4815162342.com— Most Lost theories, and there are many, are total crap, but this is by far the best and most thought out one I?ve seen so far.
Jan 25, 2006View in Crawl 4
Even if this theory is correct, and logical. Its still a T.V. show. Writers and Producers bend to the will of executives and audiences. What may be acturate now, can vastly change in the future if they think someone has figured it out.
I find it quite interesting that many of you who buy into "Collective Consciousness" beliefs, chastise those on the "religious right" for ID, and perverting science.
something else about satellites: according to this site: <a class="user" href="http://www.uen.org/swan/">http://www.uen.org/swan/</a> the ARGOS sattellites orbit every 108 minutes... i don't know if it's a common orbit period for satellites, but i think the satellite part of the theory looks reasonable
I didn't read all the comments, but regarding the satellite:"The worst problem is that the Oersted satellite has a orbital period of 99.62 min, not 108." Orbital period is how long the statellite takes to orbit the planet. It doesn't take into account that the planet is also rotating beneath it. So those extra 8-9 minutes could come from that...360 degrees/ 99.62 = 3.614 degrees/minute360 degrees/ (24 hours * 60 minutes) = .25 degrees per minute.25 degrees/min * 99.62 minutes = 24.905 degrees (this is how much earth rotates in one orbit of the satellite)24.905 degrees/ 3.614 degrees/minute = 6.89 minutes6.89 + 99.62 = 106.51 minutes... close, but not quite... i could be forgetting somethign from my astromechanics class, it's been a while
correction to my comment: it would actually be closer to 107 minutes... cause in those 6.89 minutes the earth would rotate another 1.7225 degrees... which would add .47662 degreesstill damn close, but i remembered more from my class... this would be a difficult orbit to match up, cause anyone who has seen a satellite groundtrack knows that it doesn't go overhead at exactly the same place everytime, especially if the numbers (4 15 16... whatever) are the lat/lon of a location off the coast of austraila... that would be an orbit with a large inclination to reach that far south, so it would shift alotso, i think the theory is right, and punching the numbers in is really worthless... just a tool to bring the people together
The entire theory is pretty good. but the main hole that i may have looked over... if they're there to repopulate. then how? wasn't there an event that stopped mothers from being able to give birth?
endernetJan 25, 2006
Even if this theory is correct, and logical. Its still a T.V. show. Writers and Producers bend to the will of executives and audiences. What may be acturate now, can vastly change in the future if they think someone has figured it out.
gyrfalconJan 25, 2006
I find it quite interesting that many of you who buy into "Collective Consciousness" beliefs, chastise those on the "religious right" for ID, and perverting science.
chilote7Jan 25, 2006
something else about satellites: according to this site: <a class="user" href="http://www.uen.org/swan/">http://www.uen.org/swan/</a> the ARGOS sattellites orbit every 108 minutes... i don't know if it's a common orbit period for satellites, but i think the satellite part of the theory looks reasonable
martzJan 25, 2006
I didn't read all the comments, but regarding the satellite:"The worst problem is that the Oersted satellite has a orbital period of 99.62 min, not 108." Orbital period is how long the statellite takes to orbit the planet. It doesn't take into account that the planet is also rotating beneath it. So those extra 8-9 minutes could come from that...360 degrees/ 99.62 = 3.614 degrees/minute360 degrees/ (24 hours * 60 minutes) = .25 degrees per minute.25 degrees/min * 99.62 minutes = 24.905 degrees (this is how much earth rotates in one orbit of the satellite)24.905 degrees/ 3.614 degrees/minute = 6.89 minutes6.89 + 99.62 = 106.51 minutes... close, but not quite... i could be forgetting somethign from my astromechanics class, it's been a while
martzJan 25, 2006
correction to my comment: it would actually be closer to 107 minutes... cause in those 6.89 minutes the earth would rotate another 1.7225 degrees... which would add .47662 degreesstill damn close, but i remembered more from my class... this would be a difficult orbit to match up, cause anyone who has seen a satellite groundtrack knows that it doesn't go overhead at exactly the same place everytime, especially if the numbers (4 15 16... whatever) are the lat/lon of a location off the coast of austraila... that would be an orbit with a large inclination to reach that far south, so it would shift alotso, i think the theory is right, and punching the numbers in is really worthless... just a tool to bring the people together
fitznoggleJan 25, 2006
thank u stevepoland, this theory was known to the hardcore lost fans a couple of weeks ago
etruscanFeb 19, 2006
There's a bunch of plot theories over at <a class="user" href="http://www.thelostaways.com">http://www.thelostaways.com</a>
sprite1221Jun 24, 2009
The entire theory is pretty good. but the main hole that i may have looked over... if they're there to repopulate. then how? wasn't there an event that stopped mothers from being able to give birth?