Newton Was Wrong: Orbits Do Not Exist

 

This is just a rough article preview for those who are interested.

AA+Morris+The+Proper+Gander_Newton+Wrong.gif

Presents Preface: A story...

Once Upon a Historical Lie...

“A True History or A True Story ... is a parody of travel tales, by the Greek-speaking Assyrian author Lucian of Samosata, the earliest known fiction about travelling to outer space, alien life-forms and interplanetary warfare. Written in the 2nd century, the novel has been referred to as "the first known text that could be called science fiction". The work was intended by Lucian as a satire against contemporary and ancient sources, which quote fantastic and mythical events as truth."

"Lucian's True Stories eludes a clear-cut literary classification. Its multilayered character has given rise to interpretations as diverse as science fiction, fantasy, satire or parody, depending on how much importance scholars attach to Lucian's explicit intention of telling a story of falsehoods.”

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_History

"It's absolute magic.."

"Gravity does not disappear, but we are in a state of freefall," explains Pletser. "With respect to the environment, which is the cabin, your weight will be zero. It's absolute magic."

quote source: http://www.cnn.com/travel/article/cash-strapped-space-travel-zero-gravity-flight/index.html

Parabolic Hoax 2.jpg

image source: Nick and Vanessa's Zero Gravity Date - The Bachelor

David Copperfield's flying illusion - Wikipedia   •   Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - Wikipedia

If you click on the YouTube link you will end up watching a highly edited video that proves nothing at all. All the quick cuts show us no evidence that we are watching anything but traditional stage magic harness work. The woman’s hair appears to be have product in it to give it medusa like strands. None of what we are seeing is any different from any other special effects production, there are many ways to make people look like they are floating or flying. What we are seeing is no different form anything else NASA produces. In fact the wire work is obviously reminiscent of the Apollo 11 and other, imagined Lunar landings. David Copperfield flies on stage for a live audience. Hollywood special effect wizardry is nothing new and neither is wire work.
ABC is appropriately owned by Disney.

It's Magic: "Ever since the dawn of cinema, people have been flying by wire."

Deus Ex Machina

"The term was coined from the conventions of Greek tragedy, where a machine is used to bring actors playing gods onto the stage. The machine could be either a crane (mechane) used to lower actors from above or a riser that brought actors up through a trapdoor. Preparation to pick up the actors was done behind the skene. The idea was introduced by Aeschylus and was used often to resolve the conflict and conclude the drama. Although the device is associated mostly with Greek tragedy, it also appeared in comedies."

sources: Simon Magus - Wikipedia   •   Deus ex machina - Wikipedia   •   David Copperfield's flying illusion - Wikipedia   •   A History of Flying by Wire in Film - Teste

Screen Shot 2017-12-17 at 7.04.49 AM.png
AA+Morris+Parabolic Hoax.gif

image source: European Space Agency, ESA   •   550 × 558 - nl.pinterest.com

(Parabolic passengers, lying on their backs on parabolic passenger jet floor, would be sliding forward, like children on a playground slide, and yet the parabolic passengers do not. It's International Space Magic™! Brought to you by the hard earned wages of the internationally taxed community of indentured servants.)

(Please excuse any typos and unintentional gibberish you may encounter.)

Promises of the Promised Land of Zero-G: A Parabolic Place We Can Not Wait On A Line To Go To See

How does the Zero-G parabolic hoax fit in with the rest of the international space con job?


Predictions & Promises That Never Will Come True

All the taxed wages since the end of World War Two can't seem to fund any kind of real stairway into the heavens for any of us.

"Our vision of the future is always changing. In the year 1910, we imagined that the year 2000 would be filled with airships and multi-armed robotic helpers. In the 1960s, manned trips to Mars seemed in our grasp. Early ideas about the Internet were sharpened and refined, and we saw nuclear technology and plastics change our lives, but in different ways than we predicted."

"1975: Our space dreams were still quite optimistic in the late 70s, when NASA predicted we might have space colonies by the year 2000."

"The ring-shaped "Taurus" was envisioned as a colony that could house 10,000 people for the purpose of mining ore from the moon. At least we're inching closer to mining materials from space."

source: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5908600/how-our-predictions-for-the-year-2000-changed-throughout-the-20th-century

Parabolic Hoax.jpg

Nonsense is not science.

Real demonstrable experiments show us why this is all wrong and nothing but alchemical inspired Sun obsessed nonsense. Parabolic flights are very real artifacts of a world wide Sun obsessed cult based religion most of civilized humanity seem to unconsciously adhere to as their religious faith.

“Long periods of weightlessness occur on spacecraft outside a planet's atmosphere, provided no propulsion is applied and the vehicle is not rotating. Weightlessness does not occur when a spacecraft is firing its engines or when re-entering the atmosphere, even if the resultant acceleration is constant. The thrust provided by the engines acts at the surface of the rocket nozzle rather than acting uniformly on the spacecraft, and is transmitted through the structure of the spacecraft via compressive and tensile forces to the objects or people inside. Weightlessness in an orbiting spacecraft is physically identical to free-fall, with the difference that gravitational acceleration causes a net change in the direction, rather than the magnitude, of the spacecraft's velocity. This is because the acceleration vector is perpendicular to the velocity vector. In typical free-fall, the acceleration of gravity acts along the direction of an object's velocity, linearly increasing its speed as it falls toward the Earth, or slowing it down if it is moving away from the Earth. In the case of an orbiting spacecraft, which has a velocity vector largely perpendicular to the force of gravity, gravitational acceleration does not produce a net change in the object's speed, but instead acts centripetally, to constantly "turn" the spacecraft's velocity as it moves around the Earth. Because the acceleration vector turns along with the velocity vector, they remain perpendicular to each other. Without this change in the direction of its velocity vector, the spacecraft would move in a straight line, leaving the Earth altogether.”

image and quote source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness#Weightlessness_in_a_spacecraft

"After thousands of experiments in the last decades, parabolic flights are the backbone of microgravity and spaceflight research and technology development. To date, parabolic flights are the basis for every manned spaceflight program."

Parabolic Flights = Keplerian Trajectory

This "Keplerian" concept is nonsense and defies actual demonstrable physics.

This is alchemy dressed up with Disney imagineered special effect wizardry and nothing more.

"Research in microgravity is the driving force for manned spaceflight and exploration beyond our home planet. During a parabolic flight maneuver, an aircraft is weightless by flying on a “Keplerian trajectory”, which is described as an unpropelled body in an ideally frictionless space subjected to a centrally symmetric gravitational field.

During this free-fall trajectory, the resultant of all forces acting on the aircraft other than gravity is nulled. An entire scientific parabolic flight campaign usually consists of three individual parabolic flights with 31 respective parabolas in sequence (93 parabolas in total)."

source: http://www.dovespace.ch/parabolic-flights/the-parabolic-maneuver/


$

The promised land of "Outer Space" none of us will ever get to actually explore, is one we will still have to pay through the nose for.

It's about our taxed wages and how the money is spent. "Outer Space" is Industrial Light & Magic sizzle advertising and so is "Zero-G". For decades now, we keep getting the same promises of magical trips for the mass public, that will never happen. It’s also now about privatizing a long standing international con job to wring more profit out of what we have all already funded many times over. Outer Space is not only a long standing hoax, it is an international financial con job and racket and it will be used to justify all sorts of commercial enterprises like it always has. Most of us simply do not notice that "Outer Space" is only a place we can interact with on a screen of some kind. We can neither wait on lines for either parabolic flights nor can we wait on lines for rocket rides, as has been promised for over 60 years, if not longer.

“We are on the verge of a zero gravity era."

"If the new-wave space entrepreneurs manage to radically change the economics of space travel as they promise to do, kids in high school today could spend a slice of their careers working in space, not as astronauts but the way a young diplomat or banker today might take a posting in London or Hong Kong. By 2030, it’s possible that many dozens of people at a time will be working and living in space. (These days, typically, there are six people.) The zero gravity era will mark the moment when you no longer have to be special to go to space. You might be a scientist or an engineer or a technician (or a journalist); you might be going for a one-time, two-week research effort or rotating in for your usual six-week posting. But in the zero gravity era, going to space will be no more dramatic than helicoptering out to an offshore oil rig. Exotic, specialized and more dangerous than staffing a cubicle—but not rare or restricted.

A constellation of commercial outposts will be serviced by a fleet of reusable spaceships. A rocket could go to orbit every day, compared with just 85 launches worldwide in 2016. Those rockets could carry dozens of people, and head to laboratories, factories and tourist resorts a few hundred miles up in low-Earth orbit, or they could be stationed farther out, between the Earth and the Moon. Eventually, they will service outposts on the Moon itself (a three-day trip) and possibly Mars. Of course, we’ve been anticipating a true space age since “The Jetsons” debuted in 1962, seven months after John Glenn first orbited the Earth. The Apollo missions to the Moon were going to pave the way for human settlement of the solar system. NASA promised the space shuttle would fly 580 missions during its first dozen years of operation. Instead, the shuttle fleet flew 135 missions over 30 years and was decommissioned in 2011. Instead of 48 flights a year, it averaged four.

What makes this moment feel different is not a new government-backed space race but the soaring ambitions of entrepreneurs backed by reservoirs of money, top-notch engineering talent and increasingly refined technology. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, now the world’s second richest man, is using his personal fortune to make cheaper, more reliable, reusable spaceflight technology, with the goal of getting us all off the planet. Twenty years from now, Bezos says, he wants Blue Origin, his spaceflight company, to have “put in place all the infrastructure, so a new generation can have this incredible dynamism in space.” His goal, he is not shy to say, is “millions of people living and working in space.” Bezos’ strategy is to drive down the price of a launch, pull in customers, postpone profits and create the extraterrestrial economy he wants to dominate.

He has already made significant strides: In 2015, Blue Origin launched its New Shepard rocket 62 miles above Earth, to the edge of space, before landing it, upright, near the launchpad. Nine weeks later, the company relaunched the same rocket, which it did a total of four times in 2016. Nobody had done it even once. In April, Bezos said he would sell $1 billion of his Amazon stock each year to fund Blue Origin.

Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX, has the same determined approach, and SpaceX is already occasionally profitable. The company ferries cargo to and from the International Space Station for NASA, using rockets it designed and built. In March, SpaceX bested Blue Origin. It launched a satellite to orbit, using a refurbished rocket, the first time the same rocket was used twice to send cargo to orbit. Orbital rocket boosters, which travel much higher and faster, are harder to recover and reuse. “At this point, I’m highly confident that it’s possible to achieve at least 100-fold reduction in the cost of space access,” Musk told reporters afterward, echoing words Bezos has used. The idea is that if a launch that today costs $100 million can be had for $1 million, customers for space will line up."

source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/future-zero-gravity-living-is-here-180963243/#xXGmbo5oSGBawfPP.99


Newton+Wrong.gif

Newton was wrong. Orbits are impossible.

1000 miles to scale. As you can see Newton's imagined cannonball could only fall. It would never even make one circuit around the Earth, it would not even come close.

It would never experience any kind of centrifugal force. But all of this is imagined, and that is why there are contradictions to be found. This is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I do not kid when I claim that modern cosmology is an ad hoc contradictory patchwork joke. Newton's work itself, has no basis in the real world and is at odds with Kepler's alchemically inspired musings. I will get into all of that a lot more detail in future articles, for now here is a basic and rough preview:

earth-curve-calcuation+2.jpg

image course: Automated Calculator for Earth Curvature0

Orbits are a mental mirage.

The Earth's gravity is thought to be at some 90% strength where the International Space Station is imagine to orbit. The link below is to a calculator you can use to see for yourself that the ISS would fall towards Earth's center. By the time it's forward motion of some 5 miles a second, a fixed or constant ballistic based motion, has allowed it to cover a distance of some 1000 miles it would have fallen over 100 miles towards the center of the Earth. At 5 miles a second it would take 200 seconds for the imagined ISS to cover the distance of 1000 miles. You can use the calculator link below. Centrifuge type effects are not part of Sir Isaac Newton's reasoning, and he does admit his idea only exists as mathematical fiction as he himself has no hypothesis to put forth to explain how the falling apple is like the rising and setting Moon. Do the experiment, drop the apple and watch the rising and setting Moon and consider if one is really like the other. Newton did no real experiment, his was a fallaciously reasoned thought experiment that contradicts obvious demonstrable natural physical in favor of absurd mathematical modeling that represents nothing real at all.

see: Free fall (distance and velocity) Calculator - High accuracy calculation

Falling Apples Prove Newton Wrong

Newton Wrong.gif

NASA & International Space Fakery Relies on Lies

You cannot fall around the Earth in a circularly reasoned imaginary space ship. Falling is towards Earth's center.

It's not up and down, it's toward and away from center. Gravitational pull is an independent motion from any forward momentum. Forward motion cannot magically effect the direction of gravitational pull which is always towards Earth's center. There are many logical and real world physical problems with both imagined orbits and imagined parabolic flights. These are all artifacts of the mid 20th century heliocentric based Atom Age rocketry con job that continues to this day. This space out propaganda is the "Sizzle" that sells the electronic age, which is the real weapon of governmental mind control. See the article index if you have any question, or check out the website navigation bar, for more.

ISS travels 1000 miles at about 5 miles a second, in the time it takes to travel 1000 miles, it will have fallen 110 miles (with accelerated velocity) towards Earth's center. The ISS is imagined supposed to be some 249 miles up in the sky. 

See the real problem? Demonstrable ballistic physics proves Newton wrong. 

1. Centrifuge effect: Newton did not base his orbital musings on centrifuge type effects. He assumed gravity as a centripetal force. Centrifuge effect would mean there could be no orbit. The stone from proverbial young David's sling shows us why. There is a reason why parabolic flights are part of the long standing con job. It has to do with the absurd idea that the rising and setting Moon is like a falling apple. A lot more to come about this subject. For now this is a basic preview.


"The vertical force acts perpendicular to the horizontal motion and will not affect it since perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other. Thus, the projectile travels with a constant horizontal velocity and a downward vertical acceleration."

CAnnon Ball Newton Wrong.jpg

image source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

"Vectors - Motion and Forces in Two Dimensions - Lesson 2 - Projectile Motion"

"As discussed earlier in this lesson, a projectile is an object upon which the only force acting is gravity. Many projectiles not only undergo a vertical motion, but also undergo a horizontal motion. That is, as they move upward or downward they are also moving horizontally. There are the two components of the projectile's motion - horizontal and vertical motion. And since perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other, these two components of motion can (and must) be discussed separately. The goal of this part of the lesson is to discuss the horizontal and vertical components of a projectile's motion; specific attention will be given to the presence/absence of forces, accelerations, and velocity."

"Horizontally Launched Projectiles"

"Let's return to our thought experiment from earlier in this lesson. Consider a cannonball projected horizontally by a cannon from the top of a very high cliff. In the absence of gravity, the cannonball would continue its horizontal motion at a constant velocity. This is consistent with the law of inertia. And furthermore, if merely dropped from rest in the presence of gravity, the cannonball would accelerate downward, gaining speed at a rate of 9.8 m/s every second. This is consistent with our conception of free-falling objects accelerating at a rate known as the acceleration of gravity.

If our thought experiment continues and we project the cannonball horizontally in the presence of gravity, then the cannonball would maintain the same horizontal motion as before - a constant horizontal velocity. Furthermore, the force of gravity will act upon the cannonball to cause the same vertical motion as before - a downward acceleration. The cannonball falls the same amount of distance as it did when it was merely dropped from rest (refer to diagram below). However, the presence of gravity does not affect the horizontal motion of the projectile. The force of gravity acts downward and is unable to alter the horizontal motion. There must be a horizontal force to cause a horizontal acceleration. (And we know that there is only a vertical force acting upon projectiles.) The vertical force acts perpendicular to the horizontal motion and will not affect it since perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other. Thus, the projectile travels with a constant horizontal velocity and a downward vertical acceleration."

source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory


Imaginative Nonsense Does Not Have To Make Sense When Special Effects Can Make The Unreal Real

This explanation contradicts demonstrable ballistic physics. Do you see how this explanation contradicts the real world ballistic physics? Indoctrinated parrots with college degrees in physics love to make YouTube videos where they show off their official authoritative ignorance. Either the people making the YouTube content are part of the special effects team or unwitting dupes who do not realize the knowledge they possess is as cartoonish and unreal as any other imaginary idea sold under the guise of "religion". Yes modern "space" physics is a religion that requires its adherents to be an unconscious faithful flock.

"...sufficient forward velocity so that the sum of their velocities toward and parallel to earth keeps them at the same distance from earth,,,"

"It is important to distinguish between “freefall” and “weightlessness.” Even in orbital flight, for example when the Space Shuttle orbits 300 km above the Earth's surface, gravity is only slightly less than at sea level (9.37 m/s2 compared to 9.81 m/s2 at sea level). Thus terms like “microgravity,” “zero-gravity,” and “weightless” are technically incorrect when applied to orbital flight (and atmospheric aircraft maneuvers), although they are often used to describe the perception that astronauts experience during freefall. Spacecraft in Earth orbit are continually falling toward the earth under the force of gravity, but are given sufficient forward velocity so that the sum of their velocities toward and parallel to earth keeps them at the same distance from earth; as the spacecraft falls toward the earth, the earth curves away from under it. Astronauts perceive themselves to be weightless because they are falling under the influence of the same gravitational field as the spacecraft, so there is no reaction force on the astronaut by the spacecraft."

quote source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/


Sir Isaac Newton's Admission: There is no reason to buy into mathematically backed fantasy fiction.

Newton puts forth no fundamental hypothesis as foundation for the rest of his musings. Mathematics is language and like language it can produce gibberish and babble and can “embody” things that are not real. Sir Isaac Newton admits this in print. This is not real science and was never supposed to be.

“We said, in a mathematical way, to avoid all questions about nature or quality of this force, which we would not be understood to determine by any hypothesis; and therefore call it by the general name of a centripetal force, as it is a force which is directed towards some centre; and as it regards more particularly a body in that centre…”

quote source: Sir Isaac Newton

The centripetal force to which Sir Isaac Newton refers is gravity's accelerated pull.

Newton+Wrong+2.jpg
Newton+Wrong+1.jpg

Orbits are a hoax. And so are parabolic flights.

The visuals of astronauts floating in a magical circular free fall is nonsense and defies reality. It is just Hollywood stage magic illusion. Gravity will always pull you towards Earth's center with accelerated velocity.

A major problem with imagined orbits is that we have to accept that the International Space Station is somehow (magically) able to be both subjected to some 90% of Earth's gravitational pull towards its center of mass, while being weightless, which obviously means that it would not be subject to 90% or any gravitational effect at all. Weight is the real world demonstration of the "force" or Natural effect we term "gravity" or "gravitation". Centrifugal effect would mean the ISS would be shot away from the Earth in a straight line, were such a thing possible, which it is not. Centrifuge effect is a huge problem. I will get into more details in the real article, but for now consider that imagined orbits contradict actual centrifugal effects we can demonstrate with mixing bowls and Biblical like slings and stones, or a ball tied to a string. If the pull of gravity is canceled, one must cut the string. If one must use the pull of gravity to justify orbits like Newton imagines, one has to model it with a string that pulls at the ball at an accelerated rate, eventually resulting in the ball hitting the hand of the person swinging it in circular fashion. Parabolic flights make no sense based on the same reasoning. A passenger jet would have to be put in free fall and can't simply do a roller coaster like loop to magically cancel gravity. There is no real underlying science to it as far as I can tell. Parabolic flights defy demonstrable physics. More to come. Future articles will get into all the wonderful detail. If you are really interested you can simply look into it all for yourself. There are many layers of lies that protect the International Space hoax; many mazes to get lost in. The truth is NASA is just a Hollywood special effects studio and one should not take any of their work seriously at all. The NASA modus operandi is a world wide, international con job and always was. Outer Space is not a place, it is an idea.

Newton+Wrong.jpg

The centripetal force to which Newton refers is the accelerated effect of gravitation. This cannot be balanced with the fixed velocity of an imaged projectile.

source: Newton's Principia : the mathematical principles of ... - Internet Archive


"In the 1960s, Wernher von Braun put together a series of articles about space flight..."

"In an inertial frame, if there really were two equal-but-opposite forces on the satellite as von Braun drew them, then the total force on it would be zero.  So it wouldn't accelerate; it would move in a straight line with constant speed.  Since the orbiting satellite doesn't move in a straight line, neither von Braun's picture nor his explanation can be right."

The sentence below is simple logical nonsense that can only exist as apologetics: 

"The important point is that as the bullet moves faster and faster, a magical speed is reached where the curved Earth drops away from the bullet precisely as fast as the bullet falls to the ground; added to which, the direction of "down" keeps changing."

"In the 1960s, Wernher von Braun put together a series of articles about space flight, some of which were published in Popular Science Monthly.  Eventually they were collected and made into the book Space Frontier, (1st ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston).  It's a very readable book, and talks about how rockets work, and flight and safety in space.  In one of the articles, von Braun explains why a satellite is able to stay up while in Earth orbit. He begins the article by asking what would happen if we could throw an object horizontally, but at faster and faster speeds, such as in the picture shown here.  "Eventually", he writes, "the curvature of the downward-bent trajectory would become equal to the curvature of the earth."  This is almost well and good.  (It's not quite right to say that the curvatures of the orbit and Earth's surface are the same, even for circular motion, but this is a minor error compared with what comes next.) The important point is that as the bullet moves faster and faster, a magical speed is reached where the curved Earth drops away from the bullet precisely as fast as the bullet falls to the ground; added to which, the direction of "down" keeps changing.  As a result, the bullet never gets any closer to the ground—it's in orbit.  This is actually a marvellous special feature of an inverse square force like gravity; it would not be guaranteed to happen if gravity were not inverse square.  In general, orbits are ellipses, and one such is drawn on the left.  A picture just like this was originally included by Sir Isaac Newton in his Principia of 1687.  After this fine start, von Braun then proceeds to muddy the water.  He says that as the bullet is shot at ever faster speeds, "its trajectory will be less deflected because the centrifugal force is increased by its higher speed, and more effectively counteracts the Earth's gravitational pull."  At this point physicists baulk.  Centrifugal force?  What has that got to do with satellite motion? Next, von Braun draws a picture of a satellite in Earth orbit.  Acting on the satellite are two forces: gravity, pulling the satellite toward Earth, and this centrifugal force, pushing the satellite away.  He writes "A circular orbit occurs whenever a small mass, travelling through the gravitational field of a big one, happens to have a speed at which the centrifugal force is precisely strong enough to balance the large body's gravitational pull."  And later, "If the balance between gravitational and centrifugal force is not perfect, [...] the small body will describe an elliptical path around the large one."

"What would Newton say?  He too would draw the forces acting on the satellite, and would then proceed to apply his "force = mass × acceleration"; but first, he'd want to choose an "inertial frame" within which to do this, since his laws only work in inertial frames.  An inertial frame is one in which, if we throw a ball, it moves away from us with constant velocity (i.e. constant speed in a straight line). Since this doesn't quite happen on Earth, the frame Newton would choose would be something more all-encompassing, outside of Earth.  One good approximation would be the frame of the Solar System, within which the Sun is at rest and Earth revolves fairly accurately in a circle around it, once a year.  An inertial frame like this is presumably what von Braun is using, because anything noninertial won't tie in too well with his picture of Earth plus satellite. In an inertial frame, if there really were two equal-but-opposite forces on the satellite as von Braun drew them, then the total force on it would be zero.  So it wouldn't accelerate; it would move in a straight line with constant speed.  Since the orbiting satellite doesn't move in a straight line, neither von Braun's picture nor his explanation can be right."

source: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Centrifugal/centri.html


Newtonian gravity an occult perpetual miracle?

“We said, in a mathematical way, to avoid all questions about nature or quality of this force, which we would not be understood to determine by any hypothesis; and therefore call it by the general name of a centripetal force, as it is a force which is directed towards some centre; and as it regards more particularly a body in that centre…”

quote source: Sir Isaac Newton •  Newton's Principia : the mathematical principles of ... - Internet Archive


Big Bang Theory Hoax.jpg

image source: The Big Bang Theory • CBS

Star Trek.jpg

Please take note that the University indoctrinated mind really does have no idea how to think rationally.

This semi mythic characters vs that quasi historical idol.

What university textbook based material tends to be filled with is all the obvious logical fallacies. Chief among these obvious intellectual failings is the use of the cult of personality and biography to push forms of idolatry rather than demonstrable fact. The university curriculum is designed to put persona first. In this manner people confuse marketing hype with explanation. They confuse the claim or allegation with evidence. They confuse model with reality.

These people get caught up in worrying about soap opera style dramas and other sorts of intellectual conflicts and never look at the underlying assumptions.

The heliocentric model itself is flawed and not based in the real world. Arguing over details like men like Newton and Leibniz apparently did is like arguing over who is more powerful, Superman or Thor.

I don't care whether Newton existed or not, I don't care about whether any of these men were real. I am focused on the ideas. In this case, the ideas of men like Newton and company are not based in reality in the first place, and this very important fact is one that is usually completely overlooked.

There is no logical reason to intellectually twist one's mind into a pretzel to believe that the Sun is the center of the Universe* and that the Earth moves. These are religious ideas with no basis in reality at all. I will publish more articles to explain all of this, but suffice it to say, there is no evidence the Earth moves at all and all real evidence points to a simple and obvious truth. The exact truth we witness all the time. The Earth is motionless. This is the world we experience and witness. The world of the university indoctrinated mind is a virtual one. Virtual is all it will ever be.

(* Please note - Newton and company believed the Sun was the center of the Universe. This ad hoc assumption would need to be patched with similar ad hoc reasoned nonsense so many times that we end up with a mulitversal chorus of Big Banged black holed quantum cacophony that men like Sir Isaac Newton would find insane. )

The educational mental sleight of hand relies on unwitting and unconscious adherence to what amounts to nothing but catechism and gossip based nonsense.

The college educated mind is conditioned to confuse repeating ad hoc patched catechism with real demonstrable science. The professional systems that derive from this educational foundation are infected with the same limiting mind virus that results in a world of overgrown imbecile children who lurk in video infested 'man caves' waiting for the next comic book flick or Star Wars film to be released. They play video games that simulate 'outer space' and really do believe in all the obvious International Space lies they are sold is real as they continue to get their minds and souls sucked into ubiquitous and highly addictive, mind altering, silicon based 'smart screens".

These people will never notice they can never get go the the promised land of 'outer space'. They do not notice that it only exists in art and on screens.


ISS Star Wars Lucasfilm.jpg

ISS Is A Hollywood Stage Illusion, Special Effect Hoax:

Star Wars Lucasfilm imagine-engineers young and adult minds. Outer Space can only exist on a screen or in print.

image source: https://www.iss-casis.org/about/about-the-iss-national-lab/


Newtonian gravity is an occult perpetual miracle. It is fantasy.

The quote from the article linked below is revealing and yet the author of the article does not truly understand what the real problems with Newton's imagined orbits are. Instead the author is focused on anything but the foundational idea and claim. This article that I put together does the opposite. I quote Newton and show why his ideas fail to live up to any claim of being demonstrable science. If you read the article, take care not to get lost in a maze of unquestioned assumptions.

I understand that this person, like most everyone else, buys into the claims of International Space fakery, so their own self apologetics is somewhat understandable. Yet in the context of all the Youtube videos that show obvious NASA fakery and the obvious history of stage illusion and Hollywood special effects that easily explains it all, one has to wonder why nobody seems to notice how fallacious these ideas actually are. Orbits are not real. The rising and setting Moon is nothing like a falling apple.

"Leibniz first, in a letter to Conti, laid out many of the same problems he expressed to Clarke, notably that Newtonian gravity must be either a perpetual miracle or an occult quality. He goes on to criticize Newton's methods, and claims he is not following his own teachings, as he is not drawing conclusions from experiments but conjecturing from his results. "

quote source: https://digitalwindow.vassar.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1617&context=senior_capstone


University indoctrinated minds never question underlying assumptions.

The problem is and always was the Solar System model itself. It is not based on anything real. Arguing over models of something that contradicts all demonstrable Natural physical principles seems to be odd behavior, but that's humanity for you. The geocentric model of Ptolemy describes the real world we actually and demonstrably and Naturally experience and witness best.

Heliocentric based as hoc musings are marketing 'sizzle' - the basic globe shaped geocentric model is 'steak'.

"As an indication of exactly how good the Ptolemaic model is, modern planetariums are built using gears and motors that essentially reproduce the Ptolemaic model for the appearance of the sky as viewed from a stationary Earth. In the planetarium projector, motors and gears provide uniform motion of the heavenly bodies. One motor moves the planet projector around in a big circle, which in this case is the deferent, and another gear or motor takes the place of the epicycle."

quote source: The Ptolemaic Model

Orbits are a long standing hoax.

Pay no attention to the fact that the falling apple is not like the rising and setting Moon. Pay no attention to all real experiments that show the obvious lie to Newton's hypothesis-less orbital musings. Pay no attention to the fact that math (as a subject and tool) is just a collection of ways of expressing counting and not some kind of magical reality warping formula. Stay confused by what you've been led to believe based on words and what you've seen on screens and in print.

"Descartes' Physics"

We are constantly given the official false choice of religious doctrine vs heliocentric models. The fact is reality supports the geocentric model. We do not need Church authority anymore than we need University authority. Both are false choices. The Natural World itself is the source of all the models and the Natural World is obviously best modeled motionless. The basic heliocentric model of Copernicus needed patching, so Newton's work was 'born', but that too failed, so Einstein came along. See the ad hoc assumed pattern?

Read between the lines in this passage quoted below. Descartes' model is based on the reality we experience, (like Einstein's mind warping work) and he is twisting his mind into a vortex in an attempt to explain a model not based on the real world at all. These men would go out of their way and minds to make nonmoving into moving, all based on the rising and setting of celestial objects. We tend to forget that the lights in the sky are the primary light sources and that our efforts are artificial secondary sources of light. In any case, one can spend a lifetime getting lost in all these theories that do not actually model the real world at all, nor lead anywhere, just like one can spend a lifetime in a rabbit hole of conspiracy mazes.

"On the whole, the vortex theory offered the natural philosopher a highly intuitive model of celestial phenomena that was compatible with the mechanical philosophy. The theory was regarded as superior to Newton’s theory of universal gravitation since it did not posit a mysterious, occult quality (gravity) as the cause of the planetary orbits or the free-fall of terrestrial objects. The vortex theory likewise provided a built-in explanation for the common direction of all planetary orbits. Additionally, the vortex theory allowed Descartes to endorse a form of Copernicanism (i.e., sun-centered world) without running afoul of Church censorship. Since the alleged motion of the earth was one of the Church’s principal objections to Galileo’s science, Descartes hoped to avoid this objection by placing the earth at rest within a vortex band that circled the sun, such that the earth does not undergo a change of place relative to the containing surface of the neighboring material particles in its vortex band (Pr III 24–31; and section 3). Through this ingenious maneuver, Descartes could then claim that the earth does not move—via his definition of place and motion—and yet maintain the Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun. “The Earth, properly speaking, is not moved, nor are any of the Planets; although they are carried along by the heaven” (Pr III 28). In the long run, however, Descartes’ vortex theory failed for two fundamental reasons:"

"The theory was regarded as superior to Newton’s theory of universal gravitation since it did not posit a mysterious, occult quality (gravity) as the cause of the planetary orbits or the free-fall of terrestrial objects."

quote source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-physics/


Centuries of Unquestioned Assumptions Build A House of Cards Waiting To Fall

Even Halley's Comet is Fudged

Heliocentric theory relies on lies. None of this is real science. Apologetics and ad hoc reasoning hold this house of cards together. Wrong becomes right and down up by peer reviewed decree. Nonsense gets sold as some kind of "common sense" that is anything but. Modern cosmology does not withstand scrutiny. There is always an excuse and apologetics and gossip passed off as science. Unverifiable claims are not reproducible experiments, but legendary stories need not be recreated in classroom. Hearsay and myth are the equivalent of experiment. Nothing like the effects of the poisonous university system. Human beings get indoctrinated with what to think instead of learning how to think. Nobody seems very interested in going back and really talking apart these so called "settled" claims. These "genius" minds can do no wrong. Wrong becomes right and left right and day becomes night. Flat can become round, and 2+2=45. One man's opinion becomes engraved in stone as fact. Common sense explanation is replaced with what is nothing more than a Sun centered religious obsession. A lot more about this topic to come. Future articles will get into all of this and will show how nearly all heliocentric claims are not what they appear to be. For example, Tycho Brahe was not all he is advertised to be. His work leads to heliocentric nonsense and his work is not based on anting real either. Tycho Brahe built a model based on his own prejudices and not on observable reality. University hype is no substitute for rationale common sense based models of our world. The heliocentric based models do not accurately reproduce or even really come close to simulating the world we actually inhabit. These mathematical illusions model nothing real. Heliocentric models are based on needless, superstitious assumptions. How could Tycho Brahe prove comets were anything but "disturbances in Earth's atmosphere"? There is no way "parallax" could be used to prove anything. This is another calling card of the illogically premised theory sold as real science. Only one answer is allowed and no other interpretation can be considered. Sainted "scientific" idols must not be questioned. Even Tycho Brahe is right because it fits with Heliocentric beliefs. The Solar System model is nothing but an artificial construct. It is a literal religious relic that has no relationship to reality. Modern cosmology really is a joke. Falling rocks and apples are nothing like the celestial phenomena and primary lights we can refer to as "disturbances in Earth's atmosphere".

Close Enough = Settled Science

Nothing like having to be exact with one's "predictions". Plenty of room for fudge when it fits the paradigm. Halley did not even discover the comet named after him.

"Halley's returns to the inner Solar System have been observed and recorded by astronomers since at least 240 BC."

"Halley thus concluded that all three comets were, in fact, the same object returning about every 76 years, a period that has since been found to vary between 74–79 years"

"Halley's returns to the inner Solar System have been observed and recorded by astronomers since at least 240 BC. Clear records of the comet's appearances were made by Chinese, Babylonian, and medieval Europeanchroniclers, but were not recognized as reappearances of the same object at the time. The comet's periodicity was first determined in 1705 by English astronomer Edmond Halley, after whom it is now named."

"It did not pass through its perihelion until 13 March 1759, the attraction of Jupiter and Saturn having caused a retardation of 618 days."

"Halley was the first comet to be recognized as periodic. Until the Renaissance, the philosophical consensus on the nature of comets, promoted by Aristotle, was that they were disturbances in Earth's atmosphere. This idea was disproved in 1577 by Tycho Brahe, who used parallax measurements to show that comets must lie beyond the Moon. Many were still unconvinced that comets orbited the Sun, and assumed instead that they must follow straight paths through the Solar System. In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, in which he outlined his laws of gravity and motion. His work on comets was decidedly incomplete. Although he had suspected that two comets that had appeared in succession in 1680 and 1681 were the same comet before and after passing behind the Sun (he was later found to be correct; see Newton's Comet), he was unable to completely reconcile comets into his model."

"Ultimately, it was Newton's friend, editor and publisher, Edmond Halley, who, in his 1705 Synopsis of the Astronomy of Comets, used Newton's new laws to calculate the gravitational effects of Jupiter and Saturn on cometary orbits. This calculation enabled him, after examining historical records, to determine that the orbital elements of a second comet that had appeared in 1682 were nearly the same as those of two comets that had appeared in 1531 (observed by Petrus Apianus) and 1607 (observed by Johannes Kepler). Halley thus concluded that all three comets were, in fact, the same object returning about every 76 years, a period that has since been found to vary between 74–79 years. After a rough estimate of the perturbations the comet would sustain from the gravitational attraction of the planets, he predicted its return for 1758. Halley died in 1742 before he could observe this himself. Halley's prediction of the comet's return proved to be correct, although it was not seen until 25 December 1758, by Johann Georg Palitzsch, a German farmer and amateur astronomer. It did not pass through its perihelion until 13 March 1759, the attraction of Jupiter and Saturn having caused a retardation of 618 days. This effect was computed prior to its return (with a one-month error to 13 April) by a team of three French mathematicians, Alexis Clairaut, Joseph Lalande, and Nicole-Reine Lepaute.[27] The confirmation of the comet's return was the first time anything other than planets had been shown to orbit the Sun. It was also one of the earliest successful tests of Newtonian physics, and a clear demonstration of its explanatory power.”

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet

Comets: One Ad Hoc Assumptions After Another

Please notice how the explanation below is not very 'scientific' and how no other possible explanation is entertained. Atmospheric aberration is ignored. Can we check these men's work? How can we be sure they saw the same thing at the same time as claimed? Do you see how subjective this all is? It's like interpreting a rorschach test. Should we trust NASA to confirm it all? Is that really wise? This is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. A lot of the heliocentric based cosmology is usually equally flawed. It is all based on patching prior unquestioned assumptions instead of seeing the forest for the trees. All observation of the real and Natural World that tells you it is motionless is supposed to be filtered through a prism of fallaciously reasoned religious catechism.

"Tycho Brahe, who is said to have first viewed the comet slightly before sunset on November after having returned from a day of fishing, was the most distinguished observer and documenter of the comet's passing. Sketches found in one of Brahe's notebooks seem to indicate that the comet may have travelled close to Venus. These sketches depict the Earth at the centre of the Solar System, with the Sun and moon in orbit and the other planets revolving around the Sun, a model that was later displaced by heliocentricity. Brahe made thousands of very precise measurements of the comet's path, and these findings contributed to Johannes Kepler's theorising of the laws of planetary motion and realisation that the planets moved in elliptical orbits. Kepler, who was Brahe's assistant during his time in Prague, believed that the comet's behavior and existence was proof enough to displace the theory of celestial spheres, although this view turned out to be overly optimistic about the pace of change. Brahe's discovery that the comet's coma faced away from the Sun was also significant."

"One failing Brahe had in his measurements was in exactly how far out of the atmosphere the comet was, and he was unable to supply meaningful and correct figures for this distance  however, he was, at least, successful in proving that the comet was beyond the orbit of the Moon about the Earth and, further to this, was probably near three times further away."

"He did this by comparing the position of the comet in the night sky where he observed it (the island Hven, near Copenhagen) with the position observed by Thadaeus Hagecius (Tadeáš Hájek) in Prague at the same time, giving deliberate consideration to the movement of the Moon. It was discovered that, while the comet was in approximately the same place for both of them, the Moon was not, and this meant that the comet was much further out."

"Brahe's finding that comets were heavenly objects, while widely accepted, was the cause of a great deal of debate up until and during the seventeenth century, with many theories circulating within the astronomical community. Galileo claimed that comets were optical phenomena, and that this made their parallaxes impossible to measure. However, his hypothesis was not accepted."

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Comet_of_1577#Observations_by_Brahe_and_others

Please Note: The above description does not prove that comets are " ...beyond the orbit of the Moon about the Earth and, further to this, was probably near three times further away." as claimed. Not at all. This idea only has any truth at all in the context of an imagined model of Nature that has no real relationship to Nature. Heliocentric models offer only very shallow models of the real world. These models do not withstand scrutiny. When people use the stars and mechanical clocks to navigate the world, that is science. When people use the celestial phenomena for zodiac and celestial musings nobody had ever any reason to imagine in the first place, we can see how human beings let fantasy lead reason to some very absurd conclusions that have little relationship to actual reality. Instead of critical thinking the educated mind simply parrots back the catechism which will likely include unnecessary idol building, biographical details; and if you dare question underlying assumptions of blessed university saint, the indoctrinated 'educated" mind gets defensive and perhaps even angry. These people have been programmed to overlook the obvious in favor of the fantastic and truly believe their musings science.



College Education is More Indoctrination Than What Many Would Consider To Be True Education

Case Study: The Cavendish Experiment as Modern University Promoted Religious Ritual

The cavendish experiment is another circularly reasoned mess sold by colleges and universities as "settled science". The obvious air that surrounds the weights and the fact that pendulums make for terrible measuring instruments, get ignored in favor of making the collegial "grade". (This puts aside the fact that the experiment is pretty absurd, in the first place.) College professors get paid to preach the catechism like good parish priests should. They are unconscious agents of a very real religious faith. College educated minds are easy to trick with printed word on textbook page and pretty moving images on electronic screen, with or without authoritative voice over that the indoctrinated mind has come to love to listen to. The magic of such spell binding mental fare lies in mathematical fallacy and sleight of mind tomfoolery. More about this to come. Suffice it to say that educational reward systems are examples of Pavlov conditioning.


A lot more to come. Future articles will get into all the details and will continue to demonstrate the long con that is the ad hoc patchwork mainstream heliocentric based cosmology. It is a cartoon joke.



The Real Post WWII Technology: The Real Medium of the Fake "Space Age"

Ubiquitous hand held 'smart screens' come from somewhere. This is what government really spends our tax money on instead of huge rockets and nuclear bombs. Outer Space can only exist on a screen. Let Captain Kirk himself be your guide...

AT&T Archives: Microworld  source: AT&T Tech Channel


Postscript: Parabolic Flight Hoax

A separate but related, preview of another article.

images.jpg

image source: Kate Upton shows off her globes in zero gravity photo shoot - L7 World

A Sports Illustrated 21st Century Barbarella

"Barbarella is a 1968 science fiction film, directed by Roger Vadim and based on the French comic book. The film stars Jane Fonda as Barbarella: a 41st-century representative of the United Earth government sent to find scientist Durand Durand, whose positronic ray could destroy humanity. Producer Dino De Laurentiis ..."

source: Barbarella (film) - Wikipedia

1-s2.0-S0094576508001574-gr5 copy.jpg

DOWN

"Despite the aircraft trajectory including large (45°) pitch-up and pitch-down attitudes, the occupants experience a net force perpendicular to the floor of the aircraft."

image and seemingly illogical quote source: The dynamics of parabolic flight: Flight characteristics and ...

Gravitational acceleration is always towards the center of the Earth, despite all horizontal motion. This is basic demonstrable ballistic physics. The above illustration is depicting something that would seem to be absurd. The Lift, "L", is at an angle that defies common sense as gravity would be pointing towards the bottom of this screen. Gravity would be "pulling" or "pushing" everything towards the word "DOWN". "Weight' would be a pressure in this direction.

Think about what it would really be like to be on a passenger jet flying in this direction. You would not expect to be lying on the floor, would you? Does that make sense? This is angled like a children’s playground slide. The same 45 degree angle is equally problematic on the way up.


We can't wait on a line to take a rocket ride into 'outer space' and we can't wait on a line to take a parabolic flight.

"The Ups And Downs Of Parabolic Flight" 

January 1, 2005

"In an interview with Airport Journals, Diamandis outlined what he foresees as a possible timetable for John Q. Public’s progressive intervention into outer space. In the next two to four years, he envisions his zero gravity ride, which he calls a “high quality fun experience,” will become common place. In the next three to five years, sub-orbital flight will become available, followed by orbital flights in 2010."

"Since the founding of the Zero Gravity Corporation in 1993, Diamandis and Co-founder Byron Lichtenberg, a former NASA payload specialist/astronaut and Zero-G’s president and chief astronaut, have spent the last 11 years working on their dream to make it possible for the public to be able to enjoy the experience of weightless flight. The past five years were spent working closely with the FAA to perform the requisite engineering, aircraft modification and flight-testing needed to secure FAA certification. More than one thousand parabolas were conducted during the flight-test phase. Since it was the first commercial operation of its kind, the testing was extensive."

source: http://airportjournals.com/the-ups-and-downs-of-parabolic-flight/

Harness.jpg

image source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9ozNzc7drw

CEO and co-founder of the Zero Gravity Corporation

"Peter H. Diamandis (/diːʌˈmændɪs/; born May 20, 1961) is a Greek American engineer, physician,  and entrepreneur best known for being the founder and chairman of the X Prize Foundation, the co-founder and executive chairman of Singularity University and the co-author of The New York Times bestsellers Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think and BOLD: How to Go Big, Create Wealth, and Impact the World. He is also the former CEO and co-founder of the Zero Gravity Corporation, the co-founder and vice chairman of Space Adventures Ltd., the founder and chairman of the Rocket Racing League, the co-founder of the International Space University, the co-founder of Planetary Resources, founder of Students for the Exploration and Development of Space, and vice-chairman and co-founder of Human Longevity, Inc."

"In 1987, during his third year of medical school, Diamandis co-founded the International Space University alongside Todd B. Hawley and Robert D. Richards. Diamandis served as the managing director and chief operating officer of the university until 1989. Today, ISU offers a Space Studies program and two accredited Master of Space Studies degrees. It has grown into a $30 million university campus headquartered in Strasbourg, France."

source: Peter Diamandis - Wikipedia

Screen Shot 2017-12-13 at 9.03.09 PM.jpg

image source: GOOGLE search

You ever look up and see a Zero G parabolic flight over head? 

Zero G schedule.jpg

Consider the air traffic in these areas. I will get into this in more detail with the actual article.

G-Force One

"G-FORCE ONE flies in a FAA designated airspace that is approximately 100 miles long and ten miles wide. Usually three to five parabolas are flown consecutively with short periods of level flight between each set."

"HOW LONG DOES THE FLIGHT LAST? HOW LONG WILL I FEEL WEIGHTLESS?"

"The flight portion of a ZERO-G Experience® lasts approximately 90 to 100 minutes. During the flight 15 parabolas are performed each providing about 30 seconds of reduced gravity or weightlessness. By the end of the flight you will log about 6-7 minutes of reduced gravity - that's about as much zero-gravity time as Alan Shepard experienced on America's first human spaceflight."

ARE PARABOLIC FLIGHTS SAFE?

"Parabolic flights are extremely safe and have been flown for the past 50 years by NASA, The Russian Space Program and European Space Agency."

 

"Aboard our specially modified Boeing 727, G-FORCE ONE, weightlessness is achieved by doing aerobatic maneuvers known as parabolas. Specially trained pilots perform these aerobatic maneuvers which are not simulated in any way. ZERO-G’s passengers experience true weightlessness. Before starting a parabola, G-FORCE ONE flies level to the horizon at an altitude of 24,000 feet. The pilots then begins to pull up, gradually increasing the angle of the aircraft to about 45° to the horizon reaching an altitude of 32,000 feet. During this pull-up, passengers will feel the pull of 1.8 Gs. Next the plane is “pushed over” to create the zero gravity segment of the parabola. For the next 20-30 seconds everything in the plane is weightless. Next a gentle pull-out is started which allows the flyers to stabilize on the aircraft floor. This maneuver is repeated 15 times, each taking about ten miles of airspace to perform."

source: https://www.gozerog.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Experience.How_it_Works

image source: https://www.gozerog.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reservations.welcome&CFID=1507081&CFTOKEN=76ee3d09dcb53c1b-537C40A0-9050-575B-E27E201603D19A35

Zero G Hoax.jpg

image source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPZNexvIc0Y

"What is Zero G?"

"But getting the FAA's full permission to start this service for the public took a while -- 11 years, to be exact! "

"When I was in graduate school, I was desperate for a ride on NASA's zero gravity (parabolic flight) airplane. I wanted to experience weightlessness like NASA's astronauts in training. I tried everything to get aboard (including volunteering as a medical guinea pig), but could never score a seat. Finally I decided to take things into my own hands. Surely if I wanted to go so badly, others would want to do the same. Maybe there was a business to be created? So, in 1993, I partnered with two friends (Byron Lichtenberg and Ray Cronise) to start a commercial company (Zero Gravity Corporation or Zero-G) to offer this same experience to anyone who had the desire to go. But getting the FAA's full permission to start this service for the public took a while -- 11 years, to be exact! Over the next decade (1994 – 2004) we negotiated with an army of FAA bureaucrats who insisted that large-scale commercial zero g operations were not possible under existing FAA regulations… despite the fact that NASA had been operating parabolic flights for 40+ years. FAA bureaucrats kept demanding that I show them where in the regulations it stated that a passenger aircraft could be allowed to fly parabolic arcs. I had only one answer: "Show me where it says I can't?" Quite simply, none of these mid-level FAA civil servants had the power to say yes. Finally, a decade later, my request made it all the way up to the FAA administrator, Marion Blakey, an amazing woman who had the right answer: "Of course you should be able to do this—let's figure out how." Finally, in September 2004, we began commercial "Part-121" operations, doing our first flights for the filming of Richard Branson's TV show "Rebel Billionaire." Since then we have flown over 15,000 people into weightless, ages 9 to 93."

quote source: PETER DIAMANDIS: http://www.diamandis.com/blog/stephen-hawking-in-zero-g

"How Safe Is a Roller Coaster in the Sky?"

September 20, 2004

"Last week's announcement by the Zero Gravity Corporation that it would be offering weightless flights to paying customers was good news for thrill seekers.  Those who sign up for the experience will be treated to several stomach-rolling climbs and drops.  Although the planes used are slightly modified commercial planes, tests have shown that they can manage the demanding maneuvers. "It is definitely an unusual flight trajectory," said Peter Diamandis, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Zero Gravity.  "But it is not a dangerous flight trajectory."

"Exemptions"

"The FAA did allow for two exemptions in its first-ever approval for weightless flight service on a commercial basis. Generally, flights that involve pointing the nose above or below 30 degrees from horizontal are considered aerobatic and thereby require the wearing of parachutes.  But the FAA has permitted Amerijet and Zero Gravity to fly the parabolic maneuvers without strapping parachutes on all the passengers.  Diamandis said this would not reduce the safety. "You're flying at an altitude that you wouldn't be able to use a parachute," Diamandis said.  "The safest thing to do -- if there's a problem -- is to come back and land, just like a regular flight would."

Diamandis added that NASA's KC-135 flies its parabolas without the wearing of parachutes. The other FAA exemption involved drop-down oxygen masks, which any plane flying over 25,000 feet is required to have.  G-Force One will have oxygen masks below passenger seats, and in the separate floating area, but the FAA did not require an automatic system. The reason that the drop-downs are not necessary, said Diamandis, is that there are seven crewmembers on a G-Force One flight looking after 27 passengers.  In contrast, a flight attendant on a commercial airplane can be responsible for as many as 50 passengers. Asked whether these parabolic flights will be as safe as normal commercial flights, Takemoto said, "If they operate within the parameters that we set out, yes, they will be safe."

source: https://www.space.com/343-safe-roller-coaster-sky.html

Zero G flight March 26 2014 - Farewell  Airbus A300 ZeroG of Novespace.gif

Does this look real to you?

Can a real passenger jet do this? Does this look like it's following a couple of mile flight path as advertised?

image source: Zero G flight March 26, 2014 - Farewell Airbus A300 "ZeroG" of Novespace


A ZERO - G HISTORY

"After 11 years of surmounting meticulous procedures and safety regulations, co-founders Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, veteran astronaut Dr. Byron K. Lichtenberg and NASA engineer Ray Cronise acquired FAA approval for G-FORCE ONE, a specially modified Boeing 727-200, to take passengers on commercial parabolic flights. In October 2004, ZERO-G flew its first commercial flight operating under the same safety standards of all major air carriers and established its place into the extreme tourism industry as the first and only commercial Zero Gravity flight for the general public. Additionally,"

"In April 2006, ZERO-G became the first commercial company to gain permission from the Kennedy Space Center to use the shuttle runway and landing facilities to operate its weightlessness flights."

"In January 2008, Space Adventures, Ltd. acquired ZERO-G as a wholly owned subsidiary. ZERO-G has provided thousands of individuals the opportunity to experience weightlessness including clients Stephen Hawking, Martha Stewart and Buzz Aldrin. ZERO-G not only caters to private clients but various organizations as well. For example, National Geographic, Nick News and Discovery Channel have all flown on G-FORCE ONE."

"ZERO-G has also been featured on NBC’s The Today Show, Biggest Loser and The Apprentice."

"Apart from commercial flights, ZERO-G also provides research and educational flights."

source: http://www.gozerog.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.history

An International History of Always Faking Outer Space

NASA HOAX.jpg

Does this look like 30,000 feet to you?

Doesn’t this look like a photo real image? This image would seem to be a fake. The work of the Military Industrial Entertainment Complex™. This does not show us a passenger jet some 6 miles up in the atmosphere does it? This looks like a passenger jet coming in for some kind of horrible landing.

Zero G flight March 26 2014 - Farewell  Airbus A300 ZeroG of Novespace_1.gif

Does this look real to you?

Can a real passenger jet do this? Does this look like it's following a couple of mile flight path as advertised?

image source: Zero G flight March 26, 2014 - Farewell Airbus A300 "ZeroG" of Novespace

COMPARE:

zero-gravity-flight.gif

The Zero G Fallacy: How Would This Flight Path Cancel; Gravity in The First Place?

The direction of gravitational pull is towards the center of the Earth or the bottom of this screen. The flight path would not magically be able to alter this fact of Nature.

This is not to scale and the above animation does not demonstrate the time of the parabolic flight in real time. The proposed flight path would not result in a "Zero G" environment as advertised. This is not showing us what it would look like in real time, which would only emphasize my point. There seems to be many problems with the idea of the parabolic flight in the first place. The major one is that it ignores the fact that gravity accelerates bodies towards the center of the Earth, which would be towards the bottom of this screen. Imagine how it would really feel to be on such a flight and how you would really feel the gravity of the situation. The jet would have to plummet straight down, it would have to be falling for the passengers within to experience any illusion of "Zero G".

To Scale and Not Sped Up, The “Zero G” Top Part of Parabolic Arc Would Seem A Lot More Like A Flat Like Jet Flight Path Than Circular Like Roller Coaster Arc

The actual article will include a real time to scale simulation.

zero-gravity-flight 222.gif
Dovespace  The Parabolic Maneuver.gif

Does the above image look like a real passenger jet following a "parabolic" path at all? Does it not look like a marionette special effects shot standing still?

image source: http://www.dovespace.ch/parabolic-flights/the-parabolic-maneuver/

"..."Keplerian trajectory”, which is described as an unpropelled body in an ideally frictionless space..."

"Research in microgravity is the driving force for manned spaceflight and exploration beyond our home planet. During a parabolic flight maneuver, an aircraft is weightless by flying on a “Keplerian trajectory”, which is described as an unpropelled body in an ideally frictionless space subjected to a centrally symmetric gravitational field.

During this free-fall trajectory, the resultant of all forces acting on the aircraft other than gravity is nulled. An entire scientific parabolic flight campaign usually consists of three individual parabolic flights with 31 respective parabolas in sequence (93 parabolas in total)."

source: http://www.dovespace.ch/parabolic-flights/the-parabolic-maneuver/

Here is the video in real time to give you an idea why parabolic flights are a hoax. This is what the 30 second parabolic flight would look like, (not to scale).


“GO ZERO” For "Experiments" The Tax Payer Foots The Bill For

"We also fly experiments for NASA and for our own customers. When the researchers show up, it is interesting to see that they are from all walks of life, of different ages and backgrounds. But they are all focused on finding the answers to questions that will benefit the planet and the whole human race. I really wish the media would cover more of this type of news. It is amazing, the things they are working on."
quote source: http://www.airspacemag.com/space/in-the-zero-g-cockpit-7135617/#bhWrG0aSQAm443pw.99


Back To The Future Past: June 1, 2005 or 1955, Same Propaganda Promises Over & Over

Peter H. Diamandis' Movie: "Mojave Magic: A Turtle's Eye View of SpaceShipOne

"Jun 1, 2005 - Mojave Magic: A Turtle's Eye View of SpaceShipOne, shot on location at the remote Mojave Airport, documents the historic flights of SpaceShipOne, including the first privately funded human spaceflight on June 21, 2004, and the two subsequent flights on September 29 and October 4, 2004, that won the ..."

source: Mojave Magic: A Turtle's Eye View of SpaceShipOne - IPFS

"The Space Race began on August 2, 1955,"

"The Space Race began on August 2, 1955, when the Soviet Union responded to the US announcement four days earlier of intent to launch artificial satellites for the International Geophysical Year, by declaring they would also launch a satellite "in the near future". The Soviet Union beat the US to this, with the October 4, ..."

source: Space Race - Wikipedia


Heinz Haber.jpg

Operation Paperclip: Early Imagineers

Heinz Haber & his brother, The Fathers of The Parabolic Flight Hoax

original Heinz Haber Possible Parabolic proposition (link): Possible Methods of Producing the Gravity-Free State for Medical ...

"The brothers proposed parabolic flights for simulating weightlessness."

"After the end of the war Heinz Haber — as well as several other Germans involved in military research like Wernher von Braun — was targeted by the Operation Paperclip with the aim of denying scientific expertise and knowledge to the Soviet Union and bringing researchers and scientists to the United States; Ultimately this operation resulted in a considerable contribution to the development of NASA. Haber at first stayed in the American occupied zone of Germany and lectured at Heidelberg. However, in 1946, he emigrated to the United States and joined the USAF School of Aviation Medicine at Randolph Air Force Base. Together with fellow German Hubertus Strughold, he and his brother Dr. Fritz Haber (April 3, 1912 – August 21, 1998) made pioneering research into space medicine in the late 1940s.The brothers proposed parabolic flights for simulating weightlessness."

"When the Eisenhower administration asked Disney to produce a show championing the civilian use of nuclear power, Heinz Haber was given the assignment."

"In 1952, he became associate physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles; in the 1950s, Haber eventually became the chief scientific consultant to Walt Disney productions. He later co-hosted Disney’s Man in Space with von Braun. When the Eisenhower administration asked Disney to produce a show championing the civilian use of nuclear power, Heinz Haber was given the assignment. He hosted the Disney broadcast called Our Friend the Atom and wrote a popular children’s book with the same title, both of which explained nuclear fission and fusion in simple terms. General Dynamics, a manufacturer of nuclear reactors, sponsored Our Friend the Atom and the nuclear submarine ride at Disneyland’s Tomorrowland. 

In the 1960s and 1970s, he was well known in Germany as a popular science spokesperson and wrote magazine columns and numerous books and presented his own TV programs like Professor Haber experimentiert, Das Mathematische Kabinett, Unser blauer Planet, Stirbt unser blauer Planet?, Professor Haber berichtet, and WAS IST WAS mit Professor Haber. He was founding editor of the German science magazine Bild der Wissenschaft from 1964 to 1990. His memorable experiments included one where the onset of a nuclear chain reaction was simulated with hundreds of mousetraps, each one having been loaded with two ping pong balls."

image and quote source: Heinz Haber - Wikipedia


Heinz Haber, Disney & The Atomic Space Age

"Fiction often has a strange way of becoming fact"

Walt Disney

Heinz Haber.jpg

Legendary Astronaut Training

"Parabolic flight as a platform for astronaut training and engineering experiments was originally proposed in 1950 by Drs. Fritz Haber and Heinz Haber, of the Air Force School of Aviation Medicine, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. Early experimentation with the technique was conducted by legendary test pilots Scott Crossfield and Chuck Yeager in 1951 at Edwards Air Force Base, California, although initially only a few seconds of true freefall could be achieved, compared with 30 seconds envisioned by the Habers. Between 1955 and 1958, a refined approach in the F-94 fighter allowed a variety of medical experiments to be performed during 30 to 40 seconds of freefall. Between 1957 and 1959, the much larger C-131B cargo transport allowed simultaneous experiments on multiple subjects and sufficient room for Mercury program astronauts to train (Figure 2), although this slower, propeller-driven aircraft could only produce parabolas with 10 to 15 seconds of free fall."

source: The dynamics of parabolic flight: flight characteristics and passenger ...


Killing Albert The Monkey Over and Over Again, For "Science"!

Zero G Hoax.jpg

Project Paperclip: The V-2 Hoax & Origins of Parabolic Flight Fakery

source: Packing for Mars - Google Books Result

Haber.jpg

source: Packing for Mars - Google Books Result

OUR TAX DOLLARS FUND ZERO-G FLIGHTS!

Screen Shot 2017-12-14 at 5.32.27 PM.jpg

The Top Secret "Classified" Info: How Parabolic Flights Really Work

Wire work, digital image compositing, digital image retouching and camera control would seem to be the main tools used to 'forge' parabolic flights.

"Motion control photography is a technique used in still and motion photography that enables precise control of, and optionally also allows repetition of, camera movements. It can be used to facilitate special effects photography. The process can involve filming several elements using the same cameramotion, and then ..."

A Hollywood Produced NASA Mythology of Incredible Heroic Feats of State Financed Fancy: Our Tax Dollars At Work!

Government propaganda becomes Hollywood crafted profit. Parabolic flights are a component of the long standing National identity crafting, state sponsored , tax payer funded, lie. Real Governmental tax payer supported welfare at work.

By the way, no film studio is going to let their stars risk life and limb on a parabolic flight when Hollywood special effects can deal with it just fine. Does this really make sense as anything but Military Entertainment advertising? Do you really buy into Hollywood myth about Tom Hanks and Ron Howard using parabolic flights to craft the illusions they sold on screens? Do you think guys like that, who have a bunch of work lined up, would be allowed to rid their valuable lives for no reason at all? The hype on the other hand, sells not only the film, but NASA mythology as well. Hollywood and commercial video and film production crews require controlled sets. Even the News is makes use of Hollywood production techniques to meet deadlines. Parabolic flights with limited 25 - 30 second shooting durations does not sound like the right stuff for any kind of video or film production. Faking it makes more sense.

All we have as evidence of parabolic flights are the same kind of highly edited mass produced propaganda products that Hollywood and NASA crank out all the time.

The long and obvious history of stage magic and Hollywood special effects technology easily explains all that we see in video and film. There is no reason to use parabolic flights for any production., assuming such a fantastic feat possible in the first place.

quote source:

Motion control photography - Wikipedia


Zero Gravity Flight: Does This Really Make Sense?

Can a huge passenger jet even fly like the parabolic flight would need it to? Keep in mind this is an article preview, the actual article will get into all the details.

"During a zero gravity flight, an aircraft engine thrust is set to equal drag force while lift is removed. Hence, weight is the only force acting on the plane and, like any unpowered object fired into the air, it will move in a parabolic curve as it free falls. The experience starts at 7,700 m while the AIRBUS A300 cruises at 500 miles/hour. Engines are shut off*! An instant later, the world inside the plane becomes chaos: people screaming as they are lifted, as if they are weightless. 20 seconds later, the engines roar back to life. The people inside, some pinned to the cabin roof, slam back against the floor."

"Airplanes fly by forcing air over their wings in such a way that there is an excess of the upwards force, lift. While in the air, the plane stays up thanks to lift and moves forward because of the forward thrust provided by the engines. The aircraft battles against two forces trying to slow it down and pull it out of the sky - air friction and gravity. On a normal flight, the amount of thrust will be greater than the friction and the lift will equal the weight so that the plane stays up."
"*During a parabolic flight, thrust is set to equal air friction while lift is simultaneously removed."

"The experience starts at 7,700 m while the AIRBUS A300 cruises at 500 miles/hour. Engines are shut off*!

source: http://rotorlab.tamu.edu/me489_SP11/lectures/Example_writing_MATH_parabolic%20flight.pdf

COMPARE:

NASA = Never A Straight Answer

"During phase C, the airplane flies freely, without any external forces acting against it, except for wind (aerodynamic drag). The pilot can exactly cancel the effects of drag by keeping the engines running at just the right level. The passengers are weightless during this part of the ride."

"Wait a Minute ... You might notice that the airplane is flying horizontally during both phase A and at the exact middle of phase C. So why do the passengers feel normal weight in the former case and weightlessness in the latter case, even though the direction of travel is exactly the same? The answer lies in what happens just before and after the point in question. During phase A, the motion of the airplane is steady and unchanging. In the middle of phase C, the direction of travel is changing -- before the airplane it traveling upward, then level, then downward; it is following the path of a freely falling cannon ball. Freely falling objects don't travel in a straight horizontal line."

Screen Shot 2017-12-14 at 1.15.08 PM.jpg
6.jpg

"The airspeed when the aircraft reaches the top of the parabola, at approximately 34000 ft (10000 m), is 140 KT IAS (245 KT TAS, 130 m/s, Mach 0.43)."

"Figure 6 shows an example of the g levels experienced during two parabolas in the NASA C-9B. The flight characteristics required to produce these g levels are as follows. The C-9 begins the parabola by accelerating to 350 knots indicated airspeed (KT IAS) while level around 24000 ft (7300 m). This is equivalent to 510 knots true airspeed (KT TAS), 265 m/s or Mach 0.83. (Indicated airspeeds and pitch angles provided by NASA Aircraft Commander Terry Pappas, Personal Communication, April 19, 2006. When making computations based on airspeed, indicated airspeed is adjusted for ambient pressure, and is used for calculations involving aerodynamics such as wing lift. True airspeed is the scalar speed of the aircraft relative to the surrounding air mass, and is used for calculations such as g level.) After the aircraft reaches this maximum speed, a slow climb is initiated while at full thrust to produce vertical speed without reducing airspeed, producing a g level of approximately 1.5 g. Next, a steeper climb further increases vertical velocity and pitch angle, while reducing airspeed, producing a g level of approximately 1.8 g. As pitch angle increases there is a small aftward acceleration (typically less than 0.2 g) of the occupants because the aircraft’s longitudinal acceleration is larger than the component of gravity in this direction. At approximately 225 KT IAS (360 KT TAS, 185 m/s, Mach 0.61), when the aircraft is pitched nose-up 45°, the pilots commence the 0 g parabola. They push forward on the control yoke ("push over") to lower the angle of attack of the wings, which reduces wing lift, and simultaneously reduce power to a level just sufficient to overcome drag. At this point the aircraft's movement approximates that of a ballistic mass rather than that of an aerodynamic craft. The airspeed when the aircraft reaches the top of the parabola, at approximately 34000 ft (10000 m), is 140 KT IAS (245 KT TAS, 130 m/s, Mach 0.43). This is approximately 20 KT below the unaccelerated stall speed of the aircraft, the speed below which the wings cease to produce lift in 1 g flight, because as speed decreases the required angle of attack increases, causing separation of the airflow from the wing. The actual stall speed is equal to the unaccelerated stall speed scaled by the square root of the load factor (load supported by the wings divided by total aircraft weight), which means that in 0 g a stall does not occur at any speed since the wings are not supporting any weight. However, in an abort situation a parabola could not be halted and level flight entered until the downward portion of the parabola had started and the aircraft had sufficient airspeed to produce lift. After 25 seconds, at the end of the parabola, when the nose is pitched down 45° and airspeed is close to 350 KT IAS, the pilots pull up (pull back on the control yoke) and increase thrust to change the aircraft’s downward velocity into upward velocity, and restart the cycle. Typically, a set of 10 parabolas is performed in sequence, followed by a 180° turn, and this is repeated four times for a total of 40 parabolas."

"...0 g...the wings are not supporting any weight."

image and quote source: The dynamics of parabolic flight: flight characteristics and passenger ...

The huge passenger jet wings are simply ignored for the duration of the Zero G portion of the parabolic flight, the wings can ignore the atmosphere?

Does this make sense? Does this make sense in the context of the arc part, (the 0 g part) of the illustration above?

Please compare this description to the explanation from the video below.


Parabolic flights are at some 330 MPH for some 25 Seconds or so...

This works out to about a 2.29 mile path for the duration of the supposed 0 g portion of the parabolic flight.

mac .43.jpg

"The aircraft is a two-engine modified Airbus A310 “Zero-G” aircraft."

"It is based at the Aéroport International de Bordeaux–Mérignac. Aircraft maximum mass:157 tonnes. Overall length: 46.4 metres. Wingspan: 43.9 metres."

The Airbus is some 150 feet in length. The flight path is some 80.6  Airbus lengths, for context. All the evidence would seem to point to a hoax.

Notice how they do not show this flight path to scale?

source: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Research/Airbus_A310_Zero-G


Free Falling, Like All Falling is Towards Earth's Center

The parabolic arc effect is supposed to last some 25 seconds or so, depending on the source. Please notice how this explanation ignores the upper portion of the journey and the fact that free fall would mean the passenger jet would have to fall with the accelerated rate of gravity. Parabolic flights would seem to ignore demonstrable (real world)  ballistic physics. The actual article will explore all these 'devilish' details in depth.

"On a parabolic flight, thrust is set to equal air friction while lift is simultaneously removed. This leaves weight as the only force acting o the plane and, like any unpowered object fired into the air, it will move in a parabolic curve as it free falls. At this point, because everything inside the aircraft begins falling to Earth at exactly the same speed as the plane, the contents act as they are weightless."

"At 25,000ft, the pilot cuts power to the engines. For the briefest of moments, there is silence. Then, the world inside the plane become a phantasmagoria: people gasp and scream as they are lifted, limbs moving chaotically. Bottles filled with coins rise into the air and th contents begin a serene dance, as if held by an unknown force. Finally, 20 seconds after the Airbus A300 begins plummeting towards the Mediterranean, the engines roar back to life. The people inside, some of whom are pinned to the roof of the cabin, slam back against the floor. The quiet that follows is broken by a sharp hiss. voice on the intercom crackles "Next parabola, one minute." Thanks to these flights, scientists can, for 20 seconds at a time, test satellite components or predict problems with experiments destine for the International Space Station before they are sent into orbit. Falling out of the sky in an airplane is the only practical way to experience microgravity without leaving Earth. At a safety briefing on the morning of my arrival, the pilot explains how the flight will proceed followed by a doctor who tells us how to survive the experience. Airplanes fly by forcing air over their wings in such a way that there is an excess of the upwards force, lift. While in the air, the plane stays up thanks to lift and moves forward because of the forward thrust provided by the engines. The aircraft battle against two forces trying to slow it down and pull it out of the sky - air friction and gravity. On a normal flight, the amount of thrust will be greater than the friction and the lift will equal the weight so that the plane stays up. On a parabolic flight, thrust is set to equal air friction while lift is simultaneously removed. This leaves weight as the only force acting o the plane and, like any unpowered object fired into the air, it will move in a parabolic curve as it free falls. At this point, because everything inside the aircraft begins falling to Earth at exactly the same speed as the plane, the contents act as they are weightless."

source: http://rotorlab.tamu.edu/me489_SP11/lectures/Example_writing_MATH_parabolic%20flight.pdf


"Parabolic Motion of Projectiles"

"A projectile is an object upon which the only force is gravity. Gravity, being a downward force, causes a projectile to accelerate in the downward direction. The force of gravity could never alter the horizontal velocity of an object since perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other. A vertical force does not effect a horizontal motion. The result of a vertical force acting upon a horizontally moving object is to cause the object to deviate from its otherwise linear path."

"This is depicted in the animation below."

bds.gif

"...perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other..."

"According to Newton's law of inertia, an object in motion in a horizontal direction would continue in its horizontal motion with the same horizontal speed and direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced horizontal force. The animation above shows a green sphere moving to the right at constant speed. The horizontal distance traveled in each second is a constant value. The red sphere undergoes a vertically accelerated motion which is typical of an object upon which only the force of gravity acts. If these two motions are combined - vertical free fall motion and constant horizontal motion - then the trajectory will be that of a parabola. An object which begins with an initial horizontal velocity and is acted upon only by the force of gravity will follow the path of the blue sphere. It will travel the same horizontal distance in each consecutive second but will fall vertically a greater distance in each consecutive second. The result is a parabolic path as shown in the animation above."

image and quote source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/vectors/bds.cfm

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Initial-Velocity-Components


"Parabolic Motion of Projectiles" vs "Parabolic Flights"

Do you see a problem?


45 Degrees: Angled Flights of Fancy

Notice how they do not show this flight path to scale and in proportion? We do not have a proper visual context to look at. Instead we have what could be a very misleading graphic representation. This would seem to be the case.

Zero_gravity_flight_trajectory_C9-565.jpg

25 Official Seconds of "Zero Gravity"

Does this really make sense? Consider the fact that this illustration shows us that the passenger jet is supposed to be spending some one third of the 25 seconds inclined either up or down at around a 45 degree angle. As we can demonstrate with ballistic physics the forward  motion cannot magically effect the direction of gravitational pull.

Were a big passenger jet able to pull off such a flight, which we should not simply assume possible, one would expect the upward portion to be just like going up a hill in a car and the downward portion just like driving down a hill. We would not expect to be able to be thrown with the passenger jet in some kind of magical parabolic arc that cancels gravity and common sense. Consider too that we are supposed to associate this "Zero-Gravity" with the floating images from the Fake Space Station. The actual article about this subject, will trace the parabolic flight back to its origins with Operation Paperclip. We shall examine that original explanation and look at all the other explanations to see if any of them actually make sense.

Zero_gravity_flight_trajectory_C9-565.jpg

image source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upside_Down_%26_Inside_Out#/media/File:Zero_gravity_flight_trajectory_C9-565.jpg

Do you think the wings would Not be supporting the weight of the aircraft at the height of the supposed parabolic arc as claimed?

The Zero-G part of the supposed trip clearly shows us a passenger jet flying as we would expect. During the supposed Zero-G flight, the jet is supposed to be like a cannonball, and the wings are not supposed to be supporting its weight. Does this really make sense? 

This comes across as simple and straightforward as the rest of the NASA nonsense. "Never A Straight Answer" is apt description for NASA and the rest of the international space con job. Nothing needs to make sense when it's all smoke and mirror Hollywood illusion and edited computer composted image sequences.

Screen Shot 2017-12-13 at 4.53.08 PM.jpg

25 Seconds of Weightless Flight

"Weightless Flight (also known as Parabolic Flight) is achieved aboard ZERO-G’s Boeing 727 aircraft named G-FORCE ONE. Weightlessness is achieved by flying G-FORCE ONE through a parabolic flight maneuver.  Specially trained pilots fly these maneuvers between approximately 24,000 and 34,000 feet altitude. Each parabola takes 10 miles of airspace to perform and lasts approximately one minute from start to finish."

"The maneuver is somewhat like a roller coaster in that the plane is initially pulled up to approximately 45 degrees (nose high).  Next the plane is "pushed over" the top to begin the zero-gravity segment of the parabolas. For the next 25 - 30 seconds everything in the plane is weightless. At approximately 30 degrees (nose low) a gentle pull-out is started which allows the Flyers to stabilize on the aircraft floor. Finally, the g-force is increased smoothly to about 1.8 g's until the aircraft reaches a flight altitude of 24,000 feet. The maneuver is then repeated."

"The weightlessness experienced by everyone inside the airplane is actually equivalent to the type of free fall you experience when sky diving. In this case however, the body of the aircraft surrounds you and protects you from the on-rushing wind. At the end of the free fall period, the aircraft also scoops you up and carries you back up to the top of the arc to begin the free fall process again. In addition to achieving zero-g or weightlessness, G-FORCE ONE can also fly a parabola designed to offer Lunar (1/6th) or Martian (1/3rd) gravity. These reduced gravity environments are created with a modified parabola that is not quite as steep as zero gravity parabola."

quote and image source: https://www.incredible-adventures.com/zero-g-how.html

Parabolic Flight Hoax

Please watch the video below for an explanation as to how the parabolic flight is supposed to work.

Does this explanation really make sense? More to come about this. Parabolic flights are best explained with old school and new school Hollywood special effects techniques. The physical explanation for these flights is as equally fallacious as Newton's imagined orbits are. We have to believe that a passenger jet capable of such agile feats in the first place, and the source of these claims is the same Military Industrial Entertainment Complex that fakes space. As we shall see, there is very good reason to not buy into the highly edited footage sold as parabolic flights. This footage is not evidence, it is allegation. It is edited visual gossip and nothing more. We have been conditioned by a life time of moving audio visual images to believe these images are evidence and represent reality when nothing could be further from the truth.


This does not make sense:

"Despite the aircraft trajectory including large (45°) pitch-up and pitch-down attitudes, the occupants experience a net force perpendicular to the floor of the aircraft."

"Between parabolas, the aircraft must climb to regain altitude, and during this 40 second interval when downward velocity is reduced and eventually becomes upward velocity, g levels reach 1.8 g. (Contrary to popular misconception, the 0 g freefall phase of flight begins as the aircraft climbs, and does not occur solely as the aircraft descends. Although the aircraft has upward velocity during the initial 0 g phase, its acceleration is downward: the upward velocity is decreasing.)"

"Trajectory flown during parabolic flight. The aircraft starts by accelerating to gain velocity before pulling up to convert horizontal velocity into vertical velocity. During the pull-up the g level increases. When a sufficient upward velocity is achieved, ..."

"A challenge in performing parabolic flight maneuvers is to fly in a way that keeps occupants in the same location and orientation relative to the aircraft, despite the aircraft being tilted a maximum of more than 45° relative to the earth and rotating in pitch through approximately 90° in 30 seconds."

source: The dynamics of parabolic flight: flight characteristics and passenger ...

Do you see the problem?

The force should be perpendicular to the Earth surface. When we watch videos of supposed parabolic flights we should see a slide like effect due to the steep angle of attack both on the way up and on the way down and yet the motion is perpendicular to the passenger jet floor as if it were all shot on a film set, which would seem to be the case. Computer image compositing makes what used to take many hours of darkroom work a much easier task, especially in the hands of a skilled craftsman.


Parabolic flights are a hoax.

The flight would be like a roller coaster ride.

Gravity would never magically get turned off. Momentum and gravity will still work and there is no logical reason to think otherwise.

If a parabolic flight were real, we would never feel weightless. Gravitational effect is still towards Earth's center. As we rise this is the case and as we fall again, this is the case. As we make an arc motion, this is still the case. Demonstrable ballistic physics easily explains why parabolic flights are not real.

If we were on the parabolic flight and threw a ball during the "Zero G" phase of the trip, the ball would still possess the momentum from the motion of the passenger jet and would still be subjected to attraction to Earth's surface (gravity). The momentum might include acceleration from gravity itself.  The point is the thrown ball would respond as we'd expect were we motionless. We would be sharing the same relative motion with the ball and any additional motion we imparted to the ball would be subject to gravity, it would not float like it was weightless. This is basic demonstrable physics.

All a parabolic flight would ever be like, assuming a passenger jet could maneuver as parabolic advertisement claims, is a really fast roller coaster ride. You would not experience weightlessness.

I will explain this further in the actual article.


Does this look real to you?

How to fly a zero gravity flight - do you know? source: euronews Knowledge

comparehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_surfaces

"In the Zero-G Cockpit: As the pilot of a 727 that simulates weightlessness, John Benisch is always searching for that perfect parabola."

"I have 3,300 pilot-in-command hours on the B-727-200 platform, and I have accomplished 4,136 parabolic arcs. I have been in the cabin floating zone twice during initial training. Another trainee and I had the whole back of the aircraft to ourselves to see if we would experience motion sickness. It was simply awesome."

"Some arcs seem more intense, with more hang time, so to speak, than others. What is your technique for achieving those extended arcs?"

"I was trained by Captain Nader Daily. He said to me on the first day of training, “John, it is so much more of an art than it is a science.” About parabolic flight, no truer words have been spoken. Each mission brings with it different aircraft weights, different weather, different center of gravity and different airspace to work in. My personal technique begins the night before each mission. I meditate about the mission from pre-flight through post flight while listening to very relaxing music. There is a lot going on in the flight deck, so it is essential that all three crew members be relaxed and focused on achieving great arcs. We all focus intently on the instruments. I am responsible for THE PULL and controlling the hyper gravity, or 1.8Gs, in the climb segment, and on the PUSH OVER controlling the amount of micro gravity that is experienced. We can create lunar, Martian or zero gravity depending on the mission requirements. The key is controlling the micro-gravity in the PUSH with micro precision. It is quite a workout."
source: http://www.airspacemag.com/space/in-the-zero-g-cockpit-7135617/#rjky9M4jLZeSK7Ry.99


Airbus A300 “Zero-G” Aircraft

390 KM/H = 242.335 MPH

"At this point the aircraft follows a free-fall ballistic trajectory, i.e. a parabola, lasting approximately 20 seconds, during which weightlessness is achieved. The peak of the parabola is achieved at around 8500 metres, at which point the speed has dropped to about 390 km/h."

source: http://wsn.spaceflight.esa.int/docs/EUG2LGPr3/EUG2LGPr3-5-ParabolicFlights.pdf

45 Degrees Seems Kind of Steep: What About The Jet Stalling?

Wouldn't the passenger jet end up out of control? We are supposed to trust some of the same people who fake the international space program. All of this derives from a most unreliable -  Project Paper Clip/Disney/Hollywood - source.

"In fluid dynamics, a stall is a reduction in the lift coefficient generated by a foil as angle of attack increases. This occurs when the critical angle of attack of the foil is exceeded. The critical angle of attack is typically about 15 degrees, but it may vary significantly depending on the fluid, foil, and Reynolds number."

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(fluid_mechanics)


45 Degrees Seem Awfully Steep:

What about relative wind?

Parabolic flights would seem capable of achieving the impossible.

MISB_ST_0601.8_-_Platform_Angle_of_Attack.jpg

"The critical or stalling angle of attack is typically around 15° - 20° for many airfoils. Some aircraft are equipped with a built-in flight computer that automatically prevents the aircraft from increasing the angle of attack any further when a maximum angle of attack is reached, regardless of pilot input."

image and quote source: Angle of attack - Wikipedia


"I floated in zero-g with former astronaut Scott Kelly"

" ...nearly vertically upwards to moving straight down."

"To achieve weightlessness, the pilots point the plane’s nose upward at an angle of 45 degrees until the plane is nearly vertical. During this part of the flight the g-forces acting on our bodies is greater than normal – about 80 percent stronger than the standard gravity that we experience closer to the ground. This 1.8 g experience is strong enough that if I were standing up, not only would it be hard to prance around, but the body’s blood would be pushed downwards, making it more likely that I’d pass out. To avoid this, the crew has us lay on the floor, where I entertain myself by doing the hardest unweighted leg lifts of my life. Not mentioned in the brochure is the sound – it’s very loud. Ordinarily on planes you’re sitting a good distance from the plane’s mechanics. Laying on the floor this way, allows me to hear the plane in a way that is unique.

Once the plane hits the right altitude, they begin the “push over” maneuver, when the plane pivots from moving nearly vertically upwards to moving straight down. Before I begin to float, I can tell we’ve reached this point because the engine goes from very loud hum to a gentle whine, like a puppy begging for a treat. It’s here that for the 20-30 seconds that we enjoy weightlessness, turning summersaults, pushing off of the chairs in a superman maneuver, catching balls of water. A woman, who has come from China to spend three weeks riding America’s rollercoasters says that the flight is the high point of her trip."

source: https://www.popsci.com/i-flew-in-zero-g#page-6


IMPOSSIBLE FLIGHTS OF FANCY


Right-Stuff-Wire-Rocketplane-1.jpg

Hollywood has been making you believe models can really fly for a long, long time.

image source: Flying by Wire - Cinefex Blog


"Matt Damon and His Martian Costars Reveal the 'Totally, Totally Ridiculous' Way Their Zero-Gravity Shots Were Faked"

There are many ways to fake Zero G.

"While the Ridley Scott-directed film involved its fair share of CGI and “invisible” wires to make the actors appear as though they were floating about in space, sometimes they used simpler means to achieve the weightless look." “In some of the tighter shots, sometimes it makes sense not to do elaborate wire work,” Damon, 44, told reporters at a Toronto International Film Festival press conference on Friday, where he mimicked floating in space for a chuckling crowd. “You’re ‘in space,’ and you act while you’re standing on one foot and moving slowly. It’s totally, totally ridiculous, but within the confines of the frame, it totally works, and you can’t tell.”

quote source: http://people.com/movies/matt-damon-kate-mara-jessica-chastain-faked-zero-gravity-the-martian/


No parabolic flights ever needed.

These mythic flights are as much a product of Hollywood special effect technology, as the rest of the International Space hoax and NASA's output.

"Bullock was suspended from 12 carbon-thin wires, practically invisible onscreen, that were then manipulated by the puppeteers."

quote source: https://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Did-Gravity-Do-Secrets-Behind-Its-Groundbreaking-Special-Effects-39790.html

see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copperfield%27s_flying_illusion


Visual Gossip

Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

upside down.jpg

Images can be flipped to create a false impression.

image3.jpg
image2.jpg
2c7189985c8e588e04b75e67273883f9--flat-earth-behind-the-scenes.jpg

"How Did Gravity Do That? The Secrets Behind Its Groundbreaking Special Effects?"

"CGI There were some very real, very physical things that made Gravity possible, like that two-ton camera rig and wires that allowed Bullock to be manipulated like a marionette-- we'll get into those later. But maybe the most miraculous thing about the movie is how it uses CGI in ways that makes even jaded moviegoers marvel at the power of computers. "We knew that the only way to achieve this was digitally," Heyman tells us. "It wasn’t even a question." Some scenes, like the bravura "single-take shot" that opens the film, are almost entirely CGI, with the faces of the actors the only elements that weren't created digitally. Others, like scenes where Bullock is strapped in inside a ship, had tiny touches of CGI, "things like belts floating and the like." Even in the film's final scene, where Bullock crash lands on Earth into a miraculously verdant and Earth-like atmosphere, "we did an awful lot of digital work to green that up, so it didn’t look like an alien landscape." Yes, even the single scene of the movie set here on Earth required digital manipulation."

"The Lightbox"

"To capture Bullock and Clooney's faces and bodies in the right light and from the right camera angles, the production team constructed what's probably their biggest innovation: The Lightbox. A 9x9x9 foot cube outfitted with 4,096 LED bulbs, the Lightbox could mimic the light effects from any given scene to allow shadows to play across Bullock's face. It also contained a rig to hold her in place and allow the camera-- often on that two-ton beast that Heyman mentioned, like the ones used to build cars-- to move entirely around her. "It would race up and down that track and the camera was on the end of that robot and around the head it was able to go 360." Though Bullock's character spends much of the film spinning in space, she could never actually go upside down; as Heyman explained to Film.com, "The camera was doing the movement, because, if she goes upside down, then you can see her face and her body straining, and the whole thing with zero G, there is no strain."  When working inside the Lightbox, which Bullock did way more often than Clooney, the actors were locked inside alone and communicating with Cuaron and the crew only through earpieces. "When Sandra was in the cube, she was completely insulated and all the communication was on radio, not unlike the astronauts talking to Houston," Cuaron told The Daily News. "And in between the setups, the process to get her in and out was so long that she chose just to stay there for hours and hours." As Bullock told Digital Trends, ""There was no human connection, other than the voices coming through my little earwig, which helped because it made me feel so alone. I’m glad it was done the way it was done, as whenever I started to become frustrated or lonely or at a loss, I was like, ‘just use it … use it.’" 

"Puppeteers"

"Cuaron and Heyman imported the puppeteers behind the smash hit Broadway and West End productions of War Horse to achieve the scenes inside the space stations, where Bullock appears to be floating weightlessly from room to room. Movies like Apollo 13 achieved this effect with the "Vomit Comet", a NASA-outfitted plane that could send actors into free fall for 25 seconds, but Cuaron wanted longer takes, so he and the puppeteers came up with a system. Bullock was suspended from 12 carbon-thin wires, practically invisible onscreen, that were then manipulated by the puppeteers. Bullock explained the process in detail to Hitfix"

quote source: https://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Did-Gravity-Do-Secrets-Behind-Its-Groundbreaking-Special-Effects-39790.html


"Ever since the dawn of cinema, people have been flying by wire."

quote source: http://cinefex.com/blog/tag/gravity/


A Proper Gander at a Parabolic Propagandist

"Dream Jobs You’ve Never Heard Of: Parabolic Flight Crew"

"IN DOUGLAS ADAM’S book Life, The Universe, and Everything, he shares the secret of flying: it’s the art of learning how to “throw yourself at the ground and miss.” Tim Bailey  teaches people how to do just that:  throw themselves at the ground (in an airplane) and miss in order to fly."

"In addition to being an evangelist and trainer for manned space travel, though, Tim is also a husband and recent father. Judging by his recent Twitter posts, he spends a lot of time with his family going between  Kennedy Space Center and Disney World—a true geek dad’s paradise!"

"Professionally speaking, Tim wears a lot of hats. Although his LinkedIn profile gives his job title as simply “Catalyst”, it  then lists 10 separate jobs under “Current”. To name just a few, he works on SpaceVidcastSpace Task ForceYuri’s Night (The World Space Party), and is the co-founder and Chief Operating Office of Sky Fire Lab—an independent organization promoting space travel in the media. See a theme yet?  But if you scroll down to the bottom of his lengthy list of job titles, you will see that he is also a member of the Parabolic Flight Crew for the ZERO-G Corporation. What’s that you ask? parabolic what?

Tim’s job is the closest thing there is to being an astronaut without actually going into space. He spends his days assisting and training people in aircraft flights that simulate a microgravity environment—effectively he’s a flight attendant teaching people how to fly—and he is one of only nine people on the planet qualified to do this. Tim has performed over 150 such flights, each with multiple parabolas—where the craft goes up and down at a steep angles to create a “weightless” free-fall environment inside—equating to over 24 hours of his life that Tim has spent unencumbered by the Earthly bonds of gravity. This has led to Tim’s unique ability to, as he puts it,  “execute some fairly bad-ass flips in any axis [x, y, and z].” In addition to being an evangelist and trainer for manned space travel, though, Tim is also a husband and recent father. Judging by his recent Twitter posts, he spends a lot of time with his family going between  Kennedy Space Center and Disney World—a true geek dad’s paradise!"

source: Dream Jobs You've Never Heard Of: Parabolic Flight Crew | WIRED

Hollywood has been making you believe models can really fly for a long, long time.

kate_upton_zero_gravity_2.jpg

image source: Swimsuit 2014: Zero Gravity Kate Upton Cape Canaveral, Florida, USA Credit: James Macari

link: Company Reposesses Zero G Aircraft Engines, Sues ... - Parabolic Arc

IMG_1706.jpg

"Inside The Hollywood Film Studio Made Just For Airplane Scenes"

"We started with a tour of their collection of full aircraft sets. Air Hollywood has several complete aircraft interiors that can be quickly and easily reconfigured to not only provide a wide variety of interior looks, but also permit filming from any angle necessary."

image and quote source: http://www.businessinsider.com/theres-an-entire-hollywood-film-studio-just-for-airplane-scenes-2013-12

Leaving all Hollywood Military Industrial & Entertainment Sized Lies & Apollo 13 Apologetics Aside:

Even were parabolic flights possible, the would not be the proper environment for "film-friendly" productions. Considering too the long history of film fakery, there is no logical reason to assume anything you see on a screen or in print, that claims to be some kind of "Zero-G"  is anything but obvious Hollywood magic.

"The goal of Air Hollywood is to have a studio where all types of aviation scenes can be produced in a film-friendly environment. We recently visited the Air Hollywood studios and got to see all that they had to offer. We started with a tour of their collection of full aircraft sets. Air Hollywood has several ..."

source: There's An Entire Hollywood Film Studio Just For Airplane Scenes ...

 

MATURE PARABOLIC FLIGHT (HOLLYWOOD) HOAX CONTENT AHEAD:

Adult content. It is all mainstream media content. The mainstream News Media is source of a lot of mature content they get a free pass for.


 
 
 
 

TOM CRUISE.jpg

image source: New Zero Gravity VR experience with Tom Cruise makes "The Mummy ...

We actually shot that on a sound stage… so we had half an airplane on a machine that went around in circles, like a washing machine,” she told Collider. So I had a harness and Tom had a harness, and as it goes around it simulates zero-G. “So it was wild!”

quote source: Tom Cruise ZERO GRAVITY sex scene in American ... - Daily Express


Upside down can look right side up.

Hollywood has been making people believe that actors could do things like dance on ceilings for years. Moving images could always be manipulated in the same way photographs in the darkroom, always were. Modern computer technology makes it easy to do things like paint out unsightly wires and riggings. Moving video sold as "real" can be just as photoshopped as a magazine cover is. Between harness and wire work and rotating sets and of course  the programmable camera, all sorts of highly realistic imagery can be crafted by experts, quite easily today; but make no mistake, these special effect techniques are as old as film making itself. The early pioneers of both the News Reel and the film illusions sold in film theater chains were the same people, and they were men who were vey interested in creating stage magic illusions. The father of special effects is also the father of the News Reel which would evolve into the television News of today.

see: Charles Pathé - Wikipedia

Parabolic Hoax.jpg

Thin Wire Flying Effects

"Contrary to many pieces of equipment in the performance industry, a performer rigging system cannot be chosen based on price. Rather, it must be chosen based on the needs of the effect. The price for the system will typically be based on the type and number of systems needed to fly the effects, how long the show runs, how far the equipment has to ship and how long it will take to install and choreograph the show."

source; FAQs | Hall Associates Flying Effects | Flying Effects for Stage, Theatre ...

Don't trust what you see on a screen or in print.

Parabolic Flights Are Fake

Model hung from wires; and the set was more than likely rotated around the suspended model. The real problem is not the imagery which can be faked; the real problem is that the underlying "science" is nonsense. I'd guess CGI frame by frame photo retouching is the real science at work here. Photo realistic illustration is nothing new and CGI makes it that much easier. All the evidence we can actually examine points to both orbits and even parabolic flights as being long standing internationally maintained hoaxes. The only science these videos demonstrate would seem to the science of Hollywood special effect wizardry and nothing more. This is but a preview. The future parabolic hoax article will explain this all in further detail. As we will see, the underlying explanation defies demonstrable physics like Newton's orbits do. The parabolic flight hoax has its origins with the same Paper Clip Nazi scientists as the rest of the space program does. That itself is a huge clue.

No Blemishes Allowed: Magazine Covers Contain Photoshopped Skin

article-2562390-1B9DB73C00000578-58_964x800.jpg

Hollywood Magic Can Make Even The Scantily Clad Fly

An Itsy Bitsy, Teeny-Weeny, Bikini, Flight Harness

There are many ways to craft attractive and misleading illusions, especially on screen and in photographs. David Copperfield flies live on stage, in front of an audience. Flight is easy to fake, (for experts).

image source: Kate Upton Zero Gravity Photo Shoot - Common Sense Evaluation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copperfield%27s_flying_illusion

3c12d2b0-9d83-11e3-9aa6-cbbcf0c29a92_gravity_fire_gif.gif

image source: Gravity' 30-Minute Special Shows How Sandra Bullock Became an ...

"Ever since the dawn of cinema, people have been flying by wire."

quote source: http://cinefex.com/blog/tag/gravity/



We actually shot that on a sound stage… so we had half an airplane on a machine that went around in circles, like a washing machine,” she told Collider. So I had a harness and Tom had a harness, and as it goes around it simulates zero-G. “So it was wild!”

quote source: Tom Cruise ZERO GRAVITY sex scene in American ... - Daily Express

Screen Shot 2017-12-13 at 12.00.36 PM.jpg

1968 era Special Effects

"Does it count as sex in space if it's just a strip tease/masturbation? If it's Barbarella, it does. We're still kind of sad we don't get to see Rose McGowan's take on this role."

quote and image source: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5686804/12-greatest-zero-gravity-sex-scenes-of-all-time-nsfw


"Here's How They Shot the Zero-Gravity Sex Scene in 'American Made'"

"In a recent interview with GQ, Sarah Wright addresses the making of the zero-gravity sex scene that shows her and Tom in an airplane flying up, hitting the ceiling, coming back down again, all while getting it in. "That scene we shot on a soundstage on a half on an airplane that was connected to this thing called a gimbal that flips it around in circles, almost like a washing machine."  The actress went on to admit that she was trying as hard as possible to keep her gag reflexes in check during this stunt. Imagine coming home from work and when asked the dreaded "how was work today honey?" You have to respond with "eh, it was okay except that I threw up all over Tom Cruise." Wright went on to include that, "I did not get sick, thankfully, and it ended up being great. But we shot it at the very, very end. So I thought about it the whole time."

quote source: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2017/10/how-they-shot-zero-gravity-sex-scene-american-made


"Tom Cruise’s ZERO GRAVITY sex scene in American Made: Co-star Sarah Wright reveals all"

"THE ACTRESS who stars alongside Tom Cruise in a zero-gravity sex scene in American Made has recalled the filming process."

"Rising star Sarah Wright, 33, who previously starred in the sitcoms Marry Me and Parcs and Recreation, said it was great fun to put together. “We actually shot that on a sound stage… so we had half an airplane on a machine that went around in circles, like a washing machine,” she told Collider. “So I had a harness and Tom had a harness, and as it goes around it simulates zero-G. “So it was wild!”

quote source: Tom Cruise ZERO GRAVITY sex scene in American ... - Daily Express

3d324c70-9d83-11e3-8e08-69a3c57d020b_gravity_rig_gif.gif

"Gravity's Rainbow"

"Part 2: Un Perm' au Casino Hermann Goering" (French for "A Furlough at the Hermann Göring Casino") contains eight episodes. The events of this section span the five months from Christmas 1944 through to Whitsunday the following year; May 20, 1945. The epigraph is attributed to Merian C. Cooper, speaking to Fay Wray prior to her starring role in King Kong, as recounted by Wray in the September 21, 1969, issue of The New York Times: "You will have the tallest, darkest leading man in Hollywood."

Parabolic Flight Hoax.jpg

"Gravity's Rainbow is a 1973 novel by American writer Thomas Pynchon."

"Lengthy, complex, and featuring a large cast of characters, the narrative is set primarily in Europe at the end of World War II, and centers on the design, production and dispatch of V-2 rockets by the German military. In particular, it features the quest undertaken by several characters to uncover the secret of a mysterious device named the "Schwarzgerät" ("black device"), slated to be installed in a rocket with the serial number "00000".

Many facts in the novel are based on technical documents relating to the V-2 rockets. Equations featured in the text are correct. References to the works of Pavlov, Ouspensky, and Jung are based on Pynchon's research. The firing command sequence in German that is recited at the end of the novel is also correct and is probably copied verbatim from the technical report produced by Operation Backfire.

In reality, a V-2 rocket hit the Rex Cinema in Antwerp, where some 1200 people were watching the movie The Plainsman, on December 16, 1944, killing 567 people, the most killed by a single rocket during the entire war."

"The opening pages of the novel follow Pirate Prentice, an employee of the Special Operations Executive, first in his dreams, and later around his house in wartime London. Pirate's associate Teddy Bloat photographs a map depicting the sexual encounters of U.S. Army Lt. Tyrone Slothrop, an employee of a fictional technical intelligence unit called ACHTUNG. Each of Slothrop's sexual encounters in London appears to precede a V-2 rocket strike in the same place by several days. Employees of a fictional top secret psychological warfare agency called PISCES, headquartered at a former insane asylum known as "The White Visitation" investigate Slothrop's apparent precognition, including statistician Roger Mexico and Pavlovian behavioral psychologist Edward W. Pointsman, among others. Slothrop's encounters and the rocket sites match the Poisson Distributions calculated by Roger Mexico, leading to reflections on topics as broad as Determinism, the reverse flow of time, and the sexuality of the rocket itself. "

source (You are going to want to read this wikipedia entry for yourself.) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity%27s_Rainbow