Successful STS 133 launch

The discovery shuttle, STS 133 successfuly launched on thursday 24th from pad 39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida. It will dock on the ISS to resupply it with equipment and crew. If you were reading my other blog, http://sts133.blogspot.com/ then you would know all about the shuttle.

 I waited around 7 months to see it launch and me and my family even flew to Florida from England for 3 weeks primarily to see it launch but it was postponed for... around 7 months. You'd know about that too if you click on the link http://sts133.blogspot.com/. but I did of course watch it live when it finaly flew into space.

Image courtesy of NASA

For more information, see http://spaceflightnow.com/

For the official NASA website, see http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html

On the taking of generic site names without making good use of them

Excuse me while I have a little rant, because astrophysics.blogspot.com was created by an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about. The site should belong to someone more educated, because 'astrobuff' is wrong and the site isn't even about astrophysics, just normal everday physics.

In the top post, 'astrobuff' says "Can you hear in space? In theory, if there is nothing to receive the sound, there is no sound. Because there are no "air waves" in space to conduct the sound, it would not carry. So, the object would make a noise, but it would not carry to any receiver, and no one would hear it."

WRONG! There will always be a receiver, because the reciever can be any matter and it doesn't have to be a concious being like a human or any other animal. Sound is created due to the vibration of matter and this matter is the 'receiver'.

WRONG AGAIN! There's no theory that says there won't be a sound without a 'receiver'. In theory, if there is nothing concious to receive the sound, there WILL still be a sound, get your facts straight!

AND AGAIN! I like how they've put "air waves" in speech marks like that, because they aren't sure whether to write this. Air 'waves' dont exist, air is made of trillions of trillions of microscopic pieces of matter- atoms and molecules (which are made of even smaller things). so air should not be treated as a wave, but as gaseous matter.

AND AGAIN! Finally, they contradict themselves when they say that "the object would make a noise, but it would not carry to any receiver". In space, where there is practicaly zero air between planets (there is some, but it's very very scarce, so it's generaly treated as a vacuum) you can't make a sound, because there is no air to carry the vibrations. So if you hit the outside of a shuttle, the astronauts inside would hear it because there's air inside but you wouldn't because you're outside in a spacesuit and there is no matter between you and the shuttle to carry the vibration.

Apart from all this rubbish, astrophysics.blogspot.com is about their black cat called miu which has no relation to astrophysics AT ALL and this is why astrophysics.blogspot.com should be repossessed by blogger and reserved for an actual astrophysicist.

According to the bible heaven is hotter than hell

First of all, if you have a bible, read Isaiah 30:26. This says that 'moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the llight of the sun shall be seveonfold as the light of seven days'. From this you can draw that heaven would receive as much radiation from the moon as the earth does from the sun and the seven times seven (49) mentioned in the passage, so 50 relative units of radiation in all.

Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth-power law for radiation, there is mathematical proof that Heaven would therefore be an insufferable 525˚C.

Now read Revelations 21:8, which describes the damned condemned to 'a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone' which means the sulphur in the brimstone must be a liquid and therefore below the boiling point of 444.6˚C because above that, the lake would be vapour and not a lake.

Therefore, Hell would be below 444.6˚C, so according to the bible, Heaven is over 80.4˚C hotter than Hell.

Of course this was all written a long, long time ago before they realised that it would all be proved wrong, because they unsurpringly didn't have the technology or methodolgy to test any of this.
And then to make it all look even worse, in 1998 Eugenio Ramiro Pose (the Auxiliary Bishop of Madrid and Titular Bishop of Turuda) decided that you should actualy ignore one of the sevens in the bible, admitting it to be wrong (although this is stupid because you can't change facts to suit your purpose!).

The funny part is, many people chose to believe his ridiculous interjection which shows how easily the church can move the goal posts away from science, which particularly frustrates me.
And may I just point out that even with his desperate statement, Heaven would still be 231.5˚C and is still doesn't sound like a plausible temperature for 'paradise'.