Reaching milestones at the shop

Well, the store officially reached 1,000 reviews. Pretty awesome stuff if you ask me. The store has come a long way since it first got started.

Advertisements

Newton’s third law & the Progress MS-08

Today I want to take a moment to talk about the force generated by two opposing objects, which in turn, can and does result in what we call “movement”.

basketball

Formally stated, Newton’s third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.

Now, in such regard the thing to remember is this. The force that causes the ball to push back in both situations is resistance. So, the question then would be to ask what is causing the “resistance” to occur between the girl and the ball. The obvious answer here is the atmosphere. As the ball is leaving the girl’s hands, the ball is pressing against the particles of air that surround both it and the girl in the room. The more particles that exist in a given space, the denser that atmosphere is surrounding the two objects… thus, the stronger the resistance. If we removed the atmosphere, the ball would experience zero resistance. As a result the ball would not “push back”, generating friction on the girl’s feet.

Secondly, I want to raise the question of positioning. Consider this; you take away the atmospheric pressure, removing and push back the ball might exert. But also, lift the girl’s roller skates off of the floor as well. At that point you have two objects pushing against one another with zero force exerted between them while simultaneously removing the platform by which the first object might have traveled in an opposing direction. Therefore, what allows the girl to travel in regard to Newton’s third law is atmospheric pressure and a platform of travel.

Make sense? This is what brings me to the title of this blog post. Two days ago in February 15th, the Progress MS-08 docked with the international space station for it’ resupply of the station.

My question is this; what is Progress MS-08 pushing against? And, what is the Progress MS-08’s platform of travel?

You see, there is this thing called “the vacuum of space“.

A vacuum is space devoid of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for “vacant” or “void“. An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure or devoid of pressure entirely.

Progress-MS08-Docking-2-800x445

Now, what people like SpaceX and NASA will suggest is that rockets operate in the vacuum of space by propelling gases in one direction to create an opposite and equal force on the craft. There is no need for air (atmosphere) for those gases to push against thanks to Newton’s third law of motion. You can read that article here explaining how Newton’s third law apparently work’s in the vacuum of space.

I’m sorry, but how absurd can we honestly get? The thing that causes Newton’s third law to work is the atmospheric resistance. without said resistance, no external force would be experienced. It is honestly that simple.

Let’s ask Neil.

Oh, wait… we are forgetting one thing; atmospheric resistance. There is, after all, an atmosphere inside the international space station. At least I would hope. Wouldn’t be able to breath otherwise, right?

I rest my case. Space is fake. But hey, don’t take my word for it. I clearly am… after all, just an ignorant Christian that still believes in silly things like creation, talking snakes, and an earth yielding plant-life that existed 3 days before the sun and moon were even on the scene.

Clearly, this pre-production and post-production footage of the ISS doesn’t speak for itself either.

space

Anyway, rant over.

Random mind explosion in the shower

I had a thought while staring into the abyss motionless under the warm running water of my shower just now, sparking this random and unplanned blog post.

Here we go…

When many of us grew up, there were nine planets in the solar system. It was like a fixed point in our brains. As kids, memorizing this list was an early right of passage of nerd pride: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. In August 2006 however the International Astronomical Union (IAU) downgraded the status of Pluto to that of “dwarf planet“. This means that from now on only the rocky worlds of the inner Solar System and the gas giants of the outer system would be designated as actual planets. With that in mind, according to the Copernican Principle of Heliocentric evolutionary dogma there are only 8 planets in our solar system.

The reason Pluto is not consider a planet is simple. It has not yet cleared the neighborhood of its orbit in space. Because it does not follow this rule, Pluto is no longer considered a planet.

In short, Pluto is not a planet in our solar system. There are only 8 planets.

Now, since we exist on one of these so called planets there are only 7 observable planets for us to see in the night sky.

2000px-Planets2013.svg.png

Assuming I haven’t lost anyone yet, here is the part where I might. But whatever, I am diving into it anyway.

From my reading of the Bible I have concluded that there is a distinct correlation between the stars and the angels of heaven. For example, in Genesis 2:1 we find that God created the heaven and earth and all the “hosts” of them. And with that, there are countless scriptures where the phrase “the hosts of heaven” is referring to angels and stars as one. On top of this we have epic verses like the following one that clearly suggest that stars, can, will, and have… fallen to the earth, and that those stars are in fact angels.

Revelation 9:1 – And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit (and to the star was given a key).

I could load this blog post down with scriptures to back this view, but rather than doing that I want to keep it short by getting to the point regarding the planets of our solar system specifically, from a biblical perspective.

Pinnacle.jpg.990x0_q80_crop-smart

Based on the Copernican Principle of Heliocentric evolutionary dogma there are only 7 observable planets. What makes us know that they are planets is their orbit. Every planet in our solar system except for Venus and Uranus rotates counter-clockwise on their axis as seen from above the North Pole; that is to say, from west to east. West to east however is the official direction in which “all the planets” orbit the sun.

In short, all of the planets travel across our night sky from west to east. With that said, for an observer on the earth, all celestial objects move from east to west with these 7 objects being an exception to the rule (over time traveling in the opposing direction).

Now… for the epiphany I had in the shower.

In ancient times there was what is called the gods of the five wandering stars. They were named Phainon (planet Saturn), Phaethon (planet Jupiter), Pyroeis (planet Mars), Eosphoros (planet Venus) and Stilbon (planet Mercury). In ancient Greek they were depicted as youths diving into the earth, something that matches exactly with several biblical depictions of stars either falling or being cast to the earth.

The two remaining planets Uranus and Neptune are invisible to the naked eyes which is why they were not known as the 7 wondering stars.

What I am getting at is the simple fact that the bible is not the only place where the stars are attributed as being living beings with the capability of falling to the earth while at the same time being garnished by the Greeks with the phrase “wondering stars”.

With all of that laid out here is the biblical point I am trying to make.

Jude 1:5-13And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

So here is my question…

If the stars are in fact not beings, but just big balls of gas, dust, and rock… why does the bible suggest that these wondering stars have stepped out of their intended habitation and in turn will be punished with both everlasting chains and eternal darkness for stepping out of line?

Why would God take the time to punish an inanimate rock?

Riddle me this; 10 Simple questions for any NASA fan

Here is the video from two days ago when three new astronauts apparently went up into the atmosphere and connected with the ISS. After you have watched it, I want to pose a few questions.

One: What in the world happens with the video feed at the 55 second mark? It seemed to skip.

Two: Why does the smoke trail at only 1:25 minutes in actually show the rocked coming back down?

Three: At 1:50 minutes, the announcer suggests that it is only an 8 minute climb into orbit. In order to obtain an orbit we are allegedly supposed to be in the thermosphere at least. That is basically to say that within 8 minutes you will have traveled a total of 250+ miles. You would literally have to be traveling at a speed of 1,500 miles an hour to make it a total of 250 miles in 10 minutes, let alone 8. Please tell me what human being can withstand that level of G-Force and live?

Four: At 2 minutes in, the rocket is literally coming back down. It is literally returning. It went up, arched, and is now facing the opposing direction. Please explain to me how that works?

Five: This dude at 2:51 minutes in literally just said that the rocket is traveling at more than 3,300 miles per hour. You know… because, you wouldn’t black out or anything. How outrageous do they honestly have to be? (my favorite part of this statement is the fact that the very next shot is from inside the rocket, showing a still conscious group of people). You know, because that’s real.

Six: At 3:45 minutes in they are traveling at more than 4,700 miles per hour. They are literally still inside the atmosphere, traveling at more than 1.3 miles per second and have the audacity to wave and smile at the camera? I am pretty sure I would be pinned to my seat.

Seven: With number six in mind, what type of camera mount are they using? With that type of G-Force and speed, wouldn’t the camera be rattling so hard it would be tough making out the occupants inside the rocket?

Eight: at 4 minutes in the crew knows that they are being talked about. You can tell, because they start pretending to be busy. Reading some notes… using a stick to press buttons on a control panel. First off, the rocket is remotely controlled… and second, if I can get motion sickness from reading while riding in a car going 70 miles an hour… please explain his lack of a migraine while reading at 4,000+ miles an hour? At this stage the rocket is still in the atmosphere. It would be rattling like madness (just going to read a paper, like a boss. No big deal).

Nine: The guy literally got done pressing buttons as soon as the scene was over. He knew that the scene was cutting. Right as they are cutting the scene they are done pretending to do things.

Ten: They literally cut the shot to a cartoon at just over 4 minutes in. A freaking cartoon, people. It… Is… FAKE!!!

With all 10 of these comments “now posed” regarding the most recent docking to the ISS carrying a human payload, by all means, please rationally and logically explain away each one.

I’m waiting…

Something fishy about the ISS if you ask me

So, I have been on this NASA hoax kick lately. I am a huge fan of space and have come across a large amount of information and conspiracy content that puts NASA in question. Things like, we never landed on the Moon… or we never landed a Rover on Mars and what have you. Now, after doing some research on that stuff I wasn’t sure what to believe. With that said, I began to look at the ISS. The international space station that happens to be in orbit. In my hunt for the truth I have developed more questions than answers. And when it comes to the ISS I only have two questions. And I am posting this blog not to say I know anything or that I believe any one thing, either. I am posting this blog because I want to know. Someone please explain this to me.
Question One: There are a seemingly endless number of satellites in orbit. With that said, where are they? The ISS never seems to show any. If there really are that many, what keeps the ISS from taking on constant life threatening damage from potential space debris caused by this sea of satellites and other objects left in orbit from other space related missions? Surely with this many satellites in orbit we would see them in the ISS footage or better yet, all the time drifting across our point of view when looking at the Moon. I have never personally seen a satellites drift across the face of the moon. Have you? Surely, with that much activity, the ISS camera would be showing us some satellites. But it doesn’t. Where are the satellites?

Question two: why does my NASA tracking App either glitch or not match up with the live feed provided by NASA from the ISS streaming online?
There is a chat room associated with this live feed. When pointing out that the there should be a land mass below the ISS at a given time according to its location (It was going over Europe according to the ISS tracker in my NASA app at the time), I was kicked out of the chat room. The live feed clearly shows just a mass of blue ocean during duration that the ISS is supposed to be going over bodies of land. For example when the ISS was over Asia according to my App, the live online feed just showed a blue ball. Goes over Europe… a blue ball. When I brought up this anomaly I was simply kicked out of the chat.

Later, when I finally was allowed to chat again I asked why the camera on my NASA App of the ISS always went dark or off when going over a body of land. Rather than being given an explanation, I again was instantly kicked out. I wasn’t being abrasive in any way. All I wanted to know was – a; why does the NASA app not sink properly with the live feed available on the web – and b; why my NASA app glitches out every time this land coverage occurs.
There were people in the chat being rude, vulgar, and rambling about idiotic nothingness like virginity and being the first person to have sex in space. And yet, my question/comment that had actual relevance to the topic of the feed was ejected instantly. Why is that?

Here are just a few screen shots I have taken from my phone while making this observation. Something definitely doesn’t add up. And to be honest, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are tons of videos out there that imply some pretty wild stuff in the realm of conspiracy. And the thing is… I am not showing those videos here. This is my personal observation and not some goofy video made by someone else. With that said it was merely those outlandish videos calling the ISS a joke that made me do my own digging.

And oddly enough, this is what I found. What is the deal?

times

I am not saying NASA is fake. I am not saying NASA is real. I am not saying the world is round. And I am not saying the world is flat. All I am saying is, I want answers!!!