Hubble or Bubble?

[Terence.drew]

Oh how they must have LOLed when they released this pic of the Cosmos giving us the finger as pictured through the lens of the magic Hubble telescope which is protected in outer space by Meteorite repellant spray.




p.s. All Hubble pics are 'colour tinted' in 'photoshop'. I would imagine there are a few other additions also.

[AlexJones]

Oh how they must have LOLed when they released this pic of the Cosmos giving us the finger as pictured through the lens of the magic Hubble telescope which is protected in outer space by Meteorite repellant spray.
p.s. All Hubble pics are 'colour tinted' in 'photoshop'. I would imagine there are a few other additions also.

The Hubble is the real mystery in all this, its been up there for over a decade with not a scratch or dint and on top of all that its weight is 24,500 lb Ref:
http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/hub ... _facts.php

Thats just over 11 mt, that just hangs there like a large brick

There's no clear sight of a propulsion system, see images:









Then you have to take into account this telescope can move to new points in the sky and also stays still for long exposures to capture star light. One exposure took:

'Data Description:
Instrument: NICMOS
Exposure Date(s): September 3, 2003 to November 27, 2003
Exposure Time: 4.5 days
Filters: F110W (1.1 microns) and F160W (1.6 microns)'

So we have to believe it can move around the sky and also stop absolutely still for days at a time. How does it do this I ask myself

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... fastfacts/

[hoi.polloi]

So we have to believe it can move around the sky and also stop absolutely still for days at a time. How does it do this I ask myself

If it sits still, wouldn't gravity demand that it plummet to Earth? Or does it also have its own propulsion to fight against gravity for dozens of hours?

[AlexJones]

I've spent more time looking into the Hubble Space Telescope, I've found an admission that it doesn't have any rocket propulsion system. They say it doesn't need any

Although Hubble doesn't "visit" celestial objects — it never leaves its orbit — it does need to point itself to different directions to see different objects. But there are no rockets on Hubble, because rockets would fill the space near the telescope with contaminating jet propellant residue.

It doesn't need rockets to stay in orbit
http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/nut ... .php#gyros

Now for the confusing part it mentions it being in orbit around earth, but you would imagine looking at stars whilst moving is going to not work out to well you'd think. It seems they make the whole thing seem like child's play, but moving around a planet whilst imaging a fixed point of light sound crazy.

[nonhocapito]

So we have to believe it can move around the sky and also stop absolutely still for days at a time. How does it do this I ask myself

If it sits still, wouldn't gravity demand that it plummet to Earth? Or does it also have its own propulsion to fight against gravity for dozens of hours?

While not being an expert in anything, I tried to go into how an orbiting object works. There is no need for propulsion, as long as the initial kick that puts the satellite in motion is calibrated right. We are talking about space void, where there is no air resistance, hence nothing can stop an object in its motion. Unless you want to argue that planets and stars and comets have a propulsion system, or maybe they slow down over time.

As to the Hubble telescope "sitting there", this makes no sense, of course. Like ALL other satellites, Hubble orbits the earth. Geostationary satellites ALSO orbit the earth, they just orbit at the same speed and direction of the earth. Once again, the motion satellites have is what keeps them from falling down, and no, it doesn't need any propulsion, except the initial kick.

Just to be clear, here is the same annoying disclaimer of always: I am not saying that Hubble or the other satellites are 100% real. I'm saying that arguments such as "it could be hit by asteroids" or "it is so heavy it should fall down" are not conclusive or indisputable arguments. They are in fact contradicted by a lot of old science that is not invention or prerogative of NASA (cf. my previous posts on the matter.)

If anyone is paying my posts any attention, I'm still waiting for an answer to the fact that on a starry night just by looking up to the sky we all can see points of light moving about the sky. Those aren't airplanes and I doubt them being UFOs or angels. I tend to believe those are satellites. Gee I wonder how do they not fall down?

Now let's see if this post gets any attention...

[nonhocapito]

Now for the confusing part it mentions it being in orbit around earth, but you would imagine looking at stars whilst moving is going to not work out to well you'd think. It seems they make the whole thing seem like child's play, but moving around a planet whilst imaging a fixed point of light sound crazy.

Oh, yeah, it is so crazy. Sure, we do the same exact thing from our observatories on earth, while the earth travels at a high speed into the cosmos, spinning on itself. I wonder how is it possible that we can observe the sky from the earth? It probably means the earth is fixed in place, doesn't it. Probably Hercules is keeping it into his hands, balancing himself on a turtle.

[AlexJones]

Now for the confusing part it mentions it being in orbit around earth, but you would imagine looking at stars whilst moving is going to not work out to well you'd think. It seems they make the whole thing seem like child's play, but moving around a planet whilst imaging a fixed point of light sound crazy.

Oh, yeah, it is so crazy. Sure, we do the same exact thing from our observatories on earth, while the earth travels at a high speed into the cosmos, spinning on itself. I wonder how is it possible that we can observe the sky from the earth? It probably means the earth is fixed in place, doesn't it. Probably Hercules is keeping it into his hands, balancing himself on a turtle.

I know how telescopes work on earth, they have very large motors to track stars, but the Hubble telescope is orbiting the earth every 97 minutes, thats the difference.

[reel.deal]

...the fact that on a starry night just by looking up to the sky we all can see points of light moving about the sky. Those aren't airplanes and I doubt them being UFOs or angels. I tend to believe those are satellites.

i know what you mean... way way too fast to be ANY plane, yet colour light still blinking & flashing... satellites ?
shooting stars ? ...meteorites ?!?

[nonhocapito]

I know how telescopes work on earth, they have very large motors to track stars, but the Hubble telescope is orbiting the earth every 97 minutes, thats the difference.

So? as long as you always know where it is , and where it is pointed at, all you have to do is to decide when it will snap a picture. Big deal. Have you ever noticed how very distant objects, even when you are traveling very fast, don't seem to move? That's how we can snap steady pictures from train and airplanes. I imagine that Hubble can snap a picture of a distant galaxy, even if it takes a few minutes of exposure, considering that the galaxy is millions of light years away.

Bottom line, people, if we decide to trash science in its entirety we better do it in a competent manner, not just asking rhetorical questions as if they had no answer. Personally I think it is a lost battle - especially in a context of non-experts like we have it here. If you go into the scientific details, nobody can follow you; and if you stay on the surface, you are just being arrogant assuming the depth of the science you are not considering is entirely bogus.

Whatever question you have about Hubble, it is very likely it has a reasonable answer, how about that. If you think you can "win" your arguments against science using some idea of science you have, you better think again. The world was not born yesterday. We will end up looking like fools.

Show me a set of contradictory/manipulated pictures that prove Hubble is fake, now that's another thing. That's our chow.

[nonhocapito]

i know what you mean... way way too fast to be ANY plane, yet colour light still blinking & flashing... satellites ?
shooting stars ? ...meteorites ?!?

No the ones I mean are not blinking and flashing. They entirely look like stars or planets to the naked eye, except they move across the sky and disappear in a matter of minutes. They are not meteorites, their motion and brightness are entirely steady.They're the easier thing to spot. These nights I usually go in my vegetable garden looking for snails (the fuckers are eating my zucchini). So I did yesterday night and like clockwork, I looked up, and saw the light going about in the sky. Nothing fancy, I've seem them since I was a kid. They're the damn satellites.

[AlexJones]

nonhocapito if they do have satellites flying up in the sky, they work with some unknown technology we poor peasant are not privy to. I don't see how anything can be controlled with rocket motors to the precision mentioned all over NASA's website. Its like lighting a flame and counting to ten I find the whole idea ridiculous. People are always saying that if we had technology that could reshape the world it is locked away for 50 years. I think the space program is top secret and NASA is a dog and pony show.

[nonhocapito]

All right to move the topic, Simon. Only it seems to me it is about more than Hubble, rather about the existence of artificial satellites altogether (which would require a couple more of posts to be moved and possibly the title to be corrected). It starts to bother me, really, that everyone seem to agree about artificial satellites being entirely fake without a blink of the eye But that's where we are apparently.

And "AlexJones": You say that you don't see how satellites could work. Well said. Unfortunately I am afraid we require more, to support the idea that satellites are fake (which has nothing to do with NASA being a propaganda/fakery machine). On the same grounds, we could argue that electricity is fake, because, seriously, how the hell that thing work? I am not saying this to you in particular, but when we act like bad boys who consider all science to be bullshit we just act arrogantly.
First step: there might be a logical, scientific explanation for something we find absurd out of ignorance. Orbits, for example... (see my posts above)

[simonshack]

Dear Nonho,

Let's just keep this discussion named after Hubble - the telescope. After all, it is itself a 'satellite' and, under its name, we can discuss such matters here - maybe a little bit 'privately' - so as not to attract too much attention from outraged, all-knowing outsiders and the usual, annoying shills - ok?

Here are some thoughts you recently wrote, Nonho:

As to the fact that such object keeps moving without constant propulsion, I guess this is explained with the orbiting object flying in space without air resistance, so that nothing slows it down.

Ok. But NASA told us that the pliers lost by one of their astronaughts (the guy repairing the solar panels) were expected to eventually "fall down to Earth - but we will me monitoring them by radar" (yes, I'm quoting the NASA experts). Now, weren't those pliers also orbiting in space without air resistance? Does the ISS have any propulsive means to keep it where it is (between 278 and 460km altitude / source: wikipedia) for year after year? No. Do those pliers have that? No. Yet, their weight/gravity-pull is only a tiny fraction of the Space Station's. I trust you get my drift.

Hence, the questions I would have here concern specifically the issue of propulsion outside of the Earth's atmosphere. Let us accept for now that a satellite may be sent up to a certain altitude where it gets caught up in a centrifugal force which keeps it reliably circling the Earth at high speed (or rest in geostationary orbit - at 36.000km from Earth - the alleged, ideal altitude for communication and weather satellites). How exactly, I wonder, are these precise altitudes achieved? How do they stop a given satellite (launched by a rocket into this space vacuum devoid of air resistance) at its ideal altitude?

(Edit): Ok - I read this just now:

A perfect stable geostationary orbit is an ideal that can only be approximated. In practice the satellite drifts out of this orbit (because of perturbations such as the solar wind, radiation pressure, variations in the Earth's gravitational field, and the gravitational effect of the Moon and Sun), and thrusters are used to maintain the orbit in a process known as station-keeping. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit

We already know that Hubble has no thrusters. Shouldn't we learn more about the thrusters which all other satellites must be equipped with? And how these thrusters operate (supplying directional propulsion) in the vacuum of space?

[Dcopymope]

Interesting, since we think that these shooting stars as nonhocapito describes them can't be anything but satellites, and what’s making these satellites move in this manner can’t be rocket motors as we know them, then they must be using some technology that we don’t know about. As I’ve been saying, NASA is a front for the real space program that is secret. All the money that is put into NASA's worthless projects is obviously funneled into black budget projects, the real projects. I think the document below would be of interest to this topic. It’s the first document ever released from the RAND Corporation published in 1946 about experimental designs of a spaceship or a satellite that can circle the entire globe in about an hour above earth's atmosphere, moving at about 17,000 mph, and it does say the centrifugal force will balance the pull of gravity. I think this document could be a glimpse into the real space program, although the tech that would be used for this ship seems to be known science. When reading this document, keep in mind that you got the supposed Roswell crash a year later, that we were told was a weather balloon, I think it’s all very fishy.

Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship

[hoi.polloi]

Just to be clear, centrifugal force isn't actually a "force". It's an effect with a name.

I understand nonhocapito's concern and his response is just the somewhat intelligent answer I hoped to get out of people by asking the question about Hubble's behavior again. It was not a rhetorical question - sorry that I turned rhetoric into my attempt to ask legitimately what would happen?

I honestly don't know but let's put together the pieces of the official story and try to match them up with observed repeatable effects in the world (science).

So apparently it orbits the Earth constantly, fine. No problem there.

Apparently, it also takes pictures from a 'stationary' position for several days at a time. If that's true, let's try to explore what's happening. The Hubble:

1. Changes its acceleration to slow - as much as possible - to a rate of orbit that takes - let's say - up to a week? to travel one hemisphere of the Earth. This would mean it is traveling at the speed of slow low-atmosphere airplane travel during this time. Sure, why not?

or

2. Continues orbiting at its constant pace unabated and merely times the pictures at regular intervals to get more information. This could also be too.

Either way, we haven't "disproven" that suspicious NASA imagery is because the Hubble doesn't exist. And we certainly haven't explained the easily observed satellites that we all can see with our naked eye. I think these are very fair, very slow ways of approaching this large topic. Am I not being reasonable?