Jump to content
Curious Cosmos

servantx

Members
  • Content Count

    662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

servantx last won the day on July 5 2014

servantx had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

26 Excellent

About servantx

  • Rank
    Well-known member
  1. John Titor is a hoax. Do not take his words seriously. If there is any WW3 it will not happen in 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/29/obama-pentagon-channel-communication-russia-syria
  2. Z diagram with John Titor case. [ATTACH=full]303[/ATTACH]
  3. Moreover, China's Tianhe-1 supercomputer, one of the top 24 supercomputer in the world is located underground of the explosion site. The explosion damage part of the computer underground, but the supercomputer is still functional. The computer was shutdown for safety reasons after the blast, but 6 days ago it is back online. Tianhe-1 supercomputer is the main ground control unit of China's space station, and Tianjin produces parts for China's ambitious space station project to be completed in 2022. The explosion has halted the progress of their space station project. Some conspiracy theorists also suggest that Tianhe-1 supercomputer is responsible for some of the hacking attempts from China against other countries' military and political systems. [ATTACH=full]302[/ATTACH]
  4. From the aerial shots of China Tianjin chemical explosion 2015 site, it looks like a crate made by space age kinetic tactical weapons. Normal chemical explosion spreads sideway only, it has no momentum to impact the ground downward making a crate like it is shown in the photos. Some conspiracy theorists suggested that the blast might be a result of space age tactical weapon to crash the Chinese market and damage its global financial dominance, others claim that it is part of the new world order to set up a series of events which will eventually lead to ww3. [ATTACH=full]295[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]296[/ATTACH]
  5. And for the X-Files fans. First episode of Lone gunmen, a TV show about the 3 nerdy friends of Fox Mulder, accurately predicted terrorist attack of plane on World Trade Centers. The episode was launched 6 months before 9/11. Enjoy :)
  6. Some facts in graphic... Al Gore's 102 IPCC CMIP-5 Climate Models VS the Observations in Reality.[ATTACH=full]426[/ATTACH]
  7. "The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order – provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator. Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule. “The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN..." “It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.” http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/08/australia-pms-adviser-climate-change-is-un-hoax-to-create-new-world-order?utm_content=buffer99b13&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
  8. "Much of the scientific community believes that faster-than-light travel is physically impossible, and no matter the material, accelerating something to such ludicrous speeds simply can't happen. However, there are also those who believe that faster-than-light travel is possible - and one team may have just accidentally stumbled onto it. A team at NASA may have unintentionally accelerated particles to faster-than-light speeds while using the EmDrive resonance chamber - basically, if their findings turn out to be accurate, the team may have just discovered faster-than-light travel. To clarify, the EmDrive resonance chamber is a proposed method of interstellar propulsion: basically, this could end up being the engines that the starships of the future use. The advantages of using such a device are numerous: it's electrically powered, it features no moving parts and doesn't require any material fuel to move. If it ends up working as planned, there's a good chance that it could lead to a new breed of engine." http://www.techtimes.com/articles/49360/20150428/nasa-may-have-accidentally-discovered-faster-than-light-travel.htm "A group at NASA’s Johnson Space Center has successfully tested an electromagnetic (EM) propulsion drive in a vacuum – a major breakthrough for a multi-year international effort comprising several competing research teams. Thrust measurements of the EM Drive defy classical physics’ expectations that such a closed (microwave) cavity should be unusable for space propulsion because of the law of conservation of momentum. EM Drive: Last summer, NASA Eagleworks – an advanced propulsion research group led by Dr. Harold “Sonny” White at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) – made waves throughout the scientific and technical communities when the group presented their test results on July 28-30, 2014, at the 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio. Those results related to experimental testing of an EM Drive – a concept that originated around 2001 when a small UK company, Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd (SPR), under Roger J. Shawyer, started a Research and Development (R&D) program. The concept of an EM Drive as put forth by SPR was that electromagnetic microwave cavities might provide for the direct conversion of electrical energy to thrust without the need to expel any propellant. This lack of expulsion of propellant from the drive was met with initial skepticism within the scientific community because this lack of propellant expulsion would leave nothing to balance the change in the spacecraft’s momentum if it were able to accelerate. However, in 2010, Prof. Juan Yang in China began publishing about her research into EM Drive technology, culminating in her 2012 paper reporting higher input power (2.5kW) and tested thrust (720mN) levels of an EM Drive. In 2014, Prof. Yang’s papers reported extensive tests involving internal temperature measurements with embedded thermocouples. It was reported (in SPR Ltd.’s website) that if the Chinese EM Drive were to be installed in the International Space Station (ISS) and work as reported, it could provide the necessary delta-V (change in velocity needed to perform an on-orbit maneuver) to compensate for the Station’s orbital decay and thus eliminate the requirement of re-boosts from visiting vehicles. Despite these reports, Prof. Yang offered no scientifically-accepted explanation as to how the EM Drive can produce propulsion in space. Dr. White proposed that the EM Drive’s thrust was due to the Quantum Vacuum (the quantum state with the lowest possible energy) behaving like propellant ions behave in a MagnetoHydroDynamics drive (a method electrifying propellant and then directing it with magnetic fields to push a spacecraft in the opposite direction) for spacecraft propulsion. In Dr. White’s model, the propellant ions of the MagnetoHydroDynamics drive are replaced as the fuel source by the virtual particles of the Quantum Vacuum, eliminating the need to carry propellant. This model was also met with criticism in the scientific community because the Quantum Vacuum cannot be ionized and is understood to be “frame-less” – meaning you cannot “push” against it, as required for momentum. The tests reported by Dr. White’s team in July 2014 were not conducted in a vacuum, and none of the tests reported by Prof. Yang in China or Mr. Shawyer in the UK were conducted in a vacuum either. The scientific community met these NASA tests with skepticism and a number of physicists proposed that the measured thrust force in the US, UK, and China tests was more likely due to (external to the EM Drive cavity) natural thermal convection currents arising from microwave heating (internal to the EM Drive cavity). However, Paul March, an engineer at NASA Eagleworks, recently reported in NASASpaceFlight.com’s forum (on a thread now over 500,000 views) that NASA has successfully tested their EM Drive in a hard vacuum – the first time any organization has reported such a successful test. To this end, NASA Eagleworks has now nullified the prevailing hypothesis that thrust measurements were due to thermal convection. A community of enthusiasts, engineers, and scientists on several continents joined forces on the NASASpaceflight.com EM Drive forumto thoroughly examine the experiments and discuss theories of operation of the EM Drive. The quality of forum discussions attracted the attention of EagleWorks team member Paul March at NASA, who has shared testing and background information with the group in order to fill in information gaps and further the dialogue. This synergy between NASASpaceflight.com contributors and NASA has resulted in several contributions to the body of knowledge about the EM Drive. The NASASpaceflight.com group has given consideration to whether the experimental measurements of thrust force were the result of an artifact. Despite considerable effort within the NASASpaceflight.com forum to dismiss the reported thrust as an artifact, the EM Drive results have yet to be falsified. After consistent reports of thrust measurements from EM Drive experiments in the US, UK, and China – at thrust levels several thousand times in excess of a photon rocket, and now under hard vacuum conditions – the question of where the thrust is coming from deserves serious inquiry. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/
  9. It is only the perspective, the point of view, all 3 theories are valid from their view of observation: A) a fixed point on the ground of earth (geocentric model) B) a fixed point in the solar system in relation to the sun. (heliocentric model) C) a fixed stationary point outside the galaxy and see the milky way as a whole giant spinning galaxy. (helical model) Helical model:
  10. servantx

    What is time?

    The earth's rotation speed, earth's revolving speed around the sun, the sun's revolving speed around the milky way all contributed to the time as you know it. Even attitude (height) of your physical position on earth or above the earth (e.g. satellite) varies your perception of time. Also, the gravity (which is an acceleration) also effect time related to the object. It is rotation in a rotation in a rotation in rotation etc. Have a look at this video to have a better concept. The first video shows how the sun/solar system move around our galaxy - the milky way, in a wave form revolving around the centre of the galaxy. The second video shows how the planets move along with the sun in spiral form, in a closer look.
  11. servantx

    What is time?

    Look at the formula of Instantaneous Angular Acceleration formula in this graph supplied by NASA. Now do the high school algebra math and put time (t) on the left side. So (t) = ? And you can calculate the time in relation to the acceleration and velocity of the object. The faster you move, the slower the time in general. Time, is not a fixed variable, but a measurement that can be varied through the change of speed. [ATTACH=full]234[/ATTACH]
  12. The Sun revolves around the centre of our galaxy - the Milky Way. Have a look at the approximate position of our sun and our solar system. However, in the insignificantly small humans' eyes, the stars, the sun, the moon and the galaxy looks like revolving around us in the sky, it is only an optical illusion based on the location of the point of view of the camera. When you stand on the ground of the earth looking up to the sky, you see things with self awareness of yourself as the centre point of view or perception. Both interpretations of earth revolve around the sun, or sun and stars revolve around the earth are valid, but only in the different point of view of how you see things. The only difference is where you put the camera, fixed on the ground, on a single point on the crust of the earth looking upward, or put the camera in space, in a stationary position? But if you put your camera in space, is it stationary like somewhere outside the spinning galaxy, where you see the sun is moving and revolving around the centre of the galaxy, or do you put the camera in station position in relation to the position of the sun which moves as the sun moves, so that in that perspective you see the planets in the solar system revolve around the sun as the stationary centre of the solar system (which is actually revolving a larger galaxy system itself)? The interpretation of the which object revolve which other object depends on if you put the lens and see things from a point related to: A) a fixed point on the ground of earth B) a fixed point in the solar system in relation to the sun. C) a fixed stationary point outside the galaxy and see the milky way as a whole giant spinning galaxy. Look at the picture in this post for a clearer understanding of the position of our solar system. [missing attachment]
×
×
  • Create New...