules for posting to the board
    What ideas? I'm an agnostic regarding this issue. I'm stating "I don't know" and I'm asking "can you explain this?". Is it against the rules to ask questions?

    Peter

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    11,028
    Quote Originally Posted by plindboe View Post
    What ideas? I'm an agnostic regarding this issue. I'm stating "I don't know" and I'm asking "can you explain this?". Is it against the rules to ask questions?
    Yes, in this part of the forum it is.

    See rule 13. here: http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules...ing-board.html

    (And follow the links).

    If you simply have a question to ask, you can do it in the other forums.

    But be aware that asking questions as a means to disguise a ATM or CT claim will be noticed.

    This thread can, perhaps, be shut down if you don't (or no longer) claim any conspiracy.
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    No, as soon as you attempt to shift the burden of proof, you find it thrust squarely back upon you.
    When your kids ask you "dad, why is the sky blue?" will you respond "you're asserting the sky is not blue, you have the burden of proof to show the sky is not blue!"?

    I'm not making a claim, I'm asking a simple question. If you don't know the answer have the courage to say "I don't know".


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]
    Why don't you simply admit that I don't have to know the answer in order to disbelieve your "conjecture?"
    I earlier stated: "I don't claim your inability to answer the question as any kind of proof of anything." I think that pretty much answered it. Believe or disbelieve what you will.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]And I say, "So what?" The mundane world is full of inexplicable details. Why single this one out? Why single it out in a context where the validity of the video is being debated?
    Because it bothers me when I see stuff I can't explain. For instance I've never seen a Moon landing conspiracy claim that couldn't be easily refuted. Now I've finally encountered a claim I can't personally refute, so I turn to the place famous for refuting this kind of stuff, only to be met with "it's not our job to refute it because we aren't making any claims". What the...?


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]
    Begging the question.
    Try watching the video.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]Why is that a problem? Why do you assume there must be something up there that is the source of it in straight-line image-projected fashion?
    Because Star trek is fantasy, not reality. A piece of debris can't just beam into existance out of the blue/black.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]There's nothing wrong with speculating. But your conjecture doesn't oblige a response. You're mad because no one will take a step toward disputing you, giving you a straw-man to attack. But if all you pose is conjecture then there isn't anything to dispute. You're trying to shift a burden of proof.
    Mad? What strawman? I provided some arguments and you dismissed them with "conjecture". I've even pointed out that it doesn't matter whether it's the same object or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]
    Hogwash. There's a difference between being able to explain it and knowing that the nature of the domain from which the image is taken is "messy" enough (in the physical law sense) that you can't expect to find an explanation for everything you see. In any case a cardinal rule of photographic interpretation is that you can't explain everything. Lines of reasoning that rely on the maxim, "If this were ordinary it would be explicably, evidently, and provably so," are seriously flawed in that discipline.
    My definition of "puzzling" is "not having an explanation". If I can't explain something, I find it puzzling. If you call that hogwash, I can only assume that you adhere to another definition of "puzzling" than I do.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]Okay, so here's one of the zillion possibilities that leap to mind. Something that is ejected, say, from the capsule by an impulse of escaping gas or a mechanical effect does not fly away from the capsule in a straight line.
    It doesn't (within a limited time frame)? Do particles experience turbulence in vacuum? Can you provide a link for me to read more about this curious phenonemon?


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]In fact it enters its own orbit around Earth, very similar in period and other orbital elements to the capsule itself. But what this means is that as the capsule pursues its orbit and the fragment pursues its own very similar (but not identical orbit) the fragment will be seen to move in various directions relative to the capsule. In orbital operations this is known as periodic recontact, and it is something we have to plan for when we schedule intentional ejections.
    The debris will indeed enter its own orbit, but it starts its journey with practically the same velocity and affected by the same magnitude of gravity as the spaceship, so relative to the spaceship we should not expect to see any rapid changes in velocity (unless acted upon by additional forces).


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]In short, the notion that something ejected from a space capsule will fly away from it in a straight line, never to return, is hogwash.
    Which is why I used the words "within a limited time frame" in post #30.



    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]Now can I be sure that this is what happened in this case? No. Why not? Because there simply isn't enough information in the video to be able to test that explanation. But before you run around claiming that this or that "can't be explained," you might consider that the candidate explanations -- as they are in the real world -- simply cannot be so easily enumerated and dispelled.
    I haven't said it "can't be explained", and I certainly don't "run around claiming" it. What candidate explanations?


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]Your whole approach is flawed from the get-go.
    Posing questions when there's something you don't understand is flawed?


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]Why don't you go into detail? You hand-wave a few claims, demand that everyone else supply rigor, and then back away from your own responsibility by disclaiming it as conjecture only.
    I've tried to explain in detail why I find it puzzling. I don't demand anything, I'm simply asking a question. Stop putting words in my mouth.




    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [b]They always enter debates with very simplistic notions of the nature of the mundane world, the behavior of objects depicted in film, and the physical laws of nature.

    As soon as you ask them to substantiate their expectations, you realize they haven't the faintest clue what they're talking about. Not only that, they parlay their lack of experience and knowledge into something everyone should be concerned about.
    Educate me then. I educate creationists all the time. The difference between me and them is that I'm entirely open to explanations. Please, provide some, instead of getting defensive and continually assuming that I hold ideas, beliefs and make demands that I haven't made.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    I had no interest in accepting a burden of proof that was not mine.
    It's on the claimant. You've strongly hinted you have an answer to my question, but you backed down when asked for details.

    Peter

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    Yes, in this part of the forum it is.

    See rule 13. here: http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules...ing-board.html

    (And follow the links).

    If you simply have a question to ask, you can do it in the other forums.

    But be aware that asking questions as a means to disguise a ATM or CT claim will be noticed.

    This thread can, perhaps, be shut down if you don't (or no longer) claim any conspiracy.
    Can you cite the specific violation? I must admit I can't find it.

    I'm addression a CT, so I must be on topic. I might not personally adhere to it, but this is the forum for CT discussions.

    Peter

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,128
    The fact that you don't seem to get is that there might be dozens of explanations, or any number of combinations thereof, that explain what you're seeing. The fact that no one here is certain of an exact cause does not mean there's anything unusual about it. It means that no one knows what's causing it, just as no one knows what's causing the behaviour of any number of other things. On the other hand, we do know what's causing the behaviour of the Chinese astronauts, and it's microgravity combined with, well, humans moving.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    11,028
    Quote Originally Posted by plindboe View Post
    Can you cite the specific violation? I must admit I can't find it.

    I'm addression a CT, so I must be on topic. I might not personally adhere to it, but this is the forum for CT discussions.

    Peter
    Sigh.

    This is the sub forum for making CT claims, and then defending them. Not for asking questions.

    This thread is obviously going nowhere, was never (apparently) a CT claim in the first place, and is clearly degenerating. Answers have been provided, but ignored.

    Thread closed.

    As usual, a member can PM a moderator or use the report button to have this reopened. Please provide a good reason to do so.
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.

Similar Threads

  1. Win 'Star Walk' and 'Solar Walk' Astronomy Apps
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Sep-07, 08:10 PM
  2. Planet Walk - In Space!
    By Papa Surf in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-22, 06:45 AM
  3. Space Walk STS-123
    By FriedPhoton in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-Mar-23, 06:56 PM
  4. First STS-116 Space Walk Wraps Up
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2006-Dec-13, 01:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •