"Patrix" and a very in sync Göteborg friend recently came on Fakeologist.com to discuss their apparently indefensible opinion (which perhaps we might call the "Göteborg defense" from now on?) that satellites must be in existence because they cannot explain the power of signals any other way.
Why did they treat their position so weakly? Why did people who claim to have expertise in signals not give one single layman's explanation or even a technical explanation of how the signals work? They had given themselves at least an hour to speak and said virtually nothing, and Ab easily countered with reasonable opinions that they didn't wish to discuss.If you actually understand something and you are not just memorizing facts, you can explain it to others
, even if it takes many questions or a lot of time, which Ab offered the Göteborg duo.
Let's just do a few comparisons, shall we, of what we supposedly are seeing in the sky:
— BALLOONS —
- safe environment
- expensive communications materials but simple principles
- anyone can achieve balloon experiments
- practically no need for fuel
- relatively stationary
- simple and cheap vehicle motivation using propellors, currents
- failures can be corrected, monitored, anticipated, perhaps finally result in collection
- safe and effective distances (perhaps 70km-100km) for signals and for interaction
— AIRCRAFT —
- safe environment
- effective and approachable distances (perhaps operating just under top height, let's say 20km-60km) for signals and for interaction
- many secrets within aircraft principles and culture to be nationally defensible
- variations of vehicles might even motor near the surface of the atmosphere at the 100km ("X-15") distances with minor friction
- expensive communications materials but known principles
- relatively cheap fuel from the empire
- anyone can understand and demonstrate principles of aircraft
- standard patterns can be achieved with constant energy
- failures can be corrected, monitored, anticipated and airplanes can be landed
— "Satellites" —
- extremely hazardous, completely unshielded environment
- astronomically, insanely expensive communications materials
- incredibly high speeds of several miles per second through conflicting materials in every direction
- much larger distances to travel, for vehicles, for signals and supposedly for humans!
- no reasonable safety measures, can be punctured and destroyed in an instant
- impossible to repair or absurdly expensive to repair at best
- insecure from nationalist standpoints
- failures almost always result in total loss of entire vehicle/computer/project
- burns up in atmosphere, never to be investigated or find out any unloggable errors or lurking variables
- extremely questionable means of self correction
How much are the "unexplainable" signals that the "Göteborg defense" claims actually explicable through safe, proven and unrisky technologies such as balloons and aircraft? How much is explicable through digital signals and digital technologies that have transitioned from energy-intensive to super efficient fiber optic cables and so on? We may never know because the "Göteborg defense" does not care to investigate or explain other explanations besides the increasingly untenable "manmade satellite" fantasy hypothesis.
Admittedly, the satellite myth is very attractive and exciting. A magical vehicle that is heavier than air, which, thanks to understandings of the fishy "Astronautics" programs of highly connected and powerful men, can function not only in high atmosphere but high society
Who doesn't want an an old hairy white guy with shiny cuff links breathing down their neck with caviar-champaign breath and a shiny metal watch explaining why he should be trusted to explain the lights in the sky?
But, on practical terms, these sorts of people don't really live up to expectation, because they are unwilling to give their disciples the basic means of explaining the technology they claim to be "following" or "leading" (rather than, say, fantasizing, profiteering or gambling). The whole concept of major signals broadcast around the world or even GPS signals developed
alongside the very concurrent technologies we've already mentioned: analog signals, microwave signals, digital signals; early oceanic shipping, modern oceanic shipping; communications standards; balloon experiments; ionic bounce experiments; air wave and ground wave technologies; etc.
Finally, let us take a look at the mysterious "Karman line" we are told exists at "about 100km" as calculated by renowned hucksters Van Braun and so forth (the full article should really be read — and it is brief, I promise — about the particular era of separating Aeronautics and "Astronautics") from this site :
2.- The separation of Aeronautics and Astronautics
a) The idea of separating both fields
All the above knowledge was available in the 1930’s. But it was in different areas: Aeronautics, Newton theories and atmospheric properties. So very few scientists had the vision of them all at the same time.
It took a most notable man, Hr. Theodore Von Karman to put things together. He was born at Budapest (nowadays in Hungary; then a part of the Austria- Hungarian Empire), the 11 of May 1881. It is difficult for modern readers to realise the international scientific prestige in aeronautics that Von Karman had accumulated by the early 1950’s. But so was it. He had such a prestige, that certainly no engineer or scientist in the world, interested in Aeronautics and/or Astronautics, would decline an invitation to co-operate with him, even, needless to say, without any reward in terms of money.
[...] Aeronautics needed the presence of atmosphere. And atmosphere existed near the Earth’s ground, but did not exist far above the ground. In Astronautics, speeds impossible to maintain in atmospheric drag could be kept for very long periods without power applied to the vehicle.
Without power applied to a vehicle, it is a certainty that it will be doomed to fall or collide or otherwise be destroyed by means that it cannot correct for, so how can this Karman fellow be taken seriously? Ah, but he is just talking in theory
now. Let's move on ...
Thus, in the mid 1950’s, Von Karman got in touch with a series of (at the time) young leading scientist and engineers in Aeronautics and Astronautics with the view of defining a separation, as far as possible, between both disciplines.
Hmm, his mission is clear enough and plainly admitted: to separate
disciplines rather than the more typical intellectual goal of merging disciplines for greater understanding. Could it be the Karman fellow was useful for building an intellectual and military wall between two disciplines, rather than merely an imaginary line?
He had got to know them trough two international private, i.e. no government dependent, organisations. One was the recently created IAF (International Federation of Astronautics), which had held its first International Congress in 1950. The second, at the time by far more important, was the well known and very prestigious FAI (Fédération Aéronautique Internationale), organised in the first years of the XX Century, and which sanctioned and recorded all Aeronautic records.
So we're already in need of sanctioning each flight. The military curiosity and observation (if not direct control) of all aeronautical matters is implied.
It is for me impossible to name all the people that co-operated with Von Karman in this matter. Since there was no money involved, just free interchange of opinions trough private letters or conversations [...]
Okay, okay, we get it. There's nothing untoward because no money is involved. Just like a good old boys club.
Members of that rather informal group were my father, Prof. Sanz Aránguez (from Spain; later Major General in the Corps of Aeronautical Engineers in the Spanish Air Force; co-founder and Vice President of the International Commission of Astronautical Records of FAI). Prof. Sheiffert (from the U.S., author of a book in Astronautics, “Principles of Orbit Mechanics”, now out of print, which was the main source for orbit and orbit injection knowledge and calculation up to the end of the 1960´s; he was later full professor at Stanford University in California). Prof. Von Braun (from Germany, later in the U.S.; expert in rocket propulsion, involved in the V2 development, and later on U.S. orbit injectors). Prof. Eula (from Italy; involved in rocket propulsion and also in atomic research). Prof. Sokolsky (from the U.S.S.R.; probably one of the biggest names in the Soviet Astronautical development afterwards). Mr. Robert Genty (from France; later Colonel in the French Air Force and named Judge Unique Worldwide of Astronautic Records in the FAI). Prof. Dillaway (from the U.S.; later Delegate of the U.S. in the Commission of Astronautical Records of FAI). And, of course, some other scientists whose names I am sorry no to remember at this moment.
Interesting discussion of the myth building, even if really applicable to science, about how numbers are certainly futzed with by groups of people — for cultural or popularity reasons rather than scientific accuracy:
b) The Karman separation line: Scientific significance.
The interchange of ideas was finally conducted to a clear cut: In Aeronautics, level flying higher and higher meant to deal with less and less dense atmosphere, thus to the need of greater and greater speeds to have the flying machine controllable by aerodynamic forces. A speed so big in fact, that, above a certain altitude, could be close or even bigger than the circular orbital speed at that altitude (i.e. lift was no longer needed, since centrifugal force took over; and consequently aerodynamic flight was meaningless). Conversely, in Astronautics, lower and lower orbital flying led to encounter more and more dense atmosphere, so much that it would be impossible to keep the orbit for a number of turns around Earth without a significant forward thrust (thus making the free fall, or orbiting, concept meaningless). A lot of calculations were made, and finally it was reached the conclusion, accepted by all scientist involved, that around an altitude of 100 Km. the boundary could be set. By the way, most calculations, which I could see at the time, were using nautical miles for altitude. That was probably because it was the only unit of length more or less common at the time (in fact, less common; even British and U.S. nautical miles, both at the time defined in feet, differed; European nautical mile, defined in meters, was also different; but the differences were small). So the altitude decided upon had a very uneasy number to remember. It was apparently Von Karman himself who realised, and proposed to the rest, the very round number of 100 Km (very close to the calculated number). The rest of the people eagerly accepted it.
The 100-Km altitude, ever since named the “Karman Line”, came thus into existence as the boundary separating Aeronautics and Astronautics.
c) The Karman Line: Adoption in International Standards
Von Karman presented the result of this work in front of the IAF, which accepted it without much interest, because they were really not concerned with the problem of separating both fields. But the things worked differently for the FAI, deeply involved in human records for Aeronautics.
It was plainly clear at the time (mid 1950´s), that as soon as a man will get into orbit, most significant aeronautical records will be pulverised. Aeroplane’s altitude, speed, distance, time of flight, and many other parameters could no longer compete with an orbiting vehicle. Some of the people who had been working with Von Karman were somehow connected to FAI, among them, Sanz Aránguez from Spain, Dillaway from the U.S., several scientists from the U.S.S.R. (I do not remember their names; probably Sokolsky was among them) and Genty from France. They proposed to FAI to create a new category of flying machines, later named spacecraft in the FAI rules, which would have separated records.
Sure. Double books won't work without compartmentalized records!
The FAI was more than willing to do so, and decided to create the International Commission of Astronautics (CIAstr; the name was changed in 1987 to International Commission of Astronautical Records, ICARE). Prof. Sanz Aránguez was made delegate of Spain, and Vice President of the Commission. Professor Dillaway was the Delegate of the U.S., and Col. Genty (from France) was named Secretary. These three people (as far as I know), together with a member of the U.S.S.R. delegation (I am not sure whether or not was the delegate himself, Mr. Skouridine) were the main ones involved in the drafting of the first set of rules for Astronautical Records. Several other countries, of course, named delegates whom, doubtless, contributed to the rules as well. The approved rules became Chapter 8 of the FAI Sporting Code. Naturally, they started by setting the rule that a flight could only be considered an Astronautical flight, and then qualify for a record under Chapter 8 of the FAI Sporting Code, when that flight goes beyond the 100 Km line, i.e. the Karman Line.
Once more we see a large cross over between "sporting" and psychological control of scientific development. Same boys club culture, eh? I wonder how many of them were into frats. In any case, the magic is born:
3.- Demonstration of usefulness of Karman Line
Although the Karman Line had been a theoretical construction, it was later demonstrated to be a real thing. I do not mean there is anything magic about the exact 100 Km., but it has been shown that, about that altitude, things change.
In the early 1960´s, the U.S. X-15 Aircraft was flown up to 108 Km. In that part of the flight it was really a free falling rocket, with no aerodynamic control possible. In fact, it was considered an astronautical flight, and the pilot got, as a consequence, his “astronautical wings”, i.e. the recognisance of being an astronaut.
Yes, if he wasn't also thrown into deep space forever and/or burned up in reentry. The X-15 aircraft stories are very interesting, and probably signal a major military departure and containment of aeronautics information to coincide with these cultural changes. And yet, doesn't that feel familiar about how these things tend to work?
Later in the same decade (or very early in the next; Soviet information at the time was very scanty) the Soviet Union put in orbit an unmanned satellite, in very low orbit, whose attitude was controlled by aerodynamic forces. The real reason of such an experiment is not yet known. It is known however that it successfully described a few orbits just above the 100 Km line (how much higher I do not know), but collapsed rapidly shortly after he crossed, or got too much close to, the 100 Km. Karman line.
Dr. S. Sanz Fernández de Córdoba
Fédération Aéronautique Internationale
- http://www.fai.org/icare-records/100km- ... tronauticsSo back off our Karman line, alrigh' chuck?
Gee, I thought this was about scientific understanding. This settled into "Cold War" right quick.