1
Flat Earth General / Re: Video war: Jeranism vs mikeman7918
« on: June 21, 2016, 04:15:20 PM »To all of you criticizing jeranism's video: feel free to make your own.
I'm already working on it, as that is the point of the debate.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
To all of you criticizing jeranism's video: feel free to make your own.
Your figure is misleading. Both Earth and the spacecraft (Rosetta) are in orbits around the Sun but the spacecraft is faster and is approaching from behind. The encounter is a sneak-up with the spacecraft overtaking planet Earth. At the encounter both objects have the same directions relative the Sun. They are in orbits around the Sun.
Your figure does not show that.
According ESA at the encounter the spacecraft should increase speed both before and after the overtaking while being kicked outwards into a new orbit around the Sun at increased speed. All due to the gravty force between Earth and spacecraft. That force is a function of the distance between the two. It is bigger the shorter the distance. When the spacecraft leaves the planet, the speed relative the planet should in principle be reduced, but I do not see that.
According ESA, if the encounter had been head-on (and not sneak-up) the spacecraft should turn 180° around planet Earth and continue in the opposite direction at much (>4X) higher speed, i.e. first stop in one direction and speed up in another. Try to do an animation of that.
I also remind you about the alleged fly-by and landing 15 January 2006 that took place close to you in Utah. The NASA spacecraft Stardust flow by above you on Earth at very high speed and dropped off a small spacecraft - a Sample Return Capsule - that landed. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#SD . Try to make an animation of it!
The ESA/Rosetta web site is a mess but if I recall ESA sent away Rosetta from Earth ahead of Earth exactly one year prior to the first gravity assist kick 4 March 2005 to kick Rosetta to an encounter with Mars, where Rosetta was kicked back to a second encounter with Earth and was kicked again for a third encounter/kick with Earth ... and then Rosetta was kicked away to encounter the comet - no kick - and land a sond on the comet. Rosetta was orbiting Sun all the time. No hyperbolic trajectories ever.
So the first trajectory of Rosetta was an elliptic, elongated orbit at higher average speed around Sun, while Earth continued in its circular orbit at 28 900 m/s around Sun and after a year they met again with the Rosetta sneaking up from behind at say 40 800 m/s speed. Then the kick could take place putting Rosetta in a new orbit around the Sun that would intercept the orbit of Mars.
No hyperbola! Earth and Rosetta always orbited Sun. Earth in a circular orbit. Rosetta in an elliptic elongated orbit.
Your figure does not make any sense. Earth is orbiting the Sun at constant speed in a circel. Rosetta is orbiting the Sun at variable speeds in an ellipse. After a year they met again.
Then Mars kicked Rosetta back to intercept Earth that kicked Rosetta to intercept Earth again for a final kick to the comet.
But let's face it - gravity assisted kicks are BS and do not prove that Earth is a globe - your challenge. They do not work. If a spacecraft happens to encounter a planet in space, the planet will attract the spacecraft to it by gravity and the spacecraft will crash on the planet or burn up in the atmosphere like a meteorite. The alternative is that they just miss each other and continue in their separate trajectories in space what ever they are.
Remember the albatross. He was also orbiting the wet Earth above the waves but could stop on my ship that was also orbiting Earth plowing through the waves.
According experts of gravitation encounters or kicks the following happens at a head-on encounter between planet Earth and a space craft: The space craft turns 180° around planet Earth and speeds off in the same direction as Earth but at much increased speed. This is the famous head-on kick! The space craft stops while turning 180° around planet Earth and is then kicked away in the other direction. There is no contact between Earth and space craft - only gravity force and dynamic forces at play. It is really magic.
If the space craft arrives from behind planet Earth in space, i.e. is faster, there is no 180° turn and the space craft is slowed down by some magic kick and continues in the same direction. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
A gravitation encounter assumes that planet Earth is a globe orbiting the Sun in space.
Crossing perpendicular encounters in space are likewise not possible! The encounter is too fast unless the gravity force produces a COLLISION between the two objects. Either the encounter is head-on (opposite directions) or sneaking up from behind (same direction/different speeds) but there will be no kicks!
Your Challenge was to see something on Earth that indicates Earth is not a round globe.
I suggested the famous ESA 4 March 2005 Rosetta encounter with Earth, where Rosetta, arriving from behind, was kicked off sideways (!) by Earth to encounter planet Mars at increased speed (in lieu of straight on at reduced speed according to the theory).
I didn't see it, so maybe Earth is not a round globe. That was my solution to your Challenge. Or maybe the whole ESA Rosetta story is a hoax? I assume so. Rosetta does not exist and ESA is just making up fantasies about gravitation encounters or kicks. But ESA also maintains Earth is a globe! So what to believe? If ESA lies about gravitation encounters, it could also lie about the shape of Earth.
As a safety at sea expert and seaman I once actually sailed around the Earth by ship from west to east on the oceans and in the middle of the Indian Ocean I encountered an albatross flying in the opposite direction. The albatross stopped to relax on my ship so I could ask him - "What are you flying about?" Answer: "I just fly around Earth for fun. Normally I live on the South Georgian islands off Antarctic but I like to fly around Earth!"
Between you and me I believe the albatross. Everything happens at sea.
Your challenge was: "tell me one thing we expect to see on a round Earth that we don't see in reality. If Earth were really flat then this would be easy."
So I reported that I didn't see the ESA/Rosetta 4 March 2005 gravity assist kick off to Mars up in the sky.
You also didn't watch me as I typed this message. Does this mean it didn't happen? Not seeing something may just mean that you weren't looking in the right place or something. What I want is for you to prove that gravity assists can't happen as you suggest by using irrefutable proofs like math and simulations that use math. Since such evidence is applicable to thisA gravity assist kick off apparently requires a round Earth globe that one way or other kicks off approaching space crafts in new directions/speeds.
But I didn't see it. ESA says many amateur astronomers not only saw it but took photos of it 2005 ... but where are the photos and the names of the amateurs, etc, etc.
If it indicates the Earth is flat does not matter. I only observed that a round Earth globe didn't kick off anything visible in another direction/speed.
Your argument is a logical fallacy. If A implies B then B does not nesesarily imply A. Flat earth requires space travel to be fake, but if space travel were fake then Earth is not nesesarily flat. Elephants are grey, so by your logic if you see something grey then it has to be an elephant because all elephants are grey. Being an elephant implies being grey, but being grey does not nesesarily imply being an elephant. Logical fallacies cannot win my challenge. Please follow the conditions of victory I laid out, if you don't then you fail the challenge. It's as simple as that.PS - You spell like a typical uneducated, racist, religious, poor, proletarian American fanatic. It is not your fault, though. You know why?
Because you are analyzing my spelling and attacking me instead of my argument, which is a logical fallacy and makes you look as if you have never been in a debate before. Such behavior is tipical of closed minded people who have nothing better to defend their argument with. When I'm in a debate I generally take insults like this as complements because it means that I'm winning.I think ESA faked it.
I don't care what you think, I care what you can prove. Either start doing math, start writing a simulation program, or get off my thread.
Your challenge was: "tell me one thing we expect to see on a round Earth that we don't see in reality. If Earth were really flat then this would be easy."
So I reported that I didn't see the ESA/Rosetta 4 March 2005 gravity assist kick off to Mars up in the sky.
A gravity assist kick off apparently requires a round Earth globe that one way or other kicks off approaching space crafts in new directions/speeds.
But I didn't see it. ESA says many amateur astronomers not only saw it but took photos of it 2005 ... but where are the photos and the names of the amateurs, etc, etc.
If it indicates the Earth is flat does not matter. I only observed that a round Earth globe didn't kick off anything visible in another direction/speed.
PS - You spell like a typical uneducated, racist, religious, poor, proletarian American fanatic. It is not your fault, though. You know why?
I think ESA faked it.
Hm, you said in post #1 that "tell me one thing we expect to see on a round Earth that we don't see in reality. If Earth were really flat then this would be easy."
So I told you I hadn't seen the Rosetta fly by gravity assist 4 March 2005 - I had not seen anything at all but a blue sky - and now you ask me to "prove using the methods specified previously that it's physically impossible for a space craft to come close to a planet without crashing into it."
According Newton & Co. I thought gravity was attracted anything towards Earth, apples, etc, but maybe you are right. Space crafts are not subject to gravity.
Re "a large asteroid came very close to Earth without hitting, if it had hit then it would be bad for us because that thing was massive but instead it just passed by Rosetta style. Either asteroids are an exeption to the laws of physics or you are wrong." I think you are just trying to scare me.
Asteroids passing Earth either just pass (too far away) or burn up in Earth atmosphere.
Why do you change the Rules of your Challenge. Either say I failed or not. Do not start a stupid discussion about anything else. Or, you know I like your foolishnesses. So just carry on. You know how to navigate in space, incl. gravity assist kicks. You are the most beautiful and intelliegent object in SW Utah, etc, etc. Go tell Donald Jr. Trump!
GR can't explain gravity waves. Why do you think that you are so much smarter than Einstein?
The equivalence principle can't explain this one, so I guess like the result of any non local experiment it's going to be a force made by the stars.
Thanks for considering my application. I was just suggesting that, if Earth is a globe orbiting the Sun attracting objects (like asteroids) to it by gravity, the ESA Rosetta spacecraft should have crashed on Earth 4 March, 2005, but I didn't see that. I saw no Rosetta at all!
ESA suggests that Rosetta was kicked away some way and how it was possible due to gravity alone is beyond me. If Earth is flat maybe a the kick is like a tennis ball (Rosetta) bouncing against a window screen of a car (the upper atmosphere of the flat Earth) but I doubt it.
Good! After the first fly-by of Earth in 4/5 March 2005, the Rosetta spacecraft headed to Mars and then returned to Earth twice in November 2007 and November 2009 for its second and third fly-bys of Earth.
Amateur astronomers were asked to take pictures and to submit them to ESA, which apparently happened. Rosetta also took pictures of the Earth when flying by and being kicked in new directions at increased speed to show a round Earth.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Highlights/Rosetta_flybys
However as I said in my application for your $250 - I looked and didn't see any fly bys to confirm that Earth is a globe. I think ESA faked it to make us believe things that are not real.
I suggest you contact ESA to confirm its amazing findings.
This is an easy one. According the European Space Agency, ESA, their spacecraft Rosetta approached planet Earth from behind at a speed of ~40 000 m/s and almost collided with it 4 March 2005. See Chapter 1.19.1 of http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#JTC
“The first Earth swing-by will take place on 4 March 2005 at around 22h10 UT, when the spacecraft will be 1900 km from the surface. Rosetta will approach from the direction away from the Sun and have its closest approach on the illuminated side of the Earth. As the spacecraft approaches, it will seem to fly to the west and will disappear on the dayside of the Earth,”according ESA.
According https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Rosetta_spacecraft :
“2005 March 4 — The first planned flyby of Earth was executed successfully. ESA asks amateur astronomers that took pictures of the spacecraft to submit them. Also, tests with the Moon as target standing in for a comet or asteroid, produced pictures and other data as expected.”
However, as an amateur astronomer I didn’t see any spacecraft flying by and I could thus not take any pictures of it. If planet Earth would have been a globe, I assume the ESA spacecraft Rosetta would have crashed on it Bull’s Eye and it would have been a nice picture.
If Earth was flat, I assume the spacecraft would just fly by as suggested by ESA or maybe not turn as expected, but I didn’t see any spacecraft at all.
My observation indicates that Earth is not a globe. Pls send the $250 to your Church fund. I asked ESA to provide pictures of the flyby but they could not produce any.
It is true to state that the globe shape of the earth is irrefutable, depending on the sense one means for the word 'irrefutable'. I was using 'irrefutable' in a common/generic sense, not in a literal sense. For example, I know that one can test, or attempt to falsify/refute, the globe shape of the earth. Flat earthers do this constantly. That's not how I meant 'irrefutable'.
People will commonly use the word 'irrefutable' when discussing an issue that has an overwhelming abundance of evidence supporting its truth: "There is irrefutable evidence that he committed these crimes" - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irrefutable
My point was simply that there is such an overwhelming abundance of evidence in favor of the globe shape of the earth (viz. '101 Globe Earth Facts'), that any attempt made by flat earthers to refute its globular shape would fail.
Your statement that there are no facts in science is nonsense. Even the website you linked to refutes you: "Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
Notice that it says 'what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow". It's not saying there are no facts, but rather that what is accepted as true today, 'may be' - not 'will be' - debunked tomorrow. It's saying that science can be wrong sometimes, not that there is no truth or facts in science at all. Its statement, "Truth in science... is never final," also does not mean there is no truth or facts, but rather that the scientist is open to new data that may contradict the old measurement. It's not surprising that a website defending evolution and 'climate change' (both of which are a hoax), would take an extremely skeptical stance on the nature of truth, for it is a website defending lies.
"Scientists are careful to distinguish between: 1) states of affairs in the external world and 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science
You need to be careful not to fall into the false philosophy of scientism:
"an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)" - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism
"Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
You are being dishonest again. I didn't say 'all evolutionists are dishonest'. I said that dishonesty is 'typical of evolutionists'. This means there could be exceptions (in which case they would be either deceived or deluded), but that a hallmark characteristic of almost all evolutionists is dishonesty.
After all, evolution (GTE) is a lie, and so to obstinately defend it after seeing the evidence against it is to be a liar.
CURVATURE. It does not exist.
You contradict yourself a lot. You stated earlier that in science, there are no facts. Yet here again, you are speaking as if there is such a thing as a 'fact'. Not all knowledge needs to pass through the lense of science in order to be true or factual, and the word science means 'knowledge'.
In science, there are no "facts"... In science, the single highest status an idea can have is a theory...- citation needed
You also contradict yourself. You linked to a website that stated: "There's the fact of evolution... The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution."
You are being dishonest (typical of evolutionists). A theory explains the facts (data). The theory itself is not a fact. You are not distinguishing accurately between facts and theory.
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
The evolutionist trolls are trying to derail this thread.
This isn't a challenge..
So mass bends space time, but the world is flat and gravity is magic?
Cool story bro, when I troll i do my research.
Seriously, this is like debating with Heiwa again. I am giving you one last chance to answer, and if you don't answer this question in your next reply then you will earn yourself a spot on my ignore list.Were we not debating whether gravity was a force or not? What does that have to do with the shape of the Earth? It seems to me that you are looking for a way to run away from our debate since you have been proven wrong.
"In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science
The globe shape of the earth is an observable fact.
On the other hand, evolution is not a fact. It is a pseudoscientific theory, just like flat earth theory:
Is evolution pseudoscience? - http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience
The globe shape of the earth is not a theory. It is a fact.
So you admit you were wrong. I'll take that apology now.
What shape do you believe the Earth to be? The lack of an answer will be interpreted as "I am a troll who is here to argue with anyone and everyone about semantics". This really shouldn't be that hard.
It was an interesting video to say the least. But there are still things that need to be explained such as the British news anouncing the towers being hit minutes before they actually did. Then there's building 7. Also if the the plane hit the pentagon then we should see pieces of the wings on the lawn.
I'm arguing that gravity is not a force. RE or FE does not come into play in this scenario. General Relativity and I are in complete alignment. You are the one that is arguing against established science.
Here's the link I forgot to post earlier.
http://www.911proof.com/
Because gravity does not exist as a force. As I've said a bunch of times, now.
Gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent.
In this context, it means that a non inertial observer who believes himself to be at rest must introduce fictitious forces to resolve the apparent acceleration observed in the rest frame. Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish between an accelerating frame of reference and one in a gravitational field in a sufficiently local region of space.
QuoteTo start, your forum signature.What about it?
QuoteYou are lacking a cited source that it conflicts with.https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf
Quote"A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field"The equivalence principle? How does that show you are correct in any of those quotes I posted? That doesn't even make sense. All of those quotes that I posted of yours are against General Relativity.